Mariology vs Mariolatry

No where in the New Testament, starting with the Epistles, do we have instances of private prayer. These are letters of instruction, so why would they all of a sudden break into private prayer...on paper? It's not there because it wouldn't make sense for it to be there.

She was most likely also alive except for the last few remaining books of the Bible.

I love that. You try to prove something as fact while using the word "presumably." You don't know, so don't pretend to know. The matter of her having children is not closed, except in your mind and in the minds of like-minded thinkers.

How far out of context do you want to take Carson? The only thing Carson's quote could be related to would be prayers TO MARY. Prayers to Jesus go to Jesus. Prayers to Mary are then taken by her to Jesus. So, no, Mary doens't handle all the prayers, and that was never stated. Ever. It's amazing how many of these "great" arguments you guys come up with are built on misreading (purposefully or otherwise) what we dileberately state.

Adam and Eve were created without sin, and yet they sinned. Yes, Eve could have fallen into sin, had she decided to sin. She did not.

Well, this whole rant was pointless, because she wasn't protected from sin; she was born without original sin (by the grace of God) and never fell into sin.

Oh, and Mary isn't a distraction. Mary only points me to her Son, Jesus Christ.

God bless,

Grant

 

I would hope they would be accurate, yes. I will look into this one more heavily and get back to you soon.

From my Catholic Encyclopedia:
"Dulia is the special worship, generally called veneration, given to the angels and saints because as friends of God they share in His excellence."

Before you jump the gun, I'll define the other two in a below response.

Same book:
"Hyperdulia is the veneration proper to the Blessed Mother alone; it is the highest from of veneration short of adoration."

4. Show me the exception clause in this verse from Scripture:

Matthew 4:10 - Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.' [/qb][/quote]

Notice something..."Worship the Lord your God"....comma...."and serve him only." The "only" part is reserved to "serving him," which is why we do not serve angels and saints, for they are not God. This brings us to Latria:

"Latria is the worship reserved to God alone. The word is derived from the Greek term for "to serve" and thus, by extension, has come to mean adoration."

Notice how well that fits together. We serve God alone, and we adore God alone, because He is our only God. Worship does not equal adoration. It has come to mean as such by popular society, so use of it as such is generally frowned upon, and because of this, I would not recommend using it, and would rather use the term "veneration," so that people do not assume I "worship" the saints and angels like I worship God, in a distinctly different manner.

Clint, I don't expect you'll like this definition very much, but hopefully you can at least see the distinctions.

Is "commanded" the key word here? It has already been established that Catholics DO worship and bow down to Mary. It is a term referred to as hyperdulia. Catholics do worship statues and earthly articles with a term known as dulia. I have not seen it established yet exactly what this term means in regards to my request of: "Please define latria, dulia and hyperdulia so that we can see that they are not breaking the Second Commandment and show the origin of this practice of "different" forms of worship being agreeable to the God of Abraham." </font>[/QUOTE]A few things. First, the definitions are above. Second, I used the word "commanded" in response to a post by DualHunter, so you shouldn't look so closely at that; it was trivial. Second, hopefully you see now that we don't "worship" Mary by adoring her, and bowing is respectful. Third, we don't bow down and worship images, and that is not dulia. Dulia is veneration of the saints and angels. Images are images, visual representations of something that is not here, much like photographs of dead loved ones.

First, kissing is not worship. Second, we don't pray to, pray through, hold in esteem, or worship images. Surely you can see that now.

As for angel worship, the verse simply states "worship of angels," and I would rationally conclude that this would be worshipping angels as if they were dieties, which they are not.

God bless,

Grant

[ October 30, 2002, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

He didn't. He also didn't tell you to call your church "Baptist," or put a steeple on it (if there is one), or hang crosses on the walls (if there are any). He also never said "let your conscience by your guide when it comes to interpretting My Word."

I found the entire statement that Curtis ended with a colon. It didn't get any better with the whole statement. In fact, I think Curtis was being polite in leaving off the remainder of the sentence:

</font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for clearing that up.

God bless,

Grant

 

When did we say that God was giving glory and praise to graven images? Never. Nor do Catholics give glory and honor to graven images, but rather to what those images represent. I'm sensing a broken record, here.

God bless,

Grant</font>[/QUOTE]If God won't give His glory to another why do you try to give His glory to another?

 

This is your answer to the following quote:
"In the same way, Jesus allows us to identify with His mother."
"--Please provide Scripture for this statement. Prove from the Bible that this is true."

You have not answered the question, or provided evidence from the Bible that Jesus is allowing us to identify with Mary in Heaven. Don't pull Scripture out of context. Jesus was giving the care of Mary over to John, the youngest of the disciples (also known as ‘the beloved'), in her old age. He was to take care of her. You jump from the responsibility that John had to Mary, to Mary all of a sudden being Queen of Heaven. How do you get that? That is not only blasphemous, it is ludicrous in logical thinking. There is no Scriptural evidence to say that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, that Mary is our intercessor in Heaven, that Mary brings people to Christ in Heaven, that Mary acts as an advocate in Heaven, that we identify ourselves in anyway with Mary in Heaven. Please give evidence if you have any.

The above is your answer to:
"That is her mission: to bring us to her Son."
"Again, there is no Scriptural foundation for this assertion. Please provide the evidence from the Bible."

The verse that you use here is evidence that goes contrary to what you want to prove. Mary in this verse admits that she is a sinner in need of a Saviour. She would not have used the word "Saviour," had she not need of one, had she not been a sinner. She is a redeemed saint like the others in Heaven, holding no special status, one of the redeemed, one of the saints, one of that great multitude, and that is all. She is not the Queen of Heaven, and there is nothing to prove that she is, or that she holds any special status in Heaven at all. She is a sinner saved by the grace of God.

This is in answer to:
"--He shares that power with no one. He is God! The second person of the eternal triune Godhead. All power is given unto Him!

Yet you go on to contradict yourself when you answer Dualhunter

You, on the one hand try to prove that Christ does share His power with Mary by stating that he gave power to the disciples to bind and loose (out of context again). Then you somewhat astonishingly exclaim, "When did we say that God was giving glory and praise to graven images?" You ascribe power, honor, glory to Mary (and her graven images), and then you deny it in the same breathe. I hope that you can see your inconsistencies.
DHK

[ October 31, 2002, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

Hi Grant,

I love that. You try to prove something as fact while using the word "presumably." You don't know, so don't pretend to know. The matter of her having children is not closed, except in your mind and in the minds of like-minded thinkers.

Matthew 13:55: "Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? are not his brothers, James Joseph, Simon and Judas? Are not all his sisters with us?"

How far out of context do you want to take Carson? The only thing Carson's quote could be related to would be prayers TO MARY. Prayers to Jesus go to Jesus. Prayers to Mary are then taken by her to Jesus. So, no, Mary doens't handle all the prayers, and that was never stated. Ever. It's amazing how many of these "great" arguments you guys come up with are built on misreading (purposefully or otherwise) what we dileberately state.

So Mary is a clearing house for prayers sent via her to Jesus. I was not talking about all prayers, just those sent via Mary. Now, if we can have direct access to Jesus when we pray, or we can (for arguments sake) go through an intermediary why go through the intermediary? If I want something done, I go to the person in charge, I dont say, "great, he also has a receptionist, lucky me, I wont have to have personal, face to face contact with the person I really need to speak to, I think I'll leave my concerns with his receptionist. That will really get things moving" I think Mary is a great person, but I pray to my savior, I seek His face, I long to hear His voice.

Adam and Eve were created without sin, and yet they sinned. Yes, Eve could have fallen into sin, had she decided to sin. She did not.

Are you sure? Since you have no Scripture for any of this doctrine, why should you start now? "If we say we have no sin we lie and the truth is not in us."

The Catholic church has abused gentle Mary, building unScriptural and unhelpful doctrines around her.

Final question, you stated that the reason no prayers were given to Mary in the NT was because she was still alive for most of it. Fair point! It doesn't explain why she wasn't even mentioned after Acts 1:14, but leaving that, could you imagine your faith without Mary? Could you imagine your prayer life not including her? Was the early church really unlucky, and just waiting for her to die, so they could really get down to praying? They had to exist with only the infilling of the Holy Spirit and the intercession of Jesus. Was this a blessing or a hardship? Clearly the church did not need Mary in heaven to survive then, it does not need her there now. We have JESUS, we have the HOLY SPIRIT!! We are blessed beyond reason or imagination.

Take care, Colin

 

Hi Grant -

First of all let me say that I commend you for continuing the debate when all of your fellow Catholics seem to have abandoned it. Having the last word does not necessarily constitute winning a debate but leaving numerous and obvious questions unanswered certainly shows failue to win. My hat's off to you for sticking with it and holding to the topic. I have been in debates in which I stand in the minority and I know what a frustrating position it is.

Now having said that:

I would hope they would be accurate, yes. I will look into this one more heavily and get back to you soon.</font>[/QUOTE]I would appreciate that as one of my initial goals in this debate was to use the writings of credible Catholic sources in this discussion. That helps us avoid the "street theology" of which Jim spoke on the first page of this thread.

So from this definition we can incur that the use of the term "veneration" also equates "worship" just as "adoration" does. From your next statement

Nonetheless, it is still worship by definition. It just falls short of "adoration," which equates to "latria."

This is what I meant when I said before on this thread that eventually someone says, "It's not worship, it's worship!" This is also the dichotomy of which DHK spoke. Since this concept is not present in the Scriptures, Old Testament or New, can you tell me the origin of such?

Notice something..."Worship the Lord your God"....comma...."and serve him only." The "only" part is reserved to "serving him," which is why we do not serve angels and saints, for they are not God. </font>[/QUOTE]If the comma is the hang up, I believe I once heard that ancient Greek did not have punctuation, perhaps one of our linguistic friends can confirm that. Anyway, Luke 4:8 contains the same text without the comma.

However, look at the text of 4:8. Christ says to satan, "It is written: worship the Lord your God and serve Him only." It's the "it is written part" that concerns me here. Christ is not giving a direct quote, at least none that God has preserved. The part of the quote regarding "serving" may be a reference to Deuteronomy 6:13.

The part of the quote from Luke 4:8 regarding "worship", however, still takes us back to Exodus 20:5. We still face the issue of worship to idols. Whether it is called latria, hyperdulia, dulia, adoration, or veneration, the definition is still "worship," even by definition in (now two) Catholic sources.

But then you say

in direct conflict to the definition you gave from your Catholic Encyclopedia:

It has now become a word play in which the word "worship" is used in definition but denied in direct conversation. This is an example of what some here on the board call "Catholic double-speak." It's how Clinton tried to get out of the Lewinski situation: "I did not have sex with that woman" trying to imply that anything short of intercourse is not sex. It finally degraded into the farce of Clinton seeking a definition of "is".

He didn't. He also didn't tell you to call your church "Baptist," or put a steeple on it (if there is one), or hang crosses on the walls (if there are any). He also never said "let your conscience by your guide when it comes to interpretting My Word."</font>[/QUOTE]This was actually directd towards Ron in reference to the construction of the Ark and the perceived relationship it had to God. However, as stated before, the Israelites did not worship the Ark and I do not venerate, nor show adoration, latria, dulia, hyperdulia (i.e. worship) the ornamentation of my church.

Thanks for your cordial response.

One other quick point:
I will likely refer you back to this statement if we become involved in a debate on the Apostle Peter in John 21:15-25.

 

DHK,

You...escape me. Your post made absolutely no sense, as nothing you responded to was in context with what I said. This is becoming very annoying, not because I can't handle the replies, but because I feel like I'm speaking to a brick wall. Your language is course and rude (where'e the love?) EVERY SINGLE TIME you resopnd to me. I can understand getting ticked off because you disagree with me so much, but your attitude makes it very hard to respond to you. And don't even go quoting me, showing how I've done the same. If I have, I admit to it now. I get angry on here sometimes. With you, Clint, and Psalm primarily. You, on the other hand, have never taken credit for your own actions. That saddens me GREATLY.

I'm certain Jesus never taught or talked like you do to me and the other Catholics.

Clint,

I will reply to all of this stuff tomorrow. Some of this is heavy, and a lot of the "contradictions" aren't contradictions...they're just misunderstandings. However, while I'm feeling better in other ways (coughing, runny nose, fever), I just developed a REALLY painful ear ache, and it's hard for me to concentrate. Hopefully it'll be a little better tomorrow.

God bless,

Grant

 

HUH??

Other than the last statement (now edited) "Get your facts straight," I don't see anything which I can see that would be construed as course or rude. Point it out to me if it is there. If simply quoting both what I have said, your answer to what I have said, and then refuting it, bothers you, then so be it. I cannot help you if you do not want to accept truth. I take full credit for my actions--that of pointing out error in the false doctrine that is posted on this board.
DHK

 

Clint, is that why you went to Mary Ann Collins (supposed former nun)?

Because you wanted to use "credible Catholic sources"?

That was the point at which you lost my interest in this thread.

Ron

 

Clint, is that why you went to Mary Ann Collins (supposed former nun)?

Because you wanted to use "credible Catholic sources"?

That was the point at which you lost my interest in this thread.

Ron</font>[/QUOTE]Seems to me that you assume that your critique of Collins credibiity has more to do with her being a FORMER nun than anything else. Such betrays an ad hominem.

To assume a priori that peope with whom you disagree cannot represent your beliefs accurately is false.

It is always wise to consider the source, but to behave as you have is a poor excuse IMO fordroping out.

 

Hi Clint,

While I haven't been a part of this thread, and don't really have the time to join it at this late date (it's too long already!), I would like to clear up what seems to be a misperception on your part about the version of the Catholic Encyclopedia that's available online at New Advent. It's the 1913 edition, with the 1908 preface -- it's not a current work. Accordingly, its contents reflect the way terminology was used in 1913.

You can see this at the link that you posted above, from which you took your quote about the work being "entirely new" and containing "the latest and most accurate information." You'll see, if you click on your own link, that the first words of that article are "1908 Preface." The words you quote are about four paragraphs down.

So, yes, that encyclopedia was "entirely new" and contained the "latest" information -- as of 1908 (or, more technically, 1913, since other than the 1908 preface, the online text is that of the 1913 edition).

The "Byte by Byte" article you mentioned discusses the entire project -- how volunteers transcribed the original 1913 volumes onto the internet. A few quotes from that article:

The 2002 Copyright applies to the internet version, it doesn't mean that the material is new in 2002.

So, in short, the articles at New Advent do not reflect current linguistic usage, and should be read with that fact in mind. I'll leave your question about "contextual oversights" in individual articles to those who have been following this thread along, and know which articles in particular you're referring to.

Hope this helps,

Mark H.

 

Clint, is that why you went to Mary Ann Collins (supposed former nun)?

Because you wanted to use "credible Catholic sources"?

That was the point at which you lost my interest in this thread.

Ron</font>[/QUOTE]Trying to shift the attention away from her quoting of the Cathechism (i.e. the credible Catholic source) to the fact that she saw the error of Catholicism and is now an ex-Catholic (and therefore no longer a Catholic source, but that doesn't change the fact that she quotes a Catholic source) are we?

 

Nope.

If Clint wanted to quote the Catechism, he could have done so.

That's not what he did.

BTW, the vast majority of her references were to classical anti-Catholic works, including Jack Chick.

Do you really consider unverifiable websites to be "Catholic sources". There is nothing about the author of that article or any other by Ms. Collins that is tracible to an actual person.

IMO she is most likely a fiction.

[ October 31, 2002, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

Nope.

If Clint wanted to quote the Catechism, he could have done so.

That's not what he did.

BTW, the vast majority of her references were to classical anti-Catholic works, including Jack Chick. </font>[/QUOTE]There you go again, trying to shift the attention away from the main issue. Do you really think that Clint wants to waste his time sifting through the Catechism, especially given that an ex-Catholic is already quoting it? Does her quoting "classical anti-Catholic works, including Jack Chick" cause the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which she also quotes, to cease to be a Catholic source?

 

[satire]There is nothing about you in your profile that is tracible to an actual person.

IMO you are most likely a fiction.[/satire]

Let's assume that she doesn't really exist, how does that affect the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

 

Clint, is that why you went to Mary Ann Collins (supposed former nun)?

Because you wanted to use "credible Catholic sources"?

That was the point at which you lost my interest in this thread.

Ron</font>[/QUOTE]So, Ron, back are you? Do you wish to try to help Grant answer any of the questions from this post (or indeed the whole page; you kind of left him swimming in it)?

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=001175;p=8#000112

Also please cite the references to the Mary Ann Collins article that are being addressed at this point in the thread.

You already have a thread going on this person at this link: http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=001178.

I am considering emailing Mary Collins and personally inviting her to join the discussion so that she can attest to her experience and validate her existence for you.

In the mean time you may want to find a point that has been made in the last, oh, I don't know, five pages that you may be willing to address and leave your strawmen on another thread that has not progressed this far. I believe we are at a point now where we are primed to hear how the "worship" (hyperdulia, veneration,... anything but adoration) of Mary is a valid practice of worship endorsed by Biblical principles and is indeed, not breaking the Second Commandment.

In case of any of you missed the Mary Ann Collins article that Ron is supposedly NOT in a lather over, you can find it here:

Mary Worship?

and that page links to this organization:

Good News for Catholics
P.O. Box 595
Cupertino, CA 95015
E-mail: [email protected]
Web Site: http://www.gnfc.org

Mark H. - Thank you for your input. Is there any source available to Catholics that WOULD reflect the modern view and theology of Catholicism that is written in a more updated vernacular? If not, how would a Catholic go about researching their own faith if they sought understanding?

Is any Catholic on this thread willing to put forth that the terms "adoration," "veneration," and "worship" are antiquated as used in the pages we have cited thus far?

[ October 31, 2002, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

From the tone of the last two pages of this thread, the Catholics here have not put up any valid defence of the arguments Clint and others have raised, but have simply complained. We don't really want a bunch of complainers. Please answer; give valid Scriptural proof that worship of Mary is a Bibical practice. Answer point by point the objections that Clint has brought forth instead of complaining about them.
DHK

[ October 31, 2002, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

DHK,

Remember that attitude I was telling you about? See above.

God bless,

Grant

 

Clint,

It's a busy day, and a frustrating one for me (apparently I'm no longer in the Honor's Program here at MSU, and they never told me, and thus I do not get to register for classes today as I thought I should....GRR), so I'm going to be brief, at least for right now.

Worship, when talking about God, is ADORATION.
Worship, when talking about Mary, is VENERATION, and the highest form.
Worship, when talking about a saint or angel, is VENERATION, in general.

Just as nearly all words in the English language have more than one meaning (why we have a dictionary), so does worship. The type of worship given to God is like no other, and no one else deserves it. It is adoration. Worship given to people is merely extreme honor. It is veneration.

This is why we have all these nice words (latria, hyperdulia, dulia), because people jump the gun when we just say "worship," because when talking about Mary, we're not talking about the same type of worship.

I'm not asking you to agree with my stance. I'm asking that you make the connection that the word worship does not have one meaning for Catholics.

God bless,

Grant