When does Marian veneration and devotion go too far? When is the line crossed?

[Thekla]

Paul must be confused then if you are not.

How can we followers of Paul if we have no record of how we are to follow?

Paul's conduct is recorded throughout the NT.

Let's start here:

Phil 3:17
Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. KJV

Phil 1:30
Having the same conflict which ye saw in me, and now hear to be in me.
KJV



Phil 3:12
Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after , if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. KJV

And;

2 Tim 4:16
At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge . KJV

And;

Phil 4:11
Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. KJV

And this one is a "biggie"

Phil 4:9
Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you. KJV

Can you, for example, give the description of what was 'seen' of Paul using Scripture ?

 

[Optimax]

Can you, for example, give the description of what was 'seen' of Paul using Scripture ?

Read those scriptures again.

As those scriptures and many others "give the description of what was 'seen' of Paul".

They will tell you better than I.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Are you suggesting that there is another source besides scripture that contains the infallible, inerrant word of Almighty God?

Well for one I don't know that I agree with "inerrant" the way most evangelicals tend to.

If you’re gonna talk the talk, you better be prepared to walk the walk.

That's the pot calling the kettle black if I've ever seen it.

 

[marie alice]

In the writings of His Church. The validity can be checked against the teachings of the apostles, which were spoken first, not written. There can be no contradiction.

Does the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church not teach Mary’s Immaculate Conception? That she ‘from the first moments of her conception ... was preserved free from every stain of original sin’?

The apostle Paul didn’t teach that nor did he write such nonsense. In Romans 3:23 it is clear that he taught ‘all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’. There is no exception for anyone, including Mary.

Clearly a contradiction between what your Church teaches and what the apostles taught.

 

[mkgal1]

What about John the Baptist? This was written about him:

You will have great joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, for he will be great in the eyes of the Lord. He must never touch wine or other alcoholic drinks. He will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even before his birth.~Luke 1:14-15

Maybe there is something different (or more to it) in meaning to "all have sinned"?

 

[Sword of the Lord]

The CC teaches that she was born without sin and remained sinless her entire life, so that is, indeed, a contradiction.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Does the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church not teach Mary’s Immaculate Conception? That she ‘from the first moments of her conception ... was preserved free from every stain of original sin’?

The apostle Paul didn’t teach that nor did he write such nonsense. In Romans 3:23 it is clear that he taught ‘all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’. There is no exception for anyone, including Mary.

Clearly a contradiction between what your Church teaches and what the apostles taught.

A contradiction, just so you know, is when it says something somewhere, and something entirely different somewhere else. It's not contradiction if it's believed, yet not written in the Bible.

The apostle Paul is not the only author of the New Testament, and I don't believe he wrote about Mary at all, therefore, no contradiction. Also, clearly, Paul was using hyperbole, because Jesus never sinned. So there are exeptions to his "all". Besides, you've taken the passage out of context. Paul was talking to a specific group, not the entire Church. But even so, we acknowledge that Mary was human, and did nothing for herself. Her gift of Immaculate Conception was from God, not her own doing.
As stated before, there are a couple of ways to be saved. I can pull someone up over a cliff myself, or if I cannot, I can go and get help. Same result. The other way for the person to be saved is to pull himself up over the edge. Mary's saving was from God, as is everyone else's. Her's was done prior to her ever sinning.

 

[Rhamiel]

Does the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church not teach Mary’s Immaculate Conception? That she ‘from the first moments of her conception ... was preserved free from every stain of original sin’?

The apostle Paul didn’t teach that nor did he write such nonsense. In Romans 3:23 it is clear that he taught ‘all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’. There is no exception for anyone, including Mary.

Clearly a contradiction between what your Church teaches and what the apostles taught.

The CC teaches that she was born without sin and remained sinless her entire life, so that is, indeed, a contradiction.

well, we also believe that Jesus was without sin
and that angels who did not rebel against God are still without sin
so "all" does not mean "all"
it is a literary device, everyone who has read that letter HAS been a sinner, so it applies to all of them
it also covers everyone who they have ever met, and all historical figures who they read about
except angels, and Jesus, and Mary

all have sinned
that is the rule
but there are exceptions to the rule

 

[Sword of the Lord]

That's really bogus. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Logically, Paul is speaking of people, as that's who he is addressing, and Jesus is God, so there's that. Then we're left with the human Mary. I know it's cozy for RC's to believe she never once sinned and to twist the context of what Paul is clearly saying, but it's not so.

 

[MrMoe]

^Exactly

The bible was written for mankind, it was written for our benefit

Jesus is God in the flesh, so he is not an exception to the rule

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.


If Mary was without sin from birth that means she should still be around today since the wages of sin is death and she committed no sin

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die

Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.


So logically Mary should still be around today

 

[marie alice]

What about John the Baptist? This was written about him:

Maybe there is something different (or more to it) in meaning to "all have sinned"?

I'm at a loss as to what other interpretation could be made when we are told ‘all have sinned’. Luke does not say that John was free from sin. Scripture only tells of one Person who ‘knew no sin’ (Second Corinthians 5:21).

 

[marie alice]

A contradiction, just so you know, is when it says something somewhere, and something entirely different somewhere else. It's not contradiction if it's believed, yet not written in the Bible.

The apostle Paul is not the only author of the New Testament, and I don't believe he wrote about Mary at all, therefore, no contradiction. Also, clearly, Paul was using hyperbole, because Jesus never sinned. So there are exeptions to his "all". Besides, you've taken the passage out of context. Paul was talking to a specific group, not the entire Church. But even so, we acknowledge that Mary was human, and did nothing for herself. Her gift of Immaculate Conception was from God, not her own doing.
As stated before, there are a couple of ways to be saved. I can pull someone up over a cliff myself, or if I cannot, I can go and get help. Same result. The other way for the person to be saved is to pull himself up over the edge. Mary's saving was from God, as is everyone else's. Her's was done prior to her ever sinning.

Oh my goodness. I'm at a total loss for words ...:o

 

[SwordFall]

Does the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church not teach Mary’s Immaculate Conception? That she ‘from the first moments of her conception ... was preserved free from every stain of original sin’?

The apostle Paul didn’t teach that nor did he write such nonsense. In Romans 3:23 it is clear that he taught ‘all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’. There is no exception for anyone, including Mary.

Clearly a contradiction between what your Church teaches and what the apostles taught.

That's not a contradiction at all, it's not even relevant to Mary. That's just taking things way out of context.

It's amusing that your lot thinks the Church is so impotent that it would dogmatically declare something so easily refutable.
The fact of the matter is that the Church is a force to be reckoned with when it comes to dogmas and theology. You can believe that the pope simply makes stuff up, or that the Church just goes blindly along whatever idea it chooses, but that's just plain false.

 

[Albion]

That's really bogus. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Logically, Paul is speaking of people, as that's who he is addressing, and Jesus is God, so there's that. Then we're left with the human Mary. I know it's cozy for RC's to believe she never once sinned and to twist the context of what Paul is clearly saying, but it's not so.

I guess we might call it wishful thinking.

In other eras, it was common to "ennoble" any important public figure after the fact. An emperor might be deemed to have become a god, for instance, even though that seems to us to be patently ridiculous. You don't "become" a god, we'd say.

So with religious figures--and women--the imagination runs towards sinlessness, perpetual virginity, universal motherhood, her body being taken to heaven by God, etc. The same kinds of tales were told about Alexander the Great, who travelled to the Moon, explored the bottom of the ocean, discovered alien beings, and more.

Like the legends of the saints, all of that happened only in the human imagination, of course.

 

[marie alice]

That's not a contradiction at all,

Are you saying that Paul taught that Mary was immaculately conceived?

it's not even relevant to Mary. That's just taking things way out of context.

Since her supposed IC is in clear opposition to Romans 3:23, this is most certainly relevant to the magisterium’s teaching on Mary.

It's amusing that your lot thinks the Church is so impotent that it would dogmatically declare something so easily refutable.

Every false teaching of the Roman Catholic Church is, and has been, very easily refuted by comparing them to the word of God.

The fact of the matter is that the Church is a force to be reckoned with when it comes to dogmas and theology.

And those who propagate their false dogmas to the detriment of lost souls will pay for their lies in the end.

You can believe that the pope simply makes stuff up, or that the Church just goes blindly along whatever idea it chooses, but that's just plain false.

If a teaching considered by this Church to be divinely revealed is not contained within the pages of the bible, the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church simply asserts its self-imposed editorial privilege and makes that which never was into that which always has been. It’s called sacred oral Tradition, the life’s blood of their Church, without which they would collapse like a house of cards.

 

[Rhamiel]

If a teaching considered by this Church to be divinely revealed is not contained within the pages of the bible, the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church simply asserts its self-imposed editorial privilege and makes that which never was into that which always has been. It’s called sacred oral Tradition, the life’s blood of their Church, without which they would collapse like a house of cards.

have you ever thought that Scared Tradition might have been the thing that was used to judge what books of the NT were canonical?
it the books lined up with the teachings of the Church they were accepted as scripture?
also, authorship was important too

 

[Rhamiel]

I guess we might call it wishful thinking.

In other eras, it was common to "ennoble" any important public figure after the fact. An emperor might be deemed to have become a god, for instance, even though that seems to us to be patently ridiculous. You don't "become" a god, we'd say.

So with religious figures--and women--the imagination runs towards sinlessness, perpetual virginity, universal motherhood, her body being taken to heaven by God, etc. The same kinds of tales were told about Alexander the Great, who travelled to the Moon, explored the bottom of the ocean, discovered alien beings, and more.

Like the legends of the saints, all of that happened only in the human imagination, of course.

so, the oral history that was being passed down among Christians during their persecution is equal to pagan myths?

that is really an elitist view of history
"oh well if it was not written down in a stuffy leather volume by someone with a PHD well it is not real history"

and the "legends of the saints" all being made up?
well that seems like an indiscriminate blanket statement?

about comparing Christianity to Paganism, you know atheists say that all of the Bible is nothing more then stories "like the stories of Alexander the Great" or whatever

 

[Albion]

have you ever thought that Scared Tradition might have been the thing that was used to judge what books of the NT were canonical?

That's not Sacred Tradition.

It might be a reliance upon that which is customary or proven or accepted, etc. as a means to understanding Scripture. If so, it's nothing that any believer in Sola Scriptura could disagree with. Sacred Tradition, however, is supposedly a second stream of divine revelation--although it is opinion, folklore, and ideas that are entirely human except for the theory (and that's all it is) that the hand of God is behind it all.

 

[marie alice]

have you ever thought that Scared Tradition might have been the thing that was used to judge what books of the NT were canonical?
it the books lined up with the teachings of the Church they were accepted as scripture?

Christians line up their teachings with what scripture says, not the other way around.

also, authorship was important too

With regard to the New Testament in order for a book to be recognized as canonical it had to have been written by an apostle or endorsed by an apostle. In the case of the Book of Acts, written by Luke, it was backed by the apostle Paul. The same goes for the gospel of Mark which was sanctioned by Peter and Paul.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Christians line up their teachings with what scripture says, not the other way around. With regard to the New Testament in order for a book to be recognized as canonical it had to have been written by an apostle or endorsed by an apostle. In the case of the Book of Acts, written by Luke, it was backed by the apostle Paul. The same goes for the gospel of Mark which was sanctioned by Peter and Paul.

So how do you reconcile that scripture itself points to Tradition and that it comes by both word and epistle? What sort of rationale do you apply to that in order to continue insisting that scripture alone reigns supreme?