Roman Catholic Prayer to Mary - Is it scriptural?

[Always in His Presence]

No its not, because we are not asking, at least in Orthodoxy, for Our Lady and the other saints to mediate, but rather to pray for us. Which is a substantial difference. Asking for intercessory prayer is something we routinely do with those upon the living, and if asking the Theotokos for her prayers is not allowed, then neither is asking anyone alive for their prayers.

Intercessory prayer and mediation is the same thing.

Mediator - in Greek - mesites -

1. one who intervenes between two, either in order to make or restore peace and friendship, or form a compact, or for ratifying a covenant

in·ter·ces·sor
[ˈin(t)ərˌsesər]
noun

1. a person who intervenes on behalf of another, especially by prayer:
   

 

[The Liturgist]

Bottom line -
Should we contact the dead on behalf of the living according to the Bible??

As you have been told before, we don’t do that. We only ask for the intercession of those who we know are in Heaven. In the Orthodox church, for those whose salvation has not been confirmed, we continue to pray for them instead.

In particular, it is absolutely not the case that the Theotokos is dead - she was resurrected immediately following her death and taken up into Heaven, according to the testimony of the Early Church, and thus asking for prayers is absolutely permissible.

I would further add that the doctrine of soul sleep is in error (we find this mentioned nowhere in the Patristic corpus, and we find strong scriptural evidence against it as well), although I would not regard it as posing any kind of threat to salvation, but nonetheless, it is not technically correct in the same way that Purgatory is a technical error albeit one that I would not regard as posing a risk to salvation. Adventists should re-evaluate their doctrines based on the testimony of the actual confessors and martyrs of the early church, who contrary to what is written in books like The Great Controversy, were the Nicene Christians, who experienced violent persecution after the Council of Nicaea, because unfortunately for us, the son and heir to St. Constantine, Constantius, was converted to Arianism while Emperor Constantine was in his dotage and not in a position to intervene, by the scheming bishop of Nicomedia, Eusebius (not to be confused with St. Eusebius of Caeasarea, the early church historian). Since the early church fathers including St. Athanasius, who is responsible for the New Testament canon you used, were persecuted for their faith, and since the Orthodox always rejected the doctrine of the supremacy of the Pope of Rome or any other local bishop, whatever concerns you might have about the Roman Church do not apply to us, nor do they apply to the early church fathers of the Greek, Syrian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, Georgian and Indian churches (or for that matter, most Latin Fathers; the idea of Papal Supremacy was explicitly rejected by Pope St. Gregory the Great around the year 600, which has the effect of undermining the timeline that EGW constructs, which is yet another reason why Adventists should de-prioritize her corpus of writings in favor of the Patristic corpus as a means of finding the correct interpretation of Scripture). In so doing you might be pleasantly surprised by what you find, since many of the moral concerns of Adventists are thoroughly addressed in the doctrines of the Early Church, and you will also find that the Early Church and the Orthodox have consistently worshipped on the Sabbath and have correctly applied the Second Commandment.

With regards to the Theotokos, therefore, based on the aforementioned facts (which are indeed objectively verifiable historical facts, and not pious opinion as one might suppose) you can rest assured that our approach to venerating her, setting aside any concerns one might have about some practices on the fringe of Roman Catholicism, which we would also be concerned about, is correct. There is nothing more important to the Orthodox than ensuring that our worship is correct; since Orthodoxy is Correct Worship.

 

[The Liturgist]

She is mentioned only one time in Acts 1 - and then never again throughout the formation of the church worldwide. Not one quotation - not one action. As 'mother of the church' she has no recorded role or input. Kinda strange.

This is called an “appeal to silence” and is a logical fallacy.

There is zero scriptural record of an 'assumption'

So what? Many important things happened to the Early Church that were acknowledge by its leaders, but which weren’t mentioned in the New Testament scriptures selected by the same Church, such St. Athanasius of Alexandria. Therefore what you should focus on is the belief of the Early Church Fathers, which can be determined through their liturgical texts, which takes us to the next issue:

and the prayer mentioned in the OP was not widely use until 1,600 years later.

Here you are confusing the Rosary, which did actually predate the Battle of Loretto, but the Battle of Loretto made it popular, which is a specific Roman Catholic devotion, with the Hail Mary prayer, which is much older.

Your claim that the prayer mentioned in the OP was not widely in use until 1600 years later is demonstrably false - if you looked at the ancient Orthodox hymns known as Canons which are sung at Matins, which are mostly from the late first millenium, but in some cases even older, you will find a very common type of hymn which is built around an intercessory petition to or veneration of the Theotokos that is either the Ave Maria or a variation on it; these are called Theotokia or in the case of those that refer to her at the Foot of the Cross, Stavrotheotokia. You would have heard them in Greece at the Orthodox sites you visited if you had been there during Orthros or on other occasions when canons are sung. The Theotokion is typically part of the Ninth Ode, which features the Magnificat (the evangelical canticle @Xeno.of.athens quoted from St. Luke) and a text based on it, which is variable.

I have cited just one example; there are several others. For example, the Russian Old Rite Orthodox used a slightly different version of this prayer than the Orthodox from the Ottoman Empire who were brought to Russia to reform the liturgy by Patriarch Nikon, and who made various changes which caused a schism, but the prayer is semantically identical, differing only slightly in terms of wording.

By the way, are you aware that Martin Luther himself prayed the Ave Maria, but not the Rosary, and not the petitionary component, and that predates 1600, and indeed he recommended the same? My friend @MarkRohfrietsch can confirm that should there be any doubt.

Some Lutherans confused certain versions of the aforementioned Theotokion hymn which lack an intercessory prayer (some of the Theotokia have it and some do not) with the historical Orthodox version of the Ave Maria prayer and incorrectly assumed that our version does not ask the Theotokos to pray for us, however, the Orthodox version of the prayer, which is very old, and is also used by the Syriac Orthodox and various other Oriental Orthodox, since the first millennium, does have a request that the Theotokos pray for us.

However we must stress that you were partially correct, in that the Rosary, which is a specific rule for praying the Ave Maria in a series of decades that have a theme such as the Seven Sorrows became much more popular following the Battle of Loretto, where a Christian fleet defeated an Ottoman fleet which was preparing to facilitate a naval invasion of Western Europe, which coupled with the Ottoman control of Budapest at the time and their advance towards Vienna, would have, had they landed, likely divided the European forces, which could well have led to Vienna falling to the Turks, which would have been a dissaster and could have led to Turkocratia in much of Western Europe, and this would have been a nightmare for all Christains, whether Orthodox, Protestant or Catholic. Turkocratia was a monstrous evil but it, combined with the genocides of Timur the Lane against the Church of the East, and the previous genocides against Christians in some Islamic conquered territories, resulted in a disproportionate number of Eastern Christians receiving a crown of martyrdom.

However, that being martyred results in instant glorification does not make genocides or ongoing systematic persecution of Christians in any way desirable; rather it represents God in His perfect justice compensating Christians who confessed HIm before men and were put to death for it. So while we should pray that if the time comes, we have the courage to confess Christ and not deny Him, we should also pray for the peace of the churches of God.

 

[Always in His Presence]

This is called an “appeal to silence” and is a logical fallacy.

No - it is referred to as proper exegesis.

So what? Many important things happened to the Early Church that were acknowledge by its leaders, but which weren’t mentioned in the New Testament scriptures selected by the same Church, such St. Athanasius of Alexandria. Therefore what you should focus on is the belief of the Early Church Fathers, which can be determined through their liturgical texts, which takes us to the next issue:

No _ focus on what the inerrant Holy Word of God says - not adding to, nor take away anything.

It is the difference between two different type of Theology. I'm not trying to offend, but no one has answered the question in the OP. WHY?

 

[Valletta]

No - it is referred to as proper exegesis.

No _ focus on what the inerrant Holy Word of God says - not adding to, nor take away anything.

It is the difference between two different type of Theology. I'm not trying to offend, but no one has answered the question in the OP. WHY?

Catholics never adopted your idea of exegesis, which by the way is not in the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

None of these verses preclude us seeking the intercession of the departed,

until you read this regarding 'the departed" and trying to contact them "on behalf of the living"

Bottom line -
Should we contact the dead on behalf of the living according to the Bible??

Isaiah 8
19 And when they say to you, “Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,” should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living? 20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

One has to consider why it is there are no cases of contacting the dead in NT

1 Tim 2:5 - we have one Mediator between God and man (As Always-In-His-Presence pointed out_

 

[Always in His Presence]

Catholics never adopted your idea of exegesis, which by the way is not in the Bible.

It is not my idea - it is part of a multi disciplinary approach to Scripture as part of my journey to my Masters in Theology and Divinity

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
Bottom line -
Should we contact the dead on behalf of the living according to the Bible??

As you have been told before, we don’t do that.

It would be nice to see some agreement on that point.

We only ask for the intercession of those who ...

Contacting the dead (as you call them "the departed") on behalf of the living is what we are talking about

we know are in Heaven. In the Orthodox church, for those whose salvation has not been confirmed, we continue to pray for them instead.

Is it your claim that once you "confirm the salvation" of a given individual you no longer refer to them as "the departed" the way just did in your prior post.

Does the text say "do not contact the dead on behalf of the living - until you find out that they are saved"??

In particular, it is absolutely not the case that the Theotokos is dead - she was resurrected immediately following her death

If that were true then you are correct it is not a case of contacting the dead on behalf of the living.

How "odd" then that no NT writer claims Mary was resurrected.
How "odd" that the first formal recognition of that suggestion - November 1, 1950.

That almost 2000 years after the fact that suddenly the Catholic Church claims to have formal recognition of it.

===================
In any case there is nothing in OT or NT that says that someone who as been resurrected - can hear all the prayers all over the world and answer them.

 

[BobRyan]

Catholics never adopted your idea of exegesis, which by the way is not in the Bible.

That is a helpful bit of information and it explains a lot.

They also seem to question the concept of sola-scriptura testing of doctrine that we see in Acts 17:11. And so given that, I "Had expected" to see a Catholic response to the OP that is of the form " we have no Biblical basis for this teaching - rather it is a belief based on our tradition alone -- and not actually formally affirmed by the Catholic church until the mid-1900's"

 

[jas3]

I'm not trying to offend, but no one has answered the question in the OP. WHY?

If I had to guess it's because you've already shown in your second post that most of it comes from the Gospel according to Luke. Seems pretty scriptural to me.

 

[BobRyan]

This is called an “appeal to silence” and is a logical fallacy.

Always in His Presence said:

There is zero scriptural record of an 'assumption'

So what?

so if it was important to note that Lazarus and Jairus' daughter were resurrected --- one would assume that Mary's resurrection would have made some sort of "honorable mention" -- were it true.

And so -- it casts doubt on the entire suggestion given the fact that event the Catholic Church did not formally affirm it until the mid 1900's

 

[BobRyan]

If I had to guess it's because you've already shown in your second post that most of it comes from the Gospel according to Luke. Seems pretty scriptural to me.

Some of the wording comes from an Angel's statement in Luke - but Luke has no examples of any of Mary's contemporaries using such titles for her and no case where she is appealed to "to change things" via a blessing or miracle or intercession.

And no examples of them praying to those who have died.

And no examples of claims that someone died and was bodily assumed into heaven so now they are hearing prayers - other than God.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

1 John 4:6 We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us.

You think that is about praying to Jesus?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

1 John 5:4 Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of Him.

Do you not read context?

For this is the charity of God: That we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not heavy. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world. And this is the victory which overcameth the world: Our faith.
1Jn 5:3-4 DRB

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yes the first line was in Luke - how about the rest? Please read the OP.

I did read the OP, it is of no help.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

We all agree with the "One God" Deut 6:4 "in three persons" Matt 28:19 teaching of the Bible.

We do not place anyone else in that "God" box

Do you mean the Blessed Trinity?

Blessed Mary is not God, she is a resurrected glorified human being who inhabits eternity and who by God's grace hears prayers.

 

[BobRyan]

I’m not Catholic and don’t pray to Mary; however, my Catholic friends used to talk about Mary being Co-Redeemer, but I never understood what it meant. You seem knowledgeable, and I’m not going to argue with your faith, but could you tell me what they meant?

co-Redemptrix I think is the term - refers to the fact that not only is Christ our Redeemer but so also is Mary in partnership with Christ in that regard since she gave birth to Him.

several titles, including Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate

 

[bèlla]

What is driving many replies in this thread is a trifecta of misconceptions about worship: that venerating the Theotokos takes away or distracts from our relationship with our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ (it doesn’t - I can attest that from personal experience, that my love for and proximity to Christ our God has increased proportionately to my increased devotion to his blessed mother, our glorious lady Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary)

How does your personal experience validate a practice the majority oppose? It’s a private account of communion that aligns with your spiritual perspective. It has no greater weight than another’s opinion on the subject. The validity you assign to texts and practices aren’t mutually shared. And while you support them fervently they feel otherwise. There’s no misconception at all. They don’t share your beliefs and you disagree. It isn’t complicated.

~bella

 

[BobRyan]

I said "we don't put Mary in the -- "God box"

Do you mean the Blessed Trinity?

I can't say "we don't place Mary in the Trinity" since it would need to be a term that encompasses four instead of three in that case.

Blessed Mary is not God, she is a resurrected glorified human being

Apparently the Nov 1 , 1960 doctrine was a bit more extensive than just - Mary was resurrected and bodily assumed into heaven..

Here is what I could find on short notice:

from:

Pius XII Proclaims the Doctrine of the Assumption | EBSCO

Pope Pius XII proclaimed the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary as an official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on November 1, 1950, through the Apostolic Constitution titled *Munificentissimus Deus*. This doctrine states that at the end of her life, the Virgin Mary was assumed body and...

www.ebsco.com

"In the mid-eighteenth century, Pope Benedict XIV declared the Assumption to be a “probable opinion,” which conferred upon it at least a semiofficial status. A century later, in 1854, Pope Pius IX decreed that Mary had been born without original sin. The promulgation of this dogma of the Immaculate Conception encouraged many to seek similar validation for a doctrine of the Assumption, but Pius IX said the time was not yet ripe for another Marian doctrine.​

​

"The time for such a doctrine came during the reign of Pius XII. Again, it was against the background of the mounting challenge of communism and a pervasive secularism that the pope moved to reinvigorate the spiritual life of the Catholic laity. Since there were few other devotions closer to his own spirituality than the various liturgies to Mary, he had long viewed with special sympathy an authoritative Church recognition of Mary’s assumption. In 1946, only a year after the war, Pius had asked the Catholic bishops around the world to express their views, and those of their clergy and laity, on making Mary’s assumption official Church dogma. When 99 percent of the 1,234 bishops responded in the affirmative, the only question was when the pope would take the final step.​

​

By late 1950, Pius XII was ready. On November 1, he promulgated a special bull, or Apostolic Constitution. Its title, taken from the first two words of the Latin document, was Munificentissmus Deus (the most bountiful God). Henceforth, the dogma of the Assumption was to be believed by all Catholics. As officially defined,​

​

Mary had at her life’s end ascended body and soul into Paradise,​

where she would preside forever alongside her divine son,​

interceding on behalf of her fellow human beings​

and serving as the perfect model for all humankind.​

She could be prayed to and venerated for her unique status, but she was not considered equal in status to Christ.​

​

To give further force to his decree, Pius XII proclaimed that the new teaching on the Assumption had an infallible authority..."​

 

[timothyu]

How about when Mary was asked to intercede when the wine ran out?