Roman Catholic Prayer to Mary - Is it scriptural?

[timothyu]

A majority of Christian denominations oppose it - but individual adherents are many for the Catholic affirmation of it.

Possibly but God's truth is not a matter of numbers.

 

[timothyu]

No - only part of the total prayer is in Luke chapter 1 as already shown a number of times.

So a fashionable coat was sown around a button?

 

[bèlla]

No one is stating Mary is God. As regarding Queen of Heaven, look at the ancient Davidic monarchy. Jesus is the New David and sits as King of Kings forever. The Queen mother, the Virgin Mary, is the new Queen.

I assume you’re not familiar with these verses?

The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven. And they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger.

Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: You and your wives have declared with your mouths, and have fulfilled it with your hands, saying, ‘We will surely perform our vows that we have made, to make offerings to the queen of heaven and to pour out drink offerings to her.’ Then confirm your vows and perform your vows!

But since we left off making offerings to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine.”

The bible considers the queen of heaven demonic. She goes by names but Mary isn’t one of them.

~bella

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Actually, the vast minority of Christians oppose veneration of The Mother of God and praying to the Church triumphant.

Interesting turn of phrase, "vast minority", I'd have used, "small minority"

 

[RileyG]

I assume you’re not familiar with these verses?

The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven. And they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger.

Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: You and your wives have declared with your mouths, and have fulfilled it with your hands, saying, ‘We will surely perform our vows that we have made, to make offerings to the queen of heaven and to pour out drink offerings to her.’ Then confirm your vows and perform your vows!

But since we left off making offerings to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine.”

The bible considers the queen of heaven demonic. She goes by names but Mary isn’t one of them.

~bella

No. That’s an idol in ancient Israel, and yes, I’m familiar with those verses.

As for Queen of heaven, see revelation 12.

 

[bèlla]

No. That’s an idol in ancient Israel, and yes, I’m familiar with those verses.

As for Queen of heaven, see revelation 12.

You believe that’s Mary? If so, why wasn’t she mentioned by name? And wasn’t John tasked to look after her by the Lord? Why would he omit it?

The new testament is pretty consistent about giving credit where it’s due. Hebrews 11 mentions notable people from the old testament worth recalling. And 1 Peter 3 lauds Sarah’s example as a wife and calls women her daughters if they follow suit. No woman is mentioned in the bible more than her and that’s the lone recording of a woman’s death.

It comes down to your understanding of vessels and what it implies to be a living receptacle. If He wanted to exalt her He would have done so in the text so there’s no ambiguity. If He wanted us to know her intimately the details would be there. Paul never spoke of her in those terms. Surely he knew who she was. He befriended her son after all.

It takes a lot of gymnastics to make that work and that’s not how I interpret the word. But to each his own.

~bella

 

[The Liturgist]

the problem with that method is that millions that are members of other churches but were at one time baptized as an infant - as Catholic -- would be counted both as a Catholic and also as some other denomination member)

Even if we assume, incorrectly, that the RCC membership numbers are inflated in this manner (which would be wrong; the RCC is massive in Africa and Asia and still has substantial membership in Latin America, North America and Europe despite the destructive influence of liberal bishops in many of these areas), if we subtracted the total membership of all other Christian denominations from the Roman Catholic Church, which around 400 million, and then said half of the remaining Catholics were apostate, we would still have 500 million faithful Catholics, and then if we add to that the 290 million faithful Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians (and our numbers are growing, now at a rate much faster than that of the SDA; we are one of only a handful of denominations which has net membership gain, resulting from a combination of our high birth rates, high retention rates and high conversion rates, with substantial numbers of converts being previously unchurched; the Orthodox do not engage in coordinated efforts to convert Christians of other churches*, and around another 50 million High Church Anglican and Evangelical Catholic Lutheran members, and a massive majority still exists, even under the extremely conservative and contrived scenario I have presented; indeed, under this scenario even without counting the like-minded Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran Christians, counted conservatively by the way, the RCC still has a clear majority.

And I say good for them, because while I don’t agree with the RCC on everything, they do represent a traditional liturgical church with some beautiful liturgies that at present represents a faithful and severely persecuted witness for Christ, enduring extreme persecution in the Islamic countries, and increasing persecution in the first world, where it seems that the one remaining acceptable prejudice is anti-Catholicism.

* This stands in contrast to some non-denominational megachurches and restorationist churches which historically have regarded Orthodox Christians and other Eastern Christians as mission fields rather than fellow Christian denominations, and send missionaries to the more ethnic congregations among the Orthodox and Assyrian churches to try to convert the people, a disturbing and abusive behavior i have seen first hand at a Greek Orthodox Church and a cathedral of the Assyrian Church of the East).

 

[The Liturgist]

How does your personal experience validate a practice the majority oppose?

While it is true that, contra your post, a majority of Christians support the practice of intercessory prayer to the saints and the veneration of the Theotokos, with the two largest Protestant denominations (Anglicanism and Lutheranism) venerating Our Lady, and many Anglicans seeking intercessory prayer, and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox being larger than the combined total of Lutherans and Anglicans, and the Roman Catholics being larger than the combined total aforesaid), it is also the case that your argument is not only based on a false premise (that intercessory prayer to the saints and/or veneration of the Theotokos is a minority practice) but is logically fallacious, since Christian doctrinal truth is not a democracy, and while as an Orthodox Christian I am in the majority on the issue of the veneration of the Theotokos and seeking her prayers, but we are in the minority on the Filioque, eschatology, hamartiology, soteriology and other important issues.

 

[RileyG]

You believe that’s Mary? If so, why wasn’t she mentioned by name? And wasn’t John tasked to look after her by the Lord? Why would he omit it?

The new testament is pretty consistent about giving credit where it’s due. Hebrews 11 mentions notable people from the old testament worth recalling. And 1 Peter 3 lauds Sarah’s example as a wife and calls women her daughters if they follow suit. No woman is mentioned in the bible more than her and that’s the lone recording of a woman’s death.

It comes down to your understanding of vessels and what it implies to be a living receptacle. If He wanted to exalt her He would have done so in the text so there’s no ambiguity. If He wanted us to know her intimately the details would be there. Paul never spoke of her in those terms. Surely he knew who she was. He befriended her son after all.

It takes a lot of gymnastics to make that work and that’s not how I interpret the word. But to each his own.

~bella

I’m a little confused. John was indeed told to look after her when he visited Our Lord at Calvary.

Many of the early Church fathers see the Virgin Mary as the ark of the new covenant, the Queen mother, who works with Christ.

On the same hand, I do not accept sola scriptura.

Blessings

 

[RileyG]

if by "majority" you mean majority of Christian groups/denominations then you are right.

But if by "majority" you mean "majority of individuals" then we are confronted with how membership numbers are counted. One way of counting them has the Catholic Church at 1.4 Billion. (the problem with that method is that millions that are members of other churches but were at one time baptized as an infant - as Catholic -- would be counted both as a Catholic and also as some other denomination member)

Well? Year by year it is counted. It is always fluctuating. Those who aren't active or aren't part of a parish are not included. On the other hand, one might be registered for a parish based for very mundane reasons (to be married, or buried, or part of a baptism, confirmation etc, or they still consider themselves Catholic despite not practicing the faith).

By all accounts, the RCC is the largest Christian Church on earth. The Church also keeps track of all its records. (Baptisms, Marriages, Confirmations, Deaths, Ordinations). People who want to research should look to the RCC.

 

[RileyG]

You believe that’s Mary? If so, why wasn’t she mentioned by name? And wasn’t John tasked to look after her by the Lord? Why would he omit it?

The new testament is pretty consistent about giving credit where it’s due. Hebrews 11 mentions notable people from the old testament worth recalling. And 1 Peter 3 lauds Sarah’s example as a wife and calls women her daughters if they follow suit. No woman is mentioned in the bible more than her and that’s the lone recording of a woman’s death.

It comes down to your understanding of vessels and what it implies to be a living receptacle. If He wanted to exalt her He would have done so in the text so there’s no ambiguity. If He wanted us to know her intimately the details would be there. Paul never spoke of her in those terms. Surely he knew who she was. He befriended her son after all.

It takes a lot of gymnastics to make that work and that’s not how I interpret the word. But to each his own.

~bella

This explains my beliefs regarding the Blessed Virgin perfectly:

Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant

Why do Catholics call Mary the Ark of the New Covenant? Steve Ray will answer that question by taking you on a thrilling journey through the Bible.

www.catholic.com

It regards Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. It takes the gospel message from Luke and compares it to the messages in 2 Samuel.

It's very striking.

No mental gymnastics are necessary.

Scripture interprets scripture.

 

[RileyG]

While it is true that, contra your post, a majority of Christians support the practice of intercessory prayer to the saints and the veneration of the Theotokos, with the two largest Protestant denominations (Anglicanism and Lutheranism) venerating Our Lady, and many Anglicans seeking intercessory prayer, and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox being larger than the combined total of Lutherans and Anglicans, and the Roman Catholics being larger than the combined total aforesaid), it is also the case that your argument is not only based on a false premise (that intercessory prayer to the saints and/or veneration of the Theotokos is a minority practice) but is logically fallacious, since Christian doctrinal truth is not a democracy, and while as an Orthodox Christian I am in the majority on the issue of the veneration of the Theotokos and seeking her prayers, but we are in the minority on the Filioque, eschatology, hamartiology, soteriology and other important issues.

I LOVE the Theotokos! Without her, I would be dead!

Glory to God in all things!

 

[RileyG]

I wonder how many millions of times this same exact debate has occurred on the internet.

It will continue to be discussed, until Christ returns again

 

[Valletta]

I assume you’re not familiar with these verses?

The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven. And they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger.

Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: You and your wives have declared with your mouths, and have fulfilled it with your hands, saying, ‘We will surely perform our vows that we have made, to make offerings to the queen of heaven and to pour out drink offerings to her.’ Then confirm your vows and perform your vows!

But since we left off making offerings to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine.”

The bible considers the queen of heaven demonic. She goes by names but Mary isn’t one of them.

~bella

Those who know there Bible know that nothing impure is in Heaven. So too they know that in the Davidic kingdom, beginning with Solomon, the mother of the king is the queen. We see in Revelation a woman wearing a crown, it is clearly the mother of Jesus and NOT the woman you depict.

 

[bèlla]

Many of the early Church fathers see the Virgin Mary as the ark of the new covenant, the Queen mother, who works with Christ.

On the same hand, I do not accept sola scriptura.

Each must come to their own conclusions on matters of faith. Much like you don’t accept sola scriptura. I don’t accept catholic doctrine or the writings of early christian fathers as things I must adhere to. Nor does that I imply I agree with everything protestants propose and count myself among them. My consensus is simple. Whatever one believes must bear witness and fruit. It‘s the difference between discussing a thing and living it fervently. And the latter isn’t wholly passion nor the absence of struggle. It’s the willingness to confront one’s weaknesses and dichotomies as a testament of one’s belief and constancy.

I love to cook. It isn’t necessary for me to say it. When you enter my home you’re confronted with the truth. You’ll see food beautifully housed in glass jars. Metal racks filled with appliances that near the ceiling. A plethora of herbs and spices and baking ingredients. Shelves overflowing with home canned goods and freezers filled with every morsel one could want. And books. Lots of books. Too many to count.

Food is my craft. I work at it to produce the best results possible and never stop trying because I know better exists. I’ve seen it, tasted and read it and that inspires me. That’s the mark of a true artisan. And much like my approach to food I do the same with my faith. I spend less time talking about God. Perfecting the things of God is more important and it must be measurable. Everything I do is embedded with excellence. That’s my barometer. And if that isn’t worth pursuing it isn’t worth doing.

Given my mindset I’m unlikely to understand much about christianity theoretically or agree on many issues. Once you enter the nitty gritty it comes down to love. When you love something you give it your all and show up everyday. You don’t rest on excuses or stagnation or live in your head. Because love does and everyone knows the difference from its presence and absence. If I love the Lord I’m not slacking. I show up for Him more than anything else. He’s my priority much like my crafts and it consumes.

I share that to illustrate the role bearing plays in our decisions. Some people need structure and routines. Some need ritual and theatrics. Some need simplicity and quiet. Some need intellectual stimulation. Some need to march to their own drummer. Some need a combination of the above. It isn’t right or wrong and oftentimes we’re drawn to things that combat our deficiencies. And one person’s a-ha is another man’s no and the answer is right for both.

What someone needs in their walk with the Lord will differ from what another requires. Oftentimes there’s a want to apply one’s template to someone else and it rarely fits. We’re different people at different points with different strengths and weaknesses. While we all need the Lord the way to Him will rarely be the same.

~bella

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

if by "majority" you mean majority of Christian groups/denominations then you are right.​

​

But if by "majority" you mean "majority of individuals" then we are confronted with how membership numbers are counted. One way of counting them has the Catholic Church at 1.4 Billion. (the problem with that method is that millions that are members of other churches but were at one time baptized as an infant - as Catholic -- would be counted both as a Catholic and also as some other denomination member)​

Well? Year by year it is counted. It is always fluctuating. Those who aren't active or aren't part of a parish are not included.

If each year every parish does a census to see if they can still locate members added to their parish via baptism etc to see if they are members of another denomination, or no denomination etc - I have yet to find an official catholic source confirming that such is the case.

On the other hand, one might be registered for a parish based for very mundane reasons (to be married, or buried, or part of a baptism, confirmation etc, or they still consider themselves Catholic despite not practicing the faith).

In my view even if they do not attend but can be confirmed as claiming they still consider themselves Catholic, and members of that perish - then I think that number is still legit.

By all accounts, the RCC is the largest Christian Church on earth. The Church also keeps track of all its records. (Baptisms, Marriages, Confirmations, Deaths, Ordinations).

they are pretty good on accounting additions to membership - (which is true of almost all denominations as well)
What is not so accurate is their ability to know that an infant baptized 40 years ago - is now a Baptist and should not be counted as Catholic any more.

I know a lot of former Catholics I have yet to find one that says he/she knows that they are no longer counted as Catholic by the Catholic church.

=====================

AI says this about it

"The 1.4 billion figure for the global Catholic population is a good estimate, but not perfectly accurate due to the challenges of accurately tracking religious affiliation globally. The figure is based on data collected by the Vatican's Central Office for Church Statistics, which is the best source for this information.​

​

Here's why it's an estimate and not a precise count:

​

• Defining "Catholic": .​
• The definition of a "Catholic" can be somewhat subjective. The Vatican's statistics typically count baptized Catholics, but active participation in the church is not always measured.​
• Data Collection Challenges:​
  .
• Accurate data collection in some parts of the world can be difficult due to factors like limited resources, lack of infrastructure, or political instability.​
• Immigration and Migration:​
  .

The movement of people across borders can make it difficult to track the exact number of Catholics in different regions."​

​

==========================​

​

When asked if the Catholic Census takes into account - Catholics that LEAVE the Catholic Church - -- AI Says this​

​

"The Catholic Church census, as part of its annual Annuario Pontificio (Pontifical Yearbook), does not track individuals who leave the Church. This is because a person's baptism remains a permanent sacrament, and leaving the Church does not automatically remove them from the Church's records. Individuals can still be considered Catholics even if they are no longer active in the Church. "​

=======================

Go to any non-Catholic church in America and ask "how many here were baptized as a Catholic but no longer consider yourself a Catholic and in fact consider yourself to be a member of a non-Catholic church/ religion?" - a lot of hands go up.

Combine that with the fact that even the Catholic church admits it does not track individuals who leave - and you see the problem.


============================


By the same token - go to almost any area in America where there are 4 or more Adventist churches you will find that the total number of Adventists and former Adventists in the area is about 4 times that of what they claim as their current membership. People come and go.

All churches that have a fairly accurate system of tracking whether someone is actually a member or not - have the same problem over a time span of 50 or 60 years.

 

[BobRyan]

Those who know there Bible know that nothing impure is in Heaven. So too they know that in the Davidic kingdom, beginning with Solomon, the mother of the king is the queen. We see in Revelation a woman wearing a crown, it is clearly the mother of Jesus and NOT the woman you depict.

In Revelation 12 -- the woman wearing the crown is not Mary - it is the people of God -
As Jesus said in John 4 to the Samaritan woman "Salvation is of the JEWS" - He did not say "Salvation is of my mother Mary".

The woman in Rev 12 is persecuted after Christ is taken to heaven - for 1260 years -- the dark ages of Christian persecution.
That also is not any single human living that long and being persecuted that long.

 

[The Liturgist]

Right and that was not used in the church for hundreds of years after her death.

3. The First Part of the Hail Mary (6th Century)​

The first part of the prayer—"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee"—emerges in this period. The phrase “Ave Maria” was used in Christian liturgies, especially in the East, and gradually incorporated into prayers.

4. The Second Part: "Blessed is the Fruit of Thy Womb" (12th Century)​

By the 12th century, the second line of the prayer, “Blessed is the fruit of thy womb,” became commonly used, inspired by the Gospel of Luke. This was a natural extension of Mary’s praise, acknowledging the significance of Jesus, her son.

5. The Final Part: "Holy Mary, Mother of God" (16th Century)​

The final line, "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death," was added later. This addition became standardized in the 16th century, particularly after the Council of Trent (1545–1563), which sought to clarify and define Catholic doctrine in the wake of the Protestant Reformation.

Where did you read that? I need a source, so I can take measures to correct them, or to make known that the source document is unreliable.

The reason being, that timeline is demonstrably false for numerous reasons. For starter, the Eastern liturgical manuscripts and versions of the prayer that exist among the Old Rite Orthodox which are semantically identical to the version you suppose dates from the 16th century, which we can date to no later than 1150 based on the time the Russian church cut off all relations with the Roman Catholic Church following in the footsteps of the patriarchates of Constantinople and Antioch, Constantinople having been excommunicated by Rome in 1054, and Antioch anathematizing Rome in response in 1078. Indeed, the timeline makes claims based on Eastern liturgical manuscripts which are grossly inaccurate and reflect an ignorance of what those manuscripts actually contain.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes...and I have no problem with it, mainly because I'm a liturgical Christian.

No arguments from me, whatsoever.

Blessings

The timeline presented is completely erroneous; the Ave Maria prayer and even the full Rosary used by your church but not the Orthodox (because we don’t use the visual imagination in prayer) is older than is claimed.

 

[jas3]

What is not so accurate is their ability to know that an infant baptized 40 years ago - is now a Baptist and should not be counted as Catholic any more.

This is probably the case for most denominations.

As far as whether the accuracy of parish membership counts affects the claim of Roman Catholicism to being the biggest church, the number of actual practicing Catholics might be smaller than 1.4 billion, but since the original argument was about the high Mariology expressed by someone who's Orthodox, you also have to include Orthodoxy (220 million) and Oriental Orthodoxy (50 million), as well as smaller communities like the Churches of the East and Anglo-Catholics. Altogether, the starting figure is more like 1.7 billion.

Compare that to 833 million Protestants, who also have trouble tracking when people leave their communities due to the informal nature of disaffiliation; I'm probably still registered as a member at the church where I had my confirmation, since I never transferred my membership after I went off to college. That also gives the lie to the argument that an overcount would be due to infant baptism, since confirmation happens at the same age as credobaptists baptize children.