Why do catholics pray to Mary

Status
Not open for further replies.

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
7,968
2,886
Minnesota
✟208,027.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Interestingly Jesus never encouraged any veneration of His mother at any time. In fact when someone said, "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that nursed you, Jesus said, "No. Blessed are they who believe in Me." He actively discouraged any veneration of Mary. In all of Paul's letters, the mother of Jesus is never named. In Romans, she is referred to as the mother of Jesus, not named; and in Galatians he refers to Jesus as being born of a woman. Romans and Galatians are books that deal with the true and pure Gospel, and yet Mary is never named or referred to.

It is also interesting that in Revelation 4 where everyone is worshiping around the throne of God, there is no appearance of Mary anywhere. You would think that she would be there alongside the throne of God if she was the Queen of Heaven. But she is missing. I wonder where she is? Or was she ever there in the first place?

Luke 1:48
for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
Jesus is not contradicting the Word of God and claiming Mary is not blessed. Jesus is emphasizing that Mary is particularly blessed because she did God's will. Eve was created sinless yet went against God's will, Mary was sinless as well and in all ways did God's will.

Revelation 11:19-12:1
Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.a]">And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
Mary was there when the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us, there when Jesus was born, there when Jesus performed His first public miracle, there at the foot of the cross, and you will find her there in Revelation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Joined2krist
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,435
11,981
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,730.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Jesus said, "No. Blessed are they who believe in Me.
I don't think even the worst paraphrase of the Bible butchers the Word of God the way you have in this example. You are doing exactly what you have accused the Catholic Church of doing.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,333.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Luke 1:48 for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
Jesus is not contradicting the Word of God and claiming Mary is not blessed. Jesus is emphasizing that Mary is particularly blessed because she did God's will. Eve was created sinless yet went against God's will, Mary was sinless as well and in all ways did God's will.

Revelation 11:19-12:1
Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.a]">And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
Mary was there when the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us, there when Jesus was born, there when Jesus performed His first public miracle, there at the foot of the cross, and you will find her there in Revelation.
In the Magnificat, Mary prophetically confessed her need for a Saviour. If she was actually sinless, she wouldn't have felt a need for a Saviour from sin. There are no references in the Gospels or New Testament that she was sinless because that would have made her equal to Jesus, and the New Testament does not support that.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,333.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
I don't think even the worst paraphrase of the Bible butchers the Word of God the way you have in this example. You are doing exactly what you have accused the Catholic Church of doing.
Jesus never taught that Mary had anything to do with salvation through the Gospel, or that He was subject to anything she said. At the wedding at Cana, when she told Jesus that they had run out of wine, He said, "Woman, what has that got to do with me?" He was abrupt with her, saying that as a child he did what he was told by His mother, but now as an adult, she had no further jurisdiction over Him. If Mary was sinless and was someone whom Jesus looked to as a person requiring His absolute respect, He certainly didn't show it at Cana.

In all of Paul's letters dealing with the Gospel or prayer, he never mentioned Mary at all. He was very clear that there was no other name under which anyone can be saved except the name of Jesus. Mary did not feature anywhere.

If Mary is the Queen of Heaven, both Jesus and Paul would have clearly said it, and she would have appeared as a prominent figure at the throne of God in the book of Revelation.

After the last mention of her at the upper room on the day of Pentecost, she disappeared from the pages of the Bible, never to be mentioned again.

All the Church traditional teaching about Mary is nothing other than fabrication.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: TheShire
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
7,968
2,886
Minnesota
✟208,027.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Jesus never taught that Mary had anything to do with salvation through the Gospel, or that He was subject to anything she said. At the wedding at Cana, when she told Jesus that they had run out of wine, He said, "Woman, what has that got to do with me?" He was abrupt with her, saying that as a child he did what he was told by His mother, but now as an adult, she had no further jurisdiction over Him.
You sure are adding in a lot that simply is not there. Who told you Jesus was "abrupt?" There is nothing in the text to indicate that. Where is the part you have added about Jesus claiming she now had no jurisdiction over him? That's quite a leap. Take the time to check out Jewish usages of "woman" in the Bible, perhaps your cultural bias of today is throwing you off. If you have looked you found that the term is used respectfully, Jesus uses "woman" in regard to Mary at the wedding at Cana and at the foot of the cross.

John's Gospel starts off with a reference to Genesis. Recall Genesis, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise his heel." (Gen. 3:15) So later in John we are told about Jesus referring to her as "woman." Why?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joined2krist
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,435
11,981
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,730.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Jesus never taught that Mary had anything to do with salvation through the Gospel, or that He was subject to anything she said. At the wedding at Cana, when she told Jesus that they had run out of wine, He said, "Woman, what has that got to do with me?" He was abrupt with her, saying that as a child he did what he was told by His mother, but now as an adult, she had no further jurisdiction over Him. If Mary was sinless and was someone whom Jesus looked to as a person requiring His absolute respect, He certainly didn't show it at Cana.

In all of Paul's letters dealing with the Gospel or prayer, he never mentioned Mary at all. He was very clear that there was no other name under which anyone can be saved except the name of Jesus. Mary did not feature anywhere.

If Mary is the Queen of Heaven, both Jesus and Paul would have clearly said it, and she would have appeared as a prominent figure at the throne of God in the book of Revelation.

After the last mention of her at the upper room on the day of Pentecost, she disappeared from the pages of the Bible, never to be mentioned again.

All the Church traditional teaching about Mary is nothing other than fabrication.
LOL!
Completely irrelevant response to my post.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Interestingly Jesus never encouraged any veneration of His mother at any time. In fact when someone said, "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that nursed you, Jesus said, "No. Blessed are they who believe in Me." He actively discouraged any veneration of Mary. In all of Paul's letters, the mother of Jesus is never named. In Romans, she is referred to as the mother of Jesus, not named; and in Galatians he refers to Jesus as being born of a woman. Romans and Galatians are books that deal with the true and pure Gospel, and yet Mary is never named or referred to.

So, a woman in the crowd who is impressed with Jesus' wisdom and healing blesses His mother. Hmmm... You may want to take a look at passages 22-23 in Proverbs chapter 23, not to mention verse 25 of the same book and chapter to what the woman says reminiscent "Let your father and mother have joy; let her who bore you exult." Jesus' response must not be taken as a criticism of His mother (see Lk 8:21). Rather Jesus echoes the sentiments of Elizabeth's blessing of Mary in Luke 1:45 and Mary's Canticle in Luke 1:46-48.

What do you believe was the basis of Mary's blessing in those passages of Luke?

Have a Blessed Day!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joined2krist
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,812
13,119
72
✟362,418.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Interestingly Jesus never encouraged any veneration of His mother at any time. In fact when someone said, "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that nursed you, Jesus said, "No. Blessed are they who believe in Me." He actively discouraged any veneration of Mary. In all of Paul's letters, the mother of Jesus is never named. In Romans, she is referred to as the mother of Jesus, not named; and in Galatians he refers to Jesus as being born of a woman. Romans and Galatians are books that deal with the true and pure Gospel, and yet Mary is never named or referred to.

It is also interesting that in Revelation 4 where everyone is worshiping around the throne of God, there is no appearance of Mary anywhere. You would think that she would be there alongside the throne of God if she was the Queen of Heaven. But she is missing. I wonder where she is? Or was she ever there in the first place?

As well, scripture is utterly silent concerning the Four Marian Dogmas of the Catholic Church. The immaculate conception of Mary is never mentioned, although Catholics do read allusions to it into scripture. The Assumption of Mary which assuredly occurred during the writing of the New Testament is never mentioned, whereas the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ are portrayed as essential doctrines in the New Testament. Given the yawning silence concerning the Four Marian dogmas in the New Testament, one is left to wonder.
 
Upvote 0

Landon Caeli

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 8, 2016
15,455
5,824
46
CA
✟561,158.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
As well, scripture is utterly silent concerning the Four Marian Dogmas of the Catholic Church. The immaculate conception of Mary is never mentioned, although Catholics do read allusions to it into scripture. The Assumption of Mary which assuredly occurred during the writing of the New Testament is never mentioned, whereas the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ are portrayed as essential doctrines in the New Testament. Given the yawning silence concerning the Four Marian dogmas in the New Testament, one is left to wonder.

If the Church proclaims something as a Revealed Truth, then it is as equally true as the Scriptures. The Holy Scriptures are equally authoritative as the Holy Church, for Catholics.

I don't expect others to accept this, but they should understand it.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,333.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
You sure are adding in a lot that simply is not there. Who told you Jesus was "abrupt?" There is nothing in the text to indicate that. Where is the part you have added about Jesus claiming she now had no jurisdiction over him? That's quite a leap. Take the time to check out Jewish usages of "woman" in the Bible, perhaps your cultural bias of today is throwing you off. If you have looked you found that the term is used respectfully, Jesus uses "woman" in regard to Mary at the wedding at Cana and at the foot of the cross.

John's Gospel starts off with a reference to Genesis. Recall Genesis, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise his heel." (Gen. 3:15) So later in John we are told about Jesus referring to her as "woman." Why?
You still not have addressed the problem that if Mary really was the Queen of Heaven, Jesus and Paul would have clearly included her as such in their teaching concerning who to venerate, worship, and pray to. But they never did, which, if she was Queen of Heaven, their exclusion of her would have been a clear insult to her.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,333.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
LOL!
Completely irrelevant response to my post.
But still, it is a question that you cannot address because Jesus' and Paul's exclusion of any mention of Mary being Queen of Heaven shows that she is nothing of the kind, and prayers to her go nowhere.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,333.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
So, a woman in the crowd who is impressed with Jesus' wisdom and healing blesses His mother. Hmmm... You may want to take a look at passages 22-23 in Proverbs chapter 23, not to mention verse 25 of the same book and chapter to what the woman says reminiscent "Let your father and mother have joy; let her who bore you exult." Jesus' response must not be taken as a criticism of His mother (see Lk 8:21). Rather Jesus echoes the sentiments of Elizabeth's blessing of Mary in Luke 1:45 and Mary's Canticle in Luke 1:46-48.

What do you believe was the basis of Mary's blessing in those passages of Luke?

Have a Blessed Day!
Mary's blessing does not make her the Queen of Heaven whom people can pray to, or for her to be a mediator between people and God. It is merely that she is honoured as the mother of Jesus, but as soon as Jesus grew up to be an adult, He went his own way, and his mother had no further influence on Him. In fact, she became a believer and received Jesus as her Lord and Saviour after His resurrection, along with His brothers.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,435
11,981
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,730.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
But still, it is a question that you cannot address because Jesus' and Paul's exclusion of any mention of Mary being Queen of Heaven shows that she is nothing of the kind.
No it doesn't. It is simply your opinion, and you have already shown a willingness to change words in Scripture to reflect your doctrinal bias. You did exactly what you claimed the Catholic Church had done, without evidence of such.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,333.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
As well, scripture is utterly silent concerning the Four Marian Dogmas of the Catholic Church. The immaculate conception of Mary is never mentioned, although Catholics do read allusions to it into scripture. The Assumption of Mary which assuredly occurred during the writing of the New Testament is never mentioned, whereas the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ are portrayed as essential doctrines in the New Testament. Given the yawning silence concerning the Four Marian dogmas in the New Testament, one is left to wonder.
I don't wonder. It is fabricated teaching in the form of "new revelation" received after the canon of the New Testament was closed.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: TheShire
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,333.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
If the Church proclaims something as a Revealed Truth, then it is as equally true as the Scriptures. The Holy Scriptures are equally authoritative as the Holy Church, for Catholics.

I don't expect others to accept this, but they should understand it.
I am biased actually. I subscribe to Sola Scriptura. This means that I believe that if it ain't in the Bible, then it ain't true.

I understand that if Catholic believers want to believe the Marian doctrines, then they are free to. I wouldn't go on to a protected Catholic forum and debate as I have done on this thread.

My intention of putting another point of view that is obviously disagreeable to some, is to show the silent majority of readers an alternative point of view to the Catholic one, and to let them form their own judgment about whether the Marian doctrines are true or not.

My wife was brought up and educated Catholic, and so I wouldn't dream of having this debate with her. I would be sleeping with the cat in the laundry if I did! :)

I recently attended a full Requiem Mass for the mother in law of my daughter's best friend. I found it very interesting seeing that it was the first full Requiem Mass I had been to. My wife was very critical of the priest who wouldn't allow non-Catholics to participate in the Eucharist. She felt that he should have shown more tolerance seeing that around half of the attendees were non-Catholics. She felt that the priest was implying that non-Catholics were not even Christians. Having said that, I would not have gone to the priest afterward and debated with him. That would have been very disrespectful of me. So I kept my mouth shut and enjoyed the wonderful spread of food afterward.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Landon Caeli

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 8, 2016
15,455
5,824
46
CA
✟561,158.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don't wonder. It is fabricated teaching in the form of "new revelation" received after the canon of the New Testament was closed.

The Catholic Church does not accept the possibility of "new revelation". I've never even heard of "new revelation".
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,333.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
If the Church proclaims something as a Revealed Truth, then it is as equally true as the Scriptures. The Holy Scriptures are equally authoritative as the Holy Church, for Catholics.

I don't expect others to accept this, but they should understand it.
By the way, as a matter of interest seeing that you mentioned "revealed truth", I have debated with Charismatics about their own versions of "new revelation" that are also not found in the pages of the New Testament. I have found that they have been just as adamant about the "truth" of their revelations, as the Catholic brethren on this thread are about their "revealed truth". It shows that Pentecostals and Charismatics have their traditions which they have added to the Scriptures, making them not Sola Scriptura, even though many are adamant that they are totally Bible believing.

I just wanted you to know that.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Landon Caeli
Upvote 0

Landon Caeli

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 8, 2016
15,455
5,824
46
CA
✟561,158.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I am biased actually. I subscribe to Sola Scriptura. This means that I believe that if it ain't in the Bible, then it ain't true.

I understand that if Catholic believers want to believe the Marian doctrines, then they are free to. I wouldn't go on to a protected Catholic forum and debate as I have done on this thread.

My intention of putting another point of view that is obviously disagreeable to some, is to show the silent majority of readers an alternative point of view to the Catholic one, and to let them form their own judgment about whether the Marian doctrines are true or not.

My wife was brought up and educated Catholic, and so I wouldn't dream of having this debate with her. I would be sleeping with the cat in the laundry if I did! :)

I recently attended a full Requiem Mass for the mother in law of my daughter's best friend. I found it very interesting seeing that it was the first full Requiem Mass I had been to. My wife was very critical of the priest who wouldn't allow non-Catholics to participate in the Eucharist. She felt that he should have shown more tolerance seeing that around half of the attendees were non-Catholics. She felt that the priest was implying that non-Catholics were not even Christians. Having said that, I would not have gone to the priest afterward and debated with him. That would have been very disrespectful of me. So I kept my mouth shut and enjoyed the wonderful spread of food afterward.

Well, it sounds like you don't actually *hate* Catholicism, or even Catholics. That's all I can ask for. :)
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,333.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
No it doesn't. It is simply your opinion, and you have already shown a willingness to change words in Scripture to reflect your doctrinal bias. You did exactly what you claimed the Catholic Church had done, without evidence of such.
Isn't this forum a venue for expressing our own opinions and beliefs? What concerns me is that instead of addressing the topic and my opinions concerning it, you are tending towards discrediting me, which is similar to a soccer player kicking other players instead of the ball. I think my views and questions are quite reasonable, and I have no problem with reasonable answers. The debate is not about me or you personally. It is about us putting our own views to allow the "jury" of the silent majority of readers to form their own judgment about which side of the debate is more believable.

The issue is our respective definitions of "blessed" in relation to what Elizabeth's prophetic word to Mary stated. Did it mean that Mary was a divine, sinless person who is to be worshiped and prayed to as the Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, or was she to be honoured as the woman who was to be the vessel to give birth to the Saviour of the world?

And I think that the absence of any mention of Mary as an object of veneration as the Queen of Heaven by Jesus or Paul, is a reasonable question that is the elephant in the room for Catholic believers for them to to address and find reasonable answers to. If their response is to kick the "messenger" instead of addressing the question, then it may show that they have no real answer, but are not willing that the question shows a flaw in the Marian doctrine.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,333.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
The Catholic Church does not accept the possibility of "new revelation". I've never even heard of "new revelation".
What I was trying to say is that the "revealed truth" that forms traditional doctrine, is roughly equivalent to the "new revelation" of the Charismatic New Apostolic Revelation movement, as well as the different prophecies of the Prosperity movement prophets. For them these are the "revealed truths" that they believe the Holy Spirit has revealed to them.

Although I have a Pentecostal theology, I am Sola Scriptura, and therefore I don't believe any of that "revealed truth" either.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.