Praying to Mary - A Biblical Defense

[redleghunter]

He did refer to it as being ancient.

Forgive me...

The quote you gave did not indicate such.

 

[redleghunter]

I don't know about a biblical defense, but I've had an experience with the Holy Spirit as a result of praying the rosary so I know it's ok. Once God confirms something to you like that you can easily dismiss any arguments against it.

What do you test your experiences with?

 

[redleghunter]

Instead of asserting the usual anti-Catholic falsehoods, why don't you post prayers to mother goddess of fertility for an objective comparison.

It would be helpful to show any prayers recorded in Holy Scriptures directed towards anyone other than God. Over 200+ prayers in the Bible and all of them directed towards God. Zero towards others who are departed.

 

[amariselle]

I don't know about a biblical defense, but I've had an experience with the Holy Spirit as a result of praying the rosary so I know it's ok. Once God confirms something to you like that you can easily dismiss any arguments against it.

How do you know it's okay, if it doesn't agree with Scripture?

Acts 17:11

1 John 4:1

Many many people have powerful, even supernatural experiences, that does not mean such an experience is of God.

 

[frettr00]

How do you know it's okay, if it doesn't agree with Scripture?

Acts 17:11

1 John 4:1

Many many people have powerful, even supernatural experiences, that does not mean such an experience is of God.

And many people have experiences that do come from God. You're choosing to dismiss my experience as inauthentic because it does not agree with your interpretation of the bible. I suppose there's no way I can prove it to you though so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

May I ask... When you read the parable of the Good Samaritan, do you see the Inn as a reference to The Church, the Innkeeper as clergy? The wine and oil as part of The Holy Sacraments?

Forgive me...

There is one other inn exemplified in the new testament and that one had no room for our savior's birth and in His ministry He could find no place for rest. In birth as well as death He was outside the camp Exodus 33:7; Hebrews 13:11-13 Yet for those who would do His bidding of giving even a glassful of water to the least will be fully recompenced at His return. That doesn't apply to clergy it applies to everyone in the power of the gospel and the Holy Spirit.

 

[redleghunter]

I take it then that the Church of Rome does not explain the Good Samaritan in the same way. I reached all the way back to St. John Chrysostom. Did the Roman Church drop the ball there?

Forgive me..

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. St. John Chrysostom did indeed employ the steps of exegesis in his sermon.

The process of exegesis involves 1) observation: what does the passage say? 2) interpretation: what does the passage mean? 3) correlation: how does the passage relate to the rest of the Bible? and 4) application: how should this passage affect my life?

And notice how Chrysostom ties up his commentary nicely as from your quoted post:

When he left on the next day he gave the innkeeper two dinars and said, ‘Take care of him’
– After His ascension Christ entrusted mankind to the Apostolic Synod personified by its great apostle to the Gentiles, St Paul, and “through Paul to the high priests and teachers and ministers of each church,” saying: “Take care of the Gentiles whom I have given to you in the Church. Since men are sick, wounded by sin, heal them, putting on them a stone plaster, that is, the prophetic sayings and the gospel teachings, making them whole through the admonitions and exhortations of the Old and New Testaments.”

Nicely tied back to the Holy Scriptures "the ground and pillar of our faith..." (St Irenaeus Against Heresies Book III. Chapter I)

 

[redleghunter]

And many people have experiences that do come from God. You're choosing to dismiss my experience as inauthentic because it does not agree with your interpretation of the bible. I suppose there's no way I can prove it to you though so I'll leave it at that.

I think the point is the following:

1 John 4:1 English Standard Version (ESV)


4 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

 

[kepha31]

As @amariselle points out the parable has a context to the discussion at hand. Jesus was asked 'who is my neighbor.'

Your allusions to objects as institutions is the very definition of eisegesis. Which I believe is the cause for so much confusion and miscommunication in these threads with Catholics and Orthodox. Many of the traditions cited from Scriptures are determined by a doctrinal development which reaches back to a portion of Scriptures for support. This is the very definition of eisegesis and why these conversations go nowhere very fast.

When properly looking at the text at hand, we must consider first the very plain words and then the context knowing that our God is not a God of confusion and will not contradict His words.

For reference purposes for those not exposed to the definitions of exegesis and vv I offer a "101" definitions:

Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

Eisegesis is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants. Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words.

Second Timothy 2:15 commands us to use exegetical methods: “Present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” An honest student of the Bible will be an exegete, allowing the text to speak for itself. Eisegesis easily lends itself to error, as the would-be interpreter attempts to align the text with his own preconceived notions. Exegesis allows us to agree with the Bible; eisegesis seeks to force the Bible to agree with us.

More at link below with two very good examples:

What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?

You give good definitions, but your definition of Tradition is typically Protestant, and it's wrong. See my signature.
"call no man father" to prove it's wrong to call priests "father" is a classic example of eisegesis, biblical illiterates do it all the time.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Your allusions to objects as institutions is the very definition of eisegesis. Which I believe is the cause for so much confusion and miscommunication in these threads with Catholics and Orthodox. Many of the traditions cited from Scriptures are determined by a doctrinal development which reaches back to a portion of Scriptures for support. This is the very definition of eisegesis and why these conversations go nowhere very fast.

That's a very good point. We should look to scripture to create and identify doctrine. The horse should lead the cart, not the other way around.

 

[amariselle]

And many people have experiences that do come from God. You're choosing to dismiss my experience as inauthentic because it does not agree with your interpretation of the bible. I suppose there's no way I can prove it to you though so I'll leave it at that.

I asked you a specific question. I don't recall "dismissing" anything.

 

[kepha31]

How do you come to this conclusion?

Here's the text:

Matthew 12: NABRE

46 While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with him. 47 [Someone told him, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, asking to speak with you."] 48 But he said in reply to the one who told him, “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” 49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

How is Jesus using His family members as 'models of faith because they did the will of God?"

We have evidence to the contrary:

John 7: NABRE

1 After this, Jesus moved about within Galilee; but he did not wish to travel in Judea, because the Jews were trying to kill him. 2 But the Jewish feast of Tabernacles was near. 3 So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. 4 No one works in secret if he wants to be known publicly. If you do these things, manifest yourself to the world.” 5 For his brothers did not believe in him. 6 So Jesus said to them, “My time is not yet here, but the time is always right for you. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me, because I testify to it that its works are evil. 8 You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, because my time has not yet been fulfilled.” 9 After he had said this, he stayed on in Galilee.

Are you saying Mary did not do the will of God when she said, "Be it done unto me according to thy word"??? Luke 1:38.
We are all like Mary when we do the will of God as she did. Jesus is not denigrating His mother by dragging her down to the level of those who so not do the will of God. No. He is building up all those who do the will of God, using His mother (and brothers) as an example. That's the point of Marian devotion you refuse to understand.

Your "brothers" argument to prove Jesus had siblings has been refuted 50 times on this thread. Jesus is not talking about non-existing siblings but YOU, ME, AND CERTAIN CLOSE RELATIVES as "brothers". If you are a "brother in the Lord" does that make you a biological brother of Jesus? The question is as absurd as your phony evidence.

The term “brother” is used in the Gospels because these particular men were known BY THIS TITLE in the early Church. I give you: 1 Corinthians 9:4-5, in which Paul is defending his right to be called an apostle:

“Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, AND THE BROTHERS OF THE LORD, and Kephas (i.e., Peter)?”

Since Paul is writing to Corinthians: citizens of a city in far off Greece, it is obvious that the distinguishing TITLE of “brother” was well known to the universal Church, a Church which also knew very well what the title meant.

You refuse to accept what it meant.
Jesus Brothers and Mary's Perpetual Virginity -- Catholic Apologetics, Philosophy, Spirituality

 

[PeaceB]

31 Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the Lord your God. - Leviticus 19:31

6 And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people. - Leviticus 20:6

9 When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.

10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.

11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee. - Deuteronomy 18:9-10

19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? - Isaiah 8:19

Refer to the Scripture above. I am not giving my "interpretation."

None of the above Scripture verses contradicts Catholic faith or practice.

 

[Goatee]

These arguments keep popping up continuously on these forums. CATHOLICS give the correct answers but still you get the Sola Scripture brigade thinking only they are correct!

 

[PeaceB]

It would be helpful to show any prayers recorded in Holy Scriptures directed towards anyone other than God. Over 200+ prayers in the Bible and all of them directed towards God. Zero towards others who are departed.

Post #188. Asked and answered.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Are you saying Mary did not do the will of God

No, what he's saying is that the scripture you sighted doesn't support your conclusion. You are taking two completely unrelated things and asserting that the second was affirmation of the first, when not only is there no causation, there's not even a correlation or a mention of the first in the second.

My wife was bit by a dog when she was four years old. This morning I told a friend how much I love my wife. According to the line of reason you used here, I was declaring my love for people mauled by dogs during their childhood.

 

[amariselle]

None of the above Scripture verses contradicts Catholic faith or practice.

Explain how they don't.

 

[Goatee]

One charge made against it is that the saints in heaven cannot even hear our prayers, making it useless to ask for their intercession. However, this is not true. As Scripture indicates, those in heaven are aware of the prayers of those on earth. This can be seen, for example, in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of "golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.

Sometimes Fundamentalists object to asking our fellow Christians in heaven to pray for us by declaring that God has forbidden contact with the dead in passages such as Deuteronomy 18:10–11. In fact, he has not, because he at times has given it—for example, when he had Moses and Elijah appear with Christ to the disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3). What God has forbidden is necromantic practice of conjuring up spirits. "There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. . . . For these nations, which you are about to dispossess, give heed to soothsayers and to diviners; but as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you so to do. The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren—him you shall heed" (Deut. 18:10–15).

God thus indicates that one is not to conjure the dead for purposes of gaining information; one is to look to God’s prophets instead. Thus one is not to hold a seance. But anyone with an ounce of common sense can discern the vast qualitative difference between holding a seance to have the dead speak through you and a son humbly saying at his mother’s grave, "Mom, please pray to Jesus for me; I’m having a real problem right now." The difference between the two is the difference between night and day. One is an occult practice bent on getting secret information; the other is a humble request for a loved one to pray to God on one’s behalf.

The answer is: "Of course one should pray directly to Jesus!" But that does not mean it is not also a good thing to ask others to pray for one as well. Ultimately, the "go-directly-to-Jesus" objection boomerangs back on the one who makes it: Why should we ask any Christian, in heaven or on earth, to pray for us when we can ask Jesus directly? If the mere fact that we can go straight to Jesus proved that we should ask no Christian in heaven to pray for us then it would also prove that we should ask no Christian on earth to pray for us.

Praying for each other is simply part of what Christians do. As we saw, in 1 Timothy 2:1–4, Paul strongly encouraged Christians to intercede for many different things, and that passage is by no means unique in his writings. Elsewhere Paul directly asks others to pray for him (Rom. 15:30–32, Eph. 6:18–20, Col. 4:3, 1 Thess. 5:25, 2 Thess. 3:1), and he assured them that he was praying for them as well (2 Thess. 1:11). Most fundamentally, Jesus himself required us to pray for others, and not only for those who asked us to do so (Matt. 5:44).

The Bible directs us to invoke those in heaven and ask them to pray with us. Thus in Psalms 103, we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21). And in Psalms 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2).

Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, we read: "[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3-4).

Source

 

[PeaceB]

Theology by silence?

No. I provided Scripture in support of my position. She rejects my conclusions. She provided Scripture in support of her position, and I rejected her conclusions. The only difference is that I do not equate my own personal interpretations of Scripture with the inspired Word of God itself, and can therefore accept the fact that others interpret Scripture differently than I do. For all practical purposes she seems to believe that her interpretations are equal to the Word of God, and that is likely why she cannot accept the fact that we do not bow down and treat her conclusions as though they are Scripture.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You give good definitions, but your definition of Tradition is typically Protestant, and it's wrong. See my signature.
"call no man father" to prove it's wrong to call priests "father" is a classic example of eisegesis, biblical illiterates do it all the time.

So you are saying that nobody in the Catholic Church finds it acceptable to call certain spiritual men as father?

Are you saying that a common thing in the Catholic Church that the Bible warns us against is just a coincidence or what?

...