What about Hyperdulia?

[Frogster]

Only for those who don't understand it, or for those who don't want to understand it.

Did Peter practice hyperdulia, that you know of?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Did Peter practice hyperdulia, that you know of?

That has no relevance to my statement.

 

[judechild]

Ummmm..

Again....Judges 5:24
“Most blessed of women be Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, of tent-dwelling women most blessed.

Please sir, I already answered that; do you see the word "Kecaritwmenh" (κεχαριτωμενη - one who is full of Grace) in the Judges passage?

Second fact. Mary was born in Adam, which means she sinned, unless you can show me contrary to Rom 3:23, and where it says she was exempt from the "all' in Rom 5.

Infants and the mentally handicapped cannot sin; they have original sin, but that is not a fault of their own; God can save mary from this inherited degradation if He wants to. In addition, as I pointed out, the "all" is still a conditional as in "all Israel will be saved." Or again, Romans 5:12 says "Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all," we must wonder about Elijah (1 Kings 2:11) and Enoch (Gen. 5:24) if "all" literally means "every single person without the possibility of exception." One cannot be "Full of Grace" and also a sinner.

I again point out that Jesus was man, and He was without sin; that's one exception to the "all" in Romans 3:3 because sin (original and otherwise) did not apply to him. Is it possibile that God could prevent another?

Third fact, she was lower than the angels, as a part of the Adamic creation. So until you can disprove the clear president of scripture, you will just be repeating but not disproving.

I will not be repeating if you would be kind enough to answer my questions as well. For the fourth time, what is it that makes "us" lower than the angels? Is it only a sort of legalism: we have bodies, therefore, we are lower than angels?

 

[Frogster]

Please sir, I already answered that; do you see the word "Kecaritwmenh" (κεχαριτωμενη - one who is full of Grace) in the Judges passage?

A woman.

Infants and the mentally handicapped cannot sin; they have original sin, but that is not a fault of their own; God can save mary from this inherited degradation if He wants to. In addition, as I pointed out, the "all" is still a conditional as in "all Israel will be saved." Or again, Romans 5:12 says "Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all," we must wonder about Elijah (1 Kings 2:11) and Enoch (Gen. 5:24) if "all" literally means "every single person without the possibility of exception." One cannot be "Full of Grace" and also a sinner.

I again point out that Jesus was man, and He was without sin; that's one exception to the "all" in Romans 3:3 because sin (original and otherwise) did not apply to him. Is it possibile that God could prevent another?



I will not be repeating if you would be kind enough to answer my questions as well. For the fourth time, what is it that makes "us" lower than the angels? Is it only a sort of legalism: we have bodies, therefore, we are lower than angels?

It says this creation was lower than the angels. Hebrews is quite clear, it also makes no exempt status for mary, does it? It WAS NOT ABOUT LEGALISM. It is about creation order being spoken of In Heb 1 and 2. Supremecy is the theme in that part of the book.

I need facts please, not conjecture.

It says all, in Rom 3:23, and both in 3:9.

All..in Rom 5. Why no exemption for Mary? Did paul not know about Mary's exempt status?

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all
men because all sinned—

18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.


Thanks.

 

[Frogster]

That has no relevance to my statement.

Brings home a point though, why didn't the "first pope" teach about dulia? Why nothing about Mary in his letters? John did not either..as a matter of fact, nor did Paul!

Gimmie scripture to show dulia please.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Brings home a point though, why didn't the "first pope" teach about dulia? Why nothing about Mary in his letters? John did not either..as a matter of fact, nor did Paul!

Gimmie scripture to show dulia please.

I find your overuse of emoticons annoying.

Anyway, it's still irrelevant. Why didn't person X teach idea Y? It doesn't matter. There's a reason it's the Church, and not the Person. The Church is made up of many people, no one person has all the answers. When the Church comes together and exercises its authority, truth is determined. It produced the canon of the New Testament and has maintained the ancient Christian beliefs to this day.

 

[judechild]

A woman.

Yes, there is a woman, but do you see the word "κεχαριτωμενη" in the Judges passage?

It says this creation was lower than the angels.

It says which creation is lower than the angels? Angels are created beings too.

Hebrews is quite clear, it also makes no exempt status for mary, does it? It WAS NOT ABOUT LEGALISM. It is about creation order being spoken of In Heb 1 and 2. Supremecy is the theme in that part of the book.

Sure sounds like legalism to me. I asked you what makes us lower than the angels, and you respond that "it is about creation order... supremecy." But, why? Why are we lower than angels?

I need facts please, not conjecture.

It says all, in Rom 3:23, and both in 3:9.

All..in Rom 5. Why no exemption for Mary? Did paul not know about Mary's exempt status?

I'm sorry sir, but though Romans 5 says "and so death spread to all," the fact of the matter is that not all men died (Enoch, Elijah, etc). "Why no exemption for Mary?" Because she is no more relevent to the point Paul is making than Enoch and Elijah; unless, of course, you are saying that they actually did die. So, why no exemption for Enoch and Elijah? Paul is addressing his congregation, all of which have sinned.

The fact of the matter is that the word "all" being used cannot mean "every person without the possibility of exception" or else Romans 5 contradicts 1 Kings and Genesis. If there is a possibility in one aspect, there are in others.

18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

Indeed, and Mary knew this "my spirit rejoices in God, my savior." She needed salvation as well, she simply was saved from sin before the fact, instead of us, who are saved after.

 

[Frogster]

I find your overuse of emoticons annoying.

Anyway, it's still irrelevant. Why didn't person X teach idea Y? It doesn't matter. There's a reason it's the Church, and not the Person. The Church is made up of many people, no one person has all the answers. When the Church comes together and exercises its authority, truth is determined. It produced the canon of the New Testament and has maintained the ancient Christian beliefs to this day.

Why no teachings or mention of Mary from the epistles? Paul talked about head coverings, why not hyperdulia?

Hey, gimmie a break, I am Italian, and I talk with my hands, hence alot of emoticons

 

[judechild]

Why no teachings or mention of Mary from the epistles? Paul talked about head coverings, why not hyperdulia?

Quite a bit of that may be because Mary was still in her earthly life while many of the epistles were composed...

Of course, Mary does show up in the Book of Revelation and such.

 

[Frogster]

Yes, there is a woman, but do you see the word "κεχαριτωμενη" in the Judges passage?



It says which creation is lower than the angels? Angels are created beings too.



Sure sounds like legalism to me. I asked you what makes us lower than the angels, and you respond that "it is about creation order... supremecy." But, why? Why are we lower than angels?

It says that was the creation order in the text. Your adding, not me. Mary was part of that order. What other creation could she be in, but the humand Adamic creation?


Heb 2:7 You made him for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned him with glory and honor,

I'm sorry sir, but though Romans 5 says "and so death spread to all," the fact of the matter is that not all men died (Enoch, Elijah, etc). "Why no exemption for Mary?" Because she is no more relevent to the point Paul is making than Enoch and Elijah; unless, of course, you are saying that they actually did die. So, why no exemption for Enoch and Elijah? Paul is addressing his congregation, all of which have sinned.

The fact of the matter is that the word "all" being used cannot mean "every person without the possibility of exception" or else Romans 5 contradicts 1 Kings and Genesis. If there is a possibility in one aspect, there are in others.



Indeed, and Mary knew this "my spirit rejoices in God, my savior." She needed salvation as well, she simply was saved from sin before the fact, instead of us, who are saved after.

Enoch and Elijah would have died though.

Sorry, but those are imperative verses. It says all sinned, all were in Adam.

Why did Mary die?

1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

Does scripture call Mary a spotless lamb?

 

[Frogster]

Quite a bit of that may be because Mary was still in her earthly life while many of the epistles were composed...

Of course, Mary does show up in the Book of Revelation and such.

There was plent of time to mention Mary in the epistles. Mary in rev is highly debated, as surely you must know.

 

[judechild]

It says that was the creation order in the text. Your adding, not me. Mary was part of that order. What other creation could she be in, but the humand Adamic creation?

Okay, and so it's legalism to you; it's because of the creation order and that's the end of it. My view is different; it is because of relationships with God. Angels have superior relationships with God, and hence they are "higher." It has always interested me the Seraphim - the angel spirits closest to God - means "the burning ones;" God, of course, is seen as a fire in many parts of scripture.

Am I "adding" anything with that view?

Mary was human, yes, did I ever say differently? But she has a relationship that is unique among all of creation; she is Christ's own mother. Jesus created her, and he honored her perfectly; I honor her imperfectly, but still I try to pay her the honor Jesus gave her.

My question: did Jesus honor his mother?

Enoch and Elijah would have died though.

Genesis has an odd way of saying that, then; especially since all the others on the list are recorded "then he died."

Sorry, but those are imperative verses. It says all sinned, all were in Adam.

And "All Israel will be saved."

1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

Yes, and Mary was made alive by Christ, who created her "Full of Grace."

Does scripture call Mary a spotless lamb?[/quote]

She was not sacrificed for us, so she is not a lamb. Scripture calls her "full of Grace;" one cannot be full of Grace, and full of sin.

You forgot to answer "do you see the word "κεχαριτωμενη" in the Judges passage?

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

There was plent of time to mention Mary in the epistles. Mary in rev is highly debated, as surely you must know.

I would like to mention that while I was watching a show called "Angelica" on EWTN a couple days ago, she mentioned that everything the Church teaches either comes directly from scripture or it comes "indirectly" from Scripture, but non the less everything should have a SPOT in Scripture so if its not a direct reference I would assume that could at least give you the "Alluded" part of Scripture that helps support it.

 

[judechild]

There was plent of time to mention Mary in the epistles.

There was also plenty of time to mention the word "Trinity" but it doesn't appear either...

Mary in rev is highly debated, as surely you must know.

Which would make it a matter of interpretation, not of Scripture itself, so to say that we don't have scriptural support for what we believe is disingenuous.

 

[Frogster]

Okay, and so it's legalism to you; it's because of the creation order and that's the end of it. My view is different; it is because of relationships with God. Angels have superior relationships with God, and hence they are "higher." It has always interested me the Seraphim - the angel spirits closest to God - means "the burning ones;" God, of course, seen as a fire in many parts of scripture.

Do you admit the clear text, that man is lower than the angels,like it says?

Am I "adding" anything with that view?

Mary was human, yes, did I ever say differently? But she has a relationship that is unique among all of creation; she is Christ's own mother. Jesus created her, and he honored her perfectly; I honor her imperfectly, but still I try to pay her the honor Jesus gave her.

My question: did Jesus honor his mother?

Heb 2:7 You made him for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned him with glory and honor,



Genesis has an odd way of saying that, then; especially since all the others on the list are recorded "then he died."



And "All Israel will be saved."

Does scripture call Mary a spotless lamb?

She was not sacrificed for us, so she is not a lamb. Scripture calls her "full of Grace;" one cannot be full of Grace, and full of sin.

You forgot to answer "do you see the word "κεχαριτωμενη" in the Judges passage?[/QUOTE]

But your avoiding the simple text. Why did Mary die? The bible does not say that she was taken up? There seems to be alot of omission of her in the bible. The Holy Spirit took the time to talk about Enoch and Elijah, yet no Mary. Why?

Paul was full of grace, yet he sinned.

Colossians 1:29
For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me.

Give me something to go on, why I should exempt Mary from the Adamic creation? What other creation could she have been in?

Why didn't Paul omit her from the ALL?

By calling her sinless, you are creating a diety, that the scriptures show a contrary view.

 

[Frogster]

I would like to mention that while I was watching a show called "Angelica" on EWTN a couple days ago, she mentioned that everything the Church teaches either comes directly from scripture or it comes "indirectly" from Scripture, but non the less everything should have a SPOT in Scripture so if its not a direct reference I would assume that could at least give you the "Alluded" part of Scripture that helps support it.

I think I understand you? People can't argue from omission, because the argument is then based on something that does not exist.

I have posted clear imperatives of the bible. All sinned, etc.

The rebuttals are speculation.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

There was also plenty of time to mention the word "Trinity" but it doesn't appear either...

Which would make it a matter of interpretation, not of Scripture itself, so to say that we don't have scriptural support for what we believe is disingenuous.

Does that include the interpretations of the ECFs?

http://www.christianforums.com/t6730673-140/#post42616669
Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?

Their theology was wrong in many areas, there were many different interpretations of the same scriptures and in many cases they had next to NO access to bounce their ideas off of other great theological minds...So what gives? why the heavy leanings for understanding? Essentially the scriptures they used and the ones we use have remained unchanged, less some poor translations. It does not seem plausible to hang ones salvation on an early 3rds or 4th century interpretation of the same scripture we have NOW.

 

[Frogster]

There was also plenty of time to mention the word "Trinity" but it doesn't appear either...



Which would make it a matter of interpretation, not of Scripture itself, so to say that we don't have scriptural support for what we believe is disingenuous.

There are plenty of trinity verses though, where when read the obvious presumption can be known. Why no mention of her in the epistles?

Not even indirectly.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

There are plenty of trinity verses though, where when read the obvious presumption can be known. Why no mention of her in the epistles?

Not even indirectly.

The same goes for "gehenna"

http://www.christianforums.com/t7464995/
Why no mention of "gehenna" in Paul's Epistles?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Matthew 23:2 saying "upon the Seat of Moses are seated the Scribes and the Pharisees
Matt 23:33 "Serpents! produce of vipers! how? ye may be fleeing from the judging of the geennhV <1067>

 

[Eucharisted]

Excellent argument. I subscribe to it myself, except on some of the details at the bottom, namely, the assumption, although I do not deny the piety of it or condemn those who hold it as pious opinion. My objection is purely on the grounds that one must believe it in order to be in communion with a billion Catholics. It seems to me that whatever the merits of and safeguards built into Vatican I's statement on papal infallibility, the two 'infallible' of the pope- both on Mary- served no purpose than to institutionalize personal piety and thus put up further barriers between the church and its erstwhile sympathizes (myself first among them).

But I digress.

Your excellent argument, as you state it, does not show (because it cannot show?) why, however much we acknowledge and perhaps even venerate the Theotokos as the Queen of Heaven, we ought to pray for her intercession in various matters. Prayer venerating her is one thing, but prayer for her intercession is quite another.

Now, Scott Hahn argues in his book Hail, Holy Queen (which I thoroughly enjoyed, by the way) along these precise lines. He writes, in particular, that the Davidic Queen-Mother of Israel received intercessions on behalf of the Israelite people and took these petitions before the king. As with Bathsheba (an unfortunate example susceptible to Protestant polemic, much like the Queen of Heaven in light of Jer 44), so with the Blessed Virgin.

Now, I'm going to skip over a common Protestant argument even though I think it holds some weight. That argument is that we have direct access to God the Father through the theoanthropos and sole mediator, Jesus Christ. I would merely note two things about it: first, contra the Protestants, the Catholics do hold that Christ is the sole mediator, but make a distinction between mediator and intermediary (the merits of that distinction, which has implications for everything from prayers to the saints to the nature of the three-fold ordinate, can be explored elsewhere). But second, contra the Catholics, I would note that, Jesus Christ, truly hearing our prayers, and the Father, truly receiving them from the Son, does undercut the pragmatic nature of the ancient Israelite arrangement. After all, aggrieved persons could not always petition before the king, so the queen-mother was sought after as an intercessor precisely because the king did not have their ear (he was, after all, busy being a king and being entertained by his harem). This pragmatic arrangement is severely undercut by the most basic affirmation about the incarnation: that in Christ all the fullness of divinity- including omniscience- dwells bodily.

Well, that was less of a skipping over than I would have liked...

Nonetheless, I want to grant you that however much the position of a queen-mother intercessor is unnecessary, the arrangement may still stand. Standing, then, are we able to pray to the Queen of Heaven?

Now, the other Protestant argument that I am not just going to skip over, but expressly deny, is that the saints cannot hear us. Well, the saints in general may very well be unable to hear us. Who knows? But if the queen-mother's role as royal intercessor for the aggrieved still stands, than it only stands to logic that she can hear us.

However, this is the limits of what we can know by Scripture and logic, and however much I love holy tradition, that rarely convinces me on a matter, especially when the development of a tradition is not genuinely ecumenical and is fairly late.

So how far has the logic taken us?

First, I contend that this logic only really takes us to corporate intercessory prayer. Individual prayers are unwarranted by the reasoning.

Second, I contend that these corporate prayers are only applicable (perhaps even only heard!) within the context of Mary's role as the Davidic king, and therefore only in the cases of the specific, corporate grievances of the people of God.

Thus prayers for Marian intercession, inasmuch as they should be practiced, should take the form of public and corporate liturgical prayers for corporate and particular grievances, namely, disasters that have befallen Christian communities, especially persecution. That is all I find warranted by the argument.

I can understand your disagreement over the Assumption. On face value it seems like I'm throwing away Jesus' merits and Mary's merits and so forth, but I just wanted to present the Jewish origins of the Messiah's mommy. The fact that Elijah and Moses appeared to Jesus on the mountain represented the fact that Mary would assume into Heaven, at least in the sense that they believed the Ark would be found again in the New Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem would be in Heaven and Israel would be brought into Heaven. There's a lot of contradicting symbolism for the Mother of the Messiah - for example: she symbolizes both the Ark, which is in Jerusalem, and Jerusalem, which is said to house the Ark - but this is due to the contradicting prophecies of the Messiah - for example: the Messiah was suppose to be all at once the poorest man in the world and the wealthiest man in the world.

It is extraordinary that God fulfilled over ten thousand prophecies concerning the Messiah - not to mention all of the prophecies of His Mother! Literally every detail of the Messiah's life, even the most minute, fulfilled a prophecy: His parents' names, where He went, who He chose as Apostles, who He spoke parables to, the fact that a demonic was in a graveyard cutting himself all night, Pontius Pilate judging Him, the fact He was born during the Roman Empire, etc. It would take a minute control of the life, geography, environment, and nation of the Messiah to fulfill the prophecies, including those which contradict one another, and such control could only be done by a supernatural agent: Even the devils would not be able to pull it off. And we call this agent Divine Providence.

You said that a problem with Marian intercession is God's omniscience in Jesus Christ. But the problem with this argument is fourfold.

One: God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We receive everything from the Father through the Son. Yet is not the Father God just as the Son is God? So would not be proper to pray directly to the Father? Or, would it not even be proper to not pray to the Father through the Son but just to the Son? After all, both Persons are One God. But see this is what most non-Catholics don't understand: They mistake the "model" for the "work": They say, "The 'model' is like this, so the 'work' is wrong!" but forget that, because of the "model", the "work" is right. So just because Jesus is God, it doesn't mean He cannot act through Mary.

Two: Israel is the sign and instrument of God's salvation. God willed to bring all nations into Israel, just as He wills to bring all men into the Church, because He chose Israel to be the sign and instrument of His salvation, just as He chose the Church to be the sacrament of His salvation. In other words, God worked through Israel and now He works through the Church. God through Adam created Eve; God through Noah saved humankind; God through Abraham intervened for Sodom; God through Isaac brought forth Jacob; God through Jacob brought forth Israel; God through Moses brought plagues on Egypt and led Israel by the hand out of the land of bondage, gave the Commandments to Israel and pitched His tent amongst men; God through Joshua brought Israel into the Promised Land and conquered its enemies; God through the judges ruled over Israel; God through David, Solomon, and the other messiahs ruled over Israel; God through the messiahs' mothers interceded to the messiahs; God through the prophets reminded Israel of its sins and need for conversion and to live the Torah; God through Mary brought Jesus into the world; and God through Jesus fulfilled His promises and prophecies of old, and He continues His work through the Body of Christ, i.e., the Church. If, than, God works through men on Earth, why not through Mary in Heaven?

Three: The angels of Heaven. In many messianic prophecies, God speaks to His angels, asking them questions. Each time He does, they are baffled, wondering why an Omniscient God would need to inquire of something from creatures? But each time He does, God explains to them that, it isn't because He is not Omniscient, but because He wishes to reveal something to men, and so, work for man's salvation. The same goes for Mary. He could have willed to work another way, but, because He knew in His Wisdom that working through Mary would be to man's best interests and salvation, He so chooses to work through Mary, allowing her to intercede for man to Him.

Four: Mother of the Messiah, Mother of the world. While Mary does intercede at all times, she likewise praises God at all times. She is not so obsessed with man that she forgets God. But because she is His Mother, she is ours as well. Not only because of the universalization of Israel, nor only because Mary is a symbol of Israel, nor only because of the universal Redemption of man, nor only because of the Will of God to save all of mankind from destruction, but, in addition to all this, it is also because Jesus Christ has, within His Humanity, all of us: We are in Him, even while we are yet enemies, in a mysterious way due to the Mystery of the Incarnation. Because of our union in Him, we are all sons and daughters of Mary, spiritually before Baptism and actually at and after Baptism, so that, being children of Mary, we can, just as Jesus did, ask Mary for things. As she changed Jesus' diapers, she changes ours. As she brought Jesus to Jerusalem each year for Passover with Joseph, who led her there, so she brings us to Jerusalem each day for Mass with God the Father, who leads her there. Whatever she did for Christ, she does for us, being an exemplar of the Golden Rule and of those who live by the Will of the Father.