What, if anything, is wrong with this picture?

[Valletta]

The issue isn't with what is written in Catholic catechisms, but how worshippers who are not well catechised could mistake the veneration of Mary based on her relationship with Christ as veneration/worship of Mary for her own merits as a creature. I am aware that Catholic dogma denounces idol worship and agree that followed properly Catholic practice does not amount to idolatry. Yet that does not mean that it is not common for lay worshippers to not be aware of the nuances in this regard and simply continue to practice their former idolatry in a Catholic dressing.

Christians throughout the world are sinners, and violate God's commandments. I can agree that those who don't appreciate and understand the Word of God as well as others are more likely to sin. I can't say whether there are more who sin by downplaying or who sin by overplaying Mary's role in God's plan. I don't want to get into what sins a particular religion is more likely to commit, I am busy enough fighting against sin in my own life.

 

[Fervent]

Not really. Protestants deny a special status of Mary and it did not lead to any protestant denial of the incarnation. This fear that we must create a kind of pantheon of saints and of their stories around Christ to keep the faith in Christ, is neither biblical nor a good idea. Its more similar to Phariseism, they practiced a similar way of life - they feared breaking the Mosaic Law, so created a wall of other commandments and rules around it.


Even when you are alive here and now, I will not pray to you, but only to God. Do you propose you will get some portion of God's job and power (for example omnipresence) after your death so that I should pray to you, then, instead of to God?

Jesus taught us clearly how to pray - "Our Father, ...". Prayers to people (or angels or whomever and whatever else) are against what He taught and apostles practiced.


A visit or at least watching some documentaries about catholics in South America, for example, can reveal what they really do in practice. But the idolatry is not so uncommon among catholics even in more developed countries.

The protestant view of the incarnation tends to be quite impoverished, a mere footnote that needs to be agreed with rather than the radical event that it was.

You don't make requests and petitions to fellow Christians for them to lift up to God? You don't seem to understand what Orthodox and Catholics are doing when they pray to the saints.

Again, it seems to me you're making an unfair caricature of Catholic practice rather than an informed criticism.

 

[Fervent]

Christians throughout the world are sinners, and violate God's commandments. I can agree that those who don't appreciate and understand the Word of God as well as others are more likely to sin. I can't say whether there are more who sin by downplaying or who sin by overplaying Mary's role in God's plan. I don't want to get into what sins a particular religion is more likely to commit, I am busy enough fighting against sin in my own life.

Are you not your brother's keeper?

 

[Valletta]

Are you not your brother's keeper?

I love to discuss God and God's plan and Christian history and consider myself an ecumenical-type person. I have learned a lot in discussions with those of many religions by such an approach. Name-calling and malicious accusations are counter-productive and almost always go nowhere.

 

[Fervent]

I love to discuss God and God's plan and Christian history and consider myself an ecumenical-type person. I have learned a lot in discussions with those of many religions by such an approach. Name-calling and malicious accusations are counter-productive and almost always go nowhere.

Certainly, name calling and malicious accusations are counter-productive to ecumenical dialogue. But raising concerns about certain practices and how and what they may encourage, including risk of idolatry, is not name calling or a malicious accusation.

 

[Valletta]

Certainly, name calling and malicious accusations are counter-productive to ecumenical dialogue. But raising concerns about certain practices and how and what they may encourage, including risk of idolatry, is not name calling or a malicious accusation.

Calling Catholics idolatrous is what was done, and that is a malicious accusation.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Calling Catholics idolatrous is what was done, and that is a malicious accusation.

It should be the dogma that's being called into question, rather than those who have been indoctrinated into it.

 

[Ceallaigh]

The protestant view of the incarnation tends to be quite impoverished, a mere footnote that needs to be agreed with rather than the radical event that it was.

You don't make requests and petitions to fellow Christians for them to lift up to God? You don't seem to understand what Orthodox and Catholics are doing when they pray to the saints.

Again, it seems to me you're making an unfair caricature of Catholic practice rather than an informed criticism.

I've heard praying to Mary and the saints is the same thing as asking fellow Christians to pray for something, but I see that as a false equivalency. Praying for one another as scripture instructs, isn't the same as interacting with the living spirits of dead people, which is not instructed in scripture. All of scripture makes it clear that prayer is to be directed to God, and that the only one in heaven who intercedes our prayers to God is God. The way I see it, praying to Mary and the saints is pure dogma that doesn't have any scriptural backing in any way whatsoever, including 2 Maccabees 15:11-17 which is the only proof text I recall being given for it.

I'm not saying that to attack Catholics or Catholicism. I don't believe in the Pentecostal belief regarding speaking in tongues either. But that hasn't stopped me from attending and loving a Pentecostal church for several years. The overall quality of what is taught there and the people in that church who demonstrate a deep love of Christ and desire to follow Him, far exceeds a particular doctrine I don't agree with.

 

[Fervent]

I've heard praying to Mary and the saints is the same thing as asking fellow Christians to pray for something, but I see that as a false equivalency. Praying for one another as scripture instructs, isn't the same as interacting with the living spirits of dead people, which is not instructed in scripture. All of scripture makes it clear that prayer is to be directed to God, and that the only one in heaven who intercedes our prayers to God is God. The way I see it, praying to Mary and the saints is pure dogma that doesn't have any scriptural backing in any way whatsoever, including 2 Maccabees 15:11-17 which is the only proof text I recall being given for it.

I'm not saying that to attack Catholics or Catholicism. I don't believe in the Pentecostal belief regarding speaking in tongues either. But that hasn't stopped me from attending and loving a Pentecostal church for several years. The overall quality of what is taught there and the people in that church who demonstrate a deep love of Christ and desire to follow Him, far exceeds a particular doctrine I don't agree with.

I'm not sure Biblical silence regarding the practice is necessarily a point against it, since the Bible can only be properly understood within the wider tradition it is a part of and prayer to saints via icons is a very early practice within that tradition. Though I'm not really keen on defending the practice, since it's not one I engage in as I'm not a Catholic or Orthodox. At any rate, it is often characterized as praying to the dead but its my understanding that within Orthodox and Catholic theology praying to the dead is frowned upon and the saints are held to be as alive as if they still were embodied. So they are not prayed to, but prayed with. And there is a Biblical basis for such a view, beginning with the saints in Revelation.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I'm not sure Biblical silence regarding the practice is necessarily a point against it, since the Bible can only be properly understood within the wider tradition it is a part of and prayer to saints via icons is a very early practice within that tradition. Though I'm not really keen on defending the practice, since it's not one I engage in as I'm not a Catholic or Orthodox. At any rate, it is often characterized as praying to the dead but its my understanding that within Orthodox and Catholic theology praying to the dead is frowned upon and the saints are held to be as alive as if they still were embodied. So they are not prayed to, but prayed with. And there is a Biblical basis for such a view, beginning with the saints in Revelation.

It's not an early practice as far as the apostolic fathers and their immediate successors go. Personally I don't see a good reason to practice something that was never taught or practiced in Christianity for over 300 years. The Trinity gets brought up whenever I say that, but that's a theological conclusion that's reached via a preponderance of scriptural evidence, as opposed to a practice which has none.

 

[Fervent]

It's not an early practice as far as the apostolic fathers and their immediate successors go. Personally I don't see a good reason to practice something that was never taught or practiced in Christianity for over 300 years. The Trinity gets brought up whenever I say that, but that's a theological conclusion that's reached via a preponderance of scriptural evidence, as opposed to a practice which has none.

There's evidence that people asked the earliest martyrs to pray for them, with the implication that it would continue after their martyrdom. There's also early evidence from burial sites in the 3rd century(so not quite your 300 years). So it quite possibly traces back to the "apostolic fathers", of course that is accepting the frame of the fathers being authoritative from their historic proximity to the apostles which isn't exactly how the Orthodox view the issue.

 

[Ceallaigh]

There's evidence that people asked the earliest martyrs to pray for them, with the implication that it would continue after their martyrdom. There's also early evidence from burial sites in the 3rd century(so not quite your 300 years). So it quite possibly traces back to the "apostolic fathers", of course that is accepting the frame of the fathers being authoritative from their historic proximity to the apostles which isn't exactly how the Orthodox view the issue.

That seems like tinuous evidence and conjecture, as opposed to a solid statement made by the early church.

 

[Fervent]

That seems like tinuous evidence and conjecture, as opposed to a solid statement made by the early church.

Not when the available evidence is considered, since expecting some kind of clear statement isn't likely until it became controversial. The fact that controversy regarding the practice is a late occurrence in an attempt to return to some imagined nascent church, rather than being opposed in its infancy speaks to the orthodoxy of the practice. There's no reason to expect more than what we have if the practice dates to the earliest church, but we would expect opposition that isn't there if it were something introduced later.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Not when the available evidence is considered, since expecting some kind of clear statement isn't likely until it became controversial. The fact that controversy regarding the practice is a late occurrence in an attempt to return to some imagined nascent church, rather than being opposed in its infancy speaks to the orthodoxy of the practice. There's no reason to expect more than what we have if the practice dates to the earliest church, but we would expect opposition that isn't there if it were something introduced later.

It seems unlikely to me that Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp etc would have only made any mention Mary if there had been a controversy involving Mariology and Marian practices in their time. As for opposition, what about Nestorianism? It seems very likely to me that Mary becoming such a prominent key figure in Christian doctrine and practice didn't get rolling until the 4th century.

 

[Valletta]

It seems unlikely to me that Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp etc would have only made any mention Mary if there had been a controversy involving Mariology and Marian practices. As for opposition, what about Nestorianism? It seems pretty obvious to me that Mary becoming such a prominent key figure in Christian doctrine and practice didn't get rolling until the 4th century.

Mary is quite prominent in the New Testament, there at important occasions with Jesus.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Mary is quite prominent in the New Testament, there at important occasions with Jesus.

I'm talking about prominence in post resurrection church writings, liturgy, doctrine and practice in the first two to three centuries of the church. It seems pretty clear that that didn't get rolling until the 4th century.

 

[Fervent]

It seems unlikely to me that Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp etc would have only made any mention Mary if there had been a controversy involving Mariology and Marian practices in their time. As for opposition, what about Nestorianism? It seems very likely to me that Mary becoming such a prominent key figure in Christian doctrine and practice didn't get rolling until the 4th century.

Given the difficulty that came with writing, it doesn't seem likely that ink would be spilled over something that was uncontroversial. Especially considering the circumstances most of the early writers were writing under, since they were not trying to lay out a compendium of Christian practices. Odd that you would reference a Christological error as a defense for minimizing Marian status, especially if your contention is that doing so does not lead to Christological errors.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Given the difficulty that came with writing, it doesn't seem likely that ink would be spilled over something that was uncontroversial. Especially considering the circumstances most of the early writers were writing under, since they were not trying to lay out a compendium of Christian practices. Odd that you would reference a Christological error as a defense for minimizing Marian status, especially if your contention is that doing so does not lead to Christological errors.

For that to follow it means all early church writing only addressed controversy. Is that really the case? Mary's status as it relates to Christology is scriptural and agreed upon by virtually all of Christianity. It's that which is not found in scripture or in any Christian literature until the 4th century, that's being questioned.

 

[Fervent]

For that to follow it means all early church writing only addressed controversy. Is that really the case? Mary's status as it relates to Christology is scriptural and agreed upon by virtually all of Christianity. It's that which is not found in scripture or in any Christian literature until the 4th century, that's being questioned.

The vast majority of it is aimed at controversies, not only among the apostolic fathers but even the NT itself. Writing material was expensive and writing was time consuming, so if there was no reason to address an issue it wouldn't be addressed which means that nearly everything from the time period regarding Christianity involves settling controversies.

 

[Ceallaigh]

The vast majority of it is aimed at controversies, not only among the apostolic fathers but even the NT itself. Writing material was expensive and writing was time consuming, so if there was no reason to address an issue it wouldn't be addressed which means that nearly everything from the time period regarding Christianity involves settling controversies.

Well I see that Ignatius wrote about the incarnation of Christ. What did he say about Mary in that?