Why do catholics pray to Mary

[Landon Caeli]

I think one of the difficulties is when Christians appropriate other labels and claim them exclusively. There is no doubt in my mind that all Christians are catholic, including the EOC and related branches and most Protestant branches. However, the branch of Christians which submit to the chap in Rome have attempted with a great deal of success to distance themselves from other branches of Christianity in their claims to be THE ONE TRUE and CATHOLIC CHURCH.

I think that has something to do with people who consider the Church to be a Holy institution in it's own right. Others it seems, don't consider a Holy institution to be real.

I think that's why there tends to be a focus on those who believe that, and those who don't, and that focal point is created by using special names or words, such as "Catholic", "Holy apastolic", "Orthodox", etc.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Matthew 16:18 has become the most controversial verse in the New Testament, IMO. It highlights the rift that has been created between Church and Faith. One that some believe should not exist, but yet has become the very basis for Protestantism.

...What's the rock?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I think that has something to do with people who consider the Church to be a Holy institution in it's own right. Others it seems, don't consider a Holy institution to be real.

I think that's why there tends to be a focus on those who believe that, and those who don't, and that focal point is created by using special names or words, such as "Catholic", "Holy apastolic", "Orthodox", etc.

Quite so. There are extremes to either view where some hold the Church and its leader at almost the same level of veneration as God and others at the other end of the spectrum who are quite latitudinarian in their ecclesiology.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

ugh, there is no Catholic Dogma that says this.

There is a canon in the Council of Trent that says that Christ has given the Pope authority to be His vicar on earth. Seeing that there is just one Christ whom all Christians trust in and worship, then it stands to reason that according to Trent, it is to apply to all Christians. When the canon in Trent was formulated, the Roman Catholic church was the dominant religious system, and much of the canons in Trent were to oppose the Reformation. So if the Roman Catholic church at the time viewed itself the only true Church and that those who weren't part of it were not Christians at all, then the teaching would have been that Pope is the vicar of Christ for all Christians. Vatican II ratified the Council of Trent, so doctrinally that hasn't changed, although some in the Catholic church have softened that approach somewhat.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Well, we can't really say that we denounce "Catholicism", because Catholicism includes adherence to the scriptures, as well as water baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit... Among other totally Christian things, such as faith in the Holy Trinity, etc.

To do so would be insulting to the whole of Christianity in that regard.

I know that this is somewhat off topic, but going off the original topic can make the thread more interesting and stimulating, especially after the pros and cons of praying to Mary has now been done to death.

Your comment about adherence to the Scriptures brings up another "elephant in the room". From the 4th Century until the Reformation, the Scriptures were in Latin, and copies were held in churches. This meant that only the clergy who were educated in Latin could read the Scriptures. The only way the common people could know what the Scriptures said was to hear the priest's interpretation of them, and of course, that would comply with Roman Catholic dogma which is a mixture of Scripture and infallible doctrinal determinations made by successive popes "ex-cathedra". If the Roman Catholic church really wanted its people to know the Scriptures, then why was William Tyndale burned at the stake for the crime of translating the Scriptures from Latin to English so that the common people could read them for themselves? In fact, in the 16th Century it was a capital crime to possess a copy of the Scriptures if it was anything other than Latin. Even the church services were in Latin, and therefore the common people had no idea of what was said. That's what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 14: "How can the people "amen" if they don't know what is being said?" He was referring to tongues, but the priest might as well be speaking in tongues in the Mass because no one would have been able to understand him and be able to say "amen" to the elements of the liturgy.

So, I am interested in how you reconcile the Catholic church's valuing of the Scriptures with the 16th Century executions of those who translated the Scriptures to German, French and English so that common people other than the priests could read and understand them.

 

[concretecamper]

There is a canon in the Council of Trent that says that Christ has given the Pope authority to be His vicar on earth. Seeing that there is just one Christ whom all Christians trust in and worship, then it stands to reason that according to Trent, it is to apply to all Christians. When the canon in Trent was formulated, the Roman Catholic church was the dominant religious system, and much of the canons in Trent were to oppose the Reformation. So if the Roman Catholic church at the time viewed itself the only true Church and that those who weren't part of it were not Christians at all, then the teaching would have been that Pope is the vicar of Christ for all Christians. Vatican II ratified the Council of Trent, so doctrinally that hasn't changed, although some in the Catholic church have softened that approach somewhat.

blah blah blah, there IS NO Dogma that says what you claim. Cite the Dogma instead of your opinion.

 

[concretecamper]

So, I am interested in how you reconcile the Catholic church's valuing of the Scriptures with the 16th Century executions of those who translated the Scriptures to German, French and English so that common people other than the priests could read and understand them.

because the literacy rate during the time period you referenced was about 5% max.The common people couldn't read. Ugh

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

because the literacy rate during the time period you referenced was about 5% max.The common people couldn't read. Ugh

Doesn't answer the question.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

blah blah blah, there IS NO Dogma that says what you claim. Cite the Dogma instead of your opinion.

I just read the Council of Trent.

 

[concretecamper]

Doesn't answer the question.

Too funny, translate to German so 95% or more of Germans can't read it. You're killing me

 

[concretecamper]

I just read the Council of Trent.

So, there is still no Dogma that says what you claim. If there were, you would have posted it already.

 

[Valletta]

Your comment about adherence to the Scriptures brings up another "elephant in the room". From the 4th Century until the Reformation, the Scriptures were in Latin, and copies were held in churches. This meant that only the clergy who were educated in Latin could read the Scriptures. The only way the common people could know what the Scriptures said was to hear the priest's interpretation of them, and of course, that would comply with Roman Catholic dogma which is a mixture of Scripture and infallible doctrinal determinations made by successive popes "ex-cathedra". If the Roman Catholic church really wanted its people to know the Scriptures, then why was William Tyndale burned at the stake for the crime of translating the Scriptures from Latin to English so that the common people could read them for themselves? In fact, in the 16th Century it was a capital crime to possess a copy of the Scriptures if it was anything other than Latin. Even the church services were in Latin, and therefore the common people had no idea of what was said. That's what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 14: "How can the people "amen" if they don't know what is being said?" He was referring to tongues, but the priest might as well be speaking in tongues in the Mass because no one would have been able to understand him and be able to say "amen" to the elements of the liturgy.

So, I am interested in how you reconcile the Catholic church's valuing of the Scriptures with the 16th Century executions of those who translated the Scriptures to German, French and English so that common people other than the priests could read and understand them.

After Latin surpassed Greek as the common language of the people, the Latin Vulgate under the direction of Saint Jerome became by far the standard Bible. "Vulgate" comes from "vulgar" or "common," meaning the common language of the people. Eventually Latin morphed into various languages such as Italian, Spanish, and French, and then came more translations by Catholics. There were Catholic translations of Biblical text in French, Bohemian, Danish, Polish, Hungarian, and Norwegian as well. In England long before Wycliffe and Tyndale, there were many translations of Biblical text by Catholics. To mention just a few of them, Venerable Bede, a Catholic monk, is perhaps the best known for his translation in the 700s. King Alfred the Great had not finished his translation of Psalms before he died, that would have been in the 800s. Now a lot of Biblical texts by Catholics have been destroyed, remember Protestants in England seized Catholic monasteries and gave the land to wealthy Protestants and much that was Catholic was sold or destroyed. But some do exist, you can find some of Alfred’s translations in a manuscript dated as around 1050. These are in the English of the Saxons: The Illustrated Psalms of Alfred the Great: The Old English Paris Psalter When the Normans took over the English changed, the paraphrase of Orm is dated around 1150 and is an example of a Catholic translation into Middle English. The Catholic Church has strongly defended the Bible, and took action over the centuries to prevent those who would add or subtract from the Word of God. Catholics had to flee England at one time in order to publish an English version (the Douay Rheims), they did so in France and suffered severe consequences for trying to smuggle English Bibles to the people of England. Eventually a Catholic named Gutenberg introduced the printing press, and, of course, the first book he printed was the Bible.

 

[prodromos]

The only way the common people could know what the Scriptures said was to hear the priest's interpretation of them

They heard the Scriptures read aloud in Church, and if they attend all the services they would hear the whole of the Scriptures over the course of a year or two. They would also hear a homily based on the Scriptures just as you would in Protestant Churches. If you don't believe Protestant pastors give their own doctrinal interpretation of the Scriptures in their sermons then I have a bridge for sale on Sydney Harbour you might be interested in.

 

[bbbbbbb]

They heard the Scriptures read aloud in Church, and if they attend all the services they would hear the whole of the Scriptures over the course of a year or two. They would also hear a homily based on the Scriptures just as you would in Protestant Churches. If you don't believe Protestant pastors give their own doctrinal interpretation of the Scriptures in their sermons then I have a bridge for sale on Sydney Harbour you might be interested in.

Would you toss in a curious piece of architectural sculpture near Sydney Harbor into the deal, as well?

 

[prodromos]

I went to catholic church until I was 10 and The Holy Spirit gave me understanding how what was being taught was wrong.

It always amazes me how the Holy Spirit supposedly teaches so many people mutually exclusive things. One person says the Holy Spirit led them out of one Church while another says they were led into the same. How can a person be sure that it is indeed the Holy Spirit since it obviously can't be, as the Holy Spirit does not contradict. We as Christians are supposed to be of one mind yet clearly we aren't. How do people discern which spirit is leading them? How do they test? Just claiming you were led by the Holy Spirit unfortunately means nothing to me as statistically all are not led by the same spirit.

 

[prodromos]

Would you toss in a curious piece of architectural sculpture near Sydney Harbor into the deal, as well?

My father-in-law helped with its construction, so I don't think my wife would let me sell it.

 

[bbbbbbb]

My father-in-law helped with its construction, so I don't think my wife would let me sell it.

 

[Valletta]

Quite so. There are extremes to either view where some hold the Church and its leader at almost the same level of veneration as God and others at the other end of the spectrum who are quite latitudinarian in their ecclesiology.

Jesus is God.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Jesus is God.

As is the Holy Spirit and the Father. There is no God but the triune God.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

As is the Holy Spirit and the Father. There is no God but the triune God.

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?