Russell said...
Hello again De Maria,
It’ s good to hear from you.
Same here.
You said:
“It is perfectly Scriptural to ask Mary for prayer or anything we want. The principal is perfectly Scriptural although not expressly written in Scripture.”
We can both agree that it is not expressly written in Scripture,
Correct.
but on what basis do you say that it is “perfectly scriptural”? What scriptural principle do we find that would suggest this?
Imitation of Christ. Christ was Mary's little boy. He requested everything of her.
I agree with the first two points of your syllogism (that Jesus is our example and that He is also the Son of Mary), but certainly not your conclusion (that, because of this, we can ask Mary for anything we want). It just doesn’t follow. The only thing this “proves” is that each person can successfully ask his own mom for things.
Only if you ignore the following principles.
1. We are all beloved disciples of Jesus.
We believe that on the basis that Jesus is God. God is love. And God loves all of those who obey His Word:
John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
2. Jesus gave Mary to the beloved disciple (i.e. all of us) as mother.
John 19:27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! ....
3. And the disciple whom Jesus loves, accepted:
John 19:27....And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
4. In addition we hold that Gen 3:15 is a veiled reference to the Virgin Mary. And her Seed is both Jesus Christ and any and every person who holds the Commandments and the testimony of the Gospel.
5. Same with Rev 12:17.
Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
6. Mary is held as our mother in the beginning of Scripture, in the middle and in the end. Therefore, it is powerfully implied in Scripture that Mary is the mother of all who believe in God.
As far as the three points you used to bolster your argument, I agree with #1, that the saints in Heaven are alive, and with #3, that the prayer of the righteous is effective. But I have a problem with your understanding and usage of the concept of “communion with all the saints” in #2. In the chapter you mentioned (Romans 12), Paul is NOT speaking to, or about, the saints in Heaven, he is speaking about those on earth…
It doesn't matter. The principle is spiritually discerned. There are many things which the human authors did not know that the Spirit was revealing:
EXAMPLE:
1 Cor 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
The fact that this verse is in Scripture means that it is from the Holy Spirit. Every verse of Scripture is inspired by God. Yet, based upon this comment, St. Paul did not realize that this letter would be considered inspired Scripture.
In addition, the principle that all who believe in Christ are alive in heaven, applies.
John 11:26And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Also the principle in which you do not believe, that they are aware of that which happens on earth. The story of Lazarus and the Rich man clearly reveals Abraham, long dead, aware of what is happening on earth.
he is telling them to present their bodies as a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1), he is telling them to renew their minds (12:2), not to think of themselves more highly than they ought to (12:3), he speaks to them of their prophetic gifts (12:6-8). But none of this applies to the saints in Heaven.
Well, its not like that is an isolated Scripture.
Let's break it down.
1. Jesus says that all who believe in Him are alive even though they die (John 11:26).
2. Luke 16:24-31 reaveals that the Saints in heaven are aware of the events on earth.
3. 1 Tim 2:1 commands all believers to make intercessions for everyone.
4. Heb 12:21-23 says that when we are baptized, we become citizens on Mount Sion with the Saints whose spirits have been made perfect.
5. Again, the principle of SPIRITUAL DISCERNMENT applies (1 Cor 2:14).
Putting them all together, and there are more, we arrive at the conclusion that the Saints in heaven are ready, willing and able to intercede in our behalf.
And all throughout the rest of the chapter, it is very obvious that the “communion” he is dealing with is between church members here ON EARTH,
So, you are implying that "communion" with the saints ends here on earth? If I have understood you correctly, please provide the Scripture which supports that conclusion.
not any kind of communication with those who have gone on before us.
What does this say? Who are the men whose spirits have been made perfect?
Hebrews 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
So, you are taking this out of its context, and once again, your conclusion does not follow.
Wait? But don't you believe in Sola Scriptura? By what authority then do you tell me that my interpretation is illogical? You believe in a personal interpretation of Scripture, remember?
Therefore, all you can do, to be consistent in your beliefs, is say, "Oh! Is that what you believe?"
If that isn't true, then tell me why are you putting yourself above Scripture? Why do you want me to believe you and not the Word of God that I read in the Bible?
I mentioned that no one is ignoring Mary, and you said:
“When do you praise Mary? When do you pray to Mary?”
But this is a false dichotomy. You cannot say that a person only has those two options: Either, 1) ignore Mary, or 2) praise / pray to Mary.
I don't follow? How do you not ignore Mary if you don't praise her?
As I said earlier, we can “praise” Mary in the sense of acknowledging her role in obedience to God in being a humble servant and giving birth to, and raising, the Messiah.
Hm? I see. Try that with your earthly mom. Or with your wife. see what they say. Try acknowledging their existence without expressing your love.
You see, we believe in faith AND works. its not enough to work without expressions of faith. It is not enough to express our faith, without showing it in our works. That is the teaching of Scripture.
But avoiding praying to her does not equal “ignoring her.”
Yeah, it does.
You said:
“There’s a big difference between giving Mary the type of respect (hyperdulia) which the Scriptures demonstrate and the type of rejection of her which the Protestants offer.”
Again, you’re using a false dichotomy. Just because we are not praying to her, or not constantly praising her, does not mean that we are “rejecting” her.
Hm? You don't believe she is worthy of your praise or prayer, therefore you are rejecting her.
I had said that only God is prayed to in Scripture, and you mentioned as evidence against this that the angel Gabriel praises Mary, a saintly woman (Elizabeth) praises Mary, and that Mary, herself, declares that all generations will praise her.
Ok, that’s true, but you’re avoiding the point. I had said that only God is PRAYED TO… I didn’t say “praised.” You cannot find an example of someone in Scripture praying to Mary.
Praise is a form of prayer. At least for us. Perhaps this falls under the category of a difference in interpretation of the word, "pray".
I gave you several official Catholic sources to prove that Catholics indeed PRAY TO Mary and the saints, and that anyone denying this truth is playing word games. But you simply ignored the evidence
I agree that we pray to Mary and the Saints. I deny that we hold them equal to God or that we hold them up as idols, which is what you are implying.
I presented and said that it’s Protestants who play word games. But where’s the documentation that I am playing word games? Your lack of an argument is very telling.
I thought I presented a very cogent and powerful argument. Read my message again. I presented the dictionary definition of the word pray. I explained the Catholic explanation of the word pray. And I showed how you and all Protestants insist that pray means worship, but we don't hold you as authoritative. We have our own authority. The Church.
But again, since you don't hold to the authority of the Church, how do you claim to have the authority to tell us how to understand "prayer" and "worship"? By what authority do you hold yourself to be authoritative?
Therein lies one of the many inconsistencies of Sola Scriptura. Each one of you who believes in that lie holds yourself up as Pope. Sorry Russel, your opinion carries no weight here. I mean that in the most respectful way. Please do not be offended.
You mentioned looking up the definition of “pray” in a dictionary. That’s fine, but if you want the real meaning of biblical praying, we must look to the examples in the Bible, and these examples are also very telling. They are always directed to God, and Him alone.
How many examples must I provide? All you do is ignore what I say.
1. Scripture says, "Father Abraham, have mercy...."Luke 16:24
2. Moses and Elias talk to Jesus (Mark 9:4).
3. King David commands the angels to praise God (Psalm 148:2).
4. God sends an angel as intermediary between He and Mary (Luke 1:26-28).
5. The Holy Spirit uses a Saint as intermediary between He and Mary (Luke 1:41-42).
Etc. etc.
By the way, I’m glad that our discussions have generated some interest in the cyber world.
Looking forward to your response.
Thanks for the opportunity to exchange the Word of God with you.
In His Name,
Russell
We pray,
Sincerely,
De Maria
Beautiful!
ReplyDeleteGreat defense, De Maria!
I'll pray for Russell!
Thanks Mark. I also pray that Russel will come around someday.
DeleteI pray that your prayers for Russell's conversion remain unanswered.
DeleteAh, the illustrious role of Mary, our divine matriarch! It seems you've concocted a stirring defense of her status as the quintessential figure of intercession, one who merits not only our respect but also our relentless prayer requests. With the zeal of a bright-eyed theologian in a seminary class discussing the merits of Church tradition, you’ve laid your arguments out like an elaborate feast, hoping we’ll all partake in the rich flavors of Marian doctrine. And boy, do we have a lot to unpack here!
ReplyDeleteLet us begin with your veneration of the famous "behold your mother" line. I must say, the juxtaposition of the crucifixion—an event dripping with gravity—with the appeal to honor Mary raises some eyebrows. Jesus, amidst his suffering, turns his attention to care for his mother. One could argue that this is a poignant familial gesture, one loaded with cultural significance in first-century Mediterranean society; after all, following Jesus' death, Mary would be a widow and likely in need of support, not to mention the stake in the early Christian community. Yet somehow, this has spiraled into an all-encompassing mandate for Marian devotion. Shall we entertain the notion that Jesus might have just wanted to ensure his mother was taken care of rather than set the stage for centuries of theological debates about her status?
And let’s not skip past your interpretation of Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 12:17 as scriptural cornerstones for Mary’s elevated status. It’s quite the exegetical leap—especially when considering the original Hebrew of Genesis, which refers to “the seed of the woman” and has been interpreted in various ways, from a broader messianic prophecy to an allegorical reference to humanity and evil. Suddenly, we find ourselves in the epicenter of a cosmic battle—an ancient prophecy pitting the woman against the serpent, where Mary becomes the embodiment of the struggle. Very poetic! Yet, isn’t it slightly presumptuous to stake Mary as the sole protagonist in this drama rather than allowing the text to point toward a broader thematic tapestry of redemption applicable to all of humankind? And what about other interpretations suggesting that "the woman" might symbolize Israel or even the Church herself? I can practically hear the biblical scholars groaning!
Now, of course, this leads us to the much-debated subject of Mary as co-redemptrix. How utterly convenient it must be to ascribe her this title while simultaneously disregarding the simplest interpretation of salvation as a direct gift from Christ alone. It's almost like claiming that because Mary carried the Son of God, her role in redemption is more than just maternal; she becomes an active participant in the cosmic storyline of salvation history. “Hey, Jesus, thanks for being the Savior and all, but would you mind if we shared that title a bit?” Alright, that's a tad cheeky, but imagine the confusion it would create in ecclesiastical circles. One might wonder if her role was as a gracious host at the divine dinner table, holding open the door and saying to her only Son, “Welcome home, oh Savior! Let’s talk about your redemption plans!”
ReplyDeleteNow, circling back to your assertions about “spiritual discernment,” it’s rather amusing how we swing into the complex discussions of biblical interpretation. You make a keen observation—who gets to play gatekeeper when interpreting the text? This creates a delightful paradox: are we to follow merely the letter of the law or tap into the spirit behind it? Surely, we must allow for a bit of spiritual gymnastics! I can almost envision a theological Olympic event where contenders tussle over passages to declare their preferred interpretation of Mary’s role, complete with flashy moves and dramatic falls. “And here we have the solo interpretive dance of ’Is Mary the Queen of Heaven or Just a Significant Figure One Could Honor from Afar’! What grace! What poise!”
Then, there’s your tantalizing commentary about the cosmic family that spans generations. Mary as a mother figure for all believers—a delightful image! Perhaps we should roll out the cosmic family tree and start assigning roles at family reunions, but please, tell me: at what point does the familial association transform into an overwhelming sense of obligation to honor or pray to her? Should we consider a statute of limitations on how long we must call her mother without feeling guilty about ignoring her wishes? Aren’t the "Hail Marys" starting to sound a touch like collective guilt trips? It seems we’ve transitioned from a family dynamic to a heavenly obligation—a divine sense of pressure requiring us to keep Mary’s name rolling off our tongues with the frequency of a well-rehearsed chant.
Furthermore, let’s explore your assertion that neglecting to pray to Mary faces the same scrutiny as ignoring one’s earthly mother—oh, the sacrilege of cosmic maternal neglect! Surely it seems disingenuous to reframe spiritual engagement into familial duty. Isn’t this veering dangerously close to celestial familial manipulation? Because nothing screams “divine love” like a guilt-inducing cosmic showdown between a mother and her well-meaning children! Is heavenly peace contingent on our constant communication with Mary? Surely, God, in his infinite creativity, had other designs than to leave our spiritual state dangling on such a thin thread!
ReplyDeleteAnd in the grand finale, we arrive at your daring challenge concerning the authenticity of interpretations. How marvelously ironic it is to elevate personal interpretations while claiming exclusive access to scriptural veracity! You’re flirting with the very edges of theological relativity intended for the masses while wielding your interpretative prowess as a kind of subjective scepter. I can almost hear the crowd chant: “Interpret but don’t be interpreted!” We’ve truly arrived in a world where spirituality mirrors the wonderful chaos of a family dinner where everyone has a distinct opinion on the mashed potatoes but is still unified by the overreaching theme of togetherness.
So, ultimately, you have meticulously knitted a dense tapestry of arguments surrounding Mary’s role as both a maternal figure and intercessor, a worthy pursuit indeed! However, one must ask whether this entire endeavor has inadvertently catapulted us into theological pretzel logic—where Mother Mary, instead of exuding the grace of motherhood, becomes a cosmic life coach, ensuring we don’t miss our celestial appointments. Here’s a thought: perhaps we could liberate her from the burdensome mantle of expectation and revert to the simplicity of her original role—the mother of Jesus—without complicating her status beyond measure. Imagine that: a divine mother figure simply basking in her role instead of navigating the chaos of theological debates and celestial timelines!