Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Asking the Wrong Marian Questions ...

It seems as though whenever we bring up the subject of Roman Catholics worshiping Mary, someone who is a Roman Catholic will say: "Go to your local parish, and as people are leaving Mass, ask them if they worship Mary!" Their expectation, of course, is that the folks at the local parish will say that they do not worship Mary.

The problem with this question (beyond the fact that folks leaving Mass don't really want to be nagged with questions, they have places to be!) is that if we changed the question to: "Do you say the Hail Mary," we'd get exactly the opposite result - and praying the Hail Mary to Mary is one way by which people worship Mary. If we changed the question to: "Did you place any candles at Mary's side altar," we would still get a lot of affirmations. That too is an act of worship - an act of religious devotion.

The importance of asking the right Marian question is highlighted in this paragraph:
I asked the women I talked to as part of my research, "Do you think that she's more important than God?" and they say, "Oh, no." But if you say to them, "When you pray, whom do you pray to?" they say, "Guadalupe, Mary." I say, "Why would you go to her with things that you would not go to God with?" "Because she's a woman, she understands."
(source)

It is great that the women recognize that Mary is less important than God - it is sad that they think that Mary is more understanding than God - it is sad that when they pray, they pray to Mary. This particular researcher does not seem to have asked the direct question, "Do you worship Mary," but the question is answered indirectly by identifying the object of the women's prayers.

I realize you may still have doubts. Consider the story told at the conclusion of the same article:
I'll tell you this story. I was with a Spanish priest, and he was showing me around the basilica and there was this old man on the side. The priest said, "Hombre, what are you doing here?" And the old man said, I want to pray to the Lady." The priest replied, "Well, I don't see you praying." And the old man admitted, "Oh, Father, I don't know how to pray." So Father said, "OK, here's a prayer book." The old man said, "I don't know how to read," and then the priest starts yelling at him, "Well, what are you doing here?" And the old man said, "You know, it's just enough for me to look in her face."
Shouldn't those words, "it's just enough for me to look in her face," help people to see that what is going on here is not the Christian religion but idolatry?

The author of the article, a Roman Catholic, explains in the article how people ask him to pray for them to Mary - so many that he keeps a notebook with their requests. He even suggests that, though he did not pray for it, a serious illness he had may have been cured by making the pilgrimage to the shrine where this particular idol is displayed.

At that point he said:
I was able to surrender, to say to Guadalupe, "You more than anyone know what it is that I need or want. Just give me the strength to be open to that."
Is not the blasphemy of that claim transparent?

Contrast:

Ephesians 3:20-21
Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen

And following that up with a similar manifestation of the Christian religion, I shall conclude this article.

Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. (1 Timothy 1:17)

-TurretinFan

48 comments:

R_Estrada said...

This is just so sad, its like old testament pagan, idol worship all over again.
I recently heard a sermon by Tim Keller in which he addresses ministers and the need to expose idolatry in our gospel presentations. The idolatry being described in this article is just so blatant.
I recently heard a sermon by Tim Keller from the gospel coalition podcast in which he addresses ministers and basically says that ministers must expose idols when preaching.

Bennett Willis said...

"Shouldn't those words, "it's just enough for me to look in her face," help people to see that what is going on here is not the Christian religion but idolatry?"

Somehow, I don't think that this statement will be a problem on the day of judgment. It might even get a hug. This presumes that it was not an embellishment.

Turretinfan said...

A hug from whom? Others whose mode of prayer is to stare at lifeless images?

natamllc said...

I don't know TF if this is a natural extension from the Gideon gladness thread, but in any event, it seems one should go to that thread and read R. Scott Clark's comments about "idolatry" and the idol that was made from somebody's imagination of what Jesus might have looked like that was hit by a bolt of lightening and burnt up?

I was struck with some of the comments, presumably of members of that Church body and the dismay they expressed towards God that God would strike out at an imaginary representation of His Son's human likeness praying with lifted hands to heaven contrary to His Word prohibiting the making of images and likenesses of God?

The verse that struck me was the reference from Luke's Gospel:


Luk 16:16 "The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it.
Luk 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void.

For me, though, it is completely understandable that weak folks strong in their own carnal desires for God would be drawn away from the Truth completely blinded by the lies of the devils spewing forth their deceitfulness against the Truth and His Manifest Glory and Presence. It's just human nature until one is born again and then, most likely the nature of sin becomes even more sinful as the Apostle witnessed of himself when the Law of Righteousness came alive within himself, too.

Bennett Willis said...

Ah, TF. A reply right out of your profile picture. :)

I remain unconvinced that anyone actually uttered the words that were quoted. However the person who would say those words is doing the best he can to worship the God that he knows. He is doing better than most of us do.

If he is among the elect, I'm sure this is either adequate or the minor adjustment in his worship will come. If he is not, then nothing matters and he is doomed to an eternity of torment. So let him have the comfort that looking at the symbol of Christ's Mother gives him.

Turretinfan said...

"I remain unconvinced that anyone actually uttered the words that were quoted."

Why would the Roman Catholic author of the article fabricate them?

"the person who would say those words is doing the best he can to worship the God that he knows. He is doing better than most of us do."

Salvation isn't obtained by our efforts, even our best efforts. Nor when there is clear teaching, are best intentions good enough. Uzzah had the best of intentions, God struck him dead.

-TurretinFan

Bennett Willis said...

Same reason that Baptists or ex-Muslims fabricate things. How can you ask such a question after your careful experiences with EC's life?

The words are just too tidy. Which is not to say that something along this line did not happen, just probably not so neatly. The RC author was making a positive statement (his point of view)so he would be motivated to shape the story to make it fit his point.

Are we talking about salvation or worship? I thought we were talking about worship.

Your argument about "clear teaching" is rejected out of hand for the fellow in the story. :) He could not read so he had only the teachings of his church to go by. Or is this the point that RC theology is fatally flawed--but how do the illiterate elect deal with that problem. Are there no elect in the RC camp?

There are so many problems when you start looking for them. If you work it right you will never have to actually deal with real people and their problems--you can just deal with paper ones.

I have no sympathy for the person who can read the scriptures and who decides to "worship" Our Lady of Guadalupe--or even to pray to her. He or she should know better because they can know better. But if you go to the shrine in Mexico City and look at the bright colors of the garment in its display case you should have an understanding of how it affects the people who see it.

Adam said...

Turretinfan,

It seems as though whenever we bring up the subject of Roman Catholics worshiping Mary, someone who is a Roman Catholic will say: "Go to your local parish, and as people are leaving Mass, ask them if they worship Mary!" Their expectation, of course, is that the folks at the local parish will say that they do not worship Mary.

Reminds me of someone who told me once that 75% of criminals in prison say they are innocent. I would liken this statement to a defense attourney saying to the jury in court, "Do you want to know if my client killed someone? Just ask him!"

While I believe Roman Catholics when they tell me that they do not believe they are worshipping Mary, what they do is really strange, and really dangerous.

However, it almost seems like the root of this is Tradition. Because Tradition either becomes a supplement of Biblical revelation or the lens through which we must look at Biblical revelation, it adds a different element not found in the scriptures. This is, I believe, the whole reason for all of the strange Roman Catholic practices concerning Mary.

God Bless,
Adam

Turretinfan said...

Adam:

Part of the issue, of course, is that for answers to questions to be meaningful, both the questioner and the person questioned must be using the words the same way.

That's why it is helpful to say something like "pray the Rosary" or "put candles on the side altar," because it avoids the problem of two different vocabularies.

-TurretinFan

Four* Pointer said...

Are we talking about salvation or worship? I thought we were talking about worship.

But, if one's worship is directed at one other than God, then they are not saved. Agreed?

However the person who would say those words is doing the best he can to worship the God that he knows. He is doing better than most of us do

Your argument about "clear teaching" is rejected out of hand for the fellow in the story. :) He could not read so he had only the teachings of his church to go by.

The same thing could be said for the person who "only has the teachings" of the Mormon church, or the Watchtower Society, or Herbert W. Armstrong. "It's not their fault; they grew up in Salt Lake City, in a Mormon household. They did the best they could, because that's all they knew--surely God understands!"

Jesus, in His teachings, makes it clear that even if someone "only has the teachings" of a certain religious camp, and they continue believing that way, they are still doomed. Matthew 23:15--"15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves."

There are many whose beliefs are "well-intentioned" and who spend their lives worshipping a false idea about God. Sadly, though, as TF has said already, we are not saved by our "good intentions." As Paul said, God "has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace" (2nd Timothy 1:9).

Bennett Willis said...

You are cheerfully ignoring the problem of election with the groups you mention. Are there no elect among good RC's? Are there no elect among the Mormons? Do those who practice these faiths to the end only come from the condemned from the start?

Turretinfan said...

God does not simply elect, he also brings the elect to saving faith. The sheep hear his voice, though they may not hear it for many years.

Incidentally, there is a very really and significant difference between the Mormon church and the Roman Church in terms of the degree of error. For example, Rome teaches many true things about God, including some things that Mormonism denies.

-TurretinFan

Bennett Willis said...

So those who persevere to the end in their wrongness were simply not elected from the start? And they are condemned to eternal damnation? Silly question on my part--added just for emphasis and clarity.

I don't have to continue this thread if it is a distraction from your post. I am interested in the responses. I'm not simply being difficult--even though I am being difficult. :)

Turretinfan said...

"So those who persevere to the end in their wrongness were simply not elected from the start?"

I'm not sure why you add "simply," but yes. If God leaves men in their sin until their death, that implies he did not choose to save them from their sin.

"And they are condemned to eternal damnation?"

Yes. That's the only kind of damnation that sinners are condemned to.

"Silly question on my part--added just for emphasis and clarity."

ok

"I don't have to continue this thread if it is a distraction from your post. I am interested in the responses. I'm not simply being difficult--even though I am being difficult. :)"

No problem.

Ryan said...

A RC tried to tell me Psalm 45:16-17 referred to Mary just the other day.

Constantine said...

A RC tried to tell me Psalm 45:16-17 referred to Mary just the other day.

Shouldn't be too hard on the RC's when it comes to the OT. Remember that in addition to their being prohibited from private reading of the Bible, more than 99% of the OT was censored from the Missale Romanum which was read at their masses from 1570 until 1970.

This is all new to them.

Peace.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"The author of the article, a Roman Catholic, explains in the article how people ask him to pray for them to Mary - so many that he keeps a notebook with their requests."

I wonder if there are other Roman Catholic priests who receive Marian requests such as these. I should imagine there are. And I wonder how widespread this practice is.

Andrew Suttles said...

> "The author of the article, a Roman Catholic, explains in the article how people ask him to pray for them to Mary - so many that he keeps a notebook with their requests."

Wow, that is a lot of mediators. The priest is a mediator between the sinner and Mary, then Mary becomes the mediator between the priest and The Son of God, and the Christ becomes the mediator before The Father? Why so many?

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus 2 Tim 2:5

Turretinfan said...

Possibly the priest is also viewed as a mediator, but the merits being pressed are mostly those of Mary.

Four* Pointer said...

Bennett,

To answer your question, So those who persevere to the end in their wrongness were simply not elected from the start?

That is correct. The apostle that Jesus loved makes that very clear in his first epistle.

1st John 3:9--Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.
1st John 5:4--For whatever is born of God overcomes the world.
1st John 5:18--We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him.

If one is of the elect, they will not worship anyone other than God, and they will not worship false ideas of God. That said, there may indeed be some who are sitting in Roman Catholic churches, or Mormon churches, or even Kingdom Halls, who do not believe everything their bishop/stake president/overseer/what-have-you teaches (Believe me on this. I have dialogued with many Mormons who do not believe everything they are taught by Salt Lake City).

If a person is of the elect, they will worship the true God, and no one else. If, however, the person continues sinning by worshipping a false god, then they are the ones John talked about in the aforementioned epistle, 1st John 2:19--They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

Coram Deo said...

TF,

On this note, what are your thoughts on the modern-day meanings associated with the RCC/EOC designation of Mary as "Theotokos"?

How, if at all, does the RCC/EOC employ the term differently than it was utilized in patristic writings (e.g. Athanasius, Gregory, Chrysostom and Augustine)?

In Him,
CD

Turretinfan said...

The term means "god-bearer" and was designed to distinguish Christian orthodoxy from a non-Christian view that Jesus was burn human and subsequently joined to the second person of the Trinity.

The term "mother of God" inadequately captures that, and leads to the kind of nonsense we see today.

Adam said...

Ryan,

A RC tried to tell me Psalm 45:16-17 referred to Mary just the other day.

That's the most absurd thing I have ever heard. In verses 16 and 17, we know who the "your" is there. You see, Hebrew has both a masculine and a feminine second person singular. The second person suffixes in verses 16 and 17 are masculine, and thus, could not be referring back to the daughter of verse 13. The most probable referent is to the king.

Watching the gender of second persons is important. For example, when you read the Song of Songs, you know when the woman is speaking and when the man is speaking by the genders of the second person that are used.

I am absolutely amazed at the horrendous interpretations of the Hebrew Bible by Roman Catholics when they try to prove the Marian dogmas. The weird thing is that there are/were many good Catholic Hebraists-Michael O'Connor, Father Mitchell Pacqua, and one of the best in Aramaic in Father Joseph Fitzmayer just to name a few. Because of that, it is amazing to see how shallow some of these exegeses of the Hebrew Bible can be. They have plenty of good material within the Roman Catholic Church to refute these strange notions.

God Bless,
Adam

Ryan said...

"You see, Hebrew has both a masculine and a feminine second person singular."

Yea, I told him that (cited Wallace) and that Hebrews 1 isn't a reference to Mary. He shut up :)

John Bugay said...

You ought to look up Mary's "Immaculate Foot," crushing the head of the serpent, in Gen 3:15.

Adam said...

John Bugay,

You ought to look up Mary's "Immaculate Foot," crushing the head of the serpent, in Gen 3:15.

Wow, that is just as bad. Yes, it says the seed of the woman [the one mentioned in the garden of Eden], not the foot of a woman that would not come into existence for millenia later.

There are times I just want to yell, "Leave the Old Testament alone!" It is the object of abuse by way too many people, and Roman Catholic apologist defending the Marian dogmas is no exception.

God Bless,
Adam

natamllc said...

adam,

you wrote: "...That's the most absurd thing I have ever heard. In verses 16 and 17, we know who the "your" is there...".

I don't think it is absurd at all.

Why?

Well, tell me how you understand these things? Is it by the "Will" of God or by your own will?

Knowing the "truth" can only be by revelation from the Holy Spirit. Why fault someone who clearly does not have the revelation?

We, Jesus taught, are all born condemned. We should never lose sight of that as we go a fishin', new creatures, born again!!!

1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Pe 1:4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
1Pe 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Notice verse 5!

By His Grace, Mercy and Peace
bless you nevertheless!

Turretinfan said...

NatAmLLC:

You stated that you don't think it's absurd to say that Psalm 45:16-17 refers to Mary. I am confused. Perhaps you have a stronger word than "absurd" in mind?

I cannot imagine you mean to say that you agree with the idea that Psalm 45-16-17 refers to Mary!

-TurretinFan

natamllc said...

I was keying off Adam's words "we know" in his comments to make a "spiritual" point.

No, I am not saying I align or agree with the absurdity of that interpretation from Ps. 45:16-17 that that is referencing Mary. That indeed is "absurd" but I don't fault the lady or anyone within the RCC for that reasoning.

What I am saying is, until God intervenes, we would all consider every interpretation of the Bible absurd.

And even after.

I can remember clearly the very first time I read the Book of Exodus. I was clearly born again and Spirit filled. I put the Bible down alarmed!

Why?

Because my "baby spiritual" experience with His Faith wouldn't override the absurdity of the things Exodus accounts God was doing for them.

It got worse as I read on through to Judges and so forth. In fact, I got worse, wretched! That doesn't make any sense at all. God saves us and we become worse sinners than before? Huh?

It took the assistance of mature brethren and the Holy Spirit to exchange my carnal mind or wash it so that, by the Mind of the Lord, I could read and understand things like the parting of the Red Sea or the Jordan, or iron axe heads floating up from the bottom of a pond because of the prayer of a Prophet or an Angel slaughtering 186,000 warriors in one night of battle or the sun standing still in the sky or even better yet, the whole rotation of the earth backing up twelve hours without one loose thing on the planet flinging off into outspace seeing the earth is moving how fast as it orbits the sun?

The Things of God were rather absurd to me as a "natural" man.

Everyone born of woman is born a natural being. Not until one is "born again" by the power and Will of God by the sanctification work of the Holy Spirit, is one even able to understand Godly natural or spiritual things.

Hope that helps clarify my point?

If not, let's keep going back and forth until we all understand what I meant by saying I am not shocked that any person a part of the RCC would believe such absurd things or teach such absurdity!

Think about some of the absurd things Jesus asked the disciples to do? Like this that Jesus asked Peter to do:

Mat 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?
Mat 17:25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
Mat 17:26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
Mat 17:27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

Now that's absurd!

John Bugay said...

Natamllc: This is the second time in as many days when I've seen someone not-quite-undertand your very subtle sense of humor. I say things frequently myself on line, intended one way, but taken another. Sometimes a combox just isn't the place for subtlety. I don't know what the answer to that is, other than just to strive for more clarity.

natamllc said...

Good point John!

So much for the perspicuity of the believer.

When in doubt, ask the questions which TF has done!

I hope guys like you will keep your iron hot and sharp and keep on sharpening! :)

Besides, I thought Adam needed a little rub down anyway! He's got tough skin!

AAAh, right Adam? :))

Adam said...

natamllc,

I meant the term "absurd" in the context of meaning in the Hebrew language. I meant that the idea that Psalm 45:16-17 refers to Mary is *linguistically* absurd, because of the masculine suffixes. While you might have thought that the message of the book of Exodus was absurd when you were a new believer, surely you did not think the language of the text was absurd gibberish!

God Bless,
Adam

natamllc said...

Adam,

no, it would be fair to say I thought the Whole Bible started to become a book full of gibberish! That's why, after shaking me to my core, I put it down!

I was, to compare to another in the most general sort of ways, like the Ethiopian Eunuch who read the Scriptures without understanding. Thank God for the Holy Spirit, who sent along some mature, well, sound thinking Believers to help me through the shock. I first started reading the Scriptures before I sat and listened to men of God full of the Holy Spirit, "opening" up my mind to understand the Scriptures:


Luk 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Coram Deo said...

natamllc,

I just wanted to take a moment to tell you that I really appreciate your non-linear thinking, brother.

To be honest it took me awhile to warm up to your sane/insane man style, because I had trouble following your logic (and to be honest I still would if I hadn't given up on trying to make you think like I think).

In the past I often thought you were a little bit crazy with brief moments of lucidity, but now I think you're a little bit lucid with brief moments of stunningly beautiful clarity.

Your thinking challenges me, and I love your asymmetric perspectives.

God bless you!

In Christ,
CD

natamllc said...

And, oh, thanks CD, you flatter a dead dog! Such is life, huh?

And, let's be clear about the RCC and any such religion. These are crafty expressions of doctrines of demons; pure and simple.

There may come a day when I will have to give an account for saying that. Such is my lot then.

I trust the thoughts of the Holy Spirit, Psalm 139.

If the day comes and I am facing a demon manifesting through a person, the person speaking to me as Pilate spoke to Jesus, I hope and pray His Faith will not disappoint and I fail as some?

I am in good company though when you realize there was absolutely few if any who believed Jesus' Word about His resurrection: "in three days I will see you again"!

How is that? Well, Jesus was a fairly clear thinking, speaking man, albeit, He is the Eternal Son of God. I guess God knows how to speak life into the heart of dead dogs, huh? :)

So, back to the point of this particular thread and "cudos" to TF for actually "practicing" what he preaches as the title and body of this thread and his inquiry to me attest!

He has learned, probably from a lot of mistakes, to ask the "right" questions! :)

And just a digression, you read the ESV?

If so, can you explain the rationale for this verse when all other translations I have looked at only say seventy?


Luk 10:1 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go.

and


Luk 10:17 The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!"

Coram Deo said...

natamllc,

Although this is not an "official" explanation from the ESV folks, here is a rendering of the 70 vs. 72 debate surrounding the proper rendering of Luke 10:1,17

In Christ,
CD

natamllc said...

CD,

thanks!

Legalbeagle said...

Your rhetoric does a disservice to your readers in that it does not challenge them to engage Catholic thought in any meaningful way. How sad!

augustinefan said...

http://augustinefan.wordpress.com/2010/06/20/getting-the-right-answers/

Turretinfan said...

LegalBegal,

Your insult is duly noted. Your insult, however, does nothing to advance Romanist-Reformed dialog. So, please make it your last comment here, unless you plan to provide something that consists less of insults and more of substance.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

Augustinefan,

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Color me flattered. I'll try to read and respond to your post this coming week, if God gives me time for it.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

AF:

So, anyhow, I read your article. Allow me to respond:

You wrote: "And what would you expect? We don’t worship Mary!"

This I've already answered in the post above.

You wrote: "An act of devotion is not worship. I’m devoted to my wife and all I can say of Christ, my devotion to Him, I can say of my wife without thinking that I’m worshiping her. I know my wife is a creature and not to be worshiped (I ask her for her prayers alsoJ)."

Devotion is a genus, of which religious devotion is a species. Hopefully you can tell the difference between the way you communicate with your wife, and the way you attempt to communicate with the dead.

You wrote: "What’s more important, asking the right questions or getting the right answers? You want answers that prove Catholics worship Mary; I’d rather see answers that show a person has a grasp of theology and understands that God alone is to be worshipped."

It's great when people say that they understand that God alone is to be worshiped. It's sad when those same people have rosary beads on the rear-view mirror.

You write: "So the people do understand that God is more important but they misunderstand Mary’s role, even though there is some truth to what they say. She is a woman and does understand. It also stands to reason that they do not believe that she understands better than God understands. They probably just could not think of a better answer at the moment."

It's interesting that you want me to take their comment that they don't worship Mary at face value, but you won't take their comment about thinking that Mary understands them better at face value.

The bottom line is that there is a reason that (1) they are praying to Mary instead of God and (2) there is a reason for that.

I'm glad to hear that you agree with me that they have the wrong idea about Mary, but here you simply show the divide between English-speaking Roman Catholics and Spanish-speaking Roman Catholics.

You wrote: "Like I said nowhere do they say Mary is more understanding than God."

The article states: I say, "Why would you go to her with things that you would not go to God with?" "Because she's a woman, she understands."

You wrote: "I don’t see anything wrong with the use of icons to help us reflect upon our faith and deepen our prayer life."

What use of them would you recognize as wrong?

You wrote: "Reminds me of some New Testament stories."

None of the New Testament stories are favorable toward statues, paintings, or other idols.

You wrote: "How?" In response to my comment: "At that point he said: 'I was able to surrender, to say to Guadalupe, “You more than anyone know what it is that I need or want. Just give me the strength to be open to that.”' Is not the blasphemy of that claim transparent?"

I would have hoped it would be obvious that God, more than Mary, knows what we need and want, and that God alone knows the heart of man.

In response to my quotation of Ephesians 3:20-21 and 1 Timothy 1:17, you stated: "I couldn’t agree more."

However, you purport to worship the invisible God with the works of men's hands and see no blasphemy in claims that deny that ascribe to Mary what properly belongs to God alone. Perhaps you see the problem.

-TurretinFan

natamllc said...

Wow to Augustinefan's article and comments.

To the last first then.

It is out of place to agree with Eph. 3:20-21 and defend a woman's right to pray to Mary for understanding as he suggests here and disregard these Words:


Eph 3:8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
Eph 3:9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,
Eph 3:10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.
Eph 3:11 This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord,
Eph 3:12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him.

Either you have nothing to do with any hint or hue of the ways of the world and the controlling spirits moving the will and emotions of the world or you do? Which is it? It can't be both!

And, what's more, here's the dangerous area that Jesus warned of:

Luk 17:1 And he said to his disciples, "Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come!
Luk 17:2 It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.
Luk 17:3 Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him,
Luk 17:4 and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' you must forgive him."

All idolatry is sin and woe to the religious institution to a man that blurs the lines of the sin of idolatry so that one can come along and concur with a woman's desire to pray to Mary, a departed woman at that, "because Mary the human mother of Jesus understands better her feelings than the man"!

Hmmmmmmm, something is fishy here on Fridays!

augustinefan said...

Devotion is a genus, of which religious devotion is a species. Hopefully you can tell the difference between the way you communicate with your wife, and the way you attempt to communicate with the dead.

Communicate with the dead? No, I never attempt that. :)

You wrote: "What’s more important, asking the right questions or getting the right answers? You want answers that prove Catholics worship Mary; I’d rather see answers that show a person has a grasp of theology and understands that God alone is to be worshipped."

It's great when people say that they understand that God alone is to be worshiped. It's sad when those same people have rosary beads on the rear-view mirror.


I disagree. It's just a form of prayer. All the prayers and mysteries of the Rosary are biblical.

You write: "So the people do understand that God is more important but they misunderstand Mary’s role, even though there is some truth to what they say. She is a woman and does understand. It also stands to reason that they do not believe that she understands better than God understands. They probably just could not think of a better answer at the moment."

It's interesting that you want me to take their comment that they don't worship Mary at face value, but you won't take their comment about thinking that Mary understands them better at face value.


That's a good point. I guess all I can say is that one believes the best while the other believes the worst. 1Cor 13

The bottom line is that there is a reason that (1) they are praying to Mary instead of God and (2) there is a reason for that.

I'm glad to hear that you agree with me that they have the wrong idea about Mary, but here you simply show the divide between English-speaking Roman Catholics and Spanish-speaking Roman Catholics.


(1) When you say instead of I must protest. If I ask someone for something does that negate the fact that I can ask God for all things? By no means!

As far as the divide between Catholics, that's something that I'll let Christ bridge.

augustinefan said...

You wrote: "Like I said nowhere do they say Mary is more understanding than God."

The article states: I say, "Why would you go to her with things that you would not go to God with?" "Because she's a woman, she understands."


Well, I don't like the answer that much either but I'm sure if they realized someone was going to be examining their words they may have given more thought to what they said. Then again maybe not.

You wrote: "I don’t see anything wrong with the use of icons to help us reflect upon our faith and deepen our prayer life."

What use of them would you recognize as wrong?


The worship of icons would be wrong. A right understanding of them would not lead to worship.

You wrote: "Reminds me of some New Testament stories."

None of the New Testament stories are favorable toward statues, paintings, or other idols.


I was speaking of the authors trip to Guadalupe.

You wrote: "How?" In response to my comment: "At that point he said: 'I was able to surrender, to say to Guadalupe, “You more than anyone know what it is that I need or want. Just give me the strength to be open to that.”' Is not the blasphemy of that claim transparent?"

I would have hoped it would be obvious that God, more than Mary, knows what we need and want, and that God alone knows the heart of man.


I have to give this some thought.

In response to my quotation of Ephesians 3:20-21 and 1 Timothy 1:17, you stated: "I couldn’t agree more."

However, you purport to worship the invisible God with the works of men's hands and see no blasphemy in claims that deny that ascribe to Mary what properly belongs to God alone. Perhaps you see the problem.


I worship God in Spirit and in Truth, not with anything, not even my hands. Though I use my senses to understand Him better.

Anonymous said...

I insulted you? How? Your rhetoric IS a caricature of Catholic beliefs, that DOES fail to engage Catholic thought in any meaningful way!

Turretinfan said...

Let me rephrase: instead of "insult" please "unsubstantiated criticism."

Same as this time, you offered no substance, only assertions.

You've now violated my request for your discontinued non-substantive participation once. Please don't do it again.

If you want to make an actual substantive argument, feel free. If you are just here to make assertions, I am not interested.

-TurretinFan

Coram Deo said...

Anon,

Your bald assertions represent unsubstantiated criticism of TF's position that fails to engage his thought in any meaningful way!

As you should be aware, this is his blog and you're being a very rude guest.

I certainly hope you don't visit the homes of strangers uninvited and then angrily upbraid them because you don't like the way they comport themselves by insisting they don't meet your standards.

By what authority do you presume to be able to speak about "Catholic thought"

By what authority are your private interpretations of Rome's dogma valid?

Are you authorized by the church of Rome to interpret and instruct others in "Catholic thought"?

In Christ,
CD