What a straightforward, outstanding, and common sense reply to an often misunderstood practice!

Kissing my mother, kissing my husband, the kiss of Judas…just brilliant!

I remember a talk at a Greek Orthodox church in which the priest empathized that “We do not adore Mary; we venerate her.” I thought that was quite clear and, as you say, it depends on the inner intention.

How is this any different from a pagan who bows down before a statute? She doesn’t think her god is living in the statute.

The pagan presumably intends adoration, as Mark says. Also, the pagan’s god does not exist. Those both seem to be important differences to me, even if the bodily actions look similar to an outsider.

@Alvin, you are correct that a pagan may or may not, depending on their belief, believe their god is living in the statue.  Mark’s whole article was about intent.  If their intent is to venerate/worship/adore their pagan god, living in or represented by the statue, that is “idol worship”.

Thanks for this, Mark. A few comments that may be of general interest.

The one external action that is reserved for latria is sacrifice. As you’ve indicated, all other external actions of honor may be expressive of either latria or dulia. It’s important to note that the difference between latria and dulia is not one of degree but of species. Latria is not just a whole lot of dulia.

I think it’s also important to know that “worship” and “adoration” have not always been technical equivalents of “latria.” It was not until sometime after the 13th century that “adoratio” began to mean “latria” in Latin. Before that, the borrow-word “latria” was the only technical Latin term for the honor due to God alone, and “adoratio” referred primary to the external actions that could express either latria or dulia. In English, “worship” has only come to mean “latria” in the 20th century. It used to have a broader semantic range, generally meaning “honor.” So until maybe 60 years ago or so you can find perfectly orthodox references to the “worship” of Mary, the angels, and the saints. Since “worship” has come to mean only latria, we no longer use that language.

Lastly, The pagan cults described in the Bible did actually think that the god was, in a real way, present in the idol as the result of a ritual consecration called “pit pi” or “mis pi” (“opening” or “washing” of the mouth).

“How is this any different from a pagan who bows down before a statute? She doesn’t think her god is living in the statute.”

Actually, many pagans *do* think of their gods as living in the statue, or at least only a god of a particular place.

One of the big differences between monotheism and polytheism is how big God is; not just a household god or the god of a volcano, but the God of the Entire Universe.

In comparison to that, Mary is just a woman who modeled for us the ultimate expression of humility; and has been used by God and the Church for that purpose ever since.  She’s less than even a household god of the pagans- but because she is used by the Creator of the Universe to give Jesus Christ to us for our salvation, she’s also somehow greater.  But *all* veneration to Mary, is pleasing to God.

It’s also important to remember that, here in the U.S., we have lots of different cultural traditions bumping up against one another. Some cultures are far more physically expressive, or just differently expressive, than others. So a gesture that would signify latria in one culture may signify dulia in another, just as kissing expresses different things in English, Italian, and Chinese cultures.
.
Sometimes, gestures from a variety of cultures are used together in the same parish, adding both to the variety of ways to express spirituality and also to the confusion of outsiders.
.
This is just one more area where I need to frequently remind myself that other people don’t necessarily think like I do, and that I should ask questions before jumping to conclusions.

“because she is used by the Creator of the Universe…”?
  Rather, because she “serves” the Creator of the Universe by giving Jesus Christ to us…??
  She is not a puppet in His hands; she said yes to Him. I don’t mean to be picayune, but I see a difference.

@Alvin: We don’t believe the saint is living in the statue representation. The statue of the saint is merely a reminder of them that calls to mind who they are and what they represent, just as pictures of your loved ones might be on your walls or in your wallet. When you look at them, you mean to remind yourself of their appearance and your connection to them. You do not mean to worship them. Mark is right on when he says it is all about intent. From outward appearances there may be no difference, but you cannot know what is in someone’s heart.

I think that many Protestants miss the mark here, especially separating the First Commandment into Thou shalt not worship any other God, and Thou shalt not make any graven images. What is lost is that this is really the same commandment. We aren’t to put anything above God nor make anything that would take His place. For when we do one, we’ve done the other.

It has always seemed simple enough for me that worship and adoration belong to God and veneration belongs to Mary and the Saints.  Forgive me, but the Ostentatious use of the Latin words tended to turn me off.

@Fidelio, I’m autistic,so sometimes I use language in a way that is different than other people do.

I don’t see Mary as being a puppet of God any more than I am a puppet of God.  She is a *willing servant* of God, used by Him to His purposes *as we all should be*.  We should *all* be submissive to God.  It’s precisely when we are not submissive to God, that we sin.

We are all clay in His hands to be shaped, when we say yes and do His will.  And when we say no, we’re equally slaves of evil.

Eloquently stated.

Thankfully, God knows our hearts.  There is a statue of Mary at my parish with hands worn from people holding them as they pray, the material worn down and crumbling.  One can see wires underneath, inside the hands.

But I’ve never thought it was adoration of the statue itself.  I think it’s like when someone much loved is not nearby, and one holds onto an article of their clothing, thinking of them, lovingly.  I once put my nose in a baby shoe from my younger brother, when I missed him.  Trying to smell his presence when I was alone and my family was away.

But all prayer & all worship is directed towards God.  As far as posture is concerned, I like to kneel.  Even Jesus knelt down to pray, during His agony in the garden before Calvary.  As long as God can read our hearts, our surrender to Him is what pleases Him, I think. Stand, sit, kneel, prostrate - it’s in the heart that counts.

@Bob Rowland,

I’m assuming your comment was in response to mine; forgive me if I’m wrong.

The reason I posted the information I did is because I don’t want anybody to panic if they find older Catholic books or pamphlets referring positively to the “worship” of Mary, angels, and saints. That’s why it’s helpful to be familiar with the history of the words we use. Sorry if it seemed ostentatious, and I’m glad you find it simple, but it’s important to be as clear as possible about what can be a very confusing and distressing issue for our Protestant brothers and sisters.

Ted,
Forgive me for being skeptical but where did God command veneration to Mary?

Alvin:

“Honor your Mother”.

Jesus said to the beloved disciple (that is, you) “Behold your mother”.  You are a son of God through Jesus your brother.  If he’s your brother, she’s your mother as she is his mother.  If she’s your mother, you do what God commanded and honor your mother.

Nothing to fear here, Alvin.  Do you worship your natural mother when you honor her?  No.  You honor God when you honor your mother.  Dittos for honoring Mary.

In the fourth commandment repeated in the prophecy of Elizabeth in the first chapter of the Gospel of Luke (1:42).  “Honor your mother” and “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb”

Alvin:

Before you begin the game of saying “Jesus doesn’t specifically command us to honor Mary so it’s unbiblical” please do yourself a favor and familiarize yourself with the “heads I win/tails you lose” strategy that lies behind the Semi-Permeable Membrane of the Various Protestantisms (go to this link: http://www.crisismagazine.com/2009/the-semi-permeable-membranes-of-the-various-protestantisms

Mark,
It is true that Jesus gave John His mother to care for but that does not mean she is your mother. Is the commandment that children are to honor their parents applicable to all parents or just to the parents of their own children? Little Johnny next door is not to honor my parents because they are not his parents. Honor to parents is uniquely due to the offspring of the parent or in cases were there there is a legal parent-child relationship such as with adoption. Same principle would apply to Mary. Mary is the mother of Jesus, James, Joses, Simon, Judas (Matt 13:55-57) and the adopted mother of John. In the case of John, Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to him since He would no longer be able to do so.

John S.  I was responding to the reader writer. I understand your concern, During over 63 years as a convert, I don’t recall ever seeing any Catholic book or pamphlet refer to the worship of Mary and the saints.  On the other hand I have seen numerous obviously Protestant publications that have falsely accused Catholics of worshiping Mary. From experience,I seriously doubt that anything you could say would sway them.

@Alvin- what about the predictions of the Gospel of Luke, from which the prayer Hail Mary comes from?  Or did you not know that the principle prayer of all Marian devotion comes straight from the Bible?

Ted,
What predictions of the Gospel of Luke that tells us to venerate her are you referring to? Mary did say she would be called blessed by all generations but that is not the same as veneration. To be blessed means To pronounce as blessed, fully satisfied. Used of the virgin Mary (Luke 1:48), as well as of the persecuted prophets and all who endure (James 5:11). This is what the word means in this context. Veneration means to regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference. This is a secular definition. As you can see they are not the same things.
I agree some of the statements of the hail Mary come from the Bible but not all. The last part is not—“Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.” No one in the Bible ever prayed this.

@Bob Rowland,

Fair enough. I’m not positive when the broad use of “worship” dropped out, but it’s still in use in the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia available at New Advent—look (if you’re interested, I don’t mean to give you homework!) under the article “Worship, Christian.” The only time that comes to mind that I encountered it was in reading Orestes Brownson’s essay “The Moral and Social Influence of Devotion to Mary,” republished as a pamphlet at some point in the 20th century. It refers repeatedly to worship of Mary/angels/saints.

As to Protestants, you may be right for some of them, but I do think some are open to giving a fair hearing to a clear presentation of Catholic teaching. Even the ones who won’t at least deserve to have the full truth told in detail.

Blessings!

Well said.  I’m going to post this for my RCIA class - succinct and very appreciated.

” What predictions of the Gospel of Luke that tells us to venerate her are
you referring to? Mary did say she would be called blessed by all
generations but that is not the same as veneration”

Not just Mary, but Gabriel and Elizabeth.  You’ve got to read the WHOLE chapter, not just take scissors to the Bible and cut out little bits that you like.

“Used of the virgin Mary (Luke 1:48), as well as of the persecuted prophets and all who endure (James 5:11).”

Yep, what we Catholics call Saints.

“This is what the word means in this context. Veneration means to regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference.”

Which is what we do for people who are blessed, yes.  Why, don’t you respect those who have been chosen by God for special jobs?  And if not, aren’t you disrespecting not only the Saint, but also God?

As for pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death, the Macabees prayed over, with, and for their dead quite often.  Oh yeah, you follow the Protestant Rebellion, which cut that part out of the Bible.

“Mary did say she would be called blessed by all generations but that is not the same as veneration.”

It’s exactly the same.

And yes, if Jesus is your brother, then she is your Mother.  John records that story about the words at the foot of the cross, not because he thought you might be curious about how arrangements were made for Judean widows, but because he means you to understand that *you* are the beloved disciple too.

(And, by the way, James, Joses, Jude and Simon are the children of “the other Mary”, (Mary the wife of Clopas) not the Blessed Virgin, who is only the mother of Jesus.  That’s why it was necessary to give her to John.  See: http://www.mark-shea.com/em6.html)

Why does this frighten you so much?  What’s the matter with giving an honorable woman honor?  Do you need a direct command from the Bible not to play in traffic?  Do you require an explicit order from God to say “Pass the mustard?”  If not, why do you require an explicit order from God to give honor to Mary?  Heck, even Abraham Lincoln and George Washington get honor and they didn’t even have to endure the crucifixion of their sons?  Why is honoring Mary, who endured an awful lot out of love for her son, such a huge problem?

Ted,
I’m confused. It is true that Mary was blessed for the task God was going to use her. How does it follow from this that statutes were created for her and people were to kneel before them and pray to her?
Was Judas Macabee praying to his dead soldiers to help him?  2 Maccabees 12:38-46

Mark,
Is your mother my mother? Am I to honor her in the same way you are? Of course not.
If John meant for Mary to be the mother of the church why doesn’t John or anyone else in the NT even hint at this?

“(And, by the way, James, Joses, Jude and Simon are the children of “the other Mary”, (Mary the wife of Clopas) not the Blessed Virgin, who is only the mother of Jesus.”
There is no mention of Mary the wife of Clopas in this chapter. The Mary mentioned here is the mother of Jesus for a number of reasons. Jesus is mentioned as the son of a carpenter. That would be Joseph. Joseph is the husband of Mary. This passage has nothing to do with Mary the wife of Clopas.

Once again Alvin, you need to read the WHOLE book, not just the parts you like.  The three Marys mentioned in the Gospel as being at the foot of the cross are Mary Magdalene, Mary the Mother of Christ, and The Other Mary.  You need Holy Tradition as well as Holy Scripture to know the identity of the Other Mary, which is what Mark was pointing out to you.

There is a lot more to Christianity and Christ than what is in Scripture.  And Scripture doesn’t make much sense without it.

Alvin:

If you can’t be bothered to read the links provided, don’t be surprised if I don’t bother to read you.

My, my. Lots of comments; longer than the post. :-)
Can we make this distinction? If it looks like a person, and moves and breathes, it’s a person. If it doesn’t move and breathe, it’s an object that may well be an idol.
For instance, Mary in the flesh (still possible, per Catholic teaching at www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm) could be adored, worshipped, venerated, whatever with some logic. But doing so to a statue of her would seem illogical on the grounds of the lack of interaction possible. It was put better in Ps 114/115 (Douay): “The idols of the Gentiles are silver and gold, the works of the hands of men. They have mouths and speak not: they have eyes and see not. They have ears and hear not: they have noses and smell not. They have hands and feel not: they have feet and walk not: neither shall they cry out through their throat. Let them that make them become like unto them: and all such as trust in them.”
Isaiah had a similar comment: [A man] cut down cedars, or perhaps took a cypress or oak. He let it grow among the trees of the forest, or planted a pine, and the rain made it grow. It is man’s fuel for burning; some of it he takes and warms himself, he kindles a fire and bakes bread. But he also fashions a god and worships it; he makes an idol and bows down to it. Half of the wood he burns in the fire; over it he prepares his meal, he roasts his meat and eats his fill. He also warms himself and says, “Ah! I am warm; I see the fire.” From the rest he makes a god, his idol; he bows down to it and worships. He prays to it and says, “Save me; you are my god.”
That definition, BTW would have prevented the Schismatic affair: statues and portraits equally useless.

I have heard of “relative worship”, which is praying to the person through the object. There is very very much in the Bible about prayer, but, if it’s to be heard by God it should be made to God, through whatever channel he may provide. If Catholics are to use a statue of Mary, as a mediator to Mary, as a mediatrix to Jesus, as ... Well, just where do you folks intend to stop the parade? Jesus, who prayed directly to Jehovah as did all Jews then, made one change in the form at John 14:6: “Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’” (Cf. 1 Tim 2:5) Anything beyond that is scholasticism, not Christianity.

What wonderful analogies, Mark. I never thought about veneration and adoration in these ways…very logical and with common sense. Thank you!

And oddly enough Doug, most Catholics say the same with one difference- to us a statue, a picture, whatever, isn’t what we’re praying to.  It’s just a representation of one of our family- one of our brothers or sisters in Christ.  That’s it.

As to “worship” contrasted with other words:
- Prayers to a named person not God (or Jesus, for that matter).
- Images made ditto.
- Incense burned ditto.
- “Holy Days” ditto.
- Genuflections ditto.
Or, as one might say, “Veneration looks like a duck, walks like a duck, squwaks like a duck; must be worship!

I don’t care what it looks like to you Doug- it is what it is, and for you to claim differently is highly insulting.

Anyone know how to spell “sqwauawks”? :-)

“a representation of one of our family” Yes, I discussed that under “relative worship”, which is not part of my theology. John 14:6 is. I feel that the use of images/statues is forbidden to Christians. Num 33:52; Deu 7:25; 2 Chr 34:4; Ps 97:7; Isa 10:10,11; 42:17 and probably a few others. Did I miss something?
What do you make of the descriptions of “idols” in Psalms and Isaiah? Are not these teachings in fact from Jehovah, the writer of the Bible? Are they not connected with the idea of the futility of prayers to such? What are we to learn from them?

Alvin,
Actually, John does specifically say that Mary is the mother of all Christians.  It’s in Rev 12.  The woman gives birth to a child who will rule all nations (verse 5), and she has other offspring who keep the commandments and have the testimony of Jesus Christ(verse 17).
Hence, the child is Christ, the woman Mary, and the other offspring the Church.

Mark Shea writes (May 23, 2012 3:26 PM), in re ‘Mary did say she would be called blessed by all generations but that is not the same as veneration.’: “It’s exactly the same. And yes, if Jesus is your brother, then she is your Mother.”
What about this specific reference to the “mother” of Christians?
Gal 4:26 “But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.”
St. John says further that she is, “the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” (Rev 21:2)
Jerusalem here must represent something besides the literal city: That was destroyed by time of John’s Apocalypse, and Paul’s city is also “above”, not ‘just north of Bethlehem’. David’s Jerusalem was the headquarters of Jehovah’s organization on earth until destroyed, Could not heavenly (therefore ‘spiritual’) Jerusalem be the new headquarters of Jehovah’s organization that Peter looked for? (2 Pet 3:13) It’s appointed king is then Jesus, finally united in marriage with it, as in Rev 19:7 “And he said to me: Write: Blessed are they that are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he says to me: These words of God are true.” and 21:9 “And there came one of the seven angels, who had the vials full of the seven last plagues, and spoke with me, saying: Come and I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.”

gregg,
Did you know that their are different views of who the woman is of Rev 12? Many thought it was the church since that fits the description given in the rest of the chapter. Leading RC scholars are saying this.

Doug,
Mary is the personification of Daughter Zion and so she is also a type of the Jerusalem above. The New Jerusalem is my mother. So is Mary.
I’m not surprised that you have trouble distinguishing between worship and veneration phenomenologically, and in spite of all the assurances that we do not understand ourselves to be worshiping Mary, the saints, icons, relics, etc. (Do you think we’re just lying, or what?)
Protestants often have trouble with the distinction because they have expunged sacrifice from their public worship, and that’s the only external action that is due to God alone. And to God alone do we offer the Sacrifice of the Mass, the one Christian sacrifice.
In the interior forum, the difference is that God alone is to our final end and highest good, and so all things are to be referred to Him, while He is to be referred to nothing else.

Doug- better not have any pictures of your children, that’s relative worship!  Better not be in a prayer chain, that’s relative orship!  Jesus Christ could not possibly have defeated death, because all the saints are dead.  I thought you wew a Jevhovah’s witness, not a Islamic Moslem!

Before I become a practicing contemplative I used to feel that all the outward signs of adoration and veneration were important.  Then I slowly began to understand they are only an outward sign devised by man to show that you are a member of a certain religious organization.  Many people look holy and sacrifice, but never show mercy.  What we do in our lives to see the Divine Presence in others is what being here is all about.  Love the Father, love the Father in one another, and share the bread and cup in remembrance.  Most Christians do not do these things well, so when I have reached perfection in these three simple actions I will get concerned about how I look to others.

Ted,
Its not that difficult to know the identity of the woman in Matt 13:55-56 is the mother of Jesus i.e. Mary. It clearly points to her because of the context.
There is also a prophecy of Jesus in Psalm 69 that refers to His brothers.

Psalm 69:8-9
I have become estranged from my brothers

And an alien to my mother’s sons.
For zeal for Your house has consumed me,

And the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me.

Shorter Doug:  Hey Catholics! If I want to know what’s going on in your heart, I’ll tell you.

John S. We don’t need an exercise in semantics to describe the exalted nature of thr Mother of God.  She is the only perfect creature and was not subject to original sin. I suggest we take to heart what Pope Pius XI said about Mary: ‘He will not taste death forever who, in his dying moments has recourse to the Blessed Virgin Mary.”  Or we have the words of St. Maximilian Mary Kolbe to guide us: ” The saints assert that anyone who prays to the Mother of God in time of temptation, will be preserved from sin, and that whoever approaches her with perfect trust throughout his life will surely be saved.”  Devotion to Mary is necessary for salvation.
In me is all hope of life and virtue, in me is all grace and the way of truth. Ecclesiasticus 24:25.

Bob,
It’s not semantics to be precise about what we do and what we don’t believe. If that were the case, surely there shouldn’t have been such a fuss about “homoousios” at the Council of Nicaea.
Either way, you don’t have to convince me about any of the Church’s teachings about Our Blessed Lady. I love and count on my Mother. But thanks for the beautiful quotes.
Blessings.

Alvin The entire text of the Hail Mary is in ST. Luke 1:28,42 and in the Council OF Ephesus.

Bob,
Your quote:
“Pope Pius XI said about Mary: ‘He will not taste death forever who, in his dying moments has recourse to the Blessed Virgin Mary.”  Or we have the words of St. Maximilian Mary Kolbe to guide us: ” The saints assert that anyone who prays to the Mother of God in time of temptation, will be preserved from sin, and that whoever approaches her with perfect trust throughout his life will surely be saved.”  Devotion to Mary is necessary for salvation.
In me is all hope of life and virtue, in me is all grace and the way of truth. Ecclesiasticus 24:25.”

This shows how far your church has strayed from the truth. This quote is mind boggling. 

@Alvin- it is YOUR church that has strayed from the Apostolic Church.  We ARE the Apostolic Church.  For instance, you brought up Matt. 13, but as usual you read only two verses and missed the context.  It’s because of Matthew 13 that we are Christ’s brothers- and that makes Mary our mother, and being faithful to the 10 commandments we honor our mother.

Now I’ve got four questions for you, and I will not answer anything you say until you find the answers to them:
1.  Who decided what books would be in the Bible?
2.  Why does the Protestant Bible have fewer books than the Catholic Bible?
3.  Why is the Bible considered Scripture when it NEVER refers to the word Bible (the Bible itself is unbiblical by the rules you’ve set down for Mary!)?
4.  Are Christians who lived before the Synod of Hippo saved?

When I was a Baptist, back before I got saved, we worshipped pieces of cloth and said prayers to them.

These pieces of cloth were brought up in solemn procession (at least with as much solemnity that Baptists can muster) and were exposed for the adoration of the assembly.

They were worshipped with ritual gestures executed in unison on the command of the leader: Attention! Salute! Pledge!

What’s odd is that prayers to both pieces of cloth began with the same words. “I pledge allegiance…...”

If Catholics worship and pray to statues, then Baptists worship and pray to pieces of cloth.

\\2.  Why does the Protestant Bible have fewer books than the Catholic Bible?\\

Actually, this is not true.

Luther’s Bible contained the Deutero-Canonical Books.

So did the KJV.

In fact, EVERY major English translation until the New American Standard Bible of the 1960’s contained them.

Ted,
The point of Matt 13:55-57 is to show that Jesus had other siblings via Mary His mother. No need to read anything into this passage and make it say something else but the plain meaning.

Now for your questions:
“1.  Who decided what books would be in the Bible?”
The church of the 4th century who used various tests to determine the canon of the NT. For example, if it was written by an apostle or one closely associated with one it would be included.

“2.  Why does the Protestant Bible have fewer books than the Catholic Bible?”
Protestants follow the Jewish canon. They did not consider the OT apocrypha inspired-inerrant Scripture because these books were not written by a prophet of God and they contain errors. It was not until the council of Trent that “elevated” these books to full canon status. Roman Catholic scholars through the Reformation period made a distinction between the Deuterocanon and the approved 66 book canon.

“3.  Why is the Bible considered Scripture when it NEVER refers to the word Bible (the Bible itself is unbiblical by the rules you’ve set down for Mary!)?”
The word “Bible” means “the books”. Its best to think of the Bible as a library of books. Bible a accurate description of what the Scriptures are. Even your church considers them inspired-inerrant. What I have demonstrated from the Bible is that it does not support various aspects of the Marian dogmas.

“4.  Are Christians who lived before the Synod of Hippo saved?”
Don’t know. The Bible is clear on what saves a person. See Romans 10:9-10 and I Corinthians 15:1-4.

dixibehr,
It is true that the OT apocrypha is in some Protestant Bibles but that does not mean they are inspired-inerrant because they are there. They are no more inspired than the index at the back of those Bibles.

From where did Pope Pius XI get this information about Mary?  If Mary can grant salvation why would one need the Trinity?  I used to think that Jesus was the savior of the world?  This may explains why so many of us have turned our spiritually to contemplative mysticism.  Our current cosmology and theological paradigm no longer supports the theologies of when the earth was flat and the center of the universe.

@Alvin- in aramaic all male relatives in the same generation are brothers.  His cousins, his second cousins, his third cousins, would all be brothers.  You obviously know nothing about the culture that the Bible was written in.

Ok, let’s take your answers:
1.  What is the only Christian Church that existed in the 4th century?
2.  If Protestants are following a Jewish Canon other than the Setptugiant, then they’re not following the Canon that Jesus used for the Old Testament, because Jesus was a Galilean, not a Pharasee, correct?
3.  If you are using the word Bible, then you are unbiblical because the word Bible never occurs in the Bible.  By your own rules there is no excuse for this.
4.  But you don’t believe that Christ is what saves a person, you believe that living biblically is what saves a person- making you an idolator with the Bible as your idol.

Now I am completely done with you.  You do not have an open mind to Catholicism, and your “Christianity” bears no resemblance to the Apostles.

Richard- Mary gets all her power to redeem from Christ.  Without Christ and the trinity, she has NO power of her own.  She’s a Saint, not a God.

@ Ted:

Speaking as a Catholic, I’d like to offer some information that will help you improve the quality of your apologetics.

1. In the 4th century there was no Protestantism. It does not follow, however, that there was therefore no Christian sects beyond the Catholic Church. The Arians come to mind.
3. While I cannot speak for Alvin, I doubt his understanding of “Bible Only” requires him to exclude words not found in the Bible. But more to the point, the Greek “biblos” *is* found in the Bible, just not in reference to the whole collection of Sacred Scripture.
4. Again, I can’t speak for Alvin, but I doubt his understanding of “Bible Only” excludes a belief in Christ being the origin of our salvation.

“To Jesus through Mary” Through Mary,s “Yes” Jesus came into the world to “Save ” us .She is most worthy of all honor ! I can,t thank her enough, she demands nothing for herself all she wants is to lead us to her Son. Holy Mary full of grace pray for us. Shed forth your light into misguided souls!

@Del, thank you for your pointers.  Here is my response:
1.  The Arians did exist, but they lost Nicea, and were gone within a couple of generations.  While Protestants do indeed repeat the heresies of the past in ignorance, I know of only a few that deny that Christ was a human being.
2 & 3.  I doubt it too, but given the way he’s argued in this thread, he doesn’t think anything outside of the Bible is accurate- and that includes Apostolic Authority and thus a Catholic understanding of the Holy Spirit and Christ.  Makes me wonder what he thinks of the internal combustion engine.

Ted,
Was it a heresy what Pope Pius XI said about Mary: ‘He will not taste death forever who, in his dying moments has recourse to the Blessed Virgin Mary”  or we have the words of St. Maximilian Mary Kolbe who said that “Devotion to Mary is necessary for salvation”?

St Maximilian Kolbe also said:“If anyone does not wish to have Mary Immaculate for his Mother he will not have Christ for his brother:”

“Devotion to Mary is necessary for salvation”?

Source?

Context?

Alvin, the Pope, as the sucessor to Christ and the Apostles is the definition of Orthodoxy.  That you do not understand the marian way to Christ is your heresy, not theirs.  Apostolic Authority is Biblical, but that is to be expected since as you admited, the 4th century church, which was under the Pope (even the Arians did not dispute Apostolic Authority) wrote the table of contents to the Bible.  The real question is why you accept Apostolic Authority to define the New Testament, but not to honor your spiritual mother, Theotokos, the mother of God.  The only conclusion I can come to is that you have abandoned Christ and his Church for the self-delusion of the heretical idea that the Bible Alone can save you.

Mk,
see Bob Rowland on Wednesday, May 23, 2012 7:25 PM

Here is a quote from:http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/mary18d.htm

“God will not save us without the intercession of Mary . . .
No one can be saved without the protection of Mary.

St. Bonaventure”

You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself a graven image,
or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,
or that is in the earth beneath,
or that is in the water under the earth;
you shall not bow down to them or serve them;
for I the LORD your God am a jealous God,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children to the third and the fourth
generation of those who hate me,
but showing steadfast love to thousands of those
who love me and keep my commandments.

Ted, ‘having’ pictures of my children or of anyone else is not relative worship, because I don’t perform acts of worship to them. “Prayer chain”? That sounds like something the wealthy TV pastors do. Not my theology.
My Bible and yours say Jesus defeated death, yet millions die every year. Have you forgotten the resurrection? That’s in your Bible, too.
I am a Jevhovah’s witness, not a practicer of Islam. some Muslims and Catholics and Jews and atheists use bombs in their “worship”; we never do. For you to claim any similarity is highly insulting.

Suggestion: If you calm down before replying, your responses will be more grammatical, better spelled, more germane. Just a suggestion.

Doug,
Why are you a Jehovah witness?

Alvin, you clearly fall into the “what is not commanded is forbidden” trap.  It doesn’t follow.
-
“Little Johnny next door is not to honor my parents because they are not his parents”
-
Let’s say Johnny comes for a sleepover, being allowed to do so for one and only one reason: because Johnny’s parents know and trust your parents.  Do you think they are going to be sympathetic if Johnny disobeys, misbehaves, gives them attitude, or flat-out ignores them because they are not his parents?  (I think we all know that “You’re not my mom” is a familiar retort, and mostly considered unacceptible as an excuse for disrespect; children have an honor due to adults and authority figures in general.)
-
“No need to read anything into this passage and make it say something else but the plain meaning.”
-
Of course not.  Biblical passages cannot and should not be read on multiple levels. /sarc
-
Doug,
“Ted, ‘having’ pictures of my children or of anyone else is not relative worship, because I don’t perform acts of worship to them.”
-
Oh, but if you gaze lovingly at one I’m sure you run the risk of looking that way to an outsider who does not understand.  But if after explaining they still don’t believe you, that is their problem, not yours.

Bob, I’m sorry if you find the Latin pedantic, but a logophile like me finds it illuminating that we used two completely different terms to describe the concept.

Alvin writes: “Doug, Why are you a Jehovah[‘s] witness?”
Not in any particular order:
Fun.
Educational.
Makes sense.
Appeals to my human nature, which it should if there is a God who created me.
Gives me a purpose in life.
Gives me a firm hope for a future life.
Logical.
Supported by an authority higher and firmer than the traditions of men.

enness writes about family pictures.
Relevance?
Photographs, drawings from life and such are useful and comforting as memory aids. Which of the icons, statues, pictures of “saints” and others are from life? When someone finds a “picture of Mary” in a tortilla or in a window glass, how do they know it’s “Mary”? Which Mary- mother of Jesus, the Magdalene, the “other Mary”, Moses’ sister- which? Yet immediately “Christians” line up to see the image, many performing acts of worship.
When various early emperors ordered the breaking up of Christian meetings, it was noted that the persecutors were puzzled by the absence of altars and other physical elemtnts of worship so familiar today. In turn, much of the persecution came because ‘Christians anger the gods by not worshiping them’; there were no images in their meeting rooms!

Doug,
You do realize that your organization denies that Christ is the eternal God in human flesh. That much is clear from a number of passages in Scripture from Mark 2:7,  John 1:1-3, Col 1:15-17 and Hebrews 1:3,8-9 to name a few passages that shows that Christ is eternal (not created) and has the nature of God.
Keep in mind this is not the teachings of men but of the inspired-inerrant Word of God. To deny this, is to believe in the teachings of men. Agreed?

Alvin, which “eternal God”? The one that Jesus worships? Rev 3:12, Douay:
“He that shall overcome, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God: and he shall go out no more. And I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, and my new name.”

What??? My organization denies that Christ is the eternal God in human flesh??? Say it isn’t so!!!
... Oh, wait, that’s exactly what we deny. Jesus, the Christ of God, is the son of God, and is the first of Jehovah’s created beings. Created BTW by Jehovah’s holy spirit or active force. That much is clear from a number of passages in Scripture which you have been shown in past but refuse to believe.

John writes: “The New Jerusalem is my mother. So is Mary.”
The word of God says, “But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.” Gal 4:26 “the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” Rev 21:2
Should I follow Saints Paul and John, or the tradition of John the Disputator? Don’t want to find myself in a man-made cult, you know. :-)

Alvin,

The church of the 4th century who used various tests to determine the canon of the NT. For example, if it was written by an apostle or one closely associated with one it would be included.

And which CHURCH was that?  The Protestant Church?  Or the Catholic Church? 

Mk,
It was not the Roman Catholic church.

Doug,
Not sure what the problem is with Rev 3:12.

When the Scripture says that Jesus is the Son of God it means that He has the same nature as God. This would include being eternal (not created) all knowing and almighty. Jesus as the second person of the Trinity was never created because He has the nature of deity which precludes being a created being. See John 1:1-3; Col 1:15-19 and Hebrews 1:3. Don’t use the translation that is put out by your organization because it twists and warps these passages. Use the Douay or some other translation such as the NASB.

The Holy Spirit is also a person and not a force. We see this in John 14:26 where it says—” But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” Forces don’t teach, only a person can. See also Acts 5:3-4 where the HS can be lied to and is referred to as God.

Alvin, please pay attention to posts before you reply to them. My quote of Rev 3:12 was copy/paste from the excellent Douay at newadvent.org, AS ALWAYS on RC sites, unless otherwise stated.
There is no “problem” with Rev 3:12. It’s the same in all translations, save minor, irrlevant word choices. It always quotes Jesus as saying four times that there is someone he calls “my God”. The trinity doctrine denies that this is possible; ‘Jesus is God’. Doctrines of men vs. scripture. Our respective choices are seen here.
Acts 5, if you read it, will show you that Ananias lied to Peter. Therefore, from your own teaching, I take it that Peter is the Holy Ghost, therefore is also part of the Godhead. Four, not three. From your own teaching. I suggest you drop that line of reasoning.

Doug,
When you wrote “which God” in reference to Rev 3:12 there is no problem since God is trinitarian in nature. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share the same nature as God and yet are 3 distinct persons. Just because Jesus refers to the Father as God does not mean Jesus is not God.
Keep in mind that the Father also refers to the Son as God in Hebrews 1:8—
“But of the Son He says,

“ Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,

And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.”

It is true that Ananias lied to Peter. However, he not only lied to Peter but the Holy Spirit as well. We see this in Acts 5:3:
” But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land?”

I suggest you take my line of reasoning and reject what your organization is telling you. It is putting your soul at risk of damnation.

@gregg, there is equal scholarship that the “woman” in Revelation who flees into the desert is National Israel and not Mary, the mother of Jesus.  In the OT, the Scriptures consistently describe Israel as a “woman.”  The child of whom the dragon is about to devour is not the Christ child but National Israel.  In the end times, the Lord’s covenant with Israel remains in effect because God does not break covenant.  If you view the woman as Mary, (the mother of Jesus), very likely as a Catholic you thus support the idea of dispensationalism.

From Bob Rowland who references:  [Here is a quote from:http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/mary18d.htm
“God will not save us without the intercession of Mary . . .
No one can be saved without the protection of Mary.
St. Bonaventure”]

Let’s be very clear.  Catholicism teaches the Gospel and Sacred (oral) Tradition are of equal standing.  The quote from Bonaventure above, however, is total apostacy and denies Christ’s completed work at Calvary.  Bonaventure denies the sufficiency of the cross and denies John 14:6 “No man comes to the Father but by me.”  Bonaventure also denies Hebrews 9:22 “For without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.”  Clearly, no blood has been shed by Mary as a propitiation for sin.  This is an example of invented, false theology because it runs complete contrary—-rather than working with Scripture.

Alvin writes: “When you wrote “which God” in reference to Rev 3:12 there is no problem since God is trinitarian in nature.”
Circular reasoning. Fail.
Jesus and I can count. He was only a carpenter and the son of a carpenter [Who must therefore have been God!!], but I am a highly-educated schoolteacher. If “Jesus is God” and says of another that he is “my God” then there are two; not one; not three. Like the “name(s)” in Mt 28:19,20: Not one in scripture; not three; exactly two.
Pick another topic. For example: What is the fate of the earth?

Doug,
The Trinity is not circular reasoning. It certainly makes the best sense to understand the nature of God. The Father is God, the Son is God and not a created god and the Holy Spirit is God and has person-hood. He is not a force.
Remember: Jesus has 2 natures. One human and one divine. All 3 of the Trinity are disctinct persons who share the same nature as God. They all possess the same qualities of deity such as omnipresence and all power.

The fate of the earth is that it will be destroyed when Christ comes and defeats all evil. After the judgement there will be a new heavens and earth.

Doug, you don’t know the gospel.  Specifically John 10: 25 where Jesus says:  “The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak **for me.”—and—John 10: 30 “I and the Father are one.”  Also, John 5:46 when Jesus told the Pharisees: “For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote **of me.”  In your reference to Mathew 28:19, when Jesus speaks of the Father to the apostles He is speaking of Himself.  He had not yet sent His Spirit upon them until Pentecost.

Alvin writes: “
They all possess the same qualities of deity such as omnipresence and all power.”
You know better: “The Father is greater than I” “No one knows [the time of the end] but the Father”. And many others.
The rest of your post ‘defends the trinity’ with the words of the doctrine. That’s circular reasoning.
Pick another topic.

What happened to Theodore and Simon?