Is this blasphemous enough for you?

[DHK]

Not a good example for a couple of reasons. Hindus belief Ganesh is a god. Ganesh is a god that is other than God. The term remains. We aren't talking about statues but persons and prayer.

I have been in Hindu Temples where there are statues of their gods, and they pray to them.
I have been in Catholic churches where there are statues (stations of the cross), and they pray to them. There is no difference. Bowing down and praying for them is idolatry. Praying to Mary (statue or no statue) is idolatry. Praying to Ganesh (statue or no statue) is idolatry. Whether Hindus believe Ganesh is a god is irrelevant. Whether Catholics believe Mary is a god is irrelevant. Both pray to each one as their respective gods. Both treat them and venerate them, and worship them as gods. The comparison is valid.

Catholics refute the claim Mary is God and say she is a created being thus the person of Mary is not considered a god apart from God as the hindu believes about Ganesh. So your analogy falls short.

The analogy does not fall short.
Most major religions have leaders that are treated as gods.
Buddha, for example has been deified and is worshiped as God. He was a created being, a man who walked this earth. The worship of Buddha is idolatry; the worship of Mary is idolatry.

Bible is clear you should not give worship due to God to any other thing. But not clear on 1) statues - God commands Moses to build the likeness of Seraphim on the top of the ark of the covenant thus if the image thing is a problem God breaks his own law. Solomon also builds seraphim statues in the Temple Solomon should have been condemned for such a thing but he is praised.

The Bible is clear on this subject. Study the Ten Commandments.
None of the items that you mentioned were ever worshiped.

2) speaking with those in Christ after they died. Ie Moses speaking with Jesus before he died in the view of his disciples and other questions regarding this.

It was Christ that was worshiped, and no one else. What did the Father say? Was Moses worshiped? NO.

 

[Zenas]

Is this not the Holy Spirits ministry? There is much that is wrong with this picture of Mary....she is in God's place over the Ark of the covenant and Mercy Seat. Also notice the Monstrance (sp)...does this not show her above Jesus....Where is God the Father dipicted in this picture? Anyone with a basic understanding of the Scriptures can see this picture of Mary is wrong, she has replaced the God the Father, taken the Ministry of God the Holy Spirit, and has over shadowed God the Son.

The depiction of Mary behind the ark behind the altar is really not nearly as prominent in that church as it would first appear. I did some poking around their website and here is the entire interior of the church: http://www.sanctuaryofthedivinemercy.org/
Note that the sanctuary is so small it is barely visible from the rear of the church. All I can say about the architecture is WOW! You won't find anything like this in my neck of the woods.

 

[lori4dogs]

The message of The Divine Mercy is about Jesus, not Mary.

 

[Grace&Truth]

The depiction of Mary behind the ark behind the altar is really not nearly as prominent in that church as it would first appear. I did some poking around their website and here is the entire interior of the church: http://www.sanctuaryofthedivinemercy.org/
Note that the sanctuary is so small it is barely visible from the rear of the church. All I can say about the architecture is WOW! You won't find anything like this in my neck of the woods.

I does take center stage does it not?

 

[Grace&Truth]

The message of The Divine Mercy is about Jesus, not Mary.

Then why is Mary the dominate figure. Again as I said before it is the Holy Spirit's ministry to draw men to Christ, NOT Mary's.

 

[DHK]

The message of The Divine Mercy is about Jesus, not Mary.

Matthew 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Your words do not justify you; your actions betray you.
If what you said is true, then pray to Christ not Mary. Christ is God, not Mary. Mary is dead, she cannot help you.

 

[lori4dogs]

Then why is Mary the dominate figure. Again as I said before it is the Holy Spirit's ministry to draw men to Christ, NOT Mary's.

All you are looking at is a monstrance bearing the Blessed Sacrament. To a Catholic the dominate item is The Blessed Sacrament! Jesus is indeed the focus here. You are looking at something and drawing a wrong conclusion. Google 'messsage of the Divine Mercy' and see what you find out. Don't judge something prior to investigation.

 

[lori4dogs]

Matthew 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Your words do not justify you; your actions betray you.
If what you said is true, then pray to Christ not Mary. Christ is God, not Mary. Mary is dead, she cannot help you.

DHK, Catholics don't pray TO statues or TO the Stations of the Cross. How absurd! You weren't much of a Catholic if you think we do.

 

[lori4dogs]

I have been in Hindu Temples where there are statues of their gods, and they pray to them.
I have been in Catholic churches where there are statues (stations of the cross), and they pray to them. There is no difference. Bowing down and praying for them is idolatry. Praying to Mary (statue or no statue) is idolatry. Praying to Ganesh (statue or no statue) is idolatry. Whether Hindus believe Ganesh is a god is irrelevant. Whether Catholics believe Mary is a god is irrelevant. Both pray to each one as their respective gods. Both treat them and venerate them, and worship them as gods. The comparison is valid.

The analogy does not fall short.
Most major religions have leaders that are treated as gods.
Buddha, for example has been deified and is worshiped as God. He was a created being, a man who walked this earth. The worship of Buddha is idolatry; the worship of Mary is idolatry.

The Bible is clear on this subject. Study the Ten Commandments.
None of the items that you mentioned were ever worshiped.

It was Christ that was worshiped, and no one else. What did the Father say? Was Moses worshiped? NO.

. . . and we don't WORSHIP statues as gods or even treat the saints as gods. You are the one that equivacates all prayer with worship. Why don't you go back and re-read Thinksingstuffs posts again. You never learned enough about the faith as a Catholic or you would know better.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

They pray to Mary in line manner as they pray to God. They are asking for intervention.

So, If I beseached you (a definition of prayer) for your intervention through prayer I'm treating you as a god? I don't think so.

Your attempt to play with words falls short

it would be playing with words if I gave words meanings other than they have. What is at issue is that I'm using already known definition of words to fill out their meaning and intent. I can say since you love your dog/cat that you are worshiping them as god. Because you say you love God and since you love your dog/cat its the same thing. No matter how manny times you say you can distinguish between the love of a dog/cat and God since you use the words love it must mean its the same thing. This is in effect what you are saying which is kind of hypocritical when you look at it. Can't you take them at their word since this is what they say they teach? Just like you would expect me to take your word that you love your dog/cat differently then how you love god. When you talk to them (dog/cat) which is another definition of prayer are you not then treating them as God? This is the essense of your assertion.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I have been in Hindu Temples where there are statues of their gods, and they pray to them.
I have been in Catholic churches where there are statues (stations of the cross), and they pray to them. There is no difference. Bowing down and praying for them is idolatry. Praying to Mary (statue or no statue) is idolatry. Praying to Ganesh (statue or no statue) is idolatry. Whether Hindus believe Ganesh is a god is irrelevant. Whether Catholics believe Mary is a god is irrelevant. Both pray to each one as their respective gods. Both treat them and venerate them, and worship them as gods. The comparison is valid.

not really. I've been to baptist churches and I've been to stand up comedian routines. They look exactly the same so I summize that baptist preachers are comedians and are only doing comedy routines? That is your argument. Kind of slim.

The analogy does not fall short

It absolutely does.

Most major religions have leaders that are treated as gods.
Buddha, for example has been deified and is worshiped as God. He was a created being, a man who walked this earth. The worship of Buddha is idolatry; the worship of Mary is idolatry.

first of all your understanding of Buddha and Buddhism is a bit limited. The eventuality is that all things are the god in Buddhism. So you and I are equally the god save that we aren't enlightened to the point Buddha was. Once we are we can have the Eye of God and percieve things from a God perspective. Big difference in theology there. The ultimate point is that Catholic leaders say that Mary is not God. No matter how many times you insist Mary is believed to be God they say she is not. So in their theology Catholics do not believe Mary is God simple and straight foreward.

The Bible is clear on this subject. Study the Ten Commandments.
None of the items that you mentioned were ever worshiped.

And the Catholics are clear they don't worship Mary. However, your argument is that since they have statues of Mary they worship her. Using your logic then since, in the bible, the Jews made statues of Seraphim on the Ark of the Covenant and in the temple and bowed in their direction (which was actually the direction towards God) then they worshiped the seraphim. If you say that is not the case then logically your accusation towards the catholic fails and you must say Mary is not worshiped.

It was Christ that was worshiped, and no one else. What did the Father say? Was Moses worshiped? NO.

Again Catholics do not worship Mary. Your argument in this instance was that since Catholics talked to Mary after she had died they must be worshiping Mary. Logically then since Jesus was talking to Moses long after he had died he must be worshiping Moses. If you say that Jesus was not then logically it stands to reason that the activity of speaking to someone after they had died physically is not an act of worship as in the case of Moses. Note Moses was very alive during this encounter with Jesus Christ. Thus it stands to reason his mother also is very much alive in Christ.

 

[annsni]

I guess the bottom line is that to Baptists and other non-Catholic people, bowing down in front of, lighting candles in front of and praying and adoring human beings is worship. To the Catholics, they call it something else so that they cannot be accused of worship. But bottom line is that in Scripture, a doctrine so important would have been approved somewhere in the entire 1500 years of writing. Somewhere we'd see someone praying to the dead. Somewhere we would see a human being that is now dead interceding for those on earth. Somewhere we'd see any support for this happening. But we don't. Bottom line - we don't. Instead we see that we have one Mediator. One who does intercession. The One who acts in these ways is divine. So to those of us who do not put tradition on par with Scripture, we say that this is heresy. To those of us who do put tradition on par with Scripture say that it's the way of a Catholic. We will not agree on this but I would ask my Catholic friends to search the Scriptures with a prayerful heart - prayerful towards Jesus Christ. Ask that the Holy Spirit would show you the truth.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I guess the bottom line is that to Baptists and other non-Catholic people, bowing down in front of, lighting candles in front of and praying and adoring human beings is worship.

What you've put down here brings up many questions I have as late been pondering with regard to Doctrine, Scripture, tradition, and revelation. There in my mind seem to be some serious issues no one really is discussing.

To the Catholics, they call it something else so that they cannot be accused of worship.

The problem with this statement is you assume knowledge of intent. When in fact there are doctrinal foundations from which their belief arise. In otherwords you are claiming they purposely created doctrine to match something they wanted to do anyway when I suggest that the activity emerged our of an already established doctrinal system. Big difference.

But bottom line is that in Scripture, a doctrine so important would have been approved somewhere in the entire 1500 years of writing.

Here in lies some of my questions. Are scriptures the sole revelation of God to man about what he wants man to understand. If there are other sources certainly each other source would point to other sources. For instance we see in scripture that God reveals himself in nature. That is an extra biblical source of revelation. Also It doesn't seem that Jesus relied soley on scripture as an authority but used himself as authoritative. In fact, his teachings directly to the Apostles of themselves were Authoritative and considered by the apostles to be greater revelation than the writen word. Also note Jesus claims to give another revelatory source which is the Holy Spirit. Jesus didn't rely only on scripture to reveal what he wanted to his apostles and often expounded the meaning of scripture to match his own teaching. I find this very telling. In fact when the apostles spread the faith they didn't have the New Testiment but their very own words and eyewitness accounts and people believed. Scriptures were considered secondary to the apostles teaching and often used in a way that was to support their teachings. So in this sense tradition very litterally came before scripture in the Christian faith. I often note while studying scripture that Paul when speaking (like in Philippians) uses Christian hymns already practiced consertedly in churches. Like here for instance

6Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father

Paul didn't write this off the cuff so to speak but this very doctrinal statement was a quote from a common hymn already practiced in churches before the NT was written and it certainly isn't from the OT. Its very clearly evidence that a liturgy was used before the NT was even written. Certainly this doctrinal statement used to teach the faithful is a tradition in full use long before the corpus of the NT was even completed. It seems these christians weren't sola scriptura. But held to the traditions put in place by the apostles long before their memoirs and commentary were considered scriptures or what we call the NT.

Somewhere we'd see someone praying to the dead.

Possibly, maybe not. We can see a body of Art work dating back to the 2nd century of venerating christians who have passed on.

Somewhere we would see a human being that is now dead interceding for those on earth.

We see this kind of imagry in the book of Revelation. Lori4dogs has pointed at some of these texts.

Bottom line - we don't

Again I begin to question is the scriptures as we've selected them the sole revelatory vehicle for God. It seems the scriptures do not say that of itself.

Instead we see that we have one Mediator.

Yet you pray for others or mediate for them

One who does intercession.

Yet you intercede for those who need prayer and supplication.

The One who acts in these ways is divine.

However you don't consider yourself such. So there is an inconsistency by your statements, activities and beliefs.

So to those of us who do not put tradition on par with Scripture,

Which brings up another question. Do not all people put tradition on par with scripture? I mean if you are reformed you will read the passages of scripture and understand them from the Point of view of TULIP? A text will say elect and you have in mind Calvins perception of elect rather than someone elses view of elect. When you read Justification in Romans 4 which says Abraham was Justified when he believed God when God told him he will make him into a nation. Yet somehow gloss over Galatians 3 where God said Abraham was justified when God told him to go and he went or when James 2 says Abraham was justified by offering up Isaac. Yet believe Justification is a one time event. Which time is Abraham justified? We have 3 differing accounts during differing times of his life when he was "justified". So it seems traditions on how we read scripture is very prevelant upon our belief system and no one is truelly "tradition free".

we say that this is heresy

How? When you and everyone else does it?

To those of us who do put tradition on par with Scripture say that it's the way of a Catholic.

You haven't even made that point. You follow your tradition as surely as the catholics follow theirs.

We will not agree on this but I would ask my Catholic friends to search the Scriptures with a prayerful heart - prayerful towards Jesus Christ. Ask that the Holy Spirit would show you the truth.

I hope to see it because I'm begining to wonder about many things I had previously taken for granted.

 

[RAdam]

So, If I beseached you (a definition of prayer) for your intervention through prayer I'm treating you as a god? I don't think so.

It's sad that the only excuse you have is to change the meaning of the word pray.

What do the catholics do when they pray to Mary? Do they walk up to the literal Mary and ask her to pray to Jesus for them? No. They bow their heads and pray to her in the same manner which they pray to God. They ask her to intercede for them. This is in no way like you asking me to pray to God for you.

 

[RAdam]

Scripture was never considered secondary to the teachings of Jesus or the apostles. That is just plain incorrect.

Jesus quoted a mountain of scripture in the NT, and John tells us that the NT doesn't even begin to cover all the things Jesus said and did. Jesus was always quoting scripture as authoritative and when He quoted it the people immediately shut up. Why? Because they also viewed scripture as authoritative. Jesus was constantly saying, "it is written," "have you not read," and "well hath ____ prophesied of you."

The apostles, likewise, quoted a mountain of scripture. Peter, at Pentecost, quoting OT passage after OT passage. Paul quoted OT passage after OT passage. James, during the famous council at Jerusalem, quoted an OT passage, which was the foundation of the decision made there and subsequent letter sent forth from them. In writing the epistles, the authors referred to and quoted scripture all the time.

While the apostles had special authority, they were not given a higher place than scripture. What they wrote under divine inspiration was equally authoritative as the OT. They were guided by the Holy Spirit in a special way and instructed us to follow what they taught. They never violated scripture in setting down any doctrine, any practice, or writing any epistles. They were simply God's instrument to get the church up and running.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It's sad that the only excuse you have is to change the meaning of the word pray.

What do the catholics do when they pray to Mary? Do they walk up to the literal Mary and ask her to pray to Jesus for them? No. They bow their heads and pray to her in the same manner which they pray to God. They ask her to intercede for them. This is in no way like you asking me to pray to God for you.

This is plain incorrect. I'm the only one using the definition of pray as it has always been used in its different context. In fact you want to throw one aspect of the definition of the word and only use it in that context when the word has multiple of uses even in the modern context. That is just plain disingenuous. All Catholics I know ask Mary for her prayers. Not a one say she is divine.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Scripture was never considered secondary to the teachings of Jesus or the apostles. That is just plain incorrect.

Jesus quoted a mountain of scripture in the NT, and John tells us that the NT doesn't even begin to cover all the things Jesus said and did. Jesus was always quoting scripture as authoritative and when He quoted it the people immediately shut up. Why? Because they also viewed scripture as authoritative. Jesus was constantly saying, "it is written," "have you not read," and "well hath ____ prophesied of you."

The apostles, likewise, quoted a mountain of scripture. Peter, at Pentecost, quoting OT passage after OT passage. Paul quoted OT passage after OT passage. James, during the famous council at Jerusalem, quoted an OT passage, which was the foundation of the decision made there and subsequent letter sent forth from them. In writing the epistles, the authors referred to and quoted scripture all the time.

While the apostles had special authority, they were not given a higher place than scripture. What they wrote under divine inspiration was equally authoritative as the OT. They were guided by the Holy Spirit in a special way and instructed us to follow what they taught. They never violated scripture in setting down any doctrine, any practice, or writing any epistles. They were simply God's instrument to get the church up and running.

You are plain incorrect. You mistake the quotation of scripture or the use of it to show its superiority. However, it is never superior to Jesus teaching. Ie "You have been told and eye for an eye but I tell you...." If scriptures were not considered secondary to Jesus' teaching Jesus would not have made further restrictions than even scripture supplied. It is clear that Jesus used scripture to support him even as the apostles used it to support their testimony. Jesus Christ is the authority and this is how the disciples see Jesus. Scriptures do not contradict Christ but support him. Jesus implements baptism (outside of scripture an addition to them) Jesus implements communion also outside of scripture of the OT text. If it were as you say Jesus would have created new things. So it is that the scriptures were secondary to Jesus' teachings and the teachings and testimony of the apostles and in fact these things became scripture later on but before they were writen down it was believe Jesus rose from the dead not because the OT said it but because the Apostles did.

 

[RAdam]

This is plain incorrect. I'm the only one using the definition of pray as it has always been used in its different context. In fact you want to throw one aspect of the definition of the word and only use it in that context when the word has multiple of uses even in the modern context. That is just plain disingenuous. All Catholics I know ask Mary for her prayers. Not a one say she is divine.

Oh, so they walk up to Mary and ask her to pray for them? Hmm, interesting.

Meanwhile, a little research yielded this: Memorare

"Remember, O Most Gracious Virgin Mary,

that never was it known that anyone who fled to Thy protection,

implored Thy help or sought Thy intercession,

was left unaided.

Inspired by this confidence,

I fly unto Thee, O Virgin of Virgins, my Mother;

to Thee do I come, before thee I kneel, sinful and sorrowful.

O Mother of the Word Incarnate,

despise not my petitions,

but in Thy clemency, hear and answer me.

Amen."

Sounds like people saying this are praying to Mary for her intercession. Looks like I'm not the one being disingenuous.

 

[RAdam]

You are plain incorrect. You mistake the quotation of scripture or the use of it to show its superiority. However, it is never superior to Jesus teaching. Ie "You have been told and eye for an eye but I tell you...." If scriptures were not considered secondary to Jesus' teaching Jesus would not have made further restrictions than even scripture supplied. It is clear that Jesus used scripture to support him even as the apostles used it to support their testimony. Jesus Christ is the authority and this is how the disciples see Jesus. Scriptures do not contradict Christ but support him. Jesus implements baptism (outside of scripture an addition to them) Jesus implements communion also outside of scripture of the OT text. If it were as you say Jesus would have created new things. So it is that the scriptures were secondary to Jesus' teachings and the teachings and testimony of the apostles and in fact these things became scripture later on but before they were writen down it was believe Jesus rose from the dead not because the OT said it but because the Apostles did.

I never said scripture was more authoritative than Jesus, I said it wasn't secondary to Jesus. Jesus didn't supplant scripture, He gave to light to scripture.

 

[annsni]

This is plain incorrect. I'm the only one using the definition of pray as it has always been used in its different context. In fact you want to throw one aspect of the definition of the word and only use it in that context when the word has multiple of uses even in the modern context. That is just plain disingenuous. All Catholics I know ask Mary for her prayers. Not a one say she is divine.

We need to remember that there are multiple definitions of a word in a dictionary and we can't use one definition to say that it's actually another definition.

Pray can mean to beg or entreat - is that what we always do when we speak of praying to God?? I don't know about you but that is only part of what I do when I pray.

Praying to a saint - are we only begging or entreating? Additionally, when we beg or entreat them to do something, why do we expect them to have special powers? Why not pray to Joe?? Doesn't Joe have the same powers as Mary??? No. Instead when praying to a saint, that saint - on our decision - has a higher place in heaven than others do. A higher, tighter place to God where they can influence God. Is that Biblical?

I'm sorry but you cannot use the word "pray" and say because it means one thing it means another thing as well. That just doesn't work.