Mariology vs Mariolatry

[GraceSaves]

DualHunter,

Anything Mary would deliver (help, etc) would be passed down from her Son, Jesus Christ. She is not a godess. She is the Mother of God, our Lord, Jesus Christ. Does that entail special privaledges? You betcha. Privaledges that she enjoys because her Son grants them to her.

You surely realize that Mary has no role if not for her Son. Thus, she is and always will be subordinate to Him. Thus, she is in no way God, only His servant. She is the "hand maiden of the Lord," is she not? Thus, if she brings to us Christ's assistance, do we not say "Thank you, Mary?"

God bless,

Grant

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Poor way to start this off. I was as upset as I sounded in that post, and it's not very nice for you to poke fun at that.

Grant,

You know what? The last intro was meant to be a teasing intro to get you to simmer down. I meant nothing by it and I am sorry you took offense. I am also sorry you misunderstood what I was trying to do, which was get you back into a semi-good mood. I failed, but I wasn't poking fun.

Moving on...

Cindy Crawford does not equal his wife. If he thought she looked similar to Cindy Crawford, based on descriptions, who are we to blame him? He has to base it on something; that's how the human mind works.

Actually, no. Thinking about Cindy Crawford (the image) would be thinking about Cindy Crawford (the person). Think of it this way. People tell me I look alot like Elvis (please people, young Elvis!). I actually get it quite frequently. If my wife started to think of Elvis because she thought I looked like him, that would be adultry. Case closed. Simple as that.

If he is thinking about CINDY CRAWFORD, THE WOMAN, then of course he's wrong, because that is not his wife. These are different things, and you can't equate them.

Actually, I can, and I just did in my example. Think about it. Lets say your wife sorta resembled Faith Hill. If you though of Faith Hill instead of your wife, even though you think that your wife looks like Faith Hill, that would be wrong because it is not your wife. Simple, clear and true.

An image that is not representative of Jesus? What would that be? A cross, maybe?

Reading what you want to read? I said image, not cross. If you assert that I meant cross instead of image (which is image of Jesus BTW), you kill your credibility.

Two things. First, you say "most likely not wrong." You don't know? If you don't, then you can't say whether either extreme is right or wrong either.

Not in this case (prayer), notice how I said 'I think' and such. But adultry is clear. It is wrong because we have a clear commandment about that.

Second, images in our head about what Jesus looked like...are what ends up being painted or drawn. A picture of Jesus is someone else's image of Jesus in their imagination, and it's just as accurate as our own, since none of us have seen him. According to you, if I picture Jesus with a bold cut and sunglasses, that's okay, as long as it's not a physical drawing and only a mental representation.

Is it your mental representation of Jesus or some one elses? There is a difference.

Secondly, if you picture Jesus with a bold cut and sunglasses, that is fine. As long as you don't stray from what his appearance most likely would have been (for instance, a green, 9 foot jesus is not Jesus). Personally, I don't think of him as a person when I pray.

You're betting a lot on something that you don't have a lot of information to back it up with. Why did Jesus give us eyes? To use them. To glorify Him with them. Making pictures of Jesus can be used in evangelization! Are you opposed to that?

This is a simplistic and rather pedantic argument. You can argue that porn can be used for evangelization (Look at the beauty of sex! God is great!).

Yes, you did, but I don't think it quite works. You were comparing adulterous thoughts with images in prayer, and those things aren't really analogous enough to use as an appropriate example.

Fortunately for me, that is not true, as I have just shown.

Again, Grant. I was trying to liven you mood a bit before. I hope by now you are in better spirits.

In Christ,
jason

That's why you're not Jesus.

So you think Jesus would be cool with people thinking he looked like Brad Pitt? Cindy Crawford? Marvin the Martian? Interesting.

Jesus isn't vain.

Actually, it has nothing to do with vanity. It has to do with historic accuracy and the truth. Though, that may not matter to you, it does to me.

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Jason,

I appreciate the Bible verse. However, that doesn't mean he would be unattractive, merely ordinary. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, after all.

God bless,

Grant

Last part of Isaiah 53:2
Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.

I may have missed something in grade school, but 'Nor...we...be attracted to him' pretty much implies unattractive or not good looking.

Though, I may see your confusion. I did not mean ugly, a common misunderstanding when someone says unattractive or not good looking.

www.m-w.com
Main Entry: un·at·trac·tive
Pronunciation: -'trak-tiv
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1775
: not attractive : PLAIN, DULL
- un·at·trac·tive·ly adverb
- un·at·trac·tive·ness noun

Main Entry: 1ug·ly
Pronunciation: '&-glE
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): ug·li·er; -est
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse uggligr, from uggr fear; akin to Old Norse ugga to fear
Date: 13th century
1 : FRIGHTFUL, DIRE
2 a : offensive to the sight : HIDEOUS b : offensive or unpleasant to any sense
3 : morally offensive or objectionable <corruption--the ugliest stain of all>
4 a : likely to cause inconvenience or discomfort <the ugly truth> b : SURLY, QUARRELSOME <an ugly disposition> <the crowd got ugly>
- ug·li·ly /-gl&-lE/ adverb

So, your ordinary and my unattractive are the same.

See....we can agree on something!

In Christ,
jason

[ October 29, 2002, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: jasonW* ]

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by jasonW*:
Grant,

You know what? The last intro was meant to be a teasing intro to get you to simmer down. I meant nothing by it and I am sorry you took offense. I am also sorry you misunderstood what I was trying to do, which was get you back into a semi-good mood. I failed, but I wasn't poking fun.

The Internet isn't the best place for sarcasm or kidding, unless one utilizes smilies or whatnot. I'm sorry for not detecting the harmless mood you were presenting. Forgiven, forgotten.

Actually, no. Thinking about Cindy Crawford (the image) would be thinking about Cindy Crawford (the person). Think of it this way. People tell me I look alot like Elvis (please people, young Elvis!). I actually get it quite frequently. If my wife started to think of Elvis because she thought I looked like him, that would be adultry. Case closed. Simple as that.[/qb][/quote]

It can't work that way, because in this case, the husband has nothing for which to compare his wife to. I admitted, if he thought about Cindy Crawford, yes, that is adultry. But if his best guess as to what his wife looks like is just like (or very close) to Cindy Crawford, he can't help it - HE HAS NOTHING TO BASE IT ON.

Originally posted by jasonW*:
Actually, I can, and I just did in my example. Think about it. Lets say your wife sorta resembled Faith Hill. If you though of Faith Hill instead of your wife, even though you think that your wife looks like Faith Hill, that would be wrong because it is not your wife. Simple, clear and true.

Again, you're taking out the condition that I don't know what my wife looks like. You've done that, and that makes your argument easier to argue, but also invalid.

Reading what you want to read? I said image, not cross. If you assert that I meant cross instead of image (which is image of Jesus BTW), you kill your credibility.[/qb][/quote]

I was asking (and guessing) because I did not know what you were referring to. Please clarify what you meant in your original post on this matter.

Originally posted by jasonW*:
Not in this case (prayer), notice how I said 'I think' and such. But adultry is clear. It is wrong because we have a clear commandment about that.

As if I would disagree? We were talking about prayer to Jesus while looking at a picture, and you said it would most likely be wrong. We weren't talking about adultry at this juncture.

Originally posted by jasonW*:
Is it your mental representation of Jesus or some one elses? There is a difference.

This doesn't work. I can picture Jesus however I like in my head...as long as I don't draw it and hang it on my wall? And someone else's interpretation of Jesus, according to you, is valid...as long as I don't use it as my interpretation as well? That's pretty convoluted, if you ask me.

Originally posted by jasonW*:
Secondly, if you picture Jesus with a bold cut and sunglasses, that is fine. As long as you don't stray from what his appearance most likely would have been (for instance, a green, 9 foot jesus is not Jesus). Personally, I don't think of him as a person when I pray.

Jesus is in Heaven, fully God and fully human. He didn't shed his human side when he ascended. I think of Him as both, but he is visible in human form, for the very reason that we might have an image to focus on when we pray.

Originally posted by jasonW*:
This is a simplistic and rather pedantic argument. You can argue that porn can be used for evangelization (Look at the beauty of sex! God is great!).

You just compared a picture of Jesus to pornography. I hardly think these two are comparable. Sex is beautiful within the boundaries of two married people, and is not for viewing by any two not in that marital covenant. Showing porn to anyone is always wrong. Showing a picture of Jesus to anyone is not "always" (giving you the benefit of the doubt) wrong.

Originally posted by jasonW*:
So you think Jesus would be cool with people thinking he looked like Brad Pitt? Cindy Crawford? Marvin the Martian? Interesting.

This doesn't happen, so why pretend it does?

Originally posted by jasonW*:
Actually, it has nothing to do with vanity. It has to do with historic accuracy and the truth. Though, that may not matter to you, it does to me.

What Jesus looks like is irrelevant, as long as He, Jesus, is what we're focusing on. If it were important for us to have the exact right image of Him, we'd have it. Since we don't, we make do with our mind and our artistic abilities, which are gifts from God.

God bless,

Grant

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
DualHunter,

Anything Mary would deliver (help, etc) would be passed down from her Son, Jesus Christ. She is not a godess. She is the Mother of God, our Lord, Jesus Christ. Does that entail special privaledges? You betcha. Privaledges that she enjoys because her Son grants them to her.

You surely realize that Mary has no role if not for her Son. Thus, she is and always will be subordinate to Him. Thus, she is in no way God, only His servant. She is the "hand maiden of the Lord," is she not? Thus, if she brings to us Christ's assistance, do we not say "Thank you, Mary?"

God bless,

Grant

"so that she may come to their aid and grant help and remedy against sorrows of body and soul. And never was her most powerful aid hoped for in vain by those who besought it with pious and trustful prayer."

This does not say that Mary brought Christ's aid, rather it says Mary brough her most powerful aid.

 

[Dualhunter]

What Jesus looks like is irrelevant, as long as He, Jesus, is what we're focusing on. If it were important for us to have the exact right image of Him, we'd have it. Since we don't, we make do with our mind and our artistic abilities, which are gifts from God.

Then why insist on having an image to look at if the image is irrelevant. Is it not enough to know that Jesus is at the right hand of the Father that you must have a picture or statue to look at and touch?

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Dualhunter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />What Jesus looks like is irrelevant, as long as He, Jesus, is what we're focusing on. If it were important for us to have the exact right image of Him, we'd have it. Since we don't, we make do with our mind and our artistic abilities, which are gifts from God.

Then why insist on having an image to look at if the image is irrelevant. Is it not enough to know that Jesus is at the right hand of the Father that you must have a picture or statue to look at and touch?</font>[/QUOTE]DualHunter,

You can't take context from one discussion and try to make it fit with another. I never said the image is irrelevant; I said what Jesus looks like is irrelevant. Don't change my words, please.

We don't know what Jesus looks like, but we can guess and form images in our head, etc, etc, the rest of what I said.

God bless,

Grant

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Dualhunter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GraceSaves:
DualHunter,

Anything Mary would deliver (help, etc) would be passed down from her Son, Jesus Christ. She is not a godess. She is the Mother of God, our Lord, Jesus Christ. Does that entail special privaledges? You betcha. Privaledges that she enjoys because her Son grants them to her.

You surely realize that Mary has no role if not for her Son. Thus, she is and always will be subordinate to Him. Thus, she is in no way God, only His servant. She is the "hand maiden of the Lord," is she not? Thus, if she brings to us Christ's assistance, do we not say "Thank you, Mary?"

God bless,

Grant

"so that she may come to their aid and grant help and remedy against sorrows of body and soul. And never was her most powerful aid hoped for in vain by those who besought it with pious and trustful prayer."

This does not say that Mary brought Christ's aid, rather it says Mary brough her most powerful aid.</font>[/QUOTE]DualHunter,

To aid means to assist. A helper. Most people in high positions have aides...to aid them. Jesus does not, of course, need an aide (being God and all), but that doesn't mean he can't chose to have one. After all, he didn't have to create human beings, but he chose to. He didn't have to love us after we disobeyed him, but he chose to. He didn't have to send His only Son to die for our sins, but he chose to. In our minds, these actions of God are unthinkable, because they require more love and mercy than we can fathom...but he does them anyway.

In the same way, Jesus allows us to identify with His mother, Mary, because she brought Christ to the world, and continues to bring us to Him every day. That is her mission: to bring us to her Son.

Mary is not God, which is why she can only aid. She is not all powerful, though Christ shares some of His power with her, as Queen Mother, for as Christ is our brother, Mary is our mother.

God bless,

Grant

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:

To aid means to assist. A helper. Most people in high positions have aides...to aid them. Jesus does not, of course, need an aide (being God and all), but that doesn't mean he can't cho se to have one. After all, he didn't have to create human beings, but he chose to. He didn't have to love us after we disobeyed him, but he chose to. He didn't have to send His only Son to die for our sins, but he chose to. In our minds, these actions of God are unthinkable, because they require more love and mercy than we can fathom...but he does them anyway.

In the same way, Jesus allows us to identify with His mother, Mary, because she brought Christ to the world, and In the same way, Jesus allows us to identify with His mother, That is her mission: to bring us to her Son.

Mary is not God, which is why she can only aid. She is not all powerful, though Christ shares some of His power with her, as Queen Mother, for as Christ is our brother, Mary is our mother.

Now on page 8, 24 hours later, you guys left me on page 4. Someone's been doing a lot of talking.
The first part of your post here, Grant, is correct.

"After all, he didn't have 't have tolove us after we disobeyed him, but he chose to. He didn't have to send His only Son to die for our sins, but he chose to."

This much can be demonstrated from Scripture (John 3:16; Rom.5:8).

The second part of your post is pure speculation, and has no foundation is Scripture at all.
"In the same way, Jesus allows us to identify with His mother."
--Please provide Scripture for this statement. Prove from the Bible that this is true.

"That is her mission: to bring us to her Son."
Again, there is no Scriptural foundation for this assertion. Please provide the evidence from the Bible.
"Christ shares some of His power with her, as Queen Mother,"
Where does it say this in the Bible? Here is what my Bible says:

Mat.28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, ALL power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
--He shares that power with no one. He is God! The second person of the eternal triune Godhead. All power is given unto Him!
DHK

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
DualHunter,

You can't take context from one discussion and try to make it fit with another. I never said the image is irrelevant; I said what Jesus looks like is irrelevant. Don't change my words, please.

We don't know what Jesus looks like, but we can guess and form images in our head, etc, etc, the rest of what I said.

God bless,

Grant

Do you know what an image is? What Jesus physically looks like is His physically image and so if what He looks like is irrelevant, His image is also irrelevant. You even admit as much when you say "We don't know what Jesus looks like, but we can guess and form images in our head". Your image of Jesus is just a description of the way Jesus looks that falls short of reality.

"so that she may come to their aid and grant help and remedy against sorrows of body and soul. And never was her most powerful aid hoped for in vain by those who besought it with pious and trustful prayer."

Mary is said to be giving aid and granting help to the pope's fleet, Jesus isn't even mentioned. She is not describe as Jesus' helper as you are suggesting but as the helper of those whom she is aiding as if she had the power herself to give the deliverance which they sought.

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by DHK:
Mat.28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, ALL power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
--He shares that power with no one. He is God! The second person of the eternal triune Godhead. All power is given unto Him!
DHK

8
"(21) I am the LORD, that is (22) My name;
I will not give My (23) glory to another,
Nor My praise to graven images. - Isaiah 42:8 NASB

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

Hi all, I thought it was only because I was is Australia that 5 pages suddenly appeared while I was sleeping!
Quick recap.
No where in the Bible is Mary prayed to. She is only mentioned once (Acts 1:14) in any of the NT after the Gospels. That is, Paul(for one), in all his letters never once mentions her. Not a big priority here. Likewise John and Peter, both of whom knew her personally. The Gospels mention her as having other children, in a presumably happy and fruitful marriage with Joseph.

Carson wrote "speaks of her role of accepting our prayers and presenting them before her Son, Jesus Christ in heaven" The Bible teaches us to pray to God, that he hears our prayers (Jesus did not say, when you pray, say "Holy Mary full of grace..." He said "When you pray, say 'Our Father, who art in Heaven'"). Is Mary the prayer clerk? deciding which prayers or in what priority Jesus will hear them? Is she a link between us and Jesus, or is Jesus himself the one who hears our prayers and answers them? Is Jesus himself the only link between man and God?

Carson, you write that Mary was somehow (unmentioned in Scripture) conceived without sin. Does this mean she was also without the ability to sin? That is not an ability given to those of us who trust in his blood for our life. We are forgiven, washed, born again, baptised in his Spirit, yet still we sin. Mary was different? Not only sinless at birth, but unsinable? Can you see how utterly unBiblical this extrodinary speculation becomes? Worship and pray to God alone. He alone is worthy. Dont distract you mind or your soul with images of Mary. The church is the bride of Christ.
Take care, Colin

 

[Clint Kritzer]

I am still waiting for a few answers before I'm willing to let go of this thread:

1.

originally posted by Clint Kritzer: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Also, am I to incur that "worship" and "adoration" are synonymous?

Carson Weber: Words are used in different times and cultures differently, so it would be inappropriate to make such an equation without respect for when and where you reside within the milieu of humanity. Specifically within 21st c. American lingual usage, "worship" and "adoration" are synonymous, but "worship" in other cultures today and in times past may still be used to refer to "veneration".

On the home page of the New Advent website there appears this text:

The work is entirely new, and not merely a translation or a compilation from other encyclopedia sources. The Editors have insisted that the articles should contain the latest and most accurate information to be obtained from the standard works on each subject.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/

The copyright on the page is for 2002. There is also a link to a page called Byte by Byte, Catholic Encyclopedia Launched into Cyberspace (1997)

With this being the case, are not the definitions on the New Advent website reliable to today's culture? If not, did you see any contextual oversights on the page for adoration that should be corrected?</font>[/QUOTE]2.

Further, I found no definition on that site for "veneration." Is this concept still synonymous with worship and if not how does it differ?

3.

Also, am I to incur from your post that the word "worship" when applied to Mary actually means "honor" as it does in 2Samuel 9:6?

4.

Show me the exception clause in this verse from Scripture:

Matthew 4:10 - Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'

5.
Also, let's not slip backwards from facts that have been established, in particular:

originally posted by GraceSaves: DualHunter,

No Catholic is commanded to bow down and worship a statue of Mary.

Wow, that was easy.

God bless,

Grant

Is "commanded" the key word here? It has already been established that Catholics DO worship and bow down to Mary. It is a term referred to as hyperdulia. Catholics do worship statues and earthly articles with a term known as dulia. I have not seen it established yet exactly what this term means in regards to my request of: "Please define latria, dulia and hyperdulia so that we can see that they are not breaking the Second Commandment and show the origin of this practice of "different" forms of worship being agreeable to the God of Abraham."

This picture was found on the Vatican website. Its caption stated, "Fatima, 12 May 2000: John Paul II praying to Our Lady of Fatima".

...........................................

Back to Ron asking about the Ark, DualHunter is correct, the cherubim in the Temple were not worshipped. They were strictly ornamentation. They were not kissed, prayed to, prayed through, held in any esteem, nor worshipped. Paul reconfirms the existence and the wrongeness of angel worship in his letter to the Letter to the Colossians (2:18).

[ October 30, 2002, 03:37 AM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

4. The Old Covenant is revealed in the New, therefore, the Queenship of the Blessed Virgin is seen fulfilling the type found in the Old Covenant. Note that in the kingship of David, we see the typology of the kingship of our Lord. There are some VERY interesting things which God places in the Scriptures to point to the New Covenant and which therefor must be fulfilled in the New Covenant. One of these types is that of the "giberah", the queen mother, who co-ruled with the king. Interestingly enough, this co regency began with the reign of the Son of David, one Solomon by name, and continued on right up to the time of Christ. I hope you see the typology here: the Son of David is promised an eternal covenant and kingdom and with him reigns the queen mother. (Psssssstt....Jesus is the Son of David).

Brother Ed[/QB][/QUOTE]

Hi Ed, are you sure you want to quote this one? 1 Kings 2:18-23 has Bathsheba sitting on a throne next to Solomon all right. She then presents a petition to him, and he asks if she is nuts, and kills the person she interceeded for. If this is your type,if I ask Mary to pray for me, will I end up getting killed?
I should add that I think Bathsheba is a real woman of faith, but your use of her here doesn't fit. The only other queen mum I can find is Athaliah, who slaughtered the royal family, and was killed by the good priest Jehoiada.
Back to the drawing board, Ed
All the best, Colin

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Another unanswered question:

Where exactly did God command for images of saints and Mary to be constructed?

Also:

originally posted by GraceSaves: He said it was from one of the documents of the Vatican Council...you want me to read the whole thing so I can find out exactly where he got it from? He found it, he should finish the sentence. Somehow it seems deceitful for me to have to disprove the meaning of a prayer when the author didn't publish the entire thing. In fact, that should make void the argument. If all the evidence isn't there, then there isn't a case.

I found the entire statement that Curtis ended with a colon. It didn't get any better with the whole statement. In fact, I think Curtis was being polite in leaving off the remainder of the sentence:

"Mary has by grace been exalted above all angels and men to a place second only to her Son, as the most holy mother of God who was involved in the mysteries of Christ: she is rightly honored by a special cult in the Church." - Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church", no. 66

 

[DHK]

It seems that our Catholic friends are silenced. The argument here is quite simple. Prayer is worship. Worship is due only to God. "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only thou shalt worship." Catholics pray/worship to Mary, other saints, relics, etc. According to the second commandment they commit idolatry. They cannot answer adequately the questions that Clint has raised. Nor can they refute this simple argument.
DHK

 

[GraceSaves]

DHK,

Quite frankly, get over yourself.

Clint,

I will respond to each and every question here. There is more to cover here than in the other threads, so I'm answering them now when I have less time. Later on I'll have more time to sit down and write responses to all of the questions, of which there are many.

God bless,

Grant

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by DHK:
The second part of your post is pure speculation, and has no foundation is Scripture at all.
"In the same way, Jesus allows us to identify with His mother."
--Please provide Scripture for this statement. Prove from the Bible that this is true.

John 19:26-27
When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother." And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.

Here, Jesus is giving his mother to the disciple whom he loved. He creates a personal relationship between them ("son," "mother"). Knowing that nothing Jesus ever said or did was trivial, there is obviously greater meaning to what he is implying, especially in the fact that the disciple is not named (though we know it now to be John) makes reference to us all, for we are all Christ's beloved disciples.

Originally posted by DHK:
"That is her mission: to bring us to her Son."
Again, there is no Scriptural foundation for this assertion. Please provide the evidence from the Bible.

Luke 1:46
"My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior."

Further, she was His mother. She always put Him first, as that's what good mothers do.

Originally posted by DHK:
"Christ shares some of His power with her, as Queen Mother,"
Where does it say this in the Bible? Here is what my Bible says:

Mat.28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, ALL power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
--He shares that power with no one. He is God! The second person of the eternal triune Godhead. All power is given unto Him!
DHK

DHK,

Your verse proves nothing except that God has absolute power. We agree on that. That in now way "proves" that God cannot share elements of that with others. We already see that in the disciples "power" to bind and loose.

God bless,

Grant

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Dualhunter:
Do you know what an image is? What Jesus physically looks like is His physically image and so if what He looks like is irrelevant, His image is also irrelevant. You even admit as much when you say "We don't know what Jesus looks like, but we can guess and form images in our head". Your image of Jesus is just a description of the way Jesus looks that falls short of reality.

I'm not even going to address this since it can't logically be followed. You took quotes from a conversation with another person on a tangent of this issue and mixed it with our discussion, and it doesn't work.

Originally posted by Dualhunter:
"so that she may come to their aid and grant help and remedy against sorrows of body and soul. And never was her most powerful aid hoped for in vain by those who besought it with pious and trustful prayer."

Mary is said to be giving aid and granting help to the pope's fleet, Jesus isn't even mentioned. She is not describe as Jesus' helper as you are suggesting but as the helper of those whom she is aiding as if she had the power herself to give the deliverance which they sought.

A knowledgable Catholic, such as a Pope, is well aware of where it's coming from. Also, this is his personal writing. Also, this is but one paragraph. You expect the entire Marian Catholic dogmas to be fully explained in one paragraph of a story. Things don't work like that. Much is understood knowledge in this case because there was no need to explain the rationality behind the beliefs. It's generally understood (by Catholics, that is).

God bless,

Grant

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Dualhunter:

8
"(21) I am the LORD, that is (22) My name;
I will not give My (23) glory to another,
Nor My praise to graven images. - Isaiah 42:8 NASB

When did we say that God was giving glory and praise to graven images? Never. Nor do Catholics give glory and honor to graven images, but rather to what those images represent. I'm sensing a broken record, here.

God bless,

Grant