Mariology vs Mariolatry

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Australian Baptist Student:
No where in the Bible is Mary prayed to.

No where in the New Testament, starting with the Epistles, do we have instances of private prayer. These are letters of instruction, so why would they all of a sudden break into private prayer...on paper? It's not there because it wouldn't make sense for it to be there.

Originally posted by Australian Baptist Student:
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.

She was most likely also alive except for the last few remaining books of the Bible.

Originally posted by Australian Baptist Student:
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.

I love that. You try to prove something as fact while using the word "presumably." You don't know, so don't pretend to know. The matter of her having children is not closed, except in your mind and in the minds of like-minded thinkers.

Originally posted by Australian Baptist Student:
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?

How far out of context do you want to take Carson? The only thing Carson's quote could be related to would be prayers TO MARY. Prayers to Jesus go to Jesus. Prayers to Mary are then taken by her to Jesus. So, no, Mary doens't handle all the prayers, and that was never stated. Ever. It's amazing how many of these "great" arguments you guys come up with are built on misreading (purposefully or otherwise) what we dileberately state.

Originally posted by Australian Baptist Student:
Carson, you write that Mary was somehow (unmentioned in Scripture) conceived without sin. Does this mean she was also without the ability to sin?

Adam and Eve were created without sin, and yet they sinned. Yes, Eve could have fallen into sin, had she decided to sin. She did not.

Originally posted by Australian Baptist Student:
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

Well, this whole rant was pointless, because she wasn't protected from sin; she was born without original sin (by the grace of God) and never fell into sin.

Oh, and Mary isn't a distraction. Mary only points me to her Son, Jesus Christ.

God bless,

Grant

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
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?

I would hope they would be accurate, yes. I will look into this one more heavily and get back to you soon.

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
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?

From my Catholic Encyclopedia:
"Dulia is the special worship, generally called veneration, given to the angels and saints because as friends of God they share in His excellence."

Before you jump the gun, I'll define the other two in a below response.

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
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?

Same book:
"Hyperdulia is the veneration proper to the Blessed Mother alone; it is the highest from of veneration short of adoration."

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.' [/qb][/quote]

Notice something..."Worship the Lord your God"....comma...."and serve him only." The "only" part is reserved to "serving him," which is why we do not serve angels and saints, for they are not God. This brings us to Latria:

"Latria is the worship reserved to God alone. The word is derived from the Greek term for "to serve" and thus, by extension, has come to mean adoration."

Notice how well that fits together. We serve God alone, and we adore God alone, because He is our only God. Worship does not equal adoration. It has come to mean as such by popular society, so use of it as such is generally frowned upon, and because of this, I would not recommend using it, and would rather use the term "veneration," so that people do not assume I "worship" the saints and angels like I worship God, in a distinctly different manner.

Clint, I don't expect you'll like this definition very much, but hopefully you can at least see the distinctions.

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
5. Also, let's not slip backwards from facts that have been established, in particular:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 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." </font>[/QUOTE]A few things. First, the definitions are above. Second, I used the word "commanded" in response to a post by DualHunter, so you shouldn't look so closely at that; it was trivial. Second, hopefully you see now that we don't "worship" Mary by adoring her, and bowing is respectful. Third, we don't bow down and worship images, and that is not dulia. Dulia is veneration of the saints and angels. Images are images, visual representations of something that is not here, much like photographs of dead loved ones.

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
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).

First, kissing is not worship. Second, we don't pray to, pray through, hold in esteem, or worship images. Surely you can see that now.

As for angel worship, the verse simply states "worship of angels," and I would rationally conclude that this would be worshipping angels as if they were dieties, which they are not.

God bless,

Grant

[ October 30, 2002, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
Another unanswered question:
Where exactly did God command for images of saints and Mary to be constructed?

He didn't. He also didn't tell you to call your church "Baptist," or put a steeple on it (if there is one), or hang crosses on the walls (if there are any). He also never said "let your conscience by your guide when it comes to interpretting My Word."

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
Also:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 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

</font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for clearing that up.

God bless,

Grant

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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</font>[/QUOTE]If God won't give His glory to another why do you try to give His glory to another?

 

[DHK]

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.

This is your answer to the following quote:
"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."

You have not answered the question, or provided evidence from the Bible that Jesus is allowing us to identify with Mary in Heaven. Don't pull Scripture out of context. Jesus was giving the care of Mary over to John, the youngest of the disciples (also known as ‘the beloved'), in her old age. He was to take care of her. You jump from the responsibility that John had to Mary, to Mary all of a sudden being Queen of Heaven. How do you get that? That is not only blasphemous, it is ludicrous in logical thinking. There is no Scriptural evidence to say that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, that Mary is our intercessor in Heaven, that Mary brings people to Christ in Heaven, that Mary acts as an advocate in Heaven, that we identify ourselves in anyway with Mary in Heaven. Please give evidence if you have any.

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.

The above is your answer to:
"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."

The verse that you use here is evidence that goes contrary to what you want to prove. Mary in this verse admits that she is a sinner in need of a Saviour. She would not have used the word "Saviour," had she not need of one, had she not been a sinner. She is a redeemed saint like the others in Heaven, holding no special status, one of the redeemed, one of the saints, one of that great multitude, and that is all. She is not the Queen of Heaven, and there is nothing to prove that she is, or that she holds any special status in Heaven at all. She is a sinner saved by the grace of God.

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.

This is in answer to:
"--He shares that power with no one. He is God! The second person of the eternal triune Godhead. All power is given unto Him!

Yet you go on to contradict yourself when you answer Dualhunter

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.

You, on the one hand try to prove that Christ does share His power with Mary by stating that he gave power to the disciples to bind and loose (out of context again). Then you somewhat astonishingly exclaim, "When did we say that God was giving glory and praise to graven images?" You ascribe power, honor, glory to Mary (and her graven images), and then you deny it in the same breathe. I hope that you can see your inconsistencies.
DHK

[ October 31, 2002, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

Hi Grant,

Originally posted by Australian Baptist Student:
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.

I love that. You try to prove something as fact while using the word "presumably." You don't know, so don't pretend to know. The matter of her having children is not closed, except in your mind and in the minds of like-minded thinkers.

Matthew 13:55: "Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? are not his brothers, James Joseph, Simon and Judas? Are not all his sisters with us?"

Originally posted by Australian Baptist Student:
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?

How far out of context do you want to take Carson? The only thing Carson's quote could be related to would be prayers TO MARY. Prayers to Jesus go to Jesus. Prayers to Mary are then taken by her to Jesus. So, no, Mary doens't handle all the prayers, and that was never stated. Ever. It's amazing how many of these "great" arguments you guys come up with are built on misreading (purposefully or otherwise) what we dileberately state.

So Mary is a clearing house for prayers sent via her to Jesus. I was not talking about all prayers, just those sent via Mary. Now, if we can have direct access to Jesus when we pray, or we can (for arguments sake) go through an intermediary why go through the intermediary? If I want something done, I go to the person in charge, I dont say, "great, he also has a receptionist, lucky me, I wont have to have personal, face to face contact with the person I really need to speak to, I think I'll leave my concerns with his receptionist. That will really get things moving" I think Mary is a great person, but I pray to my savior, I seek His face, I long to hear His voice.

Originally posted by Australian Baptist Student:
Carson, you write that Mary was somehow (unmentioned in Scripture) conceived without sin. Does this mean she was also without the ability to sin?

Adam and Eve were created without sin, and yet they sinned. Yes, Eve could have fallen into sin, had she decided to sin. She did not.

Are you sure? Since you have no Scripture for any of this doctrine, why should you start now? "If we say we have no sin we lie and the truth is not in us."

The Catholic church has abused gentle Mary, building unScriptural and unhelpful doctrines around her.

Final question, you stated that the reason no prayers were given to Mary in the NT was because she was still alive for most of it. Fair point! It doesn't explain why she wasn't even mentioned after Acts 1:14, but leaving that, could you imagine your faith without Mary? Could you imagine your prayer life not including her? Was the early church really unlucky, and just waiting for her to die, so they could really get down to praying? They had to exist with only the infilling of the Holy Spirit and the intercession of Jesus. Was this a blessing or a hardship? Clearly the church did not need Mary in heaven to survive then, it does not need her there now. We have JESUS, we have the HOLY SPIRIT!! We are blessed beyond reason or imagination.

Take care, Colin

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Hi Grant -

First of all let me say that I commend you for continuing the debate when all of your fellow Catholics seem to have abandoned it. Having the last word does not necessarily constitute winning a debate but leaving numerous and obvious questions unanswered certainly shows failue to win. My hat's off to you for sticking with it and holding to the topic. I have been in debates in which I stand in the minority and I know what a frustrating position it is.

Now having said that:

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
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?

I would hope they would be accurate, yes. I will look into this one more heavily and get back to you soon.</font>[/QUOTE]I would appreciate that as one of my initial goals in this debate was to use the writings of credible Catholic sources in this discussion. That helps us avoid the "street theology" of which Jim spoke on the first page of this thread.

From my Catholic Encyclopedia:
"Dulia is the special worship, generally called veneration, given to the angels and saints because as friends of God they share in His excellence."

So from this definition we can incur that the use of the term "veneration" also equates "worship" just as "adoration" does. From your next statement

"Hyperdulia is the veneration proper to the Blessed Mother alone; it is the highest from of veneration short of adoration."

Nonetheless, it is still worship by definition. It just falls short of "adoration," which equates to "latria."

This is what I meant when I said before on this thread that eventually someone says, "It's not worship, it's worship!" This is also the dichotomy of which DHK spoke. Since this concept is not present in the Scriptures, Old Testament or New, can you tell me the origin of such?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.'

Notice something..."Worship the Lord your God"....comma...."and serve him only." The "only" part is reserved to "serving him," which is why we do not serve angels and saints, for they are not God. </font>[/QUOTE]If the comma is the hang up, I believe I once heard that ancient Greek did not have punctuation, perhaps one of our linguistic friends can confirm that. Anyway, Luke 4:8 contains the same text without the comma.

However, look at the text of 4:8. Christ says to satan, "It is written: worship the Lord your God and serve Him only." It's the "it is written part" that concerns me here. Christ is not giving a direct quote, at least none that God has preserved. The part of the quote regarding "serving" may be a reference to Deuteronomy 6:13.

Deuteronomy 6
13It is the LORD your God you shall fear. Him you shall serve and by his name you shall swear.

The part of the quote from Luke 4:8 regarding "worship", however, still takes us back to Exodus 20:5. We still face the issue of worship to idols. Whether it is called latria, hyperdulia, dulia, adoration, or veneration, the definition is still "worship," even by definition in (now two) Catholic sources.

But then you say

Worship does not equal adoration.

in direct conflict to the definition you gave from your Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Hyperdulia is the veneration proper to the Blessed Mother alone; it is the highest from of veneration short of adoration."

"Dulia is the special worship, generally called veneration, given to the angels and saints because as friends of God they share in His excellence."

It has now become a word play in which the word "worship" is used in definition but denied in direct conversation. This is an example of what some here on the board call "Catholic double-speak." It's how Clinton tried to get out of the Lewinski situation: "I did not have sex with that woman" trying to imply that anything short of intercourse is not sex. It finally degraded into the farce of Clinton seeking a definition of "is".

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
Another unanswered question:
Where exactly did God command for images of saints and Mary to be constructed?

He didn't. He also didn't tell you to call your church "Baptist," or put a steeple on it (if there is one), or hang crosses on the walls (if there are any). He also never said "let your conscience by your guide when it comes to interpretting My Word."</font>[/QUOTE]This was actually directd towards Ron in reference to the construction of the Ark and the perceived relationship it had to God. However, as stated before, the Israelites did not worship the Ark and I do not venerate, nor show adoration, latria, dulia, hyperdulia (i.e. worship) the ornamentation of my church.

Thanks for your cordial response.

One other quick point:
I will likely refer you back to this statement if we become involved in a debate on the Apostle Peter in John 21:15-29.

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.

 

[GraceSaves]

DHK,

You...escape me. Your post made absolutely no sense, as nothing you responded to was in context with what I said. This is becoming very annoying, not because I can't handle the replies, but because I feel like I'm speaking to a brick wall. Your language is course and rude (where'e the love?) EVERY SINGLE TIME you resopnd to me. I can understand getting ticked off because you disagree with me so much, but your attitude makes it very hard to respond to you. And don't even go quoting me, showing how I've done the same. If I have, I admit to it now. I get angry on here sometimes. With you, Clint, and Psalm primarily. You, on the other hand, have never taken credit for your own actions. That saddens me GREATLY.

I'm certain Jesus never taught or talked like you do to me and the other Catholics.

Clint,

I will reply to all of this stuff tomorrow. Some of this is heavy, and a lot of the "contradictions" aren't contradictions...they're just misunderstandings. However, while I'm feeling better in other ways (coughing, runny nose, fever), I just developed a REALLY painful ear ache, and it's hard for me to concentrate. Hopefully it'll be a little better tomorrow.

God bless,

Grant

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
DHK,
You...escape me. Your post made absolutely no sense, as nothing you responded to was in context with what I said. This is becoming very annoying, not because I can't handle the replies, but because I feel like I'm speaking to a brick wall. Your language is course and rude (where'e the love?) EVERY SINGLE TIME you resopnd to me. I can understand getting ticked off because you disagree with me so much, but your attitude makes it very hard to respond to you. And don't even go quoting me, showing how I've done the same. If I have, I admit to it now. I get angry on here sometimes. With you, Clint, and Psalm primarily. You, on the other hand, have never taken credit for your own actions. That saddens me GREATLY.
I'm certain Jesus never taught or talked like you do to me and the other Catholics.

HUH??

Other than the last statement (now edited) "Get your facts straight," I don't see anything which I can see that would be construed as course or rude. Point it out to me if it is there. If simply quoting both what I have said, your answer to what I have said, and then refuting it, bothers you, then so be it. I cannot help you if you do not want to accept truth. I take full credit for my actions--that of pointing out error in the false doctrine that is posted on this board.
DHK

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
...one of my initial goals in this debate was to use the writings of credible Catholic sources in this discussion.

Clint, is that why you went to Mary Ann Collins (supposed former nun)?

Because you wanted to use "credible Catholic sources"?

That was the point at which you lost my interest in this thread.

Ron

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
...one of my initial goals in this debate was to use the writings of credible Catholic sources in this discussion.

Clint, is that why you went to Mary Ann Collins (supposed former nun)?

Because you wanted to use "credible Catholic sources"?

That was the point at which you lost my interest in this thread.

Ron</font>[/QUOTE]Seems to me that you assume that your critique of Collins credibiity has more to do with her being a FORMER nun than anything else. Such betrays an ad hominem.

To assume a priori that peope with whom you disagree cannot represent your beliefs accurately is false.

It is always wise to consider the source, but to behave as you have is a poor excuse IMO fordroping out.

 

[dumbox1]

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
I am still waiting for a few answers before I'm willing to let go of this thread:

1. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> originally posted by Clint Kritzer:

Also, am I to incur that "worship" and "adoration" are synonymous?

Carson Weber: [qb]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>

Hi Clint,

While I haven't been a part of this thread, and don't really have the time to join it at this late date (it's too long already!), I would like to clear up what seems to be a misperception on your part about the version of the Catholic Encyclopedia that's available online at New Advent. It's the 1913 edition, with the 1908 preface -- it's not a current work. Accordingly, its contents reflect the way terminology was used in 1913.

You can see this at the link that you posted above, from which you took your quote about the work being "entirely new" and containing "the latest and most accurate information." You'll see, if you click on your own link, that the first words of that article are "1908 Preface." The words you quote are about four paragraphs down.

So, yes, that encyclopedia was "entirely new" and contained the "latest" information -- as of 1908 (or, more technically, 1913, since other than the 1908 preface, the online text is that of the 1913 edition).

The "Byte by Byte" article you mentioned discusses the entire project -- how volunteers transcribed the original 1913 volumes onto the internet. A few quotes from that article:

Volunteers throughout the world are building a powerful on-line version of a classic—the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. "People have shown a tremendous interest in this project," notes [Kevin] Knight, the Denver, Colo.-based initiator of this massive undertaking and manager of the New Advent Catholic Supersite, the Internet home for the project. "I've received articles from nearly all 50 states as well as from France, Canada, and Brazil. This started as an idea and has grown far beyond my original expectations."

* * *

Early this century the time was ripe for the original Catholic Encyclopedia. As general encyclopedias were published in the early 1900s it became evident that subjects of special interest to Catholics were either ignored entirely or scantily or erroneously treated. A board of five editors from various universities and publishers was organized in January 1905. Together, they produced the original Catholic Encyclopedia. Hilaire Belloc described it as "one of the most powerful influences working in favor of the truth." Even the Protestant press favored the encyclopedia, recommending it as the "greatest work undertaken for the advancement of Christian knowledge since the days of Trent."

Knight chose the 1913 15-volume set because the later editions are still under copyright protection. Not only is the 1913 version in the public domain, but it is also thought by many to be the superior version. It covers topics both religious and secular, from a uniquely Catholic perspective. Although 84 years old, readers will find the information solid, surprisingly relevant, and eternally valuable.

The 2002 Copyright applies to the internet version, it doesn't mean that the material is new in 2002.

So, in short, the articles at New Advent do not reflect current linguistic usage, and should be read with that fact in mind. I'll leave your question about "contextual oversights" in individual articles to those who have been following this thread along, and know which articles in particular you're referring to.

Hope this helps,

Mark H.

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
...one of my initial goals in this debate was to use the writings of credible Catholic sources in this discussion.

Clint, is that why you went to Mary Ann Collins (supposed former nun)?

Because you wanted to use "credible Catholic sources"?

That was the point at which you lost my interest in this thread.

Ron</font>[/QUOTE]Trying to shift the attention away from her quoting of the Cathechism (i.e. the credible Catholic source) to the fact that she saw the error of Catholicism and is now an ex-Catholic (and therefore no longer a Catholic source, but that doesn't change the fact that she quotes a Catholic source) are we?

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Dualhunter:
Trying to shift the attention away from her quoting of the Cathechism (i.e. the credible Catholic source) to the fact that she saw the error of Catholicism and is now an ex-Catholic (and therefore no longer a Catholic source, but that doesn't change the fact that she quotes a Catholic source) are we?

Nope.

If Clint wanted to quote the Catechism, he could have done so.

That's not what he did.

BTW, the vast majority of her references were to classical anti-Catholic works, including Jack Chick.

Do you really consider unverifiable websites to be "Catholic sources". There is nothing about the author of that article or any other by Ms. Collins that is tracible to an actual person.

IMO she is most likely a fiction.

[ October 31, 2002, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dualhunter:
Trying to shift the attention away from her quoting of the Cathechism (i.e. the credible Catholic source) to the fact that she saw the error of Catholicism and is now an ex-Catholic (and therefore no longer a Catholic source, but that doesn't change the fact that she quotes a Catholic source) are we?

Nope.

If Clint wanted to quote the Catechism, he could have done so.

That's not what he did.

BTW, the vast majority of her references were to classical anti-Catholic works, including Jack Chick. </font>[/QUOTE]There you go again, trying to shift the attention away from the main issue. Do you really think that Clint wants to waste his time sifting through the Catechism, especially given that an ex-Catholic is already quoting it? Does her quoting "classical anti-Catholic works, including Jack Chick" cause the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which she also quotes, to cease to be a Catholic source?

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
There is nothing about the author of that article or any other by Ms. Collins that is tracible to an actual person.

IMO she is most likely a fiction.

[satire]There is nothing about you in your profile that is tracible to an actual person.

IMO you are most likely a fiction.[/satire]

Let's assume that she doesn't really exist, how does that affect the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
...one of my initial goals in this debate was to use the writings of credible Catholic sources in this discussion.

Clint, is that why you went to Mary Ann Collins (supposed former nun)?

Because you wanted to use "credible Catholic sources"?

That was the point at which you lost my interest in this thread.

Ron</font>[/QUOTE]So, Ron, back are you? Do you wish to try to help Grant answer any of the questions from this post (or indeed the whole page; you kind of left him swimming in it)?

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=001175;p=8#000112

Also please cite the references to the Mary Ann Collins article that are being addressed at this point in the thread.

You already have a thread going on this person at this link: http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=001178.

I am considering emailing Mary Collins and personally inviting her to join the discussion so that she can attest to her experience and validate her existence for you.

In the mean time you may want to find a point that has been made in the last, oh, I don't know, five pages that you may be willing to address and leave your strawmen on another thread that has not progressed this far. I believe we are at a point now where we are primed to hear how the "worship" (hyperdulia, veneration,... anything but adoration) of Mary is a valid practice of worship endorsed by Biblical principles and is indeed, not breaking the Second Commandment.

In case of any of you missed the Mary Ann Collins article that Ron is supposedly NOT in a lather over, you can find it here:

Mary Worship?

and that page links to this organization:

Good News for Catholics
P.O. Box 595
Cupertino, CA 95015
E-mail: gnfc@gnfc.org
Web Site: http://www.gnfc.org

Mark H. - Thank you for your input. Is there any source available to Catholics that WOULD reflect the modern view and theology of Catholicism that is written in a more updated vernacular? If not, how would a Catholic go about researching their own faith if they sought understanding?

Is any Catholic on this thread willing to put forth that the terms "adoration," "veneration," and "worship" are antiquated as used in the pages we have cited thus far?

[ October 31, 2002, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

[DHK]

From the tone of the last two pages of this thread, the Catholics here have not put up any valid defence of the arguments Clint and others have raised, but have simply complained. We don't really want a bunch of complainers. Please answer; give valid Scriptural proof that worship of Mary is a Bibical practice. Answer point by point the objections that Clint has brought forth instead of complaining about them.
DHK

[ October 31, 2002, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by DHK:
From the tone of the last two pages of this thread, the Catholics here have not put up any valid defence of the arguments Clint and others have raised, but have simply complained. We don't really want a bunch of complainers. Please answer; give valid Scriptural proof that worship of Mary is a Bibical practice. Answer point by point the objections that Clint has brought forth instead of complaining about them.
DHK

DHK,

Remember that attitude I was telling you about? See above.

God bless,

Grant

 

[GraceSaves]

Clint,

It's a busy day, and a frustrating one for me (apparently I'm no longer in the Honor's Program here at MSU, and they never told me, and thus I do not get to register for classes today as I thought I should....GRR), so I'm going to be brief, at least for right now.

Worship, when talking about God, is ADORATION.
Worship, when talking about Mary, is VENERATION, and the highest form.
Worship, when talking about a saint or angel, is VENERATION, in general.

Just as nearly all words in the English language have more than one meaning (why we have a dictionary), so does worship. The type of worship given to God is like no other, and no one else deserves it. It is adoration. Worship given to people is merely extreme honor. It is veneration.

This is why we have all these nice words (latria, hyperdulia, dulia), because people jump the gun when we just say "worship," because when talking about Mary, we're not talking about the same type of worship.

I'm not asking you to agree with my stance. I'm asking that you make the connection that the word worship does not have one meaning for Catholics.

God bless,

Grant