DEBATE: Is prayer to Mary & the saints worship?

It is okay as you are not in His church and therefore it is idolatry. No RC can back up their claims that it is okay. Mary never prayed to the dead, Jesus only ever said to pray to the father, the apostles never prayed to the dead. It is made up thing by RCC and goes against not communicating with the dead.
Uh..Yeah cuz SHE IS THE MOTHER OF GOD. That is her POSITION IN CHRIST.
 
You miss the point.

Sola Scriptura tells us ONLY what is the supreme authority in the Church. The Bible is the supreme authority.

Fine. Catholics can agree on that much.

What Sola Scriptura does NOT tell us is:

1) How does one interpret the Bible? That is--should one interpret the Bible using modern scientific literary analysis and exegesis? Linguistic analysis? Should one interpret the Bible using the methods of the ECF?

2) What happens when translators disagree on how to translate a word or words?

3) What happens when Christians cannot agree on the meaning of a passage?

4) What constitutes the Bible in the first place? What books are to be received as Scripture?

5) Are there other books that are inspired that could be discovered down the line and added?

6) Are translations of the Bible just as authoritative as the original manuscripts, or are only the manuscripts authoritative?

I could go on and on.
But God tells us we:

1. can understand scripture for ourselves it is not over the seas or in the skies. Our minds have been opened.
Luke 24:45 - Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

2. All translators who are real believers will disagree with the RCC's false teachings. It is a given. To justify their false beliefs they change the meanings of words to fit their false doctrines, they ignore scriptures like James 4:17 and 1 Cor 5:11. If their is a disputes it is because they haven't looked at scripture as a whole. I mean the RCC in some of their editions change the word repentance to penance. These are two totally different words.

3. Is the same as 2 really and only happens when the RCC misuses the meanings of words, forces their false beliefs onto scripture.

4. God has settled that issue and your instiution ignored Him.

5. No even your institution does not claim that other books are inspired. This is just a red herring to throw doubt upon God's word.

6. There you go throwing the Word of God under the bus, throwing doubt on it. No surprise.

Yes you could go on and on throwing God's clear and simple words under the bus to justify your false teachings but it is just a ploy, a deception to try and make false beliefs look like they come from God and they don't.

God has given us His word for us to know how He wants us to live. It is a living word and is not dead. He tells us in several verses we can understand it, it is a light under our feet. Yet the RCC wants to contaminate it and force pagan practices on to us.
 
Uh..Yeah cuz SHE IS THE MOTHER OF GOD. That is her POSITION IN CHRIST.
Oh that is ignoring the point I made and shows you cannot defend your false practice and belief. It doesn't matter if she is Jesus' mother, Jesus still prayed and therefore Mary would have prayed. The apostles prayed. Jesus and the apostles did not pray to the dead. The apostles did not pray to Mary after she died. You do not have a leg to stand on, communicating with the dead is a pagan practice.
 
Oh that is ignoring the point I made and shows you cannot defend your false practice and belief. It doesn't matter if she is Jesus' mother, Jesus still prayed and therefore Mary would have prayed. The apostles prayed. Jesus and the apostles did not pray to the dead. The apostles did not pray to Mary after she died. You do not have a leg to stand on, communicating with the dead is a pagan practice.
No, that is YOU ignoring what YOU said. You said "Mary never prayed to the dead." She had no need to, considering WHO HER SON IS.
 
No, that is YOU ignoring what YOU said. You said "Mary never prayed to the dead." She had no need to, considering WHO HER SON IS.
I am not ignoring what I posted. You are floundering like a fish that has been caught.

No it is you who does not understand the fact, we all need to pray even Mary prayed, it does not matter who HER SON IS. Then why did Jesus pray, I mean considering WHO HE IS. The apostle prayed and they never prayed to Mary even after she died.

You are showing your lack of logic with that reply. Scripture records Mary praying, Jesus praying and the apostles praying and none of them prayed to the dead.
 
Hmm...the Church gathered together in constant prayer, unified, Mary with them and Peter, promoting apostolic succession (Acts 1:15-26) and speaking on behalf of the Church and the Faith (Acts 2: 14-41). "They devoted themselves (gasp! Idolatry!) to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." Sure LOOKS like the Catholic Church!

No, it doesn't because they never prayed to Mary and they never taught this was to be done.
 
Hmm...the Church gathered together in constant prayer, unified, Mary with them and Peter, promoting apostolic succession (Acts 1:15-26) and speaking on behalf of the Church and the Faith (Acts 2: 14-41). "They devoted themselves (gasp! Idolatry!) to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." Sure LOOKS like the Catholic Church!
"Devoted" in this context does not mean idolatrous attention. It just means they did it a lot. And of course the early church broke bread, fellowshipped with other Christians and prayed a lot. But that doesn't make it the Catholic Church. That is utter nonsense!

Did the early church:

1. Teach indulgences?
2. Praying to dead saints as one would to God?
3. Call Mary the "only hope for sinners" or the "cause of our salvation"?
4. Demand that clergy be celibate and remain unmarried?
5. Teach purgatory?
6. Teach salvation by grace through faith PLUS our works?
7. Have leaders called "popes" who lived in fancy palaces surrounded by millions of dollars' worth of artwork?

If not--and it did NOT--then no, the 1st century church did NOT sound like the Catholic Church, i.e., the Roman Catholic Church. Not by a LONG shot!
 
I am not ignoring what I posted. You are floundering like a fish that has been caught.

No it is you who does not understand the fact, we all need to pray even Mary prayed, it does not matter who HER SON IS. Then why did Jesus pray, I mean considering WHO HE IS. The apostle prayed and they never prayed to Mary even after she died.

You are showing your lack of logic with that reply. Scripture records Mary praying, Jesus praying and the apostles praying and none of them prayed to the dead.
You are now obfuscating praying to the saints with praying to God. They are not the same. Prayer to the saints is intercessory prayer, asking them to pray for our intentions, since the prayers of the righteous availeth much. The saints are a "means"; God is the "end".
 
Devotion to Mary and the saints does not violate the sense of Scripture. That was my point.

it does if people pray to them as they would to God. Also, why do we need to be devoted to a dead saint, anyway? We can learn about them and what they did and why--but that doesn't mean we need to be "devoted" to them, as JPII was to Mary.
Well, then, case closed right? What happened to "When the Scriptures are silent, I am silent. When the Scriptures speak, I speak?"

No, because no one has claimed Scripture talks about the absolute meaning of a word or phrase. It is not a dictionary or encyclopedia. But words DO have meaning and context decides the best meaning of a word, especially in some places in Greek, where one word--lie pneuma, for example--can have several meanings.
There are a lot of factors that go into determining the meaning of a passage. For Catholics, the biggest part of understanding the Scriptures is through Tradition.

Therein lies the problem--it is your church's tradition, rather than CONTEXT, that determines what it WANTS a word to mean. Human traditions are often erroneous.
That should make sense to anyone with half of brain.

I have a whole brain, thank you very much, and know perfectly well that "traditions" can be wrong and also prejudiced, depending upon what "tradition" one wants to follow. Like the "tradition" in your church that the brothers and sisters Jesus is said to have are really just cousins, or maybe children by Joseph's first wife. Yet context shows that the best and most natural way to interpret this verse is that they are literally Jesus' half brothers and sisters, children from Joseph and Mary. But since Catholicism demands following the "tradition" that Mary was a PV, they MUST say that these brothers and sisters are cousins--even though there is a perfectly good Greek word for "cousin" in Greek, though it is only used once in the NT--anepsios (masculine). It is used of John Mark, Barnabas' cousin.

But Catholics are enslaved to their man-made traditions and must do violence to the Biblical witness, in order to support their UNbiblical "traditions."
The Gospel existed orally first, within the context of the Christian Community. It only makes sense, then, that the Scriptures continue to be understood within the context of the larger Christian community----not only in the here and now, but throughout history.

That is fine, but that doesn't mean we have the right to take human traditions over what the Bible actually says. This is just one more attempt to justify the unbiblical traditions and understandings of the way your church wants to interpret certain biblical passages.
How do you determine which is the best one? Where does the Bible tell us how to determine the best possible translation?

It doesn't--but then, it doesn't tell us how to ride a horse, cook stew, or how to sew a tunic, either.

I would go with the majority of the scholastic consensus as to the best translation. Like here:


Take a look at the ONLY translation on this page that has "She" instead of "He" shall crush/bruise your heel. Now, should we go by that one translation and think that "she will crush they head" is the most accurate, instead of "he shall crush thy head"? When all the rest say "He" (a couple say "they"--not sure about that).
And---what? So Jerome made a mistake when he translated that passage. This is generally admitted in Catholic circles. I am not sure what you think you prove by pointing out this error. I mean what? Do you think our teachings on Mary stand or fall with that translation?
Oh so you admit it? It may not have been Jerome, but due to one of the many unauthorized tamperings of his translation done by some in your church, over the centuries. My point, however, still stands.
Your teachings on Mary stand or fall on the BIBLE. And judging by the Bible, which as zero hints of the 4 Marian Dogmas in it, it falls flat on its spiritual face!
Okay, here you point out something that once again, I am not sure what you think you prove by this.
Oh, you don't? Let me enlighten you--The Vulgate got this wrong, too. Nowhere does the NT say we should "do penance" but REPENT. Two different meanings.
 
Last edited:
Um, well, you see, YOU, sir, are the one who subscribes to Sola Scriptura. THAT is what it has to do with the price of tea in China.

And YOU, sir, think your church's adding to the word of God and even contradicting it with man-made dogmas are just fine and dandy--don't you?
You try to bind my conscience to the whims of some Greek scholar somewhere--and yet cannot show where the Scriptures teach that the musings and whims of Greek scholars and their translations are authoritative.
So, you think the proper translation of biblical Greek in the NT into good, vernacular English by those highly trained in Biblical Greek, with Ph.Ds in the subject, are mere "whims" and "musings"?

But then this is what you must do, disparage real, Biblical scholars who are highly trained in Biblical Greek and Hermeneutics, in order to justify your church's often unbiblical interpretation of the NT--isn't it?
 
Last edited:
And YOU, sir, think your church's adding to the word of God and even contradicting it with man-made dogmas is just fine and dandy--don't you?

So, you think the proper translation of biblical Greek in the NT into good, vernacular English by those highly trained in Biblical Greek, with Ph.Ds in the subject, are mere "whims" and "musings"?

But then this is what you must do, disparage real, Biblical scholar who are highly trained in Biblical Greek and Hermeneutics, in order to justify your church's often unbiblical interpretation of the NT--isn't it?
Anything for mother church Bonnie. They deny the very black and white of scripture for the muddy waters of catholicism. They prefer the aramaic over the greek. They change definitions of words. They add uninspired apocryphal books to Gods canon. I can go on and on. Its what false religion does. They've shown time and again their disdain for scripture. Hopefully they'll see the light before they leave this world.
 
You are now obfuscating praying to the saints with praying to God. They are not the same. Prayer to the saints is intercessory prayer, asking them to pray for our intentions, since the prayers of the righteous availeth much. The saints are a "means"; God is the "end".
No I am not. I am asking for support for your praying to Mary and others but you are trying to twist the point and hide the fact that you have no support for your false practices.

Nowhere do we have Jesus, Mary or the apostles praying to the dead. We are all saints, you don't have to be dead to be a saint. You communicate with the dead and it is against the commandments. No apostle prayed to the dead, Mary didn't pray to the dead.

You also tried to divert to something as positions in Christ, more baloney that is meant to hide the fact you don't have a leg to stand on.

No apostle, Mary or Jesus ever prayed to the dead. They prayed to God, the Father or the Lord. They all prayed. You have gone down some weird rabbit warrens and have got lost.

Facts

1. The verse about intercessory prayer is about asking those here on earth to pray with you.
2. The Apostles, Mary and Jesus never prayed to the dead. They are our examples to follow.
3. Jesus taught us to pray and He taught us to pray to the Father.
4. It is against the commandments to communicate with the dead.
5. There is no scripture that even supports the concept that the dead can even hear those on earth.
6. We only have one mediator, one advocate and one redeemer.
7. Praying was not a new concept, the Jewish people have always prayed and they never prayed to the dead. They prayed to Adonai.

You have not offered any support for your false practice. Not one piece of evidence.
 
Ecc.9:5
For the living know that they shall die:
but the dead know not any thing,
neither have they any more a reward;
for the memory of them is forgotten.

6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy,
is now perished;
neither have they any more a portion for ever
in any thing that is done under the sun.


You are now obfuscating praying to the saints with praying to God. They are not the same. Prayer to the saints is intercessory prayer, asking them to pray for our intentions, since the prayers of the righteous availeth much. The saints are a "means"; God is the "end".
============= end pigrims post

but the dead know not any thing,
neither have they any more a reward;
for the memory of them is forgotten.

His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not;
and they are brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them
.​

Pilgrim;
these so called "Saints"
they cannot hear you,
they are dead,

"neither have they any more a portion for ever
in any thing that is done under the sun."


but the "Fowls of the Air" can
 
Back
Top