Joe Mizzi doesn't know...

[Gary]

Mediatrix

You are still assuming that 'co' means 'equal'--it does not. Mary's intercession, Mary's mediation, etc. is NOT on the same level as Christ's. The Saints are mediatiors--in the sense of CO-mediators... just as your family/friends on earth are mediators in this sense. They are not on an equal level with Jesus, nor do they intercede between you and God-- they intercede between you and Jesus-- just as Mary and the Saints do.

No, I have shown that ONE does not equal ONE.

ONE Mediator no longer means ONE Mediator. ONE is no longer exclusive.

It now means.....

ONE-Mediator = ONE-Mediator(Jesus) + SECONDARY-Mediators[Mediatrix(Mary) + Saints]

You have now admitted that co-Mediator is NOT in the CCC. I agree. You have invented a new definition for Mediatrix. You even apply that to saints. So you now have this new equation:

ONE-Mediator = ONE-Mediator(Jesus) + SECONDARY-Mediators[Mediatrix(Mary) + co-Mediators(Saints)]

But you keep telling me that Mediatrix=co-Mediator. This is not in the CCC, but if I accept what you say, then the equation can look like this

ONE-Mediator = ONE-Mediator(Jesus) + other-Mediators[co-Mediatrix(Mary) + co-Mediators(Saints)]

or

ONE-Mediator = ONE-Mediator(Jesus) + other-Mediators[Mediatrix(Mary) + Mediator(Saints) + Mediatrix(Saints)]

By saints, I mean my wife and my granny who are now also Mediatrix.

You have taken away the exclusivity of ONE Mediatrix. You OK with that?

It has been very interesting.... you claimed that Joe Mizzi did not understand Roman Catholicism because he did not understand the CCC. Joe often quotes the CCC. From these discussions, it is very clear to me that you have to ADD to the CCC to try and make logical sense of this Mediatrix issue. You have invented a new tern, not even found in the CCC. You now claim that Mediatrix=co-Mediator. You then also say that saints (and I mean ALL Christians) are co-Mediators. I do not find that in the Bible either. If Mediatrix and co-Mediator are interchangeable, then there is no reason for the exclusivity of Mary being the only mediatrix.

IF I was Roman Catholic, it would mean I can call my wife "Mediatrix" and my departed Granny also "Mediatrix".

:o :o

(P.S. You have still not addressed the issue of "saving office" and "salutary influence" of Mary.)

 

[Gary]

What Paul actually said.... according the the RCC

For there is ONE God, and ONE mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:5-6). Now if this is not clear enough, then I urge you to consider Mary as well. She is a Mediatrix. She intercedes between you and Jesus. Now if that is not clear, remember that all saints, here and in heaven, are Mediators (you men are Mediator; the women are Mediatrix). This does not make any of you on a level with Jesus.

Now if this is not clear enough, let me put it to you this way.....

For there is ONE Jesus Christ, and MANY mediators between Jesus Christ and men (RCC 101). There are Mediatrix (like Mary) and all other female saints are also Mediatrix. There are Mediators (like you) and all the other male saints are also Mediators.

Stay in the faith my fellow Bereans.... search the Scriptures and see if what I say is true.

:o :o

 

[Gary]

Praying to God

There is only one mediator between God and man. But we can (and often do!) ask others to mediate between us and Christ. This does not mean that we don't pray to Christ ourselves, but only that we are bringing more people to pray to Christ with and for us. I fail to see how this is a "bad" thing.

Gary: I follow the Bible. Christian prayer is "to your Father". Jesus taught is to pray, "Our father in heaven" (Matthew 6:9).

Christian prayer is through the Son, by one Spirit. Paul says that "through Him (Jesus) we both (Jews and Gentiles) hace access to the father by one Spirit" (Ephesians 2:18). Jesus said that his Father would give "whatever you ask in my name" (John 15:16). That is why we often end prayers with "through Jesus Christ our Lord" or "in the name of Jesus". We acknowledge that we only come to God through Jesus Christ.

http://www.geocities.com/gary_bee_za/packer/prayer.htm

 

[Gary]

Praying to Mary?

"Catholics often excuse their practice of praying to the departed (even though there is no permission or example in the Bible for doing so), saying, "You ask your Christian friend to pray for you. So what is wrong with asking Mary and the saints in heaven to pray for us too?" Apart from the obvious fact that Mary and the saints are in another place, heaven, and we have no communication with them, there is another fallacy in this argument. For when I ask my friend to pray for my needs, I am not trusting in him or committing my soul to his care. But according to the Catholic catechism, this is exactly what Catholics do when they pray to Mary." (See CCC 2677)

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a92.htm

"Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death: By asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners and we address ourselves to the "Mother of Mercy," the All-Holy One. We give ourselves over to her now, in the Today of our lives. And our trust broadens further, already at the present moment, to surrender "the hour of our death" wholly to her care" (paragraph 2677).

"It is so sad that Catholics are taught to 'give' themselves to and 'trust' in a fellow creature. In the Bible we are constantly taught to come to Jesus and trust in Him! Do you remember Stephen when he was about to die? To whom did he surrender the hour of his death? To Mary? or to Christ? "And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit" (Acts 7:59)."

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a92.htm

:o

 

[CatholicXian]

Wow, Gary, you give me a lot of things to cover (and some pretty serious accusations to answer to!).

As I said, it's a very busy time... but I hope to address all of your posts by tomorrow afternoon. Please be patient!

However, it is somewhat trying to keep having to address new issues, in addition to old ones. May I recommend we go through things one at a time and address new issues as they pop up... your attempt to add new "fuel to the fire" (so to speak) by bringing up new issues and "twists" is more annoying than shocking. I know what Catholicism teaches. But, as I said before... everything has context, and must be taken in step with the rest of the Deposit of Faith.

 

[Gary]

Take your time.... we are actually only dealing with one topic... Mary as (the one and only) Mediatrix.

You say you understand what the CCC teaches. I look FIRST at the Bible... and then TEST what the RCC has added via the CCC. I mostly highlight the additional man-made dogma that the RCC has added.

Remember your original accusation.... that Joe Mizzi did not know what the RCC taught? ("Joe Mizzi http://www.justforcatholics.org doesn't know what he's talking about in regards to the Cathoic Church"). I think he does. Your real issue with Joe and myself is that you want us to believe the CCC rather than the Bible. That will never happen.

I will continue to have a Berean outlook to anything from the RCC... (Acts 17:10-12). "10As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men."

 

[CatholicXian]

No, I have shown that ONE does not equal ONE.

ONE Mediator no longer means ONE Mediator. ONE is no longer exclusive.

I disagree. You are purposely leaving out the rest of the context-- Jesus is the ONLY mediator between GOD and MAN. Mary, as Mediatrix, is ONLY through the merits of her Son, Jesus Christ-- Mary interceedes (in a far greater way than any of the other Saints, by virtue of her motherhood-- as Mother of God the Son) for Christians in a very powerful way such that the Church had deemed the title "Mediatrix" appropriate. WITH the understanding that her role does not come from herself-- but is a GRACE from God, to lead us to Jesus, her Son. AND, one must always remember that Mary intercedes TO CHRIST with and for us. CHRIST is the SOLE (ONE) Mediator between GOD and MAN. This does NOTHING to change the passage in question. You are purposely leaving out "between GOD and MAN" to make it appear as though Mary is another mediator in this sense, when this is not the way in which Mary's mediation is addressed in the Catholic Church!

You have now admitted that co-Mediator is NOT in the CCC. I agree. You have invented a new definition for Mediatrix. You even apply that to saints. So you now have this new equation:
ONE-Mediator = ONE-Mediator(Jesus) + SECONDARY-Mediators[Mediatrix(Mary) + co-Mediators(Saints)]
But you keep telling me that Mediatrix=co-Mediator. This is not in the CCC...
(CUT)
You have taken away the exclusivity of ONE Mediatrix. You OK with that?

Mary as Mediatrix is specified because her intercession (in light of what I have explained above...) is greater. Mary's co-mediation ("WITH", since you seem to keep forgetting) is NOT exclusive-- you will find no passage in the Catechism or other Church documents claiming that it is--It is merely a special, higher form of intercession. I have invented nothing. For indeed ALL the Saints in Heaven intercede for those on earth. Mary's intercession is merely special because it is necessarily something greater by virtue of God's previous graces to her during her earthly life (i.e., Mary is the "theotokos"--she bore the Savior in her womb, etc.-- this demands a special relationship). Mary's role as Mediatrix (and being proclaimed so) extends from her role as Mother-- as Mother of the Church it only makes sense that she would be Mediatrix TO BRING US CLOSER TO HER SON (Jesus Christ!).

It has been very interesting.... you claimed that Joe Mizzi did not understand Roman Catholicism because he did not understand the CCC. Joe often quotes the CCC. From these discussions, it is very clear to me that you have to ADD to the CCC to try and make logical sense of this Mediatrix issue. You have invented a new tern, not even found in the CCC. You now claim that Mediatrix=co-Mediator. You then also say that saints (and I mean ALL Christians) are co-Mediators. I do not find that in the Bible either. If Mediatrix and co-Mediator are interchangeable, then there is no reason for the exclusivity of Mary being the only mediatrix.

I am not "adding" to the Catechism. I am explaining to you the Catholic faith as contained within the entirety of the Deposit of Faith... there are many encyclicals, apostolic letters, etc. written by many Popes which are not in the Catechism that explain sections of the Catechism in greater detail. The Catechism is not exhaustive of the Catholic faith-- yes, it contains a great deal (and is a valuable resource!)-- but only insofar as the reader can see the meaning of the passage IN LIGHT OF THE REST OF THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH (which includes the Scriptures, and the entirety of the Catechism.. not merely 2 or 3 paragraphs!).
Mary is called Mediatrix because her intercession is greater-- a step above the rest of the Saints in Heaven because Mary is the pinnacle of all CREATED human beings (where do we get this? Luke 1:28). Mediatrix and co-mediator are not entirely interchangeable, as the title has singularly been given to Mary-- HOWEVER, this does not change the fact that by virtue of their intercession the Saints in Heaven are also co-mediators. As I've stated many times, the title Mediatrix is given to Mary because of her special intercession. It is a title in which to honor her-- because in so doing, honor is given ultimately to God-- her Creator.

IF I was Roman Catholic, it would mean I can call my wife "Mediatrix" and my departed Granny also "Mediatrix".

No, the title was given to Mary, as a special significance of her powerful intercession. HOWEVER, yes, your wife and departed Grandmother are co-mediatiors in the sense that they intercede for your salvation.

P.S. You have still not addressed the issue of "saving office" and "salutary influence" of Mary.)

CCC 969 "Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix. "
What is the saving office? Intercession. Praying for others. What is Mary's "salutary influence"? She was the Mother of God the Son-- she bore the Savior in her womb for 9 months, she was a MOTHER to Jesus. She said yes to God that we might be saved through her Son. (NOTE: this does not limit God in any sense... Yes, if Mary said 'no', God could've chosen another... but Mary said 'yes' and thus participated in our Salvation-- NOT through her own merits, but through a special grace given her by God so that she could give to Jesus his human nature through which we are saved).



There are many, many other things I want to address. I shall try to get to them soon.

 

[CatholicXian]

Your real issue with Joe and myself is that you want us to believe the CCC rather than the Bible.

Not so!

I whole-heartedly believe in the sacred Scriptures! I do not believe they are at odds with the Catechism, though you may disagree-- you are free to do so. I find that interpretation of the Scriptures is one of the hardest things to discuss in Christian circles... everyone seems to be their own rule of faith. Thus, I find it noteworthy to look at the examples of the early Christians and what they thought (patristics... fathers of the Church), and sacred Tradition (though you deny its validity) seems to make more sense than trusting a 21st century viewpoint. Especially since we are even exhorted in the Scriptures to "hold fast to the traditions which [were] handed on to [us]" (2 Th 2:15)

 

[Gary]

Mary = "saving office" and "salutary influence"

"... No where in the Catechism is a Catholic called to look upon Mary or a priest or anyone than Christ for salvation. ..... If, by the intercession of Mary, or the guidance of a priest, Mr. Mizzi means to conclude that Catholics believe Salvation thus comes from either, he is largely mistaken.

I have posted several times about Mary = "saving office" and "salutary influence"....

Those are not my inventions. They come directly from the CCC. They are not in the Bible.

 

[CatholicXian]

Praying to God

There is only one mediator between God and man. But we can (and often do!) ask others to mediate between us and Christ. This does not mean that we don't pray to Christ ourselves, but only that we are bringing more people to pray to Christ with and for us. I fail to see how this is a "bad" thing.

Gary: I follow the Bible. Christian prayer is "to your Father". Jesus taught is to pray, "Our father in heaven" (Matthew 6:9).

Christian prayer is through the Son, by one Spirit. Paul says that "through Him (Jesus) we both (Jews and Gentiles) hace access to the father by one Spirit" (Ephesians 2:18). Jesus said that his Father would give "whatever you ask in my name" (John 15:16). That is why we often end prayers with "through Jesus Christ our Lord" or "in the name of Jesus". We acknowledge that we only come to God through Jesus Christ.

Where does the Catechism claim that one can come to God through anyone other than Jesus Christ?!
Where, especially in what you quoted of me, have I claimed that one comes through prayer to God through anyone other than Christ? I have explicitly, in fact, stated otherwise-- that ALL prayer MUST come through Christ to God. Whether I ask my friend or Mary-- all prayers go through Christ to reach God. I have already even posted a paragraph from the Catechism that says as much!

2664 "There is no other way of Christian prayer than Christ. Whether our prayer is communal or personal, vocal or interior, it has access to the Father only if we pray "in the name" of Jesus. "

 

[CatholicXian]

Mary = "saving office" and "salutary influence"

"... No where in the Catechism is a Catholic called to look upon Mary or a priest or anyone than Christ for salvation. ..... If, by the intercession of Mary, or the guidance of a priest, Mr. Mizzi means to conclude that Catholics believe Salvation thus comes from either, he is largely mistaken.

I have posted several times about Mary = "saving office" and "salutary influence"....

Those are not my inventions. They come directly from the CCC. They are not in the Bible.

:roll:

When the Catechism says that Mary has a saving office, etc. it does NOT mean that Mary is the cause of Salvation. I have explained this. Salvation does not come from Mary in the sense that Mary is the cause of our Salvation... but the cause of our salvation (CHRIST) did come from Mary in a very real way-- through her He became flesh. And thus, IN THAT (and ONLY that) sense, we can say that salvation comes from Mary. But this does NOT imply (as Mr. Mizzi would have you think) that salvation is caused by Mary.

 

[Gary]

Thus, I find it noteworthy to look at the examples of the early Christians and what they thought .....

Gary: Your assumption may be that Protestants or the Reformers did NOT look at the faith of the early Christians. That would not be true. The Reformers first look at the Bible and then at what the early Christians believed. That permeated both Luther's and Calvin's work.

What may surprise you is that the RCC often went directly against what the early Christians taught and wrote.

I would be happy to discuss these variations.

 

[CatholicXian]

Thus, I find it noteworthy to look at the examples of the early Christians and what they thought .....

Gary: Your assumption may be that Protestants or the Reformers did NOT look at the faith of the early Christians. That would not be true. The Reformers first look at the Bible and then at what the early Christians believed. That permeated both Luther's and Calvin's work.

What may surprise you is that the RCC often went directly against what the early Christians taught and wrote.

I would be happy to discuss these variations.

Perhaps another topic would be best. I am familiar with several of the "ECFs", and some of Luther and Calvin.

However, for tonight at least.. I am off to get some rest! As stated previously, I hope to be around tomorrow afternoon.

 

[Gary]

One Mediator.... no Mediatrix

Salvation does not come from Mary in the sense that Mary is the cause of our Salvation... but the cause of our salvation (CHRIST) did come from Mary in a very real way-- through her He became flesh. And thus, IN THAT (and ONLY that) sense, we can say that salvation comes from Mary. But this does NOT imply (as Mr. Mizzi would have you think) that salvation is caused by Mary.

That is very confusing.

Let us rather see what Joe Mizzi said, in context.

One Mediator

http://www.justforcatholics.org/3.htm

There is one God and one Mediator between God and men,
the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all - 1 Timothy 2:5.

Since God is holy and we are sinners, it is impossible to approach Him on our own. We need a mediator to cleanse us from sin and present us to God. The mediator is Jesus Christ: 'For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all' (1 Timothy 2:5). He only is the mediator because He alone shed his blood to secure the freedom of his people from the slavery of sin.

Sadly, tradition has obscured the clear teaching of the Bible. Unwilling to trust the Word of God, people have invented other 'mediators'.

Mary, the mother of the Lord

Mary is highly favored among women because she was chosen to be the mother of our Lord according to the flesh, and Christians rightly call her 'blessed' because of this unique privilege. However, Mary is not the Savior, nor the Mediator.

The Catholic church teaches that Mary was conceived without sin, that by her suffering she contributed to our salvation, that she taken up into Heaven and was appointed our mediatrix. She is also called our life and the gate of Heaven. None of this is taught in the Bible. On the contrary the Word of God teaches that Jesus was conceived without sin, that he died for our sins, ascended into heaven and that he is the only mediator. He alone is our life and he is the gate to Heaven. We should therefore look to Jesus Christ.

Mary said: 'My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my saviour' (Luke 1:46). Mary desires to magnify the Lord and not to take his glory for herself. Moreover she plainly teaches us to look upon God for salvation and not to herself or anyone else. God is 'my saviour,' she confesses. We should call upon the name of Jesus, and not upon the name of Mary, because the apostle Peter says about the Lord Jesus, 'Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved' (Acts 4:12).

[snip]

http://www.justforcatholics.org/3.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No where in the Catechism is a Catholic called to look upon Mary or a priest or anyone than Christ for salvation.

Gary: The whole thrust of Joe Mizzi's article is that there is ONLY ONE MEDIATOR. However, the Roman Catholic Church says otherwise. CCC969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the (Roman Catholic) Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix." ref 512 (LG 62) http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p6.htm#969

There you have it from the CCC. Again, no Scriptural proof. Mary is called Mediatrix. On the other hand, the Bible plainly teaches There is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all - 1 Timothy 2:5.

... as Joe Mizzi said...

Unwilling to trust the Word of God, people have invented other 'mediators'.

... and he correctly concludes...

What need is there for a Roman Catholic priest to offers sacrifices for sin if you have Jesus Christ? 'He is able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He (Jesus Christ) always lives to make intercession for them' (Hebrews 7:25).

The words of Scripture are very clear. There is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all - 1 Timothy 2:5.

I need no "Mediatrix", I need no "priest" except Jesus Christ, who is called the 'High Priest of our confession' (Hebrews 3:1)

 

[Gary]

Advocate/Helper = Holy Spirit (the Bible)
or
Advocate/Helper = Mary (the RCC)

CCC969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the (Roman Catholic) Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix." ref 512 (LG 62) http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p6.htm#969

Gary:

ADVOCATE = Holy Spirit

“Advocate†is the translation often given to the Greek parakletos in 1 John 2:1, a word found elsewhere only in John’s Gospel as a title referring to the Holy Spirit, and there translated “Helper,†“Comforter,†“Counselor,†or “Advocate†(John 14:16, John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:7). Ancient Greeks used the term for one called in to assist or speak for another, frequently in a court setting. Rabbis transliterated the word into Hebrew, using it to denote an advocate before God. 1 John portrayed a courtroom scene in which Jesus Christ, the righteous One, intercedes with the Father on behalf of sinners. Such a portrayal stands in line with Old Testament ideas of advocacy, but supersedes it. In contrast to Old Testament advocates, Jesus is both the one righteous Advocate and the “atoning sacrifice†(NIV) for the world’s sins (1 John 2:2). 1 John 2:1 parallels other New Testament descriptions of Jesus’ intercessory role (Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25).

Source: Holman Bible Dictionary

There are no Biblical passages which describe Mary as "Adovocate".

HELPER = Holy Spirit

“Helper†is the NASB translation of parakletos, a distinctive title for the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John (John 14:16, John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:7). Other versions translate the term “Comforter†(KJV), “Advocate†(NEB), or “Counselor†(RSV, NIV). Because parakletos is difficult to translate with any single word, some interpreters opt for making “Paraclete†an English word and allowing the relevant Johannine passages to provide its meaning.

In line with the history of the term, 1 John 2:1 employs parakletos in a forensic sense, portraying a courtroom scene in which Jesus Christ, the righteous “Advocate,†intercedes with God on behalf of sinners. Although forensic associations are present in the Gospel of John (John 15:26; Jhn 16:8-11), the Helper does not specifically function as “Advocate.â€Â

The Helper, who could not come until Jesus departed (John 16:7), functions as the abiding presence of Jesus among His disciples (John 14:16-18). Nearly everything said of the Helper is also said of Jesus in the Gospel, and the Helper actually comes as “another parakletos†(John 14:16), implying that Jesus had been the first (1 John 2:1).

Jesus described the role of the Helper primarily with verbs of speaking. The Helper would be sent by the Father to “teach†the disciples and to bring to remembrance all Jesus “said†to them (John 14:26; 16:14-15). Like Jesus, the Helper was “sent†to “bear witness†(John 15:26-27). The Helper’s function in relation to the world involves “reproving†it concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8). The Helper would also “guide†Jesusâ€âdisciples into all truth by “speaking†what He hears and “showing†what is to come (John 16:13). By so doing He would “glorify†Jesus (John 16:14).

Source: Holman Bible Dictionary

There are no Biblical passages which describe Mary as "Helper".

 

[Gary]

Benefactor = Title for Hellenistic kings of Egypt (History)
or
Benefactress = Mary (the RCC)

CCC969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the (Roman Catholic) Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix." ref 512 (LG 62) http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p6.htm#969

Gary:

BENEFACTRESS

“Benefactor†is an honorary title bestowed on kings or other prominent people for some meritorious achievement or public service. The title in Greek is Euergetes and was held by some of the Hellenistic kings of Egypt. One would not earn the title “benefactor†from service rendered in the kingdom of God. In contrast to the conspicuous work needed to earn the title “benefactor,†the members of the kingdom are to devote themselves to humble, obscure, and perhaps menial service (Luke 22:24-27). Jesus warned us....

• 24Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. (Luke 22:24-27)

Source: Holman Bible Dictionary

There are no Biblical passages which describe Mary as "Benefactress". Jesus warned about Christians calling themselves or other Christians "Benefactors"!!

 

[CatholicXian]

:roll: There is no use in repeating myself. I trust you can read over my posts again.


Psalm 103:20 "Bless the LORD, all you angels, mighty in strength and attentive, obedient to every command."

Psalm 148:2 "Praise him, all you angels; give praise, all you hosts."

Here we have a scriptural example of the angels being invoked/addressed by one on earth.

Revelations 5:8 "When he took it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones."

Prayer, in Heaven, which you already stated you agree with. But notice whose prayers... "the holy ones". Are we on earth holy? Not completely, we are being made holy each day as we grow in love of Christ. But all are perfect in Heaven, thus they are the prayers of those in Heaven. But how do they know what to pray for? ... Unless are aware of what happens on earth (through their sharing in God's infinite power, not their own).



Though I know you will disagree, perhaps with the interpretations... I am unsure as to how else one could interpret those verses (i.e., the angels being addressed, and those in Heaven praying) otherwise without denying the text. (similiar to the discussion on the Eucharist. ;-) )

 

[Gary]

Worthy is the Lamb

Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

No mention of Mary (the Mediatrix, Advocate, Helper, Benefactress), no mention of her saving office, no mention of her manifold intercession, no mention of her bringing us the gifts of eternal salvation.

:-?

 

[Gary]

Protestant Response: Prayers to and for the Dead


(1) Response to Argument from Scripture

• Protestants reject both purgatory and prayers for the dead. They find no support for either in Scripture.
  
  2 Maccabees 12:42-46. The dispute is not over whether this passage affirms praying for the deadâ€â€it does. It says clearly that “it was a holy and pious thought†to “pray for them in death,†for “thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin†(2 Maccabees 12:44-46). The debate is over whether it belongs in the canon of Scripture. Since we have already given our objections to the Roman Catholic canonization of this and ten other apocryphal books (see chap. 9, Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. (1995). Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences), we will not repeat them here. The dead may be praying for us (cf. Revelation 6:10), but we are not to pray for the dead.
  
  There is no sound biblical, historical, or theological reason for accepting the inspiration of 2 Maccabees. The book does not claim to be inspired and the Jewish community that produced and preserved it never claimed it to be inspired. It also was rejected by many notable Fathers of the early church, including Jerome, the great Roman Catholic biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate. Finally, it was not infallibly proclaimed part of the canon until A.D. 1546, in an obvious attempt to support the very doctrines that Luther attacked in his reformation. To reveal the arbitrary nature of the decision, at the same time 2 Maccabees was canonized by Rome another apocryphal book, 2 (4) Esdras, which opposes prayers for the dead (see 2 Esdras 7:105) was excluded from the canon.
  
  2 Timothy 1:18. The fact that Paul prayed that God would have mercy on Onesiphorus on the day of his reward cannot support praying for the dead for one very fundamental reasonâ€â€he was still alive when Paul prayed for him! Praying that someone alive will receive mercy on the Day of Judgment is a far cry from praying for a person after he or she has already died. There is no indication in the Bible that anyone ever prayed for another after the person died. In fact, there are, as we shall see, clear indications to the contrary.

(2) Response to Argument from Inference

• Let’s consider now the speculative argument proposed by Patrick Madrid (This Rock, Sept 1992) that since (1) the church is Christ’s body and (2) Christ has only one body, and (3) death does not separate us from other members in it, and since (4) we have an obligation to love and serve others, (5) we must continue to ask them for help, even after they die.
  
  From a biblical perspective there are several serious problems with this argument, a few of which will be briefly mentioned here. While a Protestant has no objection to the first or fourth premises, there are serious objections to the others.
  
  First, the second premise, while true, can be easily misconstrued. For example, just because there is only one body does not mean there is no real distinction between the visible and invisible dimensions of it. Likewise, it does not mean that our duties of love to each dimension can be performed in the same way. For example, I cannot (and need not) perform my duty to physically care for my departed father and mother now as I could and should were they living on earth. Nor can I perform my duty to engage in friendly conversation with a departed friend, since he is in the invisible realm, and such conversations are not possible. Likewise, prayer cannot (and should not) occur between the living and the dead.
  
  Second, the third premise is flatly false. According to the Bible, this is precisely what death is, namely, separation from others, including believers. Paul speaks of the dead as being “away†from the visible bodily realm (2 Corinthians 5:6). In Philippians 1:23 he says the dead “depart†from this world. Paul comforted the bereaved Christians at Thessalonica, assuring them that they would be “with them†again when Christ returns (1 Thessalonians 4:17). It is simply false to claim that we are not separated from other believers at death. With that separation comes some real differences, such as no longer being able to speak to them.
  Third, the fourth premise of the argument is not true, at least in one of its major implications. For while we must love and serve one another, we should not (and cannot) always do so the same way. Even on earth, when a loved one is not available, I cannot speak with them. According to Scripture, the dead are unavailable to the living until the second coming (Luke 16:26).
  
  Finally, there are several other mistakes made in this argument. (1) The assumption that because God has revealed to the dead some things that transpire on earth (e.g., Luke 15:10) they therefore can hear us if we speak to them (or know our mind if we pray silently). (2) The highly debatable assumption that true prayer and asking another are the same. In fact, there is no real biblical support for this assumption, since prayer is always to God in the Bible and never to any creature, even an angel. While prayer is not identical to worship, it is part of it, and worship should always be directed to God. (3) There is the invalid inference that because the saints in heaven may be praying for us (Revelation 6:10) that we should be praying to them. There is no logical connection between the two since they would be praying to God, not a creature. So, if anything, this would prove just the opposite of what Catholics believe. Namely, that this is what we should do too. (4) Finally, there is a false analogy used, namely, that since Jesus’ mother on earth interceded to him at the wedding that believers on earth should have Mary intercede to God in heaven on their behalf. As the underlined words reveal, there are significant differences between them, to say nothing of the part that in the text even Mary pointed them to Jesus, saying, “Do whatever he tells you†(John 2:5).

(3) Response to Argument from Tradition

• Here again tradition is not always a reliable test for truth. First, there are contradictory traditions, even from other apocryphal books and the early Fathers. Second, unlike the Bible, tradition is not infallible; the tradition of praying for the dead is a case in point. Third, the fact that there were traditions from the second century proves nothingâ€â€there were false traditions even in the first century! The apostle John debunked a false tradition that took Jesus’ words in John 21:21-23 to mean that John would never die. There were even many false teachings that the apostles condemned in their day (cf. 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 2:16-18; 1 John 4:1-3). Early traditions do not necessarily prove that they were apostolic truths; they simply have been early errors.
  
  As for the Roman Catholic appeal to 1 Timothy 2:1 in support of praying for the dead, the passage teaches no such thing. Paul urged believers to pray for the living, namely, “for kings and for all in authority†(1 Timothy 2). Likewise, to draw from the fact that Moses and Elijah appeared with Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration that we should pray to the dead is a misuse of the passage. For one thing, the disciples never even spoke to them, let alone prayed to them. Moses and Elijah spoke with Jesus (Matthew 17:3), not with the disciples. Indeed, the text says explicitly, “Peter said to Jesus†(Matthew 17:4), not to Moses or Elijah. For another, this was a miraculous contact, not representing a normal way we can be in contact with the dead.
  
  Finally, it does not follow that because we should serve each other that we must do it by praying for the dead. There are other ways to serve fellow believers than talking to them. We can do many things in honor of the dead and their memory without attempting to communicate with them.

Source: Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. (1995). Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences (Pages 348-350).

 

[Gary]

Arguments against Praying to the Saints

There are many reasons the Scriptures forbid praying to Mary and the saints or even venerating their images. Among these several stand out as noteworthy.

(1) God is the only proper object of our prayers

• Nowhere in Scripture is a prayer of anyone on earth actually addressed to anyone but God. In fact, the only prayer in the Bible addressed to a saint was from hell, and God did not answer it (Luke 16:23-31). Prayer is an act of religious devotion, and therefore only God is the proper object of such devotion (Revelation 4:11). There are prayers from Genesis 4:26 to Revelation 22:20, but not one is addressed to a saint, angel, or anyone other than a member of the Trinity. Jesus taught us to pray to “Our Father who art in heaven. . . .†The God of Isaiah the prophet emphatically declared: “Turn to me and be safe, all you ends of the earth, for I am God; there is no other!†(Isaiah 45:22). Indeed, there is no other person but God to whom anyone anywhere in the Holy Scriptures ever turned in prayer.
  
  Some Catholics appeal to Psalm 103:20-21 as an exception: “Bless the Lord, all you his angels. . . . Bless the Lord, all you his hosts.†This passage is no more an actual prayer to angels and saints than is the poetic appeal in the doxology: “Praise Him above ye heavenly host.†Both the poetic nature of the psalms and the context of this passage indicate that the psalmist is merely using a literary device to appeal to all of creation to praise God. The idea that this God-exalting text proves that angels or dead saints should be the object of our prayers is totally foreign to the meaning of this passage.

(2) It is an idolatrous practice

• Prayer is a form of worship, and only God should be worshiped (Exodus 20:3). It is idolatrous to pray to mere human beings or to bow down before them or an image of them or any other creature. The first commandment declares: “You shall not have other gods besides me. You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them†(Exodus 20:3-5) Praying to saints, making images of them, or even bowing down to them are violations of this commandment.
  
  Sophisticated distinctions about different kinds of worship (as the RCC does) will not suffice, since most devotees do not observe such distinctions in practice. Furthermore, regardless of any distinctions one makes in theory, the Bible forbids the practice of making images and bowing down to them or to any creature. When John bowed down to worship “at the feet of the angel†he was rebuked by the angel who said, “Don’t! I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brothers the prophets. . . . Worship God†(Revelation 22:9).

(3) It is forbidden as witchcraft

• The Old Testament condemns all attempts to communicate with the dead along with other condemnations of witchcraft (Deuteronomy 18:10-12; cf. Leviticus 20:6, Leviticus 27; 1 Samuel 28:5-18; Isaiah 8:19-20). Those who violated this command were to be put to death. In all of Scripture there is not a single divinely approved instance of a righteous person praying to a departed believerâ€â€not one. Indeed, Saul was condemned for his attempt to contact the dead Samuel (1 Samuel 28; cf. 1 Samuel 15:23). Given the danger of deception and the lack of faith that the practice of necromancy and idolatry evidence, it is not difficult to understand God’s command.
  
  The Catholic response to the charge of necromancy rings hollow. First, it attempts to narrow the focus of the condemnation against contacting the dead (cf. Deuteronomy 18:11) to the practice of divination (Leviticus 19:26). But God forbids communication with the dead regardless of whether it is associated with occult practices. Deuteronomy separates “divination†from one “who consults the dead†and condemns both! Second, the contention that asking a deceased believer to intercede on our behalf is no different from asking a friend here on earth to pray for us is an unsubstantiated claim. There are substantial differences. For one thing, one is in heaven and the other is on earth. Also, there is a huge difference between asking an earthly friend to pray for us and praying to a dead friend! Finally, friends on earth are in the body and have senses by which they can get our message, friends in heaven do not: they do not have a physical body (2 Corinthians 5:8; Philippians 1:23; Revelation 6:9).

(4) It is a practical denial of the mediatorship of Christ

• Evangelicals believe that to use any mere human being to mediate with God is an insult to the all-sufficient, divinely appointed mediatorship of Jesus Christ. Paul declared emphatically, “There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human†(1 Timothy 2:5; cf. John 10:9; John 14:6). Hebrews 4:15-16 assures us that in Jesus “we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has similarly been tested in every way, yet without sin.†Because of this we are urged to “confidently approach the throne of grace to receive mercy and to find grace for timely help.†There is no reason to go to Mary or any other saint with our requests. Indeed, it is the ultimate insult to Christ’s human suffering, mediatorship, and high priestly ministry to go to anyone else for grace or help.
  
  Roman Catholic apologists attempt to avoid the sting of this argument by distinguishing between Christ as the sole mediator and all believers as intercessors. This distinction does not, however, help their cause (of proving we should pray to saints) because all the passages they use are about direct intercession to God, not to other creatures. In Ephesians 2:18, which they cite, it says explicitly that our access in prayer is “to the Father†not to the saints. Nowhere does Scripture state or imply that we should pray to the saints, and the Roman Catholic dogma which affirms infallibly that we should is a good example of putting tradition over Scripture, thus proving how fallible the alleged “infallible†teaching magisterium really is.

(5) It is an insult to the intercession of the Holy Spirit

• Much of the practical Roman Catholic justification for praying to the saints is based on the seemingly plausible argument that, because of their position in heaven, dead believers may be better able to intercede on our behalf. This is a practical denial of the ministry of the Holy Spirit, whose task it is to do this very thing on our behalf. And who is better able to intercede for us than another Person of the blessed Trinity? The Bible says, “we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit itself intercedes with inexpressible groanings†(Romans 8:26). Paul adds that through Christ we “have access in one Spirit to the Father†(Ephesians 2:18). Since beyond our own prayers to God the Holy Spirit intercedes for us perfectly “according to God’s will†(Romans 8:27) there is no need to call on anyone else in heaven to do so. It is wrong to expect that any human being could be more efficacious with God the Father than God the Son and God the Holy Spirit (1 John 2:1-2). To think so is to insult his divinely appointed role.

Source: Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. (1995). Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences (Pages 350-353).

:wink: