I found this on James White's blog. Man, this is far out. It came from a book called "Devotions in Honor of Our Mother of Perpetual Help."
O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the goods which God grants to us miserable sinners, and for this reason he has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinnerswho have recourse to thee. Come then, to my help, dearest Mother, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it isenough for me. For, if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou are more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my Judge himself, because by one prayer from thee he will be appeased. But one thing I fear, that in the hour of temptation I may neglect to call on thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, then, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace always to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
Yikes!! If this isn't idolatry, then we cannot know what idolatry is biblically.
Who is our "advocate" according to the scriptures?
1Jo 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
Who is the "dispenser of all the goods which God grants to us miserable sinners"
Jam 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
I daresay, Mary would not approve at all if she could hear these kinds of prayers!
Does anyone know when this adoration of Mary stuff started coming up. I have read the Apostolic Fathers and Eusebius, which I realize, isn't much early church writings, but I am assuming that those writings would embody most of what the early church thought about things, and I didn't see any mention of it there.
Where did the teaching originate?
By the way, I do think that Mary was a wonderful, humble servant of God, and to be admired for sure, but this looks like worship to me. The mere fact that she is prayed to in the first place seems like idolatry, even without the things said in these prayers.
God bless,
A Prayer to Mary
A Prayer to Mary
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Derek
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7
the adoration of mary is so ingrained in the RCC that i think she takes an almost greater role than the Lord. i, too, am curious how this all started.
my wife came out of the RCC and she still has her old prayer books, etc. Quite frankly, reading through them gives me the creeps. there seems to be a terrible lack of discernment among members of the RCC, primarily, it would seem, due to the lack of emphasis upon reading the scriptures for themselves.
for example, my mother-in-law, now 82 years old, and a devout catholic, did not know until she met me that the verse "you must be born again" was in the bible, much less so that Jesus is the one that uttered the words. she was literally dumbstruck. "born again" is a term of derision in the RCC, at least from what i hear from friends, etc.
TK
my wife came out of the RCC and she still has her old prayer books, etc. Quite frankly, reading through them gives me the creeps. there seems to be a terrible lack of discernment among members of the RCC, primarily, it would seem, due to the lack of emphasis upon reading the scriptures for themselves.
for example, my mother-in-law, now 82 years old, and a devout catholic, did not know until she met me that the verse "you must be born again" was in the bible, much less so that Jesus is the one that uttered the words. she was literally dumbstruck. "born again" is a term of derision in the RCC, at least from what i hear from friends, etc.
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
Hi guys, The RCC takes the phrase that Mary was "full of grace" to mean she was sinless and of course sinlessness leads to divinity and in Luke 1 i think it says she will be called "blessed through all generations" to mean that she must be venerated throughout the generations.
So one mistake leads to the next mistake. And of course they believe in "original sin" being inherited sin from Adam which leads to reading into "full of grace" the idea that Mary had to have been sinless so that Jesus could be conceived sin free.
So one mistake leads to the next mistake. And of course they believe in "original sin" being inherited sin from Adam which leads to reading into "full of grace" the idea that Mary had to have been sinless so that Jesus could be conceived sin free.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I think the veneration of Mary had a very gradual development. Perhaps it started with Mary's prophecy, "For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed." In the second century Church, Jesus was often called "God", because before all ages, God begat a divine Son, another "God" like Himself. Since Mary gave birth to Jesus, she was called "God-bearer", which she indeed was, since Jesus is "God" and Mary bore Him. Unhappily, this phrase has often been translated as "mother of God." Most non-Catholics shudder at that appelation. About the 4th century, there was speculation in the church as to what happened to Mary.
Some people believed that she ascended to heaven bodily.
The following can be found on www.christiantruth.com
[The Assumption of Mary] is truly an amazing dogma, yet there is no Scriptural proof for it, and even the Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it ...’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words:
But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried ... Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] ... For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence ... The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain ... Did she die, we do not know ... Either the holy Virgin died and was buried ... Or she was killed ... Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).
Later, in the seventh century a number of writings arose, one entitled "The Assumption of Mary" and another "The Falling Asleep of Mary." The former writing is filled with accounts of miracles surrounding the death of Mary. Belief in such things seems to have put her, in the minds of many, on a level with Jesus.
Some people believed that she ascended to heaven bodily.
The following can be found on www.christiantruth.com
[The Assumption of Mary] is truly an amazing dogma, yet there is no Scriptural proof for it, and even the Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it ...’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words:
But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried ... Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] ... For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence ... The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain ... Did she die, we do not know ... Either the holy Virgin died and was buried ... Or she was killed ... Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).
Later, in the seventh century a number of writings arose, one entitled "The Assumption of Mary" and another "The Falling Asleep of Mary." The former writing is filled with accounts of miracles surrounding the death of Mary. Belief in such things seems to have put her, in the minds of many, on a level with Jesus.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
-
_Mort_Coyle
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:28 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
Mary, as she is worshipped in the prayer you quoted, is none other than an ancient primal goddess who has been worshipped throughout the Middle-East, North Africa and Europe for untold thousands of years.
We first find a name associated to her in Mesopotamia at the dawn of recorded history. The great king Nimrod had a wife named Semiramis. When Nimrod was killed in a hunting accident, Queen Semiramis continued to rule. Nimrod was deified as the god of the Sun. When Semiramis later became pregnant, she claimed that she had been impregnated by a sunbeam. She gave birth to a son, Tammuz, who was heralded as a reincarnation of Nimrod. Amazingly, Semiramis claimed to still be a virgin. Eventually, she too was deified as the moon goddess, great mother and Queen of Heaven.
Worship of Semiramis spread to other cultures throughout the Middle-East, into Egypt and Northern Africa and Northward to Europe. Of course the names and details changed and various cultural distinctives were added on.
Regardless of her name, her basic attributes remained: She was the great virgin-mother, Queen of Heaven, associated with fertility and often linked to the moon and sea. Typically she had a son who became her lover and/or was beloved and died tragically (hence the "weeping for Tammuz", referenced in Ezekiel 8.14-15, which was the continuation of a Babylonian ritual fast of mourning). The beloved son of the goddess, Tammuz (aka Dumuzi, aka Adonis, aka Attis, etc.) would die and descend into the lower world (Hell, Hades, etc.) each year, only to be reborn each Spring, at which point his joyful mother would bring fertillty to the earth.
In the later Greek and Roman periods, the goddess was sometimes fractured into multiples goddesses - each one representing a particular attribute.
So then, Semiramis was worshipped by the Sumerians as Inanna. Later Babylonians worshipped her as Ishtar. She was known amount the Canaanites as Asherah (whom the Jews maligned as the demon Astaroth). In Egypt, she became Isis. To the Phoenicians, she was Astarte, who became the Germanic goddess Eostre (which, by the way, is where we get the word "Easter"). In Phrygia (modern day Turkey) she was worshipped for thousands of years as the goddess Cybele. When the Greeks conquered the area, Cybele became Artemis. The Romans worshipped Artemis as Diana. At Ephesus, in what was once Phrygia, there was a massive temple to the goddess Diana, which was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. This temple (and its services) was in existence during Paul's day (interestingly, it was at the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. that Mary was officially declared to be the Theotokos - Mother of God - and the Queen of Heaven). Diana of Ephesus was the perpetual virgin and was called upon by women to save them during childbirth.
Other aspects of Cybele were fractured off as Venus/Aphodite and Demeter.
Cybele was also known as the Great Mother. In this form, she was brought to Rome as the Magna Mater (Great Mother).
More recently, Queen Elizabeth I of England recast herself in the image of the goddess Diana. Ever since, Elizabeth has been known as "The Virgin Queen".
The Catholic Virgin Mary that is venerated today as Queen of Heaven and Mother of God is really a continuation of the same ancient goddess that has been worshipped for untold millenia. Each culture would give her a new paint job, but underneath it was the same old goddess.
Of course, this goddess is a completely different persona from the humble Jewish girl who gave birth to Jesus and his subsequent siblings.
We first find a name associated to her in Mesopotamia at the dawn of recorded history. The great king Nimrod had a wife named Semiramis. When Nimrod was killed in a hunting accident, Queen Semiramis continued to rule. Nimrod was deified as the god of the Sun. When Semiramis later became pregnant, she claimed that she had been impregnated by a sunbeam. She gave birth to a son, Tammuz, who was heralded as a reincarnation of Nimrod. Amazingly, Semiramis claimed to still be a virgin. Eventually, she too was deified as the moon goddess, great mother and Queen of Heaven.
Worship of Semiramis spread to other cultures throughout the Middle-East, into Egypt and Northern Africa and Northward to Europe. Of course the names and details changed and various cultural distinctives were added on.
Regardless of her name, her basic attributes remained: She was the great virgin-mother, Queen of Heaven, associated with fertility and often linked to the moon and sea. Typically she had a son who became her lover and/or was beloved and died tragically (hence the "weeping for Tammuz", referenced in Ezekiel 8.14-15, which was the continuation of a Babylonian ritual fast of mourning). The beloved son of the goddess, Tammuz (aka Dumuzi, aka Adonis, aka Attis, etc.) would die and descend into the lower world (Hell, Hades, etc.) each year, only to be reborn each Spring, at which point his joyful mother would bring fertillty to the earth.
In the later Greek and Roman periods, the goddess was sometimes fractured into multiples goddesses - each one representing a particular attribute.
So then, Semiramis was worshipped by the Sumerians as Inanna. Later Babylonians worshipped her as Ishtar. She was known amount the Canaanites as Asherah (whom the Jews maligned as the demon Astaroth). In Egypt, she became Isis. To the Phoenicians, she was Astarte, who became the Germanic goddess Eostre (which, by the way, is where we get the word "Easter"). In Phrygia (modern day Turkey) she was worshipped for thousands of years as the goddess Cybele. When the Greeks conquered the area, Cybele became Artemis. The Romans worshipped Artemis as Diana. At Ephesus, in what was once Phrygia, there was a massive temple to the goddess Diana, which was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. This temple (and its services) was in existence during Paul's day (interestingly, it was at the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. that Mary was officially declared to be the Theotokos - Mother of God - and the Queen of Heaven). Diana of Ephesus was the perpetual virgin and was called upon by women to save them during childbirth.
Other aspects of Cybele were fractured off as Venus/Aphodite and Demeter.
Cybele was also known as the Great Mother. In this form, she was brought to Rome as the Magna Mater (Great Mother).
More recently, Queen Elizabeth I of England recast herself in the image of the goddess Diana. Ever since, Elizabeth has been known as "The Virgin Queen".
The Catholic Virgin Mary that is venerated today as Queen of Heaven and Mother of God is really a continuation of the same ancient goddess that has been worshipped for untold millenia. Each culture would give her a new paint job, but underneath it was the same old goddess.
Of course, this goddess is a completely different persona from the humble Jewish girl who gave birth to Jesus and his subsequent siblings.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_kaufmannphillips
- Posts: 227
- Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:25 pm
- Location: SW Washington
omnibus reply
Hi, everybody,
Lots of stuff here, and I am behind on other threads, but please pardon me for dropping a few comments....
Derek wrote:
Derek wrote:
Derek wrote:
TK wrote:
steve7150 wrote:
Paidion wrote:
Mort_Coyle wrote a bunch about Semiramis, etc.
In response: If the argument is meant to be general, about human tendency to embrace a divine feminine, then I will agree that human beings are attracted to such a concept, for easily understandable psychological reasons.
But if this is an appeal to the Semiramis theory hawked by Alexander Hislop and his successors, that particular canard will not hold weight. Allow me to reference on this point Ralph Woodrow, who popularized Hislop's conclusions in his book "Babylon Mystery Religion," has since re-examined the claims of this theory and found them insubstantial. To his great credit, Woodrow has since published a book recanting and refuting his former errors. (Woodrow still opposes the Catholic church, though.) If interested in Woodrow's new book: http://www.amazon.com/Babylon-Connectio ... F8&s=books[/url]
Of course, I am not much of a Marian myself.
Shalom,
Emmet
Lots of stuff here, and I am behind on other threads, but please pardon me for dropping a few comments....
Derek wrote:
Technically, unless I'm overlooking something, this prayer does not qualify as idolatry. Mary is being appealed to as an efficacious mediator, but this role does not make her divine, and Catholic dogma explicitly differentiates between the honor given Mary and that given to the Godhead.Yikes!! If this isn't idolatry, then we cannot know what idolatry is biblically.
Derek wrote:
We should note that even though Christians rely upon Jesus as their advocate, they nevertheless ask others to pray for them in times of distress. This is also a form of advocacy.Who is our "advocate" according to the scriptures?
Derek wrote:
This is probably not an exclusivist statement - that is, Mary is not held to be the only dispenser of all good things which come from God, but rather one of the persons who is able to perform such an agency, due to her powerful advocacy.Who is the "dispenser of all the goods which God grants to us miserable sinners"
TK wrote:
As is the term "catholic" amongst Protestants, although most would believe in the catholicity of the church, if the diction were explained to them. The objection is perhaps more partisan than theological."born again" is a term of derision in the RCC, at least from what i hear from friends, etc.
steve7150 wrote:
Sinlessness does not lead to divinity, and the Catholic church does not believe that Mary is divine. Mary is in theory saved from sin, a recipient of grace like every other mere human. The difference, in Catholic dogma, is that Mary is saved in the instance of her Immaculate Conception, where by God's gracious and salvific action she is spared the taint of original sin.The RCC takes the phrase that Mary was "full of grace" to mean she was sinless and of course sinlessness leads to divinity
Paidion wrote:
Shudder they might, but the title is fully "orthodox." Is Jesus God? In the minds of most Christians, yes. Is Mary Jesus' mother? Nobody denies this. If both these things are so, then Mary is God's mother. To claim otherwise is to deny the divinity of Jesus.Unhappily, this phrase has often been translated as "mother of God." Most non-Catholics shudder at that appelation.
Mort_Coyle wrote a bunch about Semiramis, etc.
In response: If the argument is meant to be general, about human tendency to embrace a divine feminine, then I will agree that human beings are attracted to such a concept, for easily understandable psychological reasons.
But if this is an appeal to the Semiramis theory hawked by Alexander Hislop and his successors, that particular canard will not hold weight. Allow me to reference on this point Ralph Woodrow, who popularized Hislop's conclusions in his book "Babylon Mystery Religion," has since re-examined the claims of this theory and found them insubstantial. To his great credit, Woodrow has since published a book recanting and refuting his former errors. (Woodrow still opposes the Catholic church, though.) If interested in Woodrow's new book: http://www.amazon.com/Babylon-Connectio ... F8&s=books[/url]
Of course, I am not much of a Marian myself.
Shalom,
Emmet
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Mort_Coyle
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:28 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
Hi Emmet,
I'm not familiar with Alexander Hislop or Ralph Woodrow. It's not that difficult to trace the Westward trajectory of Semiramis worship and obviously Hislop and Woodrow aren't the only ones to have pointed it out. What's particularly obvious is the superimposition of Cybele/Diana/Magna Mater onto Mary.
I'm not familiar with Alexander Hislop or Ralph Woodrow. It's not that difficult to trace the Westward trajectory of Semiramis worship and obviously Hislop and Woodrow aren't the only ones to have pointed it out. What's particularly obvious is the superimposition of Cybele/Diana/Magna Mater onto Mary.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
emmett wrote:
but what i cannot understand, and find abominable, is the "hiding" by the RCC of the clear teaching that a person must be born again. do the RCC leaders believe this, or not? if they do, why is it not taught? why do hardly any of the RCC masses seem to know this? wouldnt this seem to be a vital teaching of Christ? i mean, the letters are in red and everything.
i realize, emmett, that you will respond that they cant be saved even if they know it, so this question is directed to others here as well.
TK
touche, emmett, at least regarding the fact that "catholic" is sometimes a term of derision among protestants.TK wrote:
"born again" is a term of derision in the RCC, at least from what i hear from friends, etc.
As is the term "catholic" amongst Protestants, although most would believe in the catholicity of the church, if the diction were explained to them. The objection is perhaps more partisan than theological.
but what i cannot understand, and find abominable, is the "hiding" by the RCC of the clear teaching that a person must be born again. do the RCC leaders believe this, or not? if they do, why is it not taught? why do hardly any of the RCC masses seem to know this? wouldnt this seem to be a vital teaching of Christ? i mean, the letters are in red and everything.
i realize, emmett, that you will respond that they cant be saved even if they know it, so this question is directed to others here as well.
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
but what i cannot understand, and find abominable, is the "hiding" by the RCC of the clear teaching that a person must be born again. do the RCC leaders believe this, or not? if they do, why is it not taught? why do hardly any of the RCC masses seem to know this? wouldnt this seem to be a vital teaching of Christ? i mean, the letters are in red and everything.
TK, I think they believe that their ceremonies and prayers lead to the equivalent even though they don't use the same terminology.
TK, I think they believe that their ceremonies and prayers lead to the equivalent even though they don't use the same terminology.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
Sinlessness does not lead to divinity, and the Catholic church does not believe that Mary is divine. Mary is in theory saved from sin, a recipient of grace like every other mere human. The difference, in Catholic dogma, is that Mary is saved in the instance of her Immaculate Conception, where by God's gracious and salvific action she is spared the taint of original sin.
Hi Emmet, How could the RCC encourage millions of people to pray to Mary to intercede for them simultaneouly if they did'nt believe she could process these millions of simultaneous prayers which only a divine being could. At different times the RCC has presented Mary in varying ways i.e. i think one Pope called her a co-redemptrix.
Hi Emmet, How could the RCC encourage millions of people to pray to Mary to intercede for them simultaneouly if they did'nt believe she could process these millions of simultaneous prayers which only a divine being could. At different times the RCC has presented Mary in varying ways i.e. i think one Pope called her a co-redemptrix.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: