Pope Benedict XVI to Resign

[JJ Husker]

 

I am a Christian faithfully, not culturally. That's an important distinction to make in our country and especially in Nebraska. Yes, I based my following of Jesus on Scripture as ultimate authority, with tradition holding significant value but not being inerrant or divinely inspired. My interpretation of Scripture is ultimately guided by the Holy Spirit's work both internally and through the body - there's no easy answer here. There is definitely help, tradition, counsel and discernment involved. One thing among many that assists my interpretation of Scripture is a sort of "majority rule" - it's not ultimate, it's not definitive, but it's generally helpful. If someone independently comes up with a new interpretation of doctrine not shared by anyone else previously and not verified or supported by anyone else following, that will likely be misguided, as one example.

 

I have no idea what you mean by not being a Christian "culturally" if you could expand upon that....

 

I think in many ways we are similar. I too rely on the Holy Spirit for guidance, also rely on tradition although I garner that through the tradition of the church, and I also seek guidance which primarily comes from the church. I don't assign any magical or innerrant characteristics to the Pope or any mere man even though my church seems to. I feel that anytime humans are involved, things can and often do go badly. There was only one perfect, inerrant human. There are quite a few things within the Catholic church I wish were a bit different and that I do not necessarily subscribe to. But, I also believe, as far as organized religions go, they've got it figured out just as well or better than anybody. I guess what stymies me is that I have now seen you join in the bash the Catholics movement that seems to be so prevelant on HB. Is that what Jesus would do? Is that what a follower of Jesus should do?

 

I'll admit that what I am currently doing is probably not a good example of being Christian, not turning the other cheek and all that, but it really, really, really, gets old when supposedly Christian people join in with the atheist non-believers in mocking the religion I am a member of. At least with the non-believers I can kind of ignore it and consider the source but I don't get it coming from other self professed Christians. Is that Catholic religion really that out of whack to your particular brand of belief? I mean we do share the biggest, most important issue(s).

[JJ Husker]

I don't even mock the beliefs themselves. The core beliefs of all Christian churches come from the scriptures of the Bible. Essentially all Christian churches, Orthodox or Reformed, read the same bible. (many versions, but all more or less the same, you know what I'm saying.) No, my only problem with the Catholic Church is the structure. There is no direct quote from the Bible giving the Pope authority to exist - you need a really broad interpretation in order to arrive at that. There's no reason for a church, whose mission should be enriching people's lives and sharing the scripture with others, should be so focused on its own hierarchy of authority and on making its central authority so much of a huge affair that is both public and unnecessarily secretive at the same time. This is an institution that ignores and covers up child rape in order to protect itself, rather than protecting the very people that it should be serving. No, it's not necessarily the beliefs that I mock; it's the structure and the way the church operates.

I can agree with most of that significantly. The hierarchy and grandiosity (is that even a word?) are probably what annoys me most about the church, well that and the fact that they have covered up pedophilia. But, they are just humans like the rest of us. Human beings are not perfect and often flawed and it doesn't matter what religion they may subscribe to. It is merely the human condition. The thing I might slightly disagree with is that I don't think it is an overly broad interpretation to think that Jesus did basically hand over the head of the church on earth to Peter. It only makes sense to me that he would have bequethed some sort of organizational and leadership position to carry on. However, I do agree that the church has taken great liberty with that charge and that it has grown into something probably never intended. Sorry, but I, like Po, took some offense to your status update. It seems that the Catholics on the board get trolled awfully hard at times. But don't worry, I don't intend to turn this into a dudesque scourging at the hands of HB'ers. I couldn't garner that kind of support anyway.

[Landlord]

 

I am a Christian faithfully, not culturally. That's an important distinction to make in our country and especially in Nebraska. Yes, I based my following of Jesus on Scripture as ultimate authority, with tradition holding significant value but not being inerrant or divinely inspired. My interpretation of Scripture is ultimately guided by the Holy Spirit's work both internally and through the body - there's no easy answer here. There is definitely help, tradition, counsel and discernment involved. One thing among many that assists my interpretation of Scripture is a sort of "majority rule" - it's not ultimate, it's not definitive, but it's generally helpful. If someone independently comes up with a new interpretation of doctrine not shared by anyone else previously and not verified or supported by anyone else following, that will likely be misguided, as one example.

 

I have no idea what you mean by not being a Christian "culturally" if you could expand upon that....

 

I think in many ways we are similar. I too rely on the Holy Spirit for guidance, also rely on tradition although I garner that through the tradition of the church, and I also seek guidance which primarily comes from the church. I don't assign any magical or innerrant characteristics to the Pope or any mere man even though my church seems to. I feel that anytime humans are involved, things can and often do go badly. There was only one perfect, inerrant human. There are quite a few things within the Catholic church I wish were a bit different and that I do not necessarily subscribe to. But, I also believe, as far as organized religions go, they've got it figured out just as well or better than anybody. I guess what stymies me is that I have now seen you join in the bash the Catholics movement that seems to be so prevelant on HB. Is that what Jesus would do? Is that what a follower of Jesus should do?

 

I'll admit that what I am currently doing is probably not a good example of being Christian, not turning the other cheek and all that, but it really, really, really, gets old when supposedly Christian people join in with the atheist non-believers in mocking the religion I am a member of. At least with the non-believers I can kind of ignore it and consider the source but I don't get it coming from other self professed Christians. Is that Catholic religion really that out of whack to your particular brand of belief? I mean we do share the biggest, most important issue(s).

 

 

"Being a Christian culturally" refers to the discrepancy you see between the outrageous percentages of church-going folk who identify as a denomination of Christianity, but do not exhibit faithfulness, obedience or fruit as followers of Jesus. This is tough to define easily, because you can't point at individual people and say one way or the other, but the obvious reality for those who are saved is that there is a massive disconnect between people that have received salvation and people that call themselves Christians.

 

Further, I hardly think I am bashing Catholics. Poking fun? Sure. Pointing out contradictions? Yep. Acting out of love, occasionally, yes, but overall more than anything my intention and goal is to defend truth and bring to light things I think are misguided or not beneficial. But I mean I'd like to provide some clarity.

 

I think we're on the same team. I'm not condemning or approaching you specifically with judgment, nor am I trying to condemn any individuals within the church. But I see problems. I see blatant inconsistencies when compared to Jesus. Problems and inconsistencies that make me angry, I hope righteously, and problems that also make me grieve.

 

Here's what I mean, and again, I do not mean this to be an attack, but you keep referring to Catholicism as the original church. Catholicism as you understand it. But that isn't the case. Here's a few examples of why:

 

* Latin wasn't used in prayer or worship until Pope Gregory I - 600 AD

* Prayers weren't directed to Mary, dead saints or angels until ca 600 AD

* Kissing of the Pope's feet began with Pope Constantine - 709 AD

* Veneration of the cross, images and relics was authorized 786 AD

* The college of cardinals wasn't established until 927 AD

* Canonization of dead people as saints didn't start until 995 AD (where Paul's letters, in the first generation of the church, referred to all believers as saints)

* Attendance at mass wasn't mandatory until 1000 AD

* The priesthood wasn't required to be celibate until 1079 AD

* Peter the Hermit invented the repetitous praying with beads (rosary) in 1090 AD

* The sale of indulgences in 1190 AD

* Transubstantiation wasn't proclaimed until Pope Innocent III in 1215

* Further, Confession of sins to Priests was instituted by Innocent III then as well

* The Doctrine of Seven Sacraments was affirmed in 1439

* Tradition wasn't claimed as equal authority to Scripture until the Council of Trent, 1545 AD

* The apocryphal books weren't declared canon until the Council either, 1545 AD

[tschu]

I think he was referring to me, Landlord. You've hardly bashed anyone or anything. I came in waving a big stick around knocking china off the shelves instead of launching a thought-out, pointed attack on the institution. My words could have been mistake for an attack on the everyday people and their beliefs, which it was not meant to be.

 

Your posts are eloquently making the points that I wish I could make on my own.

[Ratt Mhule]

Hopefully during his blessing he will say something about a zero tolerance for sexual abuse or at least acknowledge the problem. That is the first step in ridding the church of this problem.

 

Secondly, I hope this pope allows priests to marry. Give some of the gold platted crap to people who actually need it or help out less fortunate people better than it has in the past. As far as woman becoming cardinals/priests, I dont see the problem with it.

 

He also needs to connect more with the younger generation. So I guess all I ask is, do what you preach.

Po, I'm sorry if I offended you earlier. But this post is basically exactly what I would hope the new pope would do as well, for the sake of the future of the church. Sadly, given what I've read about him, it seems that he will do none of the above.

 

No problem man. Thats why I try to stay out of these arguments for the most part now, it just turns into arguments.

 

Just like JJ said, I don't agree with some of the things the church does. I do, however, think you need some sort of hierarchy/leadership when there are 1.2 billion people that belong to this church. I do not think the pope is infallible and I will never call a human "His Holiness" I think its ridiculous the Ratzinger told people to still call him that.

 

I am willing to give this guy a chance to see if he can get rid of this black eye. He doesn't need to change everything (mostly just acknowledge the abuse and start to take steps to stop it), but start making progress and hopefully down the line, a pope will make the rest of the necessary changes.

 

I found myself following the conclave more than I thought I would and got goose bumps (surprisingly) when the white smoke rose and the bells started ringing. I also live by a catholic school and the bells there started ringing also. The one thing I liked about his blessing was he asked the people to also pray and bless him. It showed that he is a humble man and doesn't really consider himself infallible, but in need of help from God and the people. We will see what comes about this, but Im willing to give the guy a chance. Plus I can say, Lighten up Francis, when he gets out of line

[Notre Dame Joe]

 

I am a Christian faithfully, not culturally. That's an important distinction to make in our country and especially in Nebraska. Yes, I based my following of Jesus on Scripture as ultimate authority, with tradition holding significant value but not being inerrant or divinely inspired. My interpretation of Scripture is ultimately guided by the Holy Spirit's work both internally and through the body - there's no easy answer here. There is definitely help, tradition, counsel and discernment involved. One thing among many that assists my interpretation of Scripture is a sort of "majority rule" - it's not ultimate, it's not definitive, but it's generally helpful. If someone independently comes up with a new interpretation of doctrine not shared by anyone else previously and not verified or supported by anyone else following, that will likely be misguided, as one example.

 

I have no idea what you mean by not being a Christian "culturally" if you could expand upon that....

 

I think in many ways we are similar. I too rely on the Holy Spirit for guidance, also rely on tradition although I garner that through the tradition of the church, and I also seek guidance which primarily comes from the church. I don't assign any magical or innerrant characteristics to the Pope or any mere man even though my church seems to. I feel that anytime humans are involved, things can and often do go badly. There was only one perfect, inerrant human. There are quite a few things within the Catholic church I wish were a bit different and that I do not necessarily subscribe to. But, I also believe, as far as organized religions go, they've got it figured out just as well or better than anybody. I guess what stymies me is that I have now seen you join in the bash the Catholics movement that seems to be so prevelant on HB. Is that what Jesus would do? Is that what a follower of Jesus should do?

 

I'll admit that what I am currently doing is probably not a good example of being Christian, not turning the other cheek and all that, but it really, really, really, gets old when supposedly Christian people join in with the atheist non-believers in mocking the religion I am a member of. At least with the non-believers I can kind of ignore it and consider the source but I don't get it coming from other self professed Christians. Is that Catholic religion really that out of whack to your particular brand of belief? I mean we do share the biggest, most important issue(s).

 

 

"Being a Christian culturally" refers to the discrepancy you see between the outrageous percentages of church-going folk who identify as a denomination of Christianity, but do not exhibit faithfulness, obedience or fruit as followers of Jesus. This is tough to define easily, because you can't point at individual people and say one way or the other, but the obvious reality for those who are saved is that there is a massive disconnect between people that have received salvation and people that call themselves Christians.

 

Further, I hardly think I am bashing Catholics. Poking fun? Sure. Pointing out contradictions? Yep. Acting out of love, occasionally, yes, but overall more than anything my intention and goal is to defend truth and bring to light things I think are misguided or not beneficial. But I mean I'd like to provide some clarity.

 

I think we're on the same team. I'm not condemning or approaching you specifically with judgment, nor am I trying to condemn any individuals within the church. But I see problems. I see blatant inconsistencies when compared to Jesus. Problems and inconsistencies that make me angry, I hope righteously, and problems that also make me grieve.

 

Here's what I mean, and again, I do not mean this to be an attack, but you keep referring to Catholicism as the original church. Catholicism as you understand it. But that isn't the case. Here's a few examples of why:

 

* Latin wasn't used in prayer or worship until Pope Gregory I - 600 AD

* Prayers weren't directed to Mary, dead saints or angels until ca 600 AD

* Kissing of the Pope's feet began with Pope Constantine - 709 AD

* Veneration of the cross, images and relics was authorized 786 AD

* The college of cardinals wasn't established until 927 AD

* Canonization of dead people as saints didn't start until 995 AD (where Paul's letters, in the first generation of the church, referred to all believers as saints)

* Attendance at mass wasn't mandatory until 1000 AD

* The priesthood wasn't required to be celibate until 1079 AD

* Peter the Hermit invented the repetitous praying with beads (rosary) in 1090 AD

* The sale of indulgences in 1190 AD

* Transubstantiation wasn't proclaimed until Pope Innocent III in 1215

* Further, Confession of sins to Priests was instituted by Innocent III then as well

* The Doctrine of Seven Sacraments was affirmed in 1439

* Tradition wasn't claimed as equal authority to Scripture until the Council of Trent, 1545 AD

* The apocryphal books weren't declared canon until the Council either, 1545 AD

 

This list of dates are when someone in the Church are formal declarations, not inventions. All of these were practiced well before the stated dates.

[Landlord]

 

I am a Christian faithfully, not culturally. That's an important distinction to make in our country and especially in Nebraska. Yes, I based my following of Jesus on Scripture as ultimate authority, with tradition holding significant value but not being inerrant or divinely inspired. My interpretation of Scripture is ultimately guided by the Holy Spirit's work both internally and through the body - there's no easy answer here. There is definitely help, tradition, counsel and discernment involved. One thing among many that assists my interpretation of Scripture is a sort of "majority rule" - it's not ultimate, it's not definitive, but it's generally helpful. If someone independently comes up with a new interpretation of doctrine not shared by anyone else previously and not verified or supported by anyone else following, that will likely be misguided, as one example.

 

I have no idea what you mean by not being a Christian "culturally" if you could expand upon that....

 

I think in many ways we are similar. I too rely on the Holy Spirit for guidance, also rely on tradition although I garner that through the tradition of the church, and I also seek guidance which primarily comes from the church. I don't assign any magical or innerrant characteristics to the Pope or any mere man even though my church seems to. I feel that anytime humans are involved, things can and often do go badly. There was only one perfect, inerrant human. There are quite a few things within the Catholic church I wish were a bit different and that I do not necessarily subscribe to. But, I also believe, as far as organized religions go, they've got it figured out just as well or better than anybody. I guess what stymies me is that I have now seen you join in the bash the Catholics movement that seems to be so prevelant on HB. Is that what Jesus would do? Is that what a follower of Jesus should do?

 

I'll admit that what I am currently doing is probably not a good example of being Christian, not turning the other cheek and all that, but it really, really, really, gets old when supposedly Christian people join in with the atheist non-believers in mocking the religion I am a member of. At least with the non-believers I can kind of ignore it and consider the source but I don't get it coming from other self professed Christians. Is that Catholic religion really that out of whack to your particular brand of belief? I mean we do share the biggest, most important issue(s).

 

 

"Being a Christian culturally" refers to the discrepancy you see between the outrageous percentages of church-going folk who identify as a denomination of Christianity, but do not exhibit faithfulness, obedience or fruit as followers of Jesus. This is tough to define easily, because you can't point at individual people and say one way or the other, but the obvious reality for those who are saved is that there is a massive disconnect between people that have received salvation and people that call themselves Christians.

 

Further, I hardly think I am bashing Catholics. Poking fun? Sure. Pointing out contradictions? Yep. Acting out of love, occasionally, yes, but overall more than anything my intention and goal is to defend truth and bring to light things I think are misguided or not beneficial. But I mean I'd like to provide some clarity.

 

I think we're on the same team. I'm not condemning or approaching you specifically with judgment, nor am I trying to condemn any individuals within the church. But I see problems. I see blatant inconsistencies when compared to Jesus. Problems and inconsistencies that make me angry, I hope righteously, and problems that also make me grieve.

 

Here's what I mean, and again, I do not mean this to be an attack, but you keep referring to Catholicism as the original church. Catholicism as you understand it. But that isn't the case. Here's a few examples of why:

 

* Latin wasn't used in prayer or worship until Pope Gregory I - 600 AD

* Prayers weren't directed to Mary, dead saints or angels until ca 600 AD

* Kissing of the Pope's feet began with Pope Constantine - 709 AD

* Veneration of the cross, images and relics was authorized 786 AD

* The college of cardinals wasn't established until 927 AD

* Canonization of dead people as saints didn't start until 995 AD (where Paul's letters, in the first generation of the church, referred to all believers as saints)

* Attendance at mass wasn't mandatory until 1000 AD

* The priesthood wasn't required to be celibate until 1079 AD

* Peter the Hermit invented the repetitous praying with beads (rosary) in 1090 AD

* The sale of indulgences in 1190 AD

* Transubstantiation wasn't proclaimed until Pope Innocent III in 1215

* Further, Confession of sins to Priests was instituted by Innocent III then as well

* The Doctrine of Seven Sacraments was affirmed in 1439

* Tradition wasn't claimed as equal authority to Scripture until the Council of Trent, 1545 AD

* The apocryphal books weren't declared canon until the Council either, 1545 AD

 

This list of dates are when someone in the Church are formal declarations, not inventions. All of these were practiced well before the stated dates.

 

 

I'll admit this is accurate. However, you're just furthering my point that the Roman Catholic church is not the "original" church. These things eventually came into practice by some. But since Tradition was not established as equal authority to Scripture until 1500 years later, why were any of these ever formally declared? That is the definition of an addition. The church has been adding on to the gospel for millennia.

[JJ Husker]

Landlord- My purpose in pointing out that the Catholic church existed before any of the Protestant religions was intended to show that, of any of them, they have been around the longest and that likely any adjustments since have been the result of human preference and changing times. I did not want to claim superiority over protestant religions but, given the nature of the discussion at the time, that is what I did for self serving purposes. I can appreciate that the Catholic church has also changed and adapted over time as your list of dates alludes to. However, there is no denying, as organizedreligions go, Catholicism is the first, original Christian religion with the oldest traditions. I think I understand that you are claiming to have it figured out better and that may be true in some specific cases . As an example, the selling of indulgences. I think we can agree that is ridiculus and an example of how the church has strayed from the message. And sure we may focus on and stress some things that you may feel are unworthy, of minor impotance, or even invalid, but in many of those cases, what is the harm? Mary, for example. I mean she is the virgin mother of Jesus. What is wrong with honoring that?

[carlfense]

FWIW, I do think that the stories about Pope Francis living humbly and cooking his own meals, using public transit, etc. are a step in the right direction. That seems more in line with biblical christianity than red Prada slippers.

 

 

 

I hope that Glenn Beck's head doesn't explode at the new Pope's professed devotion to social justice. Sort of.

[knapplc]

Mary, for example. I mean she is the virgin mother of Jesus. What is wrong with honoring that?

 

Nobody has a problem when people honor Mary. People pray to Mary, and that is a huge problem.

 

Mary was a human, no godhead involved at all. She happened to be of the Line of David and a virgin. God could have chosen any one of hundreds of girls who fit that description. She is no more unique than anything.

 

This is First-Commandment stuff. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." Prayers are only heard by God, not by people. Praying to Mary puts Mary on the same level of God. That's a basic blasphemy that baffles me to this day.

[Landlord]

Landlord- My purpose in pointing out that the Catholic church existed before any of the Protestant religions was intended to show that, of any of them, they have been around the longest and that likely any adjustments since have been the result of human preference and changing times. I did not want to claim superiority over protestant religions but, given the nature of the discussion at the time, that is what I did for self serving purposes. I can appreciate that the Catholic church has also changed and adapted over time as your list of dates alludes to. However, there is no denying, as organizedreligions go, Catholicism is the first, original Christian religion with the oldest traditions. I think I understand that you are claiming to have it figured out better and that may be true in some specific cases . As an example, the selling of indulgences. I think we can agree that is ridiculus and an example of how the church has strayed from the message. And sure we may focus on and stress some things that you may feel are unworthy, of minor impotance, or even invalid, but in many of those cases, what is the harm? Mary, for example. I mean she is the virgin mother of Jesus. What is wrong with honoring that?

 

 

I understand what your purpose was. My purpose is to show you that it's incorrect. I mean I've already said it a number of times - the Catholic church, as you understand it, is not the same thing as the original catholic (not capitalized) church. The reason it is not the same thing is because over the course of a thousand-plus years it had strayed dramatically from the teachings of Christ and the doings of the original church.

 

The Protestant adjustments were not a result of human preference in changing times. They were the result of a desperately and tragically needed refocusing on what the gospel actually is - what salvation actually is. Luther didn't post his 95 theses because he was personally unhappy with the specifics of his church, he posted them because it had been revealed to him through faithful and intentional study of scripture and history that the church had gone very very wrong. This isn't necessarily anyone's fault, and more than anything else could probably be attributed to Constantine's "conversion" and the influx of Christendom, but the fact remains that things were in an awful place.

 

 

 

there is no denying, as organizedreligions go, Catholicism is the first, original Christian religion with the oldest traditions.

 

I will deny this all day, because it's false. The original Christian "religion" was the 1st century, 1st generation followers of Christ who either saw and heard Him personally or saw and heard His disciples. They weren't Catholic - they were disciples. They didn't meet in cathedrals on Sundays; they met in homes and shared meals and life together always. They didn't have a formal rule system to govern Confession or Communion - they were honest about their sin with each other and they broke bread together. They didn't hoard wealth - they sold all their possessions to clothe the naked and feed the starving.

 

Luther started the Reformation because he desperately wanted us to get back to this, because it had completely disappeared. He lived on mission. He took care of orphans and widows. He developed community and relationships. And the thing is, these are the things you see the Reformed community doing better than ever (at least in America) over the last decade or so, but these things are still almost virtually absent in the Catholic church. Following Jesus is an organic, communal and missional lifestyle led by the Holy Spirit. It is not, and has never been, a rigid system of rules and laws and traditions designed to control external behavior. None of this is to say that there are no obedient and God-fearing Catholics, because I know plenty, nor is it to say that all Calvinists and Reformed folk are spiritually superior or more mature, but these things hold true looking at the big picture.

 

And as far as praying to Mary - Jesus gave us the model of how we should pray. And the model He gave told us to pray to the Father.

[BigRedBuster]

Mary, for example. I mean she is the virgin mother of Jesus. What is wrong with honoring that?

 

Nobody has a problem when people honor Mary. People pray to Mary, and that is a huge problem.

 

Mary was a human, no godhead involved at all. She happened to be of the Line of David and a virgin. God could have chosen any one of hundreds of girls who fit that description. She is no more unique than anything.

 

This is First-Commandment stuff. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." Prayers are only heard by God, not by people. Praying to Mary puts Mary on the same level of God. That's a basic blasphemy that baffles me to this day.

 

 

I somewhat agree.....and somewhat not.

 

I was protestant and now Catholic so I have heard both sides of this. For me, if I want to pray, I am going to pray directly to God.

However, the commandment that you stated somewhat doesn't apply to what Catholics do. Catholics don't worship Mary in a manor of believing she is this powerful God figure that can do powerful things. They believe she is in heaven with God and they want her to basically talk to God for them.

 

Again, I don't believe that is necessary. But, it is different than them believing Mary is actually God or on his level.

[Landlord]

Mary, for example. I mean she is the virgin mother of Jesus. What is wrong with honoring that?

 

Nobody has a problem when people honor Mary. People pray to Mary, and that is a huge problem.

 

Mary was a human, no godhead involved at all. She happened to be of the Line of David and a virgin. God could have chosen any one of hundreds of girls who fit that description. She is no more unique than anything.

 

This is First-Commandment stuff. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." Prayers are only heard by God, not by people. Praying to Mary puts Mary on the same level of God. That's a basic blasphemy that baffles me to this day.

 

 

I somewhat agree.....and somewhat not.

 

I was protestant and now Catholic so I have heard both sides of this. For me, if I want to pray, I am going to pray directly to God.

However, the commandment that you stated somewhat doesn't apply to what Catholics do. Catholics don't worship Mary in a manor of believing she is this powerful God figure that can do powerful things. They believe she is in heaven with God and they want her to basically talk to God for them.

 

Again, I don't believe that is necessary. But, it is different than them believing Mary is actually God or on his level.

 

 

It's still not Biblical.

 

 

Jesus taught us to pray to our Father. To talk to our dad. And Paul makes it very clear all over Scripture that as believers, we have direct access to the Godhead and to all spiritual blessings in Christ. We don't need someone to talk to God for us - we've been put into direct and intimate unity with Him through Jesus' death and resurrection. Praying to Mary because she's in heaven is an exercise in the most bizarre redundancy. There's just no benefit to it.

 

 

“This, then, is how you should pray:

 

“‘Our Father in heaven,

hallowed be your name,

your kingdom come,

your will be done,

on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us today our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts,

as we also have forgiven our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation,

but deliver us from the evil one.

[knapplc]

However, the commandment that you stated somewhat doesn't apply to what Catholics do. Catholics don't worship Mary in a manor of believing she is this powerful God figure that can do powerful things. They believe she is in heaven with God and they want her to basically talk to God for them.

 

The First Commandment directly relates to prayers to Mary (or the saints, or to anyone without "God" in their name). How does Mary have the ability to "hear" prayers? This is God's purview, and God's alone. Humans are not able to hear or answer prayers. They have no ability to "intercede" on behalf of living supplicants. They may live in heaven, but they don't suddenly get special powers like prayer-hearing. There is zero biblical support for this. None.

[NUance]

Does anyone here know of a source of the history of the Catholic church honoring Mary? I've always been curious about it since, to outsiders, it appears to fly in the face of the first commandment. I am not looking for something that bashes the Catholic church. Just something that explains how Mary came to be held in such high esteem.