Go on its really good http://male-exam.xhostar.com

OK, I said I was only going to make a few comments but just remembered a fourth--a corollary to number three comment--that I tell my Protestant buddies.
On Protestant--RCC/Orthodox dialogue, I do think the Spirit-inspired Church is the important concept.
My usual comment to Prots is something like this: "Anyone can open the Scripture and find Christ, but no one can open the Scripture and found a Church--Jesus already did that."
But there is no way they see the relevance of that to my point since the notion of "Church" is something of a free-for-all (though this is not an entirely fair description for all Prots).

Thank God for Bill's comment--for a long time I thought this was turning more into an Evangelical--Catholic debate than a series on Mary!
Anyway, I have only a few comments.
1. The Lutheran Confessions call Mary (at least once) "Ever-Virgin." Interestingly the Lutheran bodies do not take this to mean that Lutherans today should understand her to be so. BUT having said that I would guess that Lutherans could do so if they wished and still be Lutherans.
2. Luther's commentary on the _Magnificat_, I believe, is very clear--Mary is Ever-Virgin, prays for us, and is the "Queen of Heaven." Granted, this was written very early in Luther's life, 1520/21, but there it is. Again, I believe that the Lutheran churches simply don't take this as doctrine and see it as a residual from Luther's Catholicism.
3. On the dialogue between Protestants (of any stripe) and Catholics or Orthodox (such as myself). I know that this is a crude reduction of the state of such dialogue but here goes: Either one believes that the Holy Spirit did NOT stop speaking through the Church in AD 95 (Orthodox and Catholic position) or one does believe that the Spirit DID stop speaking through the Church (Protestants). There can be no reconciliation on most issues, I think, til this one can be resolved--which will be, like, never! (OK, til Christ returns.)

Hello -
As a recent convert to Catholicism with a half-century of Lutheranism behind me, it's encouraging to see people discussing the Blessed Virgin. If you had told me 3 years ago I'd be saying rosaries, I'd have laughed 'til the sun went down. Now, I say it every day. Of course, I've "fallen in with" Traditional Catholics ... Eastern Catholicism (Byzantine to be specific), in fact, which I'm told is even more Marian than Roman Catholicism. I wouldn't know, but second only to the Real Presence, her influence is easily the most profound change in my religious life. The issue of her role in the Bible is not a problem; becoming a true Catholic requires that one also accept Church Tradition. Not everything is IN the Bible. E.g., even Protestants go to church on Sunday. (Catholic Tradition, not in the Bible) Prot. also refer to and accept the concept of the Trinity (Catholic Tradition, not in the Bible ... not the word, and even the full concept as later developed by the Church). So I would just encourage my former "siblings" to be open to the idea that the Bible, although of course completely true, is not truly complete in that it defines all practices of Christianity.
Blessed be the Virgin Mary; Daughter of God the Father, Mother of God the Son, Spouse of God the Holy Spirit. You cannot be more connected than that!
OH, and PS: The Immaculate Conception is not about the BVM's motherhood of Christ (as even some Catholics think), but that Mary was born without sin because her Mother, St. Ann was made immaculate ... it would have to be so for God (the Holy Spirit) to espouse her. I think it even means that then the BVM is the only human since Adam & Eve born without original sin, but since I've been Catholic for about 15 minutes (relatively speaking), don't quote me on that! Thank you.

The bottom line remains that the veneration of Mary is unsupported by Scripture. True she holds a very important place in the history of Christianity and there is no doubt she is one of those held closest to God's heart but that is the be all and end all of the issue. Putting up idols of Mary in 'churches' is a clear violation of the second commandment (Exodus 20:4-6), it also goes against the very grain of the teachings in Deut. 4:15-18.
Another classic example of blindness in the Church is the whole concept of praying to Mary for intersession. Have we so quickly forgotten the words of Jesus in John 14:6 "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"
There is no intecessor but Jesus and to claim that anyone else has that ability (saints, prophets or human mother of the Christ) takes away from the very sacrifice that Jesus made on the Cross by making others equally important. This my friends is called herecy.
For more check out http://www.inplainsite.org/html/catholicism.html

- Jesus' talk about each one being rewarded according to their works
This is assuming what you set out to prove: namely, that salvation is not dependent on works. In the parable of the sheep and the goats, there are those who are rewarded for their good works, and those who are damned for their want of them.

When we get to the place where we do good and avoid evil *in order to try to gain favor with God*, we err. We should do good and avoid evil because of Who God Is, because He is Good,
That imperfect contrition is imperfect is not a reason to reject it. Jesus openly advocates doing what He says because you will fry in Hell without it. He's not proud.

It isn't forbidding "private interpretation" (your second mistake: that is a southern Baptist doctrine alone, not protestant in general).
If you are maintaining here that Protestants do not maintain that you can just sit down and read the Bible and get your doctrine that way -- in contradiction to this verse -- may I remind you that Protestants other than Southern Baptists have written a great deal on this matter?

"do not commit the error of going beyond what is
written."
"Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours."
To require as -dogma-, which must be believed, that which is not contained in Scripture,
When the angel calls Mary "full of grace" he is using language used of no one else in scripture, regardless of what may happen in translation. The term refers to one who possess grace in perfection. And we know what grace does: it washes us, it makes it clean. One possessed of perfect grace would be washed perfectly clean of sin.

I am tired of arguing with you guys. I hope you have fun keeping your salvation. I know God will keep me by His power to save me to the uttermost.
BTW, interesting blog by Roberts on the whole mary thing in time. Even mentions this blog in part 3

I was wondering if someone would tell me who the protestant that endorsed using mediatrix language for mary was?

Seeker, Boetner isn't a reliable source on the teachings of the
Catholic Church. I'm not even so sure he is even a reliable source on
-Calvin-.
Simon, you have to understand that that distinction between merit and
earning is by no means easy to understand by a protestant. The semantic
domains of those words overlap a whole lot. But by defining them more
clearly, you are doing the right sort of thing that needs to be done,
ut unam sint.
Seeker, I'm not sure where a Calvinist gets off condemning Catholics
for doctrinal elaboration. Maybe you've never had to read the Big Blue
Sleeping Pill. Or argue in circles into the wee hours of the morning
with fellow seminarians who insist that TULIP explains absolutely
everything to perfection, even if common words in the koine have to be
forced into meanings foreign and even antithetical to their usage.
Chesterton's circle and cross word picture.
BTW, it is sola Scriptura supra omne, not just sola Scriptura. Calvin
argued extensively from parts of the Fathers, was steeped in Aristotle,
and yet proclaimed sola Scriptura. It is a modern Baptist heterodoxy
that has it "solo" Scriptura.
Anna, Biblicist protestants still acknowledge genre and metaphore. John
6 can sure look like metaphor - until you read 1 Cor. 10:16ff.
"koinonia with the -Blood- of Christ" "koinonia with the Body of
Christ", "if you fail to recognize the Body and Blood of Christ, you
eat and drink judgment upon yourselves." -Then- John 6 takes on new or
at least additional, meaning.
Devin, right; "faith/pistos" cannot be truncated to mean intellectual
assent alone, though Trent seems to have thought that Luther and Calvin
were teaching that. (they weren't). Faith that, faith in, keeping faith
with, faithfulness/fealty to, etc. And I would add that it isn't our
faith (which is itself a gift) that earns atonement of our sins. It is
God's grace, because of Christ's work on the Cross, -received- by faith
(as Dr. Schaeffer would put it "the empty hands of faith") that saves
us. I should say, makes possible and enacts the forgiveness of our
sins, but the protestant habit is to use the words "saves", "saved" and
"salvation" for that specific thing. A difference in usage that has
caused much misunderstanding and grief.
Mary, what with quantum theory and all, transubstantiation is easy to
believe. It isn't pure Aristotelianism, but transference of the
property of identity, or exchange of substance via nano-scale black
holes in the quantum foam, or just plain "fiat." What could be simpler?
I believe that the position of the other ancient patriarchies, and at
least some Lutherans is "we don't know exactly how it is done, but we
know "hoc est."
Bubbles, and then He walked the dusty dung-filled roads of Gallilee,
Judaea and the Decapolis for at least another 33 years without becoming contaminated. The
particular defense of the immaculate conception that I've seen, seems
almost gnostic. We inherit the guilt of -Adam's- sin, not Eve's, so it
is not -necessary- for our salvation that Mary have been immaculately
conceived (which is not to say that God, Who can do all things,
-didn't- make that so). But, (and here I differ with Rome, insofar as I
understand things) "do not commit the error of going beyond what is
written." To require as -dogma-, which must be believed, that which is
not contained in Scripture, but which derives either from legend or
popular devotions by the laity is either an error, -or- that passages
like the above in Scripture are mistranslated or misinterpreted, and all
of the 22 other ancient patriarchies, plus protestants who believe the
three ecumenical creeds, are seriously wrong. It is -that- matter, not
dear Mary, nor the Blessed Sacrament, which is the dividing issue.
Terry, those are corruptions of the Biblical call to all to repent and
believe in Christ, take up our crosses and follow Him. That is what
"accept Jesus" and sinner's prayers are (or were originally) all about.
Personal Lord and Savior isn't like personal computer, but that each of
us personally must convert to Christ, rather than rely on belonging
ethnically or nationally to some group. There is a great deal of
similarity with the devotion called "enthroning the sacred heart of
Jesus."
Seeker, the Catholic Church would say that all of those sacraments come
from Scripture. Other theological (Protestant) communities define
"sacrament" differently so that marriage, confirmation, annointinng the
sick, ordination and maybe confession don't get called sacraments, but that
is due to definitions of the term, not the substance of the reality,
over which it is not clear to me that there is actual disagreement.
Mary, you are misrecalling the passage in 1 or II Timothy. It isn't
forbidding "private interpretation" (your second mistake: that is a
southern Baptist doctrine alone, not protestant in general). But that
the prophecies of Scripture are literally given in God's very words,
and are not a matter of the prophets putting down their own ideas, or
maybe trying to interpret a 'feeling'.

Seeker, you need to seek to know what the Catholic Church actually
teaches, as opposed to ill-taught laity and certain misguided
apologists who have forgotten what their calling really is, say.
As to Mary, the fear is, as I have observed over the years, that honoring Mary will lead to worshipping her. The pull is strong.
e.g. Pastors who get all worked up over women's swim suits don't do so because they are not attracted to the female form.
Also, to protestant eyes, Marian devotion looks like idolatry. I mean that literally, that is its optical seeming. And as others have noted above, in some cases it wrongly -is-. (it probably doesn't help that in the
seeker-sensitive movement and other liberalizing trends, some protestants don't reverance -God- as much as Catholics do the mother of our Lord)
Dr. Luther held Mary highly. Dr. Francis Schaeffer held her as -the- great example of Christian faith and obedience.
Mary, um, the lesser, as I feel like I need to define in this thread, the citations you have all refer to condemnation of sinners being based upon their own evil works. (IIRC) I don't think that even Zane Hodges, the present-day chief advocate of "easy believeism" and "cheap grace", nor the staunchest Calvinist like Sproul Jr. would disagree with that.
The universal Christian position, perhaps not always emphasized everywhere as much as it should have been, is that we cannot ever, throughout all eternity, come to the end of atoning for our own sins in Hell. Christ died on the Cross in our place as both our High Priest, and our sacrifice (Hebrews) neither
our good works, nor (as Paul probably actually was mainly discussing) observing the rituals of the Mosaic covenant, wash away the guilt of
our sins. Only Christ's shed blood can do that. When we get to the place where we do good and avoid evil *in order to try to gain favor with God*, we err. We should do good and avoid evil because of Who God Is, because He is Good, and we love Him for Who He is, and out of gratefulness for what He has done for us, out of a desire to follow Him. And in doing so, we will be made, over time, with fits and starts and ups and downs, more like Him. The ultimate goal being to be wholely
like Him in moral character. The north and south of the Western Church disagree whether the final consumation of that will be via the grace of glorification received upon seeing Christ face to face, or continued
sanctification after death in purgatory, ("For when we see Him face to face, we shall be like Him") but not that in the end, it is all God's
grace, because of what Christ did for us on the Cross, received by faith, and not earned as a wage owed to us.

The problem with the view that you need works to complete your salvation (despite the passage that *seems* to indicate this) is that you begin to focus on 'if I don't do the works I won't get in.'
First off, we can't dismiss Scripture because it is inconvenient to us.
Second, you are trusting in works right here. You are dismissing a passage because you think it necessary to your salvation to avoid it. You should rather trust on God's grace to accept all His Bible. It can be dangerous. We are explicitly warned, "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, " and warned of what it can be like: "In them [Paul's epistles] there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures."
(Note that he does not forbid private interpretation by the ignorant and unstable, but by everyone. Perhaps because the ignorant and unstable are those least able to judge their knowledge and stability.)

Terry's long list of "faith in God through..." just appears like doubletalk. "All the works are works of grace, so they can be required for salvation." And to "require" catholic communion, confirmation, or any other rite of the church to complete salvation is just plain wrong.
Care to explain why?
Me, I look and see if any man is in Christ, he is a new creation. All of him.
And to "require" communion is not an invention of the Catholic Church. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink of His blood -- you have no life in you.

- This doctrine has been argued througout church history, and there is plenty of theology around the subject, probably as much as for the extrabiblical Catholic doctrines
So what?
seeker, we are the ones who believe in Sacred Tradition. When we cite it, we are citing authority.
You have claimed not to believe in it yourself. Your posts here are not evidence in favor of your claim. (Just as misquoting Scripture and dismissing it when it is pointed out, and dismissing a quote from scripture because it is from Revelation, makes your claim that you trust the Bible alone look -- a little off.)

Well, Terry's long list of "faith in God through..." just appears like doubletalk. "All the works are works of grace, so they can be required for salvation." And to "require" catholic communion, confirmation, or any other rite of the church to complete salvation is just plain wrong. And this type of teaching is what leads people into confusion and away from the gospel that gives liberty.
Galatians comes to mind - despite the fact that Paul is arguing against making xians follow Jewish customs to make them "true christians," asking people to fulfill the catholic rites seems absolutely synonymous - it looks right on the surface, but in the end, it ends up contraverting the liberty of the gospel. Thanks to God I don't have to be a jew or a catholic (or a protestant)to recieve God's message - just a believer.

"The problem with the view that you need works to complete your salvation (despite the passage that *seems* to indicate this) is that you begin to focus on 'if I don't do the works I won't get in.'"
Then I'd say, if one is doing that, one has the wrong focus. If we, as Christians, are focusing on Christ & walking in the path He has made for us, how can we focus on the works? We will want to do the works because of our faith, & our faith (as in James 2:22) will be completed in them; some translations say "fulfilled" or "perfected" but it's the same, really. I really don't see any mystery here. Our works complete, fulfill, perfect our faith & it's by those works that we'll be judged when we die! If one's focus is on living as Christ lived, the works will naturally, organically follow because we'll be (as Paul exhorts us to be) imitators of Christ; we'll be moved to do good works for the right reasons. I'm sure there are some folks out there, of all denominations, who focus on works in spiritually unhealthy ways; after all, we're all sinners, right? But that's why Christ told us to make sure to wash our faces when we fast so our fasting isn't on display for others to see & when we donate charitibly, we are to do it so the left hand doesn't know what the right hand's doing. Why? Because the glory should go to God, not us! But the temptation is there to say, "Hey, look what I did" & that takes away from the completion of the work God is doing in us. Christians everywhere can be tempted to pat themselves on their backs & take the glory for themselves, not just Catholic Christians.
Seeker, you might want to find a good book on the Early Church Fathers, especially those prior to 200AD. I just finished a wonderful one called Four Witnesses, by Rod Bennett - tons of footnotes that are easily checkable. You might be surprised what these Christians, just 1 & 2 generations from Christ's 12 Apostles, believed!
Have a blessed Easter!

Catholics believe that good works they perform are by the grace of God.
I honestly think that since Catholics believe one can forfeit their inheritence, i.e. salvation, it leads many to believe that we believe in a works righteousness system, which we don't. See above.
Cathoics also believe in salvation by faith, but that faith includes faith in God working through baptism to wash us of original sin and any personal sins up to that point; faith in God working through Confirmation to give us the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit; faith in God working through penance to forgive us of our personal sins committed after baptism; faith in God working through priests, bishops, and other religious to help us stay connected to God and His Church; faith in God working through marriage, for those of us called to be so, to help us perfect love for others and God (and of course constantly rely on His strength, which nothing like marriage does); faith in God working through annointing of the sick to help us in times of physical trial; and of course faith in God working through the Eucharist to make us more like Jesus in all ways.
Of course we Catholics are told those are works, and I agree. They're works of God and God only. So I also agree that when Catholics are pejoratively accused of believing that sacraments save us, but it's only because God's grace resides in them.
If we want to talk about extra-biblical doctrines, what about "accepting Christ," Him being our "personal Lord and Savior," or "sinners prayers." I vividly remember pouring the Scriptures for those terms to ensure myself that I was saved. Despair is actually common in "sola fide" belief systems. I can't prove it, but I tend to think that it's because there's nothing concrete to hold on to. After all, we were given senses. I also know there are many who have never doubted their salvation in those communities, but many of my friends and I were not that fortunate.
It's downright tragic people I consider fellow Christians won't afford me the privilege of being the same.

First off, I'm sorry for my lack of charity in these discussions, God is working on me that a servant of God should not be argumentative ;)
I think in many ways we are agreeing. True faith produces works, and so you could say "completes" one's salvation. I have no problem w/ the book of James, because the works described flow from faith (which provides salvation), and the works merely prove it. That is consistent with Paul, and in the Reformed view, consistent with the other scriptures you mention. However, Jesus talk of reward "according to their works" does leave room for a more Catholic interpretation.
I don't agree with all of what Luther wrote, nor his low view of James. However, reformed theology released me from years of torment living under the view that I had to keep myself through continued obedience. Thank God that He can keep me till the end! Now I can serve and obey because the work is already done.
The problem with the view that you need works to complete your salvation (despite the passage that *seems* to indicate this) is that you begin to focus on "if I don't do the works I won't get in." What you should be focusing on is God's ability to keep you, not your need for continued obedience.
I admit, the reason people argue about this is that there is an element of mystery here.
However, in the debate between God's part in salvation and mine, I like what I learned from Boettner's Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, which is that both predesination (God's working) and free will (my response) are part of the salvific process. But when I ask the question "how much should I focus on God's part vs. my part?", the reformed, and I think proper answer is "the ratio of man's part in salvation compared to God's is similar to man's power as compared to God's." In other words, I have culpability before God, but my emphasis is on God's grace and ability to save me, not on my ability to keep myself through perseverance - even though "Perseverance of the saints" is the 5th petal of the reformed "TULIP", even perseverance is accomplished through faith in God, not through one's effort.
Regaring scriptural support for differential punishment in hell, there are a few:
- Jesus' talk about each one being rewarded according to their works
- This doctrine has been argued througout church history, and there is plenty of theology around the subject, probably as much as for the extrabiblical Catholic doctrines ;)

I make no accusations against any person. But as a former Southern Baptist, it is my hunch that the primary reason behind the evangelical disregard for Mary, is that to believe what Catholics believe is to believe in the incarnational part of the incarnation. Most of what I've learned about the life of faith in evangelical churches has been what I would call "proto-manichean." A severe divide is proposed between the life of the spirit and the life of the flesh - and let's be clear here, in the evangelical view, the Flesh is evil.
Now maybe I'm wrong, but the way I see it Jesus came into this world covered in blood, vernix, and amniotic fluid. He, God of the universe, could not walk or talk. He, incarnate divinity, was without sin. ALL of Him. His flesh was derived from the flesh of His mother, as it had to be for He was "begotten, not made." It is logically insane to suggest that His sinless flesh, for 9 on-going months, was derived from and carried by a sinful woman. God may humble Himself, but He Will Not profane Himself.

Seeker,
What makes you different from a person who isn't "saved"? Jesus redeemed us all. Did your denomination have you say a prayer and ask Jesus into your heart? So the only difference between you and an unsaved person is something you did. Well, that is a WORK!

"And eventually, faith alone becomes "faith plus good works" . . .
Not eventually, Seeker - initially! Please re-read my post above. Focus on James 2:14-20. Perhaps these verses are why Martin Luther referred to James as an "epistle of straw" - because it disagreed with his personal view of salvation! But the real point here is that it's God Himself Who prepared good works, in advance, that we should live in them - Eph 2:10. What Scripture condemns, especially in Romans, as you've pointed out, is an adherence to works of the law, not good works as products of our faith. Scripture is clear that faith without works is dead!
"That is why paul harps on salvation being God's gift, not of works."
Then please explain James 2:20-26. James teaches us that Abraham's faith was active along with his works & his faith was completed in them! Faith alone? Hardly. It's both/and not either/or. Remember 1 Cor 13. That chapter is all about what? Faith? Nope. Love. Love is a work! The emphasis is not "faith, faith, faith" or "works, works, works" but faith and works, works as a result of faith. In John 10, Jesus Himself tells the unbelieving Jews that "If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." (Emphasis mine.) Believe the works! Why? Because that's how others can tell Jesus & the Father are one, as he states in John 10:30. So, don't our works show others that we belong to God? This is why faith without works is dead; if we have faith alone then we have nothing (James 2:20, 1 Cor 13:2). 1 John 2:3-6 says: "And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He who says 'I know him' but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: he who says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked." (Emphasis mine.) So we are to walk in the same way Christ walked, right? Did Jesus preach only faith? No, He preached that all would know we belong to God by putting our faith into action through good works! I find that a beautiful witness. Remember that James 2:19 says even the demons believe that God is one, & shudder! Wow. The faith of the demons didn't save them, did it? James goes on to say that faith apart from works is (in some translations) barren; a faith without works can not bear the fruit of salvation!
God bless!

Your best scripture to support this is using a symbolic scripture from an apocolyptic book? Pretty thin.
*blink, blink, blink*
"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness," 2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture. Even Revelation.

The reason protestantism rejects the apocrypha and other non-canonical writings is because they fail the tests for scripture, which I don't fully rembmer -
BTW, please cite the authority for these tests from the Bible.
things like believable authorship by an apostle or eyewitness (I'm not sure where Luke fits in there), consistency with established doctrines (like salvation by grace through faith), and the like.
Ah -- seeker -- you do realize you gave away the whole ball game there. You are openly admitting that the Protestants did not get salvation by grace through faith from the Bible but brought it to the Bible to judge the books with.
One should note that only Martin Luther had the full courage of his convictions; he called the Letter of James "an epistle of straw."

There are differential punishments in hell
There are?
I'd like to see the Scriptural support for that one!

The scriptures that you share have nothing to do with salvation, and everything to do with *reward*, either heavenly or in hell.
What is salvation, alone and isolated, then?

What i am harping upon is the attack on "faith alone" as the key to salvation. This is biblically sound and there are hundreds of well-written Reformed articles on such.
Veritable Protestant encyclicals!

Now you want me to believe in transubstantiation,
Of course we do. It's what Jesus teaches in the Bible.
It can be hard. It is the only time that any of Jesus's followers left him for doctrinal reasons. But it's what the Good Book says.

I hate to sound too redundant, but I encourage Seeker to also examine the arguments here and attempt to look at them as objectively as possible, not just look for ammunition predicated with a preconceived "well I know the Catholic church teaches this" . I was born and raised in a Southern Baptist home. I even went on mission trips into Mexico to see the "idolatry" being practiced and to convert the locals to a true Christian faith. I remember seeing a wall of letters at a church in Mexico that were written expressing thanks for the intercession of St. Francis in some particular situation. At the time, I wondered how so many people could be so deceived. I knew all of the scriptural responses to Catholicism and even brought a few Catholic friends to my Church so that they could accept Christ.
So how did I end up Catholic? Even a few from high school look flabberghasted when they hear the news! Because God works in strange ways! At a time in my life that I was seeking the one true church that fit with scripture best, I ended up at Rome's doors. Who says God doesn't have a sense of humor? One by one, each claim was shot down - I thought the Catholics re-crucified Christ every Mass, it turns out they don't! As a matter of fact, most of what I thought Catholics believed (learned through protestant books)largely came from my limited human view of what God (who is not limited) can or cannot do. This is where prayer to saints comes in. I would ask my Dad or pastor to pray for me for whatever reason, but nope can't ask Mary, she's dead! Well, the fact is God does not limit the Christian community of believers until death! In fact, Mary is closer to Jesus than my Dad or any pastor, being the one who gave birth to Him. And when someone is praying for you, it makes sense to ask someone close to Christ to help do the talking. I still pray directly to Christ as well. I still ask my Dad to pray for me. And I ask Mary to pray for me as well. Mary directs us to a closer relationship with her Son, which is the entire point.

Yippee, 500 years of tilting windmills and torching straw men, with the subject of the Blessed Mother as the catalyst. Surprise, surprise.

Eric,
I agree that I have seen a few abuses in the Charismatic movement, but I've seen a few made by uber traditionalists too. I think John Paul 2 has given the movement a thumbs up. Calling it satanic might be a little severe. I don't think people should have doubts about the validity, or licitness of charismatic Catholics as long as they are following the direction and permission of their Bishop. It may not be your cup of tea, or mine for that matter, but not satanic.

Seeker,
I get the impression that you either didn't read my post at all or simply skimmed it to look for ammunition without carefully analyzing what I wrote.
>>
You can not say in one breath that salvation is free while eternal life is earned -
>>
In fact, I never even said that. I never said that eternal life is earned. Please re-read my post. To say that eternal life is earned is anathema. We can agree on this, so please stop harping on this point.
>>
your interpretation of Romans 2:8 is out of context - he rewards us with eternal life not because we've earned it, but because we have persevered in doing good because we had faith - not because we merit eternal life in any way.
>>
Again, you are putting words not only in my mouth but you are taking scripture out of its context. Where does scripture even mention faith in this passage? You are reading into this passage and carrying into the scriptures your Protestant bias that whenever works are mentioned in a positive light, that these works are simply a consequence of believing.
You claim that we don't merit eternal life. By reading your posts, you seem to be equating merit and earning. You clearly misunderstand the Catholic concept of merit. Traditionally in Catholic theology, the term merit DOES NOT carry any connotation of earning. Rather, as you say, eternal life is a reward for our perseverance in good works done under the auspices of God's grace. I refer you to another of Jimmy's works. (http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/righteou.htm)
Seeker, upon reading your posts one last time, I must conclude that you do not wish to engage in debate in a civilized manner, but rather read into my posts and look for ammunition. Your posts so far have been uncivilized, rude, and show a complete disrespect for Catholic beliefs. I have no problem if you disagree with us, but please refrain from insulting our beliefs. I would love continuing this discussion, but I will not reply to you unless your post is free from any rude or insulting comments.

seeker:
I converted to Christianity from atheism about six years ago; most of my friends were Evangelical Protestants, so I became one, too, though I never would have called myself that (I was just a "true Christian").
Eventually I felt God leading me into the Catholic Church, which was amazing because I had recently written a document about why the Virgin Mary could never be sinless, naturally based off of the Bible, and sent it to my Catholic friends to prove their doctrines wrong.
I know where you are coming from in all you say. I once argued almost the exact same things against my Catholic friends. In following where God has led me, I am now a Catholic. I now regret things I wrote and said to people about the Virgin Mary. I do not think you have been disrespectful to Jesus about her in what I have read of your posts, but I encourage you to keep open to the possibility in your mind and heart that you may be mistaken in your understanding of her and even of the Catholic Church. It turns out I was.
As for the faith and works debate, wiser people than I have written thick books on the subject, so I won't delve into it too much, other than to suggest one of these books, by Robert Sungenis, and to remind you of something Jesus said, from the NIV version of the Bible:
John 5:28,29“Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out–those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned."
What is faith without action based upon it?
Peace in Christ, my friend.

seeker:
the "works" st. paul refers to are "works of the law", which is basically a rabbinic technical term which refers to the ritual practices associated with the old covenant like circumcision, dietary laws, etc.
when catholics speak of "works", it's generally about the corporal and spiritual works/acts of mercy, i.e., feeding the hungry, instructing the ignorant, etc.
so when st. paul says “works” won’t save, he means that circumcision and observing the dietary laws and others don’t bring us salvation, but faith in Christ does. but this faith is dead if not practiced through charity and the spiritual/corporal works of mercy as st. james stated.
thus, you're condemning catholics wrongly. this is a clear case of misunderstanding context in scripture.
i hope this clarifies things.

Eric,
>>A very poor comparison. Protestants do not pray to Saint Paul, do not perform consecrations to him, do not venerate his heart, etc
First off, the purpose of a comparison is not to show that two things are equal, but to show that two things have something in common. A Lutheran's devotion to St. Paul is not equal to a Catholic devotion to Mary. Fact. A Luterhan's devotion to St. Paul has something in common with Catholic devotion to Mary. Fact.
What I find similar is that we go all go through the Church to Christ. When I read the book of Romans, it is the Church in the person of St. Paul, who is bringing me to Christ. It is a form of intercession. Likewise, Catholic devotion to Mary is "studying at the feet/school of Mary" (Pope John Paul II, Rosarium Virginis Mariae) to become closer to Christ.
I hope this clears some things up.

Seeker,
I doubt I will add much to this, but here it goes.
In your theology, what was faith before Christ came? Was it merely the belief that God was provident and would provide for his people? Was it even deeper than that? Were people judged and in fact rewarded and punished here on earth for their obedience to God's Commandments?
Yes Jesus has come. So how do we understand Jesus's coming in the context of the faith of the OT? Even if we sincerly say that we know him and love him and have invited him into our heart and we are now saved, this is not the faith an OT Jew at the time of Jesus would understand. Even the pagans knew the Jewish God. Some even invited this Jewish God into their hearts, but declined circumcision.
So maybe, just maybe, faith hasn't changed so much since the OT. The covenant has certainly been widened to Gentiles. There is certainly the new recognition that Jesus is the same God of the OT. There is the recognition that heaven is now open and the Jewish God fulfilled His promises, which is a rather important point when you consider eternity and the multitude of gods during that time making similar promises.
One of the areas key to my conversion was reading the Gospels. The Pharisees were among the chosen people. We, as Christians, are now the chosen people. Lets not be hypocritical, because Jesus's condemnations seem just as applicable to us as they were to the Pharisees of the OT.

The Charismatic movement is misguided at best, Satanic at worst.

"This IS My Body."
"This IS My Blood."
"DO THIS in memory of Me."
"Who you hold bound, I hold bound. Who sins you forgive, I shall forgive."
Endquote

I am not surprised that Rev. Mohler is very strongly against any mention of the Virgin Mary, he is very much a Biblical literalist, (except when it comes to John 6, and the passage about "you must eat my body"). It was this trend that helped me move from being a good Southern Baptist to being Roman Catholic.
I can understand why a lot of Protestants have trouble with Mary. I did too, with my background. Part of the challenge is that Baptist theology tends to be very simple, very plain and "What's a nuance?". We also tend to look at what the people are actually doing, and a number of the more vocal Catholics seem to be focused only on Mary, and don't see her pointing toward Her Son Jesus.
Oh, and Seeker (May you find what you are truely looking for, and not what you think you are), I have prayed in tongues, both as a Protestant and as a Catholic. One of the things that eased me home, was that the parish where I was going to, during my year of being equally active in both the Catholic Church and the Baptist one, was the Charismatic Mass. Father had it at an odd time, so I was able to worship with them, without missing my Sunday mornings at the Baptists. It was there, where I first drew his attention. I was the only one there, not taking Communion.
FYI, I think that you can find more about the Catholic charismatics by searching for "Life in the Spirit seminars"

sirius:
Are you kidding me? Now you want me to believe in transubstantiation, and pray to a piece of bread? Holy smokes.
How about this. You ask God to baptize you in the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues, and stay there for an hour. Ask him, are these gifts for today? Prophecy? Tongues? Do you still heal? These are all NEW TESTAMENT gifts.
Read the passages in 1 Corinthians 14, and instead of trusting your mind, ask God. You may find out why there are so many Charismatic, born-again catholics - and so many expatriot catholics.
Now, if you can't do that, you may see that what you are asking me to do seems equally out of the question. And if you can do that, let *me* know how it goes.

What i am harping upon is the attack on "faith alone" as the key to salvation. This is biblically sound and there are hundreds of well-written Reformed articles on such.
You can not say in one breath that salvation is free while eternal life is earned - your interpretation of Romans 2:8 is out of context - he rewards us with eternal life not because we've earned it, but because we have persevered in doing good because we had faith - not because we merit eternal life in any way. Perhaps we agree, but Catholocism always seems to present that you need faith plus something else, which is heretical.
The venerable James Akin seems to have addressed the rift between the catholic and protestant understandings of faith, and why protestants say "faith alone," and why Catholics say something more like faith plus hope plus charity. He seems to be saying it is a semantic rift alone, and that we agree:
Catholic doctrine knows itself to be at one with the Protestant concern in emphasizing that the renewal of the human being does not 'contribute' to justification, and is certainly not a contribution to which he could make any appeal before God. Nevertheless it feels compelled to stress the renewal of the human being through justifying grace, for the sake of acknowledging God's newly creating power
But all I can say is that, at some point, the Catholic penchant for developing highly elaborate doctrines into which misunderstandings, and eventually works-based heresies creep, is unnerving. It is no wonder the reformers had to say "by faith alone, by scripture alone, by grace alone!"
The catholic system, which has a life of its own apart from the scriptures, has to maintain its own confused system of Papal and other church teachings. And eventually, faith alone becomes "faith plus good works", grace alone becomes "grace plus the sacraments" and scripture alone becomes "scripture plus whatever the popes say." And it's all downhill from there.
I am not saying the doctrine must be simplistic or simple, but trying to get the life of God from Catholic teaching is like trying to get good drinking water out of a polluted stream - the real thing is in there, but it's more likely you'll die than live. Thank God for the reformers who relieved us of both the catholic hierarchy, and its self-perpetuating web of truth and error. Sola scriptura! Sola fide!

Seeker sez: "I follow their logic and find it believable...."
Well...ok now. Instead of your "logic" why dont you pray about that and other things instead.
No fail approach:
1: Spend 1 hour praying to Jesus in the normative way that your Protestant denomination dictates but chiefly ask Jesus "Is true Catholic teaching true to Your teachings?"
THEN
2: Find a Catholic Church that has Eucharistic Adoration and spend one hour praying before the Blessed Sacrament following the norms of conduct and Catholic reverance towards the Blessed Sacrament. Pray to Jesus asking "Is true Catholic teaching true to Your teachings?" It is OK and recomended to pray also "Forgive me if praying to the Eucharist is idolatry but if the Eucharist is really you Jesus, let me know so that I might worship you in this profound way".
3. If Jesus doesnt give you an answer after step 2, search your life and ask what is in your life that is blocking Jesus from answering you (perhaps you are subconsiously blocking His answer). Repeat steps 1 AND 2 until you get an answer.
When you get done with this do by all means let us know!

Seeker,
Just to make a few comments on a small part of your response.
>>>
The scriptures that you share have nothing to do with salvation, and everything to do with *reward*, either heavenly or in hell. That means that those who are saved *by faith* will have heavenly rewards for their efforts - but righteousness and salvation are not so earned.
>>>
I disagree. Mary provided the following verse, please read it carefully:
"For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing (literally "doing good work") seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give ETERNAL LIFE" (Romans 2:8).
Clearly, your assertion that the context of this passage is merely of a reward and not of salvation is wrong. This passage clearly states that those who persevere in good works and seek glory and honor and immortality will be given eternal life.
You also claim that "righteousness and salvation are not so earned." I agree, Catholics have never believed that salvation is something earned. Salvation is something given to us freely by God based upon the promise he made with us, that those who persevere in faith and good works will be given eternal life. One must not, and should not, expect eternal life to be given as a *wage* or *debt*. On that point, Catholics and Protestants are in agreement, so please stop harping on this point.

Mary,
Regarding salvation:
The scriptures that you share have nothing to do with salvation, and everything to do with *reward*, either heavenly or in hell. That means that those who are saved *by faith* will have heavenly rewards for their efforts - but righteousness and salvation are not so earned. Paul is very explicit about this all througout Romans 7-8 - those who think they can be saved by the works of the law (a.k.a. the flesh).
We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. Galatians 2:15-16
There are differential punishments in hell for the same reasons - but people who trust in their works to save them are mistaken. That is why paul harps on salvation being God's gift, not of works. Jesus' teachings on works have to do with rewards apart from salvation.
On saints and angels answering prayer:
Your best scripture to support this is using a symbolic scripture from an apocolyptic book? Pretty thin. While God may use angels to answer prayer, Jesus never prayed to anyone dead, neither did the apostles, to my knowledge. If you want to pray to the departed, you can, but scripture certainly says nothing to that affect, and sound doctrine about God and the nature of prayer would seem to contradict, even prohibit such - like the condemnation of mediums.
Graven Images
Symbols are ok if they point our eyes towards the real thing - but if we think a relic or statue is holy and has some inherent power, we are practicing like pagans. And just because God commanded the Jews to make things symbolic of the coming Messiah doesn't mean we are supposed to do it - in fact, we are NOT! The temple is gone, so why use incense and priest's robes and statues? Because Catholics worship like those under the old covenant! They have the appearance of wisdom, but they should be worshipping in spirit and truth, not in form and statue.
The use of statues, esp. those of Mary, is also in part what leads muslims away from Xianity? Did you know that they think our trinity is The Father, The Son, and Mary? Where do they get that idea from? From the orthodox christians they see around them. I still contend that catholic veneration of mary and other saints amounts to idolatry.
Regarding the Canon and Teachings of Man
I'm sure the Jews probably said the same thing to Jesus when he accused them - "we are following the teaching of our forefathers, who are you following?" The reason protestantism rejects the apocrypha and other non-canonical writings is because they fail the tests for scripture, which I don't fully rembmer - things like believable authorship by an apostle or eyewitness (I'm not sure where Luke fits in there), consistency with established doctrines (like salvation by grace through faith), and the like.
So I don't accept these things just because the protestant church says so - I follow their logic and find it believable, esp. as compared to Catholic teachings, many of which are counter-biblical. I'm sure you've heard all such arguments, but again, this thread is about protestants and Mary. She will never be prayed to by those who know know she was, in the end, a sinner who needed saving like you and me.

"at best, they are filling in a gap in scholarship caused by a knee jerk reaction of protestants to the offensive worship (statues of, devotion and prayer to) of mary"
Seeker, Catholics do not worship statues or Mary & the saints. Never have. I'm sorry if no Catholic has ever told you that before, please allow me to rectify that error. Mary is a creature. We believe that, because she bore Jesus, the Christ (Theotokos, or "God-bearer" in Greek), that she had to be special. Just as God wanted the ark of the Covenent - which held the 10 Commandments (God's law), Aaron's staff that bloomed (Levitical priesthood), & manna (bread from Heaven) - to be made of specific materials in a specific way, He also made sure that Mary, the ark of the New Covenent - because she bore the Christ who was the Word incarnate, High Priest, & the Bread of Life - was as special & specific as the original ark. Because of that, we venerate her. "Vererate" does not equal "worship." (Merriam-Webster Online defines venerate this way: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Diction...) So, wouldn't it make sense that Mary was sinless? She bore Christ - the God-Man! She did not bear only Christ's humanity but His divinity as well, since Jesus' divinity & humanity can not possibly be separated. So, doesn't it make sense that she should be, as you say, "put at the top of the pantheon of other great women of faith like Elizabeth, Ruth, etc"?
Catholics worship the Triune God alone; one God, 3 Persons. If anyone, Catholic or otherwise, has ever told you that we worship Mary & the saints or statues, they were wrong! If they persist in that error, please ask them for a direct reference from a Catholic document that proves we worship Mary. But I'll save you some time: they'll not find one.
As for works, please remember James 2:20: "Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?" The word "ignoramus" is pretty strong! It comes from the Latin meaning "we are ignorant of" & is really quite a harsh thing to call someone. Definitely not charitable. But the Holy Spirit speaking through James' writing has a purpose. What do you suppose that would be? And useless? Also a stong word. Rather than faith or works, Catholics believe it's both faith and works. We have faith by the grace of God - it's a gift! - & that faith should be put into action, right? Not hidden under a bushel. Remember 1 Corinthians 13:2: "faith, hope, & love . . . but the greatest of these is love" - not faith! Love is a work. Paul says in 1 Cor 13:2, "if we have faith without love, we are nothing." Wow. James 2:17 says "faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead." Dead! There's plenty of evidence in Scripture that it's not all about faith!
Thanks for the opportunity, Seeker. God bless!

This means merely making graven images, even for religious purposes, is not what the commandment forbids.

"no graven images",
God explicitly ordered the making of graven images in Exodus, both the brazen serpent and the cherubium of the Ark.

they have largely left the gospel, replacing them with the traditions and teachings of man,
BTW -- where do you get your canon of the Old and New Testament? If you read the Bible carefully, you will find nowhere a list of the books to be included.
Are you trusting in the traditions and teachings of man to tell you what the books of the Bible are?

Those serving Mary are not serving the living God, but a dead saint
"He is not God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive." Luke 20:38