A question from a former non-Catholic, for non-Catholics...

[SteveVH]

**
For Friends…no Friend would “defer” his or her understanding concerning a passage of scripture to the “pastor”…each Friend is minister and priest…each Friend must wrestle with the answers for themselves…and live accordingly to the guidence of the Light AND weighed by the common experience of the Meeting should they seek “clearness” on.**

This would seem to be the ultimate in the doctrine of sola scriptura. Every man for himself. Is there any common doctrine at all?

We do have “Meetings for clearness”…and “clearness committees” which usually consist of one or two Friends to “wait upon the Lord” for His guidence on any given subject or action if not apparant.

Is the conclusion of the “clearness committee” binding on anyone else, and if not, then what is its purpose?

 

[Roy5]

Just want to express my deep sympathy to** Publisher** (posting #48) on his personal and tragic losses.

 I also want to commend the Society of Friends (Quakers).

 As I have mentioned from time to time, I come from a mixed Catholic/Protestant background and have taken a special interest in the differences between the two traditions over the years. 

 I attended a Quaker-founded college at one point, and fell in love with Quakerism, especially its emphasis on peace and social justice. I also found myself agreeing with the strong emphasis on individual interpretation of scripture, on their focus on the Inner Light in us, and on their deep humility when it came to claiming to have the full and only truth. While there we had a study group on the Gospels and we were totally free to express our interpretation of this or that passage without having to consult the 'correct' position as stated by some church or preacher.

 Why did I not become a Quaker? Well, to begin with the worship style was a bit too liturgy-free for me. I especially missed the music, singing of hymns, etc. Then, too, Quaker meetings are sparce, and where I lived (and I have lived several places) usually had no Quaker meeting nearby.

 But if I were to list my faith communities in order of preference, the Society of Friends would be in one of the top positions. If the world were Quaker, how much better off we would be!

 God bless all of his children whatever their faith community.

 

[Publisher]

This would seem to be the ultimate in the doctrine of sola scriptura. Every man for himself. Is there any common doctrine at all?

Yes…that the Light of Christ, that of God, resides in each of us and is accessible without ritual, rites, dogma and doctrine. While many will say “we must believe in the Trinity” or "we must be dunked, sprinkled or poured with water with the “correct” formula over us being spoken is what determines “truth”…for Friends any doctinal belief “binding” on any individual will always be weighed with the worth of persons and how does this particular belief make one “like Christ” by sharing in His Incarnation ourselves…becoming more like Him in this world. Unless these beliefs find expression in the daily of life…showing kindness, love, mercy, service to others…they are of not much consequence as “necessities” IMO.

Is the conclusion of the “clearness committee” binding on anyone else, and if not, then what is its purpose?

To join with someone we respect…an “elder”…who has made this Journey before us and perhaps has had the same questions concerning the leading of God…or how to address a “concern” that was layed upon us by the Light…we seek “clearness” through prayer, worship and counsel, seeking to have our hearts and mind “clear” to thereby "hear’ the Voice of God to guide them in their “concern” or “need”.

The Will of God revealed to each individual on how best to Serve Him in this world is an individual issue.

Sometimes Meetings that find great need for action will form a “Meeting for Suffering” for immediate need to address a situation in their community or world…the first “Meetings for Suffering” were formed in the early years of the Society to address the persecution of Friends and other “Seekers” in England and address religious intolerance.

Other Meetings for Sufferings were convenened for the abolition of slavery…or to address the genocide the US government conducted against the Native Americans…or to address how best to deal with the sufferings of Jews in Nazi Germany…usually the “Meetings for Sufferings” made the decision to disobey the state law to obey a Higher Law as they were led to embrace.

 

[SteveVH]

Just want to express my deep sympathy to** Publisher** (posting #48) on his personal and tragic losses.

 I also want to commend the Society of Friends (Quakers).

I just went to Publisher’s post #48. I can’t believe I missed it. I would like to echo your sentiments.

Publisher, you are a living testimony to the goodness and mercy of God. I wonder how many of us would have remained faithful as did you. God bless you.

In addition, I will certainly give you this: Regardless of doctrine, rubrics, liturgies and all the other trappings of religion, unless one puts flesh on the words of the Gospel, it is all worth nothing. We are to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison… That is a truth that you seem to have embraced and I applaud you.

 

[joe370]

PLeeD…

For the most part, of course. But in no way do I consider him to be infallible. If he ever claimed to be infallible (which he doesn’t, BTW) then I would dismiss anything else he has to say.

Can we just assume that no one on this planet is infallible???

The bottom line is that “infallibility” is not a claim that protestant denominations tend to make. I’d consider any protestant denomination that claims to have an infallible leader to be a cult.

No catholic priest bishop etc. will ever claim to be infallible.

So in that sense, IMO there is no answer to the OP’s question. Any group outside the CC that claims to be infallible would be rejected by the vast majority of protestants.

Actually that answer will suffice.

Let me see if I’ve got this now. No protestant Pastor will ever claim that his teachings are error free, which is something I would hope they would espouse, however they do not? So, when pastors tell me that I am wrong about John 6, they in fact could be wrong, and in the end, no one can settle the matter for me and my former pastor, who is good friend of mine?

I think I got a beat on the protestant perspective:

The fallible apostles, who by the way, did not belong to the CC, the EOC or one of the PC’s, infallibly wrote the infallible bible and could infallibly interpret the infallible bible. Their successors however, who also did not belong to the CC, were not entrusted with the same authority to safeguard infallible doctrine via the guidance of the holy spirit and they were not entrusted with the correct interpretations of the infallible bible and therefore could not infallibly interpret sacred scripture, nor could anyone else after them?

The CC which is comprised of all fallible leaders cannot infallibly interpret the infallible bible.

The EOC cannot infallibly interpret the infallible bible?

None of the PC’s can infallibly interpret the infallible bible?

Finally, no individual can infallibly interpret sacred scripture?

Is that correct?

 

[joe370]

Hey Publisher…

Protestant church leaders do not claim to teach error free doctrine. They simply give their opinion and admit that they could be wrong. Is that what you are saying?

Originally Posted by joe370
Protestants defer to the teaching authority of their church Pastors too, don’t they? I did as a former protestant.

For Friends…no Friend would “defer” his or her understanding concerning a passage of scripture to the “pastor”…each Friend is minister and priest…each Friend must wrestle with the answers for themselves…and live accordingly to the guidence of the Light AND weighed by the common experience of the Meeting should they seek “clearness” on.

We do have “Meetings for clearness”…and “clearness committees” which usually consist of one or two Friends to “wait upon the Lord” for His guidence on any given subject or action if not apparant.

 

[brakelite]

I second that. This is a very protestant way of thinking about it. Although it dodges the OP question of the “true interpretation”, or infallibility. You’ll probably not find many here who claim to be Christian that disagree with this.

Now, you’ll probably find this offensive, but the idea we can all just “com[e] to a satisfactory conclusion without doing damage to any of the texts nor contradicting any” is nieve. It hasn’t happened in 2000 years. The holy spirit must be involved to inform us which is the most “satisfactory” for in some cases there is room for interpretation. For example, post vs. pre tribulation theory, the “this is my blood” dilemma, the roll of Mary, etc., etc. There is much room for interpretation here. if one cannot see that, i don’t think one is being honest with themselves. And thus, the need for the holy spirit, and (as the Catholics would say) Tradition with a capital “T”.

I agree that the Holy Spirit is involved, I never intended to imply otherwise. My contention is that if the outcome is contrary to scripture, then it isn’t the Holy Spirit leading. Period.
And I am surprised that you, a protestant, can claim there is any grey area regards transubstantiation. That the Creator would give power or authority to a mere mortal to create his own Creator then physically eat his own Creator … if that idea isn’t contrary to the eternal sovereignty of God which is echoed throughout scripture… if you cannot discern the ludicrous idea that God would give away His sovereignty even to the extent that He Himself must submit to human rule …if you cannot see that then you need to rethink your own ideas on who God is.

As to the case of Mary, that’s actually easier than many would have you believe. The problem is that protestants by and large along with Catholics have bought into the idea adopted from paganism that the human has a soul and it is immortal. If you believed the Bible as it reads, that God alone has immortality, and that the only Biblical record we have of humans in heaven now refer to just Enoch, Moses, and Elijah, who all had to either be translated or resurrected, then the idea that heaven is filled with saints and numerous others all who are willing to plead our cases before God, (as if the mediatorial role of Jesus is insufficient) would die a natural death.

As for the post/pre/mid trib theories, I have my own thoughts on the subject, but really it is an unimportant discussion and has no direct relationship to our salvation, unlike the previous ones you mention.

The thing is, if anyone indivisdual or church claims any doctrinal belief which is contrary to Biblical teaching, they are placing their own opinion above the word of God. And in m,y denomination, many a time I have heard teachers, pastors etc say, that if what they teach isn’t in the Word, don’t believe them. I always test my teachers by the authority of scripture, otherwise we will all be carried about by every wind of doctrine. The Bible must have the final say.

Besides which, are we not in a relationship with Jesus? Is He not able to correct us if we stray? If you are trusting in your priest, pastor etc. to lead you, just remember Jim Jones.

 

[SteveVH]

To join with someone we respect…an “elder”…who has made this Journey before us and perhaps has had the same questions concerning the leading of God…or how to address a “concern” that was layed upon us by the Light…we seek “clearness” through prayer, worship and counsel, seeking to have our hearts and mind “clear” to thereby "hear’ the Voice of God to guide them in their “concern” or “need”.

The Will of God revealed to each individual on how best to Serve Him in this world is an individual issue.

Sometimes Meetings that find great need for action will form a “Meeting for Suffering” for immediate need to address a situation in their community or world…the first “Meetings for Suffering” were formed in the early years of the Society to address the persecution of Friends and other “Seekers” in England and address religious intolerance.

Other Meetings for Sufferings were convenened for the abolition of slavery…or to address the genocide the US government conducted against the Native Americans…or to address how best to deal with the sufferings of Jews in Nazi Germany…usually the “Meetings for Sufferings” made the decision to disobey the state law to obey a Higher Law as they were led to embrace.

Thanks for your explanation Publisher. I’m extremely ignorant when it comes to the religious practices of Quakers. I love the practical application of Christianity that seems to be prevalent within your faith tradition. The love of God never ceases to amaze me. He draws all of us to Himself and blesses all who seek him with a sincere heart.

 

[Publisher]

Hey Publisher…

Protestant church leaders do not claim to teach error free doctrine. They simply give their opinion and admit that they could be wrong. Is that what you are saying?

Yes, that is correct…we don’t have to be right about every point of doctrine if our eyes are fixed on service to those around us…“though I speak with the tongue of angels and have not love…it avails nothing. If I understand all mysteries and have not love…”

Service is more important than doctine…when the “righteous” were addressed at the Last Judgement…they were “confused”…“Lord, when did we see you thirsty…or hungry…or naked…or in prision…” He answered “If you have done it to the least of these…you did it to me…”…they served without thinking it was Jesus they served in doing so…they didn’t do it for a reward…they did it “to the least of these” out of love…plain and simple…it was not the priest and Levite who were justified as they passed the bleeding and dying traveller…it was the “hated Samarian” who showed mercy and love to the stranger in his midst.

 

[joe370]

Hey Brakelite…

I agree that the Holy Spirit is involved, I never intended to imply otherwise. My contention is that if the outcome is contrary to scripture, then it isn’t the Holy Spirit leading. Period.

When 2 people have diametrically opposing beliefs regarding a teaching found in the bible, how can they determine which one is believing something that is contrary to sacred scripture?

 

[joe370]

Publisher, thanks for the feedback.

[Publisher;7176885]Yes, that is correct…

 

[joe370]

Brakelite…

And I am surprised that you, a protestant, can claim there is any grey area regards transubstantiation. That the Creator would give power or authority to a mere mortal to create his own Creator then physically eat his own Creator …

I feel in necessary to clear up this misunderstanding: Priests and Bishops have no power or authority to create the creator, or to transform bread and wine into Jesus’ body and blood. That is done by God alone upon the words of consecration of the priest or bishop, as per the CCC.

if that idea isn’t contrary to the eternal sovereignty of God which is echoed throughout scripture… if you cannot discern the ludicrous idea that God would give away His sovereignty even to the extent that He Himself must submit to human rule …if you cannot see that then you need to rethink your own ideas on who God is.

Give away His sovereignty even to the extent that He Himself must submit to human rule…

Wow, what in the world are you being taught about the CC, and by whom???

As to the case of Mary, that’s actually easier than many would have you believe. The problem is that protestants by and large along with Catholics have bought into the idea adopted from paganism that the human has a soul and it is immortal.

Not your church though? You say this as if you are speaking infallibly. Could you be wrong about that statement???

If you believed the Bible as it reads, that God alone has immortality, and that the only Biblical record we have of humans in heaven now refer to just Enoch, Moses, and Elijah, who all had to either be translated or resurrected, then the idea that heaven is filled with saints…

It’s your belief that the only humans that are in heaven are: Enoch, Moses, and Elijah?

The thing is, if anyone indivisdual or church claims any doctrinal belief which is contrary to Biblical teaching, they are placing their own opinion above the word of God. And in m,y denomination, many a time I have heard teachers, pastors etc say, that if what they teach isn’t in the Word, don’t believe them. I always test my teachers by the authority of scripture, otherwise we will all be carried about by every wind of doctrine. The Bible must have the final say.

So it really comes down to your interpretation of the bible vs your pastors interpretation, and if they align then you agree with him; if they don’t then you disagree, which means that one of you is wrong, and no one person or church leadership can settle this difference for you guys. Correct???

 

[brakelite]

St. Alphonsus de Liguori:
“With regard to the power of the priests over the real body of Jesus Christ, it is of faith
that when they pronounce the words of consecration the Incarnate Word has obliged
himself to obey and to come into their hands under the sacramental species. We are
struck with wonder when we hear that God obeyed the voice of Josue–The Lord obeying
the voice of man–and made the sun stand when he said move not, O sun, towards
Gabaon. , . . . and the sun stood still.
But our wonder should be far greater when we find that in obedience to the words of his
priests–HOC EST CORPUS MEUM–God himself descends on the altar, that he comes
wherever they call him, and as often as they call him, and places himself in their hands,
even though they should be his enemies. And after having come, he remains, entirely at
their disposal; they move him as they please, from one place to another; they may, if they
wish, shut him up in the tabernacle, or expose him on the altar, or carry him outside the
church; they may, if they choose, eat his flesh, and give him for the food of others.” St.
Alphonsus de Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva, pp. 26-27.

“Thus the priest may, in a certain manner, be called the creator of his Creator, since by
saying the words of consecration, he creates, as it were, Jesus in the sacrament, by giving him a sacramental existence, and produces him as a victim to be offered to the eternal Father. As in creating the world it was sufficient for God to have said, Let it be made, and it was created–He spoke, and they were made–so it is sufficient for the priest to say, ‘Hoc est corpus meum,’ and behold the bread is no longer bread, but the body of Jesus Christ.
‘The power of the priest,’ says St. Bernardine of Sienna, ‘is the power of the divine
person; for the transubstantiation of the bread requires as much power as the creation of
the world.” St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva, pp. 33-
34.

 

[StTommyMore]

St. Alphonsus de Liguori:
“With regard to the power of the priests over the real body of Jesus Christ, it is of faith
that when they pronounce the words of consecration the Incarnate Word has obliged
himself to obey and to come into their hands under the sacramental species. We are
struck with wonder when we hear that God obeyed the voice of Josue–The Lord obeying
the voice of man–and made the sun stand when he said move not, O sun, towards
Gabaon. , . . . and the sun stood still.
But our wonder should be far greater when we find that in obedience to the words of his
priests–HOC EST CORPUS MEUM–God himself descends on the altar, that he comes
wherever they call him, and as often as they call him, and places himself in their hands,
even though they should be his enemies. And after having come, he remains, entirely at
their disposal; they move him as they please, from one place to another; they may, if they
wish, shut him up in the tabernacle, or expose him on the altar, or carry him outside the
church; they may, if they choose, eat his flesh, and give him for the food of others.” St.
Alphonsus de Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva, pp. 26-27.

“Thus the priest may, in a certain manner, be called the creator of his Creator, since by
saying the words of consecration, he creates, as it were, Jesus in the sacrament, by giving him a sacramental existence, and produces him as a victim to be offered to the eternal Father. As in creating the world it was sufficient for God to have said, Let it be made, and it was created–He spoke, and they were made–so it is sufficient for the priest to say, ‘Hoc est corpus meum,’ and behold the bread is no longer bread, but the body of Jesus Christ.
‘The power of the priest,’ says St. Bernardine of Sienna, ‘is the power of the divine
person; for the transubstantiation of the bread requires as much power as the creation of
the world.” St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva, pp. 33-
34.

What is your point. It does little good to quote someone without putting forth your own commentary.

 

[joe370]

Hey brakelite, you forgot to recognize that he believed that the bread really becomes Jesus’ flesh. No priest or bishop, past or present believes that they themselves transform the bread and wine into Jesus’ body and blood and I know that you know that. They don’t even understand how the miracle works or takes place; it’s a mystery, so how could they be responsible for the transformation? Silly…The only power (given to the apostles who passed it on to their successors etc etc…) - they were entrusted with, are the words of consecration. If you want to interpret Alphonsus’ words as to mean: priests and bishops are miracle workers on a daily basis, even though they don’t really understand the miracle itself, more power to you. Free will is a beautiful thing.

St. Alphonsus de Liguori:
“With regard to the power of the priests over the real body of Jesus Christ, it is of faith
that when they pronounce the words of consecration the Incarnate Word has obliged
himself to obey and to come into their hands under the sacramental species. We are
struck with wonder when we hear that God obeyed the voice of Josue–The Lord obeying
the voice of man–and made the sun stand when he said move not, O sun, towards
Gabaon. , . . . and the sun stood still.
But our wonder should be far greater when we find that in obedience to the words of his
priests–HOC EST CORPUS MEUM–God himself descends on the altar, that he comes
wherever they call him, and as often as they call him, and places himself in their hands,
even though they should be his enemies. And after having come, he remains, entirely at
their disposal; they move him as they please, from one place to another; they may, if they
wish, shut him up in the tabernacle, or expose him on the altar, or carry him outside the
church; they may, if they choose, eat his flesh, and give him for the food of others.” St.
Alphonsus de Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva, pp. 26-27.

“Thus the priest may, in a certain manner, be called the creator of his Creator, since by
saying the words of consecration, he creates, as it were, Jesus in the sacrament, by giving him a sacramental existence, and produces him as a victim to be offered to the eternal Father. As in creating the world it was sufficient for God to have said, Let it be made, and it was created–He spoke, and they were made–so it is sufficient for the priest to say, ‘Hoc est corpus meum,’ and behold the bread is no longer bread, but the body of Jesus Christ.
‘The power of the priest,’ says St. Bernardine of Sienna, ‘is the power of the divine
person; for the transubstantiation of the bread requires as much power as the creation of
the world.” St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva, pp. 33-
34.
Reply With Quote

 

[PLeeD]

St. Alphonsus de Liguori:
…“Thus the priest may, in a certain manner, be called the creator of his Creator…

That’s messed up.

 

[brakelite]

Not your church though? You say this as if you are speaking infallibly. Could you be wrong about that statement???

No, not my church. We do not believe that man is immortal, in any sense of the word. The scriptures teach that God alone is immortal, that man does not have a soul, he is a soul.
**Gen. 2:77 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
**

And the Bible is also very clear and without ambiguity regarding what happens when we die.
**Eccl. 9:4 ¶ For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.
5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

Psalm 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

Psalm 6:5 For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?

Psalm 115:17 The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.
**

Eternal life is reward for those who have faith in Christ. Eternal death is reward for those who don’t. This eternal life begins at the resurrection, which hope belonged to all Christians, which hope was promised by Jesus.

John 5:21-28 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming,** in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; **they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

John 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day…44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day…54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. (By the way, the following explains these words…as the disciples asked at the time… Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?…Jesus answered:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:* the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit,** and they are life.*

Everyone, apart from those the Bible tells us had special resurrections, remain in their graves knowing nothing of what is taking place upon the earth, waiting for the resurrection at the second coming.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

It’s your belief that the only humans that are in heaven are: Enoch, Moses, and Elijah?

That we know of for sure. There are likely others, eg Lazarus, for it is unlikely he died twice…and those who the scriptures testify rose from their graves at the time of Jesus resurrection.

So it really comes down to your interpretation of the bible vs your pastors interpretation, and if they align then you agree with him; if they don’t then you disagree, which means that one of you is wrong, and no one person or church leadership can settle this difference for you guys. Correct???

Wrong. There’s Jesus. He will correct His own. It is likely that the pastor and I would sit down, pray, and study till we come to a mutually satisfying conclusion. If that doesn’t happen, then we go our separate ways, but one thing that will not happen is this. He will not use church ‘authority’ to condemn me and place under a charge of heresy and burn me at the stake. He will not have the church impose its rule over my conscience. I will stand or fall before my own Master.He, along with the church he represents, will respect my freedom of conscience, my liberty to worship and practice my faith without hindrance.

That is why we do not have a formal creed. We do not want to freeze truth in its tracks so to speak. We will never stop searching the Bible for new truth, or for a clearer understanding of ‘old’ truth. We have a set of fundamental beliefs, which reflect our current understanding of basic Biblical truth.

 

[Roy5]

Today I received literature on the ‘Miraculous Medal’ of Mary. The material clearly stated that the medal, if worn, brings special blessings from Mary upon the wearer. It was stated that millions of wearers have benefited, etc. I should send in money, of course.

This creates a problem in my mind. Does wearing such a medal actually bring such blessings? It reminds me of certain kinds of Protestant evangelists who peddle handkerchiefs, blessed water or purple cabbage which they claim have special powers to banish illness, poverty, etc. Isn't this paganism? It seems that way to me. 

Besides, it makes Mary (and other saints) into demi-gods with magic powers - a form of quasi-polytheism sprinkled with a voodoistic outlook. Hm! I have difficulty with this emphasis.

 Do all these saints have special powers to give us this or that? Has this whole saint phenomenon gone too far as the Pope continues to canonize new ones - six this past Sunday? To honor holy people is one thing - and a good thing.  To invest them with power (or even the clout) to bring healing or happiness - well, that brings to mind the old Greco-Roman hierarchy and workings of the gods and goddesses. Even if it only suggests that they have special influence with Jesus - that still troubles me.

 

[StTommyMore]

Today I received literature on the ‘Miraculous Medal’ of Mary. The material clearly stated that the medal, if worn, brings special blessings from Mary upon the wearer. It was stated that millions of wearers have benefited, etc. I should send in money, of course.

This creates a problem in my mind. Does wearing such a medal actually bring such blessings? It reminds me of certain kinds of Protestant evangelists who peddle handkerchiefs, blessed water or purple cabbage which they claim have special powers to banish illness, poverty, etc. Isn't this paganism? It seems that way to me. 

Besides, it makes Mary (and other saints) into demi-gods with magic powers - a form of quasi-polytheism sprinkled with a voodoistic outlook. Hm! I have difficulty with this emphasis.

 Do all these saints have special powers to give us this or that? Has this whole saint phenomenon gone too far as the Pope continues to canonize new ones - six this past Sunday? To honor holy people is one thing - and a good thing.  To invest them with power (or even the clout) to bring healing or happiness - well, that brings to mind the old Greco-Roman hierarchy and workings of the gods and goddesses. Even if it only suggests that they have special influence with Jesus - that still troubles me.

You actually raise valid points. There is potential for abuse, as with all good things. I myself wear a Miraculous Medal. Not for spiritual favors, not for anything that smacks of superstition, but simply as a reminder of my spiritual mother. I also wear medals of St. Thomas More (my patron), St. Thomas Aquinas (patron of students and Catholic education), and Our Lady of Guadalupe (patroness of the Americas). As far as intercession, i pray for my friends, they pray for me, and I also ask for intercession from my dear friends who have gone before. Canonization is merely official recognition that certain people are in heaven and worthy of veneration based on their holy lives and/or sacrifices. Yes Jesus is our perfect example, but the Saints are heroes of the faith that point to Jesus through their example. Any veneration is truly worship of Jesus. As creations the Saints could only achieve their status by the grace of God.

 

[brakelite]

From what I wrote above, I can see how you would come to that conclusion. I have put my case rather clumsily, my apologies. Once truth is established, there is of course no changes that can be made. There are new truths to be found, and as you so eloquently put it, old truths that can be seen from new perspectives, giving clearer understanding.
My church’s fundamental doctrines will not be changed. If they are, I will be one of the first to protest.