Can Saints (especially Mary) hear prayers?

[adstrinity]

Huiou Theou:

Adstrinity,
As to the second part of your question,

Demons can likely hear some prayers but not others.
For some reason, the Devil is unable to see the future.
(Is he presently not eternal, or is he just down here with us?)

For the concept, look at the book of Job. The Devil is constantly accusing him of things, but is never quite able to get it right – God already knows the outcome.

The ability to predict the future belongs to God.
The dividing line appears to be that the Devil cannot read minds. (If you pray silently, you are not overheard by the Devil at least.)

As to the rest of the demons, I don’t know! but I assume the same.

Ahhhhhhhh…and that is what I needed. Thank you for this. This is the confirmation for which I was looking.

God bless each one of you abundantly!!! This really helped so much & as I look back, I realise what error I was in about all this. THEY are lacking the fullness…I see that now. It just threw me for a loop, you know? It knocked me down for a second. I thank you all!!!

 

[mayra_hart]

the saints in heaven can’t hear us… answer: why not? aren’t they are more alive now than when they were with us? the medium of communication is christ himself— the vine between the branches. we and the saints form one communion, one body of christ, being members of him and members of one another. heb 12:1 tells us that we are surrounded by " a cloud of witnesses." how could those watching be unconcerned about our welfare? look at rev 5:8 and rev8:3. the petitions offered as incense to god must be for those who still need help, the holy ones on earth. they are offered by those who can help the most, the holy ones in heaven. in the parable of lazarus and the rich man (lk16:19–30), the departed rich man is able to pray to abraham and intercede for his brothers. this implies that there can be a communication across the abyss, and that the fraternal charity extends beyond the grave. we are crtain that the saints in heaven enjoy the face to face vision of God (1cor 13:12; 1 jn3:2).

 

[mayra_hart]

We are One Family in Christ in Heaven and on Earth

Eph. 3:14-15- we are all one family (“Catholic”) in heaven and on earth, united together, as children of the Father, through Jesus Christ. Our brothers and sisters who have gone to heaven before us are not a different family. We are one and the same family. This is why, in the Apostles Creed, we profess a belief in the “communion of saints.” There cannot be a “communion” if there is no union. Loving beings, whether on earth or in heaven, are concerned for other beings, and this concern is reflected spiritually through prayers for one another.

Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23-32; Col. 1:18,24 - this family is in Jesus Christ, the head of the body, which is the Church.

1 Cor. 12:12,27; Rom. 12:5; Col. 3:15; Eph. 4:4 - we are the members of the one body of Christ, supernaturally linked together by our partaking of the Eucharist.

Rom. 8:35-39 - therefore, death does not separate the family of God and the love of Christ. We are still united with each other, even beyond death.

Matt. 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30 - Jesus converses with “deceased” Moses and Elijah. They are more alive than the saints on earth.

Matt. 22:32; Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38 - God is the God of the living not the dead. The living on earth and in heaven are one family. Luke 15:7,10 – if the angels and saints experience joy in heaven over our repentance, then they are still connected to us and are aware of our behavior.

 

[bondservant]

I have read several peoples’ comments on 1 Timothy 2, and believe that many are missing the point of that passage.

“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all…”

Jesus is the one and only mediator between us the Father in Heaven. Here “mediator” is not to be understood as intercessor, but as one that works to effect reconciliation, settlement, or compromise between parties at variance.

We are all at variance with the Father from the moment we are created (Romans 3:10-12). All of us deserve eternal separation from the Father because of the sin of Adam (Romans 5:12), as well as our own personal sin. Jesus alone, by his life, death and resurrection, justifies his people, satisfying our Father’s righteous requirements, and placing us back into a right relationship with Him.

Without Jesus’ once and for all (Romans 6:10) propitiatory life, death and resurrection, not one single soul can be justified before our Father. No amount of petitions from Mary, or anyone else will do you any good if Jesus does not know you.

We will all, one day, stand before the father, and we will have one advocate and mediator, and that mediator will be Jesus. Mary is helpless to aid you when you are before the Father, for it is appointed for man to die once and then to be judged (Hebrews 9:27). If you are not numbered among the Shepherd’s flock there is nothing that can help you. If you are part of His flock, then no intersession is needed.

When time permits I will post some thoughts on other statements made in this thread.

---

In His Service,
Bondservant

 

[Tantum_ergo]

If you are not numbered among the Shepherd’s flock there is nothing that can help you. If you are part of His flock, then no intersession (sic) is needed.

Could you give the scriptural basis for the above? Because, quite honestly, why does Paul (who is certainly “among the flock”) worry that he could lose his salvation at the end? Why does he exhort his fellows to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling”? If you have “confessed Christ with your mouth and acknowledged Him as Lord”, thus being “among the flock”, no intercession is needed? You’re just going to “stay saved” forever, no matter what?

Then what about all those people who say to God, “But we cast out demons in Your Name” and He tells them, “I don’t know you–depart from me, you evildoers”? Heck, if no one can say “Lord” except by the Holy Spirit, and these people were saying “Lord”, so obviously they had the Spirit and were “among the flock”, how come God DOESN’T KNOW THEM?? How come they were baptized, had faith, did good, and yet DIDN’T MAKE IT TO THE KINGDOM?

How come Jesus tells us that “many are called, but few are chosen”? Looks like it isn’t just as simple as confessing faith and relying on OSAS. . .

 

[bondservant]

Greetings Tantum ergo,

First, let’s revisit the intent of my initial post. I am proposing that the use of the term mediator is being confused with the act of intercessory prayer, and that this is a fallacious understanding. It was not my intent to discuss election. Let’s leave that for another thread. I will look for a place to hold this discussion, and if I can not find one suitable then I will start a new thread.

---

In His Service,

Bondservant

 

[FrRobSST]

You know, in my life I have been on both sides of this issue. Of late I have had something of a revision in my thinking.

For several years, I surrendered to the inner rationalist. If there wasn’t a rational explanation, I rejected it. It didn’t matter the topic. Boy how praying for the working of the Spirit will change your views.

About six months ago, I became acutely aware that something was missing from my spiritual life. I don’t really know that I can explain how I became aware of it, but I did. As the hole grew the echo of my own prayers deepend. I asked God to guide me in figuring out where I was missing out on his blessing.

It turned out that my desire to be a rationalist had backfired. In being a rationalist, I had totally dismissed the mystical tradition of the Christian faith. As I have become more and more aware of that hole in my practice and spirituality, I have been working to correct it… with AMAZING results!

At any rate, I say this to segue into my comments on this topic. The concept and idea of linear time that we have is pathetically limiting. God is not limited by it. God is so much more than we can understand or comprehend. Trying to place him in a box with rationalisim is a nutty idea. (Trust me!)

I do not personally practice the invocation of the saints. That is one reason that I am not in Communion with Rome. I don’t believe it is appropriate to do so in the public liturgy of the Church as it is something that neither the Scriptures nor the Early Church practiced until well after the Apostolic age. The early Church offerd thanks for the departed martyrs, and prayed at their tombs, but the invocation of those Martyrs was a later development, so far as the texts we have avaliable can tell us.

That beign said, the Book of Revelation teaches us that the saints stand around the Throne of God making intercession for us. They lift up their prayers… “How long?”

Is it necessary for us to invoke them? No. They are already praying for us. Perhaps not by name, but the Bible teaches us that they are praying for us, at least in general.

Will invoking the saints save us from damnation? No. Salvation and Damnation are matters of election, faith, and works, working together in a way that none of us can totally understand. Scripture teaches that God has predestined, and yet teaches that we have a free will that is tainted by sin, and further teaches that if we don’t walk the walk that beating the breast and saying “God have mercy” is not going to get us very far. In the end, trying to understand this rationally will lead you to an abysmal failure. Understanding it mystically through the infinite nature of God and the eternal breadth of his knowledge leads us a bit closer… but we still cannot define God, nor his bounds. It’s impossible. If we are not called, sanctified, and a true follower through our deeds, there will be, as Bondservant has said, no hope for those who rely on the saints to get them into heaven.

Never forget, even in the teaching of the Latin Church, Purgatory is a place for the redeemed to go to be purged from the temporal punishment of their forgiven sin. It is not a place where damned people go to get a second chance (which is the typical Protestant argument).

More later, as I get the time.

Rob+

 

[Mickey]

FrRobSST:

I do not personally practice the invocation of the saints. That is one reason that I am not in Communion with Rome.

When you separate yourself from Rome, you separate yourself from the very source of Roman Catholic authenticity. To believe that you understand some aspect of Sacred Tradition more completely than “The Bride of Christ”–that your interpretations and opinions are correct and true–is a form of rationalism, liberalism, and relativism. Obedience is a virtue.

God Bless you on your journey

 

[FrRobSST]

Mickey:

When you separate yourself from Rome, you separate yourself from the very source of Roman Catholic authenticity.

Well, to be fair, I never claimed to be *Roman *Catholic or any other form of Catholic in Communion with the Roman See.

To believe that you understand some aspect of Sacred Tradition more completely than “The Bride of Christ”–that your interpretations and opinions are correct and true–is a form of rationalism, liberalism, and relativism.

Not really, because I have studied the traditions and practices of the Early Church and the historical effects of Constantine’s “donation” to the Church. While not everthing after Constantine was bad, I would say the majority of it was. The Church is at her purest and best when she is persecuted. When she freely exists without challenge, she becomes complacent, lax, etc. I choose to follow the teachings of the Early Church, as do many today.

Obedience is a virtue.

Yes, but my chief obedience is to the Word of God as understood by those closest to the Apostles. If their tradition and modern tradition conflict, the more ancient is also, generally, the purer one.

God Bless you on your journey

Thank you! I am sure the journey will continue for quite some time to come!

Rob+

 

[Axion]

FrRobSST:

Not really, because I have studied the traditions and practices of the Early Church and the historical effects of Constantine’s “donation” to the Church. While not everthing after Constantine was bad, I would say the majority of it was.

well. You’ve just condemned the vast majority of Christian history as “bad”. The Council of Nicea, The creation of the Bible, St Gregory, St Augustine, St Benedict, St Columba, St Patrick, St Cyril, St Methodius, the defenders of Christian Orthodoxy, the men who took Christianity into the heart of Pagan Europe and North Africa, the healers of the sick, the Founders of the hospitals and universities, St Francis, St bernard, St Caherine, St Teresa, etc. etc. etc. - All BAD according to your jaundiced view.

None of them are up to your high standards.

I suppose you have to think of these generations of Chiristians and martyrs this way, because your theology depends on calling them liars and fools, who couldn’t understand scripture, and were incapable of passing on trustworthy teachings.

I choose to follow the teachings of the Early Church, as do many today.

Which “early church” is this? And where do you find its teachings?

 

[Mickey]

FrRobSST:

Well, to be fair, I never claimed to be *Roman *Catholic or any other form of Catholic in Communion with the Roman See.

What is a primitive Catholic? Are you Eastern Orthodox?

FrRobSST:

Not really, because I have studied the traditions and practices of the Early Church and the historical effects of Constantine’s “donation” to the Church. While not everthing after Constantine was bad, I would say the majority of it was.

I have studied the same, and although some bad people did bad things-- the doctrine remains pure. People sin, doctrine does not. The gates of hell shall not prevail.

FrRobSST:

The Church is at her purest and best when she is persecuted. When she freely exists without challenge, she becomes complacent, lax, etc. I choose to follow the teachings of the Early Church, as do many today.

The Church continues to be persecuted every day! True Catholism (and Eastern Orthodoxy) believe that the teachings of the early Church are the teachings of today. Of course there are many who have decided to pick and choose the doctrines that are most comfortable for their own consciences, but these people are deceiving themselves. It’s called moral relativism.

FrRobSST:

Yes, but my chief obedience is to the Word of God as understood by those closest to the Apostles. If their tradition and modern tradition conflict, the more ancient is also, generally, the purer one.

I agree with you. The deepest wells have the clearest water. However, Sacred Tradition is bulit upon the witness and teachings of these early Church Fathers and the Holy Spirit will see to it that apostolic succession continues to the end of time. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense that God chose to shut it all down at some point after Consantine.

Peace be with you my friend!

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/8/8_3_15.gif

 

[DeFide]

Communion of Saints
Eph 1:22-23 - he is head of the Church, which is His body
Eph 5:21-32 - Christ is the head of the Church, Savior of the body
Col 1:18, 24 - He is head of the body, the Church
1Cor 12:12-27 - if I suffer, all suffer; if I am honored, all rejoice
Rom 12:5 - we are one body in Christ, individual parts of one another
Eph 4:4 - one body, one Spirit, called to one hope
Col 3:15 - you were called in one body
Rom 8:35-39 - death cannot separate us from Christ
Rom 12:10 - love one another with mutual affection
1Thess 5:11 - encourage, build up one another
Gal 6:2 - bear one another’s burdens
Gal 6:10 - let us do good to all, especially those in family of faith

Intercessory Prayer of Saints
Rom 15:30 - join me by your prayers to God on my behalf
Col 4:3, 1Thess 5:25 - pray for us
2Thess 1:11 - we always pray for you
2Thess 3:1 - finally, brothers, pray for us
Eph 6:18-19 - making supplication for all the saints & for me
Tob 12:12 - angel presents Tobit & Sarah’s prayer to God
Ps 148 - David calls upon angels
Zech 1:12 - angel intercedes for Jerusalem
Mk 12:25, Mt 22:30 - men in heaven are as the angels
Rev 5:8 - those in heaven offer prayers of the holy ones to God
*Saints dead, prayer is necromancy (Dt 18:10-11)
Mk 12:26-27 - he is God of the living, not of the dead
Mk 9:4 - Jesus seen conversing with Elijah & Moses
Lk 9:31 - Elijah & Moses aware of earthly events
Rev 6:9-11 - martyrs under altar want earthly vindication
Heb 12:1 - we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses
Lk 16:19-30 - departed rich man intercedes for brothers
Rev 20:4 - saw the souls of those who had been beheaded
Wis 3:1-6 - the souls of the just are in the hand of God
2Macc 15:7-16 - the departed Onias & Jeremiah pray for the Jews
Jas 5:16 prayers of righteous man
1 Cor. 13:12 - I shall understand fully
1 John 4: 20-21 - whoever loves God must love his brother
1 Cor 12:21 - parts of Christ’s Body cannot say to other parts, “I do not need you”.

source:
geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/biblecheatsheet.html

 

[bondservant]

Mickey:
When you separate yourself from Rome, you separate yourself from the very source of Roman Catholic authenticity. To believe that you understand some aspect of Sacred Tradition more completely than “The Bride of Christ”–that your interpretations and opinions are correct and true–is a form of rationalism, liberalism, and relativism. Obedience is a virtue.
What is “the very source of Roman Catholic authenticity”? Does the Holy Spirit protect everyone, who claims to be part of the Roman Church, from doctrinal error? This question is obviously absurd, but so is your premise. I know many people who are in communion with Rome and are doctrinally off their rocker.

The Roman Church teaches that all people, who depend on Jesus Christ alone for their salvation, are members of the universal church (church defined as the body of Christ), even if they are in error in other areas. Take a look at the following from Pope Benedict XVI:

[vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html)

To imply that it is impossible for a non-catholic to understand the teachings of the Church better than a catholic, is an insult and Fr. Rob has handled this insult with more grace than I may have done.

”Obedience is a virtue” is true only if the obedience if given to the right authority. We are to obey God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit alone. If the teachings of men contradict the clear teachings of our Heavenly Father, then the teachings of men are to be rejected.

God will not contradict himself, and he is always and in every way true. The church (church defined as the body of Christ) has universally held that Sacred Scripture is the divinely inspired, inerrant Word of God.

Consider what Peter wrote, concerning Paul’s written teachings, in his second epistle.

2 Peter 3:15-16 (NAB)
“And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.”

Scripture is our sole source of doctrinal orthodoxy. If a teaching contradicts the clear teaching of scripture it is not a valid teaching and it must be rejected just as Paul command the Galatians to do.

Galatians 1:8-9 (NAB)
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!”

I will close with a question:

If any of the Roman Church’s teachings could be demonstrated to be in clear contradiction to the teachings of scripture then should that teaching not be rejected?

In His Service,
Bondservant

 

[FrRobSST]

Axion:

well. You’ve just condemned the vast majority of Christian history as “bad”.

Yes, I have. The minute the Church allowed a man who was, at best, a catechumen (Constantine) to call a council, and then stood back whilst he implemented the doctrinal views of that council with the sword, the Church took a major step backwards. Prior to Constantine, taking a life was unthinkable to Christians. Constantine then got them into the Army and had them go and enforce the Nicene decrees, where necessary, by the sword. You may call that good, but I call it disgusting.

Nicea itself - theology = good. Nicea’s aftermath - death = bad.

The Council of Nicea, The creation of the Bible, St Gregory, St Augustine, St Benedict, St Columba, St Patrick, St Cyril, St Methodius, the defenders of Christian Orthodoxy, the men who took Christianity into the heart of Pagan Europe and North Africa, the healers of the sick, the Founders of the hospitals and universities, St Francis, St bernard, St Caherine, St Teresa, etc. etc. etc. - All BAD according to your jaundiced view.

Jaundiced? Hmmmm… I can see good and bad in all of these individuals. Individuals, however, I can come to an understanding on and sympathy with on an individual level. Governments enforcing Christianity? No way.

None of them are up to your high standards.

The vast majority of Christian history is not made up of the lives of the august and beloved individuals you name above. For every Francis of Assisi, there was a Julius II. I cannot conscience the things I see in Church history - even John Paul II felt compelled to apologize for the sins of those churches in Communion with Rome back in the Jubilee Year. If only ALL Christians would apologize for the harm we have caused the world by forcing our faith on others instead of sharing it openly as the Ante-Nicene Christians.

I suppose you have to think of these generations of Chiristians and martyrs this way, because your theology depends on calling them liars and fools, who couldn’t understand scripture, and were incapable of passing on trustworthy teachings.

I don’t recall saying that. As good as many elements of their lives were, some of them taught as dogma necessary for salvation things that are patently NOT necessary for salvation.

Which “early church” is this? And where do you find its teachings?

The Church from 100 to 300 or so AD. You can find the writings of the ancient Church, insofar as we have them, in the ten volume series “The Ante-Nicene Fathers”. It’s huge, and even I still haven’t finished all of them. However, you can find shorter resources like David Bercot’s “A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs” which give summaries and then citations to look the passage up in context in the 10 volume set.

Rob+

 

[FrRobSST]

Mickey:

What is a primitive Catholic? Are you Eastern Orthodox?

I feel it’s best to leave that question and answer to another message board, lest I am accused of trying to convert people here. That is not my purpose. One of the links in my signature will lead you to my personal message boards, and you can explore from there.

I have studied the same, and although some bad people did bad things-- the doctrine remains pure. People sin, doctrine does not. The gates of hell shall not prevail.

Doctrines have changed. The early Church didn’t believe anyone was in heaven, with the only noted exception being the possibility that some of the Fathers left open for the Martyrs to be enjoying the Beatific Vision. They all believed that the faithful departed were in Paradise, not heaven, awaiting the General Resurrection. That doctrine changed. The Early Church Fathers wrote against invoking the saints, though they did write in favor of prayer for the dead. This changed as time went on. The early Church accepted the doctrine of the Real Presence and expressed it in many ways. Rome has required an assent to Transubstantiation as a dogma of the faith, something that would, as a result, excommune all who lived before about 305 AD. The early Christians called Jerusalem the mother church, but after about 415, Rome became known as the Mother Church. Again, doctrines and beliefs change. Who and what do you trust? The new or the older?

The Church continues to be persecuted every day! True Catholism (and Eastern Orthodoxy) believe that the teachings of the early Church are the teachings of today.

Then why add to them? The Early Church Fathers were quite clear on their faith… the faith of the Scriptures… the faith of the Apostolic Tradition. When modern and ancient tradition conflict, I must choose the ancient tradition, for it is always universally closer to the plain word of Scripture than more modern expoundations upon doctrine, etc.

Of course there are many who have decided to pick and choose the doctrines that are most comfortable for their own consciences, but these people are deceiving themselves. It’s called moral relativism.

I don’t think the issue is moral, because I am the first to stand and cheer when talking about Humanae Viate. I am firmly and totally against birth control, I will never officiate at the so-called marriage of a homosexual couple, I will never knowingly administer the Sacraments to a non-believer, and I could go on and on. The issue is, why add doctrines that are not necessary for salvation, and then demand assent for salvation under pain of at least excommunication or at most anathema and damnation?

I agree with you. The deepest wells have the clearest water. However, Sacred Tradition is bulit upon the witness and teachings of these early Church Fathers and the Holy Spirit will see to it that apostolic succession continues to the end of time. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense that God chose to shut it all down at some point after Consantine.

I don’t believe God shut the doors after Constantine… but I do believe that those beliefs necessary for salvation are found in Scripture, as witnessed by the clear and uniform practice of the Early Church Fathers. Requiring assent to anything beyond that becomes dicey.

Peace be with you my friend!

And with your spirit!
Rob+

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The Apostle St. John, being “in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” (Rev 1:10) conversed with those assembled in heaven just as Catholics and Orthodox and even Protestants converse with the angels and saints today, as a very apostolic practice.

St. John, one Sunday on Patmos, spoke to angels (Rev 1:2), and Jesus (Rev 1:17-18), and to the elders (Rev 5:5) and to the souls of the martyrs (Rev 6:9). We can be certain from St. John’s testimony that the creatures in heaven are not dead, but are surely living creatures. We can also be certain that the angels and heavenly elders alive in heaven offer to God the prayers of the holy ones (Rev 5:8; 8:3). In fact, by the power of God, St. John somehow heard every created thing in heaven and on earth without having to be omnipresent like God (Rev 5:13 - “And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea”). It seems one doesn’t need to be omnipresent when God is the vine between the branches and can, by his almighty power, allow any of his creatures, even a mere human like St. John, to hear what all of God’s creation is saying.

Likewise, it seems from St. John’s testimony that those living angels, creatures, elders, and souls in heaven were quite aware, as was St. John, of what was happening all over the world. This all occurring prior to the Final Judgment. There doesn’t seem to have been any such thing as soul-sleep according to St. John’s testimony.

Not only were living son’s of Israel in heaven (Rev 7:4-8), but there was a “great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb” (Rev 7:9-10).

Like the Psalmist (Ps. 103:20-21, Ps. 148:1-2), St. John doesn’t seem to believe that directly conversing with the angels and heavenly hosts is somehow heretical or impossible. Neither do Catholics.

 

[yochumjy]

This is what always helped me with the “can the Saints hear us”. When Jesus met with Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration, were they clueless about Christs mission. Did God the Father allow them to speak with Jesus with no knowledge? Was Jesus busy telling them all the things that happened while he was on earth? Matthew 17:1-4, says that they conversed, which means Moses and Elijah had something to say, which means they had knowledge of Christs mission. God does grant the ability to know what is on earth if He wishes.

The second one I like is the one Mayra Hart mentioned. The parable of Lazerus and the Rich man. Jesus gave us parables to teach us and they had meaning on many levels!

John

 

[Mickey]

bondservant:

Does the Holy Spirit protect everyone, who claims to be part of the Roman Church, from doctrinal error? I know many people who are in communion with Rome and are doctrinally off their rocker.

The Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching error. This is called infallibility. If certain people are “doctinally off their rocker”, then obedience is lacking.

bondservant:

To imply that it is impossible for a non-catholic to understand the teachings of the Church better than a catholic, is an insult and Fr. Rob has handled this insult with more grace than I may have done.

I never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth. However, if a Non-Catholic understands the teachings of the Catholic Church better than a Catholic, then perhaps he/she should be in RCIA.

bondservant:

”Obedience is a virtue” is true only if the obedience is given to the right authority. We are to obey God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit alone. If the teachings of men contradict the clear teachings of our Heavenly Father, then the teachings of men are to be rejected.

Agreed! The Catholic Church is the bride of Christ.

bondservant:

God will not contradict himself, and he is always and in every way true. The church (church defined as the body of Christ) has universally held that Sacred Scripture is the divinely inspired, inerrant Word of God.

Agreed!

bondservant:

2 Peter 3:15-16 (NAB)

“And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.”

One of my favorite verses! Those who fall into schism, heresy, and relativism should take heed to this verse. Sola scripture is the reason so many have distorted the interpretation of Scripture to suit their own agendas. Sola Scriptura is not Biblical.

bondservant:

Scripture is our sole source of doctrinal orthodoxy.

This is sola scriptura.

bondservant:

Galatians 1:8-9 (NAB)

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!”

The reformers should have read this one again!

bondservant:

I will close with a question:

If any of the Roman Church’s teachings could be demonstrated to be in clear contradiction to the teachings of scripture then should that teaching not be rejected?

Easy answer. The Roman Catholic teachings **cannot **be demonstrated to be in clear contradiction to the teachings of Scripture. That was Jesus’ promise to us when He said that the gates of hell shall not prevail.

Peace be with you

 

[Mickey]

FrRobSST:

I
Rome has required an assent to Transubstantiation as a dogma of the faith

Some doctrines were seeds that developed further, but did not change. The Church of Rome was forced to define the Real Presence when that doctrine was attacked by the reformers. But guess what–Transubstantiation means the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist.

FrRobSST:

I
Who and what do you trust? The new or the older?

I trust in God. I believe Jesus when he said the gates of hell shall not prevail. If I believed as you do, that the Church somehow fell into error and false teachings after the year 300, I would be calling Jesus a liar.

FrRobSST:

I When modern and ancient tradition conflict, I must choose the ancient tradition, for it is always universally closer to the plain word of Scripture than more modern expoundations upon doctrine, etc.

I don’t believe that modern Catholic/Orthodox teachings and ancient/Sacred Tradition are in conflict.

FrRobSST:

I don’t think the issue is moral, because I am the first to stand and cheer when talking about Humanae Viate. I am firmly and totally against birth control, I will never officiate at the so-called marriage of a homosexual couple

We have much in common my friend, but with all due respect, you are in schism as a dissenter. When you have concluded that your interpretations and opinions are more accurate than the Catholic Church, you are immersed in liberalism. This was the mistake of the reformers.

FrRobSST:

I will never knowingly administer the Sacraments to a non-believer

Again, with all due respect, I don’t believe you have valid Holy Orders.

FrRobSST:

Requiring assent to anything beyond that becomes dicey.

Your opinion!

May God grant you many Blessed years!

 

[FrRobSST]

Mickey:

Some doctrines were seeds that developed further, but did not change. The Church of Rome was forced to define the Real Presence when that doctrine was attacked by the reformers. But guess what–Transubstantiation means the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist.

The Christian East does not accept Transubstantiation. In fact, one Eastern Orthodox source calls it “an injustice to the depth of the matter”. I agree. Transubstantiation requires an assent to the concept that the bread and wine are utterly annhilated and employs pre-Christian philosophical notions to describe it. I am not saying TS is either wrong or impossible, but I am saying that belief in it should not rise to the level of a Dogma (i.e., necessary for salvation). Belief in the Real Presence of Christ (not a spiritual presence, not a receptionalist point of view, a REAL presence as Scripture plainly confesses) is essential. A belief in one specific manner of thinking about how it comes to pass is not necessary for salvation. If it were, the Eastern Orthodox would not have a valid Eucharist or Holy Orders, for they would not intend to do what the Church does. Rome has clearly stated that they are valid.

I trust in God. I believe Jesus when he said the gates of hell shall not prevail. If I believed as you do, that the Church somehow fell into error and false teachings after the year 300, I would be calling Jesus a liar.

Actually, if you check your Greek New Testament, the translation is that the gates of hades would not prevail. Hades in greek is the same as Sheol in hebrew. It was a confession that the Church would never die. This is the witness of the Ancient Fathers.

I don’t believe that modern Catholic/Orthodox teachings and ancient/Sacred Tradition are in conflict.

To raise something to the level of a Dogma carries with it, in the West, the connotation that you must accept this to be saved. To that extent, since it is not dogmatically required to assent to the Assumption or Immaculate Conception of Mary in the Orthodox Churches, logic would follow that they cannot be saved. This is not true, and Rome has said as much. The Eastern Orthodox even have a differing viewpoint in some ways on the concept of original sin than we do in the west. There is a conflict there, so how do we determine which side is right? You have to ‘go to the source’.

We have much in common my friend, but with all due respect, you are in schism as a dissenter.

To be in material schism and dissent, one has to have originally been a fully initiated member of the Church united with Rome. I have never been such. I am a Christian who has been fully initiated in a Church other than the Roman Church.

When you have concluded that your interpretations and opinions are more accurate than the Catholic Church, you are immersed in liberalism. This was the mistake of the reformers.

And if I was making my own interpretations, I’d agree, but I am basing my beliefs upon the ancient interpretations and saying that the error is not, for example, in believing transubstantioin, but in requiring assent to that particular theological terminology to be in good standing. Real Presence? Yes. Specific mode of Real Presence? No. (That’s an example, not meant to be exclusive of others I could share.)

Again, with all due respect, I don’t believe you have valid Holy Orders.

To make a genuine judgement call on that issue, however, you would actually have to examine our documentation and evidence. According to Augustine’s theology, any validly ordained bishop can transmit holy orders even when he is in a state of schism. They are ilicit, but they are still valid. That is the state we are in, as acknowledged by several Roman Catholic statements on the orders of Old Catholics and Oriental Orthodox, from whom we derive our lines of succession.

May God grant you many Blessed years!

And let us pray together for the day when all of us will allow ourselves to be conformed to Christ’s call for unity - myself included.

Rob+