Interceding from the dead?

[Cachonga]

Ruthie again:

Of course not. The point is not that anyone was praying to Moses and Elijah. Nobody was. The point is the refutation of your statement that “asleep” means “unable to communicate with the living.” And if Jesus, in His human body, could converse with them, then so can I.

So when was the last time you had Mary or some other Saint appear with you and converse?

You will never hear me, or any other faithful and knowledgeable Catholic say anything about worshiping the saints

“A rose by any other name …” Call it what you like, that doesn’t change what it is.

Then I tried “pray,” with the same result. However, in the Old Testament, in the first 60 results, 58 of them were either “I pray you” or “we pray you,” in exactly the same sense of asking for a favor as we Catholics use when “praying” to the saints.

So you’re saying that your English translation is inspired text? Have you checked the Greek (which is what the NT was written in, not English)? Basing your terms on a translation does not instill confidence as to the correctness of your claim.

If your definition comes from Matt 6:9, where Our Lord gave us the Lord’s Prayer, then I agree that that kind of prayer is for God alone.

So where does Jesus then show His Disciples how to “pray” to other beings in Heaven? And if He doesn’t, then why should anyone think it’s appropriate?

Quoting from the catechism doesn’t move me. I find the articles are simply authority claims with scriptural window-dressing (usually taken out of context).

I am glad you enjoyed the California comment (it was meant to make people smile).

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ruthie again,

Excellent post!

Here is a link you will enjoy - and one that Cachonga will benefit from

patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2012/04/do-catholics-worship-mary.html

God bless

Because of this:

Perhaps I misinterpreted it. You seemed to be implying that one can not be in Heaven if one’s body was still on earth; I was disproving that with Scripture. I mistook you for one of those who think that nobody gets to Heaven until the Resurrection; that the dead are “asleep” until then.

Bolding mine.

Of course, we don’t need a phone to contact God in prayer. We don’t need to worry about getting a busy signal, being out of range, or being one of six billion messages on His voicemail. Good thing, too. If He was limited by time, as we are, we’d be in deep kimchi. But He’s not. He is eternal and infinite. And once we are in Heaven, we are no longer limited by time. It isn’t just any old place. It is Heaven, and eternal.

You seem to think that being a human in Heaven is no different than being a human on earth. That would mean that we are not eternal there either. That would mean that the promise that we are to have eternal life is a lie.

As Guanophore said, “You are thinking according to the flesh, and not the Spirit.” You are assuming that God, the almighty, can do nothing with us beyond the limitations of our flesh.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ccmnxc,

Christ was a historical figure. Here is a link on Josephus the historian: theistic-evolution.com/josephus.html

This question on an unbiased source is one of the most profound and I dare say unanswerable questions out there. The reality is that history is written by the victors - for example, ‘in US history,Indian victories are called massacres’. Personally, I do not think it is humanly possible to write about any hisotrical event or person without some some bias in some way. I think every writer of history has a point of view - not every fact can be included in any document - and by the very fact that some facts are included, others are excluded.

If a another person thought that an excluded fact was important - and should not have been excluded - would this not possibly be considered a bias - maybe even an unpardonable bias…

But, don’t give up hope - everyone writes the same way - so, readings from more than one source tends to give some kind of balance - at least one that that appeals to the bias of the reader…

God bless

Part 2 of 2

I also find the bolded part of this, though indirect, a good guide for praying to the Saints:

The footnotes referred to in these selections:
13 Lk 4:8; Cf. Deut 6:13.
14 Cf. Lk 1:46-49.
15 Lk 18:1.
44 Mt 6:24.
45 Cf. Rev 13-14.
46 Cf. Gal 5:20; Eph 5:5.
48 Cf. Deut 18:10; Jer 29:8.

It is obvious that “the communion of saints” means something different to you than it does to us.

Footnotes:
492 LG 49; cf. Mt 25:31; 1 Cor 15:26-27; Council of Florence (1439): DS 1305.
493 LG 49; cf. Eph 4:16.
494 LG 49.
495 LG 49; cf. 1 Tim 2:5.
496 St. Dominic, dying, to his brothers.
497 St. Thérèse of Lisieux, The Final Conversations, tr. John Clarke (Washington: ICS, 1977), 102.
498 LG 50; cf. Eph 4:1-6.
499 Martyrium Polycarpi, 17:Apostolic Fathers II/3,396.
500 LG 50; cf. 2 Macc 12:45.
501 LG 51; cf. Heb 3:6.

LG is Lumen Gentium, one of the documents of Vatican II. It can be found here.

Note that nowhere does what I cited above say that we should pray to the Saints. That is here:

41 Cf. Heb 12:1.
42 Cf. Mt 25:21.

Note the complete absence of the word “worship.” We pray to them in the exact sense of “I pray you” as it is used so many times in the OT.

P.S. I laughed out loud at this. It might be a wee tad uncharitable - I laughed anyway.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cachonga,

Now, it is one thing to venture 2 cents here and there … but, in reading how you have refuted all and still have all of Spirit this certainty… well … that sounds like you may have miscounted your assets…

So, with all of this wonderful refutation you have stored up - why not share it with the thread. There is a chance that you have missed Something. Now, when it comes to practicing Catholics wanting very much to have those who have floated off to rejoin the Barque of Peter - I do not think it really rests on the quaity of anyone’s argument - but, rather just allowing your heart to be open to the Promptings of the Holy Spirit.

By the way, if you don’t mind a personal question… since you don’t mind telling us you are a former Catholic, would you mind telling us what you are claiming as the True Faith today?

God bless

tqualey, thanks for your 2 cents worth. I have looked at the links and find nothing that hasn’t been refuted before (maybe not in this thread, but I have heard, and refuted, these before). Having been born and raised Roman Catholic, I would hope it’s understood that I have many brothers and sisters (the Borg might call me “6 of 11”), and one brother in particular is constantly trying to bring me back to Rome. So far, he hasn’t been able to convince me, but he keeps trying (which I appreciate, and use as an opportunity to learn more).

 

[Cachonga]

tqualey:

Now, it is one thing to venture 2 cents here and there … but, in reading how you have refuted all and still have all of Spirit this certainty… well … that sounds like you may have miscounted your assets…

A quick example would e Rev 5:8. These are described as “elders”, not “saints”, who are making the offering, and there are only 24 in number (I’m sure the church has more than 24 saints you can pray to).

So, with all of this wonderful refutation you have stored up - why not share it with the thread. There is a chance that you have missed Something. Now, when it comes to practicing Catholics wanting very much to have those who have floated off to rejoin the Barque of Peter - I do not think it really rests on the quaity of anyone’s argument - but, rather just allowing your heart to be open to the Promptings of the Holy Spirit.

Here is the issue of authority. If I accept the claimed “infallible” authority of the RC Magisterium, then I could not help but “see” that these verses mean what the church says they mean. However, since I have reason not to accept that authority claim, I am able to examine the text as it stands, and I find the interpretation offered to be lacking. Of course, most of the people on this thread accept the authority claims of Rome, so they fail to see the point.

By the way, if you don’t mind a personal question… since you don’t mind telling us you are a former Catholic, would you mind telling us what you are claiming as the True Faith today?

It’s off topic and personal, but I will say that I owe a big “Thank you” to Tim Staples and his teaching set on the Marian dogmas (All generations shall call me blessed). If not for that, I may not have ever come to know, much less fully embrace, the 5 points of Calvinism. I am a member of a Reformed Baptist Church, and I won’t be going back to Rome!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cachonga,

Thank you for answering my question. But, you know… I personally have always found Calvin so neurotically depressing with his demand for ‘assurance’ that simply displaced whatever Faith he had. Make no mistake about it - Faith is a gift. Ah, by the way - if you are content to remain where you are - fine. Just remember the door is never locked until death. Besides, by the very fact that you are here on this list - all is not lost!

By the way, did you ever get around to reading the links I sent - I think they would be helpful to at least understand what it is in actual Church teaching that you are refusing. Now, let’s see what we have here…

A quick example would e Rev 5:8. These are described as “elders”, not “saints”, who are making the offering, and there are only 24 in number (I’m sure the church has more than 24 saints you can pray to).

You know, John has a way with numbers and they are not used for ‘counting’. John, more then anyone else uses numbers as symbols for conveyinng meaning. For example, in Rev 7 we find 144,000 who are with God. Now, ‘…there are only…’ 144,000 in mumber (I’m sure your group thinks that more then 144,000 are saved - but, that is just a guess on my part. Seriously, I found your literal use of Rev 5 rather weak. Some items in Scripture are simply not meant to be taken literally.

Here is the issue of authority. If I accept the claimed “infallible” authority of the RC Magisterium, then I could not help but “see” that these verses mean what the church says they mean.

Well, let’s see about this ‘claim’ you are so eager to disparage. First of all, it was until around 400AD that the Canon of Scripture was established by the Catholic Church. Among other things, this means that for seveal hundred years there was no official sactioning of the inspired books. So, as you now cling to your abridged version of the Bible, remember that the entire Bible - the inspired Word of God - and the order these books appear - was determined by the same group you are taking issue with. Ironic, eh?

Matt 16 clearly identifies Christ as giving Peter the Keys as a symbol of authority with the power to bind and lose WHATEVER Peter and his successors determine.

John 14 & 16 clearly identifies Christ promising the Spirit to lead His Church - and that would be the Catholic Church - to all Truth. This means the Catholic Church can not teach error. And, this is where the Magisterium derives it infallible teaching authority - from Christ Himself. Now, I fully realize that all of Protestantism rebels (as they did in the 16th Century) at these ideas - but, to do so means that the very clear words of Scripture must be re-interpreted so as to mean just the opposite of what they said.

And, let’s be very clear about this - if you have ANY evidence of Catholic Church teaching stating that the Saints and the Blessed Virgin Mary are to be the worship due only to God - the please produce it. As you know, there is no such evidence - so the only argument you have is have a cloud of statements to hide this lack of fact on the only real issue involved. The Catholic Church does not practice idol worship. Practicing Catholics only worship the Triune God.

However, since I have reason not to accept that authority claim, I am able to examine the text as it stands, and I find the interpretation offered to be lacking. Of course, most of the people on this thread accept the authority claims of Rome, so they fail to see the point.

And, pray tell, what is this reason you claim to have? A well known spirit claimed to have a ‘reason’ for not serving God - and it cost him dearly. And, seriously, what a wonderful education you must have to actually ‘…examine the text as it stands…’. My guess is that means you have gone to original sources are fluent in these ancient languages and are able to make the necessary determinations as to historic meaning versus contemporary meaning of words. But, you know, that early example of tripping up on ‘Saints’ vs ‘Elders’ does not speak of such a vast knowledge base.

In my opinion, your statment - as it stands - is simply not possible. Oh, it is quite possible to have a ‘private interpretation’ of Scripture - Luther’s ‘first gift’ to the revolt - but such behavior is specifically condemned in 2Peter 1 (here is a link: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/2_Peter_1 ) Naturally, this presents no real problem, because Luther’s ‘second givt’ to the revolt was the private interpretation of Scripture. (As you know, it was not long after that the discontent monk found common milk maids interpreting scripture - and not as Luther had interpreted it - and was shocked and disgusted at where his heresy was already going. And, of course, you are familiar with the initial splintering of Protestantism when Luther and Calvin parted paths.

My guess is that most people on this thread are Catholic - and their belief in Christ and the Church He founded on sinful and weak Peter is strong. But, I would think you guessed that, too - hence your entry and comments.

But, you know, it is difficult to have a serious dialogue when you insist on hyperbole and broad brush strokes to dismiss Christ’s Church. So, if you find the interpretation ‘lacking’ you need to be specific. Since you are unable to prove that the Catholic Church offers the worship due to God to dead humans - what is it that you object to?

God bless

 

[guanophore]

Are you comparing praying to the saints in Heaven with witchcraft and necromancy? Isn’t that how King Saul communicated with Samuel?

Saul communicated with Samuel because God allowed Samuel to appear to Saul, and prophesy about the coming events.

The saints of God and the holy ones are not subject to any witchcraft and necromancy, which are preternatural rather than supernatural. If you look at that passage, you can see that the medium was just as shocked over the fact that Samuel actually appeared.

  I’ve often thought that about California, too, but that doesn’t make it so.  The Scriptures certainly describe these as real places.  I would like to know why you think they aren’t real places, and why they are “outside the time/space continuum”.

Scripture often takes an anthropomorphic view of events. It is difficult for people who are trapped inside the space time continuum to think outside of it. The way we know that heaven, hell, and purgatory are outside of it is that they existed prior to the creation of space and time.

An Angel sent from God (although God allowed the donkey to talk on his own, and Balaam was able to see and communicate with the Angel after this). Who do you think was communicating with Balaam?

It is clear from the passage that both the angel and the donkey were used by God to communicate with Baalam.

We’re going in circles over this. I don’t believe we can communicate with those in Heaven any better than we can communicate with Christians in another state, you believe you can. There is no evidence in Scripture to support your claim, but, because your church says it’s so, then it must be so. I don’t accept that. So there we are!

I have given you three scriptural examples of communication that has happened from figures outside the space time continuum. If you choose to reject these, that is your affair. Do you honestly believe that Samuel could appear and speak a true prophesy to Saul apart from divine intervention? Do you honestly think that Balaam’s donkey could speak to him apart from divine intervention? Do you think that Moses and Elijah could appear to Christ apart from divine intervention?

 Let’s say that every Sunday 1 Billion Roman Catholics make a 1 second request of Mary.  That would be more than 11,500 people per second making a request of her, every second, over a 24 hour period.  You claim that she can give every request her full, undivided attention, and bring these requests to Jesus.  That requires omnipresence.

You are reaching a false conclusion based upon a false premise. First of all, God can allow His saints to know whatever He wants them to know. John say countless saints under the throne of God worshipping and praying while he was in a vision. He described the sound as that of many waters. How did he “hear” something that was occurring on a non-physical plane? How did Samuel, Moses, and Elijah have conversations with people here on earth about events occurring on earth when they had no “ears”?

Hearing what God wants a person to hear only requires that He is omnipotent, not the recipient of the gift.

Can you do the same? Can you listen to more than 2 people talking to you at the same time, each saying something different, and fully understand what everyone has said?

I am sure, if God felt it was advantageous, He could gift me with such an ability.

If you can do that with 2 people talking to you at the same time, you’re a better multi-tasker than I am. I don’t really believe you can do it with more than 2 people talking at the same time (asking someone to repeat themselves is clear evidence that you missed something). Still think you have a divine attribute?

The saints are transformed after this life, and become “like angels”. They have qualities like Jesus, who could walk through walls. The gifts of God do not equate to “divine attributes”. When the HS enables someone to do something, it is not because he has a divine nature, but because he is a partaker of God’s divine nature.

Samuel was able to tell King Saul what would happen in time (that he and his sons would be with Samuel in a set time – tomorrow).

Good. You can see that a saint who has gone on to his heavenly reward still has awareness about events and people here on earth.

 Jesus promised the repentant thief that he would be with Him in Paradise “that day”.

But we know He did not mean heaven, since the gates of heaven were still closed until Jesus ascended into heaven 40 days later. The thief went to the place of the righteous dead, awaiting Jesus to open the gates of heaven.

Lazarus and the rich man died and found themselves in the afterlife, Lazarus in Abraham’s Bosom, and the rich man in Hell. They both entered these places at a point in time.

Yes, or from an eternal point of view, exited the time space continuum at the same moment.

 

[guanophore]

In Revelation we see that as the seals are broken in Heaven judgments take place on Earth (along with the trumpet and bowl judgments). I find these sufficient evidence to show that those in Heaven are also within the same “time/space continuum” as we are (just in the spirit world, which has no night, and the occupants do not get tired).

I am not sure what you mean by this, but it seems quite clear throughout the scriptures that angels and saints are not bound by our space time continuum. The “spirit world” by definition, is not bound by what is tangible.

I agree. However, this is a special occasion, and we don’t see it ever being repeated (or have you had a conversation with a barnyard animal recently?).

Almost daily, but they don’t seem to answer like Mr. Ed or Balamm’s ***.

St. Frances is said to have conducted such conversations.

Idolatry and witchcraft/necromancy is not a very convincing argument for the practice of praying to saints and angels. Or do you have some Scripture to indicate something else (more along the lines of what the church practices today).

You have missed my point entirely, Cachonga, and maybe that was your intention. The arguement has nothing to do with witchcraft and necromancy, but the ability of human beings to know and communicate with people here on earth about events occurring here. Since the discussion of Jesus with Moses and Elijah does not have any medium mentioned in the account, how do you explain that these two saints knew what was about to happen?

And why would saints coming along after them not be able to know as well?

Do you think saints like Phillip, who could be translated for miles in a moment of time, are LESS able to move after they depart their physical bodies?

<continued…>
Are you serious? Do you really believe Matt 17:1-4 is the same thing as your praying to saints and angels in Heaven? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of anyone praying to St. Moses or St. Elijah.

Catholics and Orthodox do. Those who are in the One Church founded by Christ, that were built upon the Apostles and Prophets were taught to pray to the saints from the stoning of St. Stephen until today. Maybe you need to attend an Easter vigil, or more ancient liturgies?

In Revelation we see that as the seals are broken in Heaven judgments take place on Earth (along with the trumpet and bowl judgments). I find these sufficient evidence to show that those in Heaven are also within the same “time/space continuum” as we are (just in the spirit world, which has no night, and the occupants do not get tired).

I am not sure what you mean by this, but it seems quite clear throughout the scriptures that angels and saints are not bound by our space time continuum. The “spirit world” by definition, is not bound by what is tangible.

I agree. However, this is a special occasion, and we don’t see it ever being repeated (or have you had a conversation with a barnyard animal recently?).

Almost daily, but they don’t seem to answer like Mr. Ed or Balamm’s ***.

St. Frances is said to have conducted such conversations.

Idolatry and witchcraft/necromancy is not a very convincing argument for the practice of praying to saints and angels. Or do you have some Scripture to indicate something else (more along the lines of what the church practices today).

<continued…>

You have missed my point entirely, Cachonga, and maybe that was your intention. The arguement has nothing to do with witchcraft and necromancy, but the ability of human beings to know and communicate with people here on earth about events occurring here. Since the discussion of Jesus with Moses and Elijah does not have any medium mentioned in the account, how do you explain that these two saints knew what was about to happen?

And why would saints coming along after them not be able to know as well? I don’t see anything in the Scripture to indicate that Jesus was “praying” to these men (of course, I’m using the term “prayer” the way the Scriptures use it). I would note that there was two-way communication between Jesus and both Moses and Elijah.

If this was a practice Jesus taught for His disciples to emulate, why do we not find the practice recorded anywhere in Scripture?

We do see the faithful interacting on the spiritual plane with angels and people. But the New Testament was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith. We can see from the ancient liturgies that prayer has been offered to the Holy Martyrs from the early days of the Church. The fact that you have separated from this ancient practice does not make it invalid for anyone but yourself.

It has always been a mystery to me why Jesus took Peter, James, and John with him on certain occasions. I wonder if the other Apostles got jealous? I probably would. Anyway, Peter did not consider it a special occasion, that is why he wanted to strike tents, so that they could stay, or return often for more of the same.

[/QUOTE]

 

[guanophore]

If you look at the parallel passage in Luke (9:28-35) you see that verse 33 says, “And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: **not knowing what he said**.” (KJV emphasis added).

In his later life, Peter did understand that all believers had come to the company of the angels and saints, and that it was not necessary to remain in one place for them to partake. This is what the ancient Church has called the “communion of saints”. It is in the Creeds.

Heb 12:18You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; 19to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, 20because they could not bear what was commanded: “If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned.”c 21The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, “I am trembling with fear.”d

22But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

In the New Covenant, we are in the company of thousands of angels and saints (the spirits of just men made perfect). We are all One Body, One Church. We are all connected because we are all members of Him, our Head.

For example, your own argument presupposes that the catholic church is the “one true faith”, which is not even the topic of this thread.

We try to weave that into all the threads.

So when was the last time you communicated with Mary (and others) in the way Jesus talked with Moses and Elijah?

I have not had such an experience personally, though I do communicate with her better than I used to. I believe that she has done good works in my live, one event just today.

 I keep hearing the claim, but, while I have pointed to Scriptures that I believe make my case, all I hear back is the assertion without any evidence.

You seem to be asserting the idea that just because something is not found explicitly in scripture, then it is not valid or approved of by God. This is not a valid premise. For example, we do not find the list of the books that belong in the Bible anywhere in the Bible, yet we all accept that the Bible is the inerrant and inspired Word of God. We don’t find the word Trinity in the Bible, yet we all affirm that the Trinity is a requirement for Christian belief. These truths came down to us through Sacred Tradition, just as praying to the saints, and worshipping on Sundays.

  It appears to come down to a question of time in Heaven.

If you say so, I will take your word for us. Since we have received from the Apostles that there is no time in heaven, that is not a concern or question for us.

  It comes down to a question of authority.  Catholics accept the “infallible” teaching magisterium of the church.  I find sufficient reason to reject that authority claim (though I do recognize the authority of the Church, it is not the claimed authority of the Roman Catholic Church).

So what “church” do you consider authorative?

What is your sufficient reason to reject what was passed down to us from the Apostles?

Do you believe that God is not able to protect His Word where He put it?

 I understand it, but I prefer the Scriptural definition of prayer.

So all you pray is the Lord’s prayer?

It is a practice that developed over time, and started early on in Church history.  However, you will not find any of the Apostles praying to Saints or Angels in Heaven,

Well, we actually don’t know if the man who appeared to Paul (Acts 16:9) was one of the saints here on earth or in heaven. Clearly Paul understood what the man was saying to him.

You are correct, though, that it is a practice that developed over time. It began with the first martyrs of the Church, like St. Stephen who was one of the first. Then as there were more who gave their lives for the faith, obviously there were more souls included.

Even at the time of Jesus death we read:

Matt. 27: 51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

So there was immediately a recognition that the appearance of the holy people was connected to the death and resurrection of Jesus. We are not told what happened to these holy people, if they, like Lazarus, suffered death again, or if He took them to heaven with him when He ascended. But the people understood that all were alive unto Him, and that the veil that separated those here on earth from the resurrected had been torn. This is why we call it the communion of saints. We are all members of the same body.

 

[guanophore]

which I would expect to see if this was an approved practice of God (isn’t He the ultimate author of Scripture?). Yes, I know not everything is recorded in Scripture. Even so, I am convinced that what we need to know IS recorded for us within the Scriptures.

Although there are some “approved practices” mentioned in Scripture, there was no effort to include them all, and the fact that they are not there does not mean they were not approved. We don’t read in Scripture the details of Baptismal rites either, as they are summarized in the Didache, written around 100AD, and yet, these have also been a constant teaching of the Church.

 Having been born and raised Roman Catholic,

Technically speaking, one cannot be “born” Roman Catholic, or any other kind of Catholic. They are referred to as “cradle Catholics” because they are baptized as infants, and become Catholic at that point.

I would hope it's understood that I have many brothers and sisters (the Borg might call me "6 of 11"), and one brother in particular is constantly trying to bring me back to Rome.  So far, he hasn't been able to convince me, but he keeps trying (which I appreciate, and use as an opportunity to learn more).

Well, I look forward to our continued discussion on any of these issues that continue to separate you from the faith into which you were Baptized.

 

[guanophore]

“A rose by any other name …” Call it what you like, that doesn’t change what it is.

It may not change it for YOU, Cachonga, if you are so prejudiced and hard headed that you cannot accept a different point of view, of course it won’t. Perhaps accepting the Truth somehow disrupts your theology or, how did you put it? “sufficient reason” to become an 'ex-Catholic". But the fact of the matter is that worship cannot take place with out intention, and when our intention is to commuicate in conversation, it is not worship.

And from the opposite point of view, your insistence that the conversation is worship does not cause it to be so. Only the INTENTION of the individual to worship can make it so. How can you possibly defend the position that Paul was in any way “worshipping” the man from Macedonia that appeared to him? That is just preposterous. What possible evidence can you give to support such a position? You can’t even get that out of the text if you twist it really hard!

So where does Jesus then show His Disciples how to “pray” to other beings in Heaven? And if He doesn’t, then why should anyone think it’s appropriate?

I think a brief review of the Book of Revelation may refresh your memory. The beings in heaven, angels and saints are very much present to us and able to communicate with us, and we to them.

Quoting from the catechism doesn’t move me. I find the articles are simply authority claims with scriptural window-dressing (usually taken out of context).

You seem to have a lot of hostility toward the authority of the Catholic Church. Yes, the Catechism is full of references to authority from scripture, and the writings of the Fathers and doctors of the Church. What you are saying is that all these sources got it wrong for 2000 years, and now that you have departed from the One Faith, you have figured it out by yourself. Are we supposed to be more moved by that?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Fred conty,

Truly an excellent thought!

There was much disobedience among the Jews - and the worship of false gods in the Temple along with the immolation of their baby boys and girls to Baal headed the list of sins views as truly evil.

Apparently, people being poorly catechized in the Faith is not a new phenomena - the Iconaclasts seem to pop up throughout history beginning in the 8th Cetury: newadvent.org/cathen/07620a.htm Many of today’s Protestants have a similar misguided view that Catholics are worshipping idols and graven images and the like. But, all it would take is for some of these people to come back the CC as opposted to staying outside the tent and away from significant graces form God.

The bible is silent about many things - and some of these things involve how we can honestly work with to give greater Glory to God. It is this same Bible (Protestants have an bridged form) that shows us Mary going to her. The idea that unless it says to do certain - they can not be done. No where in the Bible is there such a command.

Praying for the intercession of someone close to Jesus is an amazing promise.

Please pray for the rest of those souls in my family and that of my wife’s family who passed away.

God bless

I haven’t see anywhere in the bible it says “don’t pray to mary or the saints”.

Our tradition created the bible not the other way around.

Just a thought.

 

[Ruthie_again]

Part 1 of 2

Tqualey, thanks for the link!

Cachonga, you said,

So when was the last time you had Mary or some other Saint appear with you and converse?

Not appear, or converse exactly, but her voice told me why my former views on contraception were wrong. It was around 6 years ago, just after Mass ended. I had been admiring and “flirting” with a charming toddler in the pew in front. As I stood up to leave, I looked at his tiny hand, playing in his mother’s hair, and thought casually, “What a miracle that is!” Mary said to me, “That is what you denied to God [by using contraception]!” That wasn’t a random thought. It was so strong that it knocked me to my knees. No, no one else heard it. The only proof I can offer is my immediate conviction (against years of feminist indoctrination) that contraception is wrong. (Please do not use that issue as a straw man. This thread has already deviated enough from the original question!)

Basing your terms on a translation does not instill confidence as to the correctness of your claim.

I never claimed that. I know that different words in both Greek and Hebrew have been translated as “pray.” My point is that IN ENGLISH, the word “pray” has more than one meaning. You continue to deny this. You are wrong. You are so entrenched in making the Catholic Church wrong, that you cannot see what any dictionary will tell you.

I said, “If your definition comes from Matt 6:9, where Our Lord gave us the Lord’s Prayer, then I agree that that kind of prayer is for God alone.” You responded,

So where does Jesus then show His Disciples how to “pray” to other beings in Heaven? And if He doesn’t, then why should anyone think it’s appropriate?

That’s a “straw man” argument. There are many, many things the Bible doesn’t say. For example, I see you are using a computer to engage in this debate. But Jesus never said we could use computers. “And if He doesn’t, then why should anyone think it’s appropriate?”

If you follow the Nicene Creed, you know that the OT Saints were not in Heaven until after the Crucifixion. None of the NT saints died until after the Resurrection. No, there’s no mention in the NT of anyone asking St. Stephen (Acts 7) to pray for them, but there’s nothing forbidding us to ask favors of our friends (dead or alive) either.

Quoting from the catechism doesn’t move me. I find the articles are simply authority claims with scriptural window-dressing (usually taken out of context).

Let us consider Mk 16:16: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (As a Baptist, you may already be familiar with this disagreement!) A private Bible study forum I used to be on was nearly shut down by its owners, due to the acrimony about this passage – it got ugly, with lots of “all caps” and explanation points. Some members were insisting that “believeth and is baptized” means that baptism is necessary for salvation, and others insisting that “he that believeth not shall be damned” meant only faith is needed. I figure that, if Jesus said it, especially in one sentence, it must be true – both halves.

In fact, it was learning that Catholics hold that the Bible doesn’t contradict itself, and that therefore, if it seems to say one thing in one place, and another in another, that both things must be true, that attracted me to the Church in the first place.

Oh, here are some places where the NT shows communication with angels (though not saints): Matt 28:5-6 (KJV) cf. Mk 16:1, Luke 1:18-19 (KJV), Luke 1:34-38 (KJV), Luke 2:9-14 (KJV), Acts 5:19-20 (KJV), Acts 8:26 (KJV), Acts 27:23-24 (KJV). Also, these four, though I can see reasons why you might argue with them. Luke 22:43 (KJV), John 12:28-30 (KJV), Acts 10:3-4 (KJV), Acts 12:22-23 (KJV)

Responding to your earlier contention that the dead are not in Heaven (which you contradicted later), and thus can’t intercede for us, there is nothing in Revelation that says whether the saints, whose prayers rise up in smoke, are in Heaven or not. But it does mention the martyrs, whose souls are under the altar, the altar that is in Heaven (Rev 4:1, 6:9). So we know that the souls of at least some dead people are in Heaven.

end part 1

 

[Ruthie_again]

Part 2 of 2

You also keep harping on authority, as if that was the only reason someone would be Catholic. The Church’s claim to authority has nothing to do with my becoming Catholic. Like other NCCs who have joined the Church, I kept finding that things I had already figured out for myself, from studying the Bible, were taught by the Church. Then I researched the things the Church taught that I disagreed with. I found that the Church never taught those things. I had bought into arguments based on false premises. For instance, I learned that statues and ikons are not idols, and that the Pope is only infallible under certain stringent circumstances, and that he is not worshipped. And other things. So I entered RCIA classes, and continued to find many more things that the Church taught that I already believed.

What I knew was that the Catholic Church was right. I didn’t completely believe in her total authority until I studied her history.

If there is “One Lord, one faith, one baptism,” (Eph 4:5) then why are there so many different churches? This article rbclouisville.com/information/Reformed%20Baptist.pdf , written by a Reformed Baptist Pastor, shows me that each of your Reformed Baptist churches can have their own different set of beliefs!

And why is it that each NCC church inevitably splits into more, and more, churches, all disagreeing on some point of doctrine – as you Baptists have? That is what happens when we rely only on our own sinful brains to figure things out, instead of relying on a central (and inspired) authority, going all the way back to the Apostles, to whom Jesus gave the authority to teach. (Mt 28: 16-20)

How do we know what Jesus actually taught the Apostles? Is it all in the Bible? Well, there were lots of documents floating around in the first few centuries, claiming to be authentic. It was the Church which, in the late 300s to early 400s, decided which documents were genuinely the inspired teachings of the Apostles. Think about that - there may have been some epistles that were indeed inspired, but which had been lost by then, due to the perishable nature of parchment and papyrus. Last, but not least, “…there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.” (John 21:25, KJV)

Our only source for authentic teaching is from the men that sat at the feet of the Apostles, and those who sat at those men’s feet, and so on and so on. And that is the Catholic Church.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ruthie again,

Thank you for an excellent post!

One of the major issues with posts such as we have received from Cachonga is that a lack of consistency is never an impediment to continuing on arguing with others… Christ tells us in Mark 12:27 and Luke 20:38 that our God is not a God of the dead, but of the living! While this was directed to Sadducees - it is a message for all of us.

The Saints are alive with God - and these Friends of God (Church Triumphant) are very much interested in the helping all of us on earth as we battle the Devil each day (Church Militany). And, then we come to the ‘Near Saints’ group - those who will join the Chruch Triumphant shortly. Until then, they suffer for their sins ‘…until the last farthing is paid’! We are all in this together - and this is one of the ways that we share in the Body of Christ - by recognizing our place and praying for God’s Will to be done on earth as it is in Heaven.

Of course, there are those who ridicule Christ’s Church and the infallible teachings of the Holy Spirit - as they parade around with the traditions of men. But, do not lose heart - by praying for the intercession of the Saints we are doing God’s Will. Here is an example: catholicapologetics.org/ap070300.htm

God bless

Part 1 of 2

Tqualey, thanks for the link!

Cachonga, you said, Not appear, or converse exactly, but her voice told me why my former views on contraception were wrong. It was around 6 years ago, just after Mass ended. I had been admiring and “flirting” with a charming toddler in the pew in front. As I stood up to leave, I looked at his tiny hand, playing in his mother’s hair, and thought casually, “What a miracle that is!” Mary said to me, “That is what you denied to God [by using contraception]!” That wasn’t a random thought. It was so strong that it knocked me to my knees. No, no one else heard it. The only proof I can offer is my immediate conviction (against years of feminist indoctrination) that contraception is wrong. (Please do not use that issue as a straw man. This thread has already deviated enough from the original question!)

I never claimed that. I know that different words in both Greek and Hebrew have been translated as “pray.” My point is that IN ENGLISH, the word “pray” has more than one meaning. You continue to deny this. You are wrong. You are so entrenched in making the Catholic Church wrong, that you cannot see what any dictionary will tell you.

I said, “If your definition comes from Matt 6:9, where Our Lord gave us the Lord’s Prayer, then I agree that that kind of prayer is for God alone.” You responded, That’s a “straw man” argument. There are many, many things the Bible doesn’t say. For example, I see you are using a computer to engage in this debate. But Jesus never said we could use computers. “And if He doesn’t, then why should anyone think it’s appropriate?”

If you follow the Nicene Creed, you know that the OT Saints were not in Heaven until after the Crucifixion. None of the NT saints died until after the Resurrection. No, there’s no mention in the NT of anyone asking St. Stephen (Acts 7) to pray for them, but there’s nothing forbidding us to ask favors of our friends (dead or alive) either.

Let us consider Mk 16:16: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (As a Baptist, you may already be familiar with this disagreement!) A private Bible study forum I used to be on was nearly shut down by its owners, due to the acrimony about this passage – it got ugly, with lots of “all caps” and explanation points. Some members were insisting that “believeth and is baptized” means that baptism is necessary for salvation, and others insisting that “he that believeth not shall be damned” meant only faith is needed. I figure that, if Jesus said it, especially in one sentence, it must be true – both halves.

In fact, it was learning that Catholics hold that the Bible doesn’t contradict itself, and that therefore, if it seems to say one thing in one place, and another in another, that both things must be true, that attracted me to the Church in the first place.

Oh, here are some places where the NT shows communication with angels (though not saints): Matt 28:5-6 (KJV) cf. Mk 16:1, Luke 1:18-19 (KJV), Luke 1:34-38 (KJV), Luke 2:9-14 (KJV), Acts 5:19-20 (KJV), Acts 8:26 (KJV), Acts 27:23-24 (KJV). Also, these four, though I can see reasons why you might argue with them. Luke 22:43 (KJV), John 12:28-30 (KJV), Acts 10:3-4 (KJV), Acts 12:22-23 (KJV)

Responding to your earlier contention that the dead are not in Heaven (which you contradicted later), and thus can’t intercede for us, there is nothing in Revelation that says whether the saints, whose prayers rise up in smoke, are in Heaven or not. But it does mention the martyrs, whose souls are under the altar, the altar that is in Heaven (Rev 4:1, 6:9). So we know that the souls of at least some dead people are in Heaven.

end part 1

 

[guanophore]

Luke 20:37-40
38 Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to him." 39 And some of the scribes answered, “Teacher, you have spoken well.” 40 For they no longer dared to ask him any question.

The fact is that no one of the saints who have gone on before us “intercede from the dead”. They are very much alive.