Prayer of Pope to Mary: To Whom Would the Apostles have pointed him ..Mary or Jesus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leeann
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok I really have to know…

Where can I get a copy of “The Catholic Catechism REVEALED by Bud!”

Because I’m dying to get my hands on a copy so I can know what I REALLY believe! Please help so I can know what the Catholic church really teaches…I’m a poor lost ingorant Catholic and I’ve fallen for the church hook line and sinker! Is there ANY hope left for us???
 
You have a point there….that’s evident within the Catholic Church’s own development.
Yes, but the church has never claimed to be confined to scripture as you do. 😃

Catholicism is not a ‘religion of the book’. None of the Teachings come from the Bible. However, if you claim that yours does, then it seems incumbent upon you to find all the doctrines within it’s pages, Sola Scriptura for starters.
Tell me the chapter and verse where it says we can.
You are trying to impose the rules of SS upon us, and they don’t apply to us, they apply to you.
These are Hymns of “praise” – which is prayer – what I was referring too – is when you actually read those Psalms that you posted, you will see that David was “praising God” –

As you read through them, you will see that they are in no way “invoking” the heavenly hosts in prayer – if they are – then they must also be “invoking” the “sun, moon, stars, dragons, waters above the earth in prayer….and that would be simply a pagan thing to do.
Of course the psalmist is calling upon all creation to praise the Creator! This is not pagan. What would be Pagan is worshipping the creation, instead of the Creator. Have you forgotten that all creation is awaiting the revealing of the Sons of God with eager longing?
They are of “praise” not of “intercession”.
I agree, intercession is one form of prayer, praise another, supplication something else.
**Psalm 103 (102)

20 **Bless the Lord, all ye his angels: ****you that are mighty in strength, and execute his word, hearkening to the voice of his orders.
21 Bless the Lord, all ye his hosts: you ministers of his that do his will.
22 Bless the Lord, all his works: in every place of his dominion, O my soul, bless thou the Lord.

You don’t see the Psalimst enjoining the creation to praise HIm? don’t you remember that Jesus said, if the people were silenced, the very rocks would cry out?
Leeann;4366719:
20 Bless Yahweh, all his angels,
mighty warriors who fulfil his commands, attentive to the sound of his words.
21 Bless Yahweh, all his armies, servants who fulfil his wishes.
22 Bless Yahweh, all his works, in every place where he rules. Bless Yahweh, my soul.

Don’t you see this calling the angels to praise?
Most “Protestants” would likely know the difference between “praising” and “requesting”,
at least in regards to the reference you gave from the Psalms Chapters.
I would think so, but I am amazed what I learn on these boards. I know someone that does not accept that the word “pray” is still used in the courts to supplicate. 🤷
 
Bud…

You say you are “listening” to our explanations…but you are only reading what you want to read. You’re looking for something that sounds “off” to you, and then you’re pulling scripture out of context to prove your point.

You can take any passage you want and try to tell us LOOK! Your church is WRONG! But the fact remains nobody here is going to take your interpretations seriously unless you can give us a reason to take your word over the church founded by CHRIST HIMSELF.

Before you toss any more blind offenses our direction, perhaps stop to consider whom you are hurling your arrows upon. For the Catholic Church is the body of Christ Himself.
I will ask you as itsjustdave did adout this pious Catholic practice of Indulgences. Why don’t you still practice it? You know slip a nice big check to the pope and cut to the front of the line.👍

Until you can give me some evidence from the bible showing me my error the only thing you have to stand on is your church’s traditions. The Mormons tradition is/was to have more than one wife who says they are wrong? 🤷 Now you cant use the bible to support your position, thats your own standard!!!:eek:
Now tell me why are they wrong.
 
I will ask you as itsjustdave did adout this pious Catholic practice of Indulgences. Why don’t you still practice it? You know slip a nice big check to the pope and cut to the front of the line.👍

Until you can give me some evidence from the bible showing me my error the only thing you have to stand on is your church’s traditions. The Mormons tradition is/was to have more than one wife who says they are wrong? 🤷 Now you cant use the bible to support your position, thats your own standard!!!:eek:
Now tell me why are they wrong.
The Catholic church has and does teach that indulgences are a truth, handed to us through the tradition of our Church.

It was the SELLING of the indulgences that turned into an abuse. Corrupt humans, (imagine that…humans sinning) saw an opportunity to take a practice and turn it into profit. Not long after the reformation, the church DECLARED the selling of indulgences to be immoral and wrong. Sometimes when corrupt people take advantage of something, the church must step in to clarify Her position.

Indulgences are still practiced, and are still true. Sorry you don’t agree with them, but I’ll take the teaching of the Church instituted by my Lord over the word of bud 👍
 
Thank you for that information. I checked out the Daniel verses in the Douary Rheims online version and the context is the same as the Psalms – praising, not invoking or “requesting” – unless of course – they were praying to the cattle, sun, stars, moon, hoar frost, dews?

Duoay Rheims

Daniel 3: 58/86


58** O ye angels of the Lord,** bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 59 O ye heavens, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 60 **O all ye waters that are above the heavens, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all for ever. **61 O all ye powers of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 62 O ye sun and moon, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 63 O ye stars of heaven, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 64 O every shower and dew, bless ye the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 65 O all ye spirits of God, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.
66 O ye fire and heat, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 67 O ye cold and heat, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 68
O ye dews and hoar frosts, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.
69 O ye frost and cold, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 70 O ye ice and snow, bless the Lord: praise and exalt
81 O all ye beasts and cattle, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 82 O ye sons of men, bless the Lord, praise and exalt him above all for ever. 83 O let Israel bless the Lord: let them praise and exalt him above all for ever. 84 O ye priests of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 85 O ye servants of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.
86 O ye spirits and souls of the just, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 87 O ye holy and humble of heart, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

These verses in no way indicate that there is any “requesting” going on…as in the description you gave for “prayer”.
You are right, these are all in the imperative mode. They are commanding in tone. We call it “prayer” because the person is addressing someone who cannot give a standard vocal response such as we would have in a conversation.
 
Why do you hate our church so much? Seriously…have you stopped to ask yourself this question? Where is this deep rooted, unfounded sheer animosity towards the Catholic church coming from?

I encourage you to search and find EXACTLY why you hate the Catholic church. I’m not talking about what you think we believe or what you think we teach, but find out exactly why, BUD is so effected by the hatred towards the Body of Christ.

What is the source of it? How do the pious practices of Catholics affect your salvation?
 
Or by your novel application of the verses from the Psalms and Daniel that you quoted?
No. Catholic teaching and practice comes to us from the Apostles. The Scripture reflects this, but it is not the source of it.
John *did *speak with them in heaven, he was transported there in the spirit for a purpose that was *instigated by God *– not him….John wasn’t making “requests”…he was being “informed”…there is a difference.
He was conversing with the angel. We call it prayer because angels don’t have vocal cords.
Douay Rheims

*St. John is ordered to write to the seven churches in Asia. The manner of Christ’s appearing to him. * (their heading)

My assertions has been that it was never taught or preached by the Apostles or by Jesus.

Those things are in the Bible.
You have no way of knowing that, because you have confined yourself to the bible, and rejected the rest. 🤷

These are the prayers of the Apostles. We ask for intercession from Mary and the saints because they taught that.
So we disagree.
What need in yourself are you getting met by doing this?
The teaching/preaching that the Apostles did while establishing the churches never directs anyone to ask those in “heaven” to pray for you and they never direct anyone to pray to/through those in heaven. There are scriptures where they encourage the early Christians, in their eartlhy communities, to pray for one another in support.

Both types of prayers were taught. We know this because we have held fast to the traditions that were taught by the Apostles, just as scripture commands. The Reformers separated themselves from this, and their offspring continue to separate more and more.
Leeann;4366816:
Are the Apostles own teachings not compelling enough for you?
Yes. 👍 Do I believe they are all contained in scripture? No.
 
I’ll give you a bit of a refresher (indulgence)
I love indulgences.👍 I thank God for them. I have a current copy of the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum published by the Holy See, so I don’t think I need a “refresher,” but thanks anyway. 😉

However, I think you are mixing up praying for the dead and asking angels and saints in heaven to pray for us. Both are pious Christian practices, but have very different purposes.
 
The Catholic church has and does teach that indulgences are a truth, handed to us through the tradition of our Church.

It was the SELLING of the indulgences that turned into an abuse. Corrupt humans, (imagine that…humans sinning) saw an opportunity to take a practice and turn it into profit. Not long after the reformation, the church DECLARED the selling of indulgences to be immoral and wrong. Sometimes when corrupt people take advantage of something, the church must step in to clarify Her position.

Indulgences are still practiced, and are still true. Sorry you don’t agree with them, but I’ll take the teaching of the Church instituted by my Lord over the word of bud 👍
Well I’m happy to here you have the corrupt humans weeded out.
Can you please give me a short definition of the Indulgences. The Vatican library makes the one in congress look small. You know its as clear as mud:D 😃 😃 😃 😃 😃 ooohhh what a tanged web we weave.
Darn it it wont let me post the full 40958 characters just 6000 sorry, can you still give me the short definition without the whole thing?

Indulgences
tt=64

The word indulgence (Latin indulgentia, from indulgeo, to be kind or tender) originally meant kindness or favor; in post-classic Latin it came to mean the remission of a tax or debt. In Roman law and in the Vulgate of the Old Testament (Isaiah 61:1) it was used to express release from captivity or punishment. In theological language also the word is sometimes employed in its primary sense to signify the kindness and mercy of God. But in the special sense in which it is here considered, an indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been forgiven. Among the equivalent terms used in antiquity were pax, remissio, donatio, condonatio.
What an indulgence is not

To facilitate explanation, it may be well to state what an indulgence is not. It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer’s salvation or releases the soul of another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches on this subject.
What an indulgence is

An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God’s justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive. Regarding this definition, the following points are to be noted:
Code:
* In the Sacrament of Baptism not only is the guilt of sin remitted, but also all the penalties attached to sin. In the Sacrament of Penance the guilt of sin is removed, and with it the eternal punishment due to mortal sin; but there still remains the temporal punishment required by Divine justice, and this requirement must be fulfilled either in the present life or in the world to come, i.e., in Purgatory. An indulgence offers the penitent sinner the means of discharging this debt during his life on earth.
* Some writs of indulgence—none of them, however, issued by any pope or council (Pesch, Tr. Dogm., VII, 196, no. 464)—contain the expression, "indulgentia a culpa et a poena", i.e. release from guilt and from punishment; and this has occasioned considerable misunderstanding (cf. Lea, "History" etc. III, 54 sqq.). The real meaning of the formula is that, indulgences presupposing the Sacrament of Penance, the penitent, after receiving sacramental absolution from the guilt of sin, is afterwards freed from the temporal penalty by the indulgence (Bellarmine, "De Indulg"., I, 7). In other words, sin is fully pardoned, i.e. its effects entirely obliterated, only when complete reparation, and consequently release from penalty as well as from guilt, has been made. Hence Clement V (1305-1314) condemned the practice of those purveyors of indulgences who pretended to absolve "a culpa et a poena" (Clement, I. v, tit. 9, c. ii); the Council of Constance (1418) revoked (Sess. XLII, n. 14) all indulgences containing the said formula; Benedict XIV (1740-1758) treats them as spurious indulgences granted in this form, which he ascribes to the illicit practices of the "quaestores" or purveyors (De Syn. dioeces., VIII, viii. 7).
* The satisfaction, usually called the "penance", imposed by the confessor when he gives absolution is an integral part of the Sacrament of Penance; an indulgence is extra-sacramental; it presupposes the effects obtained by confession, contrition, and sacramental satisfaction. It differs also from the penitential works undertaken of his own accord by the repentant sinner -- prayer, fasting, alms-giving -- in that these are personal and get their value from the merit of him who performs them, whereas an indulgence places at the penitent's disposal the merits of Christ and of the saints, which form the "Treasury" of the Church.
* An indulgence is valid both in the tribunal of the Church and
 
Well I’m happy to here you have the corrupt humans weeded out.
Can you please give me a short definition of the Indulgences. The Vatican library makes the one in congress look small. You know its as clear as mud:D 😃 😃 😃 😃 😃 ooohhh what a tanged web we weave.
Darn it it wont let me post the full 40958 characters just 6000 sorry, can you still give me the short definition without the whole thing?

Indulgences
tt=64

The word indulgence (Latin indulgentia, from indulgeo, to be kind or tender) originally meant kindness or favor; in post-classic Latin it came to mean the remission of a tax or debt. In Roman law and in the Vulgate of the Old Testament (Isaiah 61:1) it was used to express release from captivity or punishment. In theological language also the word is sometimes employed in its primary sense to signify the kindness and mercy of God. But in the special sense in which it is here considered, an indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been forgiven. Among the equivalent terms used in antiquity were pax, remissio, donatio, condonatio.
What an indulgence is not

To facilitate explanation, it may be well to state what an indulgence is not. It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer’s salvation or releases the soul of another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches on this subject.
What an indulgence is

An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God’s justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive. Regarding this definition, the following points are to be noted:
Code:
* In the Sacrament of Baptism not only is the guilt of sin remitted, but also all the penalties attached to sin. In the Sacrament of Penance the guilt of sin is removed, and with it the eternal punishment due to mortal sin; but there still remains the temporal punishment required by Divine justice, and this requirement must be fulfilled either in the present life or in the world to come, i.e., in Purgatory. An indulgence offers the penitent sinner the means of discharging this debt during his life on earth.
* Some writs of indulgence—none of them, however, issued by any pope or council (Pesch, Tr. Dogm., VII, 196, no. 464)—contain the expression, "indulgentia a culpa et a poena", i.e. release from guilt and from punishment; and this has occasioned considerable misunderstanding (cf. Lea, "History" etc. III, 54 sqq.). The real meaning of the formula is that, indulgences presupposing the Sacrament of Penance, the penitent, after receiving sacramental absolution from the guilt of sin, is afterwards freed from the temporal penalty by the indulgence (Bellarmine, "De Indulg"., I, 7). In other words, sin is fully pardoned, i.e. its effects entirely obliterated, only when complete reparation, and consequently release from penalty as well as from guilt, has been made. Hence Clement V (1305-1314) condemned the practice of those purveyors of indulgences who pretended to absolve "a culpa et a poena" (Clement, I. v, tit. 9, c. ii); the Council of Constance (1418) revoked (Sess. XLII, n. 14) all indulgences containing the said formula; Benedict XIV (1740-1758) treats them as spurious indulgences granted in this form, which he ascribes to the illicit practices of the "quaestores" or purveyors (De Syn. dioeces., VIII, viii. 7).
* The satisfaction, usually called the "penance", imposed by the confessor when he gives absolution is an integral part of the Sacrament of Penance; an indulgence is extra-sacramental; it presupposes the effects obtained by confession, contrition, and sacramental satisfaction. It differs also from the penitential works undertaken of his own accord by the repentant sinner -- prayer, fasting, alms-giving -- in that these are personal and get their value from the merit of him who performs them, whereas an indulgence places at the penitent's disposal the merits of Christ and of the saints, which form the "Treasury" of the Church.
* An indulgence is valid both in the tribunal of the Church and
I’d say that sums it up pretty well:)

Notice, how most “manuals” are pretty hard to understand when all you have is your own noggin’ eh?

Good thing God left us the Church so we didn’t just have to rely on our own human understanding to figure out the message “E-manual” came to show us 🙂
 
I love indulgences.👍 I thank God for them. I have a current copy of the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum published by the Holy See, so I don’t think I need a “refresher,” but thanks anyway. 😉

However, I think you are mixing up praying for the dead and asking angels and saints in heaven to pray for us. Both are pious Christian practices, but have very different purposes.
Check with the popoe I think you’ll find that he supports 2 Maccabees 44-45 as grounds for praying to the dead although its such a shame you no longer collect money for them, bad corrupt greedy popes, just cant trust anyone.
 
Check with the popoe I think you’ll find that he supports 2 Maccabees 44-45 as grounds for praying to the dead …
As do I. [correction…that grounds for prayer FOR the dead]. However, this thread it about asking saints in heaven to pray for us. Are you aware you are off-topic or are you just confused?
 
You argument that Mary was sinless from birth doesn’t hold water.
If God was willing to make Mary sinless from conception he could just as well done the same for anyone or everyone / outside of Jesus.
Indeed! Except that no one else was His mother,and he drew His flesh from no other.
The Bible says that all mankind fell into sin from Adam and Eve. It also teaches that no one receives salvation except threw Christ. There for Jesus would have never been needed to leave his Father if someone else could have taken Gods Son place. Or everyone could have received the special privilege that Mary did and never sin.
It is true that all of us suffer the consequences of the sin of the fall. We are also in agreement that all salvation comes through Christ. God could have chosen to save us (or not) any way He wanted. He chose to enter the womb of Mary, and become man.

Yes, I think everyone could have received the same special privilige as Mary, but we did not. Shall the clay say unto the potter, why has thou made me thus?
If you insist on a special privileged Mary I say you teach a different Gospel than Christ.
YOu certainly have the right to say whatever you wish. That does not make it so! Anyway, it is not Catholics who “insist” on this. It was God that gave Mary special privilege.
One that looks more like Isis and Horus.
Is revelation now in the eye of the beholder?
No where does the Bible say that Jesus would be born from a sinless virgin. Instead it says that all have sinned. Rom 3-23 If Mary was sinless she was no daughter of Adam, and has no part in the promise to Eve. And here is my testimony.
Mary is Woman as God created her to be, and from her untainted flesh He took His own.
Gen 3-15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel."
To us, emnity means that they have no part in one another.
 
I’d say that sums it up pretty well:)

Notice, how most “manuals” are pretty hard to understand when all you have is your own noggin’ eh?

Good thing God left us the Church so we didn’t just have to rely on our own human understanding to figure out the message “E-manual” came to show us 🙂
Only the RCC could turn the bible into millions of volumes of legislation, you should prolly take your lawyer with you to church. Let me see what did Jesus say about the Pharisees, oh ya they heap great loads up but they themselves wont lift one finger. Yep thats the church.
 
Only the RCC could turn the bible into millions of volumes of legislation, you should prolly take your lawyer with you to church. Let me see what did Jesus say about the Pharisees, oh ya they heap great loads up but they themselves wont lift one finger. Yep thats the church.
This is not only not true, but, your tone is not charitable.
I’d say that sums it up pretty well:)

Notice, how most “manuals” are pretty hard to understand when all you have is your own noggin’ eh?

Good thing God left us the Church so we didn’t just have to rely on our own human understanding to figure out the message “E-manual” came to show us 🙂
Lest we do it manualy.
 
To us, emnity means that they have no part in one another.
You know a trademark for a cult is to take words and apply there own meaning. I guess we need a catholic dictionary now to support your position. 😛 😛 😛
 
Code:
   I’m finding it interesting and especially in this thread as to what may lie behind the desire or need to have to go to/through Mary in order to approach Jesus…and the different understanding of what the Church actually teaches.
I don’ t think it is possible for a person to understand this who rejects the role given to Mary by Christ. 🤷

I think it is something for the faithful that is apprehended by faith.
Nothing is compelling me to criticize your spiritual practices, but if questions are posted to me, I should reply shouldn’t I?
You say you are here to learn and understand a phenomenon that seems peculiar to you, and yet, you seem to take every and all opportunities to bash our faith,and find fault with others’ private prayer lives. 🤷
If I don’t – I will be accused of not responding because I don’t know what to say –
I think it would be much more Christlike and courteous to say “I don’t know what to say”. Have you ever heard the saying “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything”? Is is really true that you heart is so full of negativity that you cannot respond to the postings without that critical and pejorative tone?
if I do – I will be asked “what compels me to criticize your spiritual practices”. To be perfectly honest…I’d just like to stop now and see what OTHER posters actually post, with regards to the “thread question”. Other opinions and insights.
Ok. Somehow I can’t help but think if you stop posting your slamming comments here, they will come out somewhere else.
I was referring to your own stories about how her body – dead - was placed in a tomb…and then later….when they went back…they couldn’t find it….and it was announced that Mary was assumed into heaven.

Or is this something that’s not true – she never died at all – just was assumed alive into heaven?
Since there were no eyewitnesses, no one can say for sure. All we know is that her body was gone. I would assume that she died, or they thought she died or they would not have enclosed her in a tomb. 🤷

In the East, it is called the Dormition, a state that could scarcely be called death, just like the little girl, about which He said “she is not dead, but sleeping”. Yet, it was clear they all thought she was dead.
The “Trinity” and “hypostatic union” – are outlined in the scriptures as you know – and as for the canon of the NT – God works through wonderful, faithful people, in all churches/denominations – and I’m grateful for that! As for the Sabbath on Sunday – every day is God’s Day…doesn’t matter to me.
They are all examples of extra biblical Sacred Tradition. And no, these are not evident by the scriptures themselves. The Arians, Gnostics, Mormons, and other heretical sects use the same scriptures we do, with a different result.

God wroking through the faithful people is the essence of Sacred Tradition.
Oh! I’m sorry……please show me where Jesus and Paul referred to Maccabees?
See that sarcastic tone? That’s what I was talking about. Whey don’t we take that to another thread?
I’ve already stated why it bothers me – people get misled and their faith is no longer based in Christ.
Ok, we are all in agreement on that point. Why must you find fault with the Catholic Church as a way of grinding your axe? Do you hold the Church responsible for the fact that your loved ones have gone over the top?
 
itsjustdave1988;4369384]
originally Posted by justasking4
Where has the Catholic church infallibly interpret this verse?
itsjustdave
The intent of the Sacred Author was not that Holy Writ should be taught in bits and pieces as you imply. The Bible should be understood as a whole, in the context of all the other passages of Sacred Scripture, and also in the context of the tradition (Gk “paradosis”) of Christ’s Church. Thus, any “official commentary” on the deposit of faith should present what Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition teach as a whole. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is that kind of commentary. You can read it online here: Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The catechism does not pretend to be the infallible interpreter of Scripture. It is about the doctrines and practices of the Catholic church. The problem you have as a catholic is that you cannot rely on your church to tell you what a specific verse means since it has never infallibly interpreted the Scriptures.
That the Psalmist really is asking (praying, requesting) all of God’s creation to “bless the Lord” is clear from the words he wrote. Nobody need pretend otherwise for polemical purposes.
We know the Psalmist does not mean his words to be taken literally since he knew as we do that the moon and the sun are not living things that can do such a thing. It is a figure of speech and not to be taken literally.
He was not pagan in asking the angels, saints, the moon, the stars, and all of God’s creation to bless the Lord. To conclude otherwise is simply unBiblical. It is also unBiblical to conclude that today, it is wrong for Christians to request angels and saints to pray for them.
The Bible supports asking other Christians to pray for them. There is no exception for Christians in heaven, despite the desperate attempts to state otherwise. This fact seems to be unanswered by any verse from those who wish it were not so.
There is no exhortation or teaching in the Scriptures that exhort believers to pray to deceased saints or prophets etc. The only appropriate prayer is to God alone. Asking other Christians in this world to pray for you is right and proper since the Scriptures teach this. What the Scriptures do not teach is praying to deceased Christians. There is no exhortation to do that kind of thing.
Which is probably why many so-called “Bible alone” Christians who are not Catholic also ask angels and saints in heaven to pray for them.
What “Bible alone” Christians are you referring to? I’m not aware of any.
If you can’t convince your fellow “Bible alone” Christians then why do you think you have a solid argument against this pious Christian practice?
This “pious Christian practice” of praying to saints and angels is unbiblical for the mere fact the Lord Jesus nor His apostles ever taught such a thing.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top