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.
The Apostles warned the early Christians to “hold fast” to the gospel they had heard from them and not to accept “any other gospel”.

Jesus Himself, after the resurrection made sure they knew the “truth” and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost made sure they knew the “truth” and what was necessary for man’s salvation.
In what way is the message not the same today as it was then?

What and who has changed it?

Who are we to approach and turn too……Mary or Jesus?
And who was in the room at Pentecost? When does the Holy Spirit come?

The Holy Spirit comes when the Eleven are "together with the women and with Mary, the mother of Jesus, and his brothers . . . " In other words, the Holy Spirit comes when the Church is gathered in prayer, *with Mary. *

Catholics and the Orthodox understand that “the Church” is found where the Eleven are found (bishops descended in spiritual succession from the Apostles) and where Our Lady is found. The Holy Spirit overshadowed her so that her flesh would become the flesh of God in what amounts to a fruitful, spousal union. She holds a privileged place in the heart of God.

When we say the Apostles’ Creed, we say that we “believe in Jesus Christ, Our Lord, who was *conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.” *So it is also in our hearts and in the Church that Jesus is “conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.” They are never separated. The Gospel of Luke calls Mary, “kecharitomene”: full of grace. As at the Annunciation, she is now.
 
Not what they originally set out…which was what was necessary for a person’s salvation and obedience and steadfastness in faith. They taught that all true and faithful and obedient believers of the gospel message could obtain salvation – and had become members of His body and would receive the Holy Spirit. They never taught that you must belong to the “Catholic church” in order to receive His Graces that can only be dispensed by them in order to be considered “valid” – they never taught that you must believe in any Marian Dogmas. These are just a couple.
They DID teach that one must be baptized. They DID teach that there was one Church.
His Apostles established the very early church and laid out how it should be set up and what should be taught/preached…and warned that there would be false teachers then…and in the future and to not veer away from the gospel message that they had been taught.
Yes. And even Paul, with all of his self-confidence made sure that what he was preaching – taught by revelation from Christ Himself – was “the same gospel” as that preached by the eyewitnesses.

Even Scripture shows that not all that would be needed would be known from the day of Pentecost. If it were, we would not need the persistent presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

Church governance under Bishops, Presbyters (from which our world “priest” derives) and Deacons was established early. One would look for that form of governance in any church that purported to be authentically Christ’s.
 
The Apostles in all likelihood would have occasionally went to Mary as the Mother of Christ who they loved, honored and cared for very deeply for comfort and I am sure at times for advice while maintaining a direct reverence for our Lord WHOM THEY KNEW PERSONALLY WERE TAUGHT BY AND WORSHIPED TO THE POINT OF MARTYRDOM.😃

as I explained to you before in this effort;
If our Lord Jesus were to stand before each of us in regard to this, I am quite confident of His displeasure. Isn’t it realistic to believe that our Lord would voice Himself in a manner such as this?

…How DARE you express a denial of honor showing disrespect to My mother whom I Myself loved, honored and respected from the beginning. The woman so blessed by My Heavenly Father to be chosen from all human kind as my mother and who’s very blood I share. My mother, who my Apostles loved and respected as their own in my absence until she rejoined me in my Father’s house. You, who show honor to women for being the mothers of your fallen one’s, your men so blessed from Heaven with their God given talents in sports, military, peace making and alike. Yet you refuse to show honor to this Blessed Virgin who birthed me? …As though less due honor and respect than those you pay honor to… Continue to deny My mother of due respect and honor, mocking and judging others for doing so and learn the path you choose. For the honor showed to My mother will never be as deep as what I hold for her but what you can and should offer in her honor is reflective of even more Honor and Worship to Me…

posted by TWB1621
Do you really believe Jesus would not want you to honor His mother for being His earthly mother? Shame Shame:tsktsk:
posted by Leean:

posted by Leeann
Or perhaps like this?

How DARE you tamper with the “gospel message”…

Posted by TWB1621
“tamper with the gospel message?” how many books are in your Bible and how many interpretations in your Bible have come through with thousands of years?😛

To explain it simply, the Catholic faith does not worship the Blessed Virgin but we certainly do honor Her with the respect befitting the Holy Mother of Jesus Christ. She is at times referred to as the “Queen of Heaven” based on recorded history and The Old Testament of The Holy Bible, which attests to the fact that the mother of a king held the seat of Queen and sat at his right hand with the highest position of influence to the king. Jesus is the King of Heaven. The blood of the Blessed Virgin flowed through the veins of our Lord just as the Blood of our Lord flowed through the veins of His Mother during Her pregnancy. As Jesus Christ is Her Son and the King of Heaven according to Scripture, and in testament to the fact that He brought all things of the Old Testament to fulfillment, to contradict Her position as the Queen of Heaven would be to contradict the word of our heavenly Father in the Old Testament itself. And do we not honor the mothers of our fallen soldiers, policeman and others? Of course we do.

Too much explaining is necessary. 🤷
 
While I understand and admire your passion, I have to read this and shake my head.

“I am Spirit and am to be worshipped in Spirit. How DARE you try and confine Me to your one “church”. What kind of word is “dogma” anyway”

Where does Christ ask us to worship him only in spirit? Did he dwell among us as spirit, or as flesh?

And do you really believe Christ would speak like this? “What kind of word is dogma anyway???” This is not the loving language of our Lord:(
ok, I am confused. Who are you responding to please:shrug:
 
Again in Rev.8:3-4 it does not say “the saints in Heaven” it refers to the prayers of the saints – Christians living and praying on earth are “saints” …

By the fourth century, the Catholic church was well on its way from being the true church that the Apostles had established.

Peace,
Tom (If I become too zealous, just smack me):slapfight:

Just kidding! 🙂
ok, but why are you smacking me and who is tomaszA, I am confused again
 
Do you not believe that we will all have the same Will as God once we are with Him?
We will be more free. On earth we may choose sin, once in heaven we will not choose sin. Our wills are set once we are dead.
Thank you for these quotations – all taught by the Catholic church – but never mentioned by Jesus himself or any of His Apostles as they taught the pure and true “gospel message” for the salvation of all mankind.
I am sorry but how do you know that? I mean where did the bible come from? And is the bible the only source for these items?
The question still stands to whom would the Apostles point……Mary or Jesus?
They would look to Christ’s vicar on earth and follow his authority in such matters, as we all should today. BTW, does Mary ever lead anyone away from her Son?
 
Again in Rev.8:3-4 it does not say “the saints in Heaven” it refers to the prayers of the saints – Christians living and praying on earth are “saints” …
Judgment occurs at earthly death and sin is possible up to that point in time

By the fourth century, the Catholic church was well on its way from being the true church that the Apostles had established.
How so and by what do you refer to in your statement so I may respond as accurately as reasonably possible? :rolleyes:
Peace,
Tom (If I become too zealous, just smack me):slapfight:

Just kidding! 🙂
 
You state that Mary was “preserved, saved from the stain of original sin” which “makes her unique in all of God’s creation” and then go on to state that “she is a created person, a child of God.” We who believe are all “children of God” are we not.
As for being the “perfect model for us of Christian love”, how can you say she is a perfect model for us – “normal” human beings - (meaning not “unique” as you describe Mary as having been) if she was already “unique” (by no means of her own) – what kind of example is that for us to attain too…by your definition…she had a “head start”.

We believe this is possible because, mary, like us was daughter of our Lord. But because of His grace (not of her own doing) He chose to save her, from the moment of her conception from the stain of original sin. Mary shows us perfectly what it means to live a life of holiness, working and cooperating with God through faith, in her salvation.
Do you doubt the power of God? Even the angel declared that mary was 'full of grace." How could she have been thus, if she hadn’t already recieved salvation? There are also signs pointing to this attribute of our blessed mother, pre dated in the old testament. When we see Mary, as the ark of the new covenant (Christ.)

Her “humanity” was what God desired to bring into fulfillment the plan of Jesus being both human and God while He walked this earth.

The Catholic church teachings have all but stripped her of that “humanity” that God so wanted and in place has taught that Mary herself was ‘holy’ before she was born – in the “dogma” of the “Immaculate Conception”.

On the contrary, the catholic church teaches us that Mary was a perfect model for us, of how to love our Lord. She said “yes” to God’s plan for her. She continued to say “yes” to Christ “do whatever he tells you.” And she shared with Christ’s sufferngs on the cross “And your heart a sword will pierce.” Just as we should unite our sufferings to the cross of Christ.

The “dogma” of the immaculate conception was not officially proclaimed as dogma until it was contested by heresies. Often in church history, tradition will continue without an official document, and when the need arises to “re-state” what the church’s position has always been on a subject, the pope will proclaim it as dogma. Again, our marian doctrines are not essential for salvation…I think you confuse the Traditions we practice as means of working out our salvation, with those smaller traditions we hold dear as optional ways of growing in faith and love.

As any normal, human mother would.

Any, normal human mother, would not be carrying the perfect, fully human, fully divine child Christ. As the perfect, loving creator, would it not stand to reason that Christ would also perfectly obey all of God’s/his commandments? One being that we are to honor our mother and father? We are to emulate Christ and honor his mother as he would. And he truly did, give us mary. As the mother of Christ, she became the mother of all Christians. “Woman, behold your son. And he gazed at His disciples, 'Behold, your mother.”

Why?

We believe that Mary was perfectly united to Christ, in the flesh. As his mother, she participated with him in his work on earth. She did not share his divine nature, but as Christ is fully human and fully divine, she became forever tied to Christ, the son:)

But there is no need to do so in the first place.
Code:
Perhaps to some, they would not see a need to do so. But please understand the perspective that has been handed down to us from Christ through the apostles.  Christ loved his mother, and   God had favor for Mary. We strive to emulate Christ, and what better way to show our love for him, than to honor the mother whom He loved?  Mary is the only perfect model in all of history of perfect love for Christ.  To understand how to love Christ, as created children of God, we would have a lot to learn from His mother:)
Thank you AshleyBelle, I sincerely appreciate your comments and (name removed by moderator)ut. 🙂
As for the 'queen of heaven" this is also a title that the church has given to Mary for many, many years. It is in reference to Revelation. It does not say “Mary.” But it says a woman in heaven, with a crown on her head of twelve stars. We believe that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven to be with her son, and that this passage is speaking directly of her.
 
Perhaps the “needs” that you are experiencing, are based on what you may be lacking in your relationship to the Lord.
Everything that is sinful in me blocks my relationship with the Lord, and I will admit that I am a sinner. I multiple ways I let selfishness hinder my love for God and my love for neighbour. I have also seen some of the most convicted and on fire Christians display the most egotistical and destructive habits and tendencies you could imagine. I’m sure they are aware of their own sinfulness, but I certainly would not rely on them for prayers. The ones I would turn to for prayers are those who have let the light of Christ fully penetrate their soul and clean them from all sins. These are the people who know how to take up their cross daily. In a word, these are the ones who know how to love God about all things and love their neighbours as themselves. I look to these examples of Christian humility and faith, and I turn to them for their prayers for my intercession.
A very personal and real relationship, that fulfills those needs, when you place your faith and hope in Him
The issue I have with this is that I see Christ acting in my life through the mediation of others all the time. Especially through others that are more filled with the Holy Spirit than I am. I trust these people, often more than I trust myself. Because I can often deceive myself concerning the will of God because of my sinfulness. In short, these people are a source of Grace for me because they mediate the grace that Christ has poured into their lives to me.
and the Holy Spirit within you will direct and enable you to do His Will.
Don’t you think that the more people you have praying for you, the more powerfully you will be able to fulfil God’s will through the Holy Spirit?
More time spent in direct communication with HIM, will bring all the necessary inspiration to want to obey and follow Him.
Amen. But I would also include time spent with the saints, including Paul, Mary, Joseph, etc… because I know that they are powerful in the Lord. I may also relate to aspects of their lives and the way God’s grace has transformed them. For example, my wife may sometimes pray to Mary while she is pregnant because Mary was pregnant. There are certain saints that inspire me because they lived similar lives than I did, or I am more attracted to their character. The one thing all of these people have in common is that they point me to the Lord. They help me cleave to him better.

Luke, Marc, Matthew, and John also help me do this through the Gospels they wrote. I would not know Christ but through them.

God bless,
Ut
 
Not what they originally set out…which was what was necessary for a person’s salvation and obedience and steadfastness in faith. They taught that all true and faithful and obedient believers of the gospel message could obtain salvation – and had become members of His body and would receive the Holy Spirit. They never taught that you must belong to the “Catholic church” in order to receive His Graces that can only be dispensed by them in order to be considered “valid” – they never taught that you must believe in any Marian Dogmas. These are just a couple.

So, if I’m understanding, the apostles taught what is essential? Can you point me to a reference of their teaching what is considered essential and what is non essential in the faith?
I’m not sure if I understand what your’e saying about “could obtain salvation.” Are you suggesting that they had to do something to “get” it?
And as for belonging to the “Catholic church” of course they didn’t need to teach that. The only Christian church was THE Catholic church.
And what were they using to teach? Was it the Bible?

Also, as for dispensing graces, Do you believe that they performed baptisms? 🙂

His Apostles established the very early church and laid out how it should be set up and what should be taught/preached…and warned that there would be false teachers then…and in the future and to not veer away from the gospel message that they had been taught.

So, the apostles knew very early on, what parts of the Bible were inspired and worthy of teaching?

Did or did not what?
I was asking, how do we know from the Bible that the apostles did or did not establish ONE true church? And how do we know it is not the Catholic church, if so?
 
Originally Posted by Leeann
Regarding my “quote” above - **what part of the “gospel message” that they preached and taught with regards to the salvation of people – **where was Mary brought into that message – the need of believing in the Marian dogmas? – the need of praying to her or honoring her to the extent of dedicating the “world” to her??? Could you please help me out here and indicate more specifically when these important events occurred?
mercygate:
The Marian dogmas arise early in Church history as a result of the heresies arising from the 2nd through the 4th centuries that challenged and denied either Our Lord’s humanity or His divinity.

For example, the declaration of Our Lady as “Theotokos,” “Mother of God” – which all mainline Protestants accept to this very day – in 431 A.D. settled the matter once and for all that Jesus was both divine and human and that he was truly born of a woman . . . The title, “Mother of God,” dogmatizes what was understood by the Church from the beginning but insufficiently delineated in Scripture alone (as we can see in modern times with the JWs and Mormons).

Our Lord promised to the Eleven (only the Eleven were in the room) at his farewell discourse that He would send ‘another paraclete who will guide you into all the truth’ and again, at His Ascension, with the Great Commission, he gave to the Eleven the mission of “teaching.”

From Scripture we see that “all the truth” is not always known from the beginning – for example, the Jerusalem council in Acts shows us that the Holy Spirit guided the struggling Church to define the relationship between the Old Covenant and the New as the Church expanded into the gentile world.
Yes, I’ve stated before I’ve never had a problem with the first dogma – Mother of God – due to the reasons of why it was brought into being, it’s the following ones that have surfaced.

With regards to your last paragraph, that is true - but by doing so, **the “gospel message” of salvation itself **was not altered in any way.

Thank you mercygate.
 
So would that be Mary…or Jesus?
They were overjoyed at seeing the star, and on entering the house they saw the child with Mary his mother. They prostrated themselves and did him homage.
Matthew 2, 10-11


Catholics approach Jesus on his terms, not those of an individual competent-soul. The infant Church in Palestine perceived Mary’s powerful intercessory role and turned to her for her prayers even while she was still alive for about fifteen years after Jesus’ ascension into heaven. The narrative of the Wedding Feast in Cana clearly reveals the Church’s early belief in Mary’s position as advocate to the people of God. The Church in Palestine consisted of Jewish converts who were conversant with and sensible of the powerful mediatorial position of the Queen Mother between her son, the king, and his subjects in the ancient Davidic kingdom. It was practically natural for them to make a connection and see Mary as a type of Gebirah just as David and Solomon were seen as prefigurements of the King of kings.

Of course, you prefer something more explicit than typology, since you lack the analogical sense when approaching the scriptures from a literal perspective. Moreover, in your narrow focus on the written word you are blind to the allegorical and anagogical significance of the wedding feast story in John’s gospel. We mustn’t expect anything as explicit as you’d like it to be in the New Testament. In Scripture and in the Apostolic Tradition of the infant Church in Palestine attention was rightfully and primarily focussed on our Lord and Saviour. The New Testament was written with the intention of establishing the divine primacy of Christ and the purpose and fulfillment of his earthly mission. This goal took precedence over establishing any secondary corresponding devotion to Mary in the economy of salvation. However, the acknowledgement of Mary’s unique position as Mother of God and Mother of the Church and devotion to her began to gel in apostolic times in the traditional beliefs of the infant Church (Lk 1:28, 34, 35, 42, 43-44, 45, 46-49; 2:35; 11:28; Jn 2: 3-5; 19: 26-27; Rev 12:1, 17). The Church Fathers took and carried the torch by further articulating Marian devotion as mediated through the Sacred Tradition of the Apostolic Catholic Church.

Leeann, above you claim that the Catholic Church strayed from the pure apostolic teachings of the infant Church at some point in the 4th century with regard to the Church’s Marian doctrines and devotions. I thought you knew by now, from the sources I provided in other threads, that Mary was invoked as the New Eve and Mother of the Church as early as the beginning of the second century shown in the writings of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus. I do recall you complained about having been given quotes of the early Church Fathers. I suppose they prick at your religious pride and offend your misguided zeal.

Anyway, traditional belief in Mary as Queen Mother of the Church evidently existed by the time of the great Roman persecutions. In the catacombs at Rome (of St. Agnes and St. Priscilla) there are extant frescoes of Mary that depict early Christian belief in her royal privilege and powerful intercessory role. A notable frescoe is the ‘Onans’ (the woman in prayer), and there is an image of Mary seated above Peter and Paul with her arms outstretched to both of them as an advocate to the Church. These two apostles together have always symbolized the Church. The persecuted Christians prayerfully turned to our Blessed Mother in their distress. Do you dare criticize them as well?

“Under your mercy we take refuge, O Mother of God.
Do not reject our supplications in necessity,
but deliver us from danger, O you alone pure and alone blessed.”
Sub Tuum Praesidium (c.A.D. 250)


PAX :tiphat:
 
40.png
Leeann:
Yes, I’ve stated before I’ve never had a problem with the first dogma – Mother of God – due to the reasons of why it was brought into being, it’s the following ones that have surfaced.

With regards to your last paragraph, that is true - but by doing so, **the “gospel message” of salvation itself **was not altered in any way.

Thank you mercygate.
Nor is the Gospel message n any way altered by the Marian dogmas. They illuminate the Person of Jesus Christ.
 
Nor is the Gospel message n any way altered by the Marian dogmas. They illuminate the Person of Jesus Christ.
I like your quote by Frank Sheed. It’s about the Person of Jesus Christ. I talked with a Presbyterian last Saturday who told me that he believed Jesus was only divine and not fully human as well - because he was too perfect to be human. Another Presbyterian on this site claimed that Jesus had a sinful nature, suggesting this as a reason why Mary could not have been immaculately conceived. Now how on earth do our Marian doctrines impugn the all-sufficiency of Christ? 🤷
 
I like your quote by Frank Sheed. It’s about the Person of Jesus Christ. I talked with a Presbyterian last Saturday who told me that he believed Jesus was only divine and not fully human as well - because he was too perfect to be human. Another Presbyterian on this site claimed that Jesus had a sinful nature, suggesting this as a reason why Mary could not have been immaculately conceived. Now how on earth do our Marian doctrines impugn the all-sufficiency of Christ? 🤷
Well, all this shows is that Catholics are not the only ones who do not know their own theology. Presbyterians do NOT believe that Jesus was “too perfect to be human” nor do they believe that he had a sinful nature.
 
I like your quote by Frank Sheed. It’s about the Person of Jesus Christ. I talked with a Presbyterian last Saturday who told me that he believed Jesus was only divine and not fully human as well - because he was too perfect to be human. Another Presbyterian on this site claimed that Jesus had a sinful nature, suggesting this as a reason why Mary could not have been immaculately conceived. Now how on earth do our Marian doctrines impugn the all-sufficiency of Christ? 🤷
If I recall there was a early christian heresy,either Arianism or something else that believed Jesus was just a spirit, and took on the appearance of a human being, but also wasnot human.Jesus Christ,as Son of God and a part of God the Father had no sinful nature,this is some lie, but where this person got the idea I don’t know.
 
Good Fella;4353143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeann
So would that be Mary…or Jesus?
Good Fella;
They were overjoyed at seeing the star, and on entering the house they saw the child with Mary his mother. They prostrated themselves and did him homage.
Matthew 2, 10-11
Catholics approach Jesus on his terms, not those of an individual competent-soul. The infant Church in Palestine perceived Mary’s powerful intercessory role and turned to her for her prayers even while she was still alive for about fifteen years after Jesus’ ascension into heaven.
Do you have some reference for your claim here that “The infant Church in Palestine perceived Mary’s powerful intercessory role and turned to her for her prayers even while she was still alive for about fifteen years after Jesus’ ascension into heaven”?
Are you referring to Acts 1:14 or something else?
The narrative of the Wedding Feast in Cana clearly reveals the Church’s early belief in Mary’s position as advocate to the people of God. The Church in Palestine consisted of Jewish converts who were conversant with and sensible of the powerful mediatorial position of the Queen Mother between her son, the king, and his subjects in the ancient Davidic kingdom. It was practically natural for them to make a connection and see Mary as a type of Gebirah just as David and Solomon were seen as prefigurements of the King of kings.
Is this your opinion or is there some kind of support for this?
Of course, you prefer something more explicit than typology, since you lack the analogical sense when approaching the scriptures from a literal perspective. Moreover, in your narrow focus on the written word you are blind to the allegorical and anagogical significance of the wedding feast story in John’s gospel. We mustn’t expect anything as explicit as you’d like it to be in the New Testament. In Scripture and in the Apostolic Tradition of the infant Church in Palestine attention was rightfully and primarily focussed on our Lord and Saviour. The New Testament was written with the intention of establishing the divine primacy of Christ and the purpose and fulfillment of his earthly mission. This goal took precedence over establishing any secondary corresponding devotion to Mary in the economy of salvation. However, the acknowledgement of Mary’s unique position as Mother of God and Mother of the Church and devotion to her began to gel in apostolic times in the traditional beliefs of the infant Church (Lk 1:28, 34, 35, 42, 43-44, 45, 46-49; 2:35; 11:28; Jn 2: 3-5; 19: 26-27; Rev 12:1, 17). The Church Fathers took and carried the torch by further articulating Marian devotion as mediated through the Sacred Tradition of the Apostolic Catholic Church.
Are you saying that they were already thinking of her as some kind of mediator between them and Christ?
Leeann, above you claim that the Catholic Church strayed from the pure apostolic teachings of the infant Church at some point in the 4th century with regard to the Church’s Marian doctrines and devotions. I thought you knew by now, from the sources I provided in other threads, that Mary was invoked as the New Eve and Mother of the Church as early as the beginning of the second century shown in the writings of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus. I do recall you complained about having been given quotes of the early Church Fathers. I suppose they prick at your religious pride and offend your misguided zeal.
Do Justin Martyr, Ignatius and Irenaeus speak for the entire church at this time or were these just there own private opinions? The reason i’m asking is that i thought it were the councils and later popes who determined what the church believes and not individuals. Am i correct?
Anyway, traditional belief in Mary as Queen Mother of the Church evidently existed by the time of the great Roman persecutions. In the catacombs at Rome (of St. Agnes and St. Priscilla) there are extant frescoes of Mary that depict early Christian belief in her royal privilege and powerful intercessory role. A notable frescoe is the ‘Onans’ (the woman in prayer), and there is an image of Mary seated above Peter and Paul with her arms outstretched to both of them as an advocate to the Church. These two apostles together have always symbolized the Church. The persecuted Christians prayerfully turned to our Blessed Mother in their distress. Do you dare criticize them as well?
What is written on a wall in the catacombs does mean the entire church believed this. That would be like people who see Mary in glass window stain is offical Catholic teaching.
“Under your mercy we take refuge, O Mother of God.
Do not reject our supplications in necessity,
but deliver us from danger, O you alone pure and alone blessed.”
Sub Tuum Praesidium (c.A.D. 250)
Are we to take this as the offical teaching of the entire church at the time?
 
As I posted and stated previously – James wrote to those early Christians who were being persecuted and instructed them to encourage and support one another and instructed them to call on the elders to pray for them for healing – I believe he was inspired by the HS to do so – so I don’t believe that Jesus was offended by this at all….having His followers support and pray for one another as they struggled here on earth.
I still don’t get why calling on others to pray on your behalf is ok? Why not just pray to Jesus directly?
In regards to the way the Pope was praying – directly to her and stating that if she wouldn’t help us…to whom are we to turn ??? – it certainly takes on a different meaning.
When you call on others to pray for you you call on them directly, there’s no other way to do it. If God doesn’t hear the voice of those more righteous than you, then what hope do you really have in your petition ever being answered?
But he didn’t.
There is no human more righteous than Mary so her prayer is the most powerful and she ought to be called on for praying on our behalf.
What do you mean by “Mary doesn’t exclude Jesus, it requires Him.”?
Without Jesus trying to intercede with Mary is fruitless. Intercession always requires Jesus.
 
The phrase “pray to Jesus” – I should have stated – “pray through Him” directly to the Father in His name – does that help any tomaszA – meaning going to Him directly to pray – no need of others in heaven to intercede.Of course if you are “praising Him” directly, one might consider that “prayer to Jesus”.
Is there a need to call on elders to pray to Jesus on your behalf? Well, not an absolute need, that is, not like an intercessor is a requirement by which Jesus wont answer your prayer. But we know calling on others to pray can be more effective than relying on ourselves, so in this sense there can be a relative need to call on others.
But we also see that it is “the twenty four elders” – no indication that these prayers were given to the angels by those in heaven that simply heard them.
Rev 5: 8 (Douay Rheims online)
8 And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and **the four and twenty ancients **fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints:
Interestingly enough – in the commentary below this verse it reads:
*8 “The prayers of saints”… Here we see that the saints in heaven offer up to Christ the prayers of the faithful upon earth. *However, there is no indication whatsoever – that the “four and twenty ancients” are
“the saints in heaven” - however this how it is interpreted and taught by the Catholic church. By the way, how many “Saints”, according to the Catholic church that can be prayed too, are there in heaven now – more than 24?
How do you interpret the part about the elders offering our prayers to God?

Doesn’t this whole scene seem unnecessary? Can’t these prayers be delivered to God directly?

Does this prove the reality of heavenly intercession?
But no where is this revealed as being a “fact”.
I’m not sure this is the case but how do you explain the fact that the elder can deliver our prayers to God? They must be made aware of it somehow.
I hate to say this, but there is no evidence at all that the “countless miracles” are attributed to the ones in heaven. There are other sources that can produce “countless miracles” – even seemingly good ones – in order to delude – and distract from the worship of God.
A house divided can not stand.
I was late posting my replies with regards to James5 and about the type of intercession and why it was recommended amongst the Christians that were being persecuted – for support and encouragement amongst themselves – and the same holds true for us today. James 5 doesn’t mention intercession to ones who are in heaven.
So James tells us to call on others as oppose to calling on Jesus directly for support and encouragement amongst ourselves?
 
Well, all this shows is that Catholics are not the only ones who do not know their own theology. Presbyterians do NOT believe that Jesus was “too perfect to be human” nor do they believe that he had a sinful nature.
Individual Presbyterians do though they may be at odds with their own denomination’s confession of faith. The point is some people I’ve met, including evangelicals, can never accept our Marian doctrines because of their misconceptions about the Person of Jesus. Keep in mind that Protestants refuse to believe in Mary’s sinlessness because they are convinced that only Jesus could aspire to such moral perfection: “All have sinned.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top