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

[Tantum_ergo]

I find it rather amusing that posters demanding that Catholics provide ‘clear proof’ of apostolic teaching rather than ‘inferences’ are themselves guilty of assumption and inference. In fact, there is more evidence of the truth of Catholic teaching (especially that of the catacombs not to mention 1500 years of consistent and unified Christian teaching before the reformation–and not even its original leaders at that–‘changed’ the teaching) than there is to support the protestant assertions.

Or do the protestants making the claim have a heretofore undiscovered book containing all the sermons of all the apostles so that they can provide ‘clear proof’ that the apostles never spoke of the teaching that Catholics profess?

Until they present such a ‘clear proof’, their assertions remain simply that–assertions. While Catholics, on the other hand, have indeed provided clear proof of the consistency of the teachings and their support by Scripture.

 

[Leeann]

Good Daughter:
In answer to my question, “If someone was studying 20thC American architecture, where would you point them…to the great work of Frank Lloyd Wright, or…to Frank Lloyd Wright?”, you responded:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeann
…I would point to “Frank Lloyd Wright”…

Yes…but the answer above I gave, was in response to the “analogy” you yourself set up, pertaining to the thread topic question, which when seen as originally posted by you, is quite intricate in it’s nature.
Now in *this *post, you say I didn’t answer your question – but in *this *post it is stated just as a “straight out question” about American architecture. Based on the way it is posted *this *time, I would have to agree with what you state below – in relation to “architecture”.

Good Daughter

That would result in a woefully incomplete study.(of architecture) Total theory. No show and all tell.

It is impossible to appreciate the genius of FLW(Frank Lloyd Wright) without a thorough understanding of his work. It is the creation that best reveals the creator.

I disagree, I can “appreciate” the genius of his work without having to have a “thorough understanding of it”. Don’t forget your own words from the previous post - "the creation is but a “*pale shadow *of the creator”.

Good Daughter:
Getting back to your OP, no one suggests pointing to Mary for salvation.

Yes….but that is not what the thread topic is about.

Good Daughter:

I think though, that Catholics are focused on something slightly different while on earth and that is relationship. My relationship with God is the number one reason for my existence. In my desire to know, love and serve Him, I never tire of studying His “great work”.

And that is wonderful, something that many Non-Catholics, do also, (I wouldn’t attempt to speak for all of them) however since their relationship with God **is **the focus of their desire they realize that by coming to Him directly, in love and faith, with all their desires and concerns and focus itself centered on Him, that they are serving and obeying Him and doing His Will.

Good Daughter:

How many sunsets can you get lost in admiring before you’ve placed **too much emphasis on sunsets **and not enough on God? Silly question, right?

Not a silly question at all, in fact it is one that some Catholics should be asking themselves quite often.

 

[Leeann]

Welcome back Non Serviam!

 

[Non_Serviam]

I find it rather amusing that posters demanding that Catholics provide ‘clear proof’ of apostolic teaching rather than ‘inferences’ are themselves guilty of assumption and inference. In fact, there is more evidence of the truth of Catholic teaching (especially that of the catacombs not to mention 1500 years of consistent and unified Christian teaching before the reformation–and not even its original leaders at that–‘changed’ the teaching) than there is to support the protestant assertions.

Or do the protestants making the claim have a heretofore undiscovered book containing all the sermons of all the apostles so that they can provide ‘clear proof’ that the apostles never spoke of the teaching that Catholics profess?

Until they present such a ‘clear proof’, their assertions remain simply that–assertions. While Catholics, on the other hand, have indeed provided clear proof of the consistency of the teachings and their support by Scripture.

I was amused as well. Since there seems to be some dispute about what is assumption and inference, let’s start from the beginning:

In response to Leeann’s question I replied that based on the documented quotes of the Apostles that we possess, they would point the Pope to God the Father via Jesus. Let’s start with references to just a few of those quotes:

Acts 2:14-36 (God, God and more God the Father via Jesus)

Acts 2:47 (Praising God)

Acts 3:3-26 (Everyone praises God, who gets the credit for the healing, and they wrap up by pointing the listeners to the Father via Jesus)

Acts 4:19,21,24 (The Apostles answered “God”, people glorified God as a result, and the Apostles and other believed praised God for that result-I’m seeing a pattern here )

Acts 5:29-32 (yet another discussion of God the Father and Jesus)

Acts 6:2,7 (the Word of God is their mission)

These are just a few of the many examples that support my thesis.

In spite of this, you and others continue to peddle a thesis about the Apostles pointing to Mary, or Jesus and Mary, or Jesus in Mary, or Mary in Jesus, most anything works for y’all as long as Mary is in the formula.

So now we move on to proof:

-are there quotes of the Apostles doing this in Scripture? NOPE

-are there quotes in the early Fathers or early Bishops of Rome that mention the Apostles doing this or promoting it? NOPE

-does the Catholic Encyclopedia say the Apostles did this or promoted it? NOPE

-does the Catechism say the Apostles did this or promoted it? NOPE

The catacombs prove that someone in the Church at Rome asked the dead for prayers, not that the Apostles did that or sanctioned the practice. So no proof there either.

(Current Catholic belief and practice does not automatically mean that the Apostles said or did the same things-that’s why the Catholic church teaches “development of doctrine” because those in authority know that things not present in the Apostolic period are now accepted and encouraged)

I don’t need to prove that the Apostles never said something (I’m not going to fall for the Sophist’s trick of trying to get someone to prove a negative, sorry) I’ve given ample evidence that shows that it is reasonable to believe they would answer in the same way Scripture records them as answering. I’ve supported my position.

Your support for your position? Nada

You grasp at arguments from silence, make assertions from current Catholic practice, and draw inferences from a hopscotch of Scripture verses none of which were intended to speak to your position. This is what you suggest as proof versus proof using clear Apostolic statements.

I’ve not said anything bad about Mary, or that she isn’t worthy of respect or devotion, I haven’t said that the Apostles disliked or shunned Mary or that they didn’t hold her with great esteem. I haven’t even said that current Catholics couldn’t justify the practice using “development of doctrine”.

All I’ve said is that if the Pope asked the Apostles to whom he should turn, they would point him to God the Father, just as we see them do consistently in the records we have of their words and deeds.

I’d suggest you reread the OP, look at the verses I’ve provided and then see what proof if any you can muster to support a different answer to it. You seem to feel that accepting this point undermines all of Catholicism, when neither the Catechism nor the Catholic Encyclopedia insist that the Apostles did or taught this. Why be more “Catholic” than them?

 

[nbtb1348]

I was amused as well. Since there seems to be some dispute about what is assumption and inference, let’s start from the beginning:

In response to Leeann’s question I replied that based on the documented quotes of the Apostles that we possess, they would point the Pope to God the Father via Jesus. Let’s start with references to just a few of those quotes:

Acts 2:14-36 (God, God and more God the Father via Jesus)

Acts 2:47 (Praising God)

Acts 3:3-26 (Everyone praises God, who gets the credit for the healing, and they wrap up by pointing the listeners to the Father via Jesus)

Acts 4:19,21,24 (The Apostles answered “God”, people glorified God as a result, and the Apostles and other believed praised God for that result-I’m seeing a pattern here )

Acts 5:29-32 (yet another discussion of God the Father and Jesus)

Acts 6:2,7 (the Word of God is their mission)

These are just a few of the many examples that support my thesis.

In spite of this, you and others continue to peddle a thesis about the Apostles pointing to Mary, or Jesus and Mary, or Jesus in Mary, or Mary in Jesus, most anything works for y’all as long as Mary is in the formula.

So now we move on to proof:

-are there quotes of the Apostles doing this in Scripture? NOPE

-are there quotes in the early Fathers or early Bishops of Rome that mention the Apostles doing this or promoting it? NOPE

-does the Catholic Encyclopedia say the Apostles did this or promoted it? NOPE

-does the Catechism say the Apostles did this or promoted it? NOPE

The catacombs prove that someone in the Church at Rome asked the dead for prayers, not that the Apostles did that or sanctioned the practice. So no proof there either.

(Current Catholic belief and practice does not automatically mean that the Apostles said or did the same things-that’s why the Catholic church teaches “development of doctrine” because those in authority know that things not present in the Apostolic period are now accepted and encouraged)

I don’t need to prove that the Apostles never said something (I’m not going to fall for the Sophist’s trick of trying to get someone to prove a negative, sorry) I’ve given ample evidence that shows that it is reasonable to believe they would answer in the same way Scripture records them as answering. I’ve supported my position.

Your support for your position? Nada

You grasp at arguments from silence, make assertions from current Catholic practice, and draw inferences from a hopscotch of Scripture verses none of which were intended to speak to your position. This is what you suggest as proof versus proof using clear Apostolic statements.

I’ve not said anything bad about Mary, or that she isn’t worthy of respect or devotion, I haven’t said that the Apostles disliked or shunned Mary or that they didn’t hold her with great esteem. I haven’t even said that current Catholics couldn’t justify the practice using “development of doctrine”.

All I’ve said is that if the Pope asked the Apostles to whom he should turn, they would point him to God the Father, just as we see them do consistently in the records we have of their words and deeds.

I’d suggest you reread the OP, look at the verses I’ve provided and then see what proof if any you can muster to support a different answer to it. You seem to feel that accepting this point undermines all of Catholicism, when neither the Catechism nor the Catholic Encyclopedia insist that the Apostles did or taught this. Why be more “Catholic” than them?

Well put, friend. And these things should cause deep concern.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

But the point is that nobody (including the Pope) is praying to Mary in lieu of praying to the Son (or the Father, or the Spirit).

There is no question of putting Mary in opposition to Jesus.

But that is exactly what LeeAnn (the original poster) does in her false dichotomy where she erroneously implies that this is, in effect, what the Pope (and us sheeplike Catholics) do when we pray to Mary.

It doesn’t seem to matter that we have proven, over and over, that prayer to the saints is Scriptural, Biblical, and yes, apostolic in origin. It doesn’t seem to matter that nowhere in that prayer is it stated that Mary is the ultimate object whose power is sought or that those praying are seeking for her to act as God.

And strangely enough, it doesn’t seem to matter that only in the most ‘recent’ times of Christian history (less than 400 years) has there been such a rejection of authentic Christian teaching. . .but it is not those who reject the teaching who seek to justify their rejection. . .no, instead they pretend that their man-made doctrine is the ‘real’ teaching and that Catholics are the ones who ‘departed’ from the ‘real’ teaching.

For when it comes right down to it, you cannot deny that this doctrine in which you attempt to claim the ‘falsehood’ of Catholic beliefs is itself the ‘man-made’ and ‘new’ doctrine. . .one which your own ‘founders’ did not espouse (Luther, Henry VIII) and would have roundly condemned.

You yourselves cannot justify your own departure from the truth of Catholic Christianity save by attempting to cast Catholics as the ones who ‘changed’. . .when it was you who changed.

Instead of arguing about the supposed truth of your own position, you malign the truth of those who disagree, whether by erecting straw men, setting out false dichotomies, or simply by stubbornly insisting that (though you try to couch it ‘politely’) that Catholics are either damned liars or brainless idiots, either devils who persecuted real Christians, lied, cheated, stole, and idol-worshipped all their days, or brainwashed slobs who never read the Bible and rely on voodoo and hocus pocus while their leaders plot to bring out AntiChrist.

Every time we give you evidence, we get told it isn’t 'real’ evidence. Every time we tell you what we believe, we get told it isn’t what we ‘really’ believe.

I pretty much just keep on posting for the lurkers and the ‘common person’. I know I won’t change minds that are already so ‘brainwashed’ by their own Paisleys, Chicks, or even their otherwise kindly pastor who tells them that it’s just ‘common knowledge’ that Catholics are part of the Whore of Babylon, and it’s your duty to save the few elect who might hear the gospel (which God knows we Catholics NEVER hear ). . .

 

[ferdie]

I was amused as well. Since there seems to be some dispute about what is assumption and inference, let’s start from the beginning:

In response to Leeann’s question I replied that based on the documented quotes of the Apostles that we possess, they would point the Pope to God the Father via Jesus. Let’s start with references to just a few of those quotes:

Acts 2:14-36 (God, God and more God the Father via Jesus)

Acts 2:47 (Praising God)

Acts 3:3-26 (Everyone praises God, who gets the credit for the healing, and they wrap up by pointing the listeners to the Father via Jesus)

Acts 4:19,21,24 (The Apostles answered “God”, people glorified God as a result, and the Apostles and other believed praised God for that result-I’m seeing a pattern here )

Acts 5:29-32 (yet another discussion of God the Father and Jesus)

Acts 6:2,7 (the Word of God is their mission)

These are just a few of the many examples that support my thesis.

In spite of this, you and others continue to peddle a thesis about the Apostles pointing to Mary, or Jesus and Mary, or Jesus in Mary, or Mary in Jesus, most anything works for y’all as long as Mary is in the formula.

So now we move on to proof:

-are there quotes of the Apostles doing this in Scripture? NOPE

-are there quotes in the early Fathers or early Bishops of Rome that mention the Apostles doing this or promoting it? NOPE

-does the Catholic Encyclopedia say the Apostles did this or promoted it? NOPE

-does the Catechism say the Apostles did this or promoted it? NOPE

The catacombs prove that someone in the Church at Rome asked the dead for prayers, not that the Apostles did that or sanctioned the practice. So no proof there either.

(Current Catholic belief and practice does not automatically mean that the Apostles said or did the same things-that’s why the Catholic church teaches “development of doctrine” because those in authority know that things not present in the Apostolic period are now accepted and encouraged)

I don’t need to prove that the Apostles never said something (I’m not going to fall for the Sophist’s trick of trying to get someone to prove a negative, sorry) I’ve given ample evidence that shows that it is reasonable to believe they would answer in the same way Scripture records them as answering. I’ve supported my position.

Your support for your position? Nada

You grasp at arguments from silence, make assertions from current Catholic practice, and draw inferences from a hopscotch of Scripture verses none of which were intended to speak to your position. This is what you suggest as proof versus proof using clear Apostolic statements.

I’ve not said anything bad about Mary, or that she isn’t worthy of respect or devotion, I haven’t said that the Apostles disliked or shunned Mary or that they didn’t hold her with great esteem. I haven’t even said that current Catholics couldn’t justify the practice using “development of doctrine”.

All I’ve said is that if the Pope asked the Apostles to whom he should turn, they would point him to God the Father, just as we see them do consistently in the records we have of their words and deeds.

I’d suggest you reread the OP, look at the verses I’ve provided and then see what proof if any you can muster to support a different answer to it. You seem to feel that accepting this point undermines all of Catholicism, when neither the Catechism nor the Catholic Encyclopedia insist that the Apostles did or taught this. Why be more “Catholic” than them?

Can you imagine leaving down in the catacomb?
Burying your dead with the blessing of the priest if not of the bishop?
What about saying the mass down there?
It is pretty safe to say that the bishops who trace their lineage form the Apostles knew what went on in the catacombs. It is a close knit community. These people lived and die for the faith. For it to be corrupted without the knowing of the christian authorities is unlikely.
They knew that what they were writing in the inscriptions are not contrary to the faith passed down to them.

 

[Non_Serviam]

But the point is that nobody (including the Pope) is praying to Mary in lieu of praying to the Son (or the Father, or the Spirit).

There is no question of putting Mary in opposition to Jesus.

But that is exactly what LeeAnn (the original poster) does in her false dichotomy where she erroneously implies that this is, in effect, what the Pope (and us sheeplike Catholics) do when we pray to Mary.

It doesn’t seem to matter that we have proven, over and over, that prayer to the saints is Scriptural, Biblical, and yes, apostolic in origin. It doesn’t seem to matter that nowhere in that prayer is it stated that Mary is the ultimate object whose power is sought or that those praying are seeking for her to act as God.

And strangely enough, it doesn’t seem to matter that only in the most ‘recent’ times of Christian history (less than 400 years) has there been such a rejection of authentic Christian teaching. . .but it is not those who reject the teaching who seek to justify their rejection. . .no, instead they pretend that their man-made doctrine is the ‘real’ teaching and that Catholics are the ones who ‘departed’ from the ‘real’ teaching.

For when it comes right down to it, you cannot deny that this doctrine in which you attempt to claim the ‘falsehood’ of Catholic beliefs is itself the ‘man-made’ and ‘new’ doctrine. . .one which your own ‘founders’ did not espouse (Luther, Henry VIII) and would have roundly condemned.

You yourselves cannot justify your own departure from the truth of Catholic Christianity save by attempting to cast Catholics as the ones who ‘changed’. . .when it was you who changed.

Instead of arguing about the supposed truth of your own position, you malign the truth of those who disagree, whether by erecting straw men, setting out false dichotomies, or simply by stubbornly insisting that (though you try to couch it ‘politely’) that Catholics are either damned liars or brainless idiots, either devils who persecuted real Christians, lied, cheated, stole, and idol-worshipped all their days, or brainwashed slobs who never read the Bible and rely on voodoo and hocus pocus while their leaders plot to bring out AntiChrist.

Every time we give you evidence, we get told it isn’t 'real’ evidence. Every time we tell you what we believe, we get told it isn’t what we ‘really’ believe.

I pretty much just keep on posting for the lurkers and the ‘common person’. I know I won’t change minds that are already so ‘brainwashed’ by their own Paisleys, Chicks, or even their otherwise kindly pastor who tells them that it’s just ‘common knowledge’ that Catholics are part of the Whore of Babylon, and it’s your duty to save the few elect who might hear the gospel (which God knows we Catholics NEVER hear ). . .

In lieu of proof, I get underlining and ad hominem arguments. Disappointing.

Prayer to dead saints is Catholic. There’s an abundance of proof on this point.

I provided numerous Apostolic citations to demonstrate that my answer is in line with what we know that they said. You’ve cited nothing that demonstrates the same for your position.

You’ve attacked the original question, attributed less than honourable motives to her when she appears (in this thread at least) to have been more than charitable in her replies to posters offering less than substantive replies to her question.

You then muckrake with aspersions to Luther and Henry VIII, Paisley, Chick et al. Next there are a slew of spurious charges about what we “believe” about Catholics.

All this to avoid admitting that you have nothing on which to base your assertion that the Apostles practiced or approved of prayer to dead saints.

That’s why I keep on posting in this thread-because the Catholic “defense” of this belief in this thread is rapidly approaching the methodology of Mormon missionaries: talk louder and repeat the same phrase over and over in hopes of tiring the other person out. I have other questions that I’d like to discuss but as long as Catholics in this thread are going to continue to label this belief as “Apostolic” without any proof, I’m going to keep asking for proof.

I was taught logic and philosophy by Catholics who were good at it so I hold Catholic arguments to a high standard. When you claim Apostolic origin for a belief, you must demonstrate that the Apostles said it or did it. That’s why the Catechism doesn’t make such a claim about Apostles teaching about or actually praying to dead saints-there’s no proof the Apostles did it or taught it.

Instead the Catechism accepts the practice on the basis that it was accepted by the community of faith and the Magisterium-a perfectly legitimate basis for it if one is Catholic.

Which brings us again to the same point as before.

I look forward to proof in your reply, or in lieu of that some novel slight to my faith, good intentions or lineage.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I

look forward to proof in your reply, or in lieu of that some novel slight to my faith, good intentions or lineage.

Well, I’m off to the land of Nod but I must say, you were awfully quick to claim ‘slights’ that were never bestowed on you by me.

Muckrake? I appreciate your attempt to include my writing as bearing a similarity in style to Sinclair Lewis, but please, I’m blushing. . .

St. Paul, as another poster noted, prays for the soul of a fellow Christian. In Maccabbees it is noted as a holy and wholesome thing to pray for the dead. The apostles knew and taught Scripture so. . .

There are examples of the catacombs to demonstrate this as authentic by the early Christians so. . .

There is a 2000 year tradition and the authority of Christ’s Church and His Spirit (guiding us to all truth) so. . .

And on the other hand. . .

There is a less than 400 year old ‘man-made’ protest based on private interpretation and an attempted argument from silence along with the assumption that ‘unless it’s in Scripture, it ain’t so’.

Plus a false dichotomy that attempts to place Mary and Jesus in opposition.

Sorry, won’t play.

The apostles don’t point to Mary ‘instead of’ to Jesus. And they don’t point to Jesus ‘instead of’ Mary either, because Catholics never were looking ‘away from’ Jesus in looking ‘to’ His Mother, in the first place.

Do have a pleasant evening.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I

Well, I’m off to the land of Nod but I must say, you were awfully quick to claim ‘slights’ that were never bestowed on you by me.

Muckrake? I appreciate your attempt to include my writing as bearing a similarity in style to Sinclair Lewis, but please, I’m blushing. . .

St. Paul, as another poster noted, prays for the soul of a fellow Christian. In Maccabbees it is noted as a holy and wholesome thing to pray for the dead. The apostles knew and taught Scripture so. . .

There are examples of the catacombs to demonstrate this as authentic by the early Christians so. . .

There is a 2000 year tradition and the authority of Christ’s Church and His Spirit (guiding us to all truth) so. . .

And on the other hand. . .

There is a less than 400 year old ‘man-made’ protest based on private interpretation and an attempted argument from silence along with the assumption that ‘unless it’s in Scripture, it ain’t so’.

Plus a false dichotomy that attempts to place Mary and Jesus in opposition.

Sorry, won’t play.

The apostles don’t point to Mary ‘instead of’ to Jesus. And they don’t point to Jesus ‘instead of’ Mary either, because Catholics never were looking ‘away from’ Jesus in looking ‘to’ His Mother, in the first place.

Do have a pleasant evening.

I commend you on your continued attempt to be more Catholic than the Pope, the Catechism and the Catholic Encyclopedia in this regard.

Perhaps it will one day lead to your elevation to sainthood so that non-Catholics may use you as a fresh source for “false dichotomies” and Catholics may pray to/through you.

In the meantime, still no proof for your argument. Perhaps a rested head and fresh eyes tomorrow will remedy this.

 

[benedictus2]

The practice of prayng to Mary was, in fact invented by the RCC and has no basis in Scripture. This is true, in spite of anemic attempts to paste proof texts up against the wall, so to speak. You could spend a thousand millenia just beginning to learn the depths of experience in praying to our great Intercessor, the Lord Jesus Christ. He told us to ask anything in His name and it shall be done. He never instructed us to pray to anyone but God, and to do so is not only an affront to Him, but it shows a complete lack of understanding and experience in praying to the Savior. There may be a spirit who would lead you to pray to Mary, but it is not the HOLY Spirit, my friend.

I wonder, have you ever asked someone to pray for you? Why do you do that considering in your understanding someone else’s prayer is impotent. Why not just ask Jesus yourself and leave it at that?

And while you’re at it why do you bother praying for someone else? God surely is against that. Why, those people you pray for should just pray to Jesus directly themselves because according to you, your prayers for them are ineffective as well.

Actually, why bother praying at all since God is almighty and omniscient and already knows what you need and even before you say a word He already knows what you are about to say.

 

[guanophore]

I’m back!

Just got through reading everything that was posted in my absence-kudos to Leeann for continuing to insist for clear proof of Catholic claims on this topic rather than inferences and speculation.

It is an error to assume that anything not found in scripture is “inference and speculation”/

I see that there continues to be no posts of documentation relatively close to the time of the Apostles that explicitly states that they encouraged prayer to dead saints or did it themselves.

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia article doesn’t make this claim, referring only to allusions to proof-texting done with verses from Pauline Epistles and some Fathers.

So on the basis of all evidence presented about the Apostles actions, it still leaves them pointing to God the Father via Jesus. They respect and love Mary, for certain, but as is clearly shown in the Gospels, Acts and Epistles, they point directly to God when someone inquires.

Of course, and they passed on to us, and these have been preserved according to the commandment, the prayers. In the living liturgy of the Church, we find that the Apostles never made any distinction between the members of the Body that had gone on before, and those that are still here. They don’t stop interceding for us because they have been glorified.

 

[guanophore]

in spite of this, you and others continue to peddle a thesis about the Apostles pointing to Mary, or Jesus and Mary, or Jesus in Mary, or Mary in Jesus, most anything works for y’all as long as Mary is in the formula.

None of the saints who have been glorified are separated from Christ. Frankly, I am puzzled by the need to separate them.

So now we move on to proof:

scripture was not designed to be used as “proof”. We apprehend the elements of our belief through faith, not “proof”.

-are there quotes of the Apostles doing this in Scripture? NOPE

The premise of such a statement seems to be that, if one cannot see it in scripture, then it does not come from the Apostles.

-are there quotes in the early Fathers or early Bishops of Rome that mention the Apostles doing this or promoting it? NOPE

Indeed, there are liturgies that have been preserved from the Apostles (St. James being the oldest) that include the intercession of the saints.

-does the Catholic Encyclopedia say the Apostles did this or promoted it? NOPE

Are you trying to suggest that the Catholic Encyclopedia does not document the communion of saints?

-does the Catechism say the Apostles did this or promoted it? NOPE

The Catechism is clear in the teaching about the communion of saints.

The catacombs prove that someone in the Church at Rome asked the dead for prayers, not that the Apostles did that or sanctioned the practice. So no proof there either.

Actually, they “prove” no such thing. No Catholics ever asked “the dead” for prayers. The markings there indicate that the Catholics believed these members of the body were alive, well, and able to intercede. How do you think they so quickly got off the apostolic track?

(Current Catholic belief and practice does not automatically mean that the Apostles said or did the same things-that’s why the Catholic church teaches “development of doctrine” because those in authority know that things not present in the Apostolic period are now accepted and encouraged)

Well, yes and no. Of course development of doctrine is important, because conditions exist that the Apostles did not address. The gnostic and Arian heresies come to mind, as well as Pelagius, Nestorius and a host of others. If you reject the development of doctrine, then you have to reject the Bible, since it is a product of this development.

I don’t need to prove that the Apostles never said something (I’m not going to fall for the Sophist’s trick of trying to get someone to prove a negative, sorry) I’ve given ample evidence that shows that it is reasonable to believe they would answer in the same way Scripture records them as answering. I’ve supported my position.

Yes. Catholics just don’t create the false dichotomy that you and Leeann apparently espouse.

Your support for your position? Nada

Your rejection of the Sacred Traditions reduces them to “nada” to no one but yourself.

You grasp at arguments from silence, make assertions from current Catholic practice, and draw inferences from a hopscotch of Scripture verses none of which were intended to speak to your position. This is what you suggest as proof versus proof using clear Apostolic statements.

I do not, actually. I don’t think this is something that can be easily demonstrated in scripture, just as the table of contents of which books belong there cannot.

However, I am curious how you explain Samuel being able to dialogue with Saul, and Moses and Elijah having a chat with Jesus.

I’ve not said anything bad about Mary, or that she isn’t worthy of respect or devotion, I haven’t said that the Apostles disliked or shunned Mary or that they didn’t hold her with great esteem. I haven’t even said that current Catholics couldn’t justify the practice using “development of doctrine”.

Sure seemed like you did.

All I’ve said is that if the Pope asked the Apostles to whom he should turn, they would point him to God the Father, just as we see them do consistently in the records we have of their words and deeds.

Yes. And he would not create a false division between Christ and His Body, the Church, in so doing.

I’d suggest you reread the OP, look at the verses I’ve provided and then see what proof if any you can muster to support a different answer to it. You seem to feel that accepting this point undermines all of Catholicism, when neither the Catechism nor the Catholic Encyclopedia insist that the Apostles did or taught this. Why be more “Catholic” than them?

If the entry on "apostles’ does not mention the communion of saints, or their intercession, that does not equate to the Catholic Church not teaching this truth. It is not possible to grasp the Catholic faith by limiting oneself to a single entry in a Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

[guanophore]

Well put, friend. And these things should cause deep concern.

With all due respect, coming to a Catholic forum and telling Catholics what they should have “deep concern” about it quite presumptuious, don’t you think?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It is still a false dichotomy, no matter how you slice it.

Item: In the prayer, the Pope is not praying to Mary ‘instead of’ to Jesus.

Therefore, there is not, and never has been, the ‘implied’ situation LeeAnn gives of Mary standing ‘apart from’ Jesus with the idea being that we are praying to one OR to the other.

Until this is understood by LeeAnn, NonServiam, and others, that the entire premise of the OP is fatally flawed, we’re just going to be stuck as group A (OP et. al) is insistent that in this prayer, Mary is being set up in opposition to Jesus. The issue of the apostles is interesting only in that it likewise is a thinly-disguised attempt to paint the Catholic Church as engaging, in prayer to Mary, as going ‘against’ the apostles who (we are told) would naturally pray to “Jesus alone” (which in turn is a thinly disguised attempt to elevate Sola Scriptura and its offshoots into authentic Truth–which it is not).

Group B (we Catholics) know that prayer is communication, not ‘reserved’ to God alone. We know that prayer to any saint, especially Mary, is not made ‘instead of’ to Jesus but always has Jesus as the ultimate receiver. We understand that Scripture is not the ultimate authority but rather the Church–as Scripture indeed clearly states. We also understand that Scripture and Sacred Tradition work together, and that we have a Magisterium and we have an authority. We also have a unity in dogma and doctrine which has stood through the history of Christianity and will continue to stand when all of us here are long gone. We can confidently state that Scripture and Sacred Tradition both support the doctrine of prayer to the saints, while historical evidence likewise shows this.

As Catholics, we know that the apostles would always point to Christ as the ultimate ‘aim’ of prayer **but **we also know that they would not feel that all the saints in heaven were somehow ‘locked away’ from Christ and that any person who prayed to a saint was going ‘away from Christ’. Therefore, anybody who prays to any saint is not substituting the saint for Christ.

The saints are united to Christ; Scripture says so. How then can we ‘separate them’ from the love and unity of Christ?

 

[guanophore]

In lieu of proof, I get underlining and ad hominem arguments. Disappointing.

I know it is disappointing. But it is an article of faith, not an article of proof. It is likely that you will continue to be disappointed on this point. We recieve the faith from those to whom it was entrusted. We receive it in humility, willingness to be taught and shepherded by those appointed of Christ. We receive it as little children, being open minded.

Prayer to dead saints is Catholic. There’s an abundance of proof on this point.

No, Non. This is just a misunderstanding on your part. Catholics have never prayed to the dead. The Catholic Church has always considered this to be the practice of necromancy, and gravely sinful.

All this to avoid admitting that you have nothing on which to base your assertion that the Apostles practiced or approved of prayer to dead saints.

The fact that you believe those who have gone to be with the lord are “dead” does not make it so. Christ stated that they are “alive forevermore”. Further, the fact that you reject the Sacred Tradition that preserves these things from the Apostles does not invalidate it for anyone but yourself.

That's why I keep on posting in this thread-because the Catholic "defense" of this belief in this thread is rapidly approaching the methodology of Mormon missionaries: talk louder and repeat the same phrase over and over in hopes of tiring the other person out.

I agree that this method will not work.

I have other questions that I’d like to discuss but as long as Catholics in this thread are going to continue to label this belief as “Apostolic” without any proof, I’m going to keep asking for proof.

This reminds me of something that Jesus said:

16 "But to what will I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to one another,
17’We played the flute for you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’ Matt 11:16-17

You can jump up and down and demand “proof”, but it will avail you nothing. If you are not willing to accept what was handed down to us from the Apostles, then you will be left without.

If you really wish to know what the Apostles taught, then you would have to take the attitude of the converts at Pentecost:

Acts 2:41-42
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

What was the content of this teaching? What were the teachings? What were the guidelines around fellowship? what was the manner in which the breaking of the bread took place? What prayers were these?

All this is preserved in the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church.

I was taught logic and philosophy by Catholics who were good at it so I hold Catholic arguments to a high standard. When you claim Apostolic origin for a belief, you must demonstrate that the Apostles said it or did it. That’s why the Catechism doesn’t make such a claim about Apostles teaching about or actually praying to dead saints-there’s no proof the Apostles did it or taught it.

You are free to believe this if you so desire. The Catholic Church teaches differently. It is a shame that those good Catholics did not teach you also how to apprehend knowledge through faith!

Instead the Catechism accepts the practice on the basis that it was accepted by the community of faith and the Magisterium-a perfectly legitimate basis for it if one is Catholic.

Is this the basis upon which you admit the Canon?

Which brings us again to the same point as before.

I look forward to proof in your reply, or in lieu of that some novel slight to my faith, good intentions or lineage.

No sleights intended. I am perfectly happy to respect you in your state of disbelief.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Yes…but the answer above I gave, was in response to the “analogy” you yourself set up, pertaining to the thread topic question, which when seen as originally posted by you, is quite intricate in it’s nature.

I thought it was a pretty simple analogy. Frank Lloyd Wright and his great work compared to God and His great work. In both cases, the design serves to reveal the designer.

Now in *this *post, you say I didn’t answer your question – but in *this *post it is stated just as a “straight out question” about American architecture. Based on the way it is posted *this *time, I would have to agree with what you state below – in relation to “architecture”.

You answered my question directly, in fact it was your answer that I quoted. I just had a few questions about that answer as it didn’t seem logical to me. I suspect that you don’t think the analogy is a good one. If so, where do you think it fails?

I disagree, I can “appreciate” the genius of his work without having to have a “thorough understanding of it”. Don’t forget your own words from the previous post - "the creation is but a “*pale shadow *of the creator”.

You’re right, I misspoke. A “thorough understanding” of the work of any great creator isn’t necessary for appreciation. Exposure, however, is necessary and better understanding almost always leads to better appreciation.

You can’t be expected to keep every post straight, with all you’ve got coming at you in this thread, but here I have a gentle correction for you. What I called a pale shadow of The Creator (God) was any earthly, human creator (ie. Frank Lloyd Wright). Creation, on the other hand, tends to reveal the creator. This works on both human and divine levels and is beautifully evident when Mary tells us that her “soul magnifies the Lord”.

When I tried to assure you that Catholics don’t turn to Mary for salvation, you responded:

Yes….but that is not what the thread topic is about.

What do you think is the Pope’s reason for turning to Mary?

Finally, I asked how much time a person can spend admiring sunsets before the’ve given too much time to sunsets and not enough to God, thinking it a silly question. Your response:

Not a silly question at all, in fact it is one that some Catholics should be asking themselves quite often.

Interesting. Do you really think, provided we attribute its existence to God, that we can over-admire creation?

 

[Leeann]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeann
Yes…but the answer above I gave, was in response to the “analogy” you yourself set up, pertaining to the thread topic question, which when seen as originally posted by you, is quite intricate in it’s nature.

Good Daughter
I thought it was a pretty simple analogy. Frank Lloyd Wright and his great work compared to God and His great work. In both cases, the design serves to reveal the designer.

Now that’s so much clearer to me as compared to the original:

Original Post Good Daughter: Post # 156
I’ve been wanting to answer you question but it’s tricky adding anything new or original to the thread at this point, so I came up with an analogy:

If someone wanted to learn about early 20thC American architecture, where would you advise them to turn…to the great work of Frank Lloyd Wright (The Guggenheim Museum, Fallingwater)…or Frank Lloyd Wright?

It’s tempting to say Frank Lloyd Wright, isn’t it? If you could somehow converse with him, he could explain his genius directly. What more would you need?

The fact remains though that this great architect, but a shadow of the Great Architect, reveals himself most fully in creation. We’re meant to know the designer through the design.

My answer to your question then is Mary, not because she’s in any way divine (she’s a creation, just like The Guggenheim) but because of the way Almighty God has designed her to impart the divine to us.

Originally Posted by Leeann
Now in this post, (a previous one being referred to here)you say I didn’t answer your question – but in this post it is stated just as a “straight out question” about American architecture. Based on the way it is posted this time, I would have to agree with what you state below – in relation to “architecture”.

Good Daughter
You answered my question directly, in fact it was your answer that I quoted. I just had a few questions about that answer as it didn’t seem logical to me. I suspect that you don’t think the analogy is a good one. If so, where do you think it fails?

See below…. “misspeaking” and it’s happened again in your lasting posting to me, hence the need for me to re-post what was actually said.

Originally Posted by Leeann
I disagree, I can “appreciate” the genius of his work without having to have a “thorough understanding of it”. Don’t forget your own words from the previous post - "the creation is but a “pale shadow of the creator”.

Response Good Daughter:
*You’re right, I misspoke. A “thorough understanding” of the work of any great creator isn’t necessary for appreciation. Exposure, however, is necessary and better understanding almost always leads to better appreciation. *

Good Daughter:
You can’t be expected to keep every post straight, with all you’ve got coming at you in this thread, but here I have a gentle correction for you. What I called a pale shadow of The Creator (God) was any earthly, human creator (ie. Frank Lloyd Wright).

This is what you said and how I responded to that:

Good Daughter
*That would result in a woefully incomplete study.(of architecture) Total theory. No show and all tell. *
It is impossible to appreciate the genius of FLW(Frank Lloyd Wright) without a thorough understanding of his work. It is the creation that best reveals the creator.

Response Leeann:
I disagree, I can “appreciate” the genius of his work without having to have a “thorough understanding of it”. Don’t forget your own words from the previous post - "the creation is but a “pale shadow of the creator”.

Good Daughter:
Creation, on the other hand, tends to reveal the creator. This works on both human and divine levels and is beautifully evident when Mary tells us that her “soul magnifies the Lord”.

In some cases that may appear to be so, but not all, sometimes it is the Creator who reveals the Creator…as happened to Saul (Paul) and has happened over the years to many other people.
It is beautifully evident when Mary says that, but that doesn’t mean that she is the only creation of His that is capable of doing so and it definitely has nothing to do with whom we are to turn too as our “source” of mercy, consolation or help when we are in need of those things.

 

[Leeann]

Good Daughter:
When I tried to assure you that Catholics don’t turn to Mary for salvation, you responded:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeann
Yes….but that is not what the thread topic is about.

Response Good Daughter:
What do you think is the Pope’s reason for turning to Mary?

He’s “lost” his focus in spending too much time in “admiration” and by putting too much “emphasis” on the “created”.

This is exactly what you posted with regards to the OP thread topic:

Post # 219 Good Daughter

Getting back to your OP, no one suggests pointing to Mary for salvation. I think though, that Catholics are focused on something slightly different while on earth and that is relationship. My relationship with God is the number one reason for my existence. In my desire to know, love and serve Him, I never tire of studying His “great work”.

By the way you’ve worded it…it sounds as though the thread topic is about someone suggesting pointing to Mary for salvation…my response you quoted above was clarifying that this is not what the thread topic question is referring too. It is about to whom the Apostles would point the Pope too…Mary or Jesus

Good Daughter:
Finally, I asked how much time a person can spend admiring sunsets before the’ve given too much time to sunsets and not enough to God, thinking it a silly question.

What you asked :
Good Daughter Post #219How many sunsets **can you get lost **in **admiring **before you’ve placed **too much emphasis **on sunsets and not enough on God? Silly question, right?

Original Response by Leeann
Not a silly question at all, in fact it is one that some Catholics should be asking themselves quite often.

Good Daughter:
Interesting. Do you really think, provided we attribute its existence to God, that we can over-admire creation?

Apparently it is evident that there are some that do “over-admire” creation, they may even get “lost” in that admiration by placing “too much emphasis” on the “created” and not the “Creator”.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Apparently it is evident that there are some that do “over-admire” creation, they may even get “lost” in that admiration by placing “too much emphasis” on the “created” and not the “Creator”.

It isn’t evident to me. if you’re using the Pope’s prayer as an example of the above assertion, ** I** do not think that he ‘over-admires’ Mary OR that he isn’t placing’ enough emphasis on the creator.

So who is right, me or you–and why?