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

[David47]

guanophore
It seems to me that Paul is saying the opposite.

Of course it would.

That’s from Leeann - just didn’t change husband’s name as he didn’t log out!

 

[guanophore]

Of course it would.

That’s from Leeann - just didn’t change husband’s name as he didn’t log out!

How do you dispense with these scriptures?

 

[Good_Fella]

It is interesting that you have come by this opinion, that our individual prayers are less efficient than prayers offered with other believers or than prayers of support from other believers on our behalf.
They are different types of prayer….individual and intercessory by others, but one cannot say that one is better than the other in their “efficiency”…the efficiency is not based in the type of prayer…but in HIS grace and will.

Paul tells the Ephesians we are stewards of God’s grace. Our prayers are effective relative to the measure of grace possessed by those who are praying. Others who pray for us or join in with us can make up for the grace we lack in faith and thereby increase the efficiency of prayer. The centurion’s servant was healed by Jesus according to the measure of faith the centurion had. When we ask Mary and the Saints in heaven to pray for us and thereby with us to God, our prayers become more effective for they become more pleasing to God by virtue of their perfect faith as opposed to our imperfect faith. We on earth have not yet been made perfect by grace. Sin and doubt still affect our spiritual lives. It is not a question of the difference between two types of prayers but rather between the measure of grace and faith possessed by individuals who pray for and with each other. Individual prayer is just as important, for no form of prayer is insignificant and meaningless provided it’s sincere. Equally important is the measure of God’s grace or favour possessed by the individual who prays. The story of Cain and Abel provides a good moral lesson as to what I mean.

The Apostles exhorted the early believers to uphold one another in prayer, knowing that the Holy Spirit would be leading them and directing them…

Mary and the Saints uphold us with their prayers even when we don’t ask them to pray for us for the graces we lack. But their prayers lend more force when we do ask them, coupling their graces with ours, as we cooperate with the Holy Spirit in faithful prayer.

But the Apostles also encouraged the early believers to go boldly before His throne of Grace, assured by the efficacy of His blood sacrifice for each one individually…

I have never said that we are only to ask others to pray for us while neglecting individual and private prayer directed to God without invoking the Saints. But even when we do individually and directly pray to God for our own spiritual needs or those of others, the Saints in heaven still join in with us without having to be invoked, for we are all members of the one mystical Body of Christ.

…Paul very clearly exhorted and encouraged all the believers to continue in prayer constantly and to uphold one another in prayer, but he never encouraged them to pray to/through those who were in heaven….

And why shouldn’t we ask Mary and the Saints to pray for us, since we know they are closer to God than we are in the order of grace and God thus hears them. Again, we have a hidden premise. Paul would have expected the faithful on earth to join their prayers with the saints in heaven, for he believed that both the living and the departed were functional members of one Body in Christ by baptism and that death did not separate us from the love of Christ. Prayer is a form of spiritual work of mercy which calls us to exercise charity in the love of Christ. The departed saints are not excluded from the sphere of Christ’s love. They continue to mercifully participate in it. The departed souls are not in a state of unconscious stupor. They do pray for us in heaven, so we should ask them for their supportful prayers. Meanwhile, the Church Fathers have by Apostolic authority encouraged us to invoke the saints. The deposit of faith does not consist of Scripture alone. It includes Tradition by which the Scriptures must be interpreted.

Paul was probably acknowledging Jesus’ words, where He also said:

Matthew 18:19

But Jesus didn’t say that one was more “efficient” than the other or that they were to pray to/through anyone other than in HIS name.

This verse demonstrates what I have been suggesting all along: our prayers become more pleasing to God and effective when members of the one Body of Christ join with each other in prayer united in faith. When we invoke Mary and the Saints we do so in His name or else our prayers would be futile.

As to the reason being “ineffable”….???..for God desiring that we pray for each other doesn’t seem too hard to understand, as He wants us to love and care and to support one another.

It is ineffable in light of what you have pointed out above: that we can “go boldly” before the throne of grace on our own. At first glance there seems to be a contradiction. But we both have resolved it. “God wants us to love and care for each other.” The saints who are closest to God’s love in his presence must not be discluded from acting in Christian charity by virtue of their common baptism in Christ.

…… I have also had many of my individual prayers, ones that have been offered directly to God my Father, in Jesus’ name – answered powerfully and quickly…

Perhaps not as powerfully and quickly enough.

PAX :harp:

 

[Always_For_Him]

Let me give those lenses a wipe, guanophore, and help clarify that you interpret the Scriptures in the light of what the Catholic Magisterium says is the Apostolic Teaching, since the Apostles aren’t physically teaching it on earth these days, having a pressing engagement elsewhere.

That brings things into a bit sharper focus.

And, your point is what exactly? It can’t possibly be that the Catholic Church can’t interpret Scriptures in the lcontext of Apostolic teaching because the Apostles are no longer here on earth with us, can it? What is it that you think the Apostles did after Jesus breathed on them, gave them His Authority, and told the to go forth to teach and to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? What exactly did they teach their successors that are the magisterium? Your focus might be a little blurry, but the Catholic focus is just fine, thank you. We hold true to the the origianal, contextual teaching of the Apostles. Anyone from churches that split from Christ’s Church during the Reformation and from the thousands of churches that have formed within the last almost 500 years do not.

 

[Leeann]

Paul tells the Ephesians we are stewards of God’s grace. Our prayers are effective relative to the measure of grace possessed by those who are praying. Others who pray for us or join in with us can make up for the grace we lack in faith and thereby increase the efficiency of prayer. The centurion’s servant was healed by Jesus according to the measure of faith the centurion had. When we ask Mary and the Saints in heaven to pray for us and thereby with us to God, our prayers become more effective for they become more pleasing to God by virtue of their perfect faith as opposed to our imperfect faith. We on earth have not yet been made perfect by grace. Sin and doubt still affect our spiritual lives. It is not a question of the difference between two types of prayers but rather between the measure of grace and faith possessed by individuals who pray for and with each other. Individual prayer is just as important, for no form of prayer is insignificant and meaningless provided it’s sincere. Equally important is the measure of God’s grace or favour possessed by the individual who prays. The story of Cain and Abel provides a good moral lesson as to what I mean.

Mary and the Saints uphold us with their prayers even when we don’t ask them to pray for us for the graces we lack. But their prayers lend more force when we do ask them, coupling their graces with ours, as we cooperate with the Holy Spirit in faithful prayer.

I have never said that we are only to ask others to pray for us while neglecting individual and private prayer directed to God without invoking the Saints. But even when we do individually and directly pray to God for our own spiritual needs or those of others, the Saints in heaven still join in with us without having to be invoked, for we are all members of the one mystical Body of Christ.

And why shouldn’t we ask Mary and the Saints to pray for us, since we know they are closer to God than we are in the order of grace and God thus hears them. Again, we have a hidden premise. Paul would have expected the faithful on earth to join their prayers with the saints in heaven, for he believed that both the living and the departed were functional members of one Body in Christ by baptism and that death did not separate us from the love of Christ. Prayer is a form of spiritual work of mercy which calls us to exercise charity in the love of Christ. The departed saints are not excluded from the sphere of Christ’s love. They continue to mercifully participate in it. The departed souls are not in a state of unconscious stupor. They do pray for us in heaven, so we should ask them for their supportful prayers. Meanwhile, the Church Fathers have by Apostolic authority encouraged us to invoke the saints. The deposit of faith does not consist of Scripture alone. It includes Tradition by which the Scriptures must be interpreted.

This verse demonstrates what I have been suggesting all along: our prayers become more pleasing to God and effective when members of the one Body of Christ join with each other in prayer united in faith. When we invoke Mary and the Saints we do so in His name or else our prayers would be futile.

It is ineffable in light of what you have pointed out above: that we can “go boldly” before the throne of grace on our own. At first glance there seems to be a contradiction. But we both have resolved it. “God wants us to love and care for each other.” The saints who are closest to God’s love in his presence must not be discluded from acting in Christian charity by virtue of their common baptism in Christ.

Sorry Good fella - right from the beginning of this response - the mention of Paul in Ephesians - totally off base, not in reference to what you “state” it is…the centurian comment, which is in no way related to prayer or this topic in any way…and all the other comments - I understand are what you believe based on what the Catholic Church teaches…just don’t hold up against the scripture references that have been posted and comments made since the beginning of the thread…but thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Perhaps not as powerfully and quickly enough.

And your last comment is simply inane.

 

[Non_Serviam]

And, your point is what exactly? It can’t possibly be that the Catholic Church can’t interpret Scriptures in the lcontext of Apostolic teaching because the Apostles are no longer here on earth with us, can it? What is it that you think the Apostles did after Jesus breathed on them, gave them His Authority, and told the to go forth to teach and to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? What exactly did they teach their successors that are the magisterium? Your focus might be a little blurry, but the Catholic focus is just fine, thank you. We hold true to the the origianal, contextual teaching of the Apostles. Anyone from churches that split from Christ’s Church during the Reformation and from the thousands of churches that have formed within the last almost 500 years do not.

It’s because of comments like this that I applied more precision to the statement. The current Catholic Magisterium are not the Apostles. If an Apostle teaches something then it is definitely Apostolic teaching by its very nature unless they say they are teaching someone else’s teaching.

If someone else teaches something and says it is Apostolic teaching it might be Apostolic teaching. Based on who the teacher is and one’s perception of their competence and reliability you might accept their claim or not.

As an analogy:

If my sister calls me and tells me something I believe it is my sister’s message to me. If our stepsister tells me that she has a message for me from my sister I don’t immediately accept it, in spite of her familial relationship to us and the fact that it extends back to both our births (she is older than us).

She has through her actions proven herself to be unreliable at times (speaking charitably) so any claim on her part to speak my sister’s words to me will be verified.

Likewise, the Mormons, the Anglicans, the Orthodox, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Catholic church all claim to be Jesus’ appointed authority to deliver his message to the world.

All claim to trace their lineage of authority back to Jesus through various methods-and all claims should be verified in light of what we know of the early church and the Apostolic teaching. Saying that your interpretation of Jesus’ words is correct because your interpretation shows that you are the only ones who can interpret His words is circular.

If “the Catholic church is right because it says it is” does the trick for you-then don’t let me disturb you. It doesn’t cut it for me. That’s why I added more precision to that statement.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

LeeAnn, you keep on saying that you ‘understand we believe as we do based on what the Catholic Church teaches’. .

A: The Catholic Church receives its authority from Christ and this is proved both by Scripture (and I know you know the scriptures) and Sacred Tradition. Therefore, when Catholics are talking about what the Church teaches, they are talking about what Christ teaches. . .and this is unlike most Protestant Churches where they most emphatically do have specific teachings of their church which are not based on the teachings of Jesus but rather on the teachings of men.

B. A Catholic who believes in what the Church teaches does so because it is Truth, not just because it is taught.

 

[Leeann]

LeeAnn, you keep on saying that you ‘understand we believe as we do based on what the Catholic Church teaches’. .

A: The Catholic Church receives its authority from Christ and this is proved both by Scripture (and I know you know the scriptures) and Sacred Tradition. Therefore, when Catholics are talking about what the Church teaches, they are talking about what Christ teaches. . .and this is unlike most Protestant Churches where they most emphatically do have specific teachings of their church which are not based on the teachings of Jesus but rather on the teachings of men.

B. A Catholic who believes in what the Church teaches does so because it is Truth, not just because it is taught.

Tantum, where did you hear this, who taught you this…as Nonserviam stated in the last post…“circular”.

Back to thread topic anyone?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Let’s see, now just how can anybody prove that what is taught to them is ‘Truth’ and not simply ‘what is taught to them?’

LeeAnn, you state many things are true ‘according to the Bible’ with which we disagree.

Now, which of those things did you ‘discover’ to be true without ever having been ‘taught’ that it was correct as well? And which of those ‘true things’ have you discovered as truth which are NOT taught as correct by any Christian teacher/teaching, may I ask?

IOW, why do you get a free pass such that you can imply that Catholics only ‘believe what they’re taught’ but that a protestant like you never was ‘taught’ per se by a ‘church’ but ‘learned the truth’ without being taught?

This is germane to the thread because it points another flaw in your argument in which you give that old false dichotomy about the ‘Catholic Church’ and its ‘teachings’.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Let’s see, now just how can anybody prove that what is taught to them is ‘Truth’ and not simply ‘what is taught to them?’

LeeAnn, you state many things are true ‘according to the Bible’ with which we disagree.

Now, which of those things did you ‘discover’ to be true without ever having been ‘taught’ that it was correct as well? And which of those ‘true things’ have you discovered as truth which are NOT taught as correct by any Christian teacher/teaching, may I ask?

IOW, why do you get a free pass such that you can imply that Catholics only ‘believe what they’re taught’ but that a protestant like you never was ‘taught’ per se by a ‘church’ but ‘learned the truth’ without being taught?

This is germane to the thread because it points another flaw in your argument in which you give that old false dichotomy about the ‘Catholic Church’ and its ‘teachings’.

This sounds like the beginning of true discourse-you have beliefs, Leeann has beliefs and I have beliefs-we each think they are right, but at the same time we believe that through a common language and reason that we might be able to come to a consensus on what is the truth. It will likely take some time, but it could prove beneficial overall.

 

[Peter_J]

If “the Catholic church is right because it says it is” does the trick for you-then don’t let me disturb you. It doesn’t cut it for me.

Nor should it. Indeed, the statement “the Catholic church is right because it says it is” greatly underestimates the Catholic arguments.

It’s kind of sad that such an obvious point even needed to be made. But such is the world we live in (especially the internet portion of it), eh?

 

[Non_Serviam]

Nor should it. Indeed, the statement “the Catholic church is right because it says it is” greatly underestimates the Catholic arguments.

It’s kind of sad that such an obvious point even needed to be made. But such is the world we live in (especially the internet portion of it), eh?

I agree, the Catholic claims for authority have certain strengths not possessed by the Mormon claims, for instance. Hence I want to see if they hold up to the reputation they’ve made for themselves.

Unfortunately, that leads some Catholics to turn up the volume and intensity and begin the “we’re the true church and Jesus is going to let us watch you roast on a spit in Hell” refrain. They seem to imply that any investigation of their claims is an affront to Jesus and crucifies Him anew.

Then there are other Catholics who are helpful, understand that I’m not working from the same presuppositions as they are and attempt to explain their beliefs in a way that I can consider them and ask questions about what concerns me.

(And there are a whole bunch of folks between those two extremes)

I suppose at times I wonder which is the “real” Catholic POV-the “we’re right, so submit” POV or the “come let us reason” POV?

Anyhow, this doesn’t totally relate to the OP so I’ll shut up now.

 

[Good_Fella]

This sounds like the beginning of true discourse-you have beliefs, Leeann has beliefs and I have beliefs-we each think they are right, but at the same time we believe that through a common language and reason that we might be able to come to a consensus on what is the truth. It will likely take some time, but it could prove beneficial overall.

Your beliefs are formed purely by independent rationalizations as opposed to the beliefs held by Catholics which rest on the divine truths fully revealed to the one universal Church as defined by the Apostolic teaching authority under the guidance of the Holy Spirit: ‘Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus’. The Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” - not private individuals who wish to interpret the Scriptures for themselves. Arius, Nestorious, and Luther (etc.) are historical examples of what I mean. Catholics have the fullness of divine truth, so there’s no need for us to compromise our true beliefs in order to come to a consensus with Christians who are outside the Church established by Christ and founded on Peter and the Apostles. Of course, you reject the notion of Apostolic Succession, which the Church Fathers acknowledged in their writings, since you are outside the Church and compelled to justify your position through argumentation. But I’m afraid both history and theology are not on your side. You and Leeann should follow the example of the Ethiopian enuch. He learned the divine truth by relying on the Apostolic teaching authority of the Church. He could never have discovered the truth for himself by interpreting the Scriptures in an independent, private capacity. Whether we are speaking of the Church’s Christological or Marian doctrines makes no difference.

The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and join up with that chariot.” Philip ran up and heard hin reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you’re reading?” He replied, “How can I unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.
Acts 8, 29-31

“Now the cause, in all the points previously enumerated, of the false opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions about God, appears to be nothing else than the not understanding of the Scripture according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of it ‘agreeably’ to the mere letter. And, therfore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agrreably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us, we [the Episcopacy] must point out the ways of interpreting them which appear correct to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ, according to the succession of the apostles.”
Origen, First Principles, 4, 1:9 (A.D. 230)

Protestant division is the result of interpreting the Scriptures “agreeably to the mere letter” of the word bereft of the central Apostolic teaching authority of the Catholic Church and without the guidance of the Paraclete. You can never hope to reach a consensus even among yourselves.

“The plague of Protestantism has spawned thousands of quarrelling sects. Time itself has shown that Protestantism is not God’s plan for his Church, but rather is a dismal failure. As a Catholic, I am now at peace, away from the roiling controversies of Protestantism, secure in the consolation of the truth.”
Bob Sungenis, former evangelical radio “Bible Answer Man”

“As Protestants we had become infatuated by our freedom, placing personal opinion over the teaching authority of the Church. We believed that the Holy Spirit is enough to lead any sincere seeker to the true meaning of Scripture. The Catholic response to this view is that it is the mission of the Church to teach with infallible certitude…Eventually I realized that the single most important issue was authority. All of this wrangling over how to interpret Scripture gets one nowhere if there is no way to know with infallible certitude that one’s interpretation is the right one. The teaching authority of the Church in the magisterium is centered around the seat of Peter. If I could accept this doctrine, I knew I could trust the Church on everything else.”
Marcus Grodi, Gordon-Conwell Seminary graduate

“The former disobeyed God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And, thus, as the human race fell into the bondage of death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin.”
St.Irenaeus (A.D. 180)

PAX :harp:

 

[Always_For_Him]

It’s because of comments like this that I applied more precision to the statement. The current Catholic Magisterium are not the Apostles. If an Apostle teaches something then it is definitely Apostolic teaching by its very nature unless they say they are teaching someone else’s teaching.

To me, THIS is circular discussion. It goes no where. It just seems like morphed teaching to justify ones beliefs. Really, what does it matter that the current Catholic Magisterium are not the Apostles? Does it somehow change the meaning of NT Scripture over time? You can see by the Didache and the Catechism that teaching and context have not changed one bit. A fuller understanding has been realized and updated, but not changed. The Protestant Revolt ushered in change and there was no stopping heresy then. Each man could then personally interpret Scripture and teach his ideology as truth to those who would listen. That is what is happening today in non-Catholic Churches. The current Catholic Magisterium, including every member of the Catholic Magisterium all the way back to the Apostles’ successors have protected Christ’s teachings from change.

If someone else teaches something and says it is Apostolic teaching it might be Apostolic teaching. Based on who the teacher is and one’s perception of their competence and reliability you might accept their claim or not

If it is the Catholic Church saying that it is Apostolic teaching, then it is! The Church has recorded it all for your review. The ECF’s, all the way to now have recorded the teaching and most of the time the context of that teaching. It has not changed. That is why we don’t worry about that anymore. No one else today or 500 years ago could know any better than the magisterium that has protected Christ’s teacings in the context in which they were taught. Jesus promised He would guide and protect His Church to keep it free from error, and He has!

Only the Catholic Church has the documentation to make that claim. The churches that you listed, all non-Catholic Churches for that matter, have a name of a founder and a year that they were founded. Our Church founder is Jesus Christ and was founded at Pentecost.

All claim to trace their lineage of authority back to Jesus through various methods-and all claims should be verified in light of what we know of the early church and the Apostolic teaching. Saying that your interpretation of Jesus’ words is correct because your interpretation shows that you are the only ones who can interpret His words is circular.

No other Church but the Catholic Church can honesly make that claim. The teachings of the Catholic Church have been verified in light of what the early Church taught. It just seems that you have never been taught that. If you have grown up in a Church that has always taught you what they believe, then that is truth to you. No human’s own personal interpretation/feelings can be proven to be contextual Apostolic teaching either. Non-Catholic Churches aren’t really going to teach complete Church history, if any at all. I know it just seems impossible to believe, but the Catholic Church is the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church founded on the Apostles by Jesus Christ. Jesus promised to guide and protect His Church and He has. Just think if He didn’t or couldn’t, what that would actually mean… I shutter to think about it.

How could it possibly be circular? It is the Truth. We have the documentation to prove it. Keep reading the ECF’s. That alone will shine the Truth in a rich and complete way that you have never known before. The Catholic Church wrote the Bible for all Christian generations - the one that you use today. The Bible IS Catholic teachings. These were oral teachings for centuries before they were ever put together. The canon wasn’t even complete until 405AD. So, it isn’t like they had this book that they taught from. The Catholic Church still teaches in the same context today as it did then. It is really that simple.

 

[Leeann]

[SIGN]So…TO WHOM WOULD THE APOSTLES POINT THE POPE TOO…MARY …OR …JESUS???[/SIGN]

 

[Peter_J]

I agree, the Catholic claims for authority have certain strengths not possessed by the Mormon claims, for instance. Hence I want to see if they hold up to the reputation they’ve made for themselves.

Unfortunately, that leads some Catholics to turn up the volume and intensity and begin the “we’re the true church and Jesus is going to let us watch you roast on a spit in Hell” refrain. They seem to imply that any investigation of their claims is an affront to Jesus and crucifies Him anew.

Then there are other Catholics who are helpful, understand that I’m not working from the same presuppositions as they are and attempt to explain their beliefs in a way that I can consider them and ask questions about what concerns me.

(And there are a whole bunch of folks between those two extremes)

I suppose at times I wonder which is the “real” Catholic POV-the “we’re right, so submit” POV or the “come let us reason” POV?

Anyhow, this doesn’t totally relate to the OP so I’ll shut up now.

The only thing I would say in response is that I imagine the “we’re right, so submit” attitude is quite common among Protestants as well. (I say “I imagine” because I really haven’t spent nearly as much time on Protestant websites as I have on CAF. I guess I’ll get around to it eventually.)

 

[ron77nyc]

[SIGN]So…TO WHOM WOULD THE APOSTLES POINT THE POPE TOO…MARY …OR …JESUS???[/SIGN]

That’s easy. Christ is the only true hope. The Church cannot glory in anything but it’s Lord.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

There is no ‘either/or’, LeeAnn, no matter how often you try to imply, assert, or otherwise fantasize that there is some competition, some ‘separation’, or some idea that up in heaven there is JESUS on one side, Mary (and all others) on the OTHER side, and if one prays to Mary or a saint, one is automatically NOT PRAYING to Jesus, in opposition to Jesus, pointing ‘away from’ Jesus, etc. etc. etc. AD NAUSEAM.

 

[Good_Fella]

[SIGN]So…TO WHOM WOULD THE APOSTLES POINT THE POPE TOO…MARY …OR …JESUS???[/SIGN]

How many times have you asked that question now? ::ehh:

I’ve lost count.

 

[AshleyBelle]

They would point towards Christ, and in doing so, Mary would be standing there with Him, her arms outstretched to direct us to our loving savior, as her own dear little children