Praying to Saints

[scylla]

I do not see us getting defensive at all, we just like to have documentation if someone is going to make a statement such as this.

There is a new thread started to discuss this, feel free to join in,

God Bless
Scylla

A Church under persecution is not going to be exactly the same in organization and practice from the first century to today but we can discuss this too. This might require another thread to to discuss organization and doctrinal development.

 

[MariaG]

posted by Matt 14
I can see everyone is getting defensive about this, so I don’t want to get into arguments. Someone asked my opinion, I gave it, now I’ve got several people chawing on my leg. :lol:

Let’s ask this question: Do you think the Roman Catholic church today is organized in the exact same way it was in, say, the first century?

Defensive? No. Different opinion? Yes. Leg Chewing? Of Course! But feel free to chew right back.

Here is a link to the Remenant thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=77945

God Bless,
Maria​

 

[Matt14]

My friend Fidelis, don’t take slow answers to your posts as meaning I don’t have an answer. I am one man trying to respond to several dozens posters in multiple threads. Cut me some slack.

Fidelis:

Would you mind providing a historical timeline or other documetary evidence that this is true? There is voluminous textual evidence both orthodox and heretical from that period–where are the writings from the so-called “remnant”? It should be easy enough to provide, unless you suscribe to a convinient “conspiracy” theory in which all traces of this “remnant” were wiped out. This smacks of the “Landmarkism” which some Baptists hold and which all serious Christians find laughable.

I’m not so much interested in the “remnant” fact as I am the fact that the early church changed in the fourth century. Do you deny that there was a change at this time?

Jesus said that a city built on a hill cannot be hid. He also said his kingdom is IN this world without being of it. There is NO provision in the Scriptures for an “invisible” Church of “true believers.”

The “city on a hill” passage is taken out of context. Jesus went on to say:

Mat 5:16 "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

He was talking about letting our light shine before men that God may be glorified.

BTW, since my previous questions went unanswered: …I’m taking that to mean they are unanswerable and my conclusion therefore validated.

Not quite.

If you’d like to learn about proper interpretation techniques for the Holy Scriptures, I invite you to have a Bible study with me. We can do this my instant messenger, if you like. This offer is open to anyone here who would like to learn more about the first century church as taught in the New Testament.

God bless you all.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Matt14:

I can see everyone is getting defensive about this, so I don’t want to get into arguments. Someone asked my opinion, I gave it, now I’ve got several people chawing on my leg. :lol:

Not defensive here. But if you want to discuss your viewpoint in more dept, please go to the new thread that I created for this purpose.

Matt14:

Let’s ask this question: Do you think the Roman Catholic church today is organized in the exact same way it was in, say, the first century?

Just use the new thread I started for this as well, since it is a similar topic.

 

[scylla]

So would anyone like to discuss the Communion of Saints? I got a little distracted and am not sure if I have contributed as much as I should.

To summarize as others have done, we ask for the intercession of the Saints, just as we ask others here on earth to. We do not believe in a soul sleep, or something similar but in life in Christ, and a Body of Christ.
We do not equate all prayer as worship. God knows the heart and as Catholics we only give worship to God.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Matt14]

Thanks. Gotta do lunch first, though!

 

[E.E.N.S]

scylla:

So would anyone like to discuss the Communion of Saints? I got a little distracted and am not sure if I have contributed as much as I should.

To summarize as others have done, we ask for the intercession of the Saints, just as we ask others here on earth to. We do not believe in a soul sleep, or something similar but in life in Christ, and a Body of Christ.
We do not equate all prayer as worship. God knows the heart and as Catholics we only give worship to God.

God Bless
Scylla

This would be a good time to post this (if it hasn’t been already)

From the CCC:

**2635 **Since Abraham, intercession - asking on behalf of another has been characteristic of a heart attuned to God’s mercy. In the age of the Church, Christian intercession participates in Christ’s, as an expression of the communion of saints. In intercession, he who prays looks “not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others,” even to the point of praying for those who do him harm.

 

[mercygate]

Matt14:

I can see everyone is getting defensive about this, so I don’t want to get into arguments. Someone asked my opinion, I gave it, now I’ve got several people chawing on my leg. :lol:

Let’s ask this question: Do you think the Roman Catholic church today is organized in the exact same way it was in, say, the first century?

With bishops, priests, and deacons? Yes. Of course, over time, as the Church grew, it became necessary to clarify and distinguish aspects of those orders and to organize administratively in a way that could assure effective communication and communion, so the more strongly hierarchical aspects of the Church were developed: still retaining the basic orders: Bishop/Presbyter (Priest) and Deacon. Even in Acts we see Paul checking in with Jerusalem to assure that he was preaching the same Gospel as those who had known the Lord. Communion was critical: no “just me, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit” churchmanship.

It is clear from the Didache and the writings of Justin Martyr, from Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyon that the basic form we have today was recognizable in the first century Church.

Things people sometimes point to as “corruptions,” like the impressive real estate, do not change the character of the Church or her charism. E.g., I have had people say, “The early Church didn’t have Cardinals in fancy outfits!” OK. But a cardinal is just a bishop (usually, that is – there are non-bishop cardinals). He has special duties in view of his administrative office but these do not in any way change his “bishophood.” The Pope is just a bishop. The Bishop of Rome. History made it necessary (based on the scriptural warrant) to consolidate more authority in one central See than might have been required had not half the world flung itself into heresy. But he’s still just a bishop.

 

[jimmy]

Matt14:

Right. Of course, Paul was given a special commission, guaranteeing his inspiration.

The question was asked by someone, “How do we even know what books belong in the Bible?”

I would say that if it did not originate with one of these 12, it should not be included.

And since only apostles were guaranteed inspiration, I prefer to rest on the scriptures, and not on the handing down of tradition from the apostles through uninspired men.

But, that’s just me.

Flase conclusion. False logic. If I say I am God, does that mean that you should automatically believe me? I hope not, because you would come to the wrong conclusion. The same goes with scripture, just because scripture says that Paul was inspired, it does not follow that Paul actually was inspired.

 

[E.E.N.S]

mercygate:

With bishops, priests, and deacons? Yes. Of course, over time, as the Church grew, it became necessary to clarify and distinguish aspects of those orders and to organize administratively in a way that could assure effective communication and communion, so the more strongly hierarchical aspects of the Church were developed: still retaining the basic orders: Bishop/Presbyter (Priest) and Deacon. Even in Acts we see Paul checking in with Jerusalem to assure that he was preaching the same Gospel as those who had known the Lord. Communion was critical: no “just me, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit” churchmanship.

It is clear from the Didache and the writings of Justin Martyr, from Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyon that the basic form we have today was recognizable in the first century Church.

Things people sometimes point to as “corruptions,” like the impressive real estate, do not change the character of the Church or her charism. E.g., I have had people say, “The early Church didn’t have Cardinals in fancy outfits!” OK. But a cardinal is just a bishop (usually, that is – there are non-bishop cardinals). He has special duties in view of his administrative office but these do not in any way change his “bishophood.” The Pope is just a bishop. The Bishop of Rome. History made it necessary (based on the scriptural warrant) to consolidate more authority in one central See than might have been required had not half the world flung itself into heresy. But he’s still just a bishop.

Man, it sure it hard to move a thread, lol.

But just to add a comment on this, I want to remind everyone not to forget the parable of the kingdom of God being like a mustard seed.

Change is different than developement. The Church hasn’t changed, she has developed.

 

[jimmy]

Matt14:

I believe that the early church went astray and turned into the Roman church, then split into the Roman and Greek churches. All the while, there was a remnant worshipping.

The church is a spiritual body. His kingdom is not of this earth. I believe all those who are scripturally baptized are members of His church.

And yes, the gates of hell have still not prevailed against it.

It must have gone into herecy in the first century because Ignatius and Irenaeus believed in apostolic succession and the union of the people under the bishops. To say that the Church went into error is to say that Christ allowed the gates of hell to prevail against the Church, or that he could not protect it from the gates of hell. Either way, Christianity becomes false. Christ all of a sudden becomes less than what He claimed because He couldn’t even protect His Church.

 

[E.E.N.S]

jimmy:

It must have gone into herecy in the first century because Ignatius and Irenaeus believed in apostolic succession and the union of the people under the bishops. To say that the Church went into error is to say that Christ allowed the gates of hell to prevail against the Church, or that he could not protect it from the gates of hell. Either way, Christianity becomes false. Christ all of a sudden becomes less than what He claimed because He couldn’t even protect His Church.

Let’s not get too much off topic…

Here is a link to the Remenant thread http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=77945

 

[vern_humphrey]

Matt14:

I agree. But I’m not “protestant,” and I’m not a member of a denomination. I am totally against denominationalism. I believe there is one church of Christ, the one spoken of in the New Testament.

Which is, of course, the one which has been in existance for almost 2,000 years, and still proclaims the same message.

 

[Church_Militant]

Matt14:

It follows that the early

church sucessfully did this. But it does not follow that what is called the Roman Catholic church today is the “early church” that safeguarded scripture. IMO, FWIW.

-You are way way wrong on this one Matt14 and worse…you cannot support that from the history of Christianity because there is no unbiased verifiable historical evidence to support that idea.

If you really wanna get into that idea the bring it on right here after you have read all 204 posts so you are fully up to speed.

Links that will help with Praying to the Saints and Saint Worship as well as other relevent topics

Pax vobiscum,

 

[mercygate]

Matt14:

It follows that the early church sucessfully did this. But it does not follow that what is called the Roman Catholic church today is the “early church” that safeguarded scripture. IMO, FWIW.

How early is early? Before the canon was settled?

The catch is that once you accept that there was an early Church, and you identify it with the Early Church Fathers, then you’re kind of stuck with The Catholic Church because the historical continuity is *there. *There is no one place where you can point your finger and say, “There! Now the Church is not the Church.” And even if you could, where would your “real” church be? You’re right back to “me and Jesus and the Holy Spirit and the Book” which simply falls apart because the Book wasn’t codified until the late 4th century.

If the Church ain’t in the line of the Apostles, then it ain’t noplace. History corroborates Scripture. Otherwise you have to accept that the New Testament descended in a Morocco-leather bound, gild-edged, red-letter edition out of the clouds without reference to its context in the the Church that produced it.

The Church was venerating the Saints (since that’s what this thread is about) by the early 100’s. The descriptions of the martyrdoms of Ignatius (ca. 110 A.D.) and Polycarp (ca. 155 A.D.) will bring you to tears.

 

[Fidelis]

Matt14:

My friend Fidelis, don’t take slow answers to your posts as meaning I don’t have an answer. I am one man trying to respond to several dozens posters in multiple threads. Cut me some slack.

In other words, you’re not going to answer these questions. Fair enough.

I’m not so much interested in the “remnant” fact as I am the fact that the early church changed in the fourth century. Do you deny that there was a change at this time?

Yes, I do; and again, the question has been left unanswered.

The “city on a hill” passage is taken out of context. Jesus went on to say:

Mat 5:16 "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

He was talking about letting our light shine before men that God may be glorified.

In the context of the surrounding verses, that is correct. But the principle as it applies to an invisible Church is sound.

If you’d like to learn about proper interpretation techniques for the Holy Scriptures, I invite you to have a Bible study with me.

Thanks but no thanks. I am very aware of proper methods of practical biblical exegesis, and that is with the mind of the Church as has been taught since the Apostles. All the world needs is one more person interpreting the Bible for themselves. As Martin Luther lamented soon after he opened the floodgates with his inventions of Sola Scriptura and private interpretation, “There are now as many interpretations as there are heads.”

Blessings,
Fidelis

 

[E.E.N.S]

E.E.N.S.:

Let’s not get too much off topic…

Here is a link to the Remenant thread [forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=77945](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=77945)

Here is a link to the Remenant thread http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=77945

 

[Matt14]

Fidelis:

In other words, you’re not going to answer these questions. Fair enough.

Very uncharitable, which is what I expected from you guys. After an initial warm welcome, the rudeness has arrived.

There’s approximately 50 questions that need answering. Which of yours am I supposed to be answering?

Yes, I do; and again, the question has been left unanswered.

Which one? The remnant question? That’s coming in another thread.

In the context of the surrounding verses, that is correct.

I’m glad you agree.

But the principle as it applies to an invisible Church is sound.

No. You cannot apply passages as you wish, out of context. They must be applied as the writer/speaker intended. Else you are misusing scripture.

Thanks but no thanks. I am very aware of proper methods of practical biblical exegesis, and that is with the mind of the Church as has been taught since the Apostles.

If you did, you wouldn’t have misused “the city on a hill” passage above.

God bless.

 

[Dan-Man916]

*No. You cannot apply passages as you wish, out of context. They must be applied as the writer/speaker intended. Else you are misusing scripture.
*

that is exactly what the Tradition of the Church does.
How else does one determine the original intent if one didn’t live then, didn’t know the original greek, didn’t think in greek, and didn’t walk and talk with the APostles.

that is what the Church does. Catholics have the living Tradition of the Apostles so we know the proper context. Bible only Christians do not.

 

[Mickey]

Matt14:

Very uncharitable, which is what I expected from you guys. After an initial warm welcome, the rudeness has arrived.

What do you mean by “you guys”? I think most Catholic posters here are extremely charitable. Can you say that all of your posts are in perfect charity?