Protestants-Is this proof we can talk to dead saints?

[Mikejw]

Once you tear down all of Rome’s arguments for prayers to Mary and saints, they run to their next argument, which is, and I quote, “If God wants Mary to be omnipresent, then He can make her that way. All things are possible with God.” No…not all things are possible for God! But the scriptures are clear that there are things that are impossible for God to do, and one of them is “It is impossible for God to lie.” (Titus 1:2 and Heb.6:18) God says that no one is like Him (Isa.40:25 and 46:5). That means that God alone is omnipresent. God alone is able to dwell in all men. Mary is the creature, not the Creator.

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man…they changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” (Rom.1:23-25)

Mary’s spirit cannot dwell in a person. If God says that there is only mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, (1Tim.2:5), then to say that there are two mediators would be a lie. If God says that we have access to the Father by One Spirit (Eph.2:18, and 4:4), then to claim that we have access to the Father by two spirits or more would be a lie, and God cannot lie. Exodus 22:20 says, “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.” So…if men teach that one can sacrifice to the Queen of heaven, they lie, cause God cannot lie. As Rom.3:4 says, “…let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written.”

The reason the average Roman Catholic layperson prays to Mary can be summed up in by Liguori, and I quote,

“But those who hope in Mary, as the Mother of God, who is able to obtain graces and eternal life for them, are truly blessed and acceptable to the heart of God, who desires to see that greatest of his creatures honored; for she loved and honored him in this world more than all men and angels put together. And therefore we justly and reasonably called the Blessed Virgin our hope, trusting that we shall obtain, through her intercession, that which we should not obtain by our own unaided prayers We pray to her in order that the dignity of the intercessor may supply for our own unworthiness.”

The average Catholic thinks Mary and the saints are more worthy than themselves, and therefore, can mediate for them. However, in Revelation 5:2, John sees a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice,

“Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon. I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon. And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.”

Listen my dear Catholic friend…Mary and Roman Catholic saints are not more worthy or more holy than anyone else. Paul, a saint, according to the word of God, said:

“Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.” (1 Cor.3:21-23)

He warned us not to think of men above that which is written (1Cor.4:6) and what was written? That all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Rom.3:23). Jesus said, “Come to me”. As believers, we may boldly approach the throne of grace in times of need (Heb.4:16).

 

[ejb21]

To think that Mary is not more worthy than us is one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard. Mary is the only person who can stand before The Father and say, with regard to Jesus, “Your Son, and mine”.

Do you really think that Mary became the Mother of God by pure chance?, or as some Protestants say “that she was just another broad”?. How many in the Scriptures are referred to as “Full of Grace”, or, “highly favored by God”!

 

[Selene]

Prayer and worship are not the same. To worship means to adore and acknowlege the one true God. Catholics have always worship God and God alone. Prayer is a way to communicate and it also means “to ask.” When I ask someone to pray for me, I am not asking them to worship God. I am asking them to intercede for me by praying (asking) God to help me.

Mary and all the saints are alive in Heaven and so are the angels who served God. As you can see in the Bible, King David was able to commuicate to the angels in Heaven (Psalms 103:19-20) and tell them to bless the Lord because even the angels are alive in Heaven. They are not dead. And Jesus was able to speak to Moses and Elijah in the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:3, Mark 9:2-8, Luke 9:28:36) despite that they had already passed away from the earth. These are evidences showing that it is possible to speak to anyone living in Heaven because God is not a God of the dead, but of the Living (Matthew 22:32).

 

[ejb21]

Prayer and worship are not the same. To worship means to adore and acknowlege the one true God. Catholics have always worship God and God alone. Prayer is a way to communicate and it also means “to ask.” When I ask someone to pray for me, I am not asking them to worship God. I am asking them to intercede for me by praying (asking) God to help me.

Mary and all the saints are alive in Heaven and so are the angels who served God. As you can see in the Bible, King David was able to commuicate to the angels in Heaven (Psalms 103:19-20) and tell them to bless the Lord because even the angels are alive in Heaven. They are not dead. And Jesus was able to speak to Moses and Elijah in the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:3, Mark 9:2-8, Luke 9:28:36) despite that they had already passed away from the earth. These are evidences showing that it is possible to speak to anyone living in Heaven because God is not a God of the dead, but of the Living (Matthew 22:32).

Very good post. I could not agree more.

 

[guanophore]

Let’s continue looking at Liguori’s scriptural proof for prayers to saints. He said, “…St. Peter promises his disciples that after his death he will be mindful of them…" (2Pet.1:15) Let’s look at the verse he used and we’ll back up a couple to better understand what Peter is really saying. Starting at verse 12, we read:

“Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me. Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.”

These verses in no way indicates that Peter is promising that after his death he will be mindful of them. It’s actually saying the opposite of what Liguori says. Peter is simply telling them that he would not neglect to keep reminding them of things they already knew so that after his decease they would remember the things he taught. It is the people, not Peter that is mindful of the things said. This is a deliberate twisting of the scriptures.

It so happens that I agree with you about the meaning of Peter’s words. Howeve,r it is not a deliberate twisting of the scriptures. This is how Ligouri understood them. Everyone who reads the scriptures understands them in the light of what they know, and believe.

This is why it is a mistake to try to understand what the Catholic Church teaches by reading the opinion of one Catholic who is not representing the Church teaching when writing!

Liguori uses Stephen praying for his persecutors and Paul praying for his companions as proof that one can pray to saints. This again is a twisting of scriptures. Not only were Stephen and Paul both living at the time of their prayers, but both men were praying to God. Whether or not the saints that are in heaven pray for the living saints on earth does automatically grant permission for any man to start praying to them. Prayers are always to God alone and God alone!!

While I agree with your point that Stephen was praying to God, and that this passage does not necessarily indicate anything about praying to saints, again, Ligouri is not “twisting” scripture. This is how he understood it. He reads that Stephen is praying for the people, and he does not think this will stop just because Stephen leaves his body.

There is nothing in scripture, either, that says prayers must always be made to God alone. Such a statement indicates a very narrow understanding of prayer. Worship belongs to God alone, but supplication is not limited.

This again is a twisting of scriptures.

No, it just means he understands the scriptures differently than you and I do.

…in heaven pray for the living saints on earth does automatically grant permission for any man to start praying to them.

Such a statement reveals a fundamental flaw in reasoning. It implies that, unless a certain activity is found in scripture, then we have no “permission” to engage in it.

Once you tear down all of Rome’s arguments for prayers to Mary and saints, they run to their next argument, which is, and I quote, “If God wants Mary to be omnipresent, then He can make her that way.

Mike, if your purpose here on CAF is to “tear down all of Rome’s arguements” then you will not be here for long. CAF is not a venue for you to “tear down” our most Holy faith. Besides that, the doctrine of the Communion of the saints did not come from Rome. None of your “tearing” will be of any avail unless and until you can “tear down” the same practice in all the communities founded by Apostles that are not in union with Rome.

 

[guanophore]

Rome has a habit of changing words from “and to or” or “on to at” or “are to in” or “in to on”. So you really have to closely examine the verses that Rome gives to supports her doctrines.

Your anti-Catholic bias is leaking, Mike. This doctrine has nothing to do with “Rome”. It was believed and lived by the Church prior to “Rome” ever becoming the governing center of the Latin Rite. What you will need to do is prove your case with all those who received this practice and doctrine from the Apostles who are not in union with Rome. I suggest you start with the Orthodox. Pursuade them that they believe what they do about the communion of saints because of “Rome”. Good luck with that!

Furthermore, you again make the mistake that doctrine is derived from scripture. This is an error. All of Catholic doctrine was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. the NT reflects what the Catholic Church believes, but is not the Source of it. All of the Catholic faith comes from Jesus Himself, through the Apostles.

I guess Rome doesn’t care that God said “…Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matt.5:18) So…change as the may, the word of God will still stand.

This is just a misunderstanding of the Scripture, Mike. In fact, the Catholic Church “added” the entire NT, so it seems you cannot claim this verse even exists, or applies, unless you accept that Catholics “added” to scripture. The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, either.

All things are possible with God.” No…not all things are possible for God! But the scriptures are clear that there are things that are impossible for God to do, and one of them is “It is impossible for God to lie.” (Titus 1:2 and Heb.6:18) God says that no one is like Him (Isa.40:25 and 46:5). That means that God alone is omnipresent. God alone is able to dwell in all men. Mary is the creature, not the Creator.

The Catholic church has never taught that the saints, whether on this earth, or already in their heavenly reward, are “omnipresent”. They are present to the extent that His grace allows.

Of course, only God is able to dwell in all men! What made you think otherwise? Mary does not “dwell in” people the way the HS does. She relates to us as a loving mother.

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man…they changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” (Rom.1:23-25)

The Catholic Church does not worship any creatures, including saints. If you have been taugth this, you are misinformed. The passage you have quoted here was written by a Catholic, for Catholics!

Mary’s spirit cannot dwell in a person. If God says that there is only mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, (1Tim.2:5), then to say that there are two mediators would be a lie.

I agree that Mary’s spirit cannot “dwell in a person”. Her attitude can, though.

Jesus is generous, and allows us to participate in His mediation. It does not replace Him as a mediator that we become partakers of His Divine Nature.

If God says that we have access to the Father by One Spirit (Eph.2:18, and 4:4), then to claim that we have access to the Father by two spirits or more would be a lie, and God cannot lie.

Clearly you have been grossly misled about the communion of saints. We don’t “access the father by two spirits or more”. It is only the HS that unites us, through whom we have communion, and can access the father. The saints share in this One Spirit with us.

Exodus 22:20 says, “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.” So…if men teach that one can sacrifice to the Queen of heaven, they lie, cause God cannot lie.

This passage is talking about sacrifices of worship. Anyone who has ever lived cooperatively with other human beings knows very well that we must sacrifice every day in order to be perfected in love. Sacrifice to and for others is part of bearing one another’s burdens, and thus fulfilling the law of Christ. This is what scripture means when it says "

Phil 2:3-9
3 Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

We are to sacrifice our pride, and emulate Christ in humility.

 

[guanophore]

The reason the average Roman Catholic layperson prays to Mary can be summed up in by Liguori,

No, Mike, this is false. the average Roman Catholic layperson has never even heard of Ligouri. the reason Ligouri prayed to Mary is summed up in his writing.

The average Catholic thinks Mary and the saints are more worthy than themselves, and therefore, can mediate for them.

I find it quite arrogant of you, Mike, who have demonstrated such a gross misunderstanding of the Catholic faith, to pontificate here about what “the average Catholic thinks”. Frankly, you have demonstrated that you have no clue!

However, you are correct that Catholics believe the saints have been made worthy. Their worthiness comes from being covered by the blood of the Lamb. Although none of them are worthy to open the book and the seals, He has made them worthy to be in His presence for eternity.

Their worthiness is not the basis of our prayers, but His. They, as we hope to be, have been conformed to Him, and are partakers of the Divine Nature.

Listen my dear Catholic friend

AT this point, my dear separated brother, you may wish to go back and read the forum rules. CAF is here to answer questions about the Catholic faith. It is not a venue for you to pull Catholics away from their faith, or to evangelize them into “bible christians”.

Mary and Roman Catholic saints are not more worthy or more holy than anyone else.

I think this depends upon how you understand worthiness and holiness. You see, nothing unclean can enter heaven, so they are not just “declared” clean, but acutally purified, so that there is no sin left in them. They see Him as He really is, because they have been conformed to His image. We who are still on this earth struggle against the world, the flesh,a nd the devil, and as a result, are lacking in the fullness of purity attained by those who have passed from it.

Not only that, the saints are not “Roman”. The Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

Paul, a saint, according to the word of God, said:

“Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.” (1 Cor.3:21-23)

You seem to be laboring under the misunderstanding that our awareness of the communion of saints means that we “glory in men”. It is only God that makes the saints who they are. Try reading the “glories of men” in Heb. 11. It is clear that these are held up as role modes because of their faith.

He warned us not to think of men above that which is written (1Cor.4:6) and what was written?

Sorry, Mike, you have lifted this verse out of it’s context. Paul is referring there to what he has just written above. He was giving an example to follow, and was referring to the example (above). At the time that was written there was no “Bible” or no NT, so to try to apply that verse to those is not accurate.

The Catholic Church has never been limited to what is written in the bible. Jesus built the Church upon Himself, and the faith of the Apostles, not the Bible. Persons such as yourself, who are separated from the Apsotolic faith, attempt to reconstruct “church” by basing it on the Catholic Scriptures! (most of them, anyway).

That all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Rom.3:23). Jesus said, “Come to me”. As believers, we may boldly approach the throne of grace in times of need (Heb.4:16).

Indeed, verses written by, for , and about Catholics. However, those who have been glorified no longer fall short of His glory, but are perfected in Him for eternity.

Yes, we boldy approach the throne of grace for help in times of need. We also approach at other times, and we approach along with others with us.

I guess Rome doesn’t care....

You are right, this is a guess. It is an inaccurate one, as well.

This is just a misunderstanding of the Scripture, Mike. In fact, the Catholic Church “added” the entire NT, so it seems you cannot claim this verse even exists, or applies, unless you accept that Catholics “added” to scripture. The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, either.

 

[guanophore]

Chapter and verse if you will.

Rev 6:9-11
I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne; 10 they cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?” 11 Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.

Clearly alive, and clearly knowing what is going on here on earth.

Well first of all who are the saints you speak of?

All those who have gone on in faith before us, who have been perfected/made holy. Some of them are listed in Heb. ch. 11.

Rev 5:8
8 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;

To better understand why a Catholic prays to Mary, saints and angels, I went to a book by one of Rome’s “church doctors”, “St.” Alphonsus de Liguori, called The Glories of Mary.

Well, that was your first mistake. Alphonsus de Ligouri’s private Marian devotions represent an extreme practice of prayer and attitude that is quite rare among Catholics. Furthermore, this book of his is not part of the Apostolic Teaching (catechism or part of the Magesterial instruction given by those authorized by God to shepherd the flock.)

When you study the saints and doctors of the Church, you will often find private revelations and devotional practices that are not part of the public revelation of God to the Church, and are not binding on the faithful, or practiced by the majority.

In chapter 5, under, “Mary, Our Mediatress: The Necessity of the Intercession of Mary for our salvation”, we find the so-called scriptural evidence for prayers to Mary, saints and angels. Let’s examine his “evidence”. Liguori said:

“It is not only lawful but useful to invoke and pray to the saints, and more especially to the Queen of saints, the most holy and ever blessed Virgin Mary in order that they may obtain us the divine grace, is an article of faith, and has been defined by general Councils, against heretics who condemned it as injurious to Jesus Christ, who is our only mediator, but if a Jeremiah after his death prayed for Jerusalem; if the ancients of the Apocalypse [that’s the book of Revelation in the Christian Bible]

Just a couple notes here. One, what Alphonsus finds necessary for himself as a person does not necessarily represent the teaching of the Church. In this case, it does not. I think you have made a mistake, choosing someone with an extreme private practice to “better understand Catholics”. If you are really interested in understanding how Catholic pray to Mary, you will start with the official Teaching of the Church on the subject.

Secondly, you have just revealed that you are ignorant about the origin of your Bible, and implied that Catholics are not Christians.

…presented the prayers of the saints to God; if a St. Peter promises his disciples that after his death he will be mindful of them; if a holy Stephen prays for his persecutors; if a St. Paul prays for his companions, if, in fine, the saints can pray for us, why cannot we beseech the saints to intercede for us?”
Mikejw;5399175:

You won’t find it in the Christian Bible, because Maccabees was not written by a prophet, and it contains several errors. Rome uses the apocrypha in the vain attempt to discredit God’s true word, as they use 2 Maccabees 15:14 to prove one may pray to saints.

I think you may need a little research into the origin of your “Christian Bible”, Mike. If you are honest, and willing to look at history, you will find that the Deuterocanon was included in every Bible from the time the Catholic Church created the Bible until they were removed by Protestants about 500 years ago.

Not only that, Catholics have no need to “prove” our practices by Scripture. We have received the faith from the Apostles, and we conduct our prayers as they did. The Bible is not the source of our faith, as it is for those of you who have been separated from the Apostolic Succession.

Onias claims that Jeremiah “prayeth much for the people” and is a “lover of the brethren”, yet you won’t find anyone praying to Jeremiah, so it really fails to make Liguori’s point, as does the next scripture he uses in Rev.5:8,

What we see here, as well as in other places in scripture, is that the idea of the communion of saints and of purgatory existed long before Jesus set foot on the earth. God had revealed that the saints are alive and well, and can interact with people here, pray for them, and reveal things to them. This is part of the faith we received from the Jews. Granted, not all the Jews believed. Paul himself was adept at starting arguments over whether he had seen an angel or a vision, because some believed this was not possible.

“And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.”

Again, there is no evidence here that the prayers in the golden vials were prayers offered TO Mary and saints. As a matter of fact, it says, “the prayers OF saints”, not “the prayers TO saints”.

I agree. Since the Church teaches that there is no separation between those saints who are in heaven, and those who are on earth, it is not really a relevant distinction, but I think you are right, the scripture does not distinguish between those who are here, or there.

 

[GodIsGracious]

guanophore, you rock!

 

[guanophore]

The occult realm call it necromancing, not a good idea if you don’t want to open yourself up to demonic activity. It is appointed for man to die once and then judgment. I recommend a documentary called megido II, lots of info on this subject.

King Saul outlawed this practice,then put himself in disguise and sought out a diviner because he wanted to consult with the prophet Samuel. What was the result? Did Saul summon up a demon?

 

[SemperReformada]

Rev 6:9-11
I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne; 10 they cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?” 11 Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.

Clearly alive, and clearly knowing what is going on here on earth.

That’s not the issue for many of us who aren’t Catholic…note that no prayers were offered to the martyrs by folks on earth.

Rev 5:8
8 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;

First, Revelations is highly figurative in nature and secondly, note that the scripture you quoted does not say that the prayers went to the 24 elders but that they offered up the prayers.

I think you may need a little research into the origin of your “Christian Bible”, Mike. If you are honest, and willing to look at history, you will find that the Deuterocanon was included in every Bible from the time the Catholic Church created the Bible until they were removed by Protestants about 500 years ago.

Perhaps you should do a little research too. While I can’t name one bible that went out w/out the deuterocanonicals I can’t name one bible that didn’t contain admonitions against the reader accepting the deutero’s as fully part of the canon. Jerome’s prolouge in the vulgate that the pope comissioned to be sent out comes to mind. The gloss ordinaire, the main scripture commentary in the middle ages certainly didn’t look favorably upon the dc’s.

Augustine who accepted the dc’s clearly believed that the individual churches were free to decide for themselves even after Carthage and Hippo.

The Bible is not the source of our faith…

I know what you mean but I wouldn’t choose my words, even if I were Catholic, in the same way you just did.

 

[Mikejw]

I agree. Since the Church teaches that there is no separation between those saints who are in heaven, and those who are on earth, it is not really a relevant distinction, but I think you are right, the scripture does not distinguish between those who are here, or there.

It’s fascinating observing catholics wriggle there way through scripture :clapping:

 

[Mikejw]

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you." (1 Cor. 11:2)

“Traditions” In a strict sense used here, a synonym for God’s Word (2 thess. 2:15). The NT sometimes used the word in a negative way, refering to man-made ideas or practices, especially those that conflict with scripture. (Matt. 15:2-6; Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:8).

 

[PRmerger]

Mary and all the saints are alive in Heaven and so are the angels who served God. As you can see in the Bible, King David was able to commuicate to the angels in Heaven (Psalms 103:19-20) and tell them to bless the Lord because even the angels are alive in Heaven. They are not dead.

Exactly! They are ALIVE. Alive in Christ as part of His Body, part of the Church Triumphant.

Doesn’t it say somewhere whoever believes in Him will have eternal LIFE?

Life. Not death. No one in heaven is a dead spirit.

 

[guanophore]

(Edited)

“Traditions” In a strict sense used here, a synonym for God’s Word (2 thess. 2:15). The NT sometimes used the word in a negative way, refering to man-made ideas or practices, especially those that conflict with scripture. (Matt. 15:2-6; Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:8).

Yes. It is essential, in understanding the teaching about the role of Tradition, to distinquish between sacred tradition, and the traditions of men. Not all traditions of men are condemned. However, it is not scripture that is the standard, but the Revelation of God. The Pharisees also thought their traditions were not contrary to scripture, but it was because their perception of scripture, just as many persons to day, was skewed, and separated from the Spirit.

 

[Mikejw]

the Catholic Church “added” the entire NT, so it seems you cannot claim this verse even exists, or applies, unless you accept that Catholics “added” to scripture.

Forever Settled
A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible
buzzardhut.net/index/htm/Forever.Settled.pdf

Some quotes:

• Page 83 -
  (1) SINAITICUS (ALEPH) BRITISH MUSEUM
  Sinaiticus was written about 350 - 370 AD. It contains part of the OT and all of the NT plus the Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermes. It has four
  columns per page and forty-eight lines per column. It is written on vellum. This famous MS was discovered by Constantine Tischendorf in 1844 in the
  Monastery of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai. It was found in a load of wastepaper about to be burned. Tischendorf suggested that it was one of 50 copies
  prepared by Constantine in 331 and sent by Justinian to this convent named after his mother. It was sold to the Russians and then to the British Museum
  in 1933. Its text is a mixture of Alexandrian and Western (Strouse).
  However, with regard to its place of origin, Kenyon says: “Caesarea, Rome, southern Italy, have all been advocated, but the preponderance of opinion is
  in favor of Egypt. Every detail in its writing can be paralleled in Egyptian papyri… Its kinship in text with Vaticanus, which also has instances of these
  peculiar forms, and with the Coptic versions is a further argument for an Egyptian origin; and if Egypt, then Alexandria is the most probable home for so
  splendid (!!) a piece of book Production.”
  It is commonly said to be the only uncial MSS which contains the entire NT.
• Page 84 -
  But it must be remembered that it omits John 5:4; 8:1-14; Matthew 16:2,3; Romans 16:24; Mark 16:9-20 and hundreds of other words and phrases which
  are commonly removed from the Alexandrian Text. As with other corrupted MSS, it still shows its Received Text base and in a number of cases, agrees
  with the TR against the Vaticanus. (Based on Ruckman).
  Hort conceded that the scribe of Vaticanus “reached by no means a high standard of accuracy.” “Sinaiticus is acknowledged on every side to be worse
  than B in every way”. (INTT).
  Using the TR as a basis of comparison, Burgon found that Sinaiticus in the four Gospels alone omitted 3,455 words, added 839, substituted 1114,
  transposed 2299, modified 1265. Thus in all 8972 words are affected. (D. A. Waite in An Answer to Stewart Custer).
  Waite says further, “it is found that at least ten revisers, between the 4th and the 12th centuries busied themselves with the task of correcting its many
  and extraordinary perversions of the truth of Scripture.”
  Yet this is one of the two main pillars of our modern versions.

 

[Mikejw]

Continued quotes:

Vaticanus was also written around 350 - 370 AD and has been in the Vatican Library since 1481. It contains most of the OT, and most of the NT, except
for part of Hebrews, the Pastoral Epistles and Revelation. Strouse says its text is mixed but in the main Alexandrian.
It survived those eleven centuries before being placed in the Vatican Library because Christians didn’t use it. Its reading in John 1:18 “only begotten
god” showed every Christian exactly what it was - a Gnostic perversion. It contains the “Epistle to Barnabas” and the OT Apocrypha. Tischendorf
claimed it was copied by the same man as Sinaiticus (doubtful considering the differences). The Pope insisted that it must be earlier than Sinaiticus,
because of the way divisions are placed in the Gospels.
Scholars have called it ‘‘the best text", “the most perfectly preserved text”, “a remarkably pure text”, “a beautifully preserved text”, “highly legible”, etc.
According to Westcott and Hort it was written in Italy. They called it a “neutral text preserved on an island of purity”. (How Italy fits this description is a
little difficult to see!). However, modern scholars have abandoned the theory that Vaticanus was written there, as they also have that it was written by or
copied from Eusebius in Caesarea. (Ruckman).
On this last point, Kenyon said, “Hort was inclined to assign it to Rome, and others to southern Italy or Caesarea; but the association of its text with the
Coptic (Egyptian) Versions and with Origen, and the style of writing (notably the Coptic forms used in some of the titles), point rather to Egypt and
Alexandria.” (The Text of the Greek Bible).
The writing is small and neat, but its appearance has been spoilt by a later scribe, who finding the ink faded went over every letter, except those which he
thought incorrect. (Kenyon).
Again using the Received Text as the basis of comparison, in the four Gospels; B is found to omit at least 2877 words, to add 536, to substitute 935, to
transpose 2098 and to modify 1132 - for a total of 7578 words that have in some way been altered. (Waite quoting Burgon).
With primarily Vaticanus followed by Sinaiticus, you have the “two main pillars” of the modern Greek Text, and yet not only have they departed from
the Received Text, but also there is the sharpest disagreement between them. Herman Hoskier in “Codex B and its Allies” said, “There are over 3000
real differences between Aleph and B in the Gospels alone!” This is the kind of “foundation” that one has in the new versions.
Burgon, who spent years examining both MSS said, "It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS differ, than two
consecutive verses in which they entirely agree.’’
And yet these arc the two MSS on which Westcott and Hort and all subsequent editors - Nestle, Aland, Souter and the United Bible Society text put their
greatest reliance. (Waite).
The reader will begin to see the frequent omissions in these two manuscripts (actually the tip of the iceberg) by looking at our paper “'Two Hundred Omissions in Modern Versions”

 

[guanophore]

Continued quotes:

Continued quotes:

Continued quotes:

Continued quotes:

…The reader will begin to see the frequent omissions in these two manuscripts (actually the tip of the iceberg) by looking at our paper “'Two Hundred Omissions in Modern Versions”

You are missing the point, Mike.On what basis to you consider any of these translations authentic?

You see, you may not realize this, but your erroneous doctrine of Sola Scriptura presupposes the canon of scripture. This is a serious theological problem.

 

[Church_Militant]

To better understand why a Catholic prays to Mary, saints and angels, I went to a book by one of Rome’s “church doctors”, “St.” Alphonsus de Liguori, called The Glories of Mary.

This guy doesn’t seem to realize just how few of us have read that book, nor that doctors remarks (like this) are not de fide and therefore are not statements of Catholic belief any more that Mikejw’s remarks are for all n-Cs.

 

[Church_Militant]

“Traditions” In a strict sense used here, a synonym for God’s Word (2 thess. 2:15). The NT sometimes used the word in a negative way, refering to man-made ideas or practices, especially those that conflict with scripture.

(Matt. 15:2-6; Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:8).Too bad for you that the Catholic Church doesn’t have any of those though you wish it did.
The Intercession & Communion of Saints