Saints, Mary, Paganism

[cazayoux]

With the following caveats:

#1 - the Trinity doctrine falls woefully short of describing the true nature of the godhead.
#2 - it is only correct insofar as human language can describe the godhead.
#3 - someone can choose not to affirm the Trinity, so long as they do not deny the “parts” (of the doctrine, e.g. that Jesus is both human and divine, etc.).

I realize you probably disagree with some or all of those.

I completely agree with 1 and 2.
We are mere humans, how could we possibly put into words the fullness of God.

The fact that the Trinity was not affirmed by the early Christians is one of the reasons I am reluctant to “force” the belief on others, and this is yet another illustration of why I do not believe in an apostolic succession or “Sacred Tradition” as the Catholics understand it. If there was such a thing, these types of disagreements (Arius was a priest, and many Bishops agreed with him), would have been practically non-existent.

But this is exactly how the authority of the church works.
It wasn’t just many bishops, but half or more.
It was a topic that came to a head and needed clarification.
THIS is why the council defined the Trinity.
Not that the Trinity wasn’t true before they defined it, but put into words as teachings for the church as a whole.
It clarified the understanding of God.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

I’d say they are representatives of the Old and New Covenants, 12 and 12. Revelation was a book of encouragement. The main lesson was: God wins. The point of the prayers being like incense before God is simply a reminder that God always hears our prayers. Anything else is reading something into the passage that is not there.

Like you I am reading the text and making an interpretation.
You cannot say my interpretation is wrong.

michel

 

[ckempston]

I completely agree with 1 and 2.
We are mere humans, how could we possibly put into words the fullness of God.

Honestly, I have never met anyone who would fit under #3, so I guess it’s really a pointless caveat. It’s more of a “what if” scenario I dreamt up.

But this is exactly how the authority of the church works.
It wasn’t just many bishops, but half or more.
It was a topic that came to a head and needed clarification.
THIS is why the council defined the Trinity.
Not that the Trinity wasn’t true before they defined it, but put into words as teachings for the church as a whole.
It clarified the understanding of God.

michel

I realize it was half or more. I realize that the majority of the Bishops eventually accepted the authority of the church, but this just proves that the Trinity doctrine is not “Apostolic” like many other Catholic doctrines.

 

[cazayoux]

I realize it was half or more. I realize that the majority of the Bishops eventually accepted the authority of the church, but this just proves that the Trinity doctrine is not “Apostolic” like many other Catholic doctrines.

I agree that the teaching was from the direct apostles.
When the church says ‘apostolic’, I think this refers to the authority of the apostles.
To say a church is apostolic means that the apostles appointed others as a teaching authority. Those in-turn, appointed others.

I read that you don’t agree with apostolic succession.
We just disagree here.

In scripture I see …
I see the replacement of Judas (bishopric).
I see Paul commissioning Timothy to commission others.
I see councils deciding matters authoritatively and others falling in line (recognizing that authority)
I see direction to go to the church to settle disputes.
I don’t see individuals deciding matters on their own in contradiction to defined teachings of the church

In history I see …
I see councils deciding matters authoritatively and others falling in line (recognizing that authority). [the trinity, recognition of which Christian writings were or were not inspired]
I see a church in one area taking direction from bishops.
I see a church in one area taking direction from the bishop of Rome even though there were closer bishops.
I don’t see individuals deciding matters on their own in contradiction to defined teachings of the church until Luther.

I understand that you don’t see these things the same way that I do.
For me, the evidence is overwhelming that there was an apostolic teaching authority from the early church until now.

michel

 

[ckempston]

I agree that the teaching was from the direct apostles.
When the church says ‘apostolic’, I think this refers to the authority of the apostles.
To say a church is apostolic means that the apostles appointed others as a teaching authority. Those in-turn, appointed others.

I read that you don’t agree with apostolic succession.
We just disagree here.

In scripture I see …
I see the replacement of Judas (bishopric).
I see Paul commissioning Timothy to commission others.
I see councils deciding matters authoritatively and others falling in line (recognizing that authority)
I see direction to go to the church to settle disputes.
I don’t see individuals deciding matters on their own in contradiction to defined teachings of the church

In history I see …
I see councils deciding matters authoritatively and others falling in line (recognizing that authority). [the trinity, recognition of which Christian writings were or were not inspired]
I see a church in one area taking direction from bishops.
I see a church in one area taking direction from the bishop of Rome even though there were closer bishops.
I don’t see individuals deciding matters on their own in contradiction to defined teachings of the church until Luther.

I understand that you don’t see these things the same way that I do.
For me, the evidence is overwhelming that there was an apostolic teaching authority from the early church until now.

michel

This is probably your most convincing post.

I admit that the evidence for a teaching authority is pretty overwhelming. This is one of the problems that I see in “Protestantism”: there is no real authority. It’s the reason that my “Catholic-ness” has been steadily increasing for years. So, while I see your position, and recognize the possible validity, I still have many doubts about some of your assumptions, which will either work themselves out in this life or the next. I simply don’t make hasty decisions. While my position has it’s difficulties and unanswered questions and doubts, suddenly becoming Catholic would not remove all difficulties, unanswered questions, or doubts. Both of our positions require a statement of faith.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Are you suggesting there was no such things as spirits b4 Jesus incarnation?

Praying the salve regina is NOT to Jesus through a saint.

You don’t understand the context of the prayer.
Catholics generally begin all prayers with the sign of the cross and the following preparatory salutation[sup]1 see below[/sup] which frames and encapsulated EVERYTHING uttered between the invocation in Christ’s name and THROUGH Christ until the prayer is closed. This is HIGHLY Scriptural.
*
And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.” John 14:13-14*

If we ask Jesus in His Name to let Mary join our prayers to ours - then it is subject to His approval and clearly from this scripture verse we can have absolute confidence that it will be granted since it is for good intent and acknowledge His Lordship by going through Him.

Can non-Catholics point to any scriptures where Jesus goes back and makes exceptions to this verse and amends the words “ask Me for ANYTHING”?

Catholics normally begin all prayers with a preparatory invocation while making the sign of the cross:

[sup]1[/sup]START OF PRAYER: “In the name of The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit”.

<Intercessory prayers and petitions spoken here - short or long>

CONCLUDE PRAYER SESSION WITH:
“Amen” or “We ask these things through Christ our Lord Amen”.

That is NOT mediation through a SAINT. That is EXPLICITLY mediation through Christ with an assumption of permission (according to His Will) for His granting subordinate mediation with His Saints. You all need to understand that subordinate mediation subject to The Lord’s mediation authority is perfectly acceptable to God.

Since the prayer is opened in the confidence that it is subordinate to Christ’s will there is NO way anyone can worship a saint or displease Christ through subordinate mediation. We trust Christ to disallow anything subsequently asked subject to His approval rather than let us fall into sin.

The Ave Maria or Hail Holy Queen is most often prayed in the context of The Rosary which also starts off with a sign of the cross and a recitation of The Creed. It is framed within a context of a statement of faith. The very first prayer is to The Father (The Our Father). Subsequent prayers alternate according to the Rosary convention as to who we are speaking to (God [glory be, our father], or Mary [hail Mary]). As a final last prayer closure we end with the Hail Holy Queen prayer and a final “Amen” and closing the prayer session with another sign of the cross to complete the prayer. Thus everything prayed is contextually subordinate to The Trinity and “wrapped” in that context.

Non-Catholics need to see Catholic prayer properly. We wrap all prayer within an “envelope” addressed to “The Lord” for his disposition. The contents of the prayer are placed as if on paper inside that envelope. We then close the envelope and trust that it has been safely delivered to God (through Jesus’ name) and if anything be displeasing to His will we are simply not granted that prayer.

Unless one is saying something hateful or intentionally blasphemous to God there is almost nothing one can say in this context that God would take offense at since it is subordinate in all cases to His Will and Pleasure. If it looked like the prayer was over the line and worshiping Mary over God then Jesus would simply disallow the prayer and not use that error submitted subject to His name to be an occasion for sin.

If non-Catholics can not trust God to know the hearts of Catholics then they might as well give up any pretense of trusting in God.

James

 

[cazayoux]

This is probably your most convincing post.

I admit that the evidence for a teaching authority is pretty overwhelming. This is one of the problems that I see in “Protestantism”: there is no real authority. It’s the reason that my “Catholic-ness” has been steadily increasing for years. So, while I see your position, and recognize the possible validity, I still have many doubts about some of your assumptions, which will either work themselves out in this life or the next. I simply don’t make hasty decisions. While my position has it’s difficulties and unanswered questions and doubts, suddenly becoming Catholic would not remove all difficulties, unanswered questions, or doubts. Both of our positions require a statement of faith.

We each have our journey to take.
At least you and I are each on our journeys and I think that makes Jesus rejoice.
I think asking the questions are an essential part of that journey.

I’m an engineering type.
At one point in my life as a lapse Catholic, I decided I wasn’t going to go to another faith until I fully vet the one I’m in now (even if only marginally in).
I also decided that I wasn’t going to take one more action as a Catholic until I understood what it meant and where it came from.
I think my tad bit of OCD has come in handy in this search for truth.

Obviously you can see where I’ve landed after all those years of searching.
Am I done searching?
Not even close.
With the evidence I’ve been presented with, do I think I am in the church that Jesus founded and promised would not fail?
I do.
Do I have any less love for anyone that isn’t where I am?
Of course not. In fact, I think my love has increased for EVERYONE (Christian or otherwise) while growing in my faith on my journey.

I’ve set this to protestant friends of mine.
If you are reading the bible and growing in your faith, you are EXACTLY where you need to be. I urge their continued study.
I’ll have to say though, those friends are now Catholic.

Cheers, brother!

michel

 

[mlchance]

The fact that the Trinity was not affirmed by the early Christians…

All parts of the dogma of the Trinity were affirmed by early Christians, including the ones who wrote the New Testament.

…is one of the reasons I am reluctant to “force” the belief on others…

Force has nothing to do with it. The only that legitimately compels belief is truth.

…and this is yet another illustration of why I do not believe in an apostolic succession or “Sacred Tradition” as the Catholics understand it. If there was such a thing, these types of disagreements (Arius was a priest, and many Bishops agreed with him), would have been practically non-existent.

The divisions and discords among Jesus’ own Apostles argue against such a rosy picture.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[ckempston]

All parts of the dogma of the Trinity were affirmed by early Christians, including the ones who wrote the New Testament.

Force has nothing to do with it. The only that legitimately compels belief is truth.

The divisions and discords among Jesus’ own Apostles argue against such a rosy picture.

I don’t disagree about the Trinity. You’re right about truth and the divisions as well. The Epistles often deal with discord and divisions as well, so I guess my picture is a little too rosy.

 

[mlchance]

I don’t disagree about the Trinity.

I realize that. If it sounded as if were stating otherwise, mea culpa maxima.

You’re right about truth and the divisions as well. The Epistles often deal with discord and divisions as well, so I guess my picture is a little too rosy.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Roy5]

LOVE NOT DOCTRINE

The problem with most debating Christians today (as in these postings) is that they focus on doctrine. Actually, when Jesus had a opportunity to lift up doctrine he seemed to cite love instead.

 The example that comes immediately to mind is the time when Jesus us asked what must one do to inherit eternal life. That was an opportunity to respond with some doctrinal statements. But, no. Jesus first said: you know the commandments, love God and love your neighbor as yourself.

  But the questioner persisted. Who is my neighbor? Then came the parable of thbe Good Samaritan. The whole sequence raises no issues of doctrine, but focuses on love. In this instance the hated Samaritan is the good guy, suggesting that racial and religious prejudice are wrong. Note, too, the only leper who returned to thank Jesus for his healing was a Samaritan.

  Sadly, for centuries Christians, Muslims and others have slaughtered in the name of religious truth - beliefs. Oust, demonize, and even kill the heretics. What an outrageous violation of Christ's command.

  Doctrine is interesting to discuss and speculate about, but in reality what do we really know when it comes to ultimate truth? We live on a tiny speck in this vast, vast, vast universe, and we think everything revolves around us and our salvation. 

  My guess is that most of our orthodox affirmations are so much guess work. Probably our finite minds can't fathom or understand the ultimate realities that are beyond our ability to comprehend.

  So, why do we get so self-righteous when it comes to advancing our particular beliefs? Christ must regard this as so much foolishness. John Wesley said two things that appeal to me: "Think and let think," And "if you love God as I love God, take my hand and let us walk together."  Sounds good to me. I'm sure Jesus would be pleased if we paid more attention to his counsel and were less concerned about creeds, papal pronouncements, which church is right, etc. We need more humility in our Christian faith amd a readiness to say "that's interesting" instead of "you can't believe that and be a Catholic!".

  The whole dispute over Mary and the saints is a waste of time. Some will venerate Mary and the saints. Some won't. Fine. Freedom of religion. We need to respect the religious differences among us and not try to diminish them. I suspect that when we come to the Judgment Seat, we won't be asked what our church or doctrines were. Jesus would want us to assure him that we did love God and our neighbor.

 

[CentralFLJames]

LOVE NOT DOCTRINE

The problem with most debating Christians today (as in these postings) is that they focus on doctrine. Actually, when Jesus had a opportunity to lift up doctrine he seemed to cite love instead.

 The example that comes immediately to mind is the time when Jesus us asked what must one do to inherit eternal life. That was an opportunity to respond with some doctrinal statements. But, no. Jesus first said: you know the commandments, love God and love your neighbor as yourself.

  But the questioner persisted. Who is my neighbor? Then came the parable of thbe Good Samaritan. The whole sequence raises no issues of doctrine, but focuses on love. In this instance the hated Samaritan is the good guy, suggesting that racial and religious prejudice are wrong. Note, too, the only leper who returned to thank Jesus for his healing was a Samaritan.

  Sadly, for centuries Christians, Muslims and others have slaughtered in the name of religious truth - beliefs. Oust, demonize, and even kill the heretics. What an outrageous violation of Christ's command.

  Doctrine is interesting to discuss and speculate about, but in reality what do we really know when it comes to ultimate truth? We live on a tiny speck in this vast, vast, vast universe, and we think everything revolves around us and our salvation. 

  My guess is that most of our orthodox affirmations are so much guess work. Probably our finite minds can't fathom or understand the ultimate realities that are beyond our ability to comprehend.

  So, why do we get so self-righteous when it comes to advancing our particular beliefs? Christ must regard this as so much foolishness. John Wesley said two things that appeal to me: "Think and let think," And "if you love God as I love God, take my hand and let us walk together."  Sounds good to me. I'm sure Jesus would be pleased if we paid more attention to his counsel and were less concerned about creeds, papal pronouncements, which church is right, etc. We need more humility in our Christian faith amd a readiness to say "that's interesting" instead of "you can't believe that and be a Catholic!".

  The whole dispute over Mary and the saints is a waste of time. Some will venerate Mary and the saints. Some won't. Fine. Freedom of religion. We need to respect the religious differences among us and not try to diminish them. I suspect that when we come to the Judgment Seat, we won't be asked what our church or doctrines were. Jesus would want us to assure him that we did love God and our neighbor.

“That’s interesting.”

But… are not these things here that you embrace also just personal doctrines?

1. We need more humility [in our Christian faith and a readiness to say “that’s interesting” instead of “you can’t believe that and be a Catholic!”].
2. “Think and let think” (btw: sounds somewhat gnostic oriented to me)
3. Freedom of religion(S) (a tacit doctrine of no absolutes?)
4. Respect Religious differences (even if those differences include disrespecting yours?)
5. Religious denomination (probably) doesn’t matter - its all about love. (“just give peace a chance brother?”).

Wesley had some “interesting” ideas but The Church in her wisdom found that his ideas were entirely heretical and substantially not the same gospel that Christ and the apostles taught. Do we really want to hold hands and walk with a guy who claims to love Jesus but seems to be inclined to lead us along the pathways of neo-Christian theories to go find Jesus out in the weeds and bracken?

If you are willing to follow Mr. Wesley may I ask why not be inclined to follow an apostolic bishop who is is joined to the original apostolic succession that links directly to people who actually knew Jesus and the apostles personally? Mr. Wesley can not make this claim.

What do we really know when it comes to ultimate truth?

I would say that what we know for certain is that truth is not multi-valued and therefor there can only be One Church teaching One Truth. That means dogma is king. All we need to be concerned about is who defines the dogma. My convictions are the one continuous 2,000 year old apostolic church (I include Orthodox here) is the clear winner - it has stood the test of time and “the gates of hell have not prevailed”.

James

 

[ckempston]

LOVE NOT DOCTRINE

The problem with most debating Christians today (as in these postings) is that they focus on doctrine. Actually, when Jesus had a opportunity to lift up doctrine he seemed to cite love instead.

 The example that comes immediately to mind is the time when Jesus us asked what must one do to inherit eternal life. That was an opportunity to respond with some doctrinal statements. But, no. Jesus first said: you know the commandments, love God and love your neighbor as yourself.

  But the questioner persisted. Who is my neighbor? Then came the parable of thbe Good Samaritan. The whole sequence raises no issues of doctrine, but focuses on love. In this instance the hated Samaritan is the good guy, suggesting that racial and religious prejudice are wrong. Note, too, the only leper who returned to thank Jesus for his healing was a Samaritan.

  Sadly, for centuries Christians, Muslims and others have slaughtered in the name of religious truth - beliefs. Oust, demonize, and even kill the heretics. What an outrageous violation of Christ's command.

  Doctrine is interesting to discuss and speculate about, but in reality what do we really know when it comes to ultimate truth? We live on a tiny speck in this vast, vast, vast universe, and we think everything revolves around us and our salvation. 

  My guess is that most of our orthodox affirmations are so much guess work. Probably our finite minds can't fathom or understand the ultimate realities that are beyond our ability to comprehend.

  So, why do we get so self-righteous when it comes to advancing our particular beliefs? Christ must regard this as so much foolishness. John Wesley said two things that appeal to me: "Think and let think," And "if you love God as I love God, take my hand and let us walk together."  Sounds good to me. I'm sure Jesus would be pleased if we paid more attention to his counsel and were less concerned about creeds, papal pronouncements, which church is right, etc. We need more humility in our Christian faith amd a readiness to say "that's interesting" instead of "you can't believe that and be a Catholic!".

  The whole dispute over Mary and the saints is a waste of time. Some will venerate Mary and the saints. Some won't. Fine. Freedom of religion. We need to respect the religious differences among us and not try to diminish them. I suspect that when we come to the Judgment Seat, we won't be asked what our church or doctrines were. Jesus would want us to assure him that we did love God and our neighbor.

1 Timothy 4:16 Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.