Who do you pray to?

[swplan76]

Christ is the Head of His Body. And there is more to a body than its head (a severed head on a spike is not a human being). IOW, He has members. These include the Saints in Heaven. The members do not replace the head - they are in union with it: which is a completely different idea. The Saints depend entirely on Christ: just as all creatures do, even if they don’t realise it (oxygen does not need recognising to be in our lungs - far less does the Spirit of Christ Who dwells in the Saints).​

In short, among many things that are inconceivable, impossible, & totally non-existent in every respect, Saints independent of Christ are included: no such beings exist, nor could they. The very idea is incoherent & meaningless. Therefore, what the Saints in Heaven do, they do by no power that is not that of Christ dwelling within them.

And if a few hundred bits of paper in a book can be used by the Holy Spirit to assist Christians on earth, why can the same Spirit not work in and through the Saints in Heaven to assist Christians on earth ? The principle that justifies the use of the Bible is the same as that which justifies the use of the Saints, or any other gift of God. There is no more inherent holiness in the Bible, than in the Saints: because in both cases, the primacy is Christ’s.

The Saints are not obstacles between us and Christ: that would imply that Christ is confined to Heaven. But He is God as well as man - therefore, He is absent from no part of His creation whatever. He is not confined or restricted by His own creatures: on the contrary, He transcends them all: therefore, He is nearer to each of His own creatures than any of them could be to each other. We can “go” to the Saints, only because Christ is our way to them - for they are in Him, & to go to Him, is to enter into communion with those who are in Him. To know them - we must know Him. So how can they be obstacles to Him ?

Interesting ideas - good logic

but it doesn’t mean anything to me unless you have something more than your own ideas.

I didn’t say it was illogical.
I said it was unscriptural.

Its interesting that no one has been able to bring any scripture that directly encourages or supports the idea of praying to the dead.

Responses trying to convince me with out the use of scripture (as I have asked for) are starting to convince me that either I’m right and there isn’t any scriptural backing or people just aren’t familiar with the scriptures that support it.

 

[Louie1983]

Interesting ideas - good logic

but it doesn’t mean anything to me unless you have something more than your own ideas.

I didn’t say it was illogical.
I said it was unscriptural.

Its interesting that no one has been able to bring any scripture that directly encourages or supports the idea of praying to the dead.

Responses trying to convince me with out the use of scripture (as I have asked for) are starting to convince me that either I’m right and there isn’t any scriptural backing or people just aren’t familiar with the scriptures that support it.

swplan76, can you show me anywhere in the bible that says it HAS to be in the bible for it to be true? The bible is not the only source of grace and not the final authority - therefore not all of God’s grace/knowledge is located in the bible.

As you know (or should know) the catholic church teaches that there are 2 major sources of faith, sacred scripture and sacred tradition. Even John the disciple himself wrote that not everything that was done is contained in this book, st paul says to accept the written and ORAL traditions of the church (catholic).

Here are some quotes from early church fathers that support the prayer to saint:

“As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honours.” Tertullian, The Crown, 3 (A.D. 211).

“I am also of opinion that there were many persons of the same name with John the apostle, who by their love for him, and their admiration and emulation of him, and their desire to be loved by the Lord as he was loved, were induced to embrace also the same designation, just as we find many of the children of the faithful called by the names of Paul and Peter.” Dionysius of Alexandria, Books of Promises, 5 (A.D. 257).

“Then we commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that at their prayers and intercessions God would receive our petition. Then on behalf also of the Holy Fathers and Bishops who have fallen asleep before us, and in a word of all who in past years have fallen asleep among us, believing that it will be a very great benefit to the souls, for whom the supplication is put up, while that holy and most awful sacrifice is set forth.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 23:9 (A.D. 350).

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Psalms 103:20 - Praise the Lord, you his angels, you mighty ones who do his bidding.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi curiousgirl26,

There have already been some good explanations here, e.g. post #5 by Gottle of Geer, but I’d like to add a comment about degrees of importance.

Let me put it this way:
(1) I ask the Saints in heavens for prayers, and
(2) I consider (1) to be “praying to the Saints”.

Which of these two is more important? No contest, (1) is much more important than (2). (Although, of course, (1) isn’t the most important thing in Catholicism, or even one of the most important things in Catholicism.) If someone else were to say “I ask the Saints in heavens for prayers, but I don’t consider that to be ‘praying to the Saints’”, then I would not by any means want to quarrel with that person about whether it is or isn’t. As long as he/she doesn’t have a problem with me, I have no problem with him/her. (It really burns me up when a Protestant says “I don’t pray to the Saints”, and then a Catholic responds with something like “Oh, so then you never ask your brethren to pray for you?” )

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Interesting ideas - good logic

but it doesn’t mean anything to me unless you have something more than your own ideas.

I didn’t say it was illogical.
I said it was unscriptural.

Its interesting that no one has been able to bring any scripture that directly encourages or supports the idea of praying to the dead.

Responses trying to convince me with out the use of scripture (as I have asked for) are starting to convince me that either I’m right and there isn’t any scriptural backing or people just aren’t familiar with the scriptures that support it.

Understood ​

All I’ve done is draw on some of what the Bible (it was St. Paul - not me - who outlined the theology of the Church as the Body of Christ) has to say on the matter, directly or indirectly. The ideas in the Bible aren’t unrelated or without consequences - God’s Word accomplished all He purposes by it, no ? - & more important than the written words, which left to themselves are dead, & even deadly, is the Word Who is also a Person, Jesus Christ. Christ is the One in Whom the Bible, & every other creature, “holds together” - He is greater than them all. So we have to look up to Him, not just to the Bible; for that is only a gift, not the Giver.

If people are not familiar with the Bible, is that the fault of those who are ? I can’t, & more importantly, I won’t, list the texts - not because the Catholic practice is without Biblical fiundation, but because such a list would not show you a case that could be made from the Bible for devotion to the Saints. It would not make clear how texts can be inter-related to make the argument; it would be like a pile of bones rather than an orderly skeleton. IOW, it would not be a theological answer, but a mere pile of unconnected texts. And how would that answer the question ? For anyone can pile up texts The truth of a doctrine is greater than, not reducible to, the texts & reasons which can support it. If the Bible did not exist, faith in Christ would be no less true. But that is another subject. To understand why the Church prays to the Saints, one needs to think theologically, coherently, & not stop at listing references or texts; for that explains nothing. Would you have me list all the texts I had in mind in my previous answer ? What would such a list do to help clarify or support Catholic thought or practice ?

 

[Peter_J]

Interesting ideas - good logic

but it doesn’t mean anything to me unless you have something more than your own ideas.

I didn’t say it was illogical.
I said it was unscriptural.

Its interesting that no one has been able to bring any scripture that directly encourages or supports the idea of praying to the dead.

Responses trying to convince me with out the use of scripture (as I have asked for) are starting to convince me that either I’m right and there isn’t any scriptural backing or people just aren’t familiar with the scriptures that support it.

This relates to what I said to curiousgirl26 about different levels of importance.

More specifically, when you ask ‘Does scripture support praying to the saints in heaven?’, I believe that you are putting the cart before the horse. We should first be asking, Should we ask the saints in heaven to pray for us? Only after we answer that answer (and only if the answer is in the affirmative) should we ask the much-less-important question, Should this be called ‘praying to the saint’?

 

[racing59]

Interesting ideas - good logic

but it doesn’t mean anything to me unless you have something more than your own ideas.

I didn’t say it was illogical.
I said it was unscriptural.

Its interesting that no one has been able to bring any scripture that directly encourages or supports the idea of praying to the dead.

Responses trying to convince me with out the use of scripture (as I have asked for) are starting to convince me that either I’m right and there isn’t any scriptural backing or people just aren’t familiar with the scriptures that support it.

hi swplan76, I use to have the same hang up about Saints until I study Revelation. Revelation 8:3-5 the prayers of the Saints are taken by the Angels and place before the throne of God. Paul tells us in Hebrews 12:1 we have a cloud of witness watching over us. These are the Heavenly Saints in the Shekina Holy Cloud. Saints are in scripture and I found it a comforting thought the can pray for us.:bowdown2:
Peace be with you

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

All prayers by Catholics are ultimately intended for God. Only God can answer prayers. However, with that in mind, sometimes we will ask a saint to hand our prayer to God through their purified hands (so to speak). For example, if I have cancer and am praying for God to heal me, I might also ask the Blessed Virgin to ask God to heal me too. It is my prayer to God, being given to Him by someone more righteous than I. The prayer of the righteous one avails much and there is no one more righteous on earth than one who has been made clean in heaven (nothing unclean shall enter). Our God is the God of the living; our friends, the saints in heaven, are alive in heaven they continue to obey God’s desire to love us and to pray for us.

As to the scripture that demonstrates intercessory prayer, it is in the Book of Tobit chapter 12. The angel Raphael tells Tobit that he heard his prayer and interceded with God on Tobit’s behalf. One may argue that people who have gone to heaven aren’t the same as angels. However, scripture says that men “shall be as angels” in heaven (Mt.22:30). Additionally, no one thinks that angels are omnipresent, but yet Raphael heard Tobit’s prayer. The only logical explanation is that God wills the heavenly host to hear our prayers. Sadly, this confirmation of intercessory prayer has been deleted from many bibles based on the self-proclaimed authority of the reformers.

 

[1beleevr]

The same One I have always prayed to:Our Holy Father(God) through Jesus Christ!!! He told us that we can ask the Father for anything in His Name! Our Father, which art in Heaven…

 

[BernadetteM]

What I find as strange about some protestants, is that they will deny that praying/asking the saints in Heaven to intercede for us is of any use, but have no problem asking their father or mother who has died to ask God to heal a family member.

My dead friends are evangelical Christians and do not pray/ask saints for their prayers, but after their father died they asked him to please ask God to help their brother who needed two transplants or he would die. He had not had any luck getting one. After their requests to their father the brother within two months was given the transplants. They all credit their father’s prayers for this miracle.

I have also heard protestants talk to their dead relatives when visiting their gravesites.

If they believe that there is power in asking their dead parents to pray/ask God for this why the problems with asking saints.

I can’t believe that all Christians don’t believe that the dead are alive in Heaven. I have been to many funerals and the pastor aludes to the fact that their brother/sister in Christ is in Heaven. Do they believe that people are dead in Heaven. If so what is the point of going to Heaven.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[BernadetteM]

Sorry I meant dear friends not dead friends.

Bernadette

 

[ferdie]

What I find as strange about some protestants, is that they will deny that praying/asking the saints in Heaven to intercede for us is of any use, but have no problem asking their father or mother who has died to ask God to heal a family member.

My dead friends are evangelical Christians and do not pray/ask saints for their prayers, but after their father died they asked him to please ask God to help their brother who needed two transplants or he would die. He had not had any luck getting one. After their requests to their father the brother within two months was given the transplants. They all credit their father’s prayers for this miracle.

I have also heard protestants talk to their dead relatives when visiting their gravesites.

If they believe that there is power in asking their dead parents to pray/ask God for this why the problems with asking saints.

I can’t believe that all Christians don’t believe that the dead are alive in Heaven. I have been to many funerals and the pastor aludes to the fact that their brother/sister in Christ is in Heaven. Do they believe that people are dead in Heaven. If so what is the point of going to Heaven.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

I guess they know their family better and they know that in their hearts they died in the grace of God and they are with God. They just need to know the concept of family in the Catholic Church. We are one big family (those in heaven, purgatory and here on earth) that takes care of each other. Time, space and conditions doesn’t separate us.Once they think of the bigger picture, they will understand us Catholics. Those in Heaven hear us, for they share and partake in the divinity of our Lord.

 

[happilycatholic]

Interesting ideas - good logic

but it doesn’t mean anything to me unless you have something more than your own ideas.

I didn’t say it was illogical.
I said it was unscriptural.

Its interesting that no one has been able to bring any scripture that directly encourages or supports the idea of praying to the dead.

Responses trying to convince me with out the use of scripture (as I have asked for) are starting to convince me that either I’m right and there isn’t any scriptural backing or people just aren’t familiar with the scriptures that support it.

If you have studied catholicism you will know that we don’t derive our faith in toto from Scripture. We have a ‘full’ deposit of faith which is inclusive of Scripture, but not exlusive of Scripture. You are putting the cart before the horse if you include only Scripture in your faith foundation.

So if you are trying to prove sola scriptura, you are proving nothing but your interpretation of that point of view.

Unless of course you can show us with Scripture where it says that Scripture is the one and only source of faith and that it is an absolute ‘complete’ source and canonize by some other intity than the one you are claiming is in error.

 

[swplan76]

swplan76, can you show me anywhere in the bible that says it HAS to be in the bible for it to be true? The bible is not the only source of grace and not the final authority - therefore not all of God’s grace/knowledge is located in the bible.

As you know (or should know) the catholic church teaches that there are 2 major sources of faith, sacred scripture and sacred tradition. Even John the disciple himself wrote that not everything that was done is contained in this book, st paul says to accept the written and ORAL traditions of the church (catholic).

Hey Louie,

    I agree, I think the Bible points to there being another authority in John 14-16, The Holy Spirit.  My experience has led me to understand that the Holy Spirit confirms things with in us.  The authority of scripture is confirmed to me as I read it (as is understanding of it).  From what I can see, the primary authority according to scripture is the HS.  The HS uses scripture in our lives to lead us into understanding.  If we need to know something about who God is, who we need to be, what life can be, the HS can show us using scripture.  Sometimes God will also use other sources through the HS (eg. people, answers to prayer, etc...).

     I am not at the point where I believe that something is true just because the Catholic church teaches it.  I don't think scripture encourages this kind of approach either (I know here I go again, demanding scripture :mad: :shrug::cool::D )

Oral traditions of the church
You put in brackets “Catholic” … I don’t see myself as excluded from the true Catholic Church. I am a member of the body of Christ - I don’t believe the Catholic Church is the only one. I think it would be great if the various sections of the church could come together in every city in order to do the work God has for us to do… I think its sad that we disagree on small stuff and we let that divide us. God should be glorified through our lives - how much could be done to bring glory to God if we would all join together in Jesus’ name?

 

[Mighty_Sword]

I am a firm believer in origins, of churches, religions, faiths, and cults the “C” word here are the origins of the catholic church,

Why do people think they have to belong to a religion to have a relationship with The Almighty?

According to the Catholic Church, when Jesus told Peter, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” he was appointing Peter as the first Catholic Pope and instituting the Church. If this view is accepted, the Catholic Church began around 32 CE.
Others believe that in 312 CE when Emperor Constantine proclaimed he had had a vision to unite the Roman Empire under a universal (i.e. “catholic”) church, this began the Roman Catholic Church. Others point to earlier dates (certain of the “Church fathers”) or later dates (to Nicea or other councils).
In my opinion, the Catholic Church began on February 27, 380 when Emperor Theodosius issued his edict, De Fide Catolica, in Thessalonica, published in Constantinople, declaring Catholic Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire.
Following the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE the followers of Jesus, like the Jews, spread out through the known world. These people studied and prayed and sought God’s direction according to their ability. Some of these people supported merging their doctrines with Roman Pagan doctrines in an attempt to lessen the persecutions and gain official recognition by the Empire. Others doubtless supported this position out of lack of knowledge. They were Romans and they knew these teachings, but were ignorant of Jewish scripture and doctrine. In the New Testament Paul and others warn that Pagan and other “heretical views” were being introduced into the Church. It can be argued that these Romanized teachings were included in these warnings.
Other people sought more mystical approaches (the Gnostics etc.). As time went by there were many “Christianities” not just one and these were incredibly diverse in their teachings and beliefs. Some Nazarenes believed one thing, others another.
Once the form of Christianity embraced by certain pro-Roman factions gained political power and recognition the Catholic Church began a long process of distilling and canonizing its beliefs into a Roman hierarchically authorized form. This form is what we today refer to as Roman Catholicism.
Other forms of Christian religion continued as well but these were forced underground by severe persecution. Sects like the Abegensians, Cathers, Arians, Anabaptists, the Coptic Church, etc. maintained their teaching as the arguably true Christian faith largely underground but by this point it was impossible to identify any as being truly apostolic (as the teachings of the Apostles). In time most of these were destroyed by the might of the Catholic Church or faded away and yet the Papacy never managed to completely destroy the other sects.
Eventually the Roman Catholic Church split into the Eastern and Western (Orthodox and Roman) Catholic Church, each claiming to be the original. Later of course the Church of England (Anglican) left the Roman Church and still later came the Protestant Reformation and so on. Each group claiming to be the restoration of the One True Church revealed by Master Y’shua. Which if any of these are the original is a matter of personal faith. This may be more information than you wanted to know, but it is relevant to what we know as Catholicism and Christianity.
What a tragedy!

 

[Mighty_Sword]

Origins if islam, another tragedy,

islam, another tragedy, here are it’s origins,

The religion of Islam has as its focus of worship a deity by the name of “Allah.” The Muslims claim that Allah in pre-Islamic times was the biblical God of the Patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. The issue is thus one of continuity. Was “Allah” the biblical God or a pagan god in Arabia during pre- Islamic times? The Muslim’s claim of continuity is essential to their attempt to convert Jews and Christians for if “Allah” is part of the flow of divine revelation in Scripture, then it is the next step in biblical religion. Thus we should all become Muslims. But, on the other hand, if Allah was a pre- Islamic pagan deity, then its core claim is refuted. Religious claims often fall before the results of hard sciences such as archeology. We can endlessly speculate about the past or go and dig it up and see what the evidence reveals. This is the only way to find out the truth concerning the origins of Allah. As we shall see, the hard evidence demonstrates that the god Allah was a pagan deity. In fact, he was the Moon-god who was married to the sun goddess and the stars were his daughters.
In ancient Syria and Canna, the Moon-god Sin was usually represented by the moon in its crescent phase. At times the full moon was placed inside the crescent moon to emphasize all the phases of the moon. The sun-goddess was the wife of Sin and the stars were their daughters. For example, Istar was a daughter of Sin. Sacrifices to the Moon-god are described in the Pas Shamra texts. In the Ugaritic texts, the Moon-god was sometimes called Kusuh. In Persia, as well as in Egypt, the Moon- god is depicted on wall murals and on the heads of statues. He was the Judge of men and gods. The Old Testament constantly rebuked the worship of the Moon-god (see: Deut. 4:19;17:3; II Kngs. 21:3,5; 23:5; Jer. 8:2; 19:13; Zeph. 1:5, etc.) When Israel fell into idolatry, it was usually the cult of the Moon-god. As a matter of fact, everywhere in the ancient world, the symbol of the crescent moon can be found on seal impressions, steles, pottery, amulets, clay tablets, cylinders, weights, earrings, necklaces, wall murals, etc. In Tell-el-Obeid, a copper calf was found with a crescent moon on its forehead. An idol with the body of a bull and the head of man has a crescent moon inlaid on its forehead with shells. In Ur, the Stela of Ur-Nammu has the crescent symbol placed at the top of the register of gods because the Moon-god was the head of the gods. Even bread was baked in the form of a crescent as an act of devotion to the Moon-god. The Ur of the Chaldees was so devoted to the Moon-god that it was sometimes called Nannar in tablets from that time period.

A temple of the Moon-god has been excavated in Ur by Sir Leonard Woolley. He dug up many examples of moon worship in Ur and these are displayed in the British Museum to this day. Harran was likewise noted for its devotion to the Moon-god. In the 1950’s a major temple to the Moon-god was excavated at Hazer in Palestine. Two idols of the moon god were found. Each was a stature of a man sitting upon a throne with a crescent moon carved on his chest . The accompanying inscriptions make it clear that these were idols of the Moon-god. Several smaller statues were also found which were identified by their inscriptions as the “daughters” of the Moon-god. What about Arabia? As pointed out by Prof. Coon, “Muslims are notoriously loath to preserve traditions of earlier paganism and like to garble what pre-Islamic history they permit to survive in anachronistic terms.”

During the nineteenth century, Amaud, Halevy and Glaser went to Southern Arabia and dug up thousands of Sabean, Minaean, and Qatabanian inscriptions which were subsequently translated. In the 1940’s, the archeologists G. Caton Thompson and Carleton S. Coon made some amazing discoveries in Arabia. During the 1950’s, Wendell Phillips, W.F. Albright, Richard Bower and others excavated sites at Qataban, Timna, and Marib (the ancient capital of Sheba). Thousands of inscriptions from walls and rocks in Northern Arabia have also been collected. Reliefs and votive bowls used in worship of the “daughters of Allah” have also been discovered. The three daughters, al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat are sometimes depicted together with Allah the Moon-god represented by a crescent moon above them. The archeological evidence demonstrates that the dominant religion of Arabia was the cult of the Moon-god.

In Old Testament times, Nabonidus (555-539 BC), the last king of Babylon, built Tayma, Arabia as a center of Moon-god worship. Segall stated, “South Arabia’s stellar religion has always been dominated by the Moon-god in various variations.” Many scholars have also noticed that the Moon-god’s name “Sin” is a part of such Arabic words as “Sinai,” the “wilderness of Sin,” etc. When the popularity of the Moon-god waned elsewhere, the Arabs remained true to their conviction that the Moon-god was the greatest of all gods. While they worshipped 360 gods at the Kabah in Mecca, the Moon-god was the chief deity. Mecca was in fact built as a shrine for the Moon-god.

 

[Mighty_Sword]

Origins of islam part 2,

This is what made it the most sacred site of Arabian paganism. In 1944, G. Caton Thompson revealed in her book, The Tombs and Moon Temple of Hureidha, that she had uncovered a temple of the Moon-god in southern Arabia. The symbols of the crescent moon and no less than twenty-one inscriptions with the name Sin were found in this temple. An idol which may be the Moon-god himself was also discovered. This was later confirmed by other well-known archeologists.

The evidence reveals that the temple of the Moon-god was active even in the Christian era. Evidence gathered from both North and South Arabia demonstrate that Moon-god worship was clearly active even in Muhammad’s day and was still the dominant cult. According to numerous inscriptions, while the name of the Moon-god was Sin, his title was al- ilah, i.e. “the deity,” meaning that he was the chief or high god among the gods. As Coon pointed out, “The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon God.” The Moon-god was called al- ilah, i.e. the god, which was shortened to Allah in pre-Islamic times. The pagan Arabs even used Allah in the names they gave to their children. For example, both Muhammad’s father and uncle had Allah as part of their names.

The fact that they were given such names by their pagan parents proves that Allah was the title for the Moon-god even in Muhammad’s day. Prof. Coon goes on to say, “Similarly, under Mohammed’s tutelage, the relatively anonymous Ilah, became Al-Ilah, The God, or Allah, the Supreme Being.”

This fact answers the questions, “Why is Allah never defined in the Qur’an? Why did Muhammad assume that the pagan Arabs already knew who Allah was?” Muhammad was raised in the religion of the Moon-god Allah. But he went one step further than his fellow pagan Arabs. While they believed that Allah, i.e. the Moon-god, was the greatest of all gods and the supreme deity in a pantheon of deities, Muhammad decided that Allah was not only the greatest god but the only god.

In effect he said, “Look, you already believe that the Moon-god Allah is the greatest of all gods. All I want you to do is to accept that the idea that he is the only god. I am not taking away the Allah you already worship. I am only taking away his wife and his daughters and all the other gods.” This is seen from the fact that the first point of the Muslim creed is not, “Allah is great” but “Allah is the greatest,” i.e., he is the greatest among the gods. Why would Muhammad say that Allah is the “greatest” except in a polytheistic context? The Arabic word is used to contrast the greater from the lesser. That this is true is seen from the fact that the pagan Arabs never accused Muhammad of preaching a different Allah than the one they already worshipped. This “Allah” was the Moon-god according to the archeological evidence. Muhammad thus attempted to have it both ways. To the pagans, he said that he still believed in the Moon-god Allah. To the Jews and the Christians, he said that Allah was their God too. But both the Jews and the Christians knew better and that is why they rejected his god Allah as a false god.

Al-Kindi, one of the early Christian apologists against Islam, pointed out that Islam and its god Allah did not come from the Bible but from the paganism of the Sabeans. They did not worship the God of the Bible but the Moon-god and his daughters al-Uzza, al-Lat and Manat. Dr. Newman concludes his study of the early Christian-Muslim debates by stating, “Islam proved itself to be…a separate and antagonistic religion which had sprung up from idolatry.” Islamic scholar Caesar Farah concluded “There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that Allah passed to the Muslims from the Christians and Jews.” The Arabs worshipped the Moon-god as a supreme deity. But this was not biblical monotheism. While the Moon-god was greater than all other gods and goddesses, this was still a polytheistic pantheon of deities. Now that we have the actual idols of the Moon-god, it is no longer possible to avoid the fact that Allah was a pagan god in pre-Islamic times. Is it any wonder then that the symbol of Islam is the crescent moon? That a crescent moon sits on top of their mosques and minarets? That a crescent moon is found on the flags of Islamic nations? That the Muslims fast during the month which begins and ends with the appearance of the crescent moon in the sky?

 

[Mighty_Sword]

To answer the question who do I pray to, Hiyeh Asher Hiyeh, The I Am, The Alpha and The Omega, The Ancient Of Days, The King of Kings, The Prince Of Peace. Jesus Said, I Am the way the truth and the life, No one comes to the Father but by me. So there is no one else that can be prayed to!

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hey Robert,
Please feel free to point me to the scriptures that will make it clear to me that the dead are available to us to pray to and that Jesus, or the NT church was in the practice of praying to the dead.

I don’t know if it will be clear to you, but I’ll point you to the scriptures that I generally rely on when trying to explain the issue:

The concept begins with the notion of the communion of saints as the bond of unity among all believers, both living and dead, who are committed followers of Christ. In Christ we are made part of God’s family. (1 Tim 3:15), children of God (1 John 3:1), joint heirs with Christ (Rom 8:17), and partakers in the divine nature. (2 Pet 1:4) The family of saints is known by Catholics as the mystical body of Christ. (1 Cor 10:16, Gal 3:28, Eph 1:22-23, 4:4, 4:15-16, 5:21-32, Col 1:18, 3:15) We are joined in a supernatural union as members of Christ’s own body and, thus, as members of one another. Each of us participates in the divine life of Christ Himself.

It is helpful to think of the image used by Christ who spoke of Himself as the Vine and we as the branches. (John 15:1-5) Because we are connected to Christ, through Him we are connected to each other. It is the life and grace of Jesus Christ that gives us life and unites us in our common journey to Heaven.

St. Paul emphasizes this unity in Christ’s body in 1 Cor 12:12-27 and in Rom 12:4-16. The Church teachings about the mystical body of Christ from Scripture gives us the biblical reasons for why Catholics ask the saints in Heaven to intercede:

(1) All Christians are members of Christ’s Body. (Rom 12:5, etc. supra)
(2) Jesus has only one body (Eph 4:4, Col 3:15)
(3) Death cannot separate Christians from Christ or from one another (Rom 8:35-39)
(4) Christians are bound in mutual love (Rom 12:10, Thess 5:11, Gal 6:2)

Because we Christians (on earth and in heaven) are ALL members of Christ’s body, and called to be concerned for one another and called to grow in God’s love, we call for help and support from those who have already won their crown of glory.
swplan:

I admire the idea that you believe that you are building community with those who have gone on before us. That would be nice, but if they are not available, then nothing is being achieved.

I think scripture makes it clear that all who are united in Christ and remain in Him are available to us who are also members of His body. There is no division of Christ between those on earth and those travelling to, or in, heaven. We are One Body.
swplan:

All the time and effort that has gone into building community with the dead could be time gone into building community with those who are alive around you, or in prayer, with God.

It’s not an either/or proposition. It’s a both/and experience. It is not that Catholics are communing with saints in heaven to the exclusion of saints on earth. Rather, it is protestants who have sadly been convinced that the Body of Christ has somehow been divided by the grave.
swplan:

I think its important that people find themselves in community with those around them, invested in each other’s lives.

Catholics agree with this statement. Prayers seeking the intercession of the saints in heaven do not preclude such efforts to build up the Kingdom here on Earth.
swplan:

Could it be that some Catholics think they have build community with the dead and so they do not put as much effort into the relationships they have with the living?

I have never seen such a problem. But I suppose someone could get the wrong idea about it and thereby neglect the call to love one another. Such a person’s response contrary to Church teaching would not make the Communion of Saints untrue.
swplan:

As I said before, I know living Saints who I am in community with

Me too. I have met many saints on earth. My grandmother was one of them. I asked for her prayerful intercession when she was here on earth, and I continue to seek her prayers on my behalf now that she is at home with the Lord.
swplan:

I think this should be the way people see each other at church. I’ve been to many Catholic masses. I don’t get the sense of being family, or that other people see each other as family (that’s just me though). Maybe its where I live. This is a problem with many protestant churches too.

Personal feelings and sensory experiences in such things are not always the best indicator of what is true. Also, it seems you are suggesting that christians should entirely exclude those who are already in heaven from our thoughts and prayers and focus instead solely upon those who are still with us. Why build such a cut-off line?

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Why do people think they have to belong to a religion to have a relationship with The Almighty?

You have it backwards. Catholics have a relationship with Jesus Christ, who we believe gave us the Church to help us on our journey to heaven… It is because of our relationship with Jesus that we practice our Catholic faith. We do not practice our religion as if it would compel God to have a relationship with us.
MS:

In my opinion, the Catholic Church began on February 27, 380 when Emperor Theodosius issued his edict, De Fide Catolica, in Thessalonica, published in Constantinople, declaring Catholic Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire…

You are entitled to hold that opinion. But I suggest that it is an incorrect theory. There’s a good article addressing your concerns here.

In addition, the claim of Catholicism starting with Constantine is an old one that has never been able to stick because there are just too many problems with the argument for it to be true. Without addressing all of the issues here again, I’d like to refer you to this article which does a good job of addressing the problems with your position on Constantine and the Catholic Church.

Peace,
Robert