El,

Your attitude toward scriptural proofs would have deemed you incapable of accepting the gospel of Christ based on the OT scriptures alone, as it was neccesary for the very first Christians to do, since the gospel of Christ was hidden in the OT and not explicitly stated.

Once the Catholic church turns water into wine and raises the dead, perhaps we will be convicted to believe some of these traditions loosely based upon the proofs of scripture.  Because this is part of the reason the early Christians believed the apostles' message.

GBF:  Who cares if you have one leader who thinks
his doctrine is infallible and united, when his churches are not following and
yes doing their own thing.

El:  It is not "one leader" it is thousands of bishops and hundreds of theologians over thousands of years who have made up the magisterium and were guided by the Holy Spirit to guide His Church which the Bible says...

1 Tim 3:15
which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Here is some context:

I Tim 3:14,15:  Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

In the entire third chapter of Timothy, Paul is dealing with the conduct of Christians.  The overseer must be above reproach; deacons are to be honest and sincere, and not over-indulge in wine; deacon's wives are to be trustworthy and temperate;  and of course, verse 15 is talking about "how people ought to conduct themselves."  This is what's meant by the church being the pillar and foundation of truth.  Jesus said that the world will know his disciples by the love they show for each other.  The message won't be heard unless people conduct themselves being above reproach, temperate, honest, and trustworthy.  This is the foundation of truth, not some dogma stated to be infallible.

Just keeping it real.

-Acumen

Sweet picture Lex!

The issue with the veneration of the saints or of Mary is confounding, really.

Christ tells us that "no one comes to the Father, BUT THROUGH ME

So, here is the question, separated from the dogma and the clutter of any specific theological slant:

How can any person who considers themselves a Xian possibly consider praying to anyone or anything other than God the Father through God the Son?

The RCC doctrine is strongly based on the assumptions and perclivities of men, with some Scripture for flavor. When we look back at the history of the the church militant, there have been many who have come under the guise of religion only to usurp the message and pervert it for their own purpose. The examples of European history is filled with the papal abuses of power for the sake of their own wealth. The fact that Italy itself didn't exist as a country until the beginning of the 20th century speaks to this fact. The rest of Europe had been largely nationalized by the 17th century. To verify this fact of history, look at the maps. The papal states of central and northern Italy were the very reason a person such as Mussolini was able to take control and take things to the level he did. The battles between the French aristocracy and the papacy is evidence of the power struggle that existed between the French and the Italian families. Jacques De Molay is another in the long list of victims. His life was taken because King Phillip of France wanted money, as did the papacy. Both groups were jealous of the wealth amassed by the Knights Templar. And before you go too strongly against the Knights, remember they were the first international financial institution and the first travel agency. If not for them, the very economy that we enjoy could not exist.

Prince Philip owed more people more money than he could hope to repay. The papacy was also strapped and looking for money to expand the papal compound we know call Vatican City. There were some bad harvests in Italy and the papal coffers were running low. Not to mention they had lost a tidy sum during the preceding crusades. They needed money. So, the plan was to have Philip take over the Knights Templar holdings in France, seize their money, and pay a tribute to the papacy. However, after the trumped up charges and the killings and all sorts of very un-Xian things, Phillip had the lands but not treasure. The papacy aquired some of these lands and supplemented its income.

The tradition that is so often cited is written by men whose main task was to bring some meaning to the modern efforts of the church under the guise of Scripture.

Oh, and one other point that should be considered: The papal decrees and other actions that were occurring on a regular basis prior to the Reformation and 100 years after are worth comparing. The abuses of the indulgence salesforce was ended. If it was such a theologically wonderful thing, then why did they stop selling them as they had? You can still obtain a Papal Plenary Indulgence if you know who to ask. And, before you say they don't exist, I held one in my hands that was issued 5 years ago. It was issued by John Paul II to a certain priest who happened to be from the MKE area, who also happened to speak Polish.

The concepts of tradition being a means of determining doctrine need to be challenged. It was tradition for the women in a village to take care of the dead. It was the tradition for the men of a village to beat their wives and children for the slightest infraction. It was tradition for pedastary to be practiced by the priests and monks. It was tradition for the popes to be elected by a means of who paid the most to the other families who had a vote through their bishops. It was tradition for the second born in a family to enter a monastery, and then maintain many illicit affairs and amass wealth while under the vow of poverty and chastity.

An argument based on the tradition being a means of salvation or faith is dangerous.

So you're saying that God loves some people more than others?


Man's actions don't negate anything. The fact that there is ZERO scriptural support for intercession by ANYBODY does, though. God hears all of our prayers. It seems to me that the only reason why intercession would even be remotely necessary is if He only hears the prayers of his personal favorites.

Or, maybe He hears our prayers, but only really cares about His favorites. Sort of like He has the autoreply on "no" unless a lobbyist pulls some strings?

Quite frankly, I think He hears my prayers just as clearly, and is just as likely to tell me "yes" (possibly more) when I pray to Him as He would if I were to pray to anyone else.

Indeed... and I am more than happy to pray for you. In fact, I already do - and I certainly would never consider refusing an offer from you to pray for me (if that offer were to be made).

I'm not entirely sure what your point is, though. Are you defending the notion that God plays favorites? Or are you changing the topic to prayer for other people - because I'm all for that.

The role of Mary is for the purpose of drawing us closer to Christ and this is accomplished through prayer and devotion. 

Okay, I can understand where you're coming from, but you didn't address the issue of favorites.  Of all the saints (if Mary is one), Mary seems to be the preferred choice of Catholics for prayer.  Do they believe that God plays favorites?

I'm sure you can handle these piddly little issues, El... where are you?

The state of the dead is a matter of debate, for sure. Nobody has claimed that the dead in Christ are dead in spirit - but scripture does NOT support the notion that the spirit walks the Earth, or has any connection whatsoever to the Earth after the body has died.

Now, the Bible talks a lot about resurrection, which would be a restoring of the spirit to the body - but aside from a handful of miraculous resurrections (including Jesus Himself), that hasn't happened yet.

So yes, the notion that individuals die to this world is, indeed, fully supported by scripture. What you seem to be projecting onto me is some notion that the dead in Christ are destroyed, as though tossed into Gehenna. That is NOT what I said, nor is it anything even remotely close to what I believe.


Elijah never died a physical death... so I find your use of him interesting.

As for Moses, he has made a number of appearances after his death was reported. I know of no case, though, was it apparent that he was personally invested in the goings on of his people on Earth. I'm not entirely sure what this is supposed to be proof of, unless you were, as I suspected, seriously misunderstanding the concept of physical death as I suggested earlier. Everyone dies, but they don't go immediately to judgement, and they don't gain immediate omniscience in the process.


Why? I would argue that the aunt praying for you is the "better" because you KNOW she is praying for you, and doing it out of love. And she is putting aside her own desires and requests to make time for you.... EVEN IF Mary can hear your prayers, and EVEN IF she would deign to intercede, and EVEN IF it was remotely necessary - she has no personal involvement in your life, has no connection to you, and as a glorified individual (ostensibly), she is making no sacrifice of her own to lay your name before God.

I can think of absolutely no reason why Mary's would be the "better" intercession - even assuming that she could or would.

And, of course, I don't really see why people would direct their prayers to her in the first place, rather than directly to God Himself.


Details. It's not so much the mode I question as the request itself. None of the dead in Christ, even Mary, have any scriptural support for the idea that they can hear our prayers and would or could intercede on our behalf. The question of a Judgment Day after Jesus returns (as I recall, the Bible says that He will judge the dead and the living on that day) only raises more questions on the matter...


Indeed, but then again - the Psalms were before Christ's resurrection when men were judged by the law. After Christ, we are dead to the law.


Well, actually - yes it does. There is no evidence that these doctrines were recognized. The only Apostolic Traditions that we can, with confidence, attribute to the Apostles themselves have been canonized into scripture. If anything else cannot be traced to within even a generation of the Apostles, it immediately requires an answer to the question of whether it's a true Apostolic Tradition, or a tradition of men. Considering that Paul had to address, on multiple occasions, the attempts to infuse traditions of men into the church's tradition, it's both a logical and important question that should not be taken so lightly as to close one's ears and declare that it's Apostolic because someone 300 years after Christ said so. Sorry, but if it evolves over time, it's not particularly likely to be Apostolic - and we have been instructed to hold fast to the Apostolic Tradition.


That's not accurate. There is apparent development of the doctrine, and it was met with debate, including by several renowned individuals who are now said to have been "in error" on the matter.


That's one possibility. Another is that the Church slowly becomes corrupted by the traditions of men, without even realizing it...


Perhaps. What makes you think they were "maturing in the faith" after they received said power? Debate over the gentiles? Perhaps they were simply contending already with the traditions of men, and had to work through what the Apostolic Tradition meant...


Well, no... not really. The interpretations end up with quite disparate definitions.


Actually, it appears in two placed, neither of which are Eph 1:6. Eph 1:21 speaks of Jesus' authority and power. Meanwhile, another passage using the same Greek phrase actually speaks of the power and authority of God working through Stephen in Acts 6:8. The Greek is και δυναμεως.


Agreed. The significance, of course, is that she was blessed by God to be used as a vessel for His power and authority.


I'm not sure which word you're applying to the Church, but as I noted - it's not used that way. As for Gabriel, it is, in my opinion, CLEARLY a revelation to Mary that she carries the promise of God within her womb.


Let's see... an unmarried girl who is pregnant in those times... considering what was done with girls in that situation, wouldn't you be afraid? And wouldn't you consider the blessing of being chosen to bear God's only begotten Son "finding favor?" Of course she would have been told to not be afraid - she was doubtless terrified that people would start throwing rocks at her.

Ciao.

I'm sure you don't.

It's clear you aren't interested in discussing an issue that might challenge what you've accepted, nor do you seem intersted in posing a challenge to my understanding. I, frankly, couldn't care less what the reason may be... if you're not willing to discuss, then there's no point for me to waste my time making more points.

I do accept your points for what they are. You can ask me privately sometime what I think they are... 

No the issue is NOT the communion between the "living and the dead", the issue is the communion between the living AND the living - commonly known in Catholicism as "the community of saints".

And since we are focused on scripture, didn't Christ himself say "leave the dead to bury the dead". A clear reference that death can be a reality in this life - and consequently - life can be a reality beyond the grave.

I think what confuses people is that they have a timeline in mind - death until the last day when Christ returns. If that is true, how do you explain Moses and Elijah upon the Mount of Transfiguration communing with Jesus?

Besides, this word "prayer" also confuses the issue. We worship God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - and nobody else, period. But we can venerate the saints. They are simply God's all-star team. But to be accurate, everyone in heaven AND earth living in the presence of God is by definition - a saint. And just as you can ask your parents or friends to pray for you, you can ask the saints to pray for you. This is not a big issue if you are speaking with the living and not the dead.

As for the devotion to Mary, she has a unique place in salvation history. God chose her among all people to be his mother. Frankly, Catholics are impressed by this and we cannot understand why other Christians, except the Orthodox, are not. She had a unique relationship with Jesus.

And btw, she is the only character in the NT to have witnessed ALL the Jesus story - from annunication, to his birth, exile in Egypt, his public ministry, his death, his resurrection, Pentecost, his final assumption - Mary saw it all. Who else can say that?