Catholicism Questions

[PaulSacramento]

Our spirits are in communion with Christ and each other, living or dead.

Of course.

Does that mean you're in agreement with your catholic roots that saints (and obviously I'm not referring to just Catholic saints but to all believers who are in heaven) can pray for us much like we ask our family, friends, and circle of believers here on earth to pray for us?

That is a good question.
See, the bible is not 100% clear about the state of believer in death.
It likens death to sleep BUT that does NOT mean there is no consciousness in the state of death since death is likened to sleep and in sleep there is SOME awareness.

In short, I don't KNOW if the dead can intercede for us and the bible doesn't make an explicit statement on this and I don't know if the dean NEED to since we communicate directly with Christ through the HS.
So I don't know if they can and I am not sure if they "have to" BUT every little help is greatly appreciated.

As Christ is the only mediator for us, I am not sure why the dead would need to pray for us.

Because God is the God of the living, not of the dead. Be that as it may, for the same reason we ask the 'living' here on earth to pray for us, because we are a community of believers and Scripture tells us that intercessory prayer is a good thing.

In any case, it is clear that your issue is not with the Marian doctrine per se but with intercessory prayers for those who are in heaven in general. And that, by the way, is by no means indigenous to Catholicism. It is prevalent in many non-Catholic denominations.

I really don't have issues with intercessory prayers per say either, I know that some people feel very good doing them.
I don't pray to anyone other than Christ and when I pray for another I know that my praying is an act of communion and solidarity and won't be the "deciding factor" for God doing anything about it.
There are things we do because it makes as feel part of the Body of Christ, they are not needed per say BUT they are desirable to do ( for some) and they strengthen peoples faith.
I don't know of anyone that would ever say that the more people pray for something the more God listens, that would be an insult to God ( as if quantity of prayer is somehow better than quality of prayer).

[Byblos]

I just wanted to address a couple of points for clarification.

... PRAYER to anyone but God is condemned!

No one is PRAYING to anyone other than God. The term is used to mean to ask for intercessory prayer and nothing more.

- ESPECIALLY having NO idea whether such prayers - or even mere requests addressed to a saint in heaven - as to whether such saints can actually hear them.

They cannot hear them through their own powers. They can't do anything at all through their own powers, only when/if God allows it. Besides which, how exactly do you know what the realm they are in is like and how it works? It's certainly not bound by space/time and the earthly laws of physics.

And wouldn't you think that there would be just ONE example of such beseechings or prayers in Scripture? There is not even ONE! That should tell people something!

Oh but there is but you don't consider it scripture so there's that.

[Byblos]

I really don't have issues with intercessory prayers per say either, I know that some people feel very good doing them.
I don't pray to anyone other than Christ and when I pray for another I know that my praying is an act of communion and solidarity and won't be the "deciding factor" for God doing anything about it.
There are things we do because it makes as feel part of the Body of Christ, they are not needed per say BUT they are desirable to do ( for some) and they strengthen peoples faith.
I don't know of anyone that would ever say that the more people pray for something the more God listens, that would be an insult to God ( as if quantity of prayer is somehow better than quality of prayer).

That's a whole different discussion Paul on how we ought to pray but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. To be consistent in your position then, you ought to consider stopping to ask for intercessory prayers from anyone. I would discourage that with all my heart and all my mind: Philippians 1:19, Romans 10:1, James 5:14, 1 Timothy 2:1.

[Philip]

Byblos: No one is PRAYING to anyone other than God. The term is used to mean to ask for intercessory prayer and nothing more.

And I clarified that this nuance exists. Problem is, millions of Catholics ARE praying to Mary. Wonder WHY?

http://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=2899

Philip wrote: ESPECIALLY having NO idea whether such prayers - or even mere requests addressed to a saint in heaven - as to whether such saints can actually hear them.

Byblos: They cannot hear them through their own powers. They can't do anything at all through their own powers, only when/if God allows it.

I never questioned HOW they hear such prayers, but IF they hear them. And you know they do because...???

Byblos: Besides which, how exactly do you know what the realm they are in is like and how it works? It's certainly not bound by space/time and the earthly laws of physics.

And as we DON'T know how the realm they are in works, or what might be possible or might or might NOT be allowed for them, then HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY CAN HEAR SUCH PRAYERS? Not from Scripture that clearly reveals such beseeching of departed saints. As you don't know about this realm, as your questions about it rhetorically ask me - then how do YOU know what is possible there? Fact is, you DON'T know.

Philip wrote: And wouldn't you think that there would be just ONE example of such beseechings or prayers in Scripture? There is not even ONE! That should tell people something!

Byblos: Oh but there is but you don't consider it scripture so there's that.

And, yet, YOU only consider it so because ancient Catholic popes and CC leaders declared it so! And then they creatively and incredibly obscurely interpreted the plain wordings of Scripture to give credibility to not only that, but also to the assertion that some papacy or succession of Peter/of his apostolic office even exists. And IF Peter wielded such an office that his successors would inherit, while he was yet on earth, his presence in Scripture and the teachings he gave, were quite small in comparison to the far more extensive writings of Paul. In Scripture, NO where does Peter claim either such an office or such a succession. How incredible is that, IF such is true? WHY, if true, would such an important issue of authority not have been made absolutely crystal clear, constantly showing submission to Peter's authority? Why is most of the New Testament focused on the writings of Paul? Why does PAUL rebuke PETER - whom, if supposedly infallible, and wielding some such inerrant authority over the entire church, unScripturally sides with the Judaisers. Are those lesser and submissive to such authority rebuked by an underling? Would the head of the church, who definitely was immersed in the operations of how the church around him was being conducted, who is considered infallible in how he conducts the business of the church - would he have made such a grave and sinful error, so glaring it is included in Scripture as an ongoing example to the rest of all Christians everywhere? And funny, Paul rebukes him over a similar issue to the one we are now discussing - siding with ritual and tradition over the specific teachings of Scripture - creating divisions amongst Christians. Kind of like how Catholics consider protestants whom reject the traditions of the Catholic Church.

Byblos: Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Absolutely!

[PaulSacramento]

I really don't have issues with intercessory prayers per say either, I know that some people feel very good doing them.
I don't pray to anyone other than Christ and when I pray for another I know that my praying is an act of communion and solidarity and won't be the "deciding factor" for God doing anything about it.
There are things we do because it makes as feel part of the Body of Christ, they are not needed per say BUT they are desirable to do ( for some) and they strengthen peoples faith.
I don't know of anyone that would ever say that the more people pray for something the more God listens, that would be an insult to God ( as if quantity of prayer is somehow better than quality of prayer).

That's a whole different discussion Paul on how we ought to pray but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. To be consistent in your position then, you ought to consider stopping to ask for intercessory prayers from anyone. I would discourage that with all my heart and all my mind: Philippians 1:19, Romans 10:1, James 5:14, 1 Timothy 2:1.

I don't recall ever asking anyone to pray for me...
Even if I did, I wouldn't view prayers as "intercessory" but as signs of communion and solidarity.

[Byblos]

I really don't have issues with intercessory prayers per say either, I know that some people feel very good doing them.
I don't pray to anyone other than Christ and when I pray for another I know that my praying is an act of communion and solidarity and won't be the "deciding factor" for God doing anything about it.
There are things we do because it makes as feel part of the Body of Christ, they are not needed per say BUT they are desirable to do ( for some) and they strengthen peoples faith.
I don't know of anyone that would ever say that the more people pray for something the more God listens, that would be an insult to God ( as if quantity of prayer is somehow better than quality of prayer).

That's a whole different discussion Paul on how we ought to pray but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. To be consistent in your position then, you ought to consider stopping to ask for intercessory prayers from anyone. I would discourage that with all my heart and all my mind: Philippians 1:19, Romans 10:1, James 5:14, 1 Timothy 2:1.

I don't recall ever asking anyone to pray for me...
Even if I did, I wouldn't view prayers as "intercessory" but as signs of communion and solidarity.

Intercessory prayers ARE signs of community and solidarity. To never ask for their prayers is to not be a part of that community. If that works for you, good. But scripture is clear on the topic.

[Byblos]

Byblos: No one is PRAYING to anyone other than God. The term is used to mean to ask for intercessory prayer and nothing more.

And I clarified that this nuance exists. Problem is, millions of Catholics ARE praying to Mary. Wonder WHY?

I could turn that around and ask you, ever wonder why there are so many protestant denominations? So to answer your question, nope, I have no interest whatsoever in what others do or even what the majority does. I know what the doctrines entail and that's good enough for me. Where I can clarify them I will but that's as far as I will take it.

http://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=2899

Philip wrote: ESPECIALLY having NO idea whether such prayers - or even mere requests addressed to a saint in heaven - as to whether such saints can actually hear them.

Byblos: They cannot hear them through their own powers. They can't do anything at all through their own powers, only when/if God allows it.

I never questioned HOW they hear such prayers, but IF they hear them. And you know they do because...???

Byblos: Besides which, how exactly do you know what the realm they are in is like and how it works? It's certainly not bound by space/time and the earthly laws of physics.

And as we DON'T know how the realm they are in works, or what might be possible or might or might NOT be allowed for them, then HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY CAN HEAR SUCH PRAYERS? Not from Scripture that clearly reveals such beseeching of departed saints. As you don't know about this realm, as your questions about it rhetorically ask me - then how do YOU know what is possible there? Fact is, you DON'T know.

Philip wrote: And wouldn't you think that there would be just ONE example of such beseechings or prayers in Scripture? There is not even ONE! That should tell people something!

Byblos: Oh but there is but you don't consider it scripture so there's that.

And, yet, YOU only consider it so because ancient Catholic popes and CC leaders declared it so! And then they creatively and incredibly obscurely interpreted the plain wordings of Scripture to give credibility to not only that, but also to the assertion that some papacy or succession of Peter/of his apostolic office even exists. And IF Peter wielded such an office that his successors would inherit, while he was yet on earth, his presence in Scripture and the teachings he gave, were quite small in comparison to the far more extensive writings of Paul. In Scripture, NO where does Peter claim either such an office or such a succession. How incredible is that, IF such is true? WHY, if true, would such an important issue of authority not have been made absolutely crystal clear, constantly showing submission to Peter's authority? Why is most of the New Testament focused on the writings of Paul? Why does PAUL rebuke PETER - whom, if supposedly infallible, and wielding some such inerrant authority over the entire church, unScripturally sides with the Judaisers. Are those lesser and submissive to such authority rebuked by an underling? Would the head of the church, who definitely was immersed in the operations of how the church around him was being conducted, who is considered infallible in how he conducts the business of the church - would he have made such a grave and sinful error, so glaring it is included in Scripture as an ongoing example to the rest of all Christians everywhere? And funny, Paul rebukes him over a similar issue to the one we are now discussing - siding with ritual and tradition over the specific teachings of Scripture - creating divisions amongst Christians. Kind of like how Catholics consider protestants whom reject the traditions of the Catholic Church.

And this is where all such discussions lead, back to authority. We all believe in popes, Philip. My Pope is in the Vatican, yours is sitting where you are. However wrong you think the historical record is of the Catholic Church, its lineage and its claims, the fact is that it is the only Church that can make such apostolic claims. I defer to history, not to private interpretation. And of course Jac and Rick will counter that with even deference requires consent (and therefore, private interpretation) and they would be right. And round and round we go in a never-ending, vicious circle. I happen to believe Christ knew and recognized exactly what would happen (how could he not) and that is precisely why he established a church that is the bulwark of truth and the gates of hell will not prevail against it, guided by the Holy Spirit into all truths. For me it is the only thing that makes any sense for it is the only thing that will break the vicious circle.

[PaulSacramento]

However wrong you think the historical record is of the Catholic Church, its lineage and its claims, the fact is that it is the only Church that can make such apostolic claims.

How so?
I mean, the Orthodox church is just as old ( some may argue older) and has the same lineage...

IMO, there is onlY ONE church and that is the BOdy of Christ and that is ALL believers.
Regardless of how believers may disagree on how the faith is expressed ( the 1st generation apostles did also), all the believe that Christ is the way and the light and the word and the path to salvation are ALL part of the Body of Christ and ALL part of the universal (Catholic) Church.

[Byblos]

However wrong you think the historical record is of the Catholic Church, its lineage and its claims, the fact is that it is the only Church that can make such apostolic claims.

How so?
I mean, the Orthodox church is just as old ( some may argue older) and has the same lineage...

IMO, there is onlY ONE church and that is the BOdy of Christ and that is ALL believers.
Regardless of how believers may disagree on how the faith is expressed ( the 1st generation apostles did also), all the believe that Christ is the way and the light and the word and the path to salvation are ALL part of the Body of Christ and ALL part of the universal (Catholic) Church.

Yeah but that's just your private interpretation.

[crochet1949]

There is a difference between the universal body of Christ through salvation / those who have accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and are indwelt by the Holy Spirit /The Body of Christ. AND the C.C -- even though the word 'catholic' Does mean 'universal' -- it is known to be different.

Can anyone show me where Peter is referred to as Pope.

Biblically - the apostles were only those who had been with Jesus from the beginning of His ministry and witnessed His ascension back to heaven? So there can't Be any apostles now.

[Byblos]

There is a difference between the universal body of Christ through salvation / those who have accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and are indwelt by the Holy Spirit /The Body of Christ. AND the C.C -- even though the word 'catholic' Does mean 'universal' -- it is known to be different.

Can anyone show me where Peter is referred to as Pope.

Biblically - the apostles were only those who had been with Jesus from the beginning of His ministry and witnessed His ascension back to heaven? So there can't Be any apostles now.

What difference does it make? I show you then you turn around and say nope, that's not what it says, it says this. Round and round we go.

[Philip]

Byblos: What difference does it make? I show you then you turn around and say nope, that's not what it says, it says this. Round and round we go.

It makes a huge difference as to what you are willing to consider your authority! You are asserting that things you can't know the truth of (the origins of the teachings the CC and its popes have taught), actually are as asserted. But Scripture reveals otherwise. And Scripture is very clear on key issues that truly matter - which is why things like the age of the earth are reasonably debated. But things like salvation, the source and authority of Scripture, that it is God-breathed, that all men must have faith in Christ to be saved, WHO and WHAT Jesus is, WHY we need to be saved, how to determine heresy - these are all key and pivotal thing that, if gotten wrong, can cause terrible consequences. Which is why that, concerning these key issues, Scripture is very and redundantly clear. But here come men long afterward, claiming they have authority to reveal things not found in Scripture - MAJOR and contradictory teaching to Scripture. And their arguments of justification have to take the obscurest of stances to harmonize with Scripture. Some of its most important teachings outright contradict it. And if men had such authority, whey would they have even contradicted each other? Why would so many popes have been involved in all manner of terrible things?

So, you are willing to take as authoritative the the assertions of men, made long after the apostolic era, in which they teach things not found in Scripture - NOT EVEN their supposed AUTHORITY is clear or validated - and that outright contradict it. So, you are willing to heed your traditions as being spiritually and fully authoritative - even if they contradict or are not found in Scripture. Fact is, we KNOW what is in Scripture, but as such authority or even the example of an asserted office of authority (the papacy) is found nowhere clear in Scripture, with a total absence of CC-taught practices (concerning Mary, saints, etc.), this matters not to you? Clearly, you'll believe anything that has the CC stamp of authority on it - and why wouldn't you? So, basically, you'll believe the teachings of man as opposed to what Scripture teachings. You'll continue to believe the exceptionally obscure justifications of such teachings by the CC. Wow! And, lastly, those given messages by God (prophets, apostles), for nearly 16 centuries, were typically accompanied by miraculous signs that validated that they messages they carried were not just their own words, but that were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Funny thing as how this is absent in those supposedly descendants of Peter's Apostolic authority the CC asserts?

BTW, this is not personal, Byblos. I like you and your input here, over the years, quite a lot. We are Christian brothers - I am not questioning in any way your faith. Plus, I would say a lot of what you say, most Catholics are clueless over.

[Byblos]

Byblos: What difference does it make? I show you then you turn around and say nope, that's not what it says, it says this. Round and round we go.

It makes a huge difference as to what you are willing to consider your authority! You are asserting that things you can't know the truth of (the origins of the teachings the CC and its popes have taught), actually are as asserted. But Scripture reveals otherwise. And Scripture is very clear on key issues that truly matter - which is why things like the age of the earth are reasonably debated. But things like salvation, the source and authority of Scripture, that it is God-breathed, that all men must have faith in Christ to be saved, WHO and WHAT Jesus is, WHY we need to be saved, how to determine heresy - these are all key and pivotal thing that, if gotten wrong, can cause terrible consequences. Which is why that, concerning these key issues, Scripture is very and redundantly clear. But here come men long afterward, claiming they have authority to reveal things not found in Scripture - MAJOR and contradictory teaching to Scripture. And their arguments of justification have to take the obscurest of stances to harmonize with Scripture. Some of its most important teachings outright contradict it. And if men had such authority, whey would they have even contradicted each other? Why would so many popes have been involved in all manner of terrible things?

So, you are willing to take as authoritative the the assertions of men, made long after the apostolic era, in which they teach things not found in Scripture - NOT EVEN their supposed AUTHORITY is clear or validated - and that outright contradict it. So, you are willing to heed your traditions as being spiritually and fully authoritative - even if they contradict or are not found in Scripture. Fact is, we KNOW what is in Scripture, but as such authority or even the example of an asserted office of authority (the papacy) is found nowhere clear in Scripture, with a total absence of CC-taught practices (concerning Mary, saints, etc.), this matters not to you? Clearly, you'll believe anything that has the CC stamp of authority on it - and why wouldn't you? So, basically, you'll believe the teachings of man as opposed to what Scripture teachings. You'll continue to believe the exceptionally obscure justifications of such teachings by the CC. Wow! And, lastly, those given messages by God (prophets, apostles), for nearly 16 centuries, were typically accompanied by miraculous signs that validated that they messages they carried were not just their own words, but that were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Funny thing as how this is absent in those supposedly descendants of Peter's Apostolic authority the CC asserts?

I want to emphasize this:

So, basically, you'll believe the teachings of man as opposed to what Scripture teachings.

I most certainly do not. The fact that I do not believe in the teachings of men is precisely why I am Catholic for, once again, if the claim of the Church is true (and obviously I happen to believe it is) then what I believe is truly by the guidance of the Holy Spirit who guides the church into all truths.

I don't doubt that you sincerely believe what you do, you think scripture is your authority. So do millions of others who have deeply divisive, downright contradictory views who all claim guidance by the Holy Spirit. History betrays sincerity so forgive me for choosing clarity over confusion.

BTW, this is not personal, Byblos. I like you and your input here, over the years, quite a lot. We are Christian brothers - I am not questioning in any way your faith.

I appreciate the kind words and assure you I feel the same way about you. I love the zeal in which you defend the faith.

Plus, I would say a lot of what you say, most Catholics are clueless over.

The same can be said of all believers, not just Catholics.

[RickD]

Byblos wrote:

I most certainly do not. The fact that I do not believe in the teachings of men is precisely why I am Catholic for, once again, if the claim of the Church is true (and obviously I happen to believe it is) then what I believe is truly by the guidance of the Holy Spirit who guides the church into all truths.

So, you believe The Holy Spirit Guides the CC, and then Catholics interpret what the church teaches?

Whereas Protestants, in general, believe the Holy Spirit Guides individual believers into all truth?

Both Catholics and non-Catholics still have to interpret?

[Byblos]

Byblos wrote:

I most certainly do not. The fact that I do not believe in the teachings of men is precisely why I am Catholic for, once again, if the claim of the Church is true (and obviously I happen to believe it is) then what I believe is truly by the guidance of the Holy Spirit who guides the church into all truths.

So, you believe The Holy Spirit Guides the CC, and then Catholics interpret what the church teaches?

Whereas Protestants, in general, believe the Holy Spirit Guides individual believers into all truth?

Both Catholics and non-Catholics still have to interpret?

Of course Rick, and I've addressed that already. We all must interpret and therefore, we ultimately are our own popes. Yet divisions persist and multiply and the never-ending cycle continues. Protestants interpret and we get a myriad of opinions. That's where it stops. Catholics interpret and we get a myriad of opinions that defer to a single one that must be true because of the promise of church guidance. We are fallible, sinful creatures, which is exactly why I believe Christ did not leave it up to us, to the point of warning against private interpretation in scripture (imagine that).