Catholics - Why Pray to Mary/Saints Instead of God Directly? (1 Viewer)

[glumpy]

I don't see the need for intermediaries--when I want to talk with God I just start talking. When it strikes him I figure he'll answer.

 

[quickhands]

Just an fyi. While everything in the bible is christian. everything that is Christian isn't in the bible.

 

[T Bell]

Seems a convoluted way to get a message to God.

"Hey Mary, pass this on to Jesus, will ya?"

do you ever ask someone to pray for you? same thing

So moral support is equivalent to you when it's coming from a living person you can interact with versus a dead person you never knew?

 

[quickhands]

They aren't dead. they are alive in heaven. hth

 

[proninja]

Just a non-biblical tradition. Like rosary beads, crosses, hail marys, statues, etc.

Sola scriptura, sola fide, etc.

Finally some fightin' words coming back the other way. I'd argue, along with most protestants, that the five solas are fairly strongly rooted in scripture.

I'd argue that they're not as strongly rooted as the tradition of apostolic succession, without which sacred scripture is a matter of personal interpretation. Then I'd refer you to discussion in every thread about Christianity this board has ever seen.

See, both the Roman church and the protestant church have their issuses. Modern biblicism and a misunderstanding of sola scriptura as solo scriptura and a desire to lean only on one's interpretation of the bible rather than the rich history and tradition of the church and its fathers is a big problem in conservative reformed circles. But, unfortunately, there was (is) enough doctrinal concern and extrabiblical religion in the church that I absolutely think the reformation was necessary. However, I have no problem affirming the early Roman church as part of my church's history. After all, the reformers were Roman Catholic priests.

We are Christians. We are on the same team. You don't have a monopoly on truth, and neither do I. We disagree on a few things, and on those things one of us is wrong, but at the end of the day what we share in common is more important than what we disagree on.

I just picked up "Justification" by Kung. I'm interested what my Roman brothers and sisters believe.

 

[Psychopav]

Seems a convoluted way to get a message to God.

"Hey Mary, pass this on to Jesus, will ya?"

do you ever ask someone to pray for you? same thing

So moral support is equivalent to you when it's coming from a living person you can interact with versus a dead person you never knew?

If you define prayer as simple moral support, then you're probably using the same words to discuss two different things.

 

[Apple Jack]

I often pray to St. Hubbins, the patron saint of quality footwear.

 

[quickhands]

I often pray to St. Hubbins, the patron saint of quality footwear.

i bet your shoes are very comfortable.

 

[Psychopav]

Just a non-biblical tradition. Like rosary beads, crosses, hail marys, statues, etc.

Sola scriptura, sola fide, etc.

Finally some fightin' words coming back the other way. I'd argue, along with most protestants, that the five solas are fairly strongly rooted in scripture.

I'd argue that they're not as strongly rooted as the tradition of apostolic succession, without which sacred scripture is a matter of personal interpretation. Then I'd refer you to discussion in every thread about Christianity this board has ever seen.

See, both the Roman church and the protestant church have their issuses. Modern biblicism and a misunderstanding of sola scriptura as solo scriptura and a desire to lean only on one's interpretation of the bible rather than the rich history and tradition of the church and its fathers is a big problem in conservative reformed circles. But, unfortunately, there was (is) enough doctrinal concern and extrabiblical religion in the church that I absolutely think the reformation was necessary. However, I have no problem affirming the early Roman church as part of my church's history. After all, the reformers were Roman Catholic priests.

We are Christians. We are on the same team. You don't have a monopoly on truth, and neither do I. We disagree on a few things, and on those things one of us is wrong, but at the end of the day what we share in common is more important than what we disagree on.

I just picked up "Justification" by Kung. I'm interested what my Roman brothers and sisters believe.

I agree with much of what you're saying here fwiw. You leave out a pretty big chunk of believers in not including the Orthodox churches here.

If you are interested in what your Roman brothers and sisters believe, you should pick up a catechism. My :twocents:

Here's a free online version if you're interested.

Here's an old Baltimore Catechism which was structured in Q&A format. Some of the concepts have been updated in the new catechism, but this also covers the basics and may be a more interesting read.

GL...

 

[shader]

Just a non-biblical tradition. Like rosary beads, crosses, hail marys, statues, etc.

Sola scriptura, sola fide, etc.

Finally some fightin' words coming back the other way. I'd argue, along with most protestants, that the five solas are fairly strongly rooted in scripture.

I'd argue that they're not as strongly rooted as the tradition of apostolic succession, without which sacred scripture is a matter of personal interpretation. Then I'd refer you to discussion in every thread about Christianity this board has ever seen.

See, both the Roman church and the protestant church have their issuses. Modern biblicism and a misunderstanding of sola scriptura as solo scriptura and a desire to lean only on one's interpretation of the bible rather than the rich history and tradition of the church and its fathers is a big problem in conservative reformed circles. But, unfortunately, there was (is) enough doctrinal concern and extrabiblical religion in the church that I absolutely think the reformation was necessary. However, I have no problem affirming the early Roman church as part of my church's history. After all, the reformers were Roman Catholic priests.

We are Christians. We are on the same team. You don't have a monopoly on truth, and neither do I. We disagree on a few things, and on those things one of us is wrong, but at the end of the day what we share in common is more important than what we disagree on.

I just picked up "Justification" by Kung. I'm interested what my Roman brothers and sisters believe.

I agree with you on a few points. For instance, I agree that no denomination understands every scripture, and no denomination is without error at times. Being men, this is commonly the case. The apostles consistently were wrong in trying to figure out when the Kingdom was coming.

But regarding major issues I cannot agree.

For instance, if one religion teaches "Belief A" and another religion whole-heartedly rejects that belief, than one is wrong. This may not matter on some smaller issues. But if it's a major, doctrinal issue? That's a different story.

 

[Rick James]

From the way I understand it, the saints are supposed to be a 'boost' for your prayers - much like when a bunch of people get together to pray for someone.

Seems like a popularity game though, as if the more friends makes it more likely God will help you.

The bold above is how it's been explained to me. Like if I asked a fellow alive Christian to pray for me for some concern.

interesting. As a baptist/methodist (attend both churches), I never knew this about Catholics.

It's kind of ironic because the Catholic practice of praying to the saints is rooted in the priesthood of all believers, yet they practically deny this belief by lifting the priesthood above the congregation as a mediator between them and God.

which is why I'm not Catholic. why ask your priest for forgiveness when I can pray to God directly? doesn't make sense to me

Here's why:

The practice of Confession arises from the example and command of Jesus, who showed that human nature could be used by God as an instrument of grace and forgiveness. He said "That you may know that the Son of Man has the power to forgive sin..." (Mt. 9:6; Mk 2:7-10; Lk 5:21-24). The Hebrew title He used was "ben Adam" meaning "Son of Adam." This was the Hebrew way of saying "a human being." Jesus always gloried in His Humanity, since through It He redeemed us. He communicated this authority to His Apostles on Easter night, "Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven, whose sins you shall retain they are retained" (Jn 20:19-23). In this way He gave the Apostles the power to give "Peace" (v.21), which is nothing less than the reconciliation of man with God.

The text even makes clear how Confession is to be conducted. Christ's representative, the priest, must decide whether to forgive or retain. Therefore, the penitent must confess each and every serious sin, that is anything which separates him from Christ. If the priest judges he is truly sorry, He must absolve since Christ's Passion merited forgiveness for every repentant sinner. Only if the person shows no willingness to give up sin does the priest retain, that is withhold absolution, as we "do not give what is holy to dogs" (Mt 7:6).

In one form or another the Sacrament of Penance has been in continuous practice in the Church. Its existence in all the Churches of the First Millenium, even those separated from Rome, shows its apostolicity. The present Catholic discipline of secret confession dates to the early middle ages, though there are suggestions of an even earlier practice. Prior to that, confession of sins involved lengthy public penance for great sins such as adultery, murder and apostasy from the faith. Thankfully, it is much easier today. The point was, however, that serious sin is a horrendous offense against God that ought to be rare among the baptized but frequently is not. In the second and third century theological battles were fought over whether Penance could be received more than once after Baptism. The rigorists, like Tertullian, left the Church and their movements passed into history. Even the practice of the sacrament today is no encouragement to sin, as they thought. On the contrary it requires humility to confess your sins. It also gives great peace to hear the priest say in Jesus' name "I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." It is Christ's will that we hear those words.

Although God CAN forgive sin directly it requires a perfect motive: love of Him and sorrow over having offended such a good Lord. An imperfect motive would mean we have not fully turned from our sin back to God. Not every one can rise to the occasion, so rather than excluding the marginal person struggling with sins, perhaps even over a lifetime, Christ has given us the Sacrament in which He raises us up, even when our sorrow is weak and imperfect. This shows the dependence of the sacrament on grace and mercy. As Jesus himself said, He came not to save the self-righteous but the sinner.

1 Timothy 2:5New International Version (NIV)
[SIZE=.75em]5 [/SIZE]For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Why pray at all? Isn't God omnipotent?

 

[Politician Spock]

They aren't praying to Mary. They are praying to Ashtaroth, the mother of Baal.

Ashtaroth is the same goddess many of David's wives worshipped, and why David and Israel were punished.

 

[Psychopav]

From the way I understand it, the saints are supposed to be a 'boost' for your prayers - much like when a bunch of people get together to pray for someone.

Seems like a popularity game though, as if the more friends makes it more likely God will help you.

The bold above is how it's been explained to me. Like if I asked a fellow alive Christian to pray for me for some concern.

interesting. As a baptist/methodist (attend both churches), I never knew this about Catholics.

It's kind of ironic because the Catholic practice of praying to the saints is rooted in the priesthood of all believers, yet they practically deny this belief by lifting the priesthood above the congregation as a mediator between them and God.

which is why I'm not Catholic. why ask your priest for forgiveness when I can pray to God directly? doesn't make sense to me

Here's why:

The practice of Confession arises from the example and command of Jesus, who showed that human nature could be used by God as an instrument of grace and forgiveness. He said "That you may know that the Son of Man has the power to forgive sin..." (Mt. 9:6; Mk 2:7-10; Lk 5:21-24). The Hebrew title He used was "ben Adam" meaning "Son of Adam." This was the Hebrew way of saying "a human being." Jesus always gloried in His Humanity, since through It He redeemed us. He communicated this authority to His Apostles on Easter night, "Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven, whose sins you shall retain they are retained" (Jn 20:19-23). In this way He gave the Apostles the power to give "Peace" (v.21), which is nothing less than the reconciliation of man with God.

The text even makes clear how Confession is to be conducted. Christ's representative, the priest, must decide whether to forgive or retain. Therefore, the penitent must confess each and every serious sin, that is anything which separates him from Christ. If the priest judges he is truly sorry, He must absolve since Christ's Passion merited forgiveness for every repentant sinner. Only if the person shows no willingness to give up sin does the priest retain, that is withhold absolution, as we "do not give what is holy to dogs" (Mt 7:6).

In one form or another the Sacrament of Penance has been in continuous practice in the Church. Its existence in all the Churches of the First Millenium, even those separated from Rome, shows its apostolicity. The present Catholic discipline of secret confession dates to the early middle ages, though there are suggestions of an even earlier practice. Prior to that, confession of sins involved lengthy public penance for great sins such as adultery, murder and apostasy from the faith. Thankfully, it is much easier today. The point was, however, that serious sin is a horrendous offense against God that ought to be rare among the baptized but frequently is not. In the second and third century theological battles were fought over whether Penance could be received more than once after Baptism. The rigorists, like Tertullian, left the Church and their movements passed into history. Even the practice of the sacrament today is no encouragement to sin, as they thought. On the contrary it requires humility to confess your sins. It also gives great peace to hear the priest say in Jesus' name "I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." It is Christ's will that we hear those words.

Although God CAN forgive sin directly it requires a perfect motive: love of Him and sorrow over having offended such a good Lord. An imperfect motive would mean we have not fully turned from our sin back to God. Not every one can rise to the occasion, so rather than excluding the marginal person struggling with sins, perhaps even over a lifetime, Christ has given us the Sacrament in which He raises us up, even when our sorrow is weak and imperfect. This shows the dependence of the sacrament on grace and mercy. As Jesus himself said, He came not to save the self-righteous but the sinner.

1 Timothy 2:5New International Version (NIV)
[SIZE=.75em]5 [/SIZE]For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,

It seems you're implying that in the sacrament of confession, the priest is a mediator between God and man, and that therefore the practice contradicts the scripture. I'm no biblical scholar, but it seems like that interpretation would be inconsistent with the John 20 quote above.

 

[Psychopav]

Why pray at all? Isn't God omnipotent?

To build a relationship with Him and to allow us to participate in His plan of salvation. He doesn't need our prayers but we do.

 

[JAMES!]

I always thought the Hail Mary had a few things going for it. It's one of the first prayers they teach you. You learn it early on. On top of that it's easily memorable. Most importantly you're praying to a woman and mother figure which makes the person praying feel like they're dealing with someone naturally sympathetic. She's the top ranking female in the operation. It's like when you skin your knee you want mom to clean it and make it better. Dad would do it but he kind of stinks at those things.

 

[proninja]

Just a non-biblical tradition. Like rosary beads, crosses, hail marys, statues, etc.

Sola scriptura, sola fide, etc.

Finally some fightin' words coming back the other way. I'd argue, along with most protestants, that the five solas are fairly strongly rooted in scripture.

I'd argue that they're not as strongly rooted as the tradition of apostolic succession, without which sacred scripture is a matter of personal interpretation. Then I'd refer you to discussion in every thread about Christianity this board has ever seen.

See, both the Roman church and the protestant church have their issuses. Modern biblicism and a misunderstanding of sola scriptura as solo scriptura and a desire to lean only on one's interpretation of the bible rather than the rich history and tradition of the church and its fathers is a big problem in conservative reformed circles. But, unfortunately, there was (is) enough doctrinal concern and extrabiblical religion in the church that I absolutely think the reformation was necessary. However, I have no problem affirming the early Roman church as part of my church's history. After all, the reformers were Roman Catholic priests.

We are Christians. We are on the same team. You don't have a monopoly on truth, and neither do I. We disagree on a few things, and on those things one of us is wrong, but at the end of the day what we share in common is more important than what we disagree on.

I just picked up "Justification" by Kung. I'm interested what my Roman brothers and sisters believe.

I agree with much of what you're saying here fwiw. You leave out a pretty big chunk of believers in not including the Orthodox churches here.

If you are interested in what your Roman brothers and sisters believe, you should pick up a catechism. My :twocents:

Here's a free online version if you're interested.

Here's an old Baltimore Catechism which was structured in Q&A format. Some of the concepts have been updated in the new catechism, but this also covers the basics and may be a more interesting read.

GL...

I didn't leave anybody out so much as this discussion seemed to be about roman and protestant beliefs, so that's all I was discussing.

 

[Fennis]

I always thought the Hail Mary had a few things going for it. It's one of the first prayers they teach you. You learn it early on. On top of that it's easily memorable. Most importantly you're praying to a woman and mother figure which makes the person praying feel like they're dealing with someone naturally sympathetic. She's the top ranking female in the operation. It's like when you skin your knee you want mom to clean it and make it better. Dad would do it but he kind of stinks at those things.

Plus if it was called a Hail Joe, Doug Flutie probably wouldn't have been so famous.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This question makes me think 'hey this is what Pres. Obama felt like when people said he was from Kenya.'

 

[proninja]

Just a non-biblical tradition. Like rosary beads, crosses, hail marys, statues, etc.

Sola scriptura, sola fide, etc.

Finally some fightin' words coming back the other way. I'd argue, along with most protestants, that the five solas are fairly strongly rooted in scripture.

I'd argue that they're not as strongly rooted as the tradition of apostolic succession, without which sacred scripture is a matter of personal interpretation. Then I'd refer you to discussion in every thread about Christianity this board has ever seen.

See, both the Roman church and the protestant church have their issuses. Modern biblicism and a misunderstanding of sola scriptura as solo scriptura and a desire to lean only on one's interpretation of the bible rather than the rich history and tradition of the church and its fathers is a big problem in conservative reformed circles. But, unfortunately, there was (is) enough doctrinal concern and extrabiblical religion in the church that I absolutely think the reformation was necessary. However, I have no problem affirming the early Roman church as part of my church's history. After all, the reformers were Roman Catholic priests.

We are Christians. We are on the same team. You don't have a monopoly on truth, and neither do I. We disagree on a few things, and on those things one of us is wrong, but at the end of the day what we share in common is more important than what we disagree on.

I just picked up "Justification" by Kung. I'm interested what my Roman brothers and sisters believe.

I agree with you on a few points. For instance, I agree that no denomination understands every scripture, and no denomination is without error at times. Being men, this is commonly the case. The apostles consistently were wrong in trying to figure out when the Kingdom was coming.

But regarding major issues I cannot agree.

For instance, if one religion teaches "Belief A" and another religion whole-heartedly rejects that belief, than one is wrong. This may not matter on some smaller issues. But if it's a major, doctrinal issue? That's a different story.

I completely agree with you. That is why it is important to figure out what doctrine defines a Christian, and hold tight to that. To be ecumenical among Christians who hold to those beliefs that define a Christian, and to recognize when a belief is religious yet not Christian. As Romans hold to doctrine that for centuries has defined Christian belief on core issues, they are my fellow Christians and I wish to affirm their beliefs on those core issues. It's why I said earlier that the things that divide us are less important than the things that bind us.

To someone who rejects a core component of Christianity, the things that divide us unfortunately are the most important things you historically must affirm in order to be a Christian.

Christians, however, will disagree on issues that they consider to be vitally important, and that is when you see schism, which is sad. Provided these issues are not issues core to what it means to be a Christian (I am thinking of issues that have divided in the past such as credo vs paedo, complementarian vs egalitarian, confession to a priest, papal infallibility, sovereign election), I see no issue in any person going to worship as their convictions lead them. You will not find me, however, flying my gospel flag and dividing over those issues, though I certainly have opinions on all of them.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Why pray at all? Isn't God omnipotent?

Plus he knows I either just masturbated or I'm going to masturbate when I'm done praying.

 

[T Bell]

Why pray at all? Isn't God omnipotent?

Yes, and omniscient too.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Why pray at all? Isn't God omnipotent?

Yes, and omniscient too.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Thanks, Padre.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Why do non-catholics worry so much about catholics?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Why do non-catholics worry so much about catholics?

There's a lot of them.

 

[proninja]

Why do non-catholics worry so much about catholics?

You really want to hear the answers you're going to get to this question?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Why do non-catholics worry so much about catholics?

They give money and support to an organization that attempts to cover up the raping of children.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Why do non-catholics worry so much about catholics?

They give money and support to an organization that attempts to cover up the raping of children.

Look at Mr. High Horse over here.

 

[Politician Spock]

See, both the Roman church and the protestant church have their issuses.

This is true. One however is the source of the mess, whereas the other is trying to clean it up. The problem being, how can something unclean clean something.

The fact of the matter is that Christianity, born in Jerusalem was taken to Rome, just as it should be taken to all the world. The problem is the Christian's in Rome bastardized Christianity by morphing a ton of pagan practices into it creating Roman Catholicism. The worldwide reach of the Roman Empire allowed for the worldwide distribution of this pagan corrupted presentation of Christianity called the Roman Catholic church. 1500 years later you were either a Roman Catholic, or a heretic.

The protestant reformation was without a doubt a change in the right direction, but again, protestants are sinners just like Catholics are sinners. Thus the cleaning up of the mess didn't produce a new clean church. Issues still remain. And as more messes are attempted to be cleaned, you end up with all different kinds of beliefs and churches. It's just one big mess.

Again, it goes back to pagan practices be adopted by the Christians in Rome. Protestant churches LOVE celebrating Christmas. They would never let that practice go. But Christmas is a pagan celebration. Jesus never commanded the church to celebrate his birthday. And even if he did, it wasn't Dec 25th. Protestat churches LOVE celebrating Easter. They would never let that practice go. But Easter is a pagan celebration (despite Jesus having risen on Easter sunday). Jesus never commanded the church to celebrate his death. He told us to break bread of his body, and drink the wine of his blood, in rememberence of him. We remember his sacrifice when we do this, not the day he did it. The only days the Bible commands us to remember are the Jewish Holy Days, of which Christmas is not a part of, nor is Easter. Passover is close to Easter, but is not Easter. So if Christians are supposed to be remembering specific days, they've chosen two that don't matter to God, and ignore the ones that do. Or if the Law is past, we aren't supposed to remember any. Yet, try suggesting to even protestant Christians that Christmas and Easter aren't religous days, but are instead pagan practices morphed into Christianity by the early Christians in Rome, and you'll be asked to leave the church. Very few, if any churches, want to even consider that.... except fringe churches like Seventh Day Adventists, which also have their own issues.

 

[shader]

See, both the Roman church and the protestant church have their issuses.

This is true. One however is the source of the mess, whereas the other is trying to clean it up. The problem being, how can something unclean clean something.

The fact of the matter is that Christianity, born in Jerusalem was taken to Rome, just as it should be taken to all the world. The problem is the Christian's in Rome bastardized Christianity by morphing a ton of pagan practices into it creating Roman Catholicism. The worldwide reach of the Roman Empire allowed for the worldwide distribution of this pagan corrupted presentation of Christianity called the Roman Catholic church. 1500 years later you were either a Roman Catholic, or a heretic.

The protestant reformation was without a doubt a change in the right direction, but again, protestants are sinners just like Catholics are sinners. Thus the cleaning up of the mess didn't produce a new clean church. Issues still remain. And as more messes are attempted to be cleaned, you end up with all different kinds of beliefs and churches. It's just one big mess.

Again, it goes back to pagan practices be adopted by the Christians in Rome. Protestant churches LOVE celebrating Christmas. They would never let that practice go. But Christmas is a pagan celebration. Jesus never commanded the church to celebrate his birthday. And even if he did, it's wasn't Dec 25th. Protestat churches LOVE celebrating Easter. They would never let that practice go. But Easter is a pagan celebration (despite Jesus having risen on Easter sunday). Jesus never commanded the church to celebrate his death. He told us to break bread of his body, and drink the wine of his blood, in rememberence of him. We remember his sacrifice when we do this, not the day he did it. The only days the Bible commands us to remember are the Jewish Holy Days, of which Christmas is not a part of, nor is Easter. Passover is close to Easter, but is not Easter. So if Christians are supposed to be remembering specific days, they've chosen two that don't matter to God, and ignore the ones that do. Or if the Law is past, we aren't supposed to remember any. Yet, try suggesting to even protestant Christians that Christmas and Easter aren't religous days, but are instead pagan practices morphed into Christianity by the early Christians in Rome, and you'll be asked to leave the church. Very few, if any churches, want to even consider that.... except fringe churches like Seventh Day Adventists, which also have their own issues.

What an excellent post. The protestant reformation did a lot of good. But it's not as if they went back to the bible and completely wiped out all pagan practices...just a portion of them. It's as if they can admit that the catholic church had gone astray...but they don't want to admit that they had gone TOO far astray.

That being said, what is it about the Seventh Day Adventists that you would find "fringe"? Just the fact that they are small in number as compared to the rest of "christian" religions?

 

[Politician Spock]

See, both the Roman church and the protestant church have their issuses.

This is true. One however is the source of the mess, whereas the other is trying to clean it up. The problem being, how can something unclean clean something.

The fact of the matter is that Christianity, born in Jerusalem was taken to Rome, just as it should be taken to all the world. The problem is the Christian's in Rome bastardized Christianity by morphing a ton of pagan practices into it creating Roman Catholicism. The worldwide reach of the Roman Empire allowed for the worldwide distribution of this pagan corrupted presentation of Christianity called the Roman Catholic church. 1500 years later you were either a Roman Catholic, or a heretic.

The protestant reformation was without a doubt a change in the right direction, but again, protestants are sinners just like Catholics are sinners. Thus the cleaning up of the mess didn't produce a new clean church. Issues still remain. And as more messes are attempted to be cleaned, you end up with all different kinds of beliefs and churches. It's just one big mess.

Again, it goes back to pagan practices be adopted by the Christians in Rome. Protestant churches LOVE celebrating Christmas. They would never let that practice go. But Christmas is a pagan celebration. Jesus never commanded the church to celebrate his birthday. And even if he did, it's wasn't Dec 25th. Protestat churches LOVE celebrating Easter. They would never let that practice go. But Easter is a pagan celebration (despite Jesus having risen on Easter sunday). Jesus never commanded the church to celebrate his death. He told us to break bread of his body, and drink the wine of his blood, in rememberence of him. We remember his sacrifice when we do this, not the day he did it. The only days the Bible commands us to remember are the Jewish Holy Days, of which Christmas is not a part of, nor is Easter. Passover is close to Easter, but is not Easter. So if Christians are supposed to be remembering specific days, they've chosen two that don't matter to God, and ignore the ones that do. Or if the Law is past, we aren't supposed to remember any. Yet, try suggesting to even protestant Christians that Christmas and Easter aren't religous days, but are instead pagan practices morphed into Christianity by the early Christians in Rome, and you'll be asked to leave the church. Very few, if any churches, want to even consider that.... except fringe churches like Seventh Day Adventists, which also have their own issues.

What an excellent post. The protestant reformation did a lot of good. But it's not as if they went back to the bible and completely wiped out all pagan practices...just a portion of them. It's as if they can admit that the catholic church had gone astray...but they don't want to admit that they had gone TOO far astray.

That being said, what is it about the Seventh Day Adventists that you would find "fringe"? Just the fact that they are small in number as compared to the rest of "christian" religions?

I take issue with there belief that not keeping the sabath (friday night sundown to saturday night sundown) and instead having church on Sunday is the "Mark of the Beast."

 

[Sinn Fein]

Why do non-catholics worry so much about catholics?

They give money and support to an organization that attempts to cover up the raping of children.

So do a lot of Penn State alums.

 

[Rick James]

See, both the Roman church and the protestant church have their issuses.

This is true. One however is the source of the mess, whereas the other is trying to clean it up. The problem being, how can something unclean clean something.

The fact of the matter is that Christianity, born in Jerusalem was taken to Rome, just as it should be taken to all the world. The problem is the Christian's in Rome bastardized Christianity by morphing a ton of pagan practices into it creating Roman Catholicism. The worldwide reach of the Roman Empire allowed for the worldwide distribution of this pagan corrupted presentation of Christianity called the Roman Catholic church. 1500 years later you were either a Roman Catholic, or a heretic.

The protestant reformation was without a doubt a change in the right direction, but again, protestants are sinners just like Catholics are sinners. Thus the cleaning up of the mess didn't produce a new clean church. Issues still remain. And as more messes are attempted to be cleaned, you end up with all different kinds of beliefs and churches. It's just one big mess.

Again, it goes back to pagan practices be adopted by the Christians in Rome. Protestant churches LOVE celebrating Christmas. They would never let that practice go. But Christmas is a pagan celebration. Jesus never commanded the church to celebrate his birthday. And even if he did, it wasn't Dec 25th. Protestat churches LOVE celebrating Easter. They would never let that practice go. But Easter is a pagan celebration (despite Jesus having risen on Easter sunday). Jesus never commanded the church to celebrate his death. He told us to break bread of his body, and drink the wine of his blood, in rememberence of him. We remember his sacrifice when we do this, not the day he did it. The only days the Bible commands us to remember are the Jewish Holy Days, of which Christmas is not a part of, nor is Easter. Passover is close to Easter, but is not Easter. So if Christians are supposed to be remembering specific days, they've chosen two that don't matter to God, and ignore the ones that do. Or if the Law is past, we aren't supposed to remember any. Yet, try suggesting to even protestant Christians that Christmas and Easter aren't religous days, but are instead pagan practices morphed into Christianity by the early Christians in Rome, and you'll be asked to leave the church. Very few, if any churches, want to even consider that.... except fringe churches like Seventh Day Adventists, which also have their own issues.

So you're saying that since Jesus never "commanded" us to celebrate his birth or resurrection, that to do so is Pagan and un-Christian? That is absurd.

 

[Bull Dozier]

From the way I understand it, the saints are supposed to be a 'boost' for your prayers - much like when a bunch of people get together to pray for someone.

Seems like a popularity game though, as if the more friends makes it more likely God will help you.

The bold above is how it's been explained to me. Like if I asked a fellow alive Christian to pray for me for some concern.

interesting. As a baptist/methodist (attend both churches), I never knew this about Catholics.

It's kind of ironic because the Catholic practice of praying to the saints is rooted in the priesthood of all believers, yet they practically deny this belief by lifting the priesthood above the congregation as a mediator between them and God.

which is why I'm not Catholic. why ask your priest for forgiveness when I can pray to God directly? doesn't make sense to me

Here's why:

The practice of Confession arises from the example and command of Jesus, who showed that human nature could be used by God as an instrument of grace and forgiveness. He said "That you may know that the Son of Man has the power to forgive sin..." (Mt. 9:6; Mk 2:7-10; Lk 5:21-24). The Hebrew title He used was "ben Adam" meaning "Son of Adam." This was the Hebrew way of saying "a human being." Jesus always gloried in His Humanity, since through It He redeemed us. He communicated this authority to His Apostles on Easter night, "Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven, whose sins you shall retain they are retained" (Jn 20:19-23). In this way He gave the Apostles the power to give "Peace" (v.21), which is nothing less than the reconciliation of man with God.

The text even makes clear how Confession is to be conducted. Christ's representative, the priest, must decide whether to forgive or retain. Therefore, the penitent must confess each and every serious sin, that is anything which separates him from Christ. If the priest judges he is truly sorry, He must absolve since Christ's Passion merited forgiveness for every repentant sinner. Only if the person shows no willingness to give up sin does the priest retain, that is withhold absolution, as we "do not give what is holy to dogs" (Mt 7:6).

In one form or another the Sacrament of Penance has been in continuous practice in the Church. Its existence in all the Churches of the First Millenium, even those separated from Rome, shows its apostolicity. The present Catholic discipline of secret confession dates to the early middle ages, though there are suggestions of an even earlier practice. Prior to that, confession of sins involved lengthy public penance for great sins such as adultery, murder and apostasy from the faith. Thankfully, it is much easier today. The point was, however, that serious sin is a horrendous offense against God that ought to be rare among the baptized but frequently is not. In the second and third century theological battles were fought over whether Penance could be received more than once after Baptism. The rigorists, like Tertullian, left the Church and their movements passed into history. Even the practice of the sacrament today is no encouragement to sin, as they thought. On the contrary it requires humility to confess your sins. It also gives great peace to hear the priest say in Jesus' name "I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." It is Christ's will that we hear those words.

Although God CAN forgive sin directly it requires a perfect motive: love of Him and sorrow over having offended such a good Lord. An imperfect motive would mean we have not fully turned from our sin back to God. Not every one can rise to the occasion, so rather than excluding the marginal person struggling with sins, perhaps even over a lifetime, Christ has given us the Sacrament in which He raises us up, even when our sorrow is weak and imperfect. This shows the dependence of the sacrament on grace and mercy. As Jesus himself said, He came not to save the self-righteous but the sinner.

This is why I love biblical battles, from one little quote from Jesus, some people claim "the text even makes clear how Confession is to be conducted" even in the face of the fact that debates have raged for 2000 years on this very point. Obviously, nothing is "clear" on this issue.Not to mention the fact that even not all Catholic priests do not require you to confess every sin in order to be forgiven.

Boy, with that much room for error in interpretation, you'd think Christ would have set up some sort of authoritative body to safeguard the truth.As far as the bolded, they don't? Maybe you left out the word "serious" in front of sin on purpose in order to make that a true statement?

It's true that sins are forgiven any number of ways, even under normal circumstances. But serious sins should normally be taken to the sacrament of reconciliation for forgiveness.

I assume this question is sarcastic, so who is that authoritative body?

 

[shader]

See, both the Roman church and the protestant church have their issuses.

This is true. One however is the source of the mess, whereas the other is trying to clean it up. The problem being, how can something unclean clean something.

The fact of the matter is that Christianity, born in Jerusalem was taken to Rome, just as it should be taken to all the world. The problem is the Christian's in Rome bastardized Christianity by morphing a ton of pagan practices into it creating Roman Catholicism. The worldwide reach of the Roman Empire allowed for the worldwide distribution of this pagan corrupted presentation of Christianity called the Roman Catholic church. 1500 years later you were either a Roman Catholic, or a heretic.

The protestant reformation was without a doubt a change in the right direction, but again, protestants are sinners just like Catholics are sinners. Thus the cleaning up of the mess didn't produce a new clean church. Issues still remain. And as more messes are attempted to be cleaned, you end up with all different kinds of beliefs and churches. It's just one big mess.

Again, it goes back to pagan practices be adopted by the Christians in Rome. Protestant churches LOVE celebrating Christmas. They would never let that practice go. But Christmas is a pagan celebration. Jesus never commanded the church to celebrate his birthday. And even if he did, it's wasn't Dec 25th. Protestat churches LOVE celebrating Easter. They would never let that practice go. But Easter is a pagan celebration (despite Jesus having risen on Easter sunday). Jesus never commanded the church to celebrate his death. He told us to break bread of his body, and drink the wine of his blood, in rememberence of him. We remember his sacrifice when we do this, not the day he did it. The only days the Bible commands us to remember are the Jewish Holy Days, of which Christmas is not a part of, nor is Easter. Passover is close to Easter, but is not Easter. So if Christians are supposed to be remembering specific days, they've chosen two that don't matter to God, and ignore the ones that do. Or if the Law is past, we aren't supposed to remember any. Yet, try suggesting to even protestant Christians that Christmas and Easter aren't religous days, but are instead pagan practices morphed into Christianity by the early Christians in Rome, and you'll be asked to leave the church. Very few, if any churches, want to even consider that.... except fringe churches like Seventh Day Adventists, which also have their own issues.

What an excellent post. The protestant reformation did a lot of good. But it's not as if they went back to the bible and completely wiped out all pagan practices...just a portion of them. It's as if they can admit that the catholic church had gone astray...but they don't want to admit that they had gone TOO far astray.

That being said, what is it about the Seventh Day Adventists that you would find "fringe"? Just the fact that they are small in number as compared to the rest of "christian" religions?

I take issue with there belief that not keeping the sabath (friday night sundown to saturday night sundown) and instead having church on Sunday is the "Mark of the Beast."

Well I don't believe that either. I just wondered if it was their size that made you consider them fringe, or their teachings?

 

[Politician Spock]

See, both the Roman church and the protestant church have their issuses.

This is true. One however is the source of the mess, whereas the other is trying to clean it up. The problem being, how can something unclean clean something.

The fact of the matter is that Christianity, born in Jerusalem was taken to Rome, just as it should be taken to all the world. The problem is the Christian's in Rome bastardized Christianity by morphing a ton of pagan practices into it creating Roman Catholicism. The worldwide reach of the Roman Empire allowed for the worldwide distribution of this pagan corrupted presentation of Christianity called the Roman Catholic church. 1500 years later you were either a Roman Catholic, or a heretic.

The protestant reformation was without a doubt a change in the right direction, but again, protestants are sinners just like Catholics are sinners. Thus the cleaning up of the mess didn't produce a new clean church. Issues still remain. And as more messes are attempted to be cleaned, you end up with all different kinds of beliefs and churches. It's just one big mess.

Again, it goes back to pagan practices be adopted by the Christians in Rome. Protestant churches LOVE celebrating Christmas. They would never let that practice go. But Christmas is a pagan celebration. Jesus never commanded the church to celebrate his birthday. And even if he did, it wasn't Dec 25th. Protestat churches LOVE celebrating Easter. They would never let that practice go. But Easter is a pagan celebration (despite Jesus having risen on Easter sunday). Jesus never commanded the church to celebrate his death. He told us to break bread of his body, and drink the wine of his blood, in rememberence of him. We remember his sacrifice when we do this, not the day he did it. The only days the Bible commands us to remember are the Jewish Holy Days, of which Christmas is not a part of, nor is Easter. Passover is close to Easter, but is not Easter. So if Christians are supposed to be remembering specific days, they've chosen two that don't matter to God, and ignore the ones that do. Or if the Law is past, we aren't supposed to remember any. Yet, try suggesting to even protestant Christians that Christmas and Easter aren't religous days, but are instead pagan practices morphed into Christianity by the early Christians in Rome, and you'll be asked to leave the church. Very few, if any churches, want to even consider that.... except fringe churches like Seventh Day Adventists, which also have their own issues.

So you're saying that since Jesus never "commanded" us to celebrate his birth or resurrection, that to do so is Pagan and un-Christian? That is absurd.

No I'm not. But nice try.

It's not the lack of a commandment from Jesus that makes them pagan celebrations. It's the fact that pagans invented the celebrations that makes them pagan celebrations.

 

[shader]

See, both the Roman church and the protestant church have their issuses.

This is true. One however is the source of the mess, whereas the other is trying to clean it up. The problem being, how can something unclean clean something.

The fact of the matter is that Christianity, born in Jerusalem was taken to Rome, just as it should be taken to all the world. The problem is the Christian's in Rome bastardized Christianity by morphing a ton of pagan practices into it creating Roman Catholicism. The worldwide reach of the Roman Empire allowed for the worldwide distribution of this pagan corrupted presentation of Christianity called the Roman Catholic church. 1500 years later you were either a Roman Catholic, or a heretic.

The protestant reformation was without a doubt a change in the right direction, but again, protestants are sinners just like Catholics are sinners. Thus the cleaning up of the mess didn't produce a new clean church. Issues still remain. And as more messes are attempted to be cleaned, you end up with all different kinds of beliefs and churches. It's just one big mess.

Again, it goes back to pagan practices be adopted by the Christians in Rome. Protestant churches LOVE celebrating Christmas. They would never let that practice go. But Christmas is a pagan celebration. Jesus never commanded the church to celebrate his birthday. And even if he did, it wasn't Dec 25th. Protestat churches LOVE celebrating Easter. They would never let that practice go. But Easter is a pagan celebration (despite Jesus having risen on Easter sunday). Jesus never commanded the church to celebrate his death. He told us to break bread of his body, and drink the wine of his blood, in rememberence of him. We remember his sacrifice when we do this, not the day he did it. The only days the Bible commands us to remember are the Jewish Holy Days, of which Christmas is not a part of, nor is Easter. Passover is close to Easter, but is not Easter. So if Christians are supposed to be remembering specific days, they've chosen two that don't matter to God, and ignore the ones that do. Or if the Law is past, we aren't supposed to remember any. Yet, try suggesting to even protestant Christians that Christmas and Easter aren't religous days, but are instead pagan practices morphed into Christianity by the early Christians in Rome, and you'll be asked to leave the church. Very few, if any churches, want to even consider that.... except fringe churches like Seventh Day Adventists, which also have their own issues.

So you're saying that since Jesus never "commanded" us to celebrate his birth or resurrection, that to do so is Pagan and un-Christian? That is absurd.

Perhaps you need to do some research into the origins of Christmas. Virtually every part of it comes directly from pagan traditions, from the tree, to the date, to countless other traditions that are wrapped up in the current holiday. Same with Easter.

 

[Fennis]

Why pray at all? Isn't God omnipotent?

Yes, and omniscient too.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Thanks, Padre.

look who isn't omniscient.

 

[Politician Spock]

See, both the Roman church and the protestant church have their issuses.

This is true. One however is the source of the mess, whereas the other is trying to clean it up. The problem being, how can something unclean clean something.

The fact of the matter is that Christianity, born in Jerusalem was taken to Rome, just as it should be taken to all the world. The problem is the Christian's in Rome bastardized Christianity by morphing a ton of pagan practices into it creating Roman Catholicism. The worldwide reach of the Roman Empire allowed for the worldwide distribution of this pagan corrupted presentation of Christianity called the Roman Catholic church. 1500 years later you were either a Roman Catholic, or a heretic.

The protestant reformation was without a doubt a change in the right direction, but again, protestants are sinners just like Catholics are sinners. Thus the cleaning up of the mess didn't produce a new clean church. Issues still remain. And as more messes are attempted to be cleaned, you end up with all different kinds of beliefs and churches. It's just one big mess.

Again, it goes back to pagan practices be adopted by the Christians in Rome. Protestant churches LOVE celebrating Christmas. They would never let that practice go. But Christmas is a pagan celebration. Jesus never commanded the church to celebrate his birthday. And even if he did, it's wasn't Dec 25th. Protestat churches LOVE celebrating Easter. They would never let that practice go. But Easter is a pagan celebration (despite Jesus having risen on Easter sunday). Jesus never commanded the church to celebrate his death. He told us to break bread of his body, and drink the wine of his blood, in rememberence of him. We remember his sacrifice when we do this, not the day he did it. The only days the Bible commands us to remember are the Jewish Holy Days, of which Christmas is not a part of, nor is Easter. Passover is close to Easter, but is not Easter. So if Christians are supposed to be remembering specific days, they've chosen two that don't matter to God, and ignore the ones that do. Or if the Law is past, we aren't supposed to remember any. Yet, try suggesting to even protestant Christians that Christmas and Easter aren't religous days, but are instead pagan practices morphed into Christianity by the early Christians in Rome, and you'll be asked to leave the church. Very few, if any churches, want to even consider that.... except fringe churches like Seventh Day Adventists, which also have their own issues.

What an excellent post. The protestant reformation did a lot of good. But it's not as if they went back to the bible and completely wiped out all pagan practices...just a portion of them. It's as if they can admit that the catholic church had gone astray...but they don't want to admit that they had gone TOO far astray.

That being said, what is it about the Seventh Day Adventists that you would find "fringe"? Just the fact that they are small in number as compared to the rest of "christian" religions?

I take issue with there belief that not keeping the sabath (friday night sundown to saturday night sundown) and instead having church on Sunday is the "Mark of the Beast."

Well I don't believe that either. I just wondered if it was their size that made you consider them fringe, or their teachings?

I wasn't using "fringe" in a derogatory sense. Because it is but only a very small number of churches willing to accept that Christmas and Easter are pagan celebrations and not holy days, they esixt on the fringe. It's a postive thing that they are willing to accept the truth.

But they also have issues too. No Christians church anywhere in the world is without issues.

 

[Otis]

My understanding (and I'm no authority on this) is that different saints are best suited to help you with different things you're praying for. For example, St. Patrick is the saint to pray to if you wanted to drive away a snake, but if you wanted to chat with that snake instead then St. Francis is your guy.

This thread is killing me. Great work.

 

[Otis]

Why do non-catholics worry so much about catholics?

They give money and support to an organization that attempts to cover up the raping of children.

Look at Mr. High Horse over here.

 

[Guest]

Also, it must suck being a saint and spending eternity as a messenger.

Heaven indeed.

You have to go to one of the lesser known saints. They're probably just standing around, and would feel honored that you asked. Much better results that way.

 

[Psychopav]

Praying to saints is a great way to connect with the Body of Christ, which is a living body comprised of living people. The Church Triumphant is a real body, and the relationship a Catholic develops via praying to the saints is not unlike relationships that you might develop with other people. In many ways it's clearly not as intimate as a personal relationship with someone you know IRL here on earth (the "Church Militant"), but it's certainly at least as intimate as a relationship you develop with the average messageboard user (for example).

Yes, certain saints are "known for" certain petitions, but they all have some things in common: a great love for Jesus and a complete and perfect communion with Him. They are what we strive to be. And there are many, many, more saints that those named by the Church; namely, all those who have gone to rest and been brought to perfection in Christ.

The body is real, the saints are real, the relationships are real, and the love is real.

The most important thing, though, is that the Trinity is real. God the Father is real, Jesus Christ true God and true man is real, the Holy Spirit is real, and Christ's sacrifice for you and for me is real. He loves every single participant in this thread exactly the same way, and His Spirit is reaching out to all of us: lovingly, and constantly.

 

[Zow]

Seems a convoluted way to get a message to God.

"Hey Mary, pass this on to Jesus, will ya?"

Then you have to hope Jesus gets the message right when he passes it on to God. Sometimes there's a lot of information in the inflection and specific verbiage that can be lost in both translation and the retelling. Ask Mary to ask Jesus what the bible originally looked like. Dios mio!

Per the Catholic dogma of the "Holy Trinity," Jesus and God are the same person.

 

[Zow]

Praying to saints is a great way to connect with the Body of Christ, which is a living body comprised of living people. The Church Triumphant is a real body, and the relationship a Catholic develops via praying to the saints is not unlike relationships that you might develop with other people. In many ways it's clearly not as intimate as a personal relationship with someone you know IRL here on earth (the "Church Militant"), but it's certainly at least as intimate as a relationship you develop with the average messageboard user (for example).

Yes, certain saints are "known for" certain petitions, but they all have some things in common: a great love for Jesus and a complete and perfect communion with Him. They are what we strive to be. And there are many, many, more saints that those named by the Church; namely, all those who have gone to rest and been brought to perfection in Christ.

The body is real, the saints are real, the relationships are real, and the love is real.

The most important thing, though, is that the Trinity is real. God the Father is real, Jesus Christ true God and true man is real, the Holy Spirit is real, and Christ's sacrifice for you and for me is real. He loves every single participant in this thread exactly the same way, and His Spirit is reaching out to all of us: lovingly, and constantly.

Jesus.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

real

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[Zow]

Just an fyi. While everything in the bible is christian. everything that is Christian isn't in the bible.

Oh. Well that settles that.

 

[Zow]

real

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You don't think he truly believes that recantation of a recent homily he heard?

 

[Rick James]

don't understand why you jerks have to muddy this thread with your pointing and laughing.

 

[Zow]

You have to feel for Mary - she gets knocked up out of wedlock, concocts this enormous story to cover it up, and now has to pass along prayer requests for all eternity while listening to claims that her image is everywhere from toast to tinted windows.

Aside from the fact that she had to watch her only son die right in front of her. The he comes back, and IIRC never actually goes and checks in with her.