Normally, I avoid this method at all costs. But because the response lacks cohesion to the initial argument and certain points are misconstrued between points, I find it necessary to isolate these errors. So, please, try not to let the ensuing discussion become unnecessarily convoluted.
OK. I appreciate you showing me the error of my ways.
As it stands, my position has been entirely misunderstood and taken to conclusions that were never intended. When speaking of the body of Christ, it is concerning the everlasting body, the bride given to Christ, and our existence with God in the New Jerusalem during and after the thousand years following Christ's return to take us all home.
But Paul was talking about the body of Christ, at the eschaton.
Please support the argument that a metaphor found in scripture is 'mere' and insufficient in establishing sound doctrine.
I did not say that a metaphor is insufficient for establishing. A metaphor is limited to only the point of comparison. For if a main goes out on a blind date and then next day to says to his friend that the woman was “a real dog”. Chances he is only saying that she was not that pretty. Now, there are other things about a dog. A dog barks, a dos runs fast, a dog loves to play fetch, etc. But these other attributes are incidental to how this man used this phrase.
I feel you were over-analyzing a simple metaphor that Paul used to only show how we are all united in one body and Christ is head to show that we cannot talk to those in heaven – something that Paul never even tended to convey. But if you are right, and are not limited to the metaphor just at the point of comparison, then let me show how this metaphor can be used to validate the Catholic view of the church. One obvious attribute concerning a body is that it is visible, as opposed to a soul. So I could argue that this proves that the body of Christ is a visible institution.
Then, please provide grounds for what meanings and applications were intended, and how the application is thus refuted.
12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by[c] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.
Paul’s intention is that there is unity and yet diversity among Christians. We are all part of one body. Nothing here is discussed about how we relate to saints in heaven, but how we relate to each other on earth.
1 Cor 2
But we have the mind of Christ.
Chapter 2 does not even mention the body. That is done in chapter 12. Here, Paul says that we have the mind of Christ. But that is far different than saying that Christ is our mind, which you asserted.
1 Cor 12
15 Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
Paul expounds on his central idea that we each have a different function in the body of Christ. Again, Paul did not say anything about saint in heaven and whether or not we can relate to them
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
Paul is saying that we all need each other. Nothing here about saints in heaven.
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues[d]? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts
We each have a gift to contribute to the body of Christ. There is here about the end times, the new Jerusalem, etc. Paul is talking on how we relate to each other, not non how we relate to saints heaven This passage does not support or forbid our praying to saints in heaven. That was not the issue with the Corinthian church. Here, Paul was dealing with the schisms and the abuses of the gifts among the Corinthians.
That wasn't the point. That we are a single spiritual body is important to many aspects of Christianity, and tells us something about how the body should act and behave on earth as well as how it will manifest in the age to come. To assert that I intended the metaphor itself as proof against prayer to saints is to misconstrue entirely the use of the metaphor as detailed within the argument.
The heading of you thread is “A Case Against Prayers for Intercession from the Saints”.
Then you refer to 1 Cor 2 and the body of Christ as proof for you case. Are you now backpedaling?
No. My comment was essentially this: as with any other example throughout scripture, a phrase of a few words within a single verse is not enough on its own to support any doctrine, especially when the meaning of the Greek word in question was more commonly used for a different sense than has been interpreted. This was the case with the word translated "cloud."
Different sense? All of our English translations of the Bible translated this word to be “cloud”. But we are supposed to believe that you are right they are all wrong!
God is timeless. He has seen to the end of the world, and knows intimately everyone dead, alive, or yet to be born. The body of Christ, as a whole spiritual being and not a physical one, exists fully only in eternity. So yes, from God's point of view, we do exist before we are born, because it's by God's will that each soul is sown in flesh.
I agree that God is timeless, and God foreknew us before we were born. But that does not mean that we existed before we born. You might as well say that we existed before we existed!
The point pertains to spiritual communication i.e. prayer, not physical communication. The two are inherently separate.
2Corinthians 2
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.
13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. [fn]
14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
16 "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
This passage says nothing about the body of Christ, which is not stated until chapter 12. Your argument is that Christ is the mind of the body of Christ, so we should we not communicate to anybody but Christ. But you have to take the metaphor in chapter and reach it all the way back to chapter 2. Also, Paul wrote that we have the mind of Christ, not that Christ is our mind.
Conceptually, prayer is by definition the whole of verbal, non-written communication with God. Practically, to ask a favor of someone physically removed from life on earth predicates powers only God has. (Omnipresence, for one.)
That is not how we Catholics use it when we refer to talking to saint6s and asking them to pray for us. Ask any Catholic if he thinks that the saints are gods, and he would emphatically say ‘no’.
A saint does not need to be omnipresent or omniscient to hear our prayers. The created universe, in spite of how vast it is, is still finite. Compared to God, the universe is not even a spec. The only thing infinite is God. Since the universe is infinite, it is possible for a finite creature to know everything there is the universe. So if a creature knew everything in the universe, that would not make this creature God. The one thing a finite creature would never know. No finite creature would fully know God. Only the infinite God can fully understand the infinite God. Since the universe is not even a spec compared to God, to say that that a creature knows everything in the universe would not make him even close to being God. That is how immense God is! Knowing the whole universe is like knowing a spec of dust compared to knowing God.
How was this conclusion reached?
Good. You then admit that the saints in heaven pray to God. But if you admit that they pray to Go0d, why do you object that they pray for us?
Presumably inadvertently, the argument has become a straw man. The parts of the body as they relate to each other, and especially charity, are beyond the scope of the argument. We absolutely need each other, but this need is secondary to our need for God.
I totally agree. Our relationship with God is primary. Our relationship with others, even those in heaven, is secondary. I have never met a Catholic who felt otherwise.
Scripture does not tell us our departed brothers and sisters are in heaven, but that they (and we) will be raised from the dead at the second coming.
That the departed saints go to what is called paradise, or the place prepared for us, does not equate to what is called heaven.
Most Protestant Christians believe that when they die they will go immediately to heaven. The Catholic position is that unless the person who in grace dies in relative perfection, he goes to purgatory. There are different level in purgatory, the highest one is Paradise. Paradise is a wonderful place, but not quite heaven.
So your position is closer to the Catholic position. However, it is still not quite right. Paul wrote that he desired to die and to be with Christ. So Paul, a saint, went immediately to be with Christ. And where Christ is, there is heaven.
For that matter, scripture does not demonstrate that the departed are even able to observe what is happening in their absence.
Direct reply to what I've written here would become convoluted, and the 'cold' nature of my view is what you have inferred according to your own preconceptions and presuppositions rather than what was intended. I would prefer, in response to what I've addressed, that you would re-read the initial argument and respond accordingly. Otherwise, our arguments will only polarize more at each iteration.
I did it.
And I ask you to go and spend time with some devout Catholics, such as members of Opus Dei. See how much they love Jesus Christ. You will see how rash it was to judge Catholics of tending towards idolizing anyone or anything over Christ. Until you do, I feel that the polarization will increase.
