Co-Redeemer?

[marciadietrich]

That would seem to fit neatly with Revelation 12:1-6, but it still doesn't quite suggest to me prayer to or through her?

Hi -
I'm a little tired tonight, but a bump.

I think that the Mass is basically one big prayer, where we ask for and offer prayer for ourselves and others ... coming from a protestant bow your head when you hear "let us pray" and not look up until "Amen" I spend a good lot of the Mass in head bow prayer. I'm not sure there isn't something there in that we are most one during communion. All the graces that we receive directly from the Church in prayers and asking the Holy Spirit to come ... but will come back and write more after I get some sleep.

 

[Shane Roach]

God is God of the living, not the dead.

Well I was speaking of a particular verse where the word "dead" is used. I still think it is a legitimate question to ask some examples of praying to people who have passed on as opposed to being baptised for or praying for them.

I may be misunderstanding this verse... Dunno. Like I say, though, with such an array of people who have passed on to be with Christ, not to see one example of a Biblical prayer to one who has passed on is hard to get around from my perspective.

As always, thanks for your help.

[bible]1 corinthians 15:29[/bible]

 

[thereselittleflower]

Well I was speaking of a particular verse where the word "dead" is used. I still think it is a legitimate question to ask some examples of praying to people who have passed on as opposed to being baptised for or praying for them.

I may be misunderstanding this verse... Dunno. Like I say, though, with such an array of people who have passed on to be with Christ, not to see one example of a Biblical prayer to one who has passed on is hard to get around from my perspective.

As always, thanks for your help.

1 Corinthians 15:29Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Let me propose a different doctrine to coinsider in paralell to this one . . for there are many similarities . . .

What you are asking for is something that EXPLICITLY tells us we can pray to those who have gone on to be with Christ.

There isn't anything like this in the bible you use.

Now, let's take my akternate example:

Let's take the Trinity . . .. Show an example of where the bible EXPLICITY says that God is a Trinity, ONE BEING, THREE PERSONS, Eternally co-exisiting, One Substance, Essence . . . .

Just one example from scripture . . .



The problem is, you can't . . . there is no scripture which states this . . . .

The Trinity is DEDUCED from scripture. It is implicit in scripture, but never EXPLICITY stated . . ..

Yet, I would wager that you believe in the Trinity . . .


The Doctrine of the Communion of Saints and prayers to those who have gone on to be with Christ is also IMPLICITlY found within scripture. . .


It would not be reasonable or make sense to hold the doctrine of The Communion of Saints and prayers for the deceased to a higher standard of proof than one is willing to accept for the much more central doctrine, The Trinity.

In fact, it would be hypocritical to do so . . ..


Do you see why it is unreasonable to demand EXPLICIT biblical proof for praying to the saints in Christ when one is willing to accept only IMPLICIT biblical proof for the Trinity?


In addition to the implicit proofs in the bible, we have the testimony of the Early Church under persecution and the many inscriptions of prayers to the saints on the walls of the catacombs . . . .

One only has to study the Early Church to find themselves immediately confronted with this doctrine. . . . . This I know from personal experience . . and I was very, very surprised 4 years ago . . . .



John Paul pray for us

 

[marciadietrich]

The problem is, you can't . . . there is no scripture which states this . . . .

The Trinity is DEDUCED from scripture. It is implicit in scripture, but never EXPLICITY stated . . ..

...

In addition to the implicit proofs in the bible, we have the testimony of the Early Church under persecution and the many inscriptions of prayers to the saints on the walls of the catacombs . . . .

One only has to study the Early Church to find themselves immediately confronted with this doctrine. . . . . This I know from personal experience . . and I was very, very surprised 4 years ago . . . .

Hi,

Don't want to be critical as I thought this was a good post. Still, I wouldn't say so much that the doctrine IS deduced from scripture as it CAN POSSIBLY be deduced from scripture. And the problem in going by scripture alone is where the nonTrinitarian sects arose. They broke off from the mainline protestant thought which was rejecting the history and Tradition and so looking at only scripture and not presuming the Trinity was correct doctrine they deduced something outside of the Trinity to explain the relationship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I have found nonTrinitarians generally can clean the clock of scripture only arguments in favor of the Trinity. Because you actually have to know and believe in the Trinity BEFORE you really accept it in the Bible. For every verse in favor of the Trinity there are verses that can be used against it. Same with this issue. If you reject the premise of the Communion of Saints including the dead in Christ, you just will explain away any verses which support the belief.

Marcia

 

[Rising_Suns]

Shane,

You are continuing to look at the Catholic Church through Protestant glasses, which is probably why you are still confused. Your posts continue to revolve around selected passages, disregarding Tradition altogether. If you want a full and complete discussion with Catholics, then you must first accept that Sacred Scripture forms part of our deposit of faith, not all of it. Once you begin to study the other half--Tradition--then you will begin to understand Catholic teachings more completely.

Also please keep in mind that the Bible was created for the Church, and by the Church. The Church was not created for the Bible. Yes, Scripture is God-breathed, but it must be interpretted by an authoritative source led by the Holy Spirit, otherwise people will read the same passages and come to differing conclusions on what they mean (we have evidence of this by the thousands of Protestant denominations in existence today). This is why Christ set up His Church; to preserve and interpret the teachings He passed down orally (Tradition) and in written form (Scripture).

Blessings,

-Davide

 

[Shane Roach]

Let me propose a different doctrine to coinsider in paralell to this one . . for there are many similarities . . .

What you are asking for is something that EXPLICITLY tells us we can pray to those who have gone on to be with Christ.

There isn't anything like this in the bible you use.

Now, let's take my akternate example:

Let's take the Trinity . . .. Show an example of where the bible EXPLICITY says that God is a Trinity, ONE BEING, THREE PERSONS, Eternally co-exisiting, One Substance, Essence . . . .

Just one example from scripture . . .



The problem is, you can't . . . there is no scripture which states this . . . .

The Trinity is DEDUCED from scripture. It is implicit in scripture, but never EXPLICITY stated . . ..

Yet, I would wager that you believe in the Trinity . . .


The Doctrine of the Communion of Saints and prayers to those who have gone on to be with Christ is also IMPLICITlY found within scripture. . .


It would not be reasonable or make sense to hold the doctrine of The Communion of Saints and prayers for the deceased to a higher standard of proof than one is willing to accept for the much more central doctrine, The Trinity.

In fact, it would be hypocritical to do so . . ..


Do you see why it is unreasonable to demand EXPLICIT biblical proof for praying to the saints in Christ when one is willing to accept only IMPLICIT biblical proof for the Trinity?


In addition to the implicit proofs in the bible, we have the testimony of the Early Church under persecution and the many inscriptions of prayers to the saints on the walls of the catacombs . . . .

One only has to study the Early Church to find themselves immediately confronted with this doctrine. . . . . This I know from personal experience . . and I was very, very surprised 4 years ago . . . .



John Paul pray for us

"In Him dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily," seems to me to be a pretty explicit statement regarding the Trinity. I can't find anything nearly as comforting in the Bible about praying to saints.

I don't imagine praying to saints is a sin by any stretch, but for reasons I have pointed out it seems to me something of a distraction. We are known personally by God through His Holy Spirit, of whom our bodies are descrbed as temples.

The next post continues a common misconception about protestants that we all discount the role of the Holy Spirit or of church tradition and authority. The question as I have said before is a question of how to determine whose traditions and whose authority to trust in any given matter.

That being said, the reassurance from one and all that Mary is very carefully distinguished from the Holy Spirit, Christ, or the Father and that her role is definitively subordinate to all comforts me in the overall effectiveness of the Catholic church as a Christian body. Every denomination has its little ideosyncracies, and the Catholic church has been around long enough to have way more than the rest. To be honest, though, barring something very new and surprising coming up, I don't think I will ever be fully comfortable with the teaching as a whole as I have understood it.

I would like to see some of the things mentioned about early church history though. Perhaps a few book titles or a web link or two? I admit to a woefull ignorance on early church history and there may well be an answer there that could surprise me.

Thanks yet again for all your efforts.

 

[artnalex]

"In Him dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily," seems to me to be a pretty explicit statement regarding the Trinity.

Where does it state that there are three persons in one being? How do we know the Godhead is comprised of three persons in one being? Not by that verse.

Thinks about it. That passage proves nothing other than your preconceived ideas, right?

 

[Rising_Suns]

The question as I have said before is a question of how to determine whose traditions and whose authority to trust in any given matter.

Tradition is defined as the "the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction". If Protestants didn't exist until the 16th century, that means their Tradition didn't exist until then either.

Who's Traditions would you trust more; the Church who traces her roots back to Christ Himself, or the Church that was created 1,600 years later after Christ's death?

Every denomination has its little ideosyncracies, and the Catholic church has been around long enough to have way more than the rest.

Please stop disrespecting our faith. The Catholic Church is the Church Christ instituted. She is not, as you suggest, a Church with many quirks.

To be honest, though, barring something very new and surprising coming up, I don't think I will ever be fully comfortable with the teaching as a whole as I have understood it.

It's important to be patient with this. Understanding takes time, and there is alot about the Catholic faith to grasp. But once the pieces begin to fall into place, the grander picture will soon be seen and things will make alot more sense.

I admit to a woefull ignorance on early church history and there may well be an answer there that could surprise me..

That is probably why you are still having a difficult time understanding the Catholic faith. As John Henry Newman once said, "To be deep in history, is to cease to be Protestant."

Do you know how the Bible came into existence?

Blessings,

-Davide

 

[marciadietrich]

In Him dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily," seems to me to be a pretty explicit statement regarding the Trinity. I can't find anything nearly as comforting in the Bible about praying to saints.

Col 2: 9 (NAB) says, "For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity bodily, and you share in this fullness in him who is the head of every principality and power."

That verse says that we share in this fullness as well, so perhaps instead of a Trinity there is an infinite number in the Godhead? Do you see how this does not explicitly state the existence of the Trinity. Because this indicates whatever that "fullness" is that believers share in it as well. So do we share in the essence or substance of the Godhead as a part of it?

 

[Skripper]

"In Him dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily," seems to me to be a pretty explicit statement regarding the Trinity. I can't find anything nearly as comforting in the Bible about praying to saints.

How so? This isn't explicit at all, because one must possess prior knowledge of the Trinity to conclude that this in any way speaks of the Trinity. On the other hand, if one already possesses some knowledge of the Trinity, this passage can be seen to implicitly support it. But it certainly is not explicit. There are similar passages in the Bible that implicitly support praying to saints, at least as much as the above supports Jesus being God and the Godhead being triune.

I don't imagine praying to saints is a sin by any stretch, but for reasons I have pointed out it seems to me something of a distraction. We are known personally by God through His Holy Spirit, of whom our bodies are descrbed as temples.

Well, if one considers it a distraction to one's spirituality, then by all means one should not do it. But that doesn't mean it's distractive for everyone, generally and objectively.

The next post continues a common misconception about protestants that we all discount the role of the Holy Spirit or of church tradition and authority. The question as I have said before is a question of how to determine whose traditions and whose authority to trust in any given matter.

Yes, this is key. Whereas loyal Catholics, generally speaking, defer to the authority of the magisterium of the Church. On the other hand Protestants, generally speaking, defer to their own authority and to their own selfs, to their belief in their own ability to personally arrive at correct doctrine, sometimes (usually?) based upon their own reason and Bible-reading, which they believe to be Spirit-led, on a personal, individual level (so they believe it's not really the self, possibly because they recognize, at least tacitly, how very egotistical that would be). Yet if this were the case, if the Holy Spirit were actually leading folks to personally arrive at correct doctrine, then there certainly wouldn't be so many varying opinions within Protestantism regarding what is and isn't correct doctrine, along with so very many different Protestant denominations, all teaching, to some degree at least, conflicting and contradictory doctrines amongst themselves. Cardinal Ratzinger said something very interesting, and also, I believe, to be very true, in a recent sermon: "In the central part of his sermon, he followed Ephesians in talking of the Mature and Immature Christian, saying that the immature Christian was tossed about on every new and fashionable tide of doctine - mysticism, individualism, liberalism, marxism etc. He said there was a dictatorship of relativism, in which belief is based on one's own ego."

That being said, the reassurance from one and all that Mary is very carefully distinguished from the Holy Spirit, Christ, or the Father and that her role is definitively subordinate to all comforts me in the overall effectiveness of the Catholic church as a Christian body. Every denomination has its little ideosyncracies, and the Catholic church has been around long enough to have way more than the rest. To be honest, though, barring something very new and surprising coming up, I don't think I will ever be fully comfortable with the teaching as a whole as I have understood it.

What some may consider idiosyncracies may actually be objective, divinely revealed truth. Catholics belive it is . . . orthodox and loyal ones, anyway.

I would like to see some of the things mentioned about early church history though. Perhaps a few book titles or a web link or two? I admit to a woefull ignorance on early church history and there may well be an answer there that could surprise me.

Boy, there are like a zillion of them, from both Protestant and Catholic perspectives, with the inherent biases one would expect, depending on the perspective. But the thing is, there were no "Protestants" (strictly speaking), in the very early Church, so that may give one an idea of which "bias" may be slanted in the right direction. In any event, if you are interested in doing some study of early Church history (which I strongly recommend, for any Christain), just do a google search and you'll come up with quite a bit. And like I said, each site will be biased in one direction or the other, depending upon which perspective it is coming from, whether Catholic or Protestant perspective. If you want a Protestant perspective on historical Christianity, read some Protestant sites. If you want a Catholic perspective, read some Catholic sites. I would recommend doing both, and comparing. It is, however, difficult to divorce one's self from one's own biases when doing this. For example, my bias is Catholic. So, obviously, I give more credence to the sites whose perspective is Catholic. You may (and probably will) do the reverse. But I honestly believe that if one makes an honest effort to try to be as objective as possible, and try to divorce one's self from one's preconceived ideas (as much as is possible since we all have our biases), that an open-minded study of historical Christianity would lead one in the direction of concluding that the Catholic perspective is the "more accurate" one when compared to Protestant perspectives. Just being realistic here . . . it's not very common for a Catholic Christian to study early Christianity and have it lead him into Protestantism (although I suppose it could happen), while it is fairly common for Protestant Christians, through studying early Church history, to be led into Catholicism (or Orthodoxy). As Cardinal Henry Newman (former Anglican bishop who converted to Catholicism after much historical study) wrote, "To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant."

Thanks yet again for all your efforts.

You'll find we are very open and welcoming to sincere and genuine inquiry.

 

[Skripper]

Hi,

Don't want to be critical as I thought this was a good post. Still, I wouldn't say so much that the doctrine IS deduced from scripture as it CAN POSSIBLY be deduced from scripture. And the problem in going by scripture alone is where the nonTrinitarian sects arose. They broke off from the mainline protestant thought which was rejecting the history and Tradition and so looking at only scripture and not presuming the Trinity was correct doctrine they deduced something outside of the Trinity to explain the relationship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I have found nonTrinitarians generally can clean the clock of scripture only arguments in favor of the Trinity. Because you actually have to know and believe in the Trinity BEFORE you really accept it in the Bible. For every verse in favor of the Trinity there are verses that can be used against it. Same with this issue. If you reject the premise of the Communion of Saints including the dead in Christ, you just will explain away any verses which support the belief.

Marcia

Egg-zactly. Very good post, Marcia. And very, very true.

 

[Shane Roach]

Where does it state that there are three persons in one being? How do we know the Godhead is comprised of three persons in one being? Not by that verse.

Thinks about it. That passage proves nothing other than your preconceived ideas, right?

We know of the Spirit from the Spirit coming down at His baptism, and of course the Father because Christ prayed to the Father, and the implication of the verse is that all of this is One in Christ. I don't think it is for nothing that the doctrine of the Trinity is widely accepted whereas the Catholic understanding of Mary is pretty much unique to Catholics.

That's not to say I am not keeping an open mind. I do wish people would stop with the assumption or whatever that my question is somehow uniquely based on some protestant "preconcieved notion." It's just that I can't find a single example of a Biblical hero, OT or NT, that prays to anyone other than God Himself.

I wasn't raised protestant. I have compared both sides and have consistently found myself having an easier time understanding protestant teaching is all it boils down to. I am trying to understand Catholicism too. That's really all it is.

 

[Shane Roach]

Tradition is defined as the "the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction". If Protestants didn't exist until the 16th century, that means their Tradition didn't exist until then either.

Who's Traditions would you trust more; the Church who traces her roots back to Christ Himself, or the Church that was created 1,600 years later after Christ's death?

It seems to me that those who left the Catholic church at that time had all the same qualifications as those who stayed, and therefore the same line all the way back to Christ.

Please stop disrespecting our faith. The Catholic Church is the Church Christ instituted. She is not, as you suggest, a Church with many quirks.

I didn't single out Catholicism, nor did I mean to offend in any way. I don't believe any denomination is perfect, is all I meant. I've consistently said I am just here asking.

That is probably why you are still having a difficult time understanding the Catholic faith. As John Henry Newman once said, "To be deep in history, is to cease to be Protestant."

Do you know how the Bible came into existence?

I read a post here in the Catholic forums about it, and have heard and read various things. I am not really in any big confusion over the difference in the Protestant and Catholic Bibles. If you have examples in the Apocrypha you want to point to, that's fine with me. It would still take a whole lot of examples of people praying to saints in heaven to overshadow the exculisivity with which all the rest of the books accepted by protestants and Catholics alike with repeated examples of people praying to God rather than to anyone else, I would think.

 

[Shane Roach]

Col 2: 9 (NAB) says, "For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity bodily, and you share in this fullness in him who is the head of every principality and power."

That verse says that we share in this fullness as well, so perhaps instead of a Trinity there is an infinite number in the Godhead? Do you see how this does not explicitly state the existence of the Trinity. Because this indicates whatever that "fullness" is that believers share in it as well. So do we share in the essence or substance of the Godhead as a part of it?

I don't know how this got to be a debate on the Trinity. Christ called Himself the vine and us the branches. That's the spirit in which I understand that verse.

If you have a series of verses which could lead one to the veneration of Mary, then by all means let's talk about those. I think we all agree about the Trinity.

 

[Benedicta00]

If you have a series of verses which could lead one to the veneration of Mary, then by all means let's talk about those. I think we all agree about the Trinity.

What's that saying- to those there is no explanation needed but to others none will suffice??

Even if we posted the scripture, which I am sure someone will/already has, it still would not suffice.

Once the mind is made up to reject this, the mind has been made up to reject this.

 

[Shane Roach]

How so? This isn't explicit at all, because one must possess prior knowledge of the Trinity to conclude that this in any way speaks of the Trinity. On the other hand, if one already possesses some knowledge of the Trinity, this passage can be seen to implicitly support it. But it certainly is not explicit. There are similar passages in the Bible that implicitly support praying to saints, at least as much as the above supports Jesus being God and the Godhead being triune.

If one had to have prior knowledge of the Trinity to work this verse out, I don't think the doctrine of the Trinity would ever have been worked out at all. The thing is, it is clear that Christ and the Father are separate because Christ prays to the Father. The Spirit descends on Jesus when John the Baptist baptises Him, yet Christ still prays to the Father. This later gets summed up nicely in Colosians. I don't understand how this compares to the discussion about Mary. Perhaps a different example?

Well, if one considers it a distraction to one's spirituality, then by all means one should not do it. But that doesn't mean it's distractive for everyone, generally and objectively.

I agree.

Yes, this is key. Whereas loyal Catholics, generally speaking, defer to the authority of the magisterium of the Church. On the other hand Protestants, generally speaking, defer to their own authority and to their own selfs, to their belief in their own ability to personally arrive at correct doctrine, sometimes (usually?) based upon their own reason and Bible-reading, which they believe to be Spirit-led, on a personal, individual level (so they believe it's not really the self, possibly because they recognize, at least tacitly, how very egotistical that would be). Yet if this were the case, if the Holy Spirit were actually leading folks to personally arrive at correct doctrine, then there certainly wouldn't be so many varying opinions within Protestantism regarding what is and isn't correct doctrine, along with so very many different Protestant denominations, all teaching, to some degree at least, conflicting and contradictory doctrines amongst themselves. Cardinal Ratzinger said something very interesting, and also, I believe, to be very true, in a recent sermon: "In the central part of his sermon, he followed Ephesians in talking of the Mature and Immature Christian, saying that the immature Christian was tossed about on every new and fashionable tide of doctine - mysticism, individualism, liberalism, marxism etc. He said there was a dictatorship of relativism, in which belief is based on one's own ego."

I don't believe the jump from not believing the Majesterium is nfallible in its authority to depending more on the fundamentals of the Bible is necessarily a decision made by ego. Also, there are numerous passages in the New Testament about not following false teachings, and how to tell one from the other. I think at the time of the Protestant revolution, there were some pretty obvious problems with Catholicism. Not to say protestantism branched off in perfection. Luther had his own problems it seems, from what I have read. What it seems to have brought to the fore, though, is that the institution of the Catholic church simply is not capable of defying the declarations in the NT that the spirit of Anti-Christ would come and make inroads, as "reefs in your love feasts," and so on.

I do not single out Catholicism, I want to be very, very, very clear about that. I think all denominations have their struggles in this arena. I don't attribute all of protestantism, however, to egotism.

What some may consider idiosyncracies may actually be objective, divinely revealed truth. Catholics belive it is . . . orthodox and loyal ones, anyway.

Exactly, which is why I am here asking.

Boy, there are like a zillion of them, from both Protestant and Catholic perspectives, with the inherent biases one would expect, depending on the perspective. But the thing is, there were no "Protestants" (strictly speaking), in the very early Church, so that may give one an idea of which "bias" may be slanted in the right direction. In any event, if you are interested in doing some study of early Church history (which I strongly recommend, for any Christain), just do a google search and you'll come up with quite a bit. And like I said, each site will be biased in one direction or the other, depending upon which perspective it is coming from, whether Catholic or Protestant perspective. If you want a Protestant perspective on historical Christianity, read some Protestant sites. If you want a Catholic perspective, read some Catholic sites. I would recommend doing both, and comparing. It is, however, difficult to divorce one's self from one's own biases when doing this. For example, my bias is Catholic. So, obviously, I give more credence to the sites whose perspective is Catholic. You may (and probably will) do the reverse. But I honestly believe that if one makes an honest effort to try to be as objective as possible, and try to divorce one's self from one's preconceived ideas (as much as is possible since we all have our biases), that an open-minded study of historical Christianity would lead one in the direction of concluding that the Catholic perspective is the "more accurate" one when compared to Protestant perspectives. Just being realistic here . . . it's not very common for a Catholic Christian to study early Christianity and have it lead him into Protestantism (although I suppose it could happen), while it is fairly common for Protestant Christians, through studying early Church history, to be led into Catholicism (or Orthodoxy). As Cardinal Henry Newman (former Anglican bishop who converted to Catholicism after much historical study) wrote, "To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant."



You'll find we are very open and welcoming to sincere and genuine inquiry.

I was aaah, hoping for something perhaps of a favorite of yours or something? *grins* Thanks for your time!

 

[Shane Roach]

What's that saying- to those there is no explanation needed but to others none will suffice??

Even if we posted the scripture, which I am sure someone will/already has, it still would not suffice.

Once the mind is made up to reject this, the mind has been made up to reject this.

Actually what happened was several people said there were none. The indication seems to be I need to study early church history. That's why I asked after some sources.

I don't believe your insight applies to me, though I have met some people for whom I would agree it does.

 

[D'Ann]

Miss Shelby

http://davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_perpetual_virgin.htm

I hope this site is helpful.

D'Ann

 

[Benedicta00]

Actually what happened was several people said there were none. The indication seems to be I need to study early church history. That's why I asked after some sources.

I don't believe your insight applies to me, though I have met some people for whom I would agree it does.

Well what about Luke?

There is scripture, not explicit as with the case of the trinity but it is present, but you have to buy the premise if you will ’see’ it in scripture as with the trinity, which for Catholics the premise is Holy Tradition, the actual teachings of the 12. The point that was being made to you is that you trust the Church’s Holy tradition to define the trinity for you, but not this? How come?

 

[Shane Roach]

Well what about Luke?

There is scripture, not explicit as with the case of the trinity but it is present, but you have to buy the premise if you will ’see’ it in scripture as with the trinity, which for Catholics the premise is Holy Tradition, the actual teachings of the 12. The point that was being made to you is that you trust the Church’s Holy tradition to define the trinity for you, but not this? How come?

As I have said, because I don't see any examples at all of a tradition of praying to saints rather than to God. It seems to have been established by 300A.D. or so, but the examples I have seen even of early church writers before then seem to indicate a respect for Mary without stating she was concieved herself in the same manner Christ was, or that she was perpetually a Virgin, or that folk would profit from praying to her rather than to the Father.

I don't see it is disregarding tradition at all. I am looking at different people's claims here. I certainly did not invent this conflict. It was well underway before I was born. I am in the position of having to make the choice myself whether I want to or not.