Patron saints

[judechild]

In deference to what you have just stated, I went back over every single post to see where I ever said those that had passed before us were inactive...I never said any such thing!

I could not see where I did not respond...if you point me too it, I will do so now....

You said: "I think you are jumping the gun a little in regards to the functions of the dearly departed when absent from this present world." You were responding to my: "People 'asleep in the Lord' are not depicted as static. In the first place, there is the passage which calls them aleep, but alive "so that all of us, whether awake or asleep, together might live with Him." My post was in response to your: "I mean seeking help from brethren that 'sleep in the L-rd' and as an aside, the very terminology used implies that they are no longer in active service regarding playing any sort of part in the affairs of man."

Your clarification is irrelevant because I have not yet said that their "activity" means that they are active in regards to us. We are approaching that. Are you then conceeding to me that those who "sleep in the Lord" are still consciously active (without yet defining what their "function" is)?

No, I agree with what Scripture says obviously...or as Paul put it:

Good, that means then that we've agreed with at least two axioms:

1 - The souls of those Christians who are "asleep," are still alive with Him.
2 - The same Christians have not lost their individualization in Heaven.

If Paul is with Messiah I presume he has finished his labours and entered G-ds rest...but he indicates that his fruitful labour only comes about if he remains in the flesh, which is worth noting.

He does not say that his "fruitful labour" will only come about if he remains in the flesh, he only says that it is better for them that he do.

I was trying to be a bit flexible when I stated there were things not easily understood...I meant that in regard to those few passages mentioning the Heavenly Host it is presumptious to conclude that because they have a function in Heaven we are now at liberty to petition them...this includes departed Believers.

That answers nothing. You said things are "not easily understood," but now you're saying that it is presumptious to conclude something for no reason other than that you don't believe it yourself. It is well known that we are not empistemic peers because I acknowledge more "data" than you do, and so it's a red herring even to bring up concluding anything on the basis of what I've already presented. But even that's irrelevant, because I haven't even scratched the surface of the evidence yet. You've agreed with the first two axioms; we'll continue and see where we go.

[quoteJesus taught us to pray to 'Our Father in Heaven'.[/quote]

Yes - too bad some people tell me not even to pray the Our Father - which is prayed at every Mass, Lauds, and Vespers.

Jesus taught us to pray to our Father, privately.

Which we do, as well as publically.

Jesus was always praying to His Father.

Paul prayed to the L-rd.
Every Apostle prayed to the L-rd.
We are exhorted to imitate the L-rd, and even to imitate Paul (1Cor 4:16).
Never does this include praying to the departed, and James 5 does not give us licence to do so either.

How do you know that every Apostle prayed to the Lord? Bartholomew is never mentioned in Scripture, except for lists of the Apostles. Of course I believe they did, but where do you justify that assertion?

The question must be asked....then by whose authority are we now able to depart from the Apostles teaching and from sound doctrine?

This is what we call a loaded question, because it assumes that prayer to Saints is a departure from the Apostles teaching and from sound doctrine, but the Ultimate Question is whether it is a part of the Apostles teaching in the first place, and so the question is irrelevant.
​

If you actually read my responses you will see that I am well aware of extra-biblical, traditions and practices, and do not have an axe to grind against them

I know that, and if you actually read my responses you will see that I go further than that; I am saying that you passively acknowledge things to be divine revelation that are outside of the Scriptures. I doubt you meant to affirm me in this.

Please do not presume to lecture me...I DO NOT EVADE QUESTIONS.....overlook maybe, but please please understand I do not evade anything....if you will just patiently repeat the question I will endeavour to reply.

And I did patiently repeat the questions, in the next section. It doesn't change that you did not answer them and instead went off on a tangent.

​

What more substantiation do you require to demonstrate that the Scriptures you have provided thus far provide scant evidence to support your theological practices...

I'm about 12% through the "evidence," so of course it's "scant."

Yes...why on earth do you think I have changed my mind?

You might have, because you called them "flimsy" which either means that they are not true, or that they have not been properly used. But so far I have not brought them into the general argument, so they must not have been improperly used - this means that you must have thought they were false. But you apparently do not think that they are false, and so we're free to go on.
​

I believe a Believer who dies is with the L-rd...I believe we who are alive in the flesh know the L-rd, He dwells amongst us through the Spirit. So we are never separated, even by death, from the Body of Messiah.

Very nice - this means that we are agreed on three points:

1 - The souls of those Christians who are "asleep," are still alive with Him.
2 - The same Christians have not lost their individualization in Heaven.
3 - The same Christians are not separated from the Body of Christ by death.

Now I have a new question (and if you don't answer it, I'll have to ask it again): is there one Body of Christ, or is there more than one?

Not sure of the revelance of this?

You said you have an assurance that God the Father will hear your prayer, but often He will not hear it, if the person asks unworily (for lack of a better term). So the assurance that you are talking about cannot be absolute, but predicated somewhat on the person praying.
​

Oh boy, give me a break....are you a school teacher?

Worse; I'm a philosopher.

I would have thought it was blindingly obvious without the need to be spelled out...the theological assunption is that we are at liberty to pray to Mary, pray to Angels pray to departed Believers....take your pick.

Well there we go, the so-called theological assumption is the Ultimate Question anyway; I thought it might be something that would help your case. Never mind.
​

All I can say is that your perception about what I have written is limited, unless you are being deliberately obtuse.

My understanding of your posts appears to be better-formed than your own. You said: Neither Scripture quoted here implies these saints have any sort of participation with those of us still on this present earth." But of course that is true, because I haven't yet givven you the conclusion; in the post you were responding to, I said: "Since we've made progress so far in that we agree that the person who dies is still alive in Christ (1 Thess. 5:9-10), and are still individualized (Rev. 6:11), we now get to turn our attention to the Body of Christ itself, hence my latest question." I did not say, because of Axioms 1 and 2, we should therefore pray to saints; you added the conclusion yourself. That is why I wrote "I haven't begun yet to argue that they participate with us still on earth; we're getting to that point slowly."

Although I have described what is happening concerning the Martyrs in Heaven, I for one do not fully understand what is taking place....hence saying 'not easily understood'...now I hope that is easily understood.

No, what you are saying is not easily understood, because if you really believed that you do not fully understand what those who have gone before are doing, the proper response would be neutrality on the Ultimate Question - especially considering that we are not epistemic peers.
​

I though we were past all this.....what exactly is the point you are making?

I thought we were past all this too, but then you said "although I believe there is some substance to this claim historically if one does a study of the transition of gods from Babylonian times or earlier, through to Greek, Roman and then Catholic." What did you want me to do, in response to that assertion?
​

 

[Zeek]

Teacher....philosopher.....pedantic etc etc.....I will get back to this and try to answer the relevant points, but I am not sure I still fully understand where all of this is leading, as all I seem to do is unintentially evade your questions/points, and all you seem to do is correct my poor grasp of the elusive points you are patiently trying to get closure on. I'll also see if there is a way I can avoid jumping the gun.

 

[Zeek]

You said: "I think you are jumping the gun a little in regards to the functions of the dearly departed when absent from this present world." You were responding to my: "People 'asleep in the Lord' are not depicted as static. In the first place, there is the passage which calls them aleep, but alive "so that all of us, whether awake or asleep, together might live with Him." My post was in response to your: "I mean seeking help from brethren that 'sleep in the L-rd' and as an aside, the very terminology used implies that they are no longer in active service regarding playing any sort of part in the affairs of man."



Your clarification is irrelevant because I have not yet said that their "activity" means that they are active in regards to us. We are approaching that. Are you then conceeding to me that those who "sleep in the Lord" are still consciously active (without yet defining what their "function" is)?

Yes...conceded.

Good, that means then that we've agreed with at least two axioms:

1 - The souls of those Christians who are "asleep," are still alive with Him.
2 - The same Christians have not lost their individualization in Heaven.

Yep...agreed.

He does not say that his "fruitful labour" will only come about if he remains in the flesh, he only says that it is better for them that he do.

I would say the context reveals it is more beneficial for the Body that he remain on earth to complete what G-d has called him to do.

That answers nothing. You said things are "not easily understood," but now you're saying that it is presumptious to conclude something for no reason other than that you don't believe it yourself. It is well known that we are not empistemic peers because I acknowledge more "data" than you do, and so it's a red herring even to bring up concluding anything on the basis of what I've already presented. But even that's irrelevant, because I haven't even scratched the surface of the evidence yet. You've agreed with the first two axioms; we'll continue and see where we go.

Ok...

​

How do you know that every Apostle prayed to the Lord? Bartholomew is never mentioned in Scripture, except for lists of the Apostles. Of course I believe they did, but where do you justify that assertion?

That seems pedantic...I am sure you realise I meant every recorded incident in the NC shows every prayer recorded by any Apostle as always being to the L-rd, and never the hint or whiff of them approaching any other spiritual entity in prayer.

This is what we call a loaded question, because it assumes that prayer to Saints is a departure from the Apostles teaching and from sound doctrine, but the Ultimate Question is whether it is a part of the Apostles teaching in the first place, and so the question is irrelevant.

Fine, I'll hold back.
​

I know that, and if you actually read my responses you will see that I go further than that; I am saying that you passively acknowledge things to be divine revelation that are outside of the Scriptures. I doubt you meant to affirm me in this.

Not sure I follow you...but I'll catch up later.

And I did patiently repeat the questions, in the next section. It doesn't change that you did not answer them and instead went off on a tangent.

If I did, it wasn't intentional.

​

Well there we go, the so-called theological assumption is the Ultimate Question anyway; I thought it might be something that would help your case. Never mind.

Sometime you lose me with what appears to be your cleverness, but I'll put it down to me being a bit slow on the uptake.

My understanding of your posts appears to be better-formed than your own. You said: Neither Scripture quoted here implies these saints have any sort of participation with those of us still on this present earth." But of course that is true, because I haven't yet givven you the conclusion; in the post you were responding to, I said: "Since we've made progress so far in that we agree that the person who dies is still alive in Christ (1 Thess. 5:9-10), and are still individualized (Rev. 6:11), we now get to turn our attention to the Body of Christ itself, hence my latest question." I did not say, because of Axioms 1 and 2, we should therefore pray to saints; you added the conclusion yourself. That is why I wrote "I haven't begun yet to argue that they participate with us still on earth; we're getting to that point slowly."

OK...I will play it your way, and let your argument unfold, and try to stay within the perimeters you insist I should respect.
​

No, what you are saying is not easily understood, because if you really believed that you do not fully understand what those who have gone before are doing, the proper response would be neutrality on the Ultimate Question - especially considering that we are not epistemic peers.

Shucks...I didn't give the proper response.

I think it is hard to give you everything you desire in a response because I am whom I am, and with all my imperfections I try to respond as best I can, not to contradict myself, not to be hypocritical or hyper-critical and to try and grasp exactly what it is we are discussing...but it isn't easy, and your method of response and specific requirements in a discussion is not something I am used to...apart from with a few Athiest friends.

​

 

[judechild]

I would say the context reveals it is more beneficial for the Body that he remain on earth to complete what G-d has called him to do.

Oh sure; at that time, clearly so.

That seems pedantic...I am sure you realise I meant every recorded incident in the NC shows every prayer recorded by any Apostle as always being to the L-rd, and never the hint or whiff of them approaching any other spiritual entity in prayer.

That may be what you intended, but the trouble is that you have been talking about theological assumptions, but made at least one of your own. You've said that you see no prayer to Saints in the New Testament, therefore Apostolic Teaching does not include prayer to saints. But you're missing the important premise that "all Apostolic Teaching is in the New Testament." Since you have the extant writings of less than half of the Apostles, that is a bold claim, and one that is repeated by the "Unitarians" to say that the Holy Spirit is not God (because no prayer is addressed, specifically, to the Holy Spirit).

Sometime you lose me with what appears to be your cleverness, but I'll put it down to me being a bit slow on the uptake.

My cleverness is what I use to keep my Religious Education students entertained all day; my reason is what I use here.

I only said that what you call a theological assumption is really only your position re-stated. But now we are investigating theological claims and the support for them, so that we will see whether an assumption is really taking place - or, rather, if it is you that is assuming something.

OK...I will play it your way, and let your argument unfold, and try to stay within the perimeters you insist I should respect.

I've placed no special perimeters on you. I have been asking simple questions of theological significance, and have been insisting that they be responded to. You have asked questions of your own, and I have responded to them (such as comparison of the Saints to pagan pantheons). The irony is that while saying you will "play it my way," you forgot to answer the only question that I insisted that you do answer; that question is: "is there one Body of Christ, or is there more than one?"

I think it is hard to give you everything you desire in a response because I am whom I am, and with all my imperfections I try to respond as best I can, not to contradict myself, not to be hypocritical or hyper-critical and to try and grasp exactly what it is we are discussing...but it isn't easy, and your method of response and specific requirements in a discussion is not something I am used to...apart from with a few Athiest friends.

I'm sure then that it would not surprise you to learn that I used to be an atheist (but you'll still have to point out to me the specific requirements, other than expecting you to answer questions). Also, philosophically, I can be called an Extreme Rationalist. That is to say, I think that metaphysical truths - even metaphysical truths of faith - can be demonstrated convincingly through reason alone. But in order to investigate claims we must break it down into atomic parts (because we need a common frame-of-reference in order to discuss something. If we agree on a point, then we've expanded our common frame-of-reference). Our common frame-of-reference now includes the three points that we've agreed with; in the immortal words of Sesame Street's Count: "give me another, and I will count it!"

 

[Zeek]

I think you have cleared things up a little, and I can better understand why I find the way you think a little unusual...I felt like you were engaging me in the same way a teacher might engage a student, and it seems by and large I was not mistaken.

I think this was the only issue not resolved.....

..you forgot to answer the only question that I insisted that you do answer; that question is: "is there one Body of Christ, or is there more than one?"

Just the One Body of Messiah to which all that have been washed in the blood belong.

Romans 12:4 For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, 5 so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

I missed out in my education as I have never seen Sesame Street.

Kind regards. Zazal

 

[judechild]

Just the One Body of Messiah to which all that have been washed in the blood belong.

That is good; that means we are agreed on four points now: Those Christians who have died remain alive in Christ (1 Thess. 5:9-10); the same remain individualized after death (Rev. 6:11, and Mt. 17:3); the same are not separated from the Body of Christ after death (Rom. 8:38-39); and the Body of Christ is one, unified body (Romans 12:4).

This means by implication that the souls of Christians who remained in the Body of Christ at the time of their death have since continued to remain in the Body of Christ as individualized, alive members. This means that we've recified the first of my two paragraphs in post 4, because we've mutually agreed to every point. Itaque, we will both have to oppose anyone who says that it is a religious assumption that the Saints (whoever they may be) are still really alive and members of the Body of Christ.


The next question is: when St. Paul commands "by all prayer and supplication praying at all times in the spirit; and in the same watching with all instance and supplication for all the saints" (Eph 6:18), is he addressing a part of the Body of Christ, or the whole Body?

 

[Standing Up]

That is good; that means we are agreed on four points now: Those Christians who have died remain alive in Christ (1 Thess. 5:9-10); the same remain individualized after death (Rev. 6:11, and Mt. 17:3); the same are not separated from the Body of Christ after death (Rom. 8:38-39); and the Body of Christ is one, unified body (Romans 12:4).

This means by implication that the souls of Christians who remained in the Body of Christ at the time of their death have since continued to remain in the Body of Christ as individualized, alive members. This means that we've recified the first of my two paragraphs in post 4, because we've mutually agreed to every point. Itaque, we will both have to oppose anyone who says that it is a religious assumption that the Saints (whoever they may be) are still really alive and members of the Body of Christ.


The next question is: when St. Paul commands "by all prayer and supplication praying at all times in the spirit; and in the same watching with all instance and supplication for all the saints" (Eph 6:18), is he addressing a part of the Body of Christ, or the whole Body?

Do you think it applies to those RCers who died with mortal sin or who are in purgatory or heaven?

Which of the dead are in heaven now per RC?

 

[Rhamiel]

Do you think it applies to those RCers who died with mortal sin or who are in purgatory or heaven?

Which of the dead are in heaven now per RC?

well those who died with mortal sin have seperated themself from the Body of Christ, if you die unrepentant of mortal sin you go to hell

but those who are in Purgatory can pray for you too, just as we can pray for them
in spain it used to be very popular to ask for the souls in Purgatory to pray for you, like in the 1800's, i do not know how popular that devotion is now

 

[judechild]

That question allows for some clarification on axioms one and three.

Axioms two and four apply whether the person is blessed or damned: they remain individualized after death; and the Body of Christ is one, unified body. Axioms one and three, though, are predicated on the person being a part of the Body of Christ at the time of his or her death (id est, he or she has not separated from the Body of Christ). Christ talks about persons who separate themselves from the Body of Christ in John 15, in His parable about the vine and the branches. He says "if any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth." The image of pruning used here implies the persons were grafted onto the vine (id est, they were Christians), but have since fallen away. Since both the souls in Heaven and in Purgatory are still members of the Body of Christ, then, Axiom One applies to those persons (which is called being in "a State of Grace"); it does not apply to the souls of the damned, who have been separated from the Body of Christ, and hence are no longer "alive in Christ." So, when we talk of "those Christians who..." we are refering to those Christians who remain in a State of Grace. The same reasoning applies to Axiom Three. When we say that the souls of Christians are not separated from the Body of Christ by death, it is only relevant for those Christians who are actually part of the Body of Christ when they die (because if they are not actually part of the Body of Christ when they die, then they are already separated from the Body of Christ).

Do you agree with the definition of a Christian as "one who remains in the Body of Christ"?

If your question is in relation to the embryonic Axiom Five, though, we're not there yet. Right now the question is simply whether St. Paul is addressing the whole Body, or only a part of it.

The second of the two questions is irrelevant, because at the moment we're only dealing with universals; after that, then we can consider particulars. In a broad stroke, though, the souls in Heaven are those members of the Body of Christ who have died as such (i.e. are redeemed) and who are purified of all defects of the soul (i.e. are sanctified). All Christians believe in some process between Earth and Heaven that the souls of the Blessed go through. After all, right now a given Christian has a proclivity to sin - in Heaven he will have no proclivity to sin. Clearly, then, there is some "event" between the Christian's death and his entry into Heaven; this event we call Purgatory. Consequently, the souls of the blessed who are not yet purified are not in Heaven (redeemed, but not yet sanctified), and the souls of the damned will never be in Heaven (un-redeemed and un-sactified), and the people on Earth are not in Heaven (being redeemed and being sanctified); only the souls of the redeemed and sanctified are in Heaven.

 

[Standing Up]

We disagree about certain assumptions you've made, but to your particular question, a Christian is one in the body of Christ, yet there is no sense that Paul or the other apostles ever suggested to pray or ask the deceased in Christ to have anything to do with we who are walking on earth.

Had they wanted to teach that idea, they could have used the first two perfect examples of James son of Zebedee and Stephen.

 

[judechild]

But my dear Thrasymachus, you cannot hold the rest of us in suspense like that! If you say that you disagree with certain assumptions I've made, then you really must say what they are: is it Axiom One, Two, Three, or Four that you disagree with? They're in the post-script for you. By talking about "certain assumptions" that I've made, you're following in Zazal's footsteps (at least, he said as much in post 5) but both he and I have come to agree on all the points that he declared were assumptions (in posts 4 and 5, hence my penultimate paragraph in post 26). If you're taking over for our dear friend Cephalus, I wonder how much more progress we can make.

----------------------------------------------------

Axiom 1: Those Christians who have died remain alive in Christ (1 Thess. 5:9-10).
Axiom 2: The same remain individualized after death (Rev. 6:11, and Mt. 17:3).
Axiom 3: The same are not separated from the Body of Christ after death (Rom. 8:38-39).
Axiom 4: The Body of Christ is one, unified body (Romans 12:4).

Definition 1: A Christian is one who remains in the Body of Christ.

 

[Standing Up]

But my dear Thrasymachus, you cannot hold the rest of us in suspense like that! If you say that you disagree with certain assumptions I've made, then you really must say what they are: is it Axiom One, Two, Three, or Four that you disagree with? They're in the post-script for you. By talking about "certain assumptions" that I've made, you're following in Zazal's footsteps (at least, he said as much in post 5) but both he and I have come to agree on all the points that he declared were assumptions (in posts 4 and 5, hence my penultimate paragraph in post 26). If you're taking over for our dear friend Cephalus, I wonder how much more progress we can make.

----------------------------------------------------

Axiom 1: Those Christians who have died remain alive in Christ (1 Thess. 5:9-10).
Axiom 2: The same remain individualized after death (Rev. 6:11, and Mt. 17:3).
Axiom 3: The same are not separated from the Body of Christ after death (Rom. 8:38-39).
Axiom 4: The Body of Christ is one, unified body (Romans 12:4).

Definition 1: A Christian is one who remains in the Body of Christ.

You have 2 assumptions. One it's okay to pray to a saint. Two is the living and dead in Christ are exactly the same. Neither assumption is found in the NT. Paul asks the living for prayer (to our Father). He instructs the living to pray (to our Father) for the living. Peter had Stephen and James son of Zebedee by which to teach that the dead/alive are precisely the same. He didn't, nor did Paul.

So, no assuming. Ask the living to pray to our Father.

PS. Not "taking over", just tossing in 2 cents.

PPS. Your axiom 1 looks wrong verse?

 

[judechild]

You have 2 assumptions. One it's okay to pray to a saint.

What a disappointment. That is not an assumption; that is the Ultimate Question. I have not and cannot use "it is okay to pray to a saint" as a premise in an argument about whether or not it is "okay to pray to a saint."

Two is the living and dead in Christ are exactly the same.

Here is a second disappointment. This is also not an assumption that I've made.

In the first place, you've jumped into the middle of an argument-in-progress. In none of the five axioms that I've proposed yet has it been relevant whether or not "the living and dead in Christ are exactly the same." I'm about... 20% through the "evidence" so far.

In the second place, I was responding to your question which, I'll remind you, was: "Do you think it applies to those RCers who died with mortal sin or who are in purgatory or heaven? Which of the dead are in heaven now per RC?" In other words, you were asking for information predicated on Catholic theology, not whether or not Saints metaphysically exist (by the way, I know that a person from Vermont is called a "Vermonter," but I've never heard of a "Roman Catholicer"). So, I gave you the information only as it applies to the four axioms that I worked out with Zazal. Itaque, I have not even begun to argue whether "the living and dead in Christ are exactly the same" (and I won't argue that anyway). Since I have not included that in my argument yet, it is not an assumption.

Neither assumption is found in the NT. Paul asks the living for prayer (to our Father). He instructs the living to pray (to our Father) for the living.

Then you are saying that Paul was only addressing a part of the Body of Christ?

In response to - Postea Scripta: Oh never mind.

Post-postea Scripta: My verse for axiom 1 is 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10, which is "for God hath not appointed us unto wrath, but unto the purchasing of salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ / Who died for us; that, whether we watch or sleep, we may live together with Him." Axiom 1 says: "Those Christians who have died remain alive in Christ." Do you have a better verse for me to use?

 

[Standing Up]

What a disappointment. That is not an assumption; that is the Ultimate Question. I have not and cannot use "it is okay to pray to a saint" as a premise in an argument about whether or not it is "okay to pray to a saint."

The point was even if all 4 of your axioms are true, so what? It doesn't conclude anything. IOW, let's say Peter himself agreed with your 4 axioms, then he could have commented, btw folks, pray to martyred Stephen. Or maybe John, folks pray to my brother in Christ James ... But they didn't.

-snip-
Post-postea Scripta: My verse for axiom 1 is 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10, which is "for God hath not appointed us unto wrath, but unto the purchasing of salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ / Who died for us; that, whether we watch or sleep, we may live together with Him." Axiom 1 says: "Those Christians who have died remain alive in Christ." Do you have a better verse for me to use?

Not really. Just didn't see the connection you're trying to make with that verse.

Anyway, as they say, carry on.

 

[judechild]

The point was even if all 4 of your axioms are true, so what? It doesn't conclude anything. IOW, let's say Peter himself agreed with your 4 axioms, then he could have commented, btw folks, pray to martyred Stephen. Or maybe John, folks pray to my brother in Christ James ... But they didn't.

But the point wasn't that "even if all 4 of your axioms are true, so what?" That's something new that wasn't implied in your previous post. You confused a conclusion - still unreached - with a premise, and inserted a premise that does not exist.

Meanwhile, "even if all your axioms are true" is a very safe answer, since you don't necessarily say that you agree with them in the first place. But you've made three mistakes here; the first two are: 1) they do in fact conclude something, and 2) I've made no secret of the fact that they are still very incomplete; they will be used to suport later conclusions (that's the point of saying things like "I'm about 20% through the 'evidence'").

What they conclude is that the Christian who dies - we'll use Stephan, since you're a fan - is still an individual member of the one body of Christ, and as such can still be called a Christian now and at this present moment. That is consistent with the Catholic understanding of the Saints and so is a reason in favor of that understanding. So, Stephan is still a Christian right now; that is, he is still related to God through the Body of Christ. That is what we've been able to conclude so far, and we haven't even broken a sweat yet.

Since we are talking about assumptions, here are yours: 1) "Non-evidence is evidence." Saying that Peter didn't say x at such-and-such a time, therefore x is not valid is a fallacy - and one that is repeated by such company as the Unitarians to say that the Holy Spirit is not God; the atheists to say that because there is not wider-scoping revelation, then there is not a God of revelation; and the Muslims to deny Christ's Divinity. Even a cursory glance at the New Testament shows the Apostle's extant writings are reactionary, not catecetical, and so we shouldn't expect everything to be laid out systematically and completely. 2) Scope. If you are really going to say that the command in Ephesians 6 refers to only a part of the Body of Christ, then the natural conclusion is that it refers only to the Ephesians - especially since the following verse also commands prayer for Paul himself and is the rest of the book is clearly addressed only to the Ephesians. That you then go on and say "Paul asks the living for prayer (to our Father). He instructs the living to pray (to our Father) for the living" is an assumption of a broader stroke that doesn't exist, unless he is refering to the whole Body of Christ. 3) "We are epistemic peers." We both know that we are not epistemic peers; I acknowledge a different set of "data" than you do. So to say things like "[Peter] didn't, nor did Paul" is a fundamentally senseless statement because it uses "evidence is non-evidence" to discount my additional "data." But the problem is that, though I have that additional data, you don't accept it. Consequently, our main problem is that we are not epistemic peers, and it is an assumption on your part to believe that you have all the "data." Hence, it is meaningless for you to say "he didn't; neither did Paul" because what it ultimately comes down to is "I don't accept the same evidence you do."

Ah well; that is of course the reason why we are now having this pleasant little outing; to attempt to close the gap on our epistemic peerage. We've gotten quite a distance with Zazal; so much so that we can now say that Stephan is still a Christian.

Anyway, I can see we need to back up a bit. Are the Body of Christ and the Church predicate nominatives? That is to say, if I am talking about "the Body of Christ," can I interchangably use the "the Church?"

Not really. Just didn't see the connection you're trying to make with that verse.

"That, whether we watch or sleep, we may live together with Him"?

And which of the four axioms might Peter disagree with?

 

[Standing Up]

But the point wasn't that "even if all 4 of your axioms are true, so what?" That's something new that wasn't implied in your previous post. You confused a conclusion - still unreached - with a premise, and inserted a premise that does not exist.

You're just speculating for speculation's sake?

Meanwhile, "even if all your axioms are true" is a very safe answer, since you don't necessarily say that you agree with them in the first place. But you've made three mistakes here; the first two are: 1) they do in fact conclude something, and 2) I've made no secret of the fact that they are still very incomplete; they will be used to suport later conclusions (that's the point of saying things like "I'm about 20% through the 'evidence'").

What they conclude is that the Christian who dies - we'll use Stephan, since you're a fan - is still an individual member of the one body of Christ, and as such can still be called a Christian now and at this present moment. That is consistent with the Catholic understanding of the Saints and so is a reason in favor of that understanding. So, Stephan is still a Christian right now; that is, he is still related to God through the Body of Christ. That is what we've been able to conclude so far, and we haven't even broken a sweat yet.

Since we are talking about assumptions, here are yours: 1) "Non-evidence is evidence." Saying that Peter didn't say x at such-and-such a time, therefore x is not valid is a fallacy - and one that is repeated by such company as the Unitarians to say that the Holy Spirit is not God; the atheists to say that because there is not wider-scoping revelation, then there is not a God of revelation; and the Muslims to deny Christ's Divinity. Even a cursory glance at the New Testament shows the Apostle's extant writings are reactionary, not catecetical, and so we shouldn't expect everything to be laid out systematically and completely. 2) Scope. If you are really going to say that the command in Ephesians 6 refers to only a part of the Body of Christ, then the natural conclusion is that it refers only to the Ephesians - especially since the following verse also commands prayer for Paul himself and is the rest of the book is clearly addressed only to the Ephesians. That you then go on and say "Paul asks the living for prayer (to our Father). He instructs the living to pray (to our Father) for the living" is an assumption of a broader stroke that doesn't exist, unless he is refering to the whole Body of Christ. 3) "We are epistemic peers." We both know that we are not epistemic peers; I acknowledge a different set of "data" than you do. So to say things like "[Peter] didn't, nor did Paul" is a fundamentally senseless statement because it uses "evidence is non-evidence" to discount my additional "data." But the problem is that, though I have that additional data, you don't accept it. Consequently, our main problem is that we are not epistemic peers, and it is an assumption on your part to believe that you have all the "data." Hence, it is meaningless for you to say "he didn't; neither did Paul" because what it ultimately comes down to is "I don't accept the same evidence you do."

You have access to the secret Vatican vault with more from Peter and Paul. I await your submission of their words to your peers.

They had two perfect examples from which to teach the idea of prayer to/from the deceased in Stephen and James son of Zebedee. The apostles didn't. I understand folks nonetheless have this practice/belief that developed later/apart from.

So, continue to build your axioms to wherever they may take you ...

 

[judechild]

I have access to all levels of the Vatican Secret Vault (VSV), and I have no need to submit it to any peers. But our disparity does come from my acknowledgement of Sacred Tradition; that is why we are not epistemic peers. It's the same principle behind why you and an atheist are not epistemic peers; you acknowledge something as "data" which the atheist does not.

You are still holding on to the notion of "non-evidence is evidence" which is a formal fallacy. It's a very simple concept, really: if we are trying to prove concept x, and information y is sufficient to prove x; then if we have evidence y, we can consider concept x proved. But the non-existence of y does not disprove concept x; because it might be that evidence z is also sufficient to prove x; I am working to show that z is in fact sufficient to prove x (and, I'll give you a sneak-peek; our dear fellow Christian Stephan will come back to prove my points). You and I both use this concept in every debate we have, and it is unbecoming for you to use fallacious arguments.

Itaque, I cannot obey your command to "continue to build [my] axioms to wherever they may take [me]" because you have chosen to stagnate instead of answering my questions. That is also rather unbecoming, especially considering I oh-so magnanimously answered your own even though you hadn't read the thread before commenting (please don't deny it; you made the exact same acusation of "assuming" that it's okay to pray to saints, and I disproved it in the exact same way). The very basis of my approach assumes a bit of cooperation, and I explained the method to Zazal if you care to read it. But quod nihil est; the first of the two questions I asked was: Are the Body of Christ and the Church predicate nominatives? That is to say, if I am talking about "the Body of Christ," can I interchangably use the "the Church?" (By the way, this will be a definition, not an axiom). And I also asked if you'd care to speak for St. Peter himself and say which of the axioms you believe he would doubt.

 

[Standing Up]

I have access to all levels of the Vatican Secret Vault (VSV), and I have no need to submit it to any peers. But our disparity does come from my acknowledgement of Sacred Tradition; that is why we are not epistemic peers. It's the same principle behind why you and an atheist are not epistemic peers; you acknowledge something as "data" which the atheist does not.

You are still holding on to the notion of "non-evidence is evidence" which is a formal fallacy. It's a very simple concept, really: if we are trying to prove concept x, and information y is sufficient to prove x; then if we have evidence y, we can consider concept x proved. But the non-existence of y does not disprove concept x; because it might be that evidence z is also sufficient to prove x; I am working to show that z is in fact sufficient to prove x (and, I'll give you a sneak-peek; our dear fellow Christian Stephan will come back to prove my points). You and I both use this concept in every debate we have, and it is unbecoming for you to use fallacious arguments.

So, this is going somewhere. You're not just speculating. How about that?

Itaque, I cannot obey your command to "continue to build [my] axioms to wherever they may take [me]" because you have chosen to stagnate instead of answering my questions. That is also rather unbecoming, especially considering I oh-so magnanimously answered your own even though you hadn't read the thread before commenting (please don't deny it; you made the exact same acusation of "assuming" that it's okay to pray to saints, and I disproved it in the exact same way). The very basis of my approach assumes a bit of cooperation, and I explained the method to Zazal if you care to read it. But quod nihil est; the first of the two questions I asked was: Are the Body of Christ and the Church predicate nominatives? That is to say, if I am talking about "the Body of Christ," can I interchangably use the "the Church?" (By the way, this will be a definition, not an axiom). And I also asked if you'd care to speak for St. Peter himself and say which of the axioms you believe he would doubt.

You've become very formal. I won't dare to suggest you relax. But I will ask you this.

Who is in "the Church"? I believe this is where I came in. Are you sure RC says they know who is saved and who is not? Who is a saint and who is not? Who's payment in purgatory has been paid or not? And finally, may I ask, whether those who died prior to some of RC's dogmas re Mary in the 19th century are applied posthumously? IOW, the (maybe, because we don't yet know your answer, but maybe) the RC who died in 1562 and went to heaven (maybe, depending on simony then) without the de fide of Marian assumptions, is the dogma necessity applied retroactively? Lastly (maybe), how about with the definition of "mortal sin" or not being in communion with the Pope of Rome (Unam Sanctum). And how about the remainder of numerous other anathemas? No Anglicans because of their bishopric failures, eh?

Or is there no evidence? Who knows? Axiom 1.

PS. I believe it's the fallacy of "argument from silence". That's what one of us is doing.

PPS. Or, "argument from ignorance". That too is what one of us is doing.

 

[judechild]

So, this is going somewhere. You're not just speculating. How about that?

That would be wonderful; unfortunately things have not been going very far since about post 27.

You've become very formal. I won't dare to suggest you relax. But I will ask you this.

Oh darn; you didn't like me when I was very polite and pleasant, and you don't like me now that I don't really give a hoot. In any case, what would you do without me? Your life on these forums would be so boring. They'd consist of you posting some documents from either ancient or modern sources which you haven't taken the time to read or to understand, then you'd make categorical declarations based on a cursory glance at these documents, then you'd push your agenda; all the while, you'd have no one to periodically call you out for a slight lack of diligence, or to encourage you to actually read the documents, or to spice things up in general. I'm forever your (un)humble and devoted servant.

Who is in "the Church"? I believe this is where I came in.

My my, you really want to John Wayne the whole place, don't you...

Well, fortunately for me that question's conclusion would have been assured - if, that is, you had answered my question: "Are the Body of Christ and the Church predicate nominatives?" If you had responded "yes," then that would mean that because a Christian is a member of the Body of Christ (def. 1), and the Body of Christ is the Church (def. 2) - it would then follow that all Christians are members of the Church. Then, we put persons through our handy-dandy Axiom-machine and come up with: since a Christian who has died is still an alive, individualized member of the one Body of Christ, and the one Body of Christ is the Church, it then follows that all Christians - both living and deceased - are members of the Church (which also, by necessity of definition, is one). Consequently, to use our dear elder brother Stephan; he is a Christian, and remains a member of the same Church that all other Christians remain in.

Contingent, then, on your esteemed approval of definition 2: "The Body of Church is the Church," then we have surely answered your question. This is good, because it gives credence to the part of the Mass known as the "Sanctus." The priest, before the consecration of the bread and wine, says "and so with all the choirs of angels and saints, we join in their unending hymn of praise," after this we say "Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of hosts. Heaven and Earth are filled with Your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest!" The point here is that the priest is then right to say that we pray as a unified Body of Christ "with all the choirs of angels and saints." After all, their are not two bodies of Christ - one in Heaven, and one on Earth (Axiom 4).

Are you sure RC says they know who is saved and who is not? Who is a saint and who is not? Who's payment in purgatory has been paid or not?

Why yes, I am actually quite confident in these things - but you don't have to have a degree in philosophy to see that we aren't yet to that part of the argument. I said earlier that we're dealing in universals first, and then we'll consider particulars. In any case, it's so very nice of you to bring up St. Stephan, because if we can point to one or two persons who are in Heaven, then that implies that we can develop some sort of standard.

And finally, may I ask, whether those who died prior to some of RC's dogmas re Mary in the 19th century are applied posthumously? IOW, the (maybe, because we don't yet know your answer, but maybe) the RC who died in 1562 and went to heaven (maybe, depending on simony then) without the de fide of Marian assumptions, is the dogma necessity applied retroactively?

You need not stop at Marian doctrine in the more recent centuries; you could (if not for rhetorical effect) go back to any doctrine, whether Christ's dual nature, or His bificated will, or Mary as Theotokas. Of course the Church does not expect her children to give their assent to doctrine that does not exist during their time. You'll find no part of doctrine or law that says otherwise. The Church does make declarations in matters of doctrine when they are necessary for the purposes of unity and out of love for Truth. St. Thomas Aquinas is revered, but he argued against the Immaculate Conception. He still was faithful to God, the Church, and to doctrine as it was then formulated.

Lastly (maybe), how about with the definition of "mortal sin" or not being in communion with the Pope of Rome (Unam Sanctum). And how about the remainder of numerous other anathemas? No Anglicans because of their bishopric failures, eh?

The only person I've ever heard who puts "eh" on the end of a sentence is my bishop, and he's from Minnesota; are you?

Meanwhile, why don't you bring up Christmas presents while you're at it? I've explained to you twice now the difference between a canon and a decree in the context of an ecumenical council; but that's really quite irrelevant at the moment. So is the rest of your scorched earth approach in this section. We haven't yet gotten to the authority-structure or the method of how we determine whether some Christian is in Heaven, so no part of this is relevant at this time. I will say that I think even you would have researched enough to know that the members of the Ordinariat either had to be ordained, or conditionally-ordained (just three weeks ago, I was at the ordination of a former TAC priest).

Or is there no evidence? Who knows? Axiom 1.

If your first Axiom is "Who knows?" then this debate is in peril.

PS. I believe it's the fallacy of "argument from silence". That's what one of us is doing.

That is in fact what one of us is doing (but, if you're going to call it by it's name, why not use the much cooler-sounding "argumentum ex silentio"). I didn't think it was necessary to actually name the darn thing.

PPS. Or, "argument from ignorance". That too is what one of us is doing.

Implying me? Then substantiate that accusation. To do it, you will have to prove that I have said or implied "p is true, because it has not been proven [by you or Zazal] that p is not true." And don't forget this time, please, to answer whether "the Body of Christ is the Church."

Homo sum; humani nihil a me alienum puto.

 

[Standing Up]

That would be wonderful; unfortunately things have not been going very far since about post 27.



Oh darn; you didn't like me when I was very polite and pleasant, and you don't like me now that I don't really give a hoot. In any case, what would you do without me? Your life on these forums would be so boring. They'd consist of you posting some documents from either ancient or modern sources which you haven't taken the time to read or to understand, then you'd make categorical declarations based on a cursory glance at these documents, then you'd push your agenda; all the while, you'd have no one to periodically call you out for a slight lack of diligence, or to encourage you to actually read the documents, or to spice things up in general. I'm forever your (un)humble and devoted servant.



My my, you really want to John Wayne the whole place, don't you...

Well, fortunately for me that question's conclusion would have been assured - if, that is, you had answered my question: "Are the Body of Christ and the Church predicate nominatives?" If you had responded "yes," then that would mean that because a Christian is a member of the Body of Christ (def. 1), and the Body of Christ is the Church (def. 2) - it would then follow that all Christians are members of the Church. Then, we put persons through our handy-dandy Axiom-machine and come up with: since a Christian who has died is still an alive, individualized member of the one Body of Christ, and the one Body of Christ is the Church, it then follows that all Christians - both living and deceased - are members of the Church (which also, by necessity of definition, is one). Consequently, to use our dear elder brother Stephan; he is a Christian, and remains a member of the same Church that all other Christians remain in.

Contingent, then, on your esteemed approval of definition 2: "The Body of Church is the Church," then we have surely answered your question. This is good, because it gives credence to the part of the Mass known as the "Sanctus." The priest, before the consecration of the bread and wine, says "and so with all the choirs of angels and saints, we join in their unending hymn of praise," after this we say "Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of hosts. Heaven and Earth are filled with Your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest!" The point here is that the priest is then right to say that we pray as a unified Body of Christ "with all the choirs of angels and saints." After all, their are not two bodies of Christ - one in Heaven, and one on Earth (Axiom 4).



Why yes, I am actually quite confident in these things - but you don't have to have a degree in philosophy to see that we aren't yet to that part of the argument. I said earlier that we're dealing in universals first, and then we'll consider particulars. In any case, it's so very nice of you to bring up St. Stephan, because if we can point to one or two persons who are in Heaven, then that implies that we can develop some sort of standard.



You need not stop at Marian doctrine in the more recent centuries; you could (if not for rhetorical effect) go back to any doctrine, whether Christ's dual nature, or His bificated will, or Mary as Theotokas. Of course the Church does not expect her children to give their assent to doctrine that does not exist during their time. You'll find no part of doctrine or law that says otherwise. The Church does make declarations in matters of doctrine when they are necessary for the purposes of unity and out of love for Truth. St. Thomas Aquinas is revered, but he argued against the Immaculate Conception. He still was faithful to God, the Church, and to doctrine as it was then formulated.



The only person I've ever heard who puts "eh" on the end of a sentence is my bishop, and he's from Minnesota; are you?

Meanwhile, why don't you bring up Christmas presents while you're at it? I've explained to you twice now the difference between a canon and a decree in the context of an ecumenical council; but that's really quite irrelevant at the moment. So is the rest of your scorched earth approach in this section. We haven't yet gotten to the authority-structure or the method of how we determine whether some Christian is in Heaven, so no part of this is relevant at this time. I will say that I think even you would have researched enough to know that the members of the Ordinariat either had to be ordained, or conditionally-ordained (just three weeks ago, I was at the ordination of a former TAC priest).



If your first Axiom is "Who knows?" then this debate is in peril.



That is in fact what one of us is doing (but, if you're going to call it by it's name, why not use the much cooler-sounding "argumentum ex silentio"). I didn't think it was necessary to actually name the darn thing.



Implying me? Then substantiate that accusation. To do it, you will have to prove that I have said or implied "p is true, because it has not been proven [by you or Zazal] that p is not true." And don't forget this time, please, to answer whether "the Body of Christ is the Church."

Homo sum; humani nihil a me alienum puto.

In bolded responses:

That didn't come out right did it?

Canada, some say eh in Canada. THought it a nice way to keep the conversation going.

You're asking for defiitional agreement without its definition?

Arguments from silence and ignorance. Not "non-evidence is evidence".

Silence---absence of evidence
Ignorance---lack of evidence to the contrary.

You're arguing for a practice despite no apostolic evidence for it. It's not a fallacy to say there is no evidence.

We don't know your definition. You're suggesting any old Christian may or may not be in heaven. How about Protestants after the time of Unam Sanctum? Given you apparently believe in this idea of "same on earth, same on heaven", then to excommunicate a Christian on earth for some reason is to posthumously excommunicate the same in heaven. Or did I miss something?

Like I suggested, build your axioms ...