Your false charge of contacting the dead has been previously addressed. What your post shows is to much pride to take correction.
I did address it. I agree with the Scriptures. They do not contradict Catholic faith or practice, and you have not demonstrated that they do.
May I ask... When you read the parable of the Good Samaritan, do you see the Inn as a reference to The Church, the Innkeeper as clergy? The wine and oil as part of The Holy Sacraments?
Forgive me...
No. I "see" a story that illustrates how Christians are to treat one another and their "neighbour."
No, I also asserted that they do not state anywhere that we are forbidden from making any communication with those who have left the Earth. And that is the truth.All you said was something to the effect of, "finally, the word of God!"
You addressed none of it.
But, that's your choice.
No, I also asserted that they do not state anywhere that we are forbidden from making any communication with those who have left the Earth. And that is the truth.
You seem to operate under the assumption that those verses contradict Catholic faith and practice, and that therefore we must prove to you why they do not. But I reject your assumption. They do not contradict Catholic faith or practice, and you have not demonstrated otherwise.
How do you come to this conclusion?He is using His mother and brothers as models of faith because they did the will of God.
Theology by silence?No, I also asserted that they do not state anywhere that we are forbidden from making any communication with those who have left the Earth. And that is the truth.
I agree. So much in Scripture is said so plainly, and all the most important things are not a matter of "personal interpretation", but rather, of simply understanding the context and what is being said.
That's 5 topics in one paragraph. The historic Christian practice of asking our departed brothers and sisters in Christ—the saints—for their intercession has come under attack in the last few hundred years. Though the practice dates to the earliest days of Christianity and is shared by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, the other Eastern Christians, and even some Anglicans—meaning that all-told it is shared by more than three quarters of the Christians on earth—it still comes under heavy attack from many within the Protestant movement that started in the sixteenth century. Praying to the Saints | Catholic Answers
In other words, this attack is a false man made tradition.
I get that. So... you see, everyone who reads scriptures do not come away with the same thing.
Forgive me...
Can you point me to the early church fathers who actually prayed to departed souls, or even taught such?
Yes sir forgive me also, but 595 AD is not 'early.'Gregory the Great circa 595ad
"whatever it is fitting the blessed should know about what happens
to us, even as regards the interior movements of the heart, is made
known to them in the Word: and it is most becoming to their exalted
position that they should know the petitions we make to them by word or
thought; and consequently the petitions which we raise to them are
known to them through Divine manifestation."
Forgive me...
Yes sir forgive me also, but 595 AD is not 'early.'
Now before we continue, remember we both believe that once one who is in Christ is departed from this body is present with the Lord. (1 Corinthians chapter 4 through chapter 5)
Instead of asserting the usual anti-Catholic falsehoods, why don't you post prayers to mother goddess of fertility for an objective comparison.It sounds exactly like Greek prayers to mother goddess of fertility. No difference whatsoever. Same faith!
As @amariselle points out the parable has a context to the discussion at hand. Jesus was asked 'who is my neighbor.'I get that. So... you see, everyone who reads scriptures do not come away with the same thing.
Forgive me...
As @amariselle points out the parable has a context to the discussion at hand. Jesus was asked 'who is my neighbor.'
Your allusions to objects as institutions is the very definition of eisegesis. Which I believe is the cause for so much confusion and miscommunication in these threads with Catholics and Orthodox. Many of the traditions cited from Scriptures are determined by a doctrinal development which reaches back to a portion of Scriptures for support. This is the very definition of eisegesis and why these conversations go nowhere very fast.
When properly looking at the text at hand, we must consider first the very plain words and then the context knowing that our God is not a God of confusion and will not contradict His words.
For reference purposes for those not exposed to the definitions of exegesis and eisegesis I offer a "101" definitions:
Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.
Eisegesis is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants. Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words.
Second Timothy 2:15 commands us to use exegetical methods: “Present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” An honest student of the Bible will be an exegete, allowing the text to speak for itself. Eisegesis easily lends itself to error, as the would-be interpreter attempts to align the text with his own preconceived notions. Exegesis allows us to agree with the Bible; eisegesis seeks to force the Bible to agree with us.
More at link below with two very good examples:
What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?