saints of this and that (moved from GT)

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You believe that what your preacher is teaching as Doctrine is correct because conveniently it corresponds with your personal interpretation.

...and some exempt their preacher from accountability, responsibility and the issue of truth - just embracing whatever is said "with quiet docility" because the self-same teacher so insists (The Catholic Catechism # 87 and "On the Authority of the Church" by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie, for two examples).


But again, I don't know how in the world your statement confirms that as souls go to heaven, their ears undergo a radical evolutionary leap so that the sense of hearing now enables them to hear the prayers of 2 billion plus (even unspoken ones), that ERGO they pass on those specific, particular petitions to the Father and ERGO the Father is more likely to respond to the specific petition(s) in a manner desired by the believer on earth - especially if said one in heaven or purgatory is the saint assigned to the job of the believer. Sorry, I don't see how your post confirms all that.

If the Holy Spirit is:

1. Guiding everyone when they interpret Scripture, and
2. Never the author of confusion and chaos

Why are there so many differing, confusing interpretations of gods word in the world today?

Yes, why is it that the RCC agrees with NONE - absolutely none - but ITSELF, exclusively?


Yes, Catholics and Mormons like to point out that there is a promise that the Holy Spirit will lead us. And I agree - such leading will be inerrant. What Catholics and Mormons seem to entirely miss (well, choose not to notice) is that this promise was not made exclusively to them and that there is no promise that all those lead are ergo infallible followers.


Now, how does your comment here confirm that as souls go to heaven, their ears undergo a radical evolutionary leap so that the sense of hearing now enables them to hear the prayers of 2 billion plus (even unspoken ones), that ERGO they pass on those specific, particular petitions to the Father and ERGO the Father is more likely to respond to the specific petition(s) in a manner desired by the believer on earth - especially if said one in heaven or purgatory is the saint assigned to the job of the believer. Sorry, I don't see how your post confirms all that.

The Devil wants a divided, broken Church in disagreement with each other

451? 1054?


Your denomination agrees with NONE but ITSELF - alone, solely, uniquely, exclusively - even on just DOGMAS, matters of greatest importance. Since it is just a "guilty" of disagreement as any other denomination (worse than most), then I think you should take your concern here to your denomination. Heal thyself before you worry about others. I think you are pointing 1 finger at others and 3 back at yourself. There is no denomination on the planet less in unity with others than yours (at least that I know of).



But, please explain, how does your comment here confirm that as souls go to heaven, their ears undergo a radical evolutionary leap so that the sense of hearing now enables them to hear the prayers of 2 billion plus (even unspoken ones), that ERGO they pass on those specific, particular petitions to the Father and ERGO the Father is more likely to respond to the specific petition(s) in a manner desired by the believer on earth - especially if said one in heaven or purgatory is the saint assigned to the job of the believer. Sorry, I don't see how your post confirms all that.

Read the OT again, you will see many examples of prophets and elders exhorting the Israelites to change their ways and when they don't, God punishes them.

Reason enough to embrace accountability and welcome Reformers. And to reject your idea that whatever a given teacher (such as the RCC) says is to be exempted from the issue of truthfulness if the self-same teacher so insists that the self-same teacher be so exempted and instead whatever that self-same teacher says rather, instead, just be embraced "with quiet docility" as unto God Himself.

But what I don't understand is how does your comment here confirm that as souls go to heaven, their ears undergo a radical evolutionary leap so that the sense of hearing now enables them to hear the prayers of 2 billion plus (even unspoken ones), that ERGO they pass on those specific, particular petitions to the Father and ERGO the Father is more likely to respond to the specific petition(s) in a manner desired by the believer on earth - especially if said one in heaven or purgatory is the saint assigned to the job of the believer. Sorry, I don't see how your post confirms all that.








.

 

[Rhamiel]

Yes, why is it that the RCC agrees with NONE - absolutely none - but ITSELF, exclusively?

we agree with Lutherans on justification, well atleast some lutherans
Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and Lutherans agree with absolutely none but itself on some doctrine, that is why they are lutheran and not Methodist or Old Catholic or Baptist or 7th Day Adventist or whatever

Yes, Catholics and Mormons like to point out that there is a promise that the Holy Spirit will lead us. And I agree - such leading will be inerrant. What Catholics and Mormons seem to entirely miss (well, choose not to notice) is that this promise was not made exclusively to them and that there is no promise that all those lead are ergo infallible followers.

who was the promise made to?

 

[Catherineanne]

Yes, why is it that the RCC agrees with NONE - absolutely none - but ITSELF, exclusively?

What on earth gives you this idea, exactly? Clearly there are some dogmas that belong to Rome, but this is not because they have gone away from Christianity, but because they have expanded their understanding of it. Nothing that they say is contrary to the faith of the Orthodox, or Anglican or even Lutheran churches, but what is different is that there is an intolerance of uncertainty in Rome which leads it to try to define and understand and dogmatise certain beliefs. Where our denominations may have nothing to say, Rome chooses to speak.

This is not at all the same thing as saying that it has exclusive beliefs; a lot of their beliefs are shared by other apostolics; we simply do not share their interpretation of how these beliefs are worked out. This does not consitute disagreement, but rather a decision to accept as mystery that which we do not understand, where Rome prefers to interpret and clarify for Catholics.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What on earth gives you this idea, exactly? Clearly there are some dogmas that belong to Rome

My Catholic Catechism (all 800 pages) contains 2,875 points. How many other denominations agree with all of those, as written, to the levels claimed for each? I know of none. What about you?

Now, YES, I admit - you could say that same thing for the LDS (Salt Lake city group). There is no denomination that fully agrees with it, either.


But I don't know how the reality that none agrees with self but self is evidence that self is ergo correct and/or that self ergo is exempt from the issue of whether self is correct. I furthermore don't know how self alone agreeing with self alone is confirming evidence that as souls ascend into heaven, their ears undergo an enormous evolutionary leap and now their sense of hearing can detect the prayers of all 2 billions believers (at the same time), including unspoken ones, and that ERGO those specific, particular petitions are all forwarded to the Father and ERGO the Father is more likely to respond to such as the believer desires, especially if said one in heaven is the patron saint of the vocation that the believer now has.




.

 

[Thekla]

Perhaps this thread should be about the OP ?

It's beginning to smell like grudge spamming here ...

 

[tadoflamb]

Perhaps this thread should be about the OP ?

It's beginning to smell like grudge spamming here ...

Oops! I thought this was the 'what arguments are you tired of hearing' thread!

 

[Bryne]

I furthermore don't know how self alone agreeing with self alone is confirming evidence that as souls ascend into heaven, their ears undergo an enormous evolutionary leap and now their sense of hearing can detect the prayers of all 2 billions believers (at the same time), including unspoken ones, and that ERGO those specific, particular petitions are all forwarded to the Father and ERGO the Father is more likely to respond to such as the believer desires, especially if said one in heaven is the patron saint of the vocation that the believer now has.

I always imagine God, who is all-knowing and can hear all prayers, hearing the prayers to the saints, and going up to each saint and saying, "OK...these are the people who want you to pray for them, and this is what they want to pray about". Then, the saint prays that prayer to God...


God: St. Andrew, Beth down in Yakima, Washington wants you to pray for her to be more bold in sharing her faith with others.

St. Andrew: OK, God. Dear God, please help Beth in Yakima be more bold in sharing her faith with others...Amen.

God: Sure...I can do that.


See...no super hearing necessary.

Seriously, though. I don't think it is out of the realm of possibilities that God enables the saints in heaven to hear requests for intercession from those still on earth. It certainly wouldn't require any evolutionary leap in hearing...just God enabling them. However, I cannot be sure that God has done that...I can be sure that God hears my prayers. And I am also quite confident that the saints in heaven do intercede for us in a general way...I am just not confident that they can hear individual requests.

I do believe that it is right and proper to honor and remember the saints who have gone before us.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I always imagine God, who is all-knowing and can hear all prayers, hearing the prayers to the saints, and going up to each saint and saying, "OK...these are the people who want you to pray for them, and this is what they want to pray about". Then, the saint prays that prayer to God...


God: St. Andrew, Beth down in Yakima, Washington wants you to pray for her to be more bold in sharing her faith with others.

St. Andrew: OK, God. Dear God, please help Beth in Yakima be more bold in sharing her faith with others...Amen.

God: Sure...I can do that.


See...no super hearing necessary.

Seriously, though. I don't think it is out of the realm of possibilities that God enables the saints in heaven to hear requests for intercession from those still on earth. It certainly wouldn't require any evolutionary leap in hearing...just God enabling them. However, I cannot be sure that God has done that...I can be sure that God hears my prayers. And I am also quite confident that the saints in heaven do intercede for us in a general way...I am just not confident that they can hear individual requests.

I do believe that it is right and proper to honor and remember the saints who have gone before us.

No one has asked for my view, nor have I offered it (yet - stay tuned, lol). I'm simply and only responding to those who are dogmatically insisting on this. See the post above....

In my Catholic years, I rarely prayed to any saint other than Mary. I did pray to Her - primariy in the Rosary but at other times, too. I did it PURELY in the sense that I might ask you to pray FOR me - with no sense that Her prayers were more "heard" than mine. But I never claimed that I know She knows of my petitions OR that She forwards them to the Father or that the petition is more likely to get the response I want because She is praying it (I think God answers all prayers according to HIS will and heart, not mine or Mary's). I have NO dogmatic ideas about it at all - it seemed altogether harmless, sometimes just expressing stuff is helpful to me, and I think HOWEVER we direct prayers, GOD hears them. I just regarded the whole thing as pretty benign.

When I began worshipping among Lutherans, and found them very much like Catholics, I kind of assumed this happened there too and was a bit surprised to learn Lutherans actually forbid this. At first, I thought this as "overreaching" as Catholics insisting that we do. Slowly, I've largely moved to the Lutheran view. While I do NOT feel that Catholics are wrong to do this (see comments above), I also think it's all premised on the wrong things - some idea of our merits rather than God's grace (Mary's prayers are more heard because she had more merits) AND on a baseless idea that those in heaven quite literally hear us (the first bothers me, and Luther, far more than the later). I see the wisdom in the Protestant approach. If I ask YOU to pray for me, we are still leaving it in GOD'S grace rather than your or mine "merit", I KNOW you can hear me, I KNOW you pray for me, and YOU can comfort me, teach me, hold me accountable - help me. Mary can't, She's not here. Again, it doesn't BOTHER me at all when Catholics pray to St. Anne or whatever, I see it as benign. There are a plethora of PRACTICES that don't have specific biblical basis and can be abused - including a lot of mine. It DOES bother me when it is dogmatically insisted that the practice is taught in Scripture, that I'm somehow wrong or sinful or apostate because I longer do this, or that God is less likely to be gracious to me than to them and (above all) that I somehow must hate Our Lady, Jesus and the Father and be inferior in faith to them. I don't believe in patron saints - I find that whole idea irrelevant and baseless and worthless. There, I've given my view (not that anyone asked, lol).






.

 

[Catherineanne]

My Catholic Catechism (all 800 pages) contains 2,875 points. How many other denominations agree with all of those, as written, to the levels claimed for each? I know of none. What about you?

Nice try at moving the goalposts.

You asserted that the RCC is alone in its beliefs, ie nobody else believes anything they believe. Now as evidence of that you ask who agrees with the RCC in all points, ie nobody else believes everything they believe.

Those are two entirely different things, as I am sure you are well aware.

I probably agree with about 98% of that Catechism (Catholic in all except necessary allegiance to the Bishop of Rome), and yet I still remain an Anglican. And you no doubt think that missing 2% means that Rome stands alone, with a faith all its own.

Meanwhile, what makes you think the communion of saints is an exclusively Roman Catholic belief? That is most certainly not the case.

 

[Catherineanne]

It DOES bother me when it is dogmatically insisted that the practice is taught in Scripture.

So, you don't mind anyone praying to saints, as long as they don't find Biblical justification for doing so? How bizarre.

That would seem rather the wrong way round. You may not agree with the interpretation of the Scripture used, but surely it is far better for churches to base their beliefs on Scripture than not? In other words, if the RCC finds Scripture, and interprets that Scripture, and then believes accordingly and practices accordingly, then what is it to you?

It seems to boil down to you being a bit miffed that the RCC is not Lutheran.

Don't you think that is just a bit unrealistic?

 

[revrobor]

Ask a person "What religion are you" and most of the time they will reply with the religious organization to which they belong ("I'm a Baptist", I'm a Catholic", "I'm a Lutheran", "I'm an Anglican") and will fight with all their might to defend that religious organization. Why is it they don't respond "I'm a Christian". Do you need any more proof that the religious organizations and their institutions have taken the focus off Jesus?

 

[Incariol]

Ask a person "What religion are you" and most of the time they will reply with the religious organization to which they belong ("I'm a Baptist", I'm a Catholic", "I'm a Lutheran", "I'm an Anglican") and will fight with all their might to defend that religious organization. Why is it they don't respond "I'm a Christian". Do you need any more proof that the religious organizations and their institutions have taken the focus off Jesus?

No, because the former imparts more information than the latter. Everyone knows that Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans are Christians, so saying merely "Christian" lacks a level of specificity.

 

[revrobor]

No, because the former imparts more information than the latter. Everyone knows that Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans are Christians, so saying merely "Christian" lacks a level of specificity.

Don't kid yourself. Not everyone who belongs to those religious organizations (or any other) is a Christian.

 

[Incariol]

Don't kid yourself. Not everyone who belongs to those religious organizations (or any other) is a Christian.

That isn't relevant to your point. We were talking about what people self-identify as and why, not what you personally consider them to be.

 

[Tzaousios]

Ask a person "What religion are you" and most of the time they will reply with the religious organization to which they belong ("I'm a Baptist", I'm a Catholic", "I'm a Lutheran", "I'm an Anglican") and will fight with all their might to defend that religious organization. Why is it they don't respond "I'm a Christian". Do you need any more proof that the religious organizations and their institutions have taken the focus off Jesus?

Like Incariol said, no, it does not take the focus of Jesus. However, for those who have rhetorical points to score primarily against Catholics and Orthodox, it would be a clever ploy to try to paint them as being wound up in evil "institutions," while maintaining that one's own has no institutional structural and is spiritually pure.

 

[LinuxUser]

Ask a person "What religion are you" and most of the time they will reply with the religious organization to which they belong ("I'm a Baptist", I'm a Catholic", "I'm a Lutheran", "I'm an Anglican") and will fight with all their might to defend that religious organization. Why is it they don't respond "I'm a Christian". Do you need any more proof that the religious organizations and their institutions have taken the focus off Jesus?

Because saying "I'm Christian" alone does not tell people where you stand. Telling them that your Baptist, Catholic, or Pentecostal gives a framework of beliefs were to start at so at least one can know what some beliefs are.

 

[Catherineanne]

Ask a person "What religion are you" and most of the time they will reply with the religious organization to which they belong ("I'm a Baptist", I'm a Catholic", "I'm a Lutheran", "I'm an Anglican") and will fight with all their might to defend that religious organization. Why is it they don't respond "I'm a Christian". Do you need any more proof that the religious organizations and their institutions have taken the focus off Jesus?

I am sorry to say, your unfounded assertion is not proof of anything.

You appear to think that someone who says, 'I am a Christian' has their focus on Jesus, and someone who says, for example, 'I am an Anglican' is only interested in defending Anglicanism as a religious organisation.

I have to say, this makes no sense whatever. For a start, Anglicanism is not a religion, it is a denomination. Therefore, to answer the question, 'What religion are you?' with 'Anglican' makes about as much sense as answering the question, 'What nationality are you?' with 'Londoner.'

Meanwhile, how do you distinguish between all those others you see 'fighting with all their might to defend their religious organisation', and your attacking other people who you assert are not focused on Jesus? Where exactly is the difference?

Or do you just think that being 'focussed on Jesus' involves denegrating those who happen to differ from you?

 

[Catherineanne]

Don't kid yourself. Not everyone who belongs to those religious organizations (or any other) is a Christian.

Don't kid yourself. They probably are.

Who would bother these days to be a member of any church if they did not believe what it taught? It is easy enough to be apathetic, and if you want to find unbelievers, that is where you will find them; staying in bed every Sunday morning, not bothering with Church, or with prayer, or with devotion to God. Why look for them in Church?

It seems a bit bizarre for any Christian to want to accuse members of other denominations of being unbelievers; what is that all about? Superiority? Sanctimony? Bigotry, even? No idea.

 

[Dorothea]

Don't kid yourself. They probably are.

Who would bother these days to be a member of any church if they did not believe what it taught? It is easy enough to be apathetic, and if you want to find unbelievers, that is where you will find them; staying in bed every Sunday morning, not bothering with Church, or with prayer, or with devotion to God. Why look for them in Church?

It seems a bit bizarre for any Christian to want to accuse members of other denominations of being unbelievers; what is that all about? Superiority? Sanctimony? Bigotry, even? No idea.

It's against CF rules, is what it is. Never mind the judging people's hearts.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It's against CF rules, is what it is. Never mind the judging people's hearts.

I agree, we shouldn't judge people's hearts.
I think we can - and should - regard people's statements as accountable, because truth should matter among Christians.


I refer you to my post a few above yours. What has bothered ME in this is those telling me that their prayers are more meritous, that they are more holy than I, superior to me, that I have less faith, less spirituality, less love of Our Lady if I don't pray the Rosary to pray to my patron saint (frankly, I don't even know who that is). Judging my heart. A LOT of that goes on here at CF (not always intentionally, I hope).





.