Sts. Simon and Jude

judechild · Oct 31, 2011

Presentist said:
Is there any instance in the Bible where a living person asks a deceased person to pray for them?

The question is irrelevent, because those who have died in Christ are still alive, and I'm not Sola Scriptura. The constant historical testimony shows that the people did ask for prayers of intercession from those who have gone before.

Presentist · Nov 1, 2011

judechild said:
The constant historical testimony shows that the people did ask for prayers of intercession from those who have gone before.

Did Jesus or any of his disciples ask a deceased person to pray for them?

judechild said:
I'm not Sola Scriptura.

I search the Scriptures to see if what someone says is true. But if you are not Sola Scriptura, how do you know if what you are told is true?

Acts 17:11 said:
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

.

judechild · Nov 1, 2011

Presentist said:
Did Jesus or any of his disciples ask a deceased person to pray for them?

Obviously Jesus did not, though He did - I suppose - "pray" in a certain way to Moses and Elijah. After Jesus, the Christians constructed their altars over the bones of the Apostles and Martyrs. That contributes to the imagery of the Book of Revelation: "when he broke open the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slaughtered because of the witness they bore to the word of God" (6:9). Since the Catholic Mass is concieved by the Church as a union of Heavenly and Earthly worship, the saints in Heaven are being depicted as part of the Church.

In the construction of the ancient altars, then, there is a sense of praying with the Saints who had gone before. Since they are still members of Christ's Body, we still ask them to pray for us.

That is why today's prayer for the Solemnity of All Saints begins: "I saw a vast crowd of countless numbers from every nation, standing before the throne." And later, we recite Revelation 4:11; 5:9,10,12:

"O Lord our God, you are worthy to receive glory and honor and power.

For you have created all things; by your will they came to be and were made.

Worthy are you, O Lord, to receive the scroll and break open its seals.

For you were slain; with your blood you purchased for God men of every race and tongue, of every people and nation.

You made of them a kingdom, and priests to serve our God, and they shall reign on the earth.

Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches, wisdom and strength, honor and glory and praise."

I search the Scriptures to see if what someone says is true. But if you are not Sola Scriptura, how do you know if what you are told is true?

Your quotation of Acts is irrelevent because the Beroeans do not do what you want me to do. The Beroeans searched only the Old Testament (and, curiosly enough, they would have used the Alexandrian Canon - the 45 books in the Catholic Canon of the Old Testament - not your canon). You want me to search the entirety of the Scriptures, both Old and New, and trust myself to interpret it correctly.

When you ask how I know what I am told is true, my answer is that I trust the Church. After all, the Galatians searched the Scriptures, and trusted they knew that the Church was wrong; the Law must be followed. St. Paul condemns this view, and cites his authority: "but even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!" (1:8).

You want me to trust myself to come up with correct doctrine. I'm too stupid to be able to do so. When the Calvinist and the Arminian can look at the same texts - each claiming that they are "searching the Scriptures" and being led to their conclusion - and be so entirely contrary, I cannot trust myself to be able to figure out God, and God knows that. Because despite whatever you say, you are not searching only the Scriptures to find out what you believe. So, He gave a Church to interpret and to guide.

MarkRohfrietsch · Nov 2, 2011

judechild said:
Obviously Jesus did not, though He did - I suppose - "pray" in a certain way to Moses and Elijah. After Jesus, the Christians constructed their altars over the bones of the Apostles and Martyrs. That contributes to the imagery of the Book of Revelation: "when he broke open the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slaughtered because of the witness they bore to the word of God" (6:9). Since the Catholic Mass is concieved by the Church as a union of Heavenly and Earthly worship, the saints in Heaven are being depicted as part of the Church.

In the construction of the ancient altars, then, there is a sense of praying with the Saints who had gone before. Since they are still members of Christ's Body, we still ask them to pray for us.

That is why today's prayer for the Solemnity of All Saints begins: "I saw a vast crowd of countless numbers from every nation, standing before the throne." And later, we recite Revelation 4:11; 5:9,10,12:

"O Lord our God, you are worthy to receive glory and honor and power.

For you have created all things; by your will they came to be and were made.

Worthy are you, O Lord, to receive the scroll and break open its seals.

For you were slain; with your blood you purchased for God men of every race and tongue, of every people and nation.

You made of them a kingdom, and priests to serve our God, and they shall reign on the earth.

Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches, wisdom and strength, honor and glory and praise."

Your quotation of Acts is irrelevent because the Beroeans do not do what you want me to do. The Beroeans searched only the Old Testament (and, curiosly enough, they would have used the Alexandrian Canon - the 45 books in the Catholic Canon of the Old Testament - not your canon). You want me to search the entirety of the Scriptures, both Old and New, and trust myself to interpret it correctly.

When you ask how I know what I am told is true, my answer is that I trust the Church. After all, the Galatians searched the Scriptures, and trusted they knew that the Church was wrong; the Law must be followed. St. Paul condemns this view, and cites his authority: "but even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!" (1:8).

You want me to trust myself to come up with correct doctrine. I'm too stupid to be able to do so. When the Calvinist and the Arminian can look at the same texts - each claiming that they are "searching the Scriptures" and being led to their conclusion - and be so entirely contrary, I cannot trust myself to be able to figure out God, and God knows that. Because despite whatever you say, you are not searching only the Scriptures to find out what you believe. So, He gave a Church to interpret and to guide.

There is a lot of truth in what you have said here. Like the Catholic Church, Confessional Lutherans also rely on the Church to guide our understanding of Scripture; we have our Catechisms, the three Ecumenical Creeds, and our Confessions in the Book of Concord; we also have our Synods and Pastors who spend much time in study of Scripture, as do your Pastors.

The Lutheran perspective...

We know from Scripture that the Saints do intercede for us.
The Saints may be able to hear our prayers... but... (and I do understand the position of the RCC in this matter)
Scripture does not tell us, nor does it imply that the Saints can hear our prayers.
Scripture does tell us that God does hear our prayers through the intercession of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Without Scriptural assurance, why would we risk the possibility (probability*) that our prayers asking the Saints to intercede for us may (although they might not) be in vain; when we know that those prayers in Christ's name are not?

*Probability in that we believe that Scripture tells us everything that we need to know; that is everything that God wants us to know; but not everything that we want to know... for now.

I wish you all a happy and blessed Feast of All Saints! (I'm late I know)

Pax Domini

Presentist · Nov 2, 2011

judechild said:
After Jesus, the Christians constructed their altars over the bones of the Apostles and Martyrs.

What "altars" are you referring to? After Jesus, we no longer need any altars. We are now the temple of God.

.

judechild said:
When you ask how I know what I am told is true, my answer is that I trust the Church.

What about when the church alters their beliefs? For example, were the popes of old correct that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church, or was Vatican II correct?

Pope Pius IX declared:

“By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it, will perish in the flood.” (Denzinger, 1647)

This infallible dogma is neither accepted, taught nor practiced by the Vatican II church, but rather it has been supplanted by a false ecumenism.

Source: http://marienfried.com/catholic%20teachings/false%20popes%20versus%20infallibility.html

.

judechild · Nov 2, 2011

Presentist said:
What "altars" are you referring to? After Jesus, we no longer need any altars. We are now the temple of God.

In a sense you are a temple of God, but only insofar as you are united to Christ - Who is the True Temple: "'destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up'... but He was speaking about the temple of His body" (Jn. 2:19,21).

The altars that I'm speaking of are the altars that Catholic Church have, and that the early Church constructed for the same reason. The altar is a symbol of Christ because He is both the Priest (the one who gives the Sacrifice at the altar) and the victim (the one on the altar).

There is plentiful archeological evidence that shows the prominence of altars in the catacombs, which is where the early communities were forced to celebrate the Liturgy.

What about when the church alters their beliefs? For example, were the popes of old correct that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church, or was Vatican II correct?

You've set up another false dichotomy: either quid or quo. It is a false dichotomy because Vatican II reinforces Extra Eccelesium Nolla Salus:

"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church" (Vatican II: Lumen Gentium, 14). Vatican II only recognized the possibility of the legitimacy of Trinitarian Baptism given in other bodies, which can incorporate a person in to the Catholic Church in some de facto, though imperfect, way.

The Rite of Christian Initiation also reinforces the concept of Church and Salvation when the minister says (after the candidate is Baptized): "N., born again in Christ by Baptism, you have become a member of Christ and of His priestly people. Now you are to share in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit among us, the Spirit sent by the Lord upon His Apostles at Pentecost and given by them and their successors to the baptized."

This infallible dogma is neither accepted, taught nor practiced by the Vatican II church, but rather it has been supplanted by a false ecumenism.

You make a number of mistakes here. The first is to call a quotation from a Papal bull an "infallible dogma." I do believe Extra Eccelium Nulla Salus to be an infallible dogma, but not because of a phrase in a Papal Bull. The concept of Papal Infallibility is pencil-thin in its application.

Another is that you have not read the Documents of Vatican II.

A third is that you don't define "false ecumenism," and so it is a meaningless rhetorical device.

A fourth is that Vatican II does not reject Extra Eccelsium Nulla Salus.

Presentist · Nov 2, 2011

judechild said:
The altar is a symbol of Christ because He is both the Priest (the one who gives the Sacrifice at the altar) and the victim (the one on the altar).

Who are you saying is the "victim?" Who are you "sacrificing?"

Jesus has already suffered for our sins. He is alive now and does not need to suffer anymore. At least that is what the first Pope believed...

1 Peter 3:18 said:
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

.

Presentist · Nov 2, 2011

judechild said:
A fourth is that Vatican II does not reject Extra Eccelsium Nulla Salus.

You must have missed the link I provided. I did not make those statements. They were made by traditional Catholics. Here is the link again...

False popes exposed by papal infallibility

.

judechild · Nov 2, 2011

Presentist said:
Who are you saying is the "victim?" Who are you "sacrificing?"

We are not making a new sacrifice.

Jesus has already suffered for our sins. He is alive now and does not need to suffer anymore. At least that is what the first Pope believed...

Yes, we agree that Christ has alread suffered, died, and risen; the Mass is a re-presentation of that one Sacrifice. When Jesus says "do this in rememberance of Me" we do not only participate in a purely mental activity; we enter into the life and death of Christ. The Church is Liturgical, so we experience the Mystery of Salvation both during the Mass, and in the days and liturgical seasons (e.g. every Friday, we fast in some way to remember and enter into the sufferings of Christ).

That is why an individual Catholic church has to have a prominent crucifix both visible to the congregation, and also on the altar: "we proclaim Christ crucified," (1 Cor. 1:23). It is to show that the sacrifice of the Mass, and the sacrifice on Calvary are the same eternal Sacrifice now experienced in time. The Gospels, after all, didn't write in the Miracle of the Multiplication of Loaves to show that Jesus was a great baker.

Presentist said:
You must have missed the link I provided. I did not make those statements. They were made by traditional Catholics. Here is the link again...

Great, but I'm not talking to a sedevicantist. I'm talking to you. If you aren't even going to put forth the effort to build an actual objection to the Catholic Church yourself I won't even bother. I've responded to the only claim you made on the subject by quoting Lumin Gentium 14, and I stand by it. If you want me to respond to more, give me an actual objection but don't expect me to waste time.

Presentist · Nov 2, 2011

judechild said:
Great, but I'm not talking to a sedevicantist. I'm talking to you.

I could point out that the Roman Catholic church has made a paradigm shift towards ecumenism during Vatican II, but you would say I do not know what I am talking about. That is why I post statements from Catholics. The following catechism would not have been added if it were not for Vatican II...

Catholic Catechism 841 said:
The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.

.

judechild · Nov 2, 2011

Presentist said:
but you would say I do not know what I am talking about.

You're right.

That is why I post statements from Catholics. The following catechism would not have been added if it were not for Vatican II...

One would assume that the Council had an effect on the Catechism, yes. Would you expect that the 16th Century Council of Trent didn't have an effect on the writing of the Roman Catechism twenty years later?

Your objection misses the mark. You set up your 2nd false dichotomy a few posts back by saying: "were the popes of old correct that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church, or was Vatican II correct?" But now you don't quote Vatican II; you quoted the Catechism, which is separate from Vatican II, and was called for by a Synod of the Bishops decades later.

I respond that: Vatican II's Nostra Aetate says: "the Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions... yet it proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth and the life (Jn 1:6). In Him, in whom God reconciled all things to Himself (see 2 Cor 5:18-19), people find the fullness of their religious life" (2). These "true and holy" things in Islam are: "they endeavor to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God... although not acknowledging Him as God, they venerate Jesus... his virgin Mother they also honor... further, they await the day of judgment... for this reason they highly esteem an upright life and worship God, especially by way of prayer, alms-deeds, and fasting" (3).

Response to objection: If you went further into the Catechism, you would see that it follows Nostra Aetate's combination of acknowledging the good that is present in Islam (the footnote references NA 3, already quoted), while still saying that the Church sees the need to evangelize deeper: "In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them... to reunite all His children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into His Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation" (CCC 844-845). Right after these paragraphs the Catechism picks up on the theme "Outside the Church there is no salvation" which runs from paragraphs 846-848. Your quotation of CCC 841, then, does not say "there is salvation outside the Church" and so it misses the mark both in substance, and in proof.

judechild · Nov 2, 2011

MarkRohfrietsch said:
There is a lot of truth in what you have said here. Like the Catholic Church, Confessional Lutherans also rely on the Church to guide our understanding of Scripture; we have our Catechisms, the three Ecumenical Creeds, and our Confessions in the Book of Concord; we also have our Synods and Pastors who spend much time in study of Scripture, as do your Pastors.

The Lutheran perspective...

That's very interesting. Reading over your post, I'm not sure I can adequately dialogue on it; I'm not well-versed in the Lutheran Catechisms, and though I've read large parts of the Book of Concord, I wouldn't consider myself "fluent."

Your position seems to be quite a bit like DArceri's was at the beginning (though now I think the poor man is too confused to know what he believes on the subject). Since I am not Sola Scriptura (in the Lutheran sense, which I realize is different than the Evangelical sense), I think we may not have much to talk about owing to a difference in paradigms...

Oh well. Thank you for the All-Saints Day greeting. It's always a pleasure to read your posts.

Sts. Simon and Jude

judechild

Catholic Socratic

More options

Presentist

Active Member

More options

judechild

Catholic Socratic

More options

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist

More options

Presentist

Active Member

More options

judechild

Catholic Socratic

More options

Presentist

Active Member

More options

Presentist

Active Member

More options

judechild

Catholic Socratic

More options

Presentist

Active Member

More options

judechild

Catholic Socratic

More options

judechild

Catholic Socratic

More options

Similar threads

Sts. Simon and Jude

Catholic Socratic

Active Member

Catholic Socratic

Unapologetic Apologist

Active Member

Catholic Socratic

Active Member

Active Member

Catholic Socratic

Active Member

Catholic Socratic

Catholic Socratic

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency