Why do Catholics Pray to the Saints?

[BNR32FAN]

Thank you for the kind words, but bear in mind that I haven't even gotten to any critique of Orthodox history or belief or practice.

I thought it was necessary first to take up the other part of the discussion, which was about the gates of hell not prevailing against the church--the whole church. The statement doesn't mean that nothing wrong will ever occur. It means that it won't prevail.

If that were understood, it probably then would be worth looking at each of the denominations/communions whose people often say "Well, not us. We have never experienced any problems, no not ever, and not even briefly. Those other churches, sure, but not ours!"

I’ve searched for skeletons in the EOC closet and was not able to find any.

 

[tz620q]

I’ve searched for skeletons in the EOC closet and was not able to find any.

I have a lot of respect for the EOC; but you might look into the Arian takeover of the church right after Constantine, the Ecthesis in the 600's, the iconoclasm of the 700's and 800's. These tend to support Albion's theory that error can creep into the church, even at the highest level and across a majority of the church; but the promise of Jesus is that this error will eventually fail and the church will right itself.

 

[Albion]

...Albion's theory that error can creep into the church, even at the highest level and across a majority of the church; but the promise of Jesus is that this error will eventually fail and the church will right itself.

I like this better than the way I worded it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well, the church has experienced numerous schisms. Any schism is a failing and not something that God wants. It has cooperated with atheistic political regimes, thus lending credibility to them. That is certainly not ideal. If we move to specific doctrines, there are many areas of disagreement with the RCC, not to mention the reformed churches.

The reply is certain to be something like this: "But we believe those things to be right, not errors." That is to be expected, but remember that the proposition that I questioned did not allow for any gray area; it denied, flatly, that any controversy had ever existed. This clearly is not what the historical record shows and not what the verse means. Finally, I don't mean to pick out the EOC in so saying (it was thrown up to me for comment, not the reverse) or, for that matter, to exonerate any other church body.

I would agree that God does not want schisms but I would also say that He doesn’t want false teachings within the church. For example even the Judaizers in Acts 15 could be considered a schism but do you believe the Apostles were wrong in their decision? I will refrain from discussing other schisms at this time so as to not provoke dessention among the brothers. My point is merely that both parties involved in a schism may not be responsible or at fault for it. As for cooperation with atheistic regimes I would have to know the details of the cooperation to make an assessment. I believe cooperation with unbelievers can be beneficial at times. Jesus healed many unbelievers that resulted in them believing. Cooperation in matters of charity with secular organizations can be beneficial to unbelievers. Cooperation in times of war can also be beneficial. I would have to understand the nature of the cooperation your referring to. As for RCC doctrines that is outside of this discussion as I’m only referring to the EOC.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I have a lot of respect for the EOC; but you might look into the Arian takeover of the church right after Constantine, the Ecthesis in the 600's, the iconoclasm of the 700's and 800's. These tend to support Albion's theory that error can creep into the church, even at the highest level and across a majority of the church; but the promise of Jesus is that this error will eventually fail and the church will right itself.

I’ll have to look into those as I am not aware of these events. Thanks for sharing this information tho.

 

[FenderTL5]

I’ll have to look into those as I am not aware of these events. Thanks for sharing this information tho.

A starting point would be the Seven Ecumenical Councils (link to wikipedia page).

 

[Albion]

I would agree that God does not want schisms but I would also say that He doesn’t want false teachings within the church.

Of course. That's all part of the idea we have been considering.

For example even the Judaizers in Acts 15 could be considered a schism but do you believe the Apostles were wrong in their decision? I will refrain from discussing other schisms at this time so as to not provoke dessention among the brothers. My point is merely that both parties involved in a schism may not be responsible or at fault for it.

Fine, but that still represents trouble in the church and goes against the idea that nothing of that sort could ever happen, thanks to that one verse in the New Testament about the gates of hell not being able to prevail against the church.

 

[tz620q]

A starting point would be the Seven Ecumenical Councils (link to wikipedia page).

That is excellent advice. Why focus on the disease when we can look into the cure. Of course the history of ecumenical councils is not free of error either. There were several that later were overthrown because they taught error. Truly, it is a great accomplishment that Christianity has stayed the course so well over 2000 years; but that course has rarely been straight. There is a song in Handel's Messiah called "Are We Like Sheep?" So like sheep, we humans wonder along, sometimes going the right direction and sometimes the wrong. Perhaps Jesus, the Good Shepherd's promise was that we would not be left without a shepherd. Whether you think that is Peter, the Holy Spirit, or the common faith of the laity coming undiluted from Christ's original teachings, it shows the need for a shepherd outside of the individual.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Of course. That's all part of the idea we have been considering.


Fine, but that still represents trouble in the church and goes against the idea that nothing of that sort could ever happen, thanks to that one verse in the New Testament about the gates of hell not being able to prevail against the church.

I agree that trouble can take place in the church but I thought you were saying false teachings and practices can come from the church. As if to say that the church would sanction such activities. I’m just trying to examine the history of the EOC to determine if what you say is true. Personally I believe the EOC very well may be the apostolic Church of God with its original teachings intact. I’m not absolutely sure of this but so far all the evidence I’ve weighed seems to support the idea. I can’t find any contradictions in their theology or in their actions and no other church has as many awesome beards as the EOC. So that says a lot about their character.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That is excellent advice. Why focus on the disease when we can look into the cure. Of course the history of ecumenical councils is not free of error either. There were several that later were overthrown because they taught error. Truly, it is a great accomplishment that Christianity has stayed the course so well over 2000 years; but that course has rarely been straight. There is a song in Handel's Messiah called "Are We Like Sheep?" So like sheep, we humans wonder along, sometimes going the right direction and sometimes the wrong. Perhaps Jesus, the Good Shepherd's promise was that we would not be left without a shepherd. Whether you think that is Peter, the Holy Spirit, or the common faith of the laity coming undiluted from Christ's original teachings, it shows the need for a shepherd outside of the individual.

Do you think perhaps the scriptures were intentionally written to be a bit ambiguous? Perhaps to motivate us to study them more closely? I’ve often wondered.

 

[Albion]

I agree that trouble can take place in the church but I thought you were saying false teachings and practices can come from the church. As if to say that the church would sanction such activities.

Yes, well it has indeed happened. But the issue is more diverse than that. The possibility of any wrong or mistake, etc, could possibly happen.

I’m just trying to examine the history of the EOC to determine if what you say is true. Personally I believe the EOC very well may be the apostolic Church of God with its original teachings intact.

FWIW, I do think the facts support that. For one thing, it is obvious that not all the doctrines date to the beginning of the church. However, the EOC probably can make a good case that it is easily closer to the Apostolic Church in most ways than are most of the rest.

I can’t find any contradictions in their theology or in their actions and no other church has as many awesome beards as the EOC. So that says a lot about their character.

Awesome beards. Yes, probably so.
The Amish might dispute that, but I don't care so much for their style of beard myself.

 

[tz620q]

Do you think perhaps the scriptures were intentionally written to be a bit ambiguous? Perhaps to motivate us to study them more closely? I’ve often wondered.

I am not sure I would use the word ambiguous, maybe layered. That is why Jesus could point to OT scripture that was referring to a situation of that time and trace how that scripture was also referring to him in the present time.

The Catholic Church teaches (not unique to the Catholic Church) that there are four main perspectives or senses to scripture, the literal, the allegorical, the tropological (or moral), and the anagogical.

They are summarized at this link where I found this:
"The Catechism of the Catholic Church cites a medieval couplet which summarizes these four senses: Lettera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria, moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia. (The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith; the Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.)"

So the literal voice is the narrative or historical one. The allegorical voice is the figurative or prophetic voice. It shows allegorical correspondence between previous events or people and modern day ones. The tropological or moral voice tells us how to get meaning from scripture to guide our modern life. The anagogical voice is the heavenly voice of destiny. It points us to our final destination, exhorts us to keep our eyes fixed on that firmly and provides us with guidance on how to get from our current lives on earth to Heaven.

 

[Major1]

I'm not the first to bring up that idea. The objections raised by protestants about Catholics asking for intercession from those in heaven must be rooted into Christ having 2 bodies which is a weird concept.

Those in heaven and those on earth are part of the same body. What happens to 1 member, affects the whole body. Those in heaven and those on earth, through Baptism are bound into 1 spiritual family. Praise Jesus!

Might I suggest you read and contemplate 1Cor Chapter 12....the entire Chapter.

Here is a snippet

12:25 That there might be no schism in the body: but the members might be mutually careful one for another.
12:26 And if one member suffer any thing, all the members suffer with it: or if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it.

You will discover Catholics follow the Bible while protestants reject what scripture plainly says.

You said...……….
"You will discover Catholics follow the Bible while protestants reject what scripture plainly says. "

LOL...……...Now that is one of the funniest comments I have read in a very long time!!!

Where in the KJV of the Bible is "Purgatory"?
Where in the KJV of the Bible is the "Immaculate Conception of Mary"???
Where in the KJV of the Bible is the "Assumption of Mary"???
Where in the KJV of the Bible is the "Rosary"???
Where in the KJV of the Bible is the "Prayers to the dead found"?
Where in the KJV of the Bible is the direction "Bishops can not be married"?
Where in the KJV of the Bible is the "salvation of water baptism"?
Where in the KJV of the Bible do we find "infant baptism commanded"?
Where in the KJV of the Bible do we find "works are needed for salvation"?
Where in the KJV of the Bible do we find a "distinction between lay & clergy?
Where in the KJV of the Bible do we find Mary declared as "Queen of Heaven"
Where in the KJV of the Bible do we find Mary being the" co-redemptress"?

The Roman Catholic Church claim that Peter was the 'rock' which the church was to be built on and the pope is his successor and there are NO Scriptures which say that.

The Roman Catholic Church SELLS THE GOSPEL through Indulgences.

"The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead ... An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin. Indulgences may be applied to the living or the dead." (Catholic Catechism)

The Roman Catholic Church claim that Mary was sinless.

"The church has become ever more aware that Mary "full of grace" through God was redeemed from the moment of her conception. This is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses ..... Mary was.... from the first moment of her conception ...... preserved immune from all stain of original sin." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 491)

The Roman Catholic Church claim that salvation is only possible through herself.

"There is no salvation outside the church (Roman Catholic Church)." (Pope John Paul II, Radio Message for Francisan Vigil at St Peter's and Assisi, October 3, 1981)

Want me to keep going???????

 

[Major1]

You. By objecting to Catholics asking for intercession from those in heaven, YOU prove to us all that YOU believe Christ has 2 bodies.

On a side note, I have yet to have auto correct delete a word on me, strange, isnt it.

Please...PLEASE post the Scriptures which tell us that there are "THOSE IN HEAVEN" (Your words) that can make intercession for men.

You tend to make wild unresoursed comments which make no sense at all.

 

[Major1]

I am not sure I would use the word ambiguous, maybe layered. That is why Jesus could point to OT scripture that was referring to a situation of that time and trace how that scripture was also referring to him in the present time.

The Catholic Church teaches (not unique to the Catholic Church) that there are four main perspectives or senses to scripture, the literal, the allegorical, the tropological (or moral), and the anagogical.

They are summarized at this link where I found this:
"The Catechism of the Catholic Church cites a medieval couplet which summarizes these four senses: Lettera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria, moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia. (The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith; the Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.)"

So the literal voice is the narrative or historical one. The allegorical voice is the figurative or prophetic voice. It shows allegorical correspondence between previous events or people and modern day ones. The tropological or moral voice tells us how to get meaning from scripture to guide our modern life. The anagogical voice is the heavenly voice of destiny. It points us to our final destination, exhorts us to keep our eyes fixed on that firmly and provides us with guidance on how to get from our current lives on earth to Heaven.

The Catholic church teaches a whole lot of things and a whole lot of them can not be found in the Scriptures.

 

[Major1]

you cant make this stuff up.

YOU DID!

 

[concretecamper]

Want me to keep going???????

go ahead. You seems to be the only one who enjoys your copy and paste posts.

All the objections you raise have already be adequately answered on other threads.

Btw, before you dare to question Catholic beliefs, YOU must first demonstrate that the Bible claims to be the ONLY source of Divine Revelation. And, Btw, dont bother looking, becasue I already know it doesnt

 

[Major1]

go ahead. You seems to be the only one who enjoys your copy and paste posts.

All the objections you raise have already be adequately answered on other threads.

Btw, before you dare to question Catholic beliefs, YOU must first demonstrate that the Bible claims to be the ONLY source of Divine Revelation. And, Btw, dont bother looking, becasue I already know it doesnt

I never enjoy showing the errors of those who are well meaning but misinformed. It is sad to me personally to see you are more informed on Catholic doctrine that you are Bible Truth.

However that is completely YOUR choice.

When YOU say that the "Catholic Church is the only one to follow Bible direction", YOU must be challenged. My challenge is simply..."PROVE IT"!

I do not have to question Catholic beliefs at all. All anyone has to do is post the Catholic beliefs which ARE NOT Biblical and allow those reading those errors to decide for themselves which is exactly what I did.

Instead us being sarcastic and argumentative, why not address those Catholic doctrines WHICH ARE NOT FOUND IN THE BIBLE instead.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Mark 13:31
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away”.

 

[concretecamper]

2 Timothy 3:16-17

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Mark 13:31
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away”.

Neither of these say the Bible is the ONLY source of Divine Revelation.

So you have 1 wrong

Next question:

Jesus promised to establish what?

A. A Church
B. A book

Choose carefully

 

[Major1]

Neither of these say the Bible is the ONLY source of Divine Revelation.

Try again......

God bless you !

I would encourage you to do a study of the "revelations of God".

I. Key verses for General Revelation - Romans 1:18-23 (19-21)

General Revelation reveals God to mankind, but is insufficient to reveal the gospel of salvation.

II.

The Special Revelations of God

By the Voice of God - To Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, OT prophets, NT witnesses of Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration

By Dreams and Visions - Examples of dreams abound in the lives of Joseph and Daniel, other instances include Jacob and the Midianite soldier which Gideon overheard. Visons are described by several prophets as God instructs them in the message they are to give, examples include Ezekiel and John.

By Gods' prophets - “…thus saith the Lord…” To both Israel and Judah, and to other nations (Assyria, Babylon, Egypt)

By Jesus Christ, with the authority of God – John 8:12-30 (26)
1.

As recorded in the Gospels
2.

As given to His disciples during His life.

E.

By the Apostles of Jesus Christ, as Jesus gave authority
1.

Commission with authority – Luke 6:12-16
2.

Command to go - Matthew 28:18-20

F.

By Divinely Inspired Scripture, with the authority of God.

1. 
   
   Divine Revelation - The Only Source for Theology

​

1.