[HarleyD]

Okay, I'm getting a concept that, from your POV...is not what I would call a discussion seeking understanding, but a proclamation among the heathen of the truth, "and let God sort them out."

Nope. It is a discussion of understanding. The problem is what we base that understanding on. I say that understanding is based upon the word of God. Catholics would say that understanding is based upon what they are told by the Church.

You on the other hand will consider the mission mostly accomplished merely by clearly articulating the "correct" doctrine.

1Cr 2:1-2 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

To be perfectly honest, the gospel message is rather simple. All I CAN do is read and repeat what the text says.

If the text says, "You did not chose me but I have choosen you.", then personally I think that is rather clear. I can understand Christians saying, "Hmmmm...that is rather interesting and I'll have to study it." or "I believe it is stating ----this---- for ----these---- reasons." There shouldn't be a "Yes, but...".

So that if you raise the question of "Why not go straight to Jesus?" and I answer that Protestants also ask for the prayers of others, you think it germane to bring up, say, the "prayers to the dead" criticism,

If you look above you never answered the question. You simply deflected the question with another question. Scripture tells us we are to pray to our heavenly Father. Scripture tells us we are to pray for others. Scripture does not say we are to pray to the dead.

So when your side is done...you all Amen and generally high-five each other. And we're thinking and sometimes saying, "Wow, how unreasonable and perseverative they are!" We are seeking to discuss, while you are seeking to proclaim and denounce.

That isn't a fair or accurate statement. Shall I point you to some Catholic comments that "high-five" other Catholic comments? I can assure you they are not hard to find. Personally, there is nothing wrong with a good hearty "Amen" in the right spot because it is an indication that you are correct in your understanding. "Amen" simply means "truly".

That being put aside, I will say that I'm not here to win battles, pick fights, prove a point or anything else but to learn and grow. I will add there are some things I find simply astounding that Christians would believe. Never in all my born-again days would I have thought Christians believed some of these things, and I have socialized with all sorts of Christians. In these cases I can't keep my big mouth shut-or my big keyboard.

To you all, the raising of a contradictory fact or the pointing out of a logical anomaly is an interference with your divine mission of denunciation and proclamation, so it must be driven out somehow -- anyhow.

Christianity has no contradictory facts. To me a contradictory fact or a logical anomaly is a false teaching-pure and simple. It is our responsibility as Christians to point each other in the right direction. It is fair for you to ask me how do I know that I am heading in the right direction just as it is fair for me to ask you. We can both refer to the word of God and verify.

This can lead to a certain level of animosity. And, indeed, if my take is right, then I see no point in "engaging" with you all, except possibly socially and, maybe, in prayer sometimes.

That is your decision and that is where we'll leave it.

[Mad Dawg]

If you look above you never answered the question. You simply deflected the question with another question. Scripture tells us we are to pray to our heavenly Father. Scripture tells us we are to pray for others. Scripture does not say we are to pray to the dead.

That's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You START by arguing the "Why not go straight to Jesus?", When I suggest it's for the same reason that you ask others to pray for you, THEN you immediately go to the "dead" question.

It seems to me the "direct access" question is independent of the "dead" question. It would pertain to intercession generally. Because in heaven or on earth, asking somebody else to pray for is, at least superficially, INdirect. It is just as indirect (at least in the petitioner's intention) when the request is made of a person on earth as it is when the request is made of a person in heaven. So IF it is okay, with respect to the "direct access" issue for St. Paul to ask someone to pray for him, then "direct access" is not the issue.

THEN we can move to the "not praying for the dead" v. Communion of the saints issue.

In the paragraph cited above you mention BOTH issues, but when the question first arose whoever first asked it ONLY mentioned the "direct access" side of it, and only weighed in with the "dead" side of it after the "direct access" side of it was addressed - AND never responded to the direct access reply side of it as such.

Here's an analogy. You say "It is okay to shoot someone who is committing felony battery on someone else."
I say,"No, we should let the police handle it.
Then You say,"But I saw you kit someone with a brick when you came upon a felony battery in process."
And I say, "But I didn't use a gun, but you said 'shoot.'"

Wouldn't you then say, "What do the police have to do with it then?"

I feel like I said it's okay to pray to the saints. Then you said, why not go directly to Jesus, And I said, but you ask for intercessions.And you say, but they're here on earth. So I'm left wondering where you stand on the intercession thing or why you brought it up, what does going directly to Jesus have to do with it, when the real sticking point seems to be Which humans we asked, not THAT we asked.

Now, the following is not a "what the Bible or the Church says" thing. I say, "If your intention is such and such, then I want to do this and that."
You say, "Our intention is NOT such and such, THEREFORE go ahead and do this and that."
I just don't understand this.

It is a discussion of understanding.

A discussion OF understanding, or a discussion SEEKING (as I said) understanding? If it's just "a frank exchange of views", it's not a discussion, at least as I use the word.

Look, if you're going to break into a thread about Padre Pio and say, "What your church teaches is wrong," Isn't it reasonable for me to want to know if you really know what my Church in fact teaches and what you think is wrong with it? If someone says, "Catholics think thus and so," while we're all saying, "No, we don't think that," what is going to come of that? If you're going to say that your understanding is based on Scripture, and I think mine is too, either directly or indirectly, then ... well let me ask what you think the next step, if any, is.