Posted on 02/04/2002 12:55:13 PM PST by Sir Gawain
I pray daily for those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their own personal Savior. I am not interceeding for them, I am simply praying for them because of the burden on my heart for them.
My point was that I don't pray to Mary to in turn "step in" for me between me and God or Jesus. I can pray directly to God and Jesus because the Bible specifically says so.
Jesus is specifically spelled out as the one we are to take our prayers to and give the glory to, not Mary or anyone else.
What amazes me is that so many people will read into the Bible what they want it to mean, instead of taking it at face value. Why would God give us his word and then expect us to have to jump through hoops to understand it? The answer is - he doesn't. Read what it says. I understand clarifications of the language, but don't read into what you want it to say.
Simply put - nowhere in the Bible does it say to worship/pray to/ask for favors or grace from Mary. That is a far cry from simply asking others to pray for you.
Prayer is worship. Praying to Mary is worship of Mary. I pray to God the Father in Jesus' name, acknowledging the great debt that I owe Him. So are you saying that Mary can accomplish what the Lord cannot?
When you read of the first miracle performed by the Lord in John, how do you yourself, understand it? Thanks. God bless you as well.
Actually, there's no difference at all. Asking someone whom you believe to be alive in Christ to pray for you is no different than asking the parishoner in the pew next to you to do so.
And no, I'm not Roman Catholic.
Mt 16:18
And so I say to you, you are "Rock", and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
Since the New Testament was written in the Greek language, it is right to begin the consideration of this critical passage in the language in which it was written:
kago de soi lego oti su ei Petros kai
I also And to you say - You are Peter and
epi taute te petra oikodomeso mou ten ekklesian;
on this - rock I will build of me the church;
Two observation must be made on the Greek and the Latin translations of Matthew 16:18. Note in the Greek that the name of Peter is Petros, and the word for rock is petra. In Latin the name of Peter is Petrus and the word for rock is petra. This follows from the demands of the respective languages. Nouns in these languages, unlike English, have gender: some are masculine (e.g., -os or -us ending to words); some are feminine (e.g., -a or -am ending to words). The word for a rock in both languages is, of its nature, feminine; Peter, being a male, could not take a feminine ending to his name. It would be like calling him "Rockette" instead of "Rocky." Quite a difference! Hence it is only the demands of language that the gender of the words is different.
(from Paul Flanagan and Robert Schihl)
You also should continue onto the following verses:
Mt 16:19-20
I will give you (singular) the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Why would Jesus go through this conversation with Peter if he was only telling Peter that he was a little pebble? Why would he give an insignificant little pebble the keys to the kingdom of heaven? It doesn't make sense.
Why also even bother to change Simon's name to Peter? Because Jesus Christ was making a profound statement: You are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my church.
The early church fathers also acknowledged Peter's Primacy ... Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Clement to James, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, Cyril of Jerusalum, Jerome, and many, many others ... all before 400 A.D. There was little or no dispute about Mt 16:18 prior to the Protestant Reformation.
Jesus renamed Simon bar-Jonah for a purpose. The literalness of the play on words--a linguistic pun--is made clear. A pun is a pun because of the literalness of the play on words. This was precisely what Jesus was saying. "You are Rocky and on this rock I will build my church."
God bless.
However, earliest Christianity has always defined prayer as conversation, as in conversation with God. Conversation, as any other act of communication ( e.g., talking, conversation, yelling, etc.), requires a sign of the direction of the communication: one talks to someone, communicates with someone, prays to someone, converses with someone, yells at someone, etc. Hence, praying to God, a Saint, the Virgin Mary indicates simply the direction of prayer communication. It is more a matter of grammar and understanding communication than acknowledging the worship of the receiver.
From the earliest of Church Councils the distinction was made between worship and honor. Catholics believe that worship is due to God alone. Catholics honor those saints who have gone before us as a sign of faith and victory in living the Christian life. So no, we do not pray TO saints or Mary, but WITH the saints in heaven and WITH Mary, the Mother of God. We also pray directly TO God, our Father.
As I said in an earlier post, Protestant Christians have a misunderstanding about Catholic Christians. One Catholic writer explained that Catholics believe that there is a hierarchy, or order, of Christian truths. I would like to take the liberty of quoting from the book Catholic and Christian because it helps non-Catholic Christians understand a bit better about Catholic beliefs.
Practically speaking, this (the hierarchy of truths) means that the beliefs that are most important to Catholics are truths such as the divinity of Jesus, the necessity of his death on the cross for our salvation, the reality and power of the Holy Spirit, and so on. Here Catholics find common ground of understanding and cooperation with other Christians, because Catholics and most other Christians usually agree on the most central and basic doctrines of Christianity. However, Catholics believe that there are othe Christian truths, such as those concerning Mary, the saints, purgatory, and so on, that are indeed true, but not central points of the Gospel message. It is important for both Catholics and other Christians to recognize this distinction. Sometimes Catholics are guilty of viewing and talking about Mary, the saints, purgatory, and similar beliefs as if they were the most important Christian truths. This often produces an unnecessary obstacle to unity with other Christians. ... On the other hand, sometimes other Christians focus unduly on Catholic beliefs about Mary, the sints, purgatory, indulgences, and the like (often rejecting them in a one-sided way, even when they have some basis in the Bible) in order to portray Catholics as "un-Christian", or to accuse the Catholic church of distorting the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
What I think this means is that Catholics and other Christians agree on the main tenets of Christianity. We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God; that Jesus died for our sins and our salvation; that he rose from the dead and is seated at the right hand of our Father; and that he will come again in Glory to judge the living and the dead. Catholics and other Christians believe in the Holy Trinity, that God is One in Three (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). I think that this is a good basis for discussion, provided that we debate as brothers and sisters, and not as enemies.
God bless.
Exactly, and one that accepts and acknowledges what the Holy Spirit says to him, as Peter did. The Holy Spirit guides all men. The claims men make that only those in the succession of kings annointed by men, have perfect insight from the Holy Spirit have no basis in reality.
I'm exhausted at the moment. It's 3 AM and I just had to drive seven hours and back to pick up my kid bro, so intellectually, I'm relatively worthless at the moment.
Was Peter the "Rock"? -- Do you really want me to barbecue this? I mean, I'll be happy to fricasee it well-done, if you are actually interested in the debate; I've just got a lot of different stuff on my plate these days.
Let me try and say it this way then...
Using your agrument that this isn't what it SAYS, please show me where it says that Peter is the first Pope of the holy roman church or catholic church or is this and interpretation.
If so I see my 'interpretation' as a sound reading of the scriptures where yours might be considered by some to be fantasy. And if the RCC is the church that Christ speaks of why not say that. Is God or the Lord trying to trick me? We know the answer to that don't we?
Funny how Arsenio is a Greek word? Hmmmmm??
By the way Campion, Jesus did spend his young life in Egypt and in Egypt of that time if you wanted to make a living as a carpenter you spoke Greek. Even the Jews of Alexandria no longer could speak Hebrew, they had become so assimilated. The miracle of the Septuagent translations from Hebrew to Greek is recalled. In addition Jesus lived near Greek settlements in Judea and many Synogogues of this time had Greek and Hebrew inscriptions.
Jesus very certainly spoke enough Greek to say petros (as Peter is called in Greek). Even the Orthodox Greek Christian Church (which is the nearest to the Apostolic tradition) and no lover of the Vatican accepts Jesus said this to Peter.
By the way, if St. Paul was the one that spread the faith to the gentiles what did Peter do? Peter backed Paul and allowed him to do so. But that is just my guess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.