Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Frist, we believe that prayers help. It is customary to ask fellow Christians to pray for us or to pray for others. That would be ntercessionary prayer. We do it all the time.
Second, Christians believe that those who die are not dead but alive in an intermediate state between particular and final judgment. If they are alive, they can pray.
Third, if they prayed when they were on earth, we have very reason to believe that they pray as we speak/write.
Fourth, saints are Christian heroes that we hold in high regard and many of us use one particular saint to fashion our life in faith around theirs.
Fifth, intercessionary prayers to the saints and angels are just that: asking those who pray to pray for us in heaven as we ask others to pray for us on earth.
Intercessionary prayer is a perfectly orthodox practice, rooted in the most fundamental Christian truths.
Only confused Protestants can see "idolatry" in intercesisonal prayers. We do not worship saints and angels. We worship only God. We ask all Christian, on earth as in heaven, to pray for us, and that's not worship.
No, he is saying that it was given to the Apostles, and that St. Peter was singled out as first among them (not in authority but in dignity), to lead the church after Christ left until His return. There was no Roman Catholic (or Orthodox) Church then! Just one Church founded by Christ.
Even though today it is not fully united, it is still one Church founded by Christ bcause the apostolic succession guarantees authority and validity of the priesthood, through whom the validity of sacraments is maintained.
Church Tadition (Apostles, Fathers, Bible, Councils) reflect the collective knowledge of the Faith as is has been tught and practiced form the earliest days until today. For example, the Orthodox Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is 1600 years old and remains unchanged.
What we Orthodox do when we go to church is the same thing the Eastern Christians were doing 1,600 years ago. We have records to show that it was so. And that Liturgy was based on the liturgy of St. Basil, which is almost identical (except in length), which itself was based on the Litugry of St. James (the Jerusalem Liturgy) which goes back to the very beginning of the Church and is celebrated in Orthodox Churches dedicated to St. James on the feast of St. James to this day, 2,000 years later -- unchanged! So, ours is not a personal interpretation of anything, but as it was known to the Apostles.
In turn, the Apostles passed on the commission from our Lord to their successors (bishops and priests and deacons) directly (by laying of the hands, a Judaic tradition) and invocation of the Holy Ghost in prayers. The only thing that separates the clergy from the laity are the sacraments. Everybody can preach and teach, but only the priesthood can administer the sacraments. Other than that, the Church is a gathering of the faithful, the clergy and the laity.
If Christ is not even with Catholic laity for the purpose of going out and teaching all nations, then why should a lay Catholic even bother to evangelize
But a Catholic lay person will not teach his or her personal, amateur, veriaty of "truth" about God; but a Protestant will and God onyl knows how close that is to the truth. A Catholic can evangelize and you can bet that the person who gets evangelized by one Catholic will believe and know one and the same thing as any other Catholic in the world. Those who are evangelized by protestants have no such connection -- they all believe in something different. That's not what Christ wanted us to do.
Yes, but why would he be cursed in your theology when everything we do has been preordained by God?
If there is no free will, then Adam could not have chosen to sin but was compelled to sin by none other than God Himself!
If he was compelled to sin and had no choice in it, he is "guilty" of what? Blind obedience to God? Obviously not! Adam's guilt is in wanton disobedience, a conscious and willing resistance to God's will. Thus, it is clear that man CAN and does resist God's will.
But, in your world, God compels man to disobey Him and then punishes him! In the real world, man resists God's will because he is a fallen creature who misused his freedom, and who bears responsibility for it because he possesses the freedom to choose between God and no-God. Your world is a world of God the puppet master, where humans are simply dopes on ropes, where sin is preordained, and where people who are compelled to sin by God are then punished for it!
The saddest thing in your world, Harley, is that man cannot even ask for forgiveness unless God orders him to "repent." In your world, Christ came to redeem what? Man from God-induced sin? And in order to redeem the fallen humanity, God directs man to kill Christ, so that Christ can die for our God-compelled sins!
Instead of dealing with this troublesome theology of yours, you quote disjointed Bible verses. That's pathetic!
You wrote 1 Tim. 2:5 "5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, ...
This is a common mistake made by many people. I will show why it does not prove that intercessionary prayers are wrong.
First, let's look to the passage in question. I have found that in practically every case, when we look at the context, the so-called verse against Catholic teaching is explained away...
“I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, [and] giving of thanks, be made for all men, for kings, and [for] all that are in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and integrity. For this [is] good and pleasing in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires that all men be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth. For [there is only] one God and likewise [only] one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” 1 Tim 2:1-5
Notice the bold letters. In this very paragraph, Paul tells Timothy to INTERCEDE for others. The Greek word is "enteuxis", which means to pray for or plead on the behalf of others. This is exactly what the Church teaches us to do. In the mean time, in verse 5, the word "mediator", which in Greek is "mesites" means something totally different. According to Vines (a Protestant study tool), it is one who mediates between two parties with a view of producing peace. Vines continues "...for the salvation of men necessitated that the Mediator should Himself possess the nature and attributes of Him towards whom He acts, and should likewise participate in the nature of those for whom He acts (sin apart); only by being possessed both of deity and humanity could He comprehend the claims of the one and the needs of the other. (Vines Complete Expository Dictionary, pg400)
Only Jesus is the Mediator as Vines describes the Greek word "mesites". He IS the God-man. No one else is. The Greek word to intercede is totally different, and has the meaning of pleading on the behalf of another.
Paul cannot possibly mean that Chirst is the SOLE intercessor because he doesn't say that in 1 Tim - denying that in 1 Tim 2:1. Second, Jesus cannot be the SOLE intercessor because Paul mentions the Spirit, also, as an intercessor (Rom 8:26). Finally, the Greek words are totally different. Thus, it is a mistake, even from Scripture alone, to say that the Catholic practice of intercessionary prayers to the saints is incorrect or against the Bible. The icing on the cake is the very fact that they DID - as seen by archeological evidence found in the Catacombs of Rome and the writings of early Christians dating before 200 AD.
Regards
I thought so. We must steer the middle ground on this - not forgeting Whom God is, nor that He has given us a great dignity (as in Psalms 8 or Genesis 1).
that we must give ourselves totally to God and I will say that none of us does. The woman who gave her last two copper coins to God, gave little, but she gave everything to Him
Good point. To God, WHAT we give it immaterial. It is what it means to US, I believe. If it is out of surplus wealth, what sort of sacrifice is that?
but he makes sure to underscore that the Holy Spirit exists only from the Father, as does the Son
Rest assured the formula change NEVER meant to imply that we believe in TWO divine principles. But I understand that the word "and" can give that impression. That is why I, personally, thought "through" would make more sense, as then it more clearly describes the Spirit's origin within the Godhead from the Father. The beliefs we share from Nicea has not changed, just the wording. It is the belief, not the words, which are infallible. If there is an Ecumenical Council, perhaps we'll see a quick change there. I don't know what it would take to change the formula, ecclesiastically, but it would be a step forward, and would not deny anything of the faith.
Regards
It is clear that Scripture ALONE suggests both your point of view and a point of view that gives man free will. If you believe that the Scripture is the Word of God, you CANNOT just ignore verses that clearly tell us to choose between good and evil - or verses that tell us that we will be judged based on our deeds. That is why I think you will have to look at your system a bit and tweak it. Because quite honestly, you are ignoring lots of Scripture by saying man has not the free will to reject God. Might I suggest St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas? I doubt you will agree with Molina, but I think you will find a better fit among these Catholic theologians who try to take into account BOTH sides of what Scripture says. I think it is telling that the Church has not issued much in the way of dogma on this subject. Here, Harley, I honestly think we have reached a mystery of God - we really do not know the interaction between us and Him when we commit to an action.
I think if we do the best we can with what God has given us, we will be able to stand before the Judgment Seat of God and plead for His mercy with confidence that He will see that we tried to remain faithful to His calling, without understanding everything about it.
Regards
Harley is not familiar with the relevant book of the scripture:
14 And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle, and beasts of the earth: upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. 15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.16 To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee. 17 And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life. 18 Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herbs of the earth. 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.
(Genesis 3)
There is a curse on the Serpent, but no curse on mankind itself. Moreover, Eve's seed (or Eve herself in traditional translations like the one above) is foretold to prevail over the Serpent.
No, it is not so. Isolated verses in the Scripture might suggest absence of free will. The Scripture as a whole is clear on Man's faculty of free will. Harely goes not by Scripture alone but by 10% of the Scripture alone. Likewise, if you open your car manual where it described the engine, and find no reference to the steering wheel, you would be foolish to suggest that the car manual denies the presence of a steering wheel. Vice versa, if you only looked at the passages that describe the steering system, you would be wrong to conclude that cars have no engines.
You are asking Herley to read the entire Book. That is asking him to reject protestantism. There will be no sale.
I've heard you say this a couple of times. Luther was obviously aware that Romans specifically addresses this idea and categorically rejects it, so I don't understand how he could have held this view. Do you have a citation as to where this comes from?
His man-made "church" has since splintered and continues to splinter into thousands of groups that are separate from each other, each claiming the "true" and inerrant interpretation of the faith through the Bible.
I don't agree that this is a fair representation of the different Protestant churches. I know that we certainly don't look down on any other Bible-believing church and say "we're in and you're out". Of course some cults have formed over the years and we have nothing to do with them, but that is to be expected when there is freedom.
I don't suppose it occurs to you that babbling bizarre inectives about Martin Luther does little to cause anyone to come to your faith.
I appreciate you conversing with me on this. My goal is to make Catholicism understandable to others, not to convert. That’s not something I can do, I believe, anyway. But I think if I am able to clear away misperceptions, Protestants and Catholics can come closer together. That way, we can focus on the upcoming battle vs. our own society, the real enemy, in my opinion.
Well, I wouldn't imagine there would have been any protest at that time. Since, at the beginning, all new Christians were starting from scratch, there was nothing to which the early Christians could compare (in terms of other Christian thought). Those who accepted, simply accepted because that's all there was.
I disagree. Paul constantly was battling Judaizers who wanted to include all of the dietary rituals and circumcision as part of what was necessary to obtain salvation. Clearly, Christians heard them, as well as orthodox teachings. Elsewhere, such as Colossians, Paul seems to have been battling Greek philosophy. John and Jude also seem to be battling some form of Gnosticism, a corruption of the Gospel. Even in the very beginning, I believe we see that orthodoxy became very concerned about the TRUE message and that its contents would remain pure. For example:
“Whosoever rebels and does not abide in the doctrine of the Christ, does not have God. He that abides in the doctrine of the Christ, the same has the Father and the Son. If anyone comes unto you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into [your] house” 2 John 1:9-10
“holding fast the doctrine according to the faithful word, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. For there are many insubordinate and vain talkers and deceivers [of souls], especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths it is expedient to stop, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for dishonest gain” Titus 1:9-11
I'm not sure I understand your reference to "one generation". Was Luther's protest based on just what the early Christians were doing, or was it based on what he perceived to be gradual changes in the Church over time until a final straw was broken?
The question that people ask is “is the Catholic Church the continuation of the Church established by Jesus Christ in Matthew 16 or Matthew 28?” “Is it the same one from the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle writers?” Considering the time of the writings of the Scriptures, roughly the last half of the first century, to the beginning of the second century, is one generation.
Thus, if one believes that the Catholic Church is NOT the Church that claims continuity with the Apostles, we’d have to believe that that entire generation, in every community, had to change EXACTLY the SAME WAY!!! In other words, between 75 and 110 AD, people everywhere went from believing the Eucharist was symbolic (as Protestants claim that John 6 meant) to everywhere believing that it was Christ’s Real Presence with the writings of the first Church Fathers in 110-200 AD! It is quite ludicrous, considering these same men went to die by being thrown to LIONS for not giving a pinch of incense to Caesar. Thus, Christianity supposedly changed everywhere in one generation without a murmur of protest. That is what some people are claiming happened when they deny that the Catholic Church is the continuation of the Church established by the Apostles and Christ. Historically, it is unbelievable – and furthermore, it doesn’t take into account Christ’s OWN words – that the Spirit would guide the Church into all Truth!
There's the rub, what do you mean by "Church"? For you to be right, then when Jesus said "I am with you always", He would only be with Roman Catholics, not all Christians. I read it more broadly as referring to all ministers of the true gospel. If you make this distinction, then the rest of the NT really shouldn't have any meaning to a non-Catholic, because it wasn't written to them. You're saying that the Great Commission was only given to Roman Catholic hierarchy, not to the rest of us, not even to the Catholic laity. If Christ is not even with Catholic laity for the purpose of going out and teaching all nations, then why should a lay Catholic even bother to evangelize?
Good questions. There is only ONE Church established by Christ. It subsists (note, NOT “is”) the Catholic Church. Those are the words of Vatican 2. They were careful not to say that the Catholic Church IS that same Church. What does that mean? First, there is NOT another Church. Only one. It fully subsists in the Roman Catholic Church. Other communities of Christians can only claim to be of Christ in the degree that they subsist WITHIN the Catholic Church. This means that WE read the SAME Scriptures, the SAME Sacraments, the SAME apostolic succession, the SAME visible sign of unity, the Pope, the SAME interpretations of Scriptures, the SAME practices, the SAME liturgy, the SAME morality, the SAME eschatological beliefs, the SAME creeds. And so forth.
To the degree that we share in the above, you PERSONALLY are part of the Roman Catholic Church! Your Baptist community itself is not, but individually, the people there, are part of this same Catholic Church by some mysterious manner. How??? Because the Church, about 1750 years ago, said that even a heretic who baptizes using the proper formula and intent has actually brought a person INTO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH! Nearly two thousand years ago, this question came up, and the Pope declared that there was no need to re-Baptize heretics or those who had fallen away. They were in the Church - mysteriously, because they had the mark of the Holy Spirit.
Now, because you are somehow part of the Catholic Church, does that mean you do not have to be evangelized, or you don’t have to convert? No. God desires that ALL men (even Protestants!) come to the FULLNESS of the Truth. That truth is found ONLY within the visible Catholic Church. Why WOULDN’T I desire that my Protestant brothers share in the same beliefs, and share in the Eucharist? Why wouldn’t I desire that my separated brothers give their great talents to the rest of the visible Church? We, too, need people well-versed in Scriptures to teach the faithful. We need people who love the Scriptures. Thus, if we love, if we trust that we have the truth, than we ARE to continue the teachings of Matthew 28:20 and go out to everyone, even Protestants – we desire all men to share with us the graces God has given us through His Church.
I read (John 20:23) and it does appear to be problematic to my belief that only God can forgive sins, since the offense is against Him. I just can't square it against Mark 2:7. Yes, there the speakers were "teachers of the law" so it would be easy to say that they were simply wrong. However, Jesus speaks nothing of this error (if it is one). In fact, Jesus plays on the statement. The whole point here is to show that Jesus is revealing His identity by forgiving sins.
I think we can look at the parallel in Matthew 9 to get a good feel for what Christ is ALSO doing:
“But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.” (Mat 9:8)
Plainly, Jesus gave human beings the authority to heal physical ailments and forgive sins – in His name. We believe that what Christ did on earth as a man, we are to emulate – or at least we have the potential to emulate. Whether it is healing the sick or casting out demons, raising the dead, preaching the Word of God, forgiving sin, offering of ourselves to God, obeying His will, giving of ourselves totally to others, loving our neighbors, EVEN rising from the DEAD! Christ was/is the perfect man. And God. But what many people forget is the first part – Jesus was/is a man. By becoming a man, He showed us our true potential. He showed us what men are SUPPOSED to be like, what we are to do, what is our true worth to the Father in heaven. Man has a dignity beyond any other creature – some even argue beyond angels (since God didn’t die for the fallen angels).
Christ tells us that all power and authority had been given to Him by the Father. Jesus told them “Verily I say unto you, Whatever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in the heaven; and whatever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in the heaven.” (Mat 18:18). By seeing Jesus’ action in Mark 2 (and the rest of the synoptic Gospels), we see man has the potential to forgive sins. The crowds in Matthew's Gospel thought that a man was given the power to forgive sins! This proof was seen in the physical healing. If the Man-God can forgive sins, as a Man by the power given to Him by God, what is to prevent another man, the Apostles, from ALSO forgiving sins, if given the power to do so? We see that Christ DID give them that power. And by physically healing someone in the name of Christ (as the Apostles did in Acts), they ALSO could spiritually heal someone in the name of Christ (as the Apostles and their successors continue to do through Confession). Through Christ, thus, men have been given this power. “As the Father has sent me, so I send you…(John 20:21).
Another Scripture that might help here is the following: “Is anyone among you afflicted? let them pray. Is anyone happy? let them sing. Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray for him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall cause the one who is sick to be saved, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he shall be forgiven them.” James 5:13-15
Again, the priests have been given power to forgive sins. Here, as in Mark 2, we see that physical sickness and spiritual sickness are tied together, and God CAN heal BOTH if He desires THROUGH the ministry of reconciliation.
But here's what stumps me. You said that confession is not done to earn salvation. You said we have free will and that we must cooperate with God in our salvation. I thought it was also true that confession, and the other sacraments are absolutely required for salvation. Every good Catholic knows that you will take the sacraments if you expect to go to heaven. So, how can these acts be done, without the expectation of earning salvation through our free will choices to cooperate with God?
NO sacrament is ABSOLUTELY required to enter heaven. We are judged based on our love. We are judged on whether we abide in Christ or not at the time of our death. The sacraments are MEANS of receiving Christ’s love, His grace – not tickets to be punched before boarding the train to heaven. We go to receive the Eucharist BECAUSE we LOVE Christ and desire His presence in a special way, knowing that it is the source of our Christian life! We go to Confession because we know we have offended the Father and deeply desire to ask forgiveness and receive absolution. We desire to have our vocation (marriage) blessed by Christ. We (our wife and I) desire Christ to be part of our marriage. And upon our deathbed, if possible, we desire Christ to be with us on that final journey – our rebirth into eternal life through physical death. While many Catholics do not have those dispositions, that is what the Church teaches.
I know this is where the inner disposition idea that you have talked about before comes in. I just don't see how someone could go through all the sacraments with no thought of self, when it is well known that they are the only way to get to heaven. It is natural for the touched heart to long to be saved. A heart with grace is able to see the need for God. Won't such a heart do whatever it takes (lifelong sacraments)? I know there is no money involved, only something INFINITELY more valuable! How is this not earning?
As I have said, they are visible means to SEE Christ, to HEAR Christ, to TOUCH Him. Rather than an abstract concept, He comes to our senses, as well. We are body and soul. A heart with grace does not ALWAYS see the need for God. Recall Romans 7, where Paul himself notes that HE battles with his flesh. Grace does not eliminate our selfish desires entirely. It is a never-ending battle to develop virtue. Even devout Catholics have “poor” reception of the Eucharist. Sometimes, my mind is distracted, or I am not fully in-tune with my own need for His graces. I am human. But as I grow in knowledge and in virtue, as I purge away my selfish desires and attachments that keep me from placing God first, I find myself having better dispositions towards the sacraments and being better able to walk the walk. I don’t feel I am earning anything by receiving the Eucharist.
A way of looking at this is by looking at an analogy of our own humanity and someone we love. Take our wives. We pledge our love to them and consummate our vows that first night with sexual love. Does it end there? Don’t I desire to again re-affirm my love, to give of myself to my partner? By giving of myself to her, am I earning love? Love is the giving of oneself, not selfish needs being fulfilled. And in a similar sense, Christ gives of His Body to the Church through the Eucharist. We are to come to re-affirm our love with Him, to be closer to Him, to receive the graces He has promised to us by His indwelling. Thus, we repeat the sacrament over and over – but not to earn anything! We do it out of love and a deep desire to be with the one we love.
I don’t know if I answered all of your questions. If not, please write me. I am happy to help you understand our point of view on God and His love for us.
Brother in Christ
If he was compelled to sin and had no choice in it, he is "guilty" of what?
Yes, indeed...
Regards
I agree. There are individual snippets of Scripture that imply that God moves man. There are also individual snippets of Scripture that tell us man must choose between good and evil. By cutting and pasting verses, we will get nowhere. Thus, we have an infallible Church to tell us WHAT God's Word is on the subject. Because on SCRIPTURE ALONE, you really can't tell. There is enough evidence to support Harley's case, or Pelagius' view (by ignoring other Scriptures). That is why it is so critical to harmonize ALL of Scripture and interpret it through the Apostolic teachers that WROTE the Scripture...
Regards
1. Letter to Melanchthon, August 1,1521 (American Edition, Luther's Works, vol. 48,pp.281-82, edited by H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1963): "If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true [p.282] and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly.... as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin.... No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day."(emphasis added).2. Letter 501 to Melanchthon: "Pecca fortiter, sed crede fortius." In the light of the standard version of the first item above, we render: "Sin boldly (or bravely) but believe still more boldly (or bravely)."
(source)
Which reminds me, -- man has eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and indeed "[God] said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil" (Gen 3:22). Now, is Harley prepared to argue that man has the knowledge but cannot act on the knowledge? In the light of the fact that the first concrete action described in the Bible following the expulsion from Eden is a good deed, a thanksgiving offered to God? If Cain and Abel story describes anything at all, it is free will. One chooses to give a generous sacrifice. The other does not. God tries, and, amazingly, fails, to convince Cain to conquer the sin of anger (Gen 4:7). Cain succumbs to sin and kills Abel. God rebukes Cain, -- what hast thou done? I cannot see how the free moral agency of man can be described with greater clarity.
Incidentally, Cain is cursed, which also would make no sense unless the entire mankind, fathered by Seth, is not.
That is fine if that is the Catholic position, but scripture does not appear to support it:
2 Cor. 5:6-8 : "6 Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7 We live by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord."
As a status in either case, being "in the body and away from the Lord" is directly compared to being "out of the body and with the Lord". This leads directly away from any kind of waiting period idea.
Fifth, intercessionary prayers to the saints and angels are just that: asking those who pray to pray for us in heaven as we ask others to pray for us on earth.
I suppose that I have just never understood the need for this. I agree that God wants us to pray for others on earth, and that it is right and proper to ask someone here to pray for us. We are certain that it happens from personal experience. But to believe that there are saints and angels up there waiting for us to beseech them requires going outside of Biblical teaching. Why not just pray to God? Isn't a function of the Spirit to help you do just that? Do saints and angels have greater "pull" with God? Isn't every minute spent praying to a saint or angel a minute spent not praying to God?
Prayer to a saint is a prayer to God. It is true that if one says "Nah, I will not pray to God either directly or through Mary today; I'll pray to Mary as Mary instead", then he sins. But if one chooses to pray to Mary (or a saint) because he is specifically moved to do so, and asks for their intercession, nothing is taken away from God by that. There are verses that seem to suggest that a prayer of a saint is more efficacious than a prayer of a sinful man ("the continual prayer of a just man availeth much", James 5:16). At any rate, intercessory prayer is just another form of worshiping God, by Whose sovereign grace the saints were elected, and for Whose sovereign grace we plea.
A good example of intercessory prayer is the miracle at Cana where the servant addresses Mary and she intercedes for him with Christ. Another is when the centurion intercedes for his sick daughter. It is possible to interpret either so that to point out differences between them and intercessory prayers to saints, but that would be one interpretation among many.
In 2 Corinthians St. Paul says that we are in the body and away from the Lord, and that we'd rather be out of the body and in the Lord. Nowhere in the passage is an intermediary state excluded.
Are you familiar with the parable of an unmerciful debtor? His debts are forgiven because of his plea for mercy and he is released from slavery. That is salvation by faith granted by Christ. Next, through his own lack of mercy he is condemned again. But the second time he is condemned till his debt is paid in full. His family is not condemned the second time (naturally, they took advantage of the loan but did not participate in the harsh treatment of the secodnary debtor). Thus, the second condemnation is temporary and does not negate the absolute pardon received initially. The second condemnation is to prison, which suggests lack of will, i.e. death. This parable described the intermediate state of payment of debt, or purification, which the Catholics (but not the Orthodox) call purgatory.
The orthodox beliefs differ somewhat, but East and West agree that the beatific vision of the justified may not be immediately available to those who die in faith yet not sactified in the course of their lives.
No, he is saying that it was given to the Apostles, and that St. Peter was singled out as first among them (not in authority but in dignity), to lead the church after Christ left until His return. There was no Roman Catholic (or Orthodox) Church then! Just one Church founded by Christ.
Even though today it is not fully united, it is still one Church founded by Christ because the apostolic succession guarantees authority and validity of the priesthood, through whom the validity of sacraments is maintained.
My whole point was that you are claiming that "Christ's Church" is only the Roman Catholic/Orthodox Church (with maybe a few others). Whether or not they were called Roman Catholics at the time, through backward succession, you are saying that all the apostles were only Roman Catholic because they only transferred their power and authority to those who would eventually come to be known as Roman Catholics.
You don't even think I attend a real "church", and certainly not a church of Christ. When our pastor performs the Lord's Supper, you would say it is in complete error because my pastor has no power or authority as compared to a priest. To be in or serve Christ, it is your show or no show. So, that's why I say to you that since you claim the apostles only for yourselves, God was only sending out Catholics into the world, not the rest of us.
OK, from what you said I can agree that an intercessor is different from the one mediator. Clearly, we pray for each other all the time, and this is good to God. So in that sense I can agree. Thanks for the explanation.
And, wouldn't you say there is quite a difference between asking a live friend to pray for you and asking a person who's been dead for hundreds of years to pray for you? You have said that the practice was done, but I don't see that as making it right. Indulgences were done too. Does the Bible support it, or is it fully a tradition? As I said in a post to Kosta (written after you wrote this post), why is praying to the dead for intercession necessary?
So, you thought I was making it up?
BTW thanks annalex for beating me to the post. Very impressive.
The error of Luther was his rationalization. Rationalization leads to rationalism, not faith. Luther figured that since we are slaves to sin, we shouldn't even try to not sin. He excused our sin! By denying the free will, he did exactly what Adam did -- arrogantly transferred the responsibility for our disobedience and ingratitude to God on God! So, he said, since God made me a sinner, I will boldly continue to sin, but as long as I give all the credit to God for my sin, He will save me. Truly grotesque!
But, the Church history is full of people who have sinned a lot less than your average bear. We call them saints. They are real Christian action heroes. We look upon them with hope because they show us that we can be holier than our nature makes us through their faith and complete devotion to God. The Ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of God, lived without sin. She was not some God-made robot, but a mortal human being who chose not to sin. Which is why the Protestants consider her just another woman in the Bible! After all, she doesn't fit the Protestant notion that we can't chose anything, especially not to sin. I suppose if we are all robots with pre-programmed minds and acts, we are all the same, right?
I know, you will come out with another quote, such as "none is righteous, not one..." but when we accept God we are, and what we do with the faith with our talents makes us less than equal when it comes to achieving the likeness of Christ. And, unlike your confused founder, Martin Luther, we truly believe that few shall find the path, not because God pre-ordained only a few, but because only a few of us will be humble enough to achieve the likeness of Christ.
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.