Where Does the Bible Say We Should Pray to Dead Saints?

catholic-convert ^ | July 11, 2012 | Steve Ray

[NYer]

Are saints who have physically died “dead saints” or are they alive with God?

A friend named Leonard Alt got tired of being hammered by anti-Catholic Fundamentalists on this issue so he decided to write this article. I thought you might enjoy it too, so here it goes…

Leonard writes: I wrote this note after several days of frustration with people, on Facebook, saying that saints can’t do anything, because they are dead. They seem to be leaving out the fact that the souls live on. ENJOY!

Dead and gone? Where is his soul-his person?

An antagonist named Warren Ritz asked, “Who are the “dead in Christ”, if not those who walked with our Lord, but who are now no longer among the living?” He is correct; the “dead in Christ” are those saints who have physically died. “For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess 4:16).

THE CONCEPT OF LIVING SAINTS CAN DO HARM TO THE “JESUS ALONE” DOCTRINE. From some people’s point of view, people who have died are classified as “dead saints,” who can do nothing. They are no longer a force to reckon with; they can no longer appear; they cannot talk nor do other things. These same people don’t want the saints who have died doing anything because this would be another reason why the Protestant doctrine, “JESUS ALONE” fails. If the so-called “dead saints” do anything then it is not “JESUS ALONE,” but Jesus and the saints cooperating. And it would also mean that the so-called “dead saints” are in fact not dead, but alive with God.

Dead or in paradise?

HIS PHYSICAL BODY DIED BUT HIS SOUL LIVED ON. But, are the Saints who have gone before us alive with God or are they truly “dead saints” who can do nothing as some would suggest? Yes, their bodies are dead, but their souls live on. For example Jesus said to one of the criminals on the cross next to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Lk 23:43). Yes, that day, this man became the dead in Christ because his physical body died on his cross; however, Jesus said that today, this man would be with Him in paradise. He was no “dead saint” because his soul was alive in Christ in Paradise.

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob alive and concerned for their descendants

HE IS THE GOD OF THE LIVING. One person alluded to Mark 12:26-27 saying “Jesus is the God of the living, not of the dead” in an attempt to show that Jesus cannot be the god of those who have died; after all he says “Jesus is the god of the living.” However, he left out three people who were no longer alive in verse 26; Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. God said that He was their God. And so does that mean that God is the God of the dead? No; “He is not God of the dead but of the living.”

• “God told him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, (the) God of Isaac, and (the) God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead but of the living. You are greatly misled” (Mk 12: 26-27).

Abraham Isaac and Jacob are physically dead and yet their souls are alive because their God is not God of the dead but of the living and thus do not qualify as “dead saints.”

Moses was dead and buried. How could he talk to Jesus about future events on earth?

WHEN MOSES AND ELIJAH APPEARED WERE THEY DEAD OR ALIVE? There are those who insist that saints who have died are nothing more than “dead saints” who can do nothing. I usually ask them this question. When Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration, were they dead or alive? “And behold, two men were conversing with him, Moses and Elijah” (Lk 9:30). Not bad for a couple of so-called “dead saints;” not only did they appear, but they were talking as well. The question that I asked usually goes unanswered.

SORRY LEONARD…YOU HAVE A BAD ARGUMENT. Bill says, “As Ecclesiastes says the dead have nothing more to do under the sun…sorry Leonard…you have a bad argument.” He is using this as definitive Biblical proof that people on the other side cannot do anything once they have died. After all, Ecclesiastes does say, “For them, love and hatred and rivalry have long since perished. They [the dead] will never again have part in anything that is done under the sun” (Eccles 9:6).

When a person dies their body is in the grave; it is dead. They can no longer work under the sun, in this world. However, Ecclesiastes 9:6 is not a prohibition against the activity of the person’s soul, which lives on. This of course begs the question; is there any indication of personal activity of a soul after death, in Scripture?

How did the bones of a dead guy bring another dead guy back to life?

Yes, there are a number of examples and here is one of them. Elisha after dying performed marvelous deeds. In life he [Elisha] performed wonders, and after death, marvelous deeds (Sir 48:14). “Elisha died and was buried. At the time, bands of Moabites used to raid the land each year. Once some people were burying a man, when suddenly they spied such a raiding band. So they cast the dead man into the grave of Elisha, and everyone went off. But when the man came in contact with the bones of Elisha, he came back to life and rose to his feet” (Kings 13:20-21).

Using, Ecclesiastes 9:6 as a prohibition against all soul activity after death is to use the verse out of context and at odds with other parts of the Bible. Ecclesiastes 9:6 is referring to the physical body that has died, not the soul that lives on. Elisha, after death performed marvelous deeds. It can’t be much clearer than that!

The saints are not dead but alive in the presence of their Lord Jesus and part of the praying Mystical Body of Christ

JESUS NEVER CLAIMED THAT THOSE WHO HAVE DIED ARE “DEAD SAINTS.” Jesus understood well that when someone dies, they will live and in fact those who live and believe in him WILL NEVER DIE.

“Jesus told her, “I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this” (Jn 11:23-26)?

This union, with the saints on this side and the saints on the other side is referred to as the communion of saints in the Apostles Creed. Those who insist that “dead saints” can’t do anything because their bodies have physically died seem not to understand that their souls live on and are very involved.

So, where does the Bible say we should pray to dead saints? I would ask, Where does the Bible say saints are dead?

[mitch5501]

Great quote from Spurgeon.

"We hold that man is never so near grace as when he begins to feel he can do nothing at all"

(Heb 4:11) "Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest...."..."For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his." (Heb 4:10)

[GopherIt]

Just above your comment is a thread about cats trying to understand a treadmill. Hope you saw the video.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3044743/posts

[Heart-Rest]

"Also, I’m sorry if reading a lot of Scripture troubles you. Your attitude isn’t all that surprising. Rome kept the Scriptures from the people for centuries and attacked those godly men who had the temerity to translate it into the vulgar tongues. Rome still doesn’t emphasize the Word."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

No, seeing a lot of Scripture doesn't bother me at all.    I study the written Word of God every day.    Rather, it is when a person deceitfully hops around through various "proof texts" here and there to "prove" something that bothers me.

For example, watch what I do here, in direct imitation of you:

Luke 10:38 - Now as they went on their way, he entered a village; and a woman named Martha received him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his teaching.

Deuteronomy 22:24 - Then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones.

I've just "proved" that Mary and Martha should have been stoned to death.    Pretty despicable, huh?

Do you see how ridiculous and dishonest it is to use Sacred Scripture that fraudulent way?

Now take a look at post #1308 from Elsie. She proves there from the Bible that you are completely wrong, and that sin CAN cause you to lose your salvation. If you want some more scriptural "proof" about that, check out this web site. They list a lot more texts than you do that prove that your interpretations of scripture are totally wrong.

   Calvinism Refuted

(By the way, your assertion that the Catholic Church did not allow translations of the Bible into the vernacular, is completely FALSE - and you know where all falsehoods come from. It has been refuted so many times, I'm quite surprised you are still trying to assert it. For example, here are a couple web sites that discuss that issue -- there are over a million other web sites that discuss that too).

• Early History Of The Bible

• Why Did the Catholic Church Prevent Vernacular Bible Translations?

And, metmom, in your exalted opinion of yourself (as expressed in your posts in this thread), you profess the great superiority of your reading skills.    Please put those superior reading skills to good use by reading these references also.

[Heart-Rest]

"(PSST... ignore some of our ignoble popes. They were some REALLY bad dudes!)

Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]

Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.

Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy

Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]

Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]

Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]

Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_Popes"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It would be hard to find better proof that God is protecting His Catholic Church than pointing out that all these "bad popes" could not change or destroy the teachings of God's Catholic Church.    (Sort of like proving that a bad guy like Judas Iscariot could not destroy the teachings of Jesus Christ, even though he helped get Him murdered.)    Thanks Elsie!

Gotta go to work now.    Have a great day!

[.45 Long Colt]

Thank you, FRiend. For the believer His word is milk for the soul, and for the unbeliever it is a sword that will lay them low.

I am amused and saddened when people spout off on doctrines they obviously know nothing about and have never opened the Book to study. “Once saved always saved” was casually thrown out as a point of division among Protestants., as if that is proof of anything. They forget, if they ever knew, the words of the Apostle Paul, “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” (1 Cor 13:12)

There is much nonsense in this thread, so I decided to seize the opportunity to show, from Scripture, to Protestant and Catholic alike, how “Perseverance of the Saints” is a most biblical doctrine. Most will totally ignore what I said or the Scriptures cited. But our sovereign God has promised that His word never returns void.

“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:11)

I bet you will agree with me that the only thing I can say here that will be of any eternal value whatsoever, that might be any blessing, is that which is in accordance with His Word. My opinions don’t matter one wit, all that matters on any debate such as the one we are having is what God has said on the issue. I don’t care what a parent, pastor, professor, philosopher, priest, potentate, or pope has said. I care only what God said. Therefore it seems imperative to develop our doctrine from Scripture. If our doctrine is not supported from Scripture we know it isn’t from God.

Also, it is rich for Roman Catholics to point to disputes within Protestantism. At one point in their history there were three men claiming the papacy simultaneously. Centuries of murder and intrique litter the history of Rome. Calvinists such as Whitefield locked arms with the Arminian Wesley, they didn’t take up arms or resort to arsenic.

[mitch5501]

"Therefore it seems imperative to develop our doctrine from Scripture"

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth" (John 17:17)

[.45 Long Colt]

Amen and Amen!

[daniel1212]

The source [http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm] you use is from a dissident Jesuit priest who is strongly against many of the teachings of the Catholic Church. Do you really think it is honest and ethical to use a source who is highly suspect due to being against the organization he is reporting on?

Your own site review does not establish any fabrication, but lists his Roman Catholic Lectionary as one if its strengths. And if he and his school and site is so dangerous, where is the Scriptural discipline? Show me another site that proves his numbers and calculations are specious or stop engaging in the typical RC charge of fabrication when faced with evidence that impugns the picture of Rome they seek to promote.

Remember, daniel1212, that (of course) Protestants don't have daily church services.

Irrelevant as few RCs do daily mass, and in which you still will not go through much of the Bible, while Evangelicals - which what i said Madrid was trying to mimic - go to church more and engage in much more Bible reading.

But leaving that aside, your fixation on numbers is analysis based on, pardon the expression, a crock of nonsense.

Rather, the numbers show any idea that RCs are intent on Scripture study is nonsense. Again, not only did Rome historically hinder Bible literacy among the laity, but Bible reading by RCs today is among the lowest, competing with like institutionalized Prot churches. In addition, despite using some Scripture, assurance of RC teaching is not dependent on the weight of Scriptural substantiation.

using that same logic, you would have to say that Jesus Christ Himself was a complete failure, as most of the people alive in His days of walking in the flesh in the Holyland rejected Him.

Not so, as unlike those who rejected the Lord, Rome counts and treats these nominal souls - which make of the majority - as members in life and in death. Including the Jesuit priest you spurn. And for every Ted Kennedy that she does so to, she teaches the rest that this is what her rules mean, while you present an inaccurate picture of what typifies RCs.

Well, being a lector, you did some Mass readings, just like the "Scribes" and "Pharisees" did Scriptural readings in synagogues when Jesus walked in the flesh in the Holyland.

How typical. Having vainly tried to deny the evidence that refutes your characterization of RCs, you now must resort to an ad hominem attack and liken me to the "Scribes" and "Pharisees," when in reality it is Rome which most acts like them.

As such, you should be aware that there are many more readings done during a Mass than are done during typical Protestant church services

Rather, what you are not aware of is that first, i did not say Madrid was trying to sound like a Protestant, which today is used so broadly as to include Mormons, but an evangelical. For while you are stuck with liberal members we can separate from such overall and join with those whom we share a common gospel conversion Scripture based relationship with the Lord.

Second, Bible emphasis and literacy is not based on how many texts are read in church services or in a teacxhing, but also sound exposition of it. Rather than reading a few truncated texts with a 10-12 minute homily, sometimes unrelated to what has been read, and the liberal theology that abounds in Rome, or misusing Scripture as Madrid does in order to support PTDS which is not seen in Scripture (cults do likewise), the pastor in the Baptist church i am going to spends about an hour exegeting his way through the, presently John with related texts, while a previous pastor typically went thru about 60 Scriptures in his church service.

And rather than the typical send or third place status (after the magisterium and tradition) Scripture is conveyed to have among RCs, what is conveyed in evangelical/fundamental type churches is that Scripture has primacy and it is expected that the members study on their own. And Bible teaching ministries also abound.

And you would have to be aware (if you were paying attention during Mass) that the rest of the Mass is simply saturated with Sacred Scripture

Saturated? Perhaps you can say his because the Mass is so short that its few readings and sparse commentary (optional in daily masses) seem like much, but it is not. The daily mass for today July 18 contains 9 verses of reading, which is about what my pastor reads just as a prelude to his prayer, plus 8 verses in responses and bits in other places, part of which is redundant in every Mass. Even with the rote Lord's (disciples) prayer that is not much reading, besides the superficial exegesis.

(And you would HAVE to be aware of the great reverence Catholics show to the Scriptures, unless you weren't paying attention. I'm sure you will agree that denying that would be VERY dishonest.

Absurd. You are bordering on insolence. Even your own approved notes in your official Bible dishonor Scripture by impugning its authority, while the way Catholics show great reverence show to the Scriptures is to avoid studying much of it. And it is my observation that in the Mass most manifestly go thru perfunctory professions to get the wafer, and go home, rather than the idea that RCs are like evangelicals when it comes to Scripture study.

(Remember also that statistics often just lie.

Here it is. RCs quote stats as proof when it serves their cause but faced with state multiple studies from multiple recognized sources, some even Catholic sponsored, which impugn Rome, then they say they likely lie. Sorry, but i think the lying would be if you can find any that really show the opposite, because that would be a exception.

Satan knows the Bible much better than you do daniel1212, and he could run circles around you giving Bible quotes, so don't feel too much pride there.

So Madrid is positively invoked as an example of giving Bible quotes, but if evangelicals know the Bible then they are to be compared with the devil?

Also, remember that most of the original 12 Apostles Jesus picked were NOT Scripture scholars, but mere laborers and peasants.

That they were "Scripture scholars" is exaggeration, while mere laborers and peasants is misleading, for as Jews they would be likely be able to read and taught Scripture. Even of Greek Timothy the Holy Spirit states, "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. " (2 Timothy 3:15) And it was not of tradition that the Lord substantiated Himself from and opened the understanding of the disciples (and not just the apostles) to, but Scripture, (Lk. 24:44,45)

And, remember too, not one of those original 12 Apostles knew one single line from the epistles of Paul when the Chruch was first formed by Jesus Christ.

Irrelevant, as Scripture is abundantly evidenced to have been the standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, and thus evidences and provides for writings being established as Scripture based upon their Divine qualities and attestation (thus most of Scripture was established as such by the time of Christ), as well as (according to principle) recognizing an absence of any like unto cessation.

God will not judge people based on how close they come to having Satan's superior Scriptural knowledge, and, thank God, He will not consult you when He conducts His judgments.

But God will judge disparaging Scriptural knowledge by such nasty remarks in response to the reality that the Lord and His apostles established their claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

Have you ever seriously considered how extremely significant and sobering some of the differences between various Protestant denominations and groups really are?

Invalid. Certainly there are differences, but first, you cannot compare one particular denomination - which is what Rome effectively is - with many others, and unity among RCs is not necessary greater than any other. But the issue re unity is the basis for unity, that of Scripture being supreme versus the church being the supreme authority (sola ecclesia).

And have you ever seriously considered how extremely significant and sobering some of the differences are between those that hold to the latter, which model cults also hold to. Even the differences btwn the Latin and Byzantine rite extend to no less an issue than universal papal jurisdiction and papal infallibility, besides purgatory, indulgences, and the Immaculate Conception, among other things

In addition, not only do we but RCs themselves abound in things they can and do disagree in, as they must engage in interpretation even as which level a magisterial teaching falls under, and thus what manner of assent is required, and to some degree what they mean, besides things not clearly defined, including Scripture texts. .

Meanwhile, sola ecclesia cults show the greatest unity, which itself is not the goal, and comprehensive doctrinal unity has never been realized by the church. But the most essential unity of the Spirit is that of Christ in each believer and they in Christ, (Jn. 17:21) and which evangelical unity is what we do not have with RCs, as they do not have a shared conversion and consequent Scripture based relationship .

If the latter group of Protestants is right [about "once saved, always saved",], the former group of Protestants is in some deep, deep trouble, and it behooves the latter group of Protestants to strongly WARN the former group of Protestants, or the salvation of their souls may be in deep, deep jeopardy (based on those completely irreconcilable differences). Don't you agree?

More serious is whether they ever were born again, by coming to God with a broken and contrite heart and placing all their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ to save them as damned + destitute sinners, and thus follow Him.

RCs are typically not even in danger of losing salvation, as they never had it, but believe they were made children of God via sprinkling of water on the basis of proxy faith, and much trust in their merit and that of their church to gain them eternal life, as extensive interaction with the will reveal. As for OSAS, the idea that one can be saved by a faith that does not effect characteristic obedience towards its Object, manifesting "things which accompany salvation," (Heb. 6:9) is not what Reformers taught , contrary to the typical RC straw man of sola fide, and was and is to be condemned.

That God also warns believers of having an evil heart of unbelief and making Christ of no effect, and drawing back into perdition by holding to a false gospel or impenitence willful sinning, versus holding fast the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end, (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:14,15) is also true. As is faith that God will perfect that which concerneth the believer as he walks in faith, (Ps. 138:8; 1Cor. 1:8; 11:32; Phil. 1:4; 1Thes. 5:24) and chastise them that they may repent when they do not 1Cor. 11:32; Rv. 2:4,5) And that believers may know that they now have eternal life, based upon what is written re evidences and God's faithfulness. (1Jn. 5:13) Rome allows that by special revelation it can be known whom God hath chosen unto Himself.

[metmom]

Official Catholic teachings have never been contradictory in over 2,000 years. What do you think that could mean, Elsie?

OK. The can someone be saved outside the Catholic church?

[metmom]

I could find no better proof that Satan is protecting at church than the fact that men like that are its leaders and called the *vicar of Christ*.

[Elsie]

Official Catholic teachings have never been contradictory in over 2,000 years. What do you think that could mean, Elsie?

uh...

Someone hasn't studies very hard?

I seem to remember a little something called the COUNTER Reformation from history class.

[verga]

Where do you get the idea that space will end???

Do yo9u believe that when the World ends that God will keep the rest of the universe?

Further how can the earth/ universe exist, if time/ duration ends?

[CynicalBear]

>>You also seem to be plugging in the word "ONLY" here from your own mind, not from the words of Jesus Christ.<<

No, I didn’t add the word “only”. It’s that I didn’t add “and anyone who claims they are in the same position as the apostles” like the RCC does. I get that from other parts of scripture. He said often in scripture not to add or take away from what He commanded or said.

Deuteronomy 4:2 2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Even Paul admonished the Corinthians to not go beyond what is written.

1 Corinthians 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

>>He by no means is limiting the capabilities of the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit to just what He stated in that brief sentence.<<

Of course He’s not limiting the capabilities of the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit. He is however not including the claim of the RCC that others can add to what scripture says. If that had been the case there would be an additional statement that those “remembrances and teachings” would be given to others as well.

It’s the RCC that has added to what scripture teaches. They have added to what God commanded as well just as the Pharisees had done for which Jesus chided them.

[CynicalBear]

>>The Bible says (in Ephesians 5:22-33) that the Church is like the bride of Christ, and that Chirst loved the Church, and gave Himself up for her.<<

It most certainly does. The only problem you have with your statement is that “church” is not found in scripture and even the translations that include church do not capitalize the word.

Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church [ekklēsia]: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto you as a heathen man and a tax collector.

The word there is “ekklēsia” which means an assembly or congregation. The RCC or any organization like it is NOT what is referred to there.

>>It does not seem very prudent to refer to that Church which Christ loved so much as "the whore of Babylon".<<

I have not fallen under the cultic oppression and lies of the RCC to believe that it is the “body of Christ”. With it’s inclusion of paganism it cannot possibly be the “body of Christ” and is most likely the whore of Babylon as described in Revelation.

[CynicalBear]

It does after all say the whore and her daughters doesn’t it. The Protestant churches did after all “come out of” the Catholic Church. Some of the practices of the Protestant churches also are derived from paganism.

[boatbums]

Once again, Luther did not remove any books from the Bible. There is no “Luther Subset of Scripture”. Do you need that link again? I’d be more than happy to provide it for you so you can avoid sounding ignorant next time....that is, unless you LIKE being wrong and telling everyone about it. That sounds like a form of self worship right there!

[CynicalBear]

Self-Alone Born again folks who claim have no need for the Catholic Church and only need the Bible are in fact relying on the Catholic Church an implement of God having been led by the Holy Spirit when it put together and protected the Scripture we call the New Testament.

There, fixed it for ya. The Catholic Church was an implement of God just as Judas was. It also turned on Christ, went for the moneyh and incorporated paganism into it’s religion.

>>refuse to accept the same Scripture Christ and the Apostles used and quoted<<

Would like those examples from scripture please.

[Rashputin]

I see, Jesus Christ and the Apostles were wrong but you are right. Thank you for clearing that up.

I'm sure you must be very proud of yourself for knowing more than not only Christ and the Apostles, but all the Jews prior to 100 AD, every Christian prior to Luther, and every Catholic to this day.

[boatbums]

(PSST... ignore some of our ignoble popes. They were some REALLY bad dudes!)

How ironic that we are told repeatedly that no one can be saved who doesn't obey and be under the rule of the Pope of Rome (the so-called successor to St. Peter) but, when these many examples are given that pretty clearly show some of these dudes were FAR from the leaders they claimed to be WHILE they were in the position of Pope, we get the "well, all we are sinners" excuse and the "well, they didn't make any ex cathedra statements on faith or morals" rationalization.

How many times have Catholics here used the verse about taking a dispute with a brother to the "church" - thereby asserting Paul meant the hierarchy of the church (i.e., the magesterium including the Pope) has ALL authority to decide on matters of faith and morals? Yet, when it can be shown conclusively that this very same magesterium consisted of some of the worst characters ever known to history, we are diverted down another rabbit hole and they wipe the sweat from their brow as they imagine another accountability demand is averted. What a racket!

[Rashputin]

To: Rashputin

Please don’t ping me again. I will return the favor.

1,891 posted on Friday, December 21, 2012 12:38:42 by CynicalBear

---

People who cannot keep their word are by definition untrustworthy.