Posted on 08/02/2017 2:07:44 PM PDT by detective
On another thread one of your fellow Roman Catholics says ya'll don't pray to the saints.
Catholics do not pray to a relative that died a day ago.
Why not?? What's the difference in the Roman Catholic view of praying to someone who died yesterday or someone who died 200 years ago?
‘O gentle and loving St. Anthony, whose heart was ever full of human sympathy, whisper my petition into the ears of the sweet Infant Jesus, who loved to be folded in your arms;’
Can anyone explain this to me? I thought Anthony lived many centuries after the birth of Christ?
[Link to the St. Anthony prayer:
http://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=163]
There you go cherry-picking again. Luther was a Catholic priest and he spewed a lot of lies also.
Why not??
Look up Church Triumphant and Church Suffering. You'll find your answer there.
Didn’t think you could answer it. And you proved it.
I answered it. I can’t help it if you’re too lazy to research the Church you so hate.
Your understanding of Tradition is erroneous. The examples you give do not constitute any argument at all against a coherent Apostolic Tradition as regards liturgy, let alone doctrine.
For instance, when speaking of the Liturgy for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it is perfectly obvious that there are different customs and different rites. (You announce this as if it would be news to me!).
There are 22 official Capital-R Rites (that is to say, major, historically distinguishable liturgical traditions) in the Catholic Church, including the Chaldean, the Coptic, the Mozarabic, the Melkite, the Maronite, the Greek Catholic Byzantine, etc., as well as different Eucharistic Canons in use within a single ritual tradition, e.g. the Latin (Western) Church uses a variety of canons.
It’s not the tiny distinctives that constitute Apostolic Tradition,( e.g. whether you cross yourself from right to left or from left to right, whether you have an Iconostasis or Rood Screen or a Communion Rail or whether you receive Communion standing or kneeling, etc.). What makes it Apostolic Tradition is the basics which we all share, across the continents, the cultures and the centuries, which come from the Apostolic teaching whether in Antioch or Lyons or Jerusalem or Alexandria, or Ctesiphon or Cadiz or Milan or Crete or Constantinople or Hippo or Rome.
The reason I list the mini-geographical gazette is that what we’re looking for is not uniformity of language, expression and culture (impossible) but the amazing agreement on the basics, which is why all these far-flung churches are said go be IN COMMUNION WITH EACH OTHER.
What are these amazing commonalities? Brother, it would take a library and a lifetime -— but it comes down to these basic points:
*Hierarchical structure: the faithful assembled around their bishop
*Eucharistic realism: the Real Presence of Christ -—Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity ,-— in the Sacrifice of the Mass (or Divine Liturgy or however they want to call it)
*The Sacramental life
*the various Creeds (which preceded the Canon of the NT and determined the Canon of of the NT )-— It is essential to grasp that the Creeds determined what is accepted as Scripture, and not t’other way around: Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, etc.
*the veneration of holy persons, holy places, and holy things
*distinctive doctrines about Mary -— her status as the handmaid of the Lord her Savior, her ever-virginity, her sinlessness, her Assumption (or Dormition or however it is variously termed) whether it is formally defined or undefined
*intercessory prayer understood to include the whole Body of Christ, and not just the minority of members who happen to be walking around on the earth right now
*praying for the faithful departed, and asking the blessed in heaven to pray with us and for us.
I’m on my Kindle and away from my computer, so I don’t have access to my links and resources, and this is generated out of my memory and incomplete even as an outline.
It is necessary to grasp the basics before you are equipped to have a sensible opinion about liturgies, rites, and the development of doctrine.
I’m trying to supply you with the bare-minimum historic perspective. All the truths here are due to the Holy Spirit’s promised guidance of the Church.
All the obscurity, inadequacy or error is my own!
Absolutely.
Jesus spoke to Moses and Elijah. Was that necromancy?
If you are going to pray to God the Father, then why go to Mary at all?
Don't you think He's going to answer you?
Do you not believe the promises Jesus made about the Father hearing and answering our prayers Himself?
Do you think Mary's going to get you something that God Himself wouldn't give you?
If you are going to pray to God the Father, then why go to Mary at all?
Don't you think He's going to answer you?
Do you not believe the promises Jesus made about the Father hearing and answering our prayers Himself?
Do you think Mary's going to get you something that God Himself wouldn't give you?
Is it not the theory that the disciples passed on everything they new to the next generation? Everything the Apostles knew they handed down....this rules out any new doctrines.
Yet we see the development of new doctrines in Roman Catholicism.
The examples you give do not constitute any argument at all against a coherent Apostolic Tradition as regards liturgy, let alone doctrine.
Beg to differ.
If one cannot trace the origins of one of their most important sacraments then that doesn't bode well for "Apostolic Tradition".
*distinctive doctrines about Mary -— her status as the handmaid of the Lord her Savior, her ever-virginity, her sinlessness, her Assumption (or Dormition or however it is variously termed) whether it is formally defined or undefined
Yet as already shown....the Marian doctrines only came about starting in the 3rd/4th centuries....some even later. The "Immaculate Conception" is not found in Scripture as already noted by the Catholic Encyclopedia online and a number of the ECFs say she was a sinner. Somehow what Rome thinks is so clear is not.
Regarding the Assumption....again, the Newadvent notes, "Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known."
In regards to the Feast of the Assumption celebrated by Roman Catholicism the Newadvent notes:
Regarding the origin of the feast we are also uncertain. It is more probably the anniversary of the dedication of some church than the actual anniversary of Our Lady's death. That it originated at the time of the Council of Ephesus, or that St. Damasus introduced it in Rome is only a hypothesis.
Two of the most sacred dogmas of Rome, and two of the known ex cathedra statements of the pope, cannot show a clear and direct teaching from the Apostles!
Roman Catholics believe it just because they want to believe it.
But what is believed is wrong!
There was no "handing down" from Paul and the other Apostles.
*Hierarchical structure: the faithful assembled around their bishop
Not witnessed in the NT church. It was a later development as noted numerous times.
*the veneration of holy persons, holy places, and holy things
Not attested to in the NT church. These were later developments as noted previously.
*intercessory prayer understood to include the whole Body of Christ, and not just the minority of members who happen to be walking around on the earth right now
And again not witnessed in the NT church.
Keep trying Mrs. D.....keep trying.
Please read this passage of Scripture.
Matthew 17
.
"1. And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
2.And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
3. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
4. Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles;
one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
5. While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said,
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
6. And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.
My wish for you, is when you read this passage, you understand what it portends for you personally.
You spend a lot of time on this forum arguing for the worship of Mary. The praying to Mary. The bowing before Mary.
Here, we have two men appearing from Heaven itself that were far greater than Mary was and yet God himself tells these men who suggested building temples for humans, that it was HIS SON who was to be listened to, and heard.
That has to have some meaning to you.
My prayer for you is that when you try to sleep tonight you will remember these true disciples falling on their face before a Holy God in abject fear, because they KNEW for sure now that Jesus is the Messiah.
God wasn't sharing His Glory or his Son's glory with any human being.
Think about what your glorifying of Mary truly is, what God thinks about it, and what it says about your view of The Messiah.
.
They love “Mary” more than they love eternal life.
.
I just can’t go along with that Mary stuff. It’s painful to even read the Savior denigrated in favor of Mary.
No one “worships” the Blessed Mother. The Catholic bishops were not worshipping her. They were praying for Divine intercession.
***
Then why not pray directly to the Lord? The line is open; why go through an intermediary when the Lord has given his children a direct line to Jesus and the Father?
Like many other thing that have been shown you in refutation yet you simply ignore and post your propaganda again, nowhere in Scripture did anyone but pagans pray to anyone else in Heaven except God, despite the Holy Spirit's descriptiveness, and inspiring approx. 200 prayers in Scripture, and despite teaching much about access to God and intercession (as in Hebrews) and despite instruction on who to pray to, and despite there always being plenty of heavenly beings to pray to.
Nor does Scripture actually teach that those in heaven prayed for those on earth, though even doing so does not translate into them being prayed to.
As well, St Paul exhorted his converts frequently to hold fast to the traditions
Out of which Caths imagine they can extrapolate a basis for Rome teaching all sorts of traditions not seen in Scripture. However there is nothing in such admonitions to keep traditions that even infers that these traditions refer to teachings that were not written elsewhere or would be, and the manifest fact that writing was God's chosen means of sure preservation (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Ps. 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Lk. 24:44,45; Acts 17:11) indicates such would be.
Moreover, SS preachers can also enjoin obedience to oral teaching under the premise that it be Scriptural, as was the case with apostolic preaching. Yet men such as the apostles could also speak as wholly inspired of God, and provide new revelation, which neither SS preachers nor pope claim to do.
Requiring submission to wholly inspired preaching which is even subject to testing by Scripture is simply not the same thing as ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility whereby something like the Assumption must be believed, even though it was so lacking in even early historical testimony that (Ratzingers attested) Roman scholars disallowed it as being apostolic tradition .
As you also have been showed. But Catholicism uses "tradition" to support her tradition that tradition is the word of God whenever she says it is. But which is no more true than it is for Judaism, which also invokes it.
So it was obvious to them that they should go the successors of their Apostolic founders for guidance.
here were no manifest apostolic successors voted for after Matthias was chosen for Judas (even though James was martyred: Acts 12:1,2), which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33)
Rome's so-called apostolic successors even fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12)
They knew, too, that Jesus had promised this authority to the Church, against which the gates of hell would not prevail.
The Lord nowhere promised the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, and thus that whatever she declares is the word of God out of her amorphous oral tradition is so.
We assuredly know what public revelation was from God by it being recorded in wholly inspired Scripture, which exposes the Catholic deformation of the NT church.
No, they think since Mary is “the mother of God”, He has to do what she tells him.
***
Which is witchcraft/sorcery, plain and simple.
Bodleian Girl, your mis-characterization of my beliefs is so head-slappingly wrong, it’s hard to know where to begin.
You say that I “spend a lot of time on this forum arguing for the worship of Mary.” I have never in my life argued for the worship of Mary, or of any human person.
I no more worship Mary than I worship you.
I can see that you either don’t know, or don’t care, about the meaning of words we both need to use in the same sense, like “worship”, n order to carry on a reasonable discussion.
We have to use worship as used in the Nre Testamemt. They did not fall down, kneel before, etc, created things as we see in Roman Catholicism. When people did they were told to stop.....just like the Roman Catholic has been told to stop.
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.