Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Praying to saints or to Mary means you believe they can hear your thoughts and prayers, a capacity only of the divine. Nowhere in scripture are we told to spiritually communicate with any entity except God/Jesus alone. The belief that Mary and saints have a level of omniscience and power that allows them to hear and accept prayers, and can effect results and blessings, and that each saint has "jurisdiction" over certain areas (healing, protection, fertility) is the same thing that the pagan world believed in their idols. How do you even know if these people are truly in heaven? Only God knows that. What if you're praying to someone in hell?

Making supplications via spiritual communication to any entity other than God is idolatry. Prayer is a form of worship. The practice is NOT taught by Jesus or his disciples, or believed and practiced by the early Christians. Nowhere in scripture is prayer to Mary or saints supported. Follow the infallible Word of God, not the fallible traditions of man.

---

You are making a very Protestant and very Baptist argument against the practice.

An argument I of course agree with since I'm a low church Southern Baptist from East Texas…but 90% of Christian's on earth disagree and will continue to pray for the intercession of the Saints, Archangels, and Mary.

90% world Christians don't believe in just sola scriptura anyway.

They will continue to believe some version of what the Council of Trent said:

[The intercession of the saints. "Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness. ...They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus. ...So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped]

---

The argument against the practice is not denominational, it is scriptural. Scripture is the infallible word of God, tradition is the fallible way of man. Believing something to be true simply because a church Council declared it so is dangerous for that reason. Jesus said we'll know something by its fruits. Look at the fruits of these councils: the Catholic Church dogmatized that Mary was completely sinless and was assumed bodily into heaven where she is prayed to for intercession. Does that sound like anyone you know?

Believing that those in heaven are interceding for us on their own accord is one thing. Believing that they are to be prayed to for that intercession, is entirely another. Whether or not the majority of Christians believe and practice something has nothing to do with its truth. It must always be weighed against scripture, because scripture is the only thing that we have that Jesus himself fully verified as being the word of God.

We have the four Gospels we have, and their depictions of Jesus, because a church council declared it so.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Praying to saints or to Mary means you believe they can hear your thoughts and prayers…

---

Doesn't Rev 5:8 mean the same thing?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Praying to saints or to Mary means you believe they can hear your thoughts and prayers, a capacity only of the divine. Nowhere in scripture are we told to spiritually communicate with any entity except God/Jesus alone. The belief that Mary and saints have a level of omniscience and power that allows them to hear and accept prayers, and can effect results and blessings, and that each saint has "jurisdiction" over certain areas (healing, protection, fertility) is the same thing that the pagan world believed in their idols. How do you even know if these people are truly in heaven? Only God knows that. What if you're praying to someone in hell?

Making supplications via spiritual communication to any entity other than God is idolatry. Prayer is a form of worship. The practice is NOT taught by Jesus or his disciples, or believed and practiced by the early Christians. Nowhere in scripture is prayer to Mary or saints supported. Follow the infallible Word of God, not the fallible traditions of man.

---

You are making a very Protestant and very Baptist argument against the practice.

An argument I of course agree with since I'm a low church Southern Baptist from East Texas…but 90% of Christian's on earth disagree and will continue to pray for the intercession of the Saints, Archangels, and Mary.

90% world Christians don't believe in just sola scriptura anyway.

They will continue to believe some version of what the Council of Trent said:

[The intercession of the saints. "Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness. ...They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus. ...So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped]

---

The argument against the practice is not denominational, it is scriptural. Scripture is the infallible word of God, tradition is the fallible way of man. Believing something to be true simply because a church Council declared it so is dangerous for that reason. Jesus said we'll know something by its fruits. Look at the fruits of these councils: the Catholic Church dogmatized that Mary was completely sinless and was assumed bodily into heaven where she is prayed to for intercession. Does that sound like anyone you know?

---

Have you read what the early Protestant reformers said about it? You might be surprised how much they had in common with Catholics.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Praying to saints or to Mary means you believe they can hear your thoughts and prayers, a capacity only of the divine. Nowhere in scripture are we told to spiritually communicate with any entity except God/Jesus alone. The belief that Mary and saints have a level of omniscience and power that allows them to hear and accept prayers, and can effect results and blessings, and that each saint has "jurisdiction" over certain areas (healing, protection, fertility) is the same thing that the pagan world believed in their idols. How do you even know if these people are truly in heaven? Only God knows that. What if you're praying to someone in hell?

Making supplications via spiritual communication to any entity other than God is idolatry. Prayer is a form of worship. The practice is NOT taught by Jesus or his disciples, or believed and practiced by the early Christians. Nowhere in scripture is prayer to Mary or saints supported. Follow the infallible Word of God, not the fallible traditions of man.

---

You are making a very Protestant and very Baptist argument against the practice.

An argument I of course agree with since I'm a low church Southern Baptist from East Texas…but 90% of Christian's on earth disagree and will continue to pray for the intercession of the Saints, Archangels, and Mary.

90% world Christians don't believe in just sola scriptura anyway.

They will continue to believe some version of what the Council of Trent said:

[The intercession of the saints. "Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness. ...They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus. ...So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped]

---

The argument against the practice is not denominational, it is scriptural. Scripture is the infallible word of God, tradition is the fallible way of man. Believing something to be true simply because a church Council declared it so is dangerous for that reason. Jesus said we'll know something by its fruits. Look at the fruits of these councils: the Catholic Church dogmatized that Mary was completely sinless and was assumed bodily into heaven where she is prayed to for intercession. Does that sound like anyone you know?

---

Have you read what the early Protestant reformers said about it? You might be surprised how much they had in common with Catholics.

---

Yea


[Satan is clever . . . Thus, even now, among us, he is quibbling over the worship of saints and what the saints are conscious of in heaven.

Thus, too, I would solve the question about adoring and invoking God dwelling in the saints. It is a matter of liberty, and it is not necessary either to do it or not to do it. To be sure, it is not so certain that God has His dwelling in many men as that He is present in the sacrament, but we do read in I Corinthians [ 1 Cor 14:24-25] that an unbeliever will fall on his face and worship God in the saints, if he hears them prophesying; and Abraham saw three angels, and worshiped one Lord; and (to use your own illustration) what do we do when we "prefer one another in honor," except honor and adore God in ourselves? Let it be free, then, to call upon God in man or out of man, in creatures or out of them, for "I fill heaven and earth," saith the Lord. Here faith goes the safest way, for in all things it sees only God, but we cannot say enough of this to unbelievers, or prove it to them, because they are always worshiping themselves.](Letter from Luther to Paul Speratus, 13 June 1522)

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Of course I agree with Bishop Strickland here, and am thankful for Catholics standing up for Christian principles.

But it isn't very "Christian" for Catholics to rely not on Jesus Christ, but rather....Mary:

Thank you brothers. Our power is…”Hail Mary full of grace…” https://t.co/ycfPjFi6Z2

— Bishop J. Strickland (@Bishopoftyler) June 27, 2023

---

Just can't help yourself can you? Satan is smiling.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Praying to saints or to Mary means you believe they can hear your thoughts and prayers, a capacity only of the divine. Nowhere in scripture are we told to spiritually communicate with any entity except God/Jesus alone. The belief that Mary and saints have a level of omniscience and power that allows them to hear and accept prayers, and can effect results and blessings, and that each saint has "jurisdiction" over certain areas (healing, protection, fertility) is the same thing that the pagan world believed in their idols. How do you even know if these people are truly in heaven? Only God knows that. What if you're praying to someone in hell?

Making supplications via spiritual communication to any entity other than God is idolatry. Prayer is a form of worship. The practice is NOT taught by Jesus or his disciples, or believed and practiced by the early Christians. Nowhere in scripture is prayer to Mary or saints supported. Follow the infallible Word of God, not the fallible traditions of man.

---

You are making a very Protestant and very Baptist argument against the practice.

An argument I of course agree with since I'm a low church Southern Baptist from East Texas…but 90% of Christian's on earth disagree and will continue to pray for the intercession of the Saints, Archangels, and Mary.

90% world Christians don't believe in just sola scriptura anyway.

They will continue to believe some version of what the Council of Trent said:

[The intercession of the saints. "Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness. ...They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus. ...So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped]

---

The argument against the practice is not denominational, it is scriptural. Scripture is the infallible word of God, tradition is the fallible way of man. Believing something to be true simply because a church Council declared it so is dangerous for that reason. Jesus said we'll know something by its fruits. Look at the fruits of these councils: the Catholic Church dogmatized that Mary was completely sinless and was assumed bodily into heaven where she is prayed to for intercession. Does that sound like anyone you know?

Believing that those in heaven are interceding for us on their own accord is one thing. Believing that they are to be prayed to for that intercession, is entirely another. Whether or not the majority of Christians believe and practice something has nothing to do with its truth. It must always be weighed against scripture, because scripture is the only thing that we have that Jesus himself fully verified as being the word of God.

---

Show us on the doll where the wicked Roman Catholic touched you.

90sBear said:

---

We have the four Gospels we have, and their depictions of Jesus, because a church council declared it so.

---

This is false. The early church had already deemed the four Gospels to be the authoritative, inspired word of God long before any church council officially recognized them as such. Those four gospels, along with the epistles from the apostles, were already being used and circulated among the church. We have writings from early church fathers/writers that quoted from those Gospels, thus indicating that not only were these gospels well known in the early church, but they also already considered them authoritative. Ignatius, in his Letter to Polycarp (107 AD), quoted Matthew 10:16. Polycarp, in his Letter to Phillipians (168 AD) quoted Luke 6:20. Basilides (125 AD) actually called them "Gospels" and often quoted from the Gospel of John, writing "....this he says, is what is mentioned in the 'Gospels'" and then goes on to quote John John 1:9. Justin Martyr did the same in around 150 AD when he wrote that Christians possessed "memoirs" of Jesus, and goes on to explain that they were also called "Gospels". Tatian, around 160-170 AD harmonized the four gospels into one work, called the Diatessaran, which literally means "out of four".

It wasn't until around 360-390 AD when Church councils formally recognized the New Testament including the four Gospels as canon.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Praying to saints or to Mary means you believe they can hear your thoughts and prayers…

---

Doesn't Rev 5:8 mean the same thing?

---

Where do you get that those bowls contain the prayers to them, and not to God? They are the prayers "of" the saints, not "to" them. In Revelation angels are also holding and pouring out bowls - bowls of God's wrath on the earth. The bowls of wrath were no more wrath directed towards the angels, as the bowls of prayers were prayers directed to the 24 elders. That is just bad eisegesis, especially since there is no other supporting scripture.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Praying to saints or to Mary means you believe they can hear your thoughts and prayers, a capacity only of the divine. Nowhere in scripture are we told to spiritually communicate with any entity except God/Jesus alone. The belief that Mary and saints have a level of omniscience and power that allows them to hear and accept prayers, and can effect results and blessings, and that each saint has "jurisdiction" over certain areas (healing, protection, fertility) is the same thing that the pagan world believed in their idols. How do you even know if these people are truly in heaven? Only God knows that. What if you're praying to someone in hell?

Making supplications via spiritual communication to any entity other than God is idolatry. Prayer is a form of worship. The practice is NOT taught by Jesus or his disciples, or believed and practiced by the early Christians. Nowhere in scripture is prayer to Mary or saints supported. Follow the infallible Word of God, not the fallible traditions of man.

---

You are making a very Protestant and very Baptist argument against the practice.

An argument I of course agree with since I'm a low church Southern Baptist from East Texas…but 90% of Christian's on earth disagree and will continue to pray for the intercession of the Saints, Archangels, and Mary.

90% world Christians don't believe in just sola scriptura anyway.

They will continue to believe some version of what the Council of Trent said:

[The intercession of the saints. "Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness. ...They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus. ...So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped]

---

The argument against the practice is not denominational, it is scriptural. Scripture is the infallible word of God, tradition is the fallible way of man. Believing something to be true simply because a church Council declared it so is dangerous for that reason. Jesus said we'll know something by its fruits. Look at the fruits of these councils: the Catholic Church dogmatized that Mary was completely sinless and was assumed bodily into heaven where she is prayed to for intercession. Does that sound like anyone you know?

---

Have you read what the early Protestant reformers said about it? You might be surprised how much they had in common with Catholics.

---

The Protestant Reformers should also held to the same standard as the Catholic Church, and that is, against Scripture. They did this right in some areas, but not so much in others. Still, this doesn't refute the point against Catholicism.

It is not false. No matter how you want to break it down or describe it, a group of fallible people selected those four gospels. There are other gospels that were also written and there are numerous accounts as to why these four, and indeed limiting the number to only four, were chosen.

You can't have it both ways.

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Bishop Strickland is a true follower of Christ and this NWO charlatan pope doesnt like it. Cant have Bishop Strickland preaching the true word of Christ.

In his September missive, Strickland reiterated that Christ "is the only path to everlasting life" and that "no other path to salvation can be found." The bishop subsequently warned that some are attempting to "chip away or destroy altogether the Deposit of Faith" of the Catholic Church.

---

Bishop Strickland is probably one of the most outspoken Bishops we have in the Church in America. We need many more like him. He is not afraid to preach truth.

He wasn't afraid of Covid or the lockdowns. He has displayed the monstrance at a busy intersection. He publicly denounces Fr. James Martin and the LGBTQ+ and gender ideologies.

I hope that Pope Frances and him can come to an accord.

---

" not afraid of the Covid lockdown" simply proves he is not fit for office.

---

Not hardly. Church lockdowns as were seen in some places were not going to hold up to a court challenge.

Waco1947 said:

---

This hashing out of Catholic versus protestant, thinking on saints, is already in another thread. Please don't hack this one.

---

Very good suggestion.

90sBear said:

---

It is not false. No matter how you want to break it down or describe it, a group of fallible people selected those four gospels. There are other gospels that were also written and there are numerous accounts as to why these four, and indeed limiting the number to only four, were chosen.

You can't have it both ways.

---

It is not false?? You literally said we have the four gospels because a Church council declared it so. What you said was false, and I showed why.

Now, if you're going to change your argument to "fallible people chose these four Gospels" then to that I say that these people, although fallible, objectively chose these Gospels as authoritative based on their merits as being directly from an apostle of Jesus. The other "gospels" were rejected because they clearly did not fit this objective criteria of authenticity and reliability. This was not a subjective decision.

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Bishop Strickland is a true follower of Christ and this NWO charlatan pope doesnt like it. Cant have Bishop Strickland preaching the true word of Christ.

In his September missive, Strickland reiterated that Christ "is the only path to everlasting life" and that "no other path to salvation can be found." The bishop subsequently warned that some are attempting to "chip away or destroy altogether the Deposit of Faith" of the Catholic Church.

---

Bishop Strickland is probably one of the most outspoken Bishops we have in the Church in America. We need many more like him. He is not afraid to preach truth.

He wasn't afraid of Covid or the lockdowns. He has displayed the monstrance at a busy intersection. He publicly denounces Fr. James Martin and the LGBTQ+ and gender ideologies.

I hope that Pope Frances and him can come to an accord.

---

" not afraid of the Covid lockdown" simply proves he is not fit for office.

---

If an ignorant imposter like you is against Bishop Strickland, he must be an outstanding individual.

Our current Pope, on the other hand, is attempting to destroy the Church.

Hope he retires very soon.

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Praying to saints or to Mary means you believe they can hear your thoughts and prayers, a capacity only of the divine. Nowhere in scripture are we told to spiritually communicate with any entity except God/Jesus alone. The belief that Mary and saints have a level of omniscience and power that allows them to hear and accept prayers, and can effect results and blessings, and that each saint has "jurisdiction" over certain areas (healing, protection, fertility) is the same thing that the pagan world believed in their idols. How do you even know if these people are truly in heaven? Only God knows that. What if you're praying to someone in hell?

Making supplications via spiritual communication to any entity other than God is idolatry. Prayer is a form of worship. The practice is NOT taught by Jesus or his disciples, or believed and practiced by the early Christians. Nowhere in scripture is prayer to Mary or saints supported. Follow the infallible Word of God, not the fallible traditions of man.

---

You are making a very Protestant and very Baptist argument against the practice.

An argument I of course agree with since I'm a low church Southern Baptist from East Texas…but 90% of Christian's on earth disagree and will continue to pray for the intercession of the Saints, Archangels, and Mary.

90% world Christians don't believe in just sola scriptura anyway.

They will continue to believe some version of what the Council of Trent said:

[The intercession of the saints. "Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness. ...They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus. ...So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped]

---

Don't know where you are getting the 90% number, as your numbers don't add up. It's more likely around 64%,

I am also still trying to figure out the relevance of your numbers. What does the number of Christians that err in this belief have to do with the price of tea in China?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Praying to saints or to Mary means you believe they can hear your thoughts and prayers…

---

Doesn't Rev 5:8 mean the same thing?

---

Where do you get that those bowls contain the prayers to them, and not to God? They are the prayers "of" the saints, not "to" them. In Revelation angels are also holding and pouring out bowls - bowls of God's wrath on the earth. The bowls of wrath were no more wrath directed towards the angels, as the bowls of prayers were prayers directed to the 24 elders. That is just bad eisegesis, especially since there is no other supporting scripture.

---

Stay on track. Your issue was whether the saints in heaven can hear our prayers. If they can present our prayers to God, does that not imply that they can hear them?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

It is not false. No matter how you want to break it down or describe it, a group of fallible people selected those four gospels. There are other gospels that were also written and there are numerous accounts as to why these four, and indeed limiting the number to only four, were chosen.

You can't have it both ways.

---

It is not false?? You literally said we have the four gospels because a Church council declared it so. What you said was false, and I showed why.

Now, if you're going to change your argument to "fallible people chose these four Gospels" then to that I say that these people, although fallible, objectively chose these Gospels as authoritative based on their merits as being directly from an apostle of Jesus. The other "gospels" were rejected because they clearly did not fit this objective criteria of authenticity and reliability. This was not a subjective decision.

---

No, councils did declare those to be the four gospels to be canonized. That is a historical fact. You may say that they were the predominant gospels of the day used by "the early church" prior to being formally recognized (and you would be right) but the fact remains councils did choose to state those were to be the canonical gospels and the "early church" was just as human as everyone else.

I will agree that councils selected those gospels for many good reasons reasons including those you stated. But the point remains that other gospels and epistles were excluded based upon the decisions of fallible humans. It is impossible to state that there were no subjective viewpoints that affected people's decisions on what was included and what was not because none of us were there.

My point in all of this is not to disparage the gospels, or to prop up any other gospels, but rather to point out that humans have been involved in deciding what is canonical, heretical, etc. for a long time, including in the decision of choosing what "made the cut" into the Bible and that we believe them to be true because a group of people declared them to be so.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Praying to saints or to Mary means you believe they can hear your thoughts and prayers, a capacity only of the divine. Nowhere in scripture are we told to spiritually communicate with any entity except God/Jesus alone. The belief that Mary and saints have a level of omniscience and power that allows them to hear and accept prayers, and can effect results and blessings, and that each saint has "jurisdiction" over certain areas (healing, protection, fertility) is the same thing that the pagan world believed in their idols. How do you even know if these people are truly in heaven? Only God knows that. What if you're praying to someone in hell?

Making supplications via spiritual communication to any entity other than God is idolatry. Prayer is a form of worship. The practice is NOT taught by Jesus or his disciples, or believed and practiced by the early Christians. Nowhere in scripture is prayer to Mary or saints supported. Follow the infallible Word of God, not the fallible traditions of man.

---

You are making a very Protestant and very Baptist argument against the practice.

An argument I of course agree with since I'm a low church Southern Baptist from East Texas…but 90% of Christian's on earth disagree and will continue to pray for the intercession of the Saints, Archangels, and Mary.

90% world Christians don't believe in just sola scriptura anyway.

They will continue to believe some version of what the Council of Trent said:

[The intercession of the saints. "Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness. ...They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus. ...So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped]

---

The argument against the practice is not denominational, it is scriptural. Scripture is the infallible word of God, tradition is the fallible way of man. Believing something to be true simply because a church Council declared it so is dangerous for that reason. Jesus said we'll know something by its fruits. Look at the fruits of these councils: the Catholic Church dogmatized that Mary was completely sinless and was assumed bodily into heaven where she is prayed to for intercession. Does that sound like anyone you know?

---

Have you read what the early Protestant reformers said about it? You might be surprised how much they had in common with Catholics.

---

The Protestant Reformers should also held to the same standard as the Catholic Church, and that is, against Scripture. They did this right in some areas, but not so much in others. Still, this doesn't refute the point against Catholicism.

---

It may not refute it, but it weakens your case considerably. Many of your beliefs aren't even supported by historical Protestantism. They're really more a product of modern fundamentalism.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

We have the four Gospels we have, and their depictions of Jesus, because a church council declared it so.

---

This is false. The early church had already deemed the four Gospels to be the authoritative, inspired word of God long before any church council officially recognized them as such. Those four gospels, along with the epistles from the apostles, were already being used and circulated among the church. We have writings from early church fathers/writers that quoted from those Gospels, thus indicating that not only were these gospels well known in the early church, but they also already considered them authoritative. Ignatius, in his Letter to Polycarp (107 AD), quoted Matthew 10:16. Polycarp, in his Letter to Phillipians (168 AD) quoted Luke 6:20. Basilides (125 AD) actually called them "Gospels" and often quoted from the Gospel of John, writing "....this he says, is what is mentioned in the 'Gospels'" and then goes on to quote John John 1:9. Justin Martyr did the same in around 150 AD when he wrote that Christians possessed "memoirs" of Jesus, and goes on to explain that they were also called "Gospels". Tatian, around 160-170 AD harmonized the four gospels into one work, called the Diatessaran, which literally means "out of four".

It wasn't until around 360-390 AD when Church councils formally recognized the New Testament including the four Gospels as canon.

---

Not to mention, Irenaeus of Lyons specifically said before the end of the second century that there were four Gospels and only four - he quoted from the Gospels hundreds of times.

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Praying to saints or to Mary means you believe they can hear your thoughts and prayers, a capacity only of the divine. Nowhere in scripture are we told to spiritually communicate with any entity except God/Jesus alone. The belief that Mary and saints have a level of omniscience and power that allows them to hear and accept prayers, and can effect results and blessings, and that each saint has "jurisdiction" over certain areas (healing, protection, fertility) is the same thing that the pagan world believed in their idols. How do you even know if these people are truly in heaven? Only God knows that. What if you're praying to someone in hell?

Making supplications via spiritual communication to any entity other than God is idolatry. Prayer is a form of worship. The practice is NOT taught by Jesus or his disciples, or believed and practiced by the early Christians. Nowhere in scripture is prayer to Mary or saints supported. Follow the infallible Word of God, not the fallible traditions of man.

---

You are making a very Protestant and very Baptist argument against the practice.

An argument I of course agree with since I'm a low church Southern Baptist from East Texas…but 90% of Christian's on earth disagree and will continue to pray for the intercession of the Saints, Archangels, and Mary.

90% world Christians don't believe in just sola scriptura anyway.

They will continue to believe some version of what the Council of Trent said:

[The intercession of the saints. "Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness. ...They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus. ...So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped]

---

Don't know where you are getting the 90% number, as your numbers don't add up. It's more likely around 64%,

I am also still trying to figure out the relevance of your numbers. What does the number of Christians that err in this belief have to do with the price of tea in China?

---

You are right of course mothra.

I might be off on the numbers world wide. I was trying to take Protestants and then subtract the high church from the low church Protestants to get a number who would be against the intercession of saints.

I could be wrong on the numbers.

Point is…I am not going to get worked up that lots of world wide Christians like this practice.

It does not bother me.

JXL said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

We have the four Gospels we have, and their depictions of Jesus, because a church council declared it so.

---

This is false. The early church had already deemed the four Gospels to be the authoritative, inspired word of God long before any church council officially recognized them as such. Those four gospels, along with the epistles from the apostles, were already being used and circulated among the church. We have writings from early church fathers/writers that quoted from those Gospels, thus indicating that not only were these gospels well known in the early church, but they also already considered them authoritative. Ignatius, in his Letter to Polycarp (107 AD), quoted Matthew 10:16. Polycarp, in his Letter to Phillipians (168 AD) quoted Luke 6:20. Basilides (125 AD) actually called them "Gospels" and often quoted from the Gospel of John, writing "....this he says, is what is mentioned in the 'Gospels'" and then goes on to quote John John 1:9. Justin Martyr did the same in around 150 AD when he wrote that Christians possessed "memoirs" of Jesus, and goes on to explain that they were also called "Gospels". Tatian, around 160-170 AD harmonized the four gospels into one work, called the Diatessaran, which literally means "out of four".

It wasn't until around 360-390 AD when Church councils formally recognized the New Testament including the four Gospels as canon.

---

Not to mention, Irenaeus of Lyons specifically said before the end of the second century that there were four Gospels and only four - he quoted from the Gospels hundreds of times.

---

He was also a strong proponent of apostolic succession.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Praying to saints or to Mary means you believe they can hear your thoughts and prayers, a capacity only of the divine.

---

Are you saying that God can't give saints and angels the ability to hear prayers? Where does it say that only God can hear intercessions?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Nowhere in scripture are we told to spiritually communicate with any entity except God/Jesus alone.

---

No where in scripture that we are to "pray to Jesus." Any attempt to justify is reading into scripture.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The belief that Mary and saints have a level of omniscience and power that allows them to hear and accept prayers, and can effect results and blessings, and that each saint has "jurisdiction" over certain areas (healing, protection, fertility) is the same thing that the pagan world believed in their idols.

---

Mary and the saints have NO special powers. All they can do is intercede for us.

Some people ask certain saints who have gone thru something they have gone thru to intercede for them. I ask the world's most perfect father, St. Joseph, to pray for me as a father and a husband.

Daily I ask St. Peregrine to interceded for the people that I know who are battling cancer.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

How do you even know if these people are truly in heaven? Only God knows that.

---

We know that they are in heaven when two miracles attributed to their intercession.

How do you explain the two miracles attributed to Mother Teresa that I posted in the last link?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What if you're praying to someone in hell?.

---

No prayer is wasted. God hears all prayers.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Making supplications via spiritual communication to any entity other than God is idolatry. .

---

Please show me in the bible where asking a saint or angel to intercede for you is idolatry.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Prayer is a form of worship.

---

Maybe in Protestant lingo. Prayer is just asking for something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The practice is NOT taught by Jesus or his disciples, or believed and practiced by the early Christians.

---

This is false. I demonstrated in the other thread that the early Christians believed that the angels and saints pray for us.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Nowhere in scripture is prayer to Mary or saints supported. Follow the infallible Word of God, not the fallible traditions of man.

---

Rev 8:3:

Another angel came and stood at the altar,* holding a gold censer. He was given a great quantity of incense to offer, along with the prayers of all the holy ones, on the gold altar that was before the throne.

Once again, an angel is placing our prayers to the heavenly alter.

Angels, as beings, are not who there are, but what they do. Angels are messengers. In order for them to take a message, they have to hear it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Praying to saints or to Mary means you believe they can hear your thoughts and prayers…

---

Doesn't Rev 5:8 mean the same thing?

---

Where do you get that those bowls contain the prayers to them, and not to God? They are the prayers "of" the saints, not "to" them. In Revelation angels are also holding and pouring out bowls - bowls of God's wrath on the earth. The bowls of wrath were no more wrath directed towards the angels, as the bowls of prayers were prayers directed to the 24 elders. That is just bad eisegesis, especially since there is no other supporting scripture.

---

Stay on track. Your issue was whether the saints in heaven can hear our prayers. If they can present our prayers to God, does that not imply that they can hear them?

---

No, I don't see how that is implied. If the elders are holding bowls of prayers, how does it follow that they can hear them?

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

It is not false. No matter how you want to break it down or describe it, a group of fallible people selected those four gospels. There are other gospels that were also written and there are numerous accounts as to why these four, and indeed limiting the number to only four, were chosen.

You can't have it both ways.

---

It is not false?? You literally said we have the four gospels because a Church council declared it so. What you said was false, and I showed why.

Now, if you're going to change your argument to "fallible people chose these four Gospels" then to that I say that these people, although fallible, objectively chose these Gospels as authoritative based on their merits as being directly from an apostle of Jesus. The other "gospels" were rejected because they clearly did not fit this objective criteria of authenticity and reliability. This was not a subjective decision.

---

No, councils did declare those to be the four gospels to be canonized. That is a historical fact. You may say that they were the predominant gospels of the day used by "the early church" prior to being formally recognized (and you would be right) but the fact remains councils did choose to state those were to be the canonical gospels and the "early church" was just as human as everyone else.

I will agree that councils selected those gospels for many good reasons reasons including those you stated. But the point remains that other gospels and epistles were excluded based upon the decisions of fallible humans. It is impossible to state that there were no subjective viewpoints that affected people's decisions on what was included and what was not because none of us were there.

My point in all of this is not to disparage the gospels, or to prop up any other gospels, but rather to point out that humans have been involved in deciding what is canonical, heretical, etc. for a long time, including in the decision of choosing what "made the cut" into the Bible and that we believe them to be true because a group of people declared them to be so.

---

Okay, so go back to your original statement, because I think you've lost track. You said that "we have the four Gospels because a Church council declared it so." I showed you that no, the early Christians were in agreement already what the four Gospels were, before any council officially recognized them. I showed you proof of that. So do you acknowledge that your statement was false?

You said: "No, councils did declare those to be the four gospels to be canonized. That is a historical fact." The question wasn't whether it's a historical fact that councils canonized them. The question was whether we have the gospels DUE to the councils, as you asserted. This clearly isn't true. Do you acknowledge that?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Praying to saints or to Mary means you believe they can hear your thoughts and prayers, a capacity only of the divine. Nowhere in scripture are we told to spiritually communicate with any entity except God/Jesus alone. The belief that Mary and saints have a level of omniscience and power that allows them to hear and accept prayers, and can effect results and blessings, and that each saint has "jurisdiction" over certain areas (healing, protection, fertility) is the same thing that the pagan world believed in their idols. How do you even know if these people are truly in heaven? Only God knows that. What if you're praying to someone in hell?

Making supplications via spiritual communication to any entity other than God is idolatry. Prayer is a form of worship. The practice is NOT taught by Jesus or his disciples, or believed and practiced by the early Christians. Nowhere in scripture is prayer to Mary or saints supported. Follow the infallible Word of God, not the fallible traditions of man.

---

You are making a very Protestant and very Baptist argument against the practice.

An argument I of course agree with since I'm a low church Southern Baptist from East Texas…but 90% of Christian's on earth disagree and will continue to pray for the intercession of the Saints, Archangels, and Mary.

90% world Christians don't believe in just sola scriptura anyway.

They will continue to believe some version of what the Council of Trent said:

[The intercession of the saints. "Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness. ...They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus. ...So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped]

---

The argument against the practice is not denominational, it is scriptural. Scripture is the infallible word of God, tradition is the fallible way of man. Believing something to be true simply because a church Council declared it so is dangerous for that reason. Jesus said we'll know something by its fruits. Look at the fruits of these councils: the Catholic Church dogmatized that Mary was completely sinless and was assumed bodily into heaven where she is prayed to for intercession. Does that sound like anyone you know?

---

Have you read what the early Protestant reformers said about it? You might be surprised how much they had in common with Catholics.

---

The Protestant Reformers should also held to the same standard as the Catholic Church, and that is, against Scripture. They did this right in some areas, but not so much in others. Still, this doesn't refute the point against Catholicism.

---

It may not refute it, but it weakens your case considerably. Many of your beliefs aren't even supported by historical Protestantism. They're really more a product of modern fundamentalism.

---

How does it weaken my case? My case isn't based on historical Protestantism. My case is scriptural. You can call it "modern fundamentalism" but that may be an indicator of how far people have strayed from scripture, similar to how normal conservatism is now considered "extreme right wing".

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

It is not false. No matter how you want to break it down or describe it, a group of fallible people selected those four gospels. There are other gospels that were also written and there are numerous accounts as to why these four, and indeed limiting the number to only four, were chosen.

You can't have it both ways.

---

It is not false?? You literally said we have the four gospels because a Church council declared it so. What you said was false, and I showed why.

Now, if you're going to change your argument to "fallible people chose these four Gospels" then to that I say that these people, although fallible, objectively chose these Gospels as authoritative based on their merits as being directly from an apostle of Jesus. The other "gospels" were rejected because they clearly did not fit this objective criteria of authenticity and reliability. This was not a subjective decision.

---

No, councils did declare those to be the four gospels to be canonized. That is a historical fact. You may say that they were the predominant gospels of the day used by "the early church" prior to being formally recognized (and you would be right) but the fact remains councils did choose to state those were to be the canonical gospels and the "early church" was just as human as everyone else.

I will agree that councils selected those gospels for many good reasons reasons including those you stated. But the point remains that other gospels and epistles were excluded based upon the decisions of fallible humans. It is impossible to state that there were no subjective viewpoints that affected people's decisions on what was included and what was not because none of us were there.

My point in all of this is not to disparage the gospels, or to prop up any other gospels, but rather to point out that humans have been involved in deciding what is canonical, heretical, etc. for a long time, including in the decision of choosing what "made the cut" into the Bible and that we believe them to be true because a group of people declared them to be so.

---

Okay, so go back to your original statement, because I think you've lost track. You said that "we have the four Gospels because a Church council declared it so." I showed you that no, the early Christians were in agreement already what the four Gospels were, before any council officially recognized them. I showed you proof of that. So do you acknowledge that your statement was false?

You said: "No, councils did declare those to be the four gospels to be canonized. That is a historical fact." The question wasn't whether it's a historical fact that councils canonized them. The question was whether we have the gospels DUE to the councils, as you asserted. This clearly isn't true. Do you acknowledge that?

---

No. You state, "early Christians were in agreement…"

That sounds to me like you are saying a group of Christians decided what the best gospels were. That sounds like a council of Christians made a decision to me.

There have been councils of Christians gathering since there have been Christians such as the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts. I'm not specifically referencing the Council of Nicaea or any other historically named gathering that may or may not have discussed formally established the canonical New Testament.

A group of Christians gathering and discussing and/or deciding something is a council of Christians, whether formally historically named or not.

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

It is not false. No matter how you want to break it down or describe it, a group of fallible people selected those four gospels. There are other gospels that were also written and there are numerous accounts as to why these four, and indeed limiting the number to only four, were chosen.

You can't have it both ways.

---

It is not false?? You literally said we have the four gospels because a Church council declared it so. What you said was false, and I showed why.

Now, if you're going to change your argument to "fallible people chose these four Gospels" then to that I say that these people, although fallible, objectively chose these Gospels as authoritative based on their merits as being directly from an apostle of Jesus. The other "gospels" were rejected because they clearly did not fit this objective criteria of authenticity and reliability. This was not a subjective decision.

---

No, councils did declare those to be the four gospels to be canonized. That is a historical fact. You may say that they were the predominant gospels of the day used by "the early church" prior to being formally recognized (and you would be right) but the fact remains councils did choose to state those were to be the canonical gospels and the "early church" was just as human as everyone else.

I will agree that councils selected those gospels for many good reasons reasons including those you stated. But the point remains that other gospels and epistles were excluded based upon the decisions of fallible humans. It is impossible to state that there were no subjective viewpoints that affected people's decisions on what was included and what was not because none of us were there.

My point in all of this is not to disparage the gospels, or to prop up any other gospels, but rather to point out that humans have been involved in deciding what is canonical, heretical, etc. for a long time, including in the decision of choosing what "made the cut" into the Bible and that we believe them to be true because a group of people declared them to be so.

---

Okay, so go back to your original statement, because I think you've lost track. You said that "we have the four Gospels because a Church council declared it so." I showed you that no, the early Christians were in agreement already what the four Gospels were, before any council officially recognized them. I showed you proof of that. So do you acknowledge that your statement was false?

You said: "No, councils did declare those to be the four gospels to be canonized. That is a historical fact." The question wasn't whether it's a historical fact that councils canonized them. The question was whether we have the gospels DUE to the councils, as you asserted. This clearly isn't true. Do you acknowledge that?

---

No. You state, "early Christians were in agreement…"

That sounds to me like you are saying a group of Christians decided what the best gospels were. That sounds like a council of Christians made a decision to me.

There have been councils of Christians gathering since there have been Christians such as the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts. I'm not specifically referencing the Council of Nicaea or any other historically named gathering that may or may not have discussed formally established the canonical New Testament.

A group of Christians gathering and discussing and/or deciding something is a council of Christians, whether formally historically named or not.

---

Ok, so when you said a church council "declared" the four Gospels, naturally I was thinking you meant some kind of formal council from a central authority.

I don't think there's any evidence of any informal "council" that decided the four Gospels and "declared" them for all Christians. Rather, it was an organic process, where as the gospel message started to spread, churches started to grow, and only those Gospels that could be directly linked to the apostles were being accepted by those churches as being authoritative. Regardless, now that I understand what you meant, I will respond to your previous posts accordingly.

90sBear said:

---

It is not false. No matter how you want to break it down or describe it, a group of fallible people selected those four gospels. There are other gospels that were also written and there are numerous accounts as to why these four, and indeed limiting the number to only four, were chosen.

You can't have it both ways.

---

The process of four Gospels coming into prominence in the early church did not involve a fallible group of men subjectively selecting four Gospels out of many of equal merit that were lying around, and who later "declared" them for all Christians. The four that became the accepted Gospels were organically "selected" by the early Christians and their churches because those texts were recognized as authoritative based on the objective standard of apostolic authenticity and reliability. In other words, if it came directly from an apostle of Jesus, it means it was authoritative in of itself, and therefore was accepted. If it didn't come directly from an apostle, it was rejected. This is an intuitive, logical determination that needs no subjective judgement from an authoritative "council", thus "fallibility" isn't really applicable here.

To llustrate with an example - if there were four direct witnesses to a crime, naturally an investigator would base his investigation off of those witnesses, and not on the reports of those who weren't direct witnesses. Sure, there might be lots of reports here and there, but if they weren't from direct witnesses, the investigator would rightfully discard them. He is not subjectively selecting which witnesses to listen to. That decision is based on objective standards of truth that are independent of his subjectivity. Therefore, you can't characterize the selection of those four witnesses as being the result of "fallible" decision making.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Praying to saints or to Mary means you believe they can hear your thoughts and prayers, a capacity only of the divine.

---

Are you saying that God can't give saints and angels the ability to hear prayers? Where does it say that only God can hear intercessions?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Nowhere in scripture are we told to spiritually communicate with any entity except God/Jesus alone.

---

No where in scripture that we are to "pray to Jesus." Any attempt to justify is reading into scripture.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The belief that Mary and saints have a level of omniscience and power that allows them to hear and accept prayers, and can effect results and blessings, and that each saint has "jurisdiction" over certain areas (healing, protection, fertility) is the same thing that the pagan world believed in their idols.

---

Mary and the saints have NO special powers. All they can do is intercede for us.

Some people ask certain saints who have gone thru something they have gone thru to intercede for them. I ask the world's most perfect father, St. Joseph, to pray for me as a father and a husband.

Daily I ask St. Peregrine to interceded for the people that I know who are battling cancer.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

How do you even know if these people are truly in heaven? Only God knows that.

---

We know that they are in heaven when two miracles attributed to their intercession.

How do you explain the two miracles attributed to Mother Teresa that I posted in the last link?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What if you're praying to someone in hell?.

---

No prayer is wasted. God hears all prayers.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Making supplications via spiritual communication to any entity other than God is idolatry. .

---

Please show me in the bible where asking a saint or angel to intercede for you is idolatry.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Prayer is a form of worship.

---

Maybe in Protestant lingo. Prayer is just asking for something.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The practice is NOT taught by Jesus or his disciples, or believed and practiced by the early Christians.

---

This is false. I demonstrated in the other thread that the early Christians believed that the angels and saints pray for us.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Nowhere in scripture is prayer to Mary or saints supported. Follow the infallible Word of God, not the fallible traditions of man.

---

Rev 8:3:

Another angel came and stood at the altar,* holding a gold censer. He was given a great quantity of incense to offer, along with the prayers of all the holy ones, on the gold altar that was before the throne.

Once again, an angel is placing our prayers to the heavenly alter.

Angels, as beings, are not who there are, but what they do. Angels are messengers. In order for them to take a message, they have to hear it.

---

All these I answered in previous posts of yours in the other thread. It obviously went in one ear and out the other. I'll recap most of them:

- God can do anything, including give angels and saints the ability to hear prayers. But that doesn't mean that He did. You are constantly using this bad argumentation, called the suitability argument (God would do something because it seems so suitable, and because He can do it, it means that He did). I'll let Tertullian speak for me here: "But if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious imaginations, we may then make out God to have done anything we please, on the ground that it was not impossible for Him to do it. We must not, however, because He is able to do all things suppose that He has actually done what He has not done. But we must inquire whether He has really done it." (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 10-11)

- Scripture tells us to pray to Jesus, because Scripture tells us to pray to God, and Jesus is God. Jesus is one with God. Jesus said "Ask ME anything in my name, and I'll do it" (John 14:14). Stephen prayed to Jesus as he was being stoned. Paul prayed to Jesus to have his "thorn in the flesh" removed. In Revelation, ALL are bowing to him in worship, so obviously he is worthy of prayer. Nowhere are we told that Mary or any saint should be prayed to, much less them being worthy of it.

- If you believe Mary and the saints can hear your thoughts and prayers, you are attributing to them a level of omniscience, as well as the power and capacity to handle millions and millions of prayers. This is a capacity of the divine.

- How do you know those saints have "jurisdiction" over cancer and fatherhood? By what revelation from God is this based on?

- God does NOT hear all prayers, especially those that are not directed toward him but rather to idols.

- Praying to anyone or anything other than God is idolatry.

- Praying isn't just "asking for something". It is different from normal, verbal human communication. It is spiritual communication.

- You demonstrated the existence of a papyrus with prayer to Mary, 200 years after the time of the apostles and the early churches. You completely failed to show a link between this practice, and the teachings of Jesus, his apostles, and the beliefs and practices of the early Church. I explained that Gnostic heresies were in existence even before that, and no one in their right mind would connect that to the early church. I showed you a quote from Origen that shunned the practice of praying to Mary.

- Rev 8:3 does not say those prayers were directed to, or heard by, the angel. If this verse is indeed suggesting the angel heard those prayers, it doesn't say that those prayers were directed to the angel instead of to God. This verse does not justify prayer to any other entity but God. Praying to angels, saints, or to Mary just isn't a biblical concept.

Were you there? Everything you just stated is supposition. Humans wrote the gospels, humans chose which gospels were to be the primary written record of Jesus' life. Some did so together in groups. Those groups became more formalized and named over time.

Point being, on one hand you state that scripture is the infallible word of God and that councils of men should not necessarily be listened to, but on the other hand ignore that councils of men (however formal or informal) were responsible for selecting which scriptures were to be followed.

Even the authorship of the four Gospels (as well as other writings) is taken from oral tradition as no where in any of them does it state specifically who wrote any of them.

So we can have faith and belief that, for example, Mark was written by a man named Mark who was a friend of Peter and that everything he wrote was accurate, true, and infallible simply because early Christians said these things are true even though it's never written down who wrote it or how he got the story and other men decided his was one of the best accounts of Jesus' life.

If that's the case, why can't Catholics have faith and belief that there are saints who have passed on who may intercede on their behalf based on their reading of the scriptures and oral tradition passed down from early Christians?

I think you said it best when you quoted Jesus, "You will know them by their fruits." Do you and I know what is in a Catholic's heart when they appeal to Mary? I don't.

Now there are certainly bad things done by the Catholic Church just as there have been by every Christian group because humans are fallible. But to use such harsh words to criticize other Christians who are also trying to find their way through life as a follower of Christ seems a bit much when we are all, to some degree, relying on those early followers and what they chose to write down and say, "This is it. This is the way."

Personally if I see someone break out a rosary I don't think, "Idol Worshipper". I think, "There's someone who is not afraid to show the world their faith." I will, just as you said, judge them by their fruits and let God determine what is in their hearts.

- If you believe Mary and the saints can hear your thoughts and prayers, you are attributing to them a level of omniscience, as well as the power and capacity to handle millions and millions of prayers. This is a capacity of the divine. - Mary and the saints exist in the eternal now so they are not bound by linear time. Therefore, there is no reason to assume there is a limitation to their capacity to handle millions of prayers. You cannot prove from the Bible you worship that they are unable to hear us when we invoke them. I reject your use of the term "omniscience" as this implies they know all. They don't. That's why we invoke them when we request their prayers for us.

- How do you know those saints have "jurisdiction" over cancer and fatherhood? By what revelation from God is this based on? More pedantic cant from you. Most of those we include in the category of saints are post the closing of the canon. This is where tradition and reason come along side Scripture.

- God does NOT hear all prayers, especially those that are not directed toward him but rather to idols. Pretty sure God hears all prayers which isn't the same as saying He approves of all prayers.

- Praying to anyone or anything other than God is idolatry. Again and again and again, I reject your assertion that the invocation of the blessed communion of all faithful people is idolatry.

- Praying isn't just "asking for something". It is different from normal, verbal human communication. It is spiritual communication. And your point is...?

Satan approves of your divisiveness. Keep up the good work.

"We might even say that the one thing which separates a saint from ordinary men is his readiness to be one with ordinary men. In this sense the word ordinary must be understood in its native and noble meaning; which is connected with the word order."

G.K. Chesterton


"A saint is long past any desire for distinction; he is the only sort of superior man who has never been a superior person."

G.K. Chesterton

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Praying to saints or to Mary means you believe they can hear your thoughts and prayers…

---

Doesn't Rev 5:8 mean the same thing?

---

Where do you get that those bowls contain the prayers to them, and not to God? They are the prayers "of" the saints, not "to" them. In Revelation angels are also holding and pouring out bowls - bowls of God's wrath on the earth. The bowls of wrath were no more wrath directed towards the angels, as the bowls of prayers were prayers directed to the 24 elders. That is just bad eisegesis, especially since there is no other supporting scripture.

---

Stay on track. Your issue was whether the saints in heaven can hear our prayers. If they can present our prayers to God, does that not imply that they can hear them?

---

No, I don't see how that is implied. If the elders are holding bowls of prayers, how does it follow that they can hear them?

---

They can't very well offer our prayers to God unless they're aware of them. So the verse suggests that this is not a uniquely divine capacity.

90sBear said:

---

Were you there? Everything you just stated is supposition. Humans wrote the gospels, humans chose which gospels were to be the primary written record of Jesus' life. Some did so together in groups. Those groups became more formalized and named over time.

Point being, on one hand you state that scripture is the infallible word of God and that councils of men should not necessarily be listened to, but on the other hand ignore that councils of men (however formal or informal) were responsible for selecting which scriptures were to be followed.

Even the authorship of the four Gospels (as well as other writings) is taken from oral tradition as no where in any of them does it state specifically who wrote any of them.

So we can have faith and belief that, for example, Mark was written by a man named Mark who was a friend of Peter and that everything he wrote was accurate, true, and infallible simply because early Christians said these things are true even though it's never written down who wrote it or how he got the story and other men decided his was one of the best accounts of Jesus' life.

If that's the case, why can't Catholics have faith and belief that there are saints who have passed on who may intercede on their behalf based on their reading of the scriptures and oral tradition passed down from early Christians?

I think you said it best when you quoted Jesus, "You will know them by their fruits." Do you and I know what is in a Catholic's heart when they appeal to Mary? I don't.

Now there are certainly bad things done by the Catholic Church just as there have been by every Christian group because humans are fallible. But to use such harsh words to criticize other Christians who are also trying to find their way through life as a follower of Christ seems a bit much when we are all, to some degree, relying on those early followers and what they chose to write down and say, "This is it. This is the way."

Personally if I see someone break out a rosary I don't think, "Idol Worshipper". I think, "There's someone who is not afraid to show the world their faith." I will, just as you said, judge them by their fruits and let God determine what is in their hearts.

---

But ARE Catholics relying on those early followers and the writers of the Gospels with their beliefs that Mary was sinless, was bodily assumed into heaven, and should be prayed to for intercession (just like someone we know) or do you think this is a deviation from the original message?

How about these "fruits": These prayers are from The Glories of Mary, by Alphonsus Ligouri, a doctor of the Catholic Church (only 37 doctors of the Church have ever been named) which are fully sanctioned and promoted by the Catholic Church, undergoing over 800 editions -

"Oh Mary, sweet refuge of poor sinners, assist me with thy mercy, banish me from the infernal enemies, and come thou to take my soul and present it to the eternal judge, my queen, do not abandon me, I give you my heart and soul."

"Oh immaculate and holy pure virgin Mary, Mother of God, Queen of the World, thou are the joy of the saints, thou art the peacemaker between sinners and God, thou art the advocate of the abandoned, the secure haven of those who are on the sea of this world, thou art the consolation of this world, the ransomer of slaves, the comforter of the afflicted, the salvation of the universe."

"We have confidence but in thee, O most faithful virgin, O great Mediatress of peace between men and God, the love of all men and of God to whom the honor and benediction with the Father and the Holy Ghost, amen."

"O sovereign lady, saint of all saints, our strength and our refuge, God as it were, of this world, glory of heaven, accept those who love thee."

"O sovereign princess, turn o Mary thy loving eyes on me, look at me and draw me to thee"

Mary, Blessed Virgin, Immaculate Queen, I dedicate my family forever to thy service, I appoint thee ruler of my whole house. Bless us, defend us, provide for us, counsel us, comfort us, assist us in our infirmities, especially in the sorrows of death, grant that we may go to heaven."

"Every prayer of Mary's is like an established Law for our Lord, obliging him to be merciful for everyone for whom she intercedes"

"Mary throws open the door of God's mercies to anyone she pleases, when she pleases, as she pleases"

"In thy hands I place my eternal salvation; to thee I entrust my soul....."



Would you say that these illustrate losing one's way, and not finding one's way?