Hi Mungo,
I'm way behind but want to add some more responses.
For those that say we cannot pray TO another human being I posted the following explanation earlier in this thread (post #227)
We can correctly say both "Catholics do pray to Mary" and "Catholics don’t pray to Mary"
I don't know why it doesn't bother you to make a statement as contradictory as that last line.
What is the point in praying to Mary, when you can go straight to Father in heaven - if you know Him?
Then, what is the point in saying 'Catholics
don't pray to Mary'? To appease Protestant sensibilities?
We would not be having this discussion if it were not for
your desire to promote the fact that
Catholics do pray to Mary, even though, having lived her life on earth she is fallen asleep in Jesus until the resurrection, and as such, has less power to influence heaven now, than
you do through appropriate prayer.
Jesus made clear that anyone can have as much power as Mary did,
by doing the will of God. He also made clear that we can
know the will of God, and
pray according to the will of God, and, Father
never sleeps. Psa 121:4.
The use of the word 'pray', as it can be addressed to another person as in Old English, really doesn't justify praying to Mary. Of course it means something similar to praying to Father, but the
scriptural reasons for praying to God are many and very
specific. You probably need to dig out a Hebrew lexicon and study all the various words for 'praise', for instance. And read Romans 1 to see how important is
thanksgiving directly to God. Jesus taught us this:
Luke 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? Matt 7:11.
Another curious thing about Protestants is that they have special Bibles that have extra words in them, particularly the words only and alone. Hence in their BIbles they find the phrases "faith alone" or "scripture alone" that do not appear in regular Bibles.
If any Bible has had words added - or removed - it's the New Jerusalem Bible. Please find a handful of these references to 'faith alone' and 'scripture alone', for me, because they aren't in my KJV. Thanks.
Those are examples of what you think prayer is. They are not a definition of "pray".
No. They are direct references to
effective praying - more like a visual aid than a 'definition'.
These arguments are another example of Protestants attempts at cultural imperialism. Not only do Protestants try to insist that we argue from their truncated Bible, and that only, but they try to insist that we adhere to their particular definitions of words.
Ha! 'cultural imperialism'? Are you serious? You've been listening to too much Catholic dogma!
Groundzero,
Ummm, how about showing me where the heck we are told to talk to people who have deceased? As far as I understood, this was generally achieved through a seance, and God made it pretty clear what he thought of such activity. :/
Mungo,
Praying to Mary and the Saints in heaven is not done through a seance so nothing wrong there then.
Mungo, I think you're missing the point here. First of all, Mary and special 'Saints' have no power to command God any more, and secondly,
we are
instructed to pray to God Himself. Isa 45:11, 22, John 16:23.
Foreigner,
-- I almost spit out my Coke laughing when I read this, GZ.
I made this VERY point as a seventh grader in Catholic school and was punished. Thankfully, they quit hitting us with the wooden rods after fifth grade.
I pointed out that when you are attempting to contact a non-living being who is NOT God and who has lived as a human on earth in the past, that is a textbook definition of attempting a seance, regardless of the motivation.
I was yelled at by the nun teaching the class, and sent down to the principal's office where the assistance principal continued to yell.
The principal, sent me home and demanded I write an apology to the teacher and students before I would be re-admitted.
My father would have nothing of it and left work to march over to school and lit up the principal like a Christmat tree stating that it was their job to teach me and if my statement was incorrect, they should be able to correct me. Not expell me.
He said that WAS the definition of a seance, and if interaction with the saints in heaven and Mary was different, they should be able to explain the difference to me.
I was allowed to return to class with a stern warning that while in the classroom I was not allowed to speak unless it was to answer a direct question from the teacher.
I'm sorry to hear about the rods. Thank you for sharing this. It is a powerful statement.
The Church today still forbids all such use of mediums, spiritualist or any other method of conjuring up spirits from the dead, for we do not know what spirits we are dealing with.
But with the saints, those who have died in Christ, it is not the same. They are alive in Christ as part of the one body. Moreover we do not “communicate” in the same way as is forbidden in the OT. We ask them for their intercession, not for them to talk to us. We are just asking them for their prayers and help, though Christ, our one Lord. The saints can aid us with their prayer precisely because they are deeply united to Christ in heaven.
You really don't seem to understand that we have no choice about 'how' we pray,
or to whom. Either we pray to God, according to God's will, or, He will tell us one day, 'Depart from me you workers of iniquity'.
Doesn't that alarm you slightly?
And we do pray differently to Mary. I have given you all the evidence. You just choose to ignore it.
No, Mungo. There is
no evidence for praying to Mary, or saints, at all,
in all of scripture.
What you are saying is that because Protestants define a word in a certain way then Catholics must accept their definitions and only use the word in that way. That is very arrogant.
It shows that are not here for a serious discussion but just for Catholic bashing.
Dear Mungo,
Please feel free to lead by example, in the non-bashing of Protestants. The more scripture you bring to your arguments, the more seriously you will be taken. But Catholic double-speak such as you posted as if it deserves the full credulity of serious BIble students, can be left out of the equation, (as it does your cause no favours).
Understanding the meaning of words is important.
And that's why the Bible takes precedence over 'oral tradition'.
Paul was asking the saints to pray FOR him.
We ask the Saints in heaven to pray FOR us.
How do you know they are praying what you asked them to pray? The best you can do is keep your fingers crossed that
they remembered everything. After all, you're not the only person asking for prayer, and they're only human. Isn't that why God - whose capacity is thousands of times more than humans' - tells us to pray to
Himself directly?
Again I say that we have more power with God than those who have died.
I know what the Bible tells me and it tells me there are people in heaven offering our prayers before the throne of God.
I would settle for five chapter and verses on this one? Four? Three? Seriously, are there any?
I don’t accept your illogical sola scriptura praxis.
You say show me in the Bible.
Well you show me where in the Bible it says everything has to be explicitly stated in the Bible
Brother, that reason is not going to hold water in the presence of the Lord: Matt 7:24. Do you know that 24 is the number of worship? That's an interesting confluence of ideas: the word and worship.
It is obvious that everything which pertains to faith and godliness, is already in scripture. Don't you think that something as fundamental to God's relationship with man as prayer, hasn't been sprinkled liberally throughout scripture going back all the way to Genesis? And that the omissions are
deliberate?
Does your describing a legitimate request for verses to prove your doctrine is Biblical, as 'illogical', pass for academic rigour? I don't think so! If you
don't have 'evidence'
from scripture, you don't have
evidence.
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture
[is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable
for doctrine,
for reproof,
for correction,
for instruction in righteousness.
What this means is, you can correct all the things you thought you had to do and believe, simply by reading scripture and retaining only the practices written there. That would be
logical.
Have you ever counted the times 'doctrine' and 'teach' appear in the New Testament?
Just out of interest, I thought I'd look up what the New Jerusalem Bible has put for 2 Timothy 3:16. It's quite helpful, as it misses out at least half the verse. Here it is:
'All scripture is inspired by God, and is useful for refuting error, for guiding people's lives and teaching them to be upright.'
There is a footnote beside 'useful', which directs me to this wonderfully ambiguous statement:
'Or (less probably) 'all scripture that is inspired by God ... ' (Vulg). This affirmation about the inspiration of the OT, cf 2 P 1:21, probably includes some Christian writings also. It is by assiduously studying scripture that the Christian nourishes faith and apostolic zeal vv 15 - 17.'
'probably includes some Christian writings also'. It does? Where does the Bible say that? There is no hint in any of the Old or New Testaments, that other writings carry a similar validity.
The word of God has always been in a class of its own. Jesus, and the prophets and His apostles were very clear about that.
In the previous footnote, 2 Pet 3:16 was mentioned - the verse which says:
As also in all [his = Paul's]
epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
The footnote fails to point out that
Peter is declaring
Paul's writings to be '
scripture' also, in the New Covenant era.
Seems like a missed opportunty!
I hope you see why I mentioned that about 2 Pet 3:16 - because Peter seemed to think it matters.
And if he's right, then NT writings are a more cogent definition of 'praxis' than either 'some Christian writings' or, 'oral tradition'.
