|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Almost thou persuadest me (to the Roman Catholic Church)
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
If they're part of the team, why wouldn't you ask them to pray for you?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Man ... this thread is messing with my head ...
Because I'm cursed with the ability to see both sides ... ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
It seems axiomatic to me that a 'higher' view of the sacraments - and particularly the eucharist - and of the Church will lead to some kind of acknowledgement or acceptance of devotion to Mary and the Saints to some extent. These things follow logically.
The issue, as I see it, is the extent to which we take them ... even the Orthodox would baulk at some aspects of RCC Marian devotion and also some elements of their eucharistic practices - such as Benediction and Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament - even though the 'elements' are venerated in their own services - but then consumed rather than put on display in order to be admired ...
At the same time I find a Sola Scriptura position to be increasingly untenable ... although I will accept that it isn't 'solo scriptura' and that a 'proper' outworking of Sola Scriptura is more nuanced than is often expressed - particularly by evangelicals.
What it tends to boil down to is a 'sola scriptura as I understand it' which effectively makes each Protestant his own Pope.
I s'pose I'm rather like Seeking Sister at the moment insofar as I have a more 'Anglican' take on things that doesn't quite stretch as far as Rome or Orthodoxy but at the same time heads further that way than, say EE or South Coast Kevin would.
I can certainly appreciate where both EE and South Coast Kevin are coming from.
What I would dispute, though, is EE's claim that the more Big C and Big T Catholic and Tradition views lack logic or 'evidence' - to use his terms.
It strikes me that beliefs like that of the Immaculate Conception among the RCs DO arise logically from the RC's position on other issues - such as original sin for instance. That doesn't mean that I agree with them. I don't think it's a necessary doctrine but I can see how they arrived at it.
The criteria I might use to reject it wouldn't be the kind of mathematical logic that EE is talking about but a whole range of criteria - taking account of the collective witness of other Christians - such as the various Protestant groups and that of the Orthodox. A kind of 'that believed everywhere, at all times and by all' approach.
Sure, I'd be the first to accept that there might be inconsistencies in my approach and that it's subject to subjectivity, partiality and all sorts of other things ... but I'd like to think that it's not all based on my individual whims and fancies.
I certainly agree that there is a collective Tradition aspect to all of this.
The difficulties come, it seems to me, in determining who is right on the Tradition aspect - because both the RCs and the Orthodox claim to have Tradition on their side on points that appear mutually exclusive.
Just as Sola Scriptura Protestants do.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Meanwhile, and apologies for the double-post ...
I thought IngoB's Guinness analogy was a good one, although like all analogies it will only stretch so far.
It strikes me, though, that it cuts both ways.
An RC friend of mine will receive communion at our local Methodist church, for instance, precisely because he doesn't believe it to be Guinness. He's happy to take it for what it is - some kind of beer that isn't Guinness.
But then, he's even told me that it'd be ok for me to 'receive' if I attended a Mass at his church. I have attended Mass there but not received. I'd never attempt to receive at at an RC or Orthodox service because I know I'm not supposed to.
By the same token, this RC friend feels less comfortable about receiving at our local liberal-catholic Anglican parish church - which his wife attends - because it looks more like Guinness than the beer served at the Methodist church.
Without taking the thread back on itself, I did find myself wondering when I read South Coast Kevin's posts about communion as to what he actually believes is 'going on' ...
If he takes a straightforward Zwinglian memorialist evangelical Protestant type approach then clearly communion isn't the same at his church than it is at a Church which believes in transubstantiation or in some kind of more 'realised' real presence.
That said, I can see EE's point too that it's inevitable that some Christians will emphasise some aspects and some will put more stress on others.
Perhaps it's another of these both/and not either/or areas ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel: Man ... this thread is messing with my head ...
Because I'm cursed with the ability to see both sides ...
Cursed? Feel free to start your own ... threads.
Personally, I strive toward 1/50 post/response ratio. I may be a bit
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If they're part of the team, why wouldn't you ask them to pray for you?
Because Jesus is the advocate with the father, and we don't need "Jesus or anyone acting in His employ" working the father on our behalf.
quote:
Above satirical link
Though some observers have questioned whether Smoler will be able to absolve Christians of earthly wrongdoings, having never died on the cross for humanity's sins, Christ dismisses such claims, saying that he has "complete faith in Dean."
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I presume you don't ask anyone to pray for you then? If you ask the Church on Earth to pray for you why wouldn't you ask the Church in heaven to pray for you?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It seems that if one thinks of intercessory prayer as "working the Father" one has a pretty low view of God.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
It's interesting that a good number of posters here whinge about various teachings,not necessarily doctrines, as well as customs which one comes across in the Catholic church.
They are sometimes cultural rather than cultual differences. Sometimes these cultural differences are presented by non-Catholics as essential parts of RC teaching,mandatory upon the Catholic faithful and abhorrent to all 'bible believing 'pure Protestants.
It is hurtful to me to hear from a Protestant that as a Roman Catholic I have to believe that all non-Catholics are condemned to an eternity without God.I have NEVER found this in Catholic teaching.
There is little understanding of the idea of the Church and its members as encompassing the faithful of all lands and all time and that those who have passed on from this life still play a part in the life of the Church.
There is little attempt to understand the veneration which the vast majority of Christians have for the Virgin Mary and the Saints in Heaven.
Although there is no obligation for any Catholic to seek the intercession of the Virgin Mary
or to recognise her as 'Queen of Heaven',there seems to be little understanding on the part of some Protestants that Catholics may feel that some Protestants are simply insulting the Virgin Mary and ridiculing the Holy Church.
I'm not complaining myself.I understand why they do it,but I ask them to understand that some people react with disbelief that someone can be - to their mind- so rude.
Of course there are Catholics,some posters here, who react dismissively about any claims of Protestants,but it is my observation that Catholics complain much less about Protestants than vice versa.
In my own personal spiritual journey I value the experiences of non-Catholic Christians.I am happy to join in their worship.On some rare occasions I have received Communion in Anglican,Presbyterian and Lutheran churches.I do not disparage their clergy nor their sacraments.I simply recognise that the clergy are not Catholic priests in full communion with the successor of Peter,just as I believe that they would also say.
All of us have to make, somewhere along the line, an Act of Faith.
How do those who believe in Sola Scriptura know that what is presented as the living Word of God is not just a collection of legends ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@moron - fair call ...
I was simply thinking aloud.
I'm not actually complaining about the thread, I think it's an interesting and enlightening one.
It's just that I feel tugged in two directions, there's a battle going on between my more Protestant DNA and my increasingly sacramental and more broadly Catholic approach ...
It happens a lot on these boards.
I'm tempted to start a post on what constitutes a 'proper church'. Part of me wonders why SCK, for instance, is so exercised as to what RCs and Orthodox may consider his church to be. Why would it worry him unless he felt 'threatened' by it in some way?
More seriously, I can, of course, understand his point-of-view.
It boils down, I think, to a kind of minimalist approach found within Protestantism. What is the absolute minimum we can get away with believing? What is the core and kernel of the Gospel free of unnecessary accretions - as we'd see it?
You see it all the time. What is the bare minimum we can get away with in terms of decoration, vestments, titles for ministers and leaders ...
I can understand why this is and historically how it has come about but take it to its logical conclusion and you have Quakers where it's so minimalist that silence constitutes worship and there're hardly any belief requirements at all ...
That said, on the more 'maximalist' side of things, the RCs and the Orthodox there's an equal and opposite tendency - very often - to nominalism and the bare minimum one has to do ... such as turn up once or twice a year ...
@Forthview, yes, there is a great deal of suspicion among Protestants - even here in the mild-mannered UK - towards the RCC ... and it's got a lot to do with the history, of course, as well as distorted views gained from 500 years of anti-Popish propaganda.
Of course it's hurtful for you to hear from certain Protestants that all RCs are damned to a godless eternity ... but that's not a view that would be associated with 'mainstream' Protestants nor even many evangelicals these days.
The only Protestants I've come across who would froth at the mouth and condemn all RCs to Hell unless they repented of their wicked and nefarious beliefs are a particular kind of blinkered, fundamentalist Protestant. And there aren't many of those on these Boards and those that there have been tend to be given short shrift and are driven away.
I suspect that most evangelical Protestants on these Boards wouldn't blanketly condemn RCs to Hell. Most - if not all - would accept RCs as fellow believers in Christ even if they disagreed with aspects of RC doctrine, practice and the kind of cultural customs that many of us may associate with RCs.
However, what I do detect among evangelical Protestants on these Boards - and I see it in myself too as that's the background I come from - is an inveterate individualism and little sense of the corporate aspect of faith - however much they (or we) protest otherwise.
Hence the 'little understanding' of these aspects that you rightly detect among many Protestant posters.
It's an approach I can understand - as most things work in cycles of action and reaction. We've reacted at what we've taken to be a despotic and authoritarian system - ie Roman Catholicism - and so rail and rebel against anything that smacks of 'group-think' or what we'd see as a collective philosophy that might stifle our God-given freedom as human beings.
That's the nub of it, irrespective of how real or imagined those fears are.
On the Marian thing and the Saints, the repugnance or reluctance that many Protestants feel about these issues is the lack of what they see as a clear scriptural precedent (without reference to the Apocrypha or Tradition) on the one hand and also a failure to understand that these aspects contribute to a 'high' Christology rather than detracting from such a thing.
Protestants often assume that veneration accorded to Mary or the Saints somehow diminishes or subtracts from the honour and praise due to God alone - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
I've even seen it expressed as, 'Every prayer to Mary is one less prayer to God the Father ...' a complete misunderstanding of the Catholic position.
And, as Mousethief has observed, this can lead to a fairly low view of God - some kind of divine slot-machine to whom we direct our prayers ...
A High Church Welsh Anglican once noted that, 'He who is not a good Marian ends up as a good Arian.'
I think that's pushing it too far, but I can understand the point he was making. A 'high' view of Mary as the Mother of God goes hand-in-hand with a high Christology - Christ as God.
Heck, I've even known charismatic evangelical Anglicans and other Protestant evangelicals say things like, 'Well, Jesus is the Son of God ... not actually God ...'
Whaaa-AAAA-AAA-TTT!!!
Of course, most are better catechised than that but the incipient minimalism inherent within the Protestant schema can lead to a very minimalist view of Christ.
And of his Church too, of course.
Which is why it can easily come across to devout RCs that Protestants are mocking Holy Church and the Mother of God, the Saints and all holy things besides.
Sure, there's plenty of wriggle-room between High Church 'Anglo-Papalism' on the one hand and some kind of Taliban-esque extreme Protestant fundamentalism on the other ... but common to all is a kind of prized individualism that is difficult to shift ... and given the history that's entirely understandable - if reprehensible from an RC point-of-view.
As for Protestants complaining more about RCs than the other way round - I think this is true too. It's part of the 'Protest' part of Protestantism. Defining oneself by what one isn't and by what one is against ... rather than by what one is 'for'.
I've heard some Protestant leaders say that it's high time we all adopted a 'pro' stance - being 'for' things rather than against things all the time.
Treading more carefully, I would add that some of us here have also suffered from abusive and authoritarian forms of church life within conservative or charismatic Protestantism and that has given us a tendency to 'project' our experiences onto the more Catholic traditions. 'These people must be playing the same mind-games as I encountered at Church X down the road ...'
As to the Sola Scriptura position ... for my own part I think it's shot through with inconsistencies but I can see what it is trying to assert and defend.
To all practical purposes, I don't believe that most Sola Scriptura types are actually Sola Scriptura at all. It's simply a convenient Reformation mantra and rallying call.
It has its own internal logic, of course, just as Catholic views do.
Which is why I keep banging on about the context and the communal aspects.
A belief in the Immaculate Conception follows logically from certain presuppositions within late-medieval Roman Catholicism. It doesn't follow logically at all from a Protestant position nor an Orthodox one - even though both are very different in their approach to this issue.
Similarly, to simply pick an example that's been cited here, a belief in 'tongues' and other spiritual gifts is also a corollary of a certain pneumatic approach that can be found - in different ways - in all Christian traditions. It's simply one that has been emphasised more fully in some traditions rather than others.
It's all about the extent to which we take things and where we believe the boundaries to lie.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
@Forthviee in the final Tract of the Tractarians On the 39 Articles Newman makes a valuable distinction between what are doctrines of the Church and what are common usages. For example-
quote:
Nothing can show more clearly than this passage that the Articles are not written against the creed of the Roman Church, but against actual existing errors in it, whether taken into its system or not. Here the sacrifice of the Mass is not spoken of, in which the special question of doctrine would be introduced; but "the sacrifice of Masses," certain observances, for the most part private and solitary, which the writers of the Articles knew to have been in force in time past, and saw before their eyes, and which involved certain opinions and a certain teaching. Accordingly the passage proceeds, "in which it was commonly said;" which surely is a strictly historical mode of speaking.
Masses
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Gamaliel I'm not at all worried if some Protestants think that all RCs are condemned to Hell.
What I am worried about is that some Protestants,one on this board, has written that RCs have to believe (and that includes me !) that all non-Catholics are condemned to an eternity without God.
I,for one, do not believe this,nor is it the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
I think we can recognise that there are many Catholics who don't believe the propositions that Protestants tend to find the most objectionable aspects of Catholic belief. And equally vice versa. Many thoughtful people on both sides of the divide hold nuanced views.
Once we've recognised - perhaps in a post-modern way - that some of the differences are to do with culture and tradition that emphasise some aspects over others, then it seems to me that there are 3 possible responses:
- imperialism - the True Church is those who adopt our culture- spreading our culture is doing the work of God
- minimalism - if belonging to the True Church is helpful for salvation then the True Church should empty itself of its own culture so as not to be a stumbling block to those from different cultural traditions
- pluralism - we are the church that worships God and seeks to do His will through the medium of our particular culture; other equally-True churches do the same through their own traditions and cultures.
I think you'll find that the asymmetry is between these positions - the minimalists and pluralists feel threatened by the imperialists - on both the Catholic and Protestant sides of the divide.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well yes, Forthview, there are some Protestants, unfortunately, who think that they know and understand the teachings of the RC Church better than the RC Church does itself ...
That's the product of a particular fundamentalist mindset and not necessarily representative of Protestantism per se, of course.
Such fundies will dismiss any evidence that appears to contradict their view because they think it's casuistry or sophistry or simply the RC Church (or any other bug-bear, be it Islam or whatever else) trying to pull the wool over their eyes.
This tendency isn't restricted to some forms of Protestant. I've seen it among fundamentalists in other traditions too ...
'You're saying that there are moderate or liberal Muslims out there? Nah ... they must be lying to you or trying to pull the wool over your eyes. I've read the Quran. I know what Muslims believe better than they know themselves ...'
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Thanks for the PM, Forthview. Unfortunately, I can't reply to it as yet as it's blocked for some reason - perhaps it hasn't been reactivated after I returned after a period of banishment. I was marooned for bad behaviour ... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I will appeal to the hosts in the Styx to reconnect the PM reply function.
Suffice to say for now, that I appreciate your eirenic and balanced comments and hope that I can respond in kind and with as much grace as you show here.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
What I would dispute, though, is EE's claim that the more Big C and Big T Catholic and Tradition views lack logic or 'evidence' - to use his terms.
Trouble is... I never claimed that! (Unless you are referring to one particular doctrine I happened to mention).
What I said is that, AFAIAC, the claims of Big C and Big T should not be accepted without recourse to evidence and logic. Of course there are claims of the RCC and Tradition which are entirely coherent - I have never suggested otherwise. In fact, I draw a great deal of understanding from the RCC, as it happens. I just cannot accept the idea that "you must believe this simply because I say it's true, without any verification or substantiation."
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - but unless I've missed something you do appear to be making an assumption that people are being asked to accept the claims of Big C and Big T without recourse to evidence and logic.
Whatever else we may wish to say or suggest about the Big C and Big T positions, I think there is rather more to it than the proverbial requirement to 'believe six impossible things before breakfast' ...
If I have misrepresented your position then I apologise.
But I don't see either the RCs or the Orthodox here suggesting that, "you must believe this simply because I say it's true, without any verification or substantiation."
We might not agree with the conclusions they reach but surely we have to acknowledge that they reach these conclusions by the application of reason and logic - and yes, by a step of faith too, as with any other faith position - just as those of us in other Christian traditions do when we reach our particular conclusions?
As I have attempted, no doubt ineptly, to demonstrate, a belief in the Immaculate Conception does follow as a logical corollary of a particular view of original sin.
Baldly, if Christ is to be born free from the taint of inherited sin then somehow his mother is going to have to be cleansed or delivered from that beforehand ...
Hmmm ... how to resolve that particular problem ...
Aha! She must have been born without taint of original sin somehow in which case there must have been something miraculous that happened at her conception to ensure that this was the case ...
The Protestants and the Orthodox haven't resorted to that particular solution because they have different solutions to that particular problem.
I don't wish to be rude to RC teachings by suggesting that some of the most distinctive among them are apparent efforts to square particular circles and to fill in the gaps ... but at base level there's something of this going on.
We might question the evidence and the first principles but surely we can see the logic behind the conclusion - even if we don't see any 'smoking gun' ...?
Now, it may be the case here - I don't know - that the RCC response on this one could be, 'There is no smoking gun and you are asking the wrong question. We don't need a smoking gun because we trust our sources and the teaching authority of the RC Church.
I will agree with you that this is how it sounds at times. But that's different to the suggestion that there is no logic or reason involved.
It's simply the application of logic and reason in a way that leads to different conclusions to those that thee and me might reach as Protestant Christians - or which Ad Orientem might reach as an Orthodox Christian.
Ultimately, though, as with any faith conclusion or conviction we can't 'prove' it all empirically. Christian faith is not irrational or unreasonable - but I would suggest that aspects and elements of it are supra-rational if you like.
It can't all be reduced to some kind of mathematical formula. I know you are not suggesting that it can, but when we are dealing with Mysteries then there are limits to which our finite human minds can take us.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Protestant and/or versus Catholic is something that just doesn't play. I don't buy the distinctiveness of RCism. It seems very European and Old World to me. There is Christianity, and then there are varieties which we call denominations. Examples that cause me to say things are different: The Anglicans in Regina, Saskatchewan used the RC cathedral to ordain their last bishop due to construction in their own. An RC chaplain was with us and my mother in law as she died in hospital. The Mennonite chaplain had been there with us and she was spelled off. The local Orthodox priest (theere is only one) and our Anglican priest curled together - he who casts the first stone being their joke in our joint worship.
I don't see the specialness of any of them. It is culture, tradition and some of is okay and other bits not so much. I am Anglican for cultural and choice reasons not for some prideful rightness reason.
I had naively thought that actually praying to other than the triune God was an extinct medieval and superstitious practice. From asking about the last few days, no one is admitting to doing it. There's not a lot of Mary focus either. I've probably irked some by posting about it, but it doesn't seem mainstream at all to a western Canadian. Not at all here.
[ 24. May 2014, 15:43: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Those kind of ecumenical and eirenic attitudes do seem to apply in most places these days, it seems to me - other than parts of Eastern and Southern Europe.
That doesn't mean that distinctives don't exist though.
On the Marian thing, well, I've always understood the RC position to be that they don't pray 'to' Mary but invoke her to pray to God on their behalf in the same way as they might invite a friend to - or even thee or me for that matter ...
It strikes me that there are degrees of Marian devotion in RC and in Orthodox circles and that there is a bit of a difference - by and large - between the liturgical material and what goes on in personal devotion ...
I think we have to make a distinction between popular RC devotion and what is actually endorsed or practised officially ... although much of that would certainly still be a turn-off to many Prots - and not just die-hard conservative ones.
I've known RC clergy and laity who have told me how uncomfortable they feel with certain aspects of 'popular devotion' - but then there are parallels on the Protestant side ... not with special objects and so on but with particular pietistic practices and levels of emotionalism.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
On the other hand it is scarcely eirenic to equate praying to anyone apart from the triune God as a medieval ,superstitious practice,whether one was being naďve or not.
What about the Unitarians ? What about the Moslems ? What about the Hindus ?
The word 'pray' means to 'ask' and large numbers of Christians will 'ask' for the help of the Saints in their prayers.
The word which No prophet might have more profitably used is 'worship'
Christians 'worship' the Triune God and many 'venerate' the Saints.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
With the between the two being pretty thin. I don't buy it. If you're praying to a person you are praying to a person.
Considering too, hocus pocus, hoc est corpus.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
With the between the two being pretty thin. I don't buy it. If you're praying to a person you are praying to a person.
Considering too, hocus pocus, hoc est corpus.
Do you think, pray tell, the word 'praying' necessarily carries the connotation 'worshipping'?
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
With the between the two being pretty thin. I don't buy it. If you're praying to a person you are praying to a person.
Considering too, hocus pocus, hoc est corpus.
Answer my question: Do you ask others to pray for you?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I pray you, no prophet, not to be so stingy with your allowance of word denotations. Prithee, why do you insist on a single meaning for the word "pray" when others have said flatly that they are not using it that way?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
One objection given by some is that we are asking dead people to pray for us. Scripture of course proves such wrong.
"I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living".
"And I saw seats; and they sat upon them; and judgment was given unto them; and the souls of them that were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, and who had not adored the beast nor his image, nor received his character on their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years".
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
hoc est corpus comes before hocus pocus.,not the other way round.
Those who were unable to realise what happens during the eucharist, resorted to making fun of it by parodying the words in Latin 'Hoc est enim corpus meum,quod pro vobis tradetur'
(This is my body which is given for you)
There are still some people who like to make fun of the eucharist and use the words hocus pocus to refer to magic.
Next Thursday is the traditional day to commemorate the Ascension of Christ - was that also 'hocus pocus' ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Don't worry. Most of those who rubbish the Eucharist don't celebrate the Ascension anyway. Obviously they don't believe in it otherwise they would.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Hoo boy.
I believe in the Ascension. And the Real Presence.
The fact that I don't celebrate the Ascension (normally) has far more to do with its position on a Thursday during the work- and schoolweek than it does with my faith.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Same here. Real Presence is at the centre of my sacramental faith (which is contrast with Transubstantiation, which is a construct of Real Presence, but not the only one.)
I will be celebrating Ascension Day at (the Episcopal) Church of the Ascension in Greenpoint, Brooklyn.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem
Most of those who rubbish the Eucharist...
And who might they be?
And in what way are they "rubbishing the Eucharist"? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
LC & TD -- you must admit that Lutherans and Anglicans/Episcopalians tend to be higher up on the candle concerning sacraments and the calendar than the mass of other Protestants.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I was responding to "obviously they don't believe in it otherwise they would." Yeah, right.
I'm half inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he meant "they" collectively -- churches or denoms that don't believe in it don't celebrate it.
Nah.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I might be wrong, but I didn't take Ad Orientem's jibe as being directed to those churches and denominations who do celebrate the Ascension - nor those individuals who cannot do so formally because of the day on which it falls ... but rather on those which tend to sit very loosely and lightly by the Calendar.
That said, I still find the charge that such people 'rubbish the Eucharist' to be rather extreme.
This morning I attended a service at church belonging to a particular Protestant denomination which is decidedly at the lower end of the candle - and whilst my own preferences in terms of how they celebrated communion would be 'higher' than theirs I could not, hand on heart, suggest that they were 'rubbishing' it in some way. Far from it.
Their understanding of it and application of it might not have been fully-orbed sacramentalist in tone but it was certainly celebrated with due reverence and solemnity.
I could, however, quibble about some of the language used in the liturgy they'd devised for the occasion - it's one of those places where the minister or president devises a communion liturgy for each occasion ... if I was being pedantic I'd suggest that some of its Christology was weaker than I'd like ... but whether that was representative of the group as a whole or simply because it wasn't spelt out sufficiently (to my mind) I can't say.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It doesn't always follow that those who take a pretty 'low' approach to the eucharist also have a pretty low Christology ... but it can work out that way in practice.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I'll explain myself. It was aimed those who view the the sacraments as "hocus pocus". Such communities wouldn't for the most part celebrate feasts such as the Ascension which makes me wonder, do they not believe it? You know, lex orandi lex credendi and all that.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
See the world from my eyes. My Church was there at the start, and I have to live in a Protestant country in which most people blithely reject the faith and teachings of Jesus, and His apostles, and the Early Church Fathers, and the Pope. Dismissing the whole deposit of faith, dismissing the authority of the Church, dismissing Christian moral precepts which have held until modern times, arrogantly putting in their place errors from the 1500s, from the 1800s, from their own reading of the Bible, from their pastor who has never tried to root himself (or herself) in the soil of Catholicism.
I appreciate the Catholic church (my father was raised in it), and I pray for its ongoing existence until Christ's return. Not because I accept its claims about itself, but because it is the largest and most influential Christian church and is the way the vast majority of the world comes in contact with Christ's teachings.
Nonetheless, those of us who through prayer and study can not accept the extra-Biblical teachings that the RCC binds its members to, will never be able to join that group in good conscience without feeling that we are violating what Jesus actually asked of us. I attended my first Catholic mass not long ago and at several points I had to ask God's forgiveness for participating in prayers that I was unsure were acceptable.
Do not underestimate that many of us outside of the RCC feel we are in fact disrespecting God by binding ourselves to these doctrines. Unity is only possible when non-essential beliefs are not given equal standing with the core creeds and elements of the historic faith. What you see as rebellion, we see as a necessary separation from something good that has been corrupted.
Well, I (foolishly?) opened the can of worms, so I may as well roll with it...
"extra-Biblical teachings"
Using the Bible as a stick with which to beat or coerce or judge Mother Church is obscene, grotesque in its error. The Church gave us the Bible in the first place, itself protected by the Holy Spirit it was able in turn to protect for us the true record. To contest the authority or truth of the Church using the scriptures she has protected for us is to put them in a completely illogical relationship to one-another.
Sola scriptira is extra-Biblical, the whole protestant way of thinking about the Bible is both extra-Biblical and un-historical.
"...a necessary separation from something good that has been corrupted."
Because the Early Church Fathers thought Mary was just like any other woman? Because they said there should be thousands of churches with different theologies? Because contraception, and remarriage after divorce, and a symbolic Eucharist are "more Biblical" than chastity and openness to life, lifelong commitment of a man and a woman, and Hoc est Corpus Meum? Because Christians don't pray for the dead? Because Jesus founded a million Churches tasked with preaching a billion mismatched 'truths', not One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church guarded by the Holy Spirit and tasked with spreading The Good News?
And you say we are in such deep error that we cannot be joined? I don't see the part of the Bible where Luther, Calvin, Charles Taze Russell, Joseph Smith or any other dissenter would be the Rock to break from Peter. Or where the Church would be superceded by Anglicans or Baptists or 'non aligned' with their own cooked-up notions.
And yet, and yet, people side with them over the Church. On the basis, some claim, of scripture. Of the scripture we gave them! And call us arrogant and judgemental when one protests!
...well. That is not an edifying response, but it is honest at least.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, and I for one appreciate the honesty of it.
It does rankle, though, when unitarians and rank heretics such as Charles Taze Russell and Joseph Smith are mentioned in the same breath as Trinitarian reformers like Luther and Calvin - which doesn't mean that all Protestants are comfortable with everything that Luther and Calvin taught, for instance ...
But I can certainly see what you are getting at and how you must feel when certain Prots come along and start beating you over the head with Sola Scriptura.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
And in turn, everyone, I freely admit that my comment looks more like a rant than a hymn because of personal imperfection of my own. A lack of patience and charity which I do not defend.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
This idea that the teachings, behaviour and status of an organisation is validated because it can claim an unbroken institutional continuity with an original pure form, has to be one of the most dysfunctional and delusional arguments ever to circulate within Christendom.
Jesus actually spoke against this kind of thinking (Matthew 3:7-9):
quote:
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.
Putting one's trust in an institutional succession, and building your righteousness on that basis, is the antithesis of the grace of God.
Furthermore, the claim that we have to submit without question to the dictates of the RCC, because that Church apparently "gave us the Bible", even when its teaching contradicts the Bible, is simply nonsensical. Firstly, the Bible is not the Word of the Church but the Word of God. God is the only one who can claim ownership of the Bible, and He, in His sovereignty, has used various people and organisations within history to establish His word. Those people and organisations were merely the tools which God used to communicate His message. The "institutional descendants" (whatever that really means) of those tools cannot then claim to have the right to interpret that Word however they like, simply on the basis that God used their "institutional ancestors" as a means of establishing that Word.
It's a bit like a builder using a hammer to erect a wall in a house, and then later taking another hammer from the same tool box to justify vandalising it. Because the second hammer was from the same tool box as the first, and because the claim is that "tools from that toolbox gave us the wall" (!), therefore we are justified in doing whatever we like to the wall, as long we use a tool from that approved tool box. And if over the course of time some damage occurred to the wall, and another builder using tools from a different tool box made the necessary repairs, he would be condemned as unqualified to do so, because he is not using tools from the correct tool box!
[ 25. May 2014, 13:59: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
But no one is saying, whether they be RC, Orthodox or whatever, that they can interpret the scriptures "however they like". Indeed, Tradition is a guarantee against conformism and arbitrariness, which is why when it's abadoned you end up with a lot weird shit.
As for succession, the Church is a visible body. The link back to the Apostles is also visible, a golden thread, so that we might know where to look, as our Lord says "No man lighteth a candle, and putteth it in a hidden place, nor under a bushel; but upon a candlestick, that they that come in, may see the light".
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
Well, if the Church doesn't meet your standards, what does? The case for Catholicism is (at least in terms of Christian history, you must at least concede that much) pre-eminent. So what new body of teaching to you find to be more true?
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The trouble is, though, EE, that this argument can easily be turned around and used in evidence the other way ...
For instance:
'This idea that the teachings, behaviour and status of an organisation can be validated by one's own, individual interpretation and preference, has to be one of the most dysfunctional and delusional arguments ever to circulate within Christendom.'
'Putting one's trust in one's own judgement and personal preferences and building your righteousness on that basis, is the antithesis of the grace of God in its more corporate manifestation.'
'Furthermore, the claim that we have to submit without question to the dictates of our own individual and personal interpretation of the Bible, even when this contradicts the general consensus of what other's believe, is simply nonsensical.'
And so on ...
Of course the Bible is the word of God but it was transmitted through the Church. It didn't drop down out of heaven on silver tablets.
Your toolbox and hammer analogy is a good one, but someone of a more 'Catholic' persuasion could just as easily use it to suggest that the correct way to use the tools it contains is to go by the received Tradition ... otherwise we might end up with gerry-builders rather than properly authorised and qualified plumbers, brickies, sparkies etc etc.
Of course, as an Anglican I'm caught somewhere in the middle on this one. Both/and not either/or.
I can certainly see what you are getting at but can also see what the RCs - and indeed the Orthodox - are trying to say.
The scriptures didn't come to us in a vacuum. The Rabbis used to debate and wrestle with the Torah. It's been the same in Christianity - with the creeds and councils and so on.
It's not all about personal illuminism and me and Jesus, me and my Bible - although the personal element is clearly very important - it's about wrestling with and working these things out in the context of a community of faith.
Which is one of the things we are trying to do here to some extent - but it's obviously far more important in real life than it is here in cyber-space.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88
Well, if the Church doesn't meet your standards, what does?
I don't know why you are enquiring about my standards. It is God's standards that matter, and the Christian Church has fallen short of those standards many times throughout history. "You will know them by their fruit" as Jesus said. The idea that we can affirm something as being "of God" even at times when its fruit is clearly evil, makes a mockery of the teaching of Jesus. God's presence and blessing is manifested through the good fruit. As Jesus said: "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. A tree is known by its fruit." A good tree is not known as a good tree just because it has a particular name or position in the garden. No. A good tree is known by only one thing: its fruit. A corrupt and murderous church is not a church, irrespective of ecclesiastical pedigree, and this goes for Catholicism, Protestantism or Orthodoxy.
To say that God - or at least "God's best" - can only be found in a particular ecclesiastical organisation, irrespective of its sins, is a travesty of the clear teaching of our Lord. In fact, it's blasphemy to call a bad tree good. If the tree is good, then it has to show the world that its fruit is good. The Church has to justify its existence morally, and not take its status for granted based on longevity, continuity or pedigree.
We look to Christ as the only mediator between God and man. We are not saved because we wear a certain badge, but because God, in His grace, has worked in our hearts. This is what the New Covenant is all about.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
The trouble is, though, EE, that this argument can easily be turned around and used in evidence the other way ...
For instance:
'This idea that the teachings, behaviour and status of an organisation can be validated by one's own, individual interpretation and preference, has to be one of the most dysfunctional and delusional arguments ever to circulate within Christendom.'
'Putting one's trust in one's own judgement and personal preferences and building your righteousness on that basis, is the antithesis of the grace of God in its more corporate manifestation.'
'Furthermore, the claim that we have to submit without question to the dictates of our own individual and personal interpretation of the Bible, even when this contradicts the general consensus of what other's believe, is simply nonsensical.'
And so on ...
You would have a point if you were comparing like with like. But you are not. I say this, because I am not claiming that my ecclesiastical way is the only way or the best way, and thereby implying that people come under some kind of divine judgement, or at least, disapproval, if they don't drink my particular "cup of tea", as it were.
If the RCC acknowledges the truth of what it actually is, which is simply just another Christian denomination, with its own idiosyncracies, foibles and, yes, prejudices, then fine. But you know as well as I do that this is not what is being argued.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Veneration of Mary (bearing in mind that most is small-scale, eg praying the rosary) is not nearly as extra-Biblical as Sola Scriptura....
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Well, if the Church doesn't meet your standards, what does? The case for Catholicism is (at least in terms of Christian history, you must at least concede that much) pre-eminent. So what new body of teaching to you find to be more true?
I do not concede that much. I do concede that one could argue between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. But I do not concede that the Catholics have the more obvious case. Obviously.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I don't know why you are enquiring about my standards. It is God's standards that matter
But you claim to know what those are, and that we do not. Tell us, O enlightened one, how do you know?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
But you claim to know what those are, and that we do not.
Where did I say that you do not know what God's standards are?
I don't remember saying that, and therefore I have no need to defend such a claim.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I can see that I wasn't comparing 'like with like', EE but however we cut it there are verses in the scriptures that do appear to support a 'high' view of the authority of the Church - however we understand that.
For instance, 1 Timothy 3:14,15 which talks about the Church, the whole people of God, as 'the pillar and the ground of truth.'
Sure, there are Protestant ways of understanding this verse and I once whiled away a time sword-fencing and proof-texting with an Orthodox friend to make just such a point ...
But whether we understand those verses in a more Protestant way or a more Catholic/Orthodox way they do, at least, indicate some kind of collective deposit of faith and understanding and not simply a unilateral right to declare what we think is best - the 'every man did what was right in his own eyes' thing.
Once again, though, we come up against this issue of interpretation. Because, it seems to me, that a Sola Scriptura approach almost inevitably (?) runs into a Sola-my-interpretation-of-scripture approach.
As if my personal, individual interpretation of scripture and the apparent 'plain meaning of scripture' are one and the same thing.
Of course, I don't take those verses in 1 Timothy to refer to some kind of early Papal Magisterium but they do seem to point towards some kind of collective consensus and deposit of faith.
You've referred to the Bible as the Word of God, EE. And rightly so.
The same scriptures that tell us that the Bible is the Word of God (although some would dispute that they do but let's leave that aside for the moment) also tell us that the Church is the Body of Christ.
If the scriptures have a high view of their own inspiration, then they also have a particularly high ecclesiology - the Church is the Body of Christ.
Both/and - not either/or.
We can't have our cake and eat it.
If the Bible is the word of God and the Church is indeed the Body of Christ then it makes sense to pay attention to both ...
'The Church through the scriptures and the scriptures through the Church ...'
Why seek to drive a wedge between the scriptures and the community of faith which brought us the scriptures in the first place?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
My reference to hocus pocus is not about the eucharist and what it means and is, despite some of you taking it that direction. Rather, it was intended to point out that many would and do not see that praying to a dead person is different than worshipping them. That the understandings of things are simple for many seems obvious to me, viz., the Dawkins (and others) rejection of a childish religiosity. Some of you have sophisticated understandings that are well beyond lots of other people's, and probably mine.
In answer to the question, 'do I ask or want others to pray for me', the answer is 'not really'. They can if they want to, and I refrain from asking and don't generally talk about it. Someone in need? My tendency is to do versus think and pray.
I don't think prayer does more than comfort in a real human way, and may stir someone to do something for someone else, but I am rather convinced that miraculous changes in reality don't actually happen and can't actually happen. I think most answered prayers are a perception of something that is probably untrue though hopeful. They are Type 1 errors or apophenia, the seeing of connections in data or information where they don't actually exist. Harsh human life experiences and lengthy consultations with some clergy have persuaded me: Not my will but your's.
We have a companion on the earthly journey, not a guide, not an intervener. We should expect nothing at all more.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Rather, it was intended to point out that many would and do not see that praying to a dead person is different than worshipping them.
It seems you are unable to understand the difference between worship and asking others to pray for us. The difference is quite simple. Even a Millwall fan could get it. As for the saints being "dead", may I refer you you to an earlier post of mine: "I am the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob" and "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years".
[ 25. May 2014, 21:04: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
