Christian Forums

Quote from: Foghorn Leghorn on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 12:38:33When Pope John Paul II was shot, and he was being rushed to the hospital why instead of Jesus was he praying to Mary? His word were "Mary, my mother!"

If we have been adopted as God's children, and Jesus is our brother, then his mother is our mother, too.  (Which is what Jesus' words to John in John 19 is about.)

If I were about to die, I might name any sort of person I happened then to be thinking about.  An exclamation does not a prayer make.

Quote from: Foghorn Leghorn on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 12:38:33When he recovered from his wound he gave Mary all the glory for saving his life and he made a pilgrimage to Fatima to publicly thank her.

I'd like to see the quote that substantiates that he gave "all" glory to Mary.  On the other hand, if Mary did somehow save his life--just as the city pool lifeguard might save me from drowning--then it would not be inappropriate to thank her, just as it wouldn't be inappropriate to thank the lifeguard.  No one, nor is the late Pope, claiming that God had not hand in it whatsoever (and no one would claim that God wasn't involved in the lifeguard's saving me from drowning).

Look, God uses various intermediaries all the time to save people.  And it is right and appropriate to thank them.

Now, did Mary actually save the Pope?  I have no idea.  But it doesn't matter one way or another.

Your attempt to turn this into idolatry is pretty lame.

Quote from: Foghorn Leghorn on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 12:38:33Here is one popular prayer in Mary honor, closely look at the words, to deny this is worship one has to be blind.

"Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy! Our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping, in this valley of tears. Turn, then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us; and after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary."

Um, what's the prayer about?  Revealing Jesus to us.  And whaddaya know, its what she did in John 2: caused Jesus to change his mind about the timing of the start of his ministry, and he thus revealed his glory.

Again: lame-o.

Quote from: DCR on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 13:14:15For one thing, I'm not so sure that the "prayers of the saints" being referred to there aren't referring to the prayers coming from physically still living Christians.  In fact, I assume this to be the case.  When you pray, when I pray, etc., our prayers may very well be among the prayers being spoken of there.  I don't assume that these are the current prayers of the physically deceased saints.  I assume that these are the prayers coming up from Christians still living on earth being described in that passage.  So, it doesn't seem to prove what you're saying.  Besides that, even if this is a reference to the current prayers of saints who have physically died... that doesn't say that living Christians are contacting those saints, and that these prayers are the result of living Christians asking these physically deceased saints to pray on their behalf... wherever and in whatever state their souls are while their physical bodies are in the grave.

The passage says it's the prayers of "all" the saints.  Both those in heaven and on earth (or, the living and the differently living).

The rest of your replies pretty much boil down to: "doesn't necessarily, perhaps, I don't know."

Exactly.

Go ahead and quibble with my interpretation (which is the interpretation of the historical Church) if you want.  But that's the best you have: your own opinion.

Of course, that doesn't prove my argument (i.e., the fact you can't disprove it), but it's a long way from saying, "I don't see Scripture that way," to "It can't mean that."

Now, you're right that indicative passages don't logically entail imperatives.  I get it.  But I'm not making that argument.  I'm simply saying that the saints who've gone to be with the Lord are aware of and pray for the saints and goings on here in this mortal life.  If that much is true, we're already a long way to where we ask the intercessions of the saints who've gone on to be with the Lord.

Really, not to put too fine a point on it: did or did not Jesus conquer death by his Resurrection?  If there's no connection between us here in this life and the saints who are with the Lord because they've "died and gone to heaven," then I don't see how Jesus conquered death.

That, after all, is the point of Romans: Jesus conquered death.  And in the flow of the argument of the letter to the Hebrews, we start with Christ's trampling down of death by his death, and then proceed to the great cloud of witnesses.

By the way, Steve-o, you've changed the text of the prayer.  Not very clever.


If that's okay, then why can't I repeat any of my prayers?


IF it is a prayer... and they are your prayers... then you are praying to Mary.   

What part of that simple principle is so hard to glean for you CD?

DCR... you are correct... The word is simple to understand when not taken and twisted to supply some reasoning for religious activity.

It is plain that the rich man and the poor man died and one went to paradise and one to Hades...  and the LORD said NO when the poor rich man wanted to communicate back with his people...  The LORD said there is no going back for either of them.  Once over, you stay.

Then, the word says "we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses".. Those who can testify to the faith walk.   

This principle is even more simple than not talking to the dead,  A Witness is someone who has seen it... who is a witness to the thing we speak of.  When you go to the scene of an accident and the police officer is taking statements from the witnesses as to what happened, it is those who saw it...   they can testify to it, they are not participants in the event.

The saints who have gone on before... they are in the Heavenlies...  they do not participate in our lives by prayer or intercession on any level. 

We are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses... NOT participants.   

God is the only one who is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, His eyes go to and fro, never stopping... He is the ONLY one who can know when we pray and hear us all ... no saint can do that. 

They were redeemed just as we... they are not God and do not have God abilities in the Heavenlies as He does.  Praying to them is just to ignore the TRUE GOD who can and does hear and answer our prayers. 

But, if you want to pray to all of those patron saints... of everything...  go ahead...  God is listening for those who pray directly to Him, and those are who He answers.  There is no Biblical indication that praying to someone else who will pray to Jesus for you is a more better, more effective or even a more heard path.

If we are covered by the BLood of the Lamb.. we can come boldly to the throne of grace and pray with confidence that He hears us and cares for us, that He will answer us while we even speak and before we even ask.  He waits to be gracious to us and to speak to us concerning us...

No dead saint can make that claim.  Man, in a man made religion, may try to make that claim for them... but the BIBLE clearly does not.

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 13:20:21

Quote from: Foghorn Leghorn on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 12:38:33When Pope John Paul II was shot, and he was being rushed to the hospital why instead of Jesus was he praying to Mary? His word were "Mary, my mother!"

If we have been adopted as God's children, and Jesus is our brother, then his mother is our mother, too.  (Which is what Jesus' words to John in John 19 is about.)

If I were about to die, I might name any sort of person I happened then to be thinking about.  An exclamation does not a prayer make.

Quote from: Foghorn Leghorn on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 12:38:33When he recovered from his wound he gave Mary all the glory for saving his life and he made a pilgrimage to Fatima to publicly thank her.

I'd like to see the quote that substantiates that he gave "all" glory to Mary.  On the other hand, if Mary did somehow save his life--just as the city pool lifeguard might save me from drowning--then it would not be inappropriate to thank her, just as it wouldn't be inappropriate to thank the lifeguard.  No one, nor is the late Pope, claiming that God had not hand in it whatsoever (and no one would claim that God wasn't involved in the lifeguard's saving me from drowning).

Look, God uses various intermediaries all the time to save people.  And it is right and appropriate to thank them.

Now, did Mary actually save the Pope?  I have no idea.  But it doesn't matter one way or another.

Your attempt to turn this into idolatry is pretty lame.

Quote from: Foghorn Leghorn on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 12:38:33Here is one popular prayer in Mary honor, closely look at the words, to deny this is worship one has to be blind.

"Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy! Our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping, in this valley of tears. Turn, then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us; and after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary."

Um, what's the prayer about?  Revealing Jesus to us.  And whaddaya know, its what she did in John 2: caused Jesus to change his mind about the timing of the start of his ministry, and he thus revealed his glory.

Again: lame-o.

Thank you, I wasn't looking to debate, just curious what your reply would be.
God Bless.

Quote from: kensington on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 13:42:43
By the way, Steve-o, you've changed the text of the prayer.  Not very clever.


If that's okay, then why can't I repeat any of my prayers?


IF it is a prayer... and they are your prayers... then you are praying to Mary.   

What part of that simple principle is so hard to glean for you CD?

Up to your same ol' tricks.  I am on record here on what I mean by prayer vs intercessions, and that even if I really don't care about linguistic niceties and use "prayer" in an equivocal manner, I do not pray to Mary, I pray to God.

Nice try, sweetie, but you're just doing what you always do: ignore the truth because it's inconvenient to your polemic.

Quote from: kensington on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 13:54:05
DCR... you are correct... The word is simple to understand when not taken and twisted to supply some reasoning for religious activity.

Sort of like you just did.  Right.  Got it.

Quote from: kensington on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 13:54:05It is plain that the rich man and the poor man died and one went to paradise and one to Hades...  and the LORD said NO when the poor rich man wanted to communicate back with his people...  The LORD said there is no going back for either of them.  Once over, you stay.

Sorry, wrong again.  Look at the text.  It said that the gulf was between Lazarus and the rich man, not between the two of them and folks living in this mortal life.  Don't twist the Scriptures.

Quote from: kensington on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 13:54:05Then, the word says "we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses".. Those who can testify to the faith walk.   

This principle is even more simple than not talking to the dead,  A Witness is someone who has seen it... who is a witness to the thing we speak of.  When you go to the scene of an accident and the police officer is taking statements from the witnesses as to what happened, it is those who saw it...   they can testify to it, they are not participants in the event.

Um, Kensie, sweetie, you don't realize it, I know, but you just made my point for me.  Thank you.

Quote from: kensington on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 13:54:05The saints who have gone on before... they are in the Heavenlies...  they do not participate in our lives by prayer or intercession on any level.

Ah, yes, pagan dualism.  And Jesus didn't conquer death thrown in for good measure.  I see where you stand, Kensie.

Quote from: kensington on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 13:54:05We are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses... NOT participants.   

Yeah, we already touched on this.

Quote from: kensington on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 14:03:52
God is the only one who is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, His eyes go to and fro, never stopping... He is the ONLY one who can know when we pray and hear us all ... no saint can do that.

Hmmm.  If our deacon is praying next to me, I know he's praying.  I can see his lips move.  (Get it?!)

Quote from: kensington on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 14:03:52They were redeemed just as we... they are not God and do not have God abilities in the Heavenlies as He does.

So, what does St. Peter mean in 2 Peter 1.3-4 when he says we partake of the divine nature?

Quote from: kensington on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 14:03:52Praying to them is just to ignore the TRUE GOD who can and does hear and answer our prayers.

So, then, it's a good thing we don't pray to them.

Quote from: kensington on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 14:03:52But, if you want to pray to all of those patron saints... of everything...  go ahead...  God is listening for those who pray directly to Him, and those are who He answers.  There is no Biblical indication that praying to someone else who will pray to Jesus for you is a more better, more effective or even a more heard path.

Well, then, you'd better stop asking anyone else to pray for you.  What a waste of prayer energy!

Quote from: kensington on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 14:03:52If we are covered by the BLood of the Lamb.. we can come boldly to the throne of grace and pray with confidence that He hears us and cares for us, that He will answer us while we even speak and before we even ask.  He waits to be gracious to us and to speak to us concerning us...

Um, yeah.  Why do you frame this as an either/or?  I pray all the time, on behalf of myself.  I also ask the saints for their intercessions and prayers for me.  One doesn't cancel out the other.

Quote from: kensington on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 14:03:52No dead saint can make that claim.  Man, in a man made religion, may try to make that claim for them... but the BIBLE clearly does not.

Sorry to burst your bubble, no saint is ever dead.  Unless going to be with Christ, which is better by far, is death.  But then that's a pretty twisted thing to believe.

You just don't cope with reality well CD.. Please don't call me sweetie.. you are not my husband and I am not your sweetie, I find it offensive and demeaning to be used that way.  Stop it or I will report you. Stay on track, stay on topic and stay off the personal remarks to me.  That would be nice... 

Nothing you said negated anything I said... I won't go into posting a long post where I interact with each of your comments since it is a moot point.  They were told they could not go back and interact with the living after death, if there was anything thing they would have listened to they had the chance... 

And again... the word says they are a "great cloud of witnesses" they being where they are, is a witness that walking out faith is true and what God says is true...   NOT participants who await our prayer and participate in getting them any where off the ground for us...  that is so easy. 

This is what is SOOOO bothersome about the "religion" aspect of faith...  you put on a religion and with it blinders to what the word of God actually says to us.  It makes one grieve for those who believe it and are bound in it, and have no real freedom in the LORD. 

"Sorry to burst your bubble, no saint is ever dead. "

I will say... You NEED to read the word... the word says...   "'And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;"   {LUKE 16:22}  says... THEY BOTH DIED. 

Quote from: kensington on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 15:41:30
"Sorry to burst your bubble, no saint is ever dead. "

I will say... You NEED to read the word... the word says...   "'And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;"   {LUKE 16:22}  says... THEY BOTH DIED. 

So Ms. Noahtall, explain how it is that Moses, who died, appeared with Elijah and Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration--if, as you so carelessly and unbiblically assert that the "dead" (so-called) can't come back here.

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 09:47:32

Quote from: Circuitridingpreacher on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 06:56:24This is the level of arguments that you make a stand for the eternity of your soul on?

Funny thing, that, the eternity of my soul is not staked on any "level of arguments" whatsoever: it's wholly staked on the Lord's mercy.  Period.  End of story.

Your being allowed to live is staked on His mercy, but your eternity is staked on His redemption. Your arguments only mirror what you know of that redemption.

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 09:47:32
Statements like yours above are why Protestants look an awful lot like Gnostics at times.

See above comment.

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 09:47:32

Quote from: Circuitridingpreacher on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 06:56:24Paul also didn't say that "jumping up and down three times and clicking your heals" was central to the gospel of Christ either, do you want to add that now too? Or maybe since the Bible is silent on it, you just want to make wearing a white shirt three times a week "central to the gospel" too. Meanwhile it's off to hell.....

You've missed (or intentionally misconstrued) the point.  Your notion that "if it ain't in Scripture . . ." is a logical fallacy: the argument from ignorance.  It also imbibes of the fallacy of equivocation: just what is meant by "centrality."

You were not talking of centrality of any kind, but centrality of the gospel.

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 09:47:32
Mary is central to the Incarnation accounts of Matthew and Luke.  She is one of the central figures at the Crucifixion.  She also is there in the account of the beginning of the Church.  Three of the essential moments of salvation in the life of the Incarnate God and his Church have Mary there at the center: indeed, the Incarnation itself happened because Mary is the blessed one, rather, who hears and obeys the word of God.

There were a lot of people there and at many or more events than Mary was. They are no more central to the gospel than she is. Mere participation/observation does not make one "central to the gospel".

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 09:47:32
We have more evidence of the centrality of Mary to the Gospel than we do of the doctrine of the Trinity: and yet none of us would jettison the doctrine of the Trinity just because the percentage of verses is small or because it isn't as explicit as we modernists want it to be.

Now you move from participating in events to being central to the gospel. What part of redemption did she accomplish?

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 09:47:32
So I have solid biblical evidence for the centrality of Mary to the Gospel and her place in the Church.

Mary is no more central to the gospel than Mary Magedelene or the Apostle John. They happened to be there for certain events, but they have no participation in the actual redemption of sinful men.

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 09:47:32
But just because the Bible doesn't detail how the early Church interacted with Mary before and after her death means nothing in and of itself.

If God felt it not necessary to add to the word of the exaltation of Mary, why do you have the need?

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 09:47:32

Quote from: Circuitridingpreacher on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 06:56:24If you can't understand the Bible then check the commentaries that you seem to trust more than an apostle and see why Paul didn't mention Mary.

St. Paul doesn't mention a lot of things that are in the Gospels: the baptism of Christ, the Transfiguration, the feeding of the 5000, the cleansing of the Temple, the temptations in the wilderness, the washing of the Apostles' feet.  Guess those just aren't important at all.  Might as well rip those out of the Scriptures, huh?

Here is your proof that you do not understand the gospel. Those things are all historical records of incidents of the incarnation, but they are not the gospel. The gospel is not clearly revealed until the writings of Paul, specifically Romans. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John tell what Christ did, but still left it unclear as to why exactly He did it and what exactly was accomplished in what He did. It is in the epistles that the fuller meaning of Christ's work of redemption (the gospel) is revealed.

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 09:47:32

Quote from: Circuitridingpreacher on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 06:56:24If she was "central to the gospel" the commentaries must go to great depths in explaining her utter absence from all the epistles, including those of the so-called first pope. Were her centrality actually real, it would be hard to imagine it going so un-noticed by the apostles....

Well, the commentaries must go to great lengths to explain why St. Paul didn't mention all those central events in Jesus' life.

Sorry, your ignorance fallacy just won't fly.  But keep trying.  Maybe you'll find something that will stick one day.

...and it is in the epistles where Mary was totally ignored. Why is that?

Don't hide now, deal with the issue.


CRP

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 09:48:36

Quote from: Snargles on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 08:30:36If I want you to make an intercession for me I can send you an email or call you on the phone and ask you.

So, you don't have to see me, I never have to explicitly and clearly reply to the email, I can never prove you actually got the email, nor ever actually prove you are, indeed, praying for me--and how is that different from my asking Mary to pray for me?

Quote from: Snargles on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 08:30:36If I want Mary to interceed for me I can't phone her and I don't know her email address. What do you call the manner in which you request something of Mary if not prayer?

Intercession.  It's what Christians do for one another.  And according to Revelation and Hebrews it doesn't just stop when Christians go to be with the Lord.

Quote from: Snargles on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 08:30:36Is your definition of prayer different than that used by the rest of us?

Don't think so.  Prayer = calling on God, words directed to God.  I think that's what you mean, too.

I think we may be getting somewhere in the praying-to-Mary thing.
Just as Eskimos have 17 different words for snow I think you have at least 2 different words for what most of us call prayer. When we talk to God we all call that prayer but when we talk to Mary or other dead people you call it intercession and many of the rest of us call it prayer. You can honestly say you don't pray to Mary because as you define the term prayer only applies to speaking to God. We have a language barrier. It is like what the caterpillar (I think it was) told Alice, "A word means what I want it to mean, nothing more, nothing less". (If I messed up the quote I don't want to hear from any Alice in Wonderland fans. I didn't want to take the time to get out my copy to check.)

Another problem I have with praying to dead saints (or asking them to interceed for us) is we are acting like they are all walking around heaven or fishing in the crystal river that flows by the throne of God. Dead people are in the grave until the Lord returns and we are all taken up to heaven for judgement. When can put Elijah (taken to heaven alive), Moses (buried by God) and even Mary (too complicated to consider) in a category by themselves but the other dead saints are bidding their time in the ground until the trumpet blows. No use praying to worm fodder.

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 13:28:38

Quote from: DCR on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 13:14:15For one thing, I'm not so sure that the "prayers of the saints" being referred to there aren't referring to the prayers coming from physically still living Christians.  In fact, I assume this to be the case.  When you pray, when I pray, etc., our prayers may very well be among the prayers being spoken of there.  I don't assume that these are the current prayers of the physically deceased saints.  I assume that these are the prayers coming up from Christians still living on earth being described in that passage.  So, it doesn't seem to prove what you're saying.  Besides that, even if this is a reference to the current prayers of saints who have physically died... that doesn't say that living Christians are contacting those saints, and that these prayers are the result of living Christians asking these physically deceased saints to pray on their behalf... wherever and in whatever state their souls are while their physical bodies are in the grave.

The passage says it's the prayers of "all" the saints.  Both those in heaven and on earth (or, the living and the differently living).

The rest of your replies pretty much boil down to: "doesn't necessarily, perhaps, I don't know."

Exactly.

Just to reiterate... the specific issue I am trying to focus on is the issue of the physically living attempting to initiate contact with the physically deceased.  The question of whether the physically dead are able to observe us or not or whether they themselves "pray" or not... are separate issues.  My concern is whether it is appropriate for us to contact them.  Such a thing seems to only be the target of condemnation in the Old Testament.  Since we only have that to go by on this question, and since I'm not seeing other precedent for such being acceptable... I cannot be comfortable with it. 

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 13:28:38Go ahead and quibble with my interpretation (which is the interpretation of the historical Church) if you want.  But that's the best you have: your own opinion.

How "historical" is what I'm wondering about.  By faith, I'm sure that you accept and believe that the church has always permitted and encouraged this all the way to the Apostles.  You apparently decided that you were going to put your trust in the Orthodox Church, since you decided that this was the historical church whose teachings have been preserved intact across time.  I'm not convinced of this though.  So, I don't simply take the Orthodox Church's word that this was always done all the way back to the first century.  You might possibly be able to produce some writings from some time after the apostolic age.  But, as far as the apostles go, the writings preserved in the New Testament seem to be the only thing we have to go by here, in terms of what was encouraged and practiced along the lines of this issue here.

We're probably at an impasse on convincing each other on this issue.  But, thanks for entertaining the discussion thus far.

Quote from: Foghorn Leghorn on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 12:38:33
When Pope John Paul II was shot, and he was being rushed to the hospital why instead of Jesus was he praying to Mary? His word were "Mary, my mother!" When he recovered from his wound he gave Mary all the glory for saving his life and he made a pilgrimage to Fatima to publicly thank her.

Yup.

And he also added an "M" (not a "J") to his family crest.  No mention of Jesus.

Quote from: CDHealy on Tue Oct 28, 2008 - 23:51:55
And I guarantee you, if you break out into glossalalia at a Presbyterian church, you'll be escorted to the side.

Actually, the first recorded modern practice of tongues-speaking was in a Presby church.

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Oct 27, 2008 - 13:01:34
As a recent convert to the Catholic faith, I have found that those that have converted have a better understanding and appreciation for the faith than do most "cradle" Catholics.  .

I don't understand.  How is it possible to be a member of any religion, without converting to it?     ?

Quote from: stevehut on Thu Oct 30, 2008 - 08:02:09

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Oct 27, 2008 - 13:01:34
As a recent convert to the Catholic faith, I have found that those that have converted have a better understanding and appreciation for the faith than do most "cradle" Catholics.  .

I don't understand.  How is it possible to be a member of any religion, without converting to it?     ?

He means converting to it as an adult as opposed to those who were raised in it as children (who are commonly referred to as "cradle Catholics" in this case).

Quote from: DCR on Thu Oct 30, 2008 - 08:32:10
He means converting to it as an adult as opposed to those who were raised in it as children (who are commonly referred to as "cradle Catholics" in this case).

So someone else can choose your religion for you, and the church counts you as a member?  ?

Quote from: stevehut on Thu Oct 30, 2008 - 08:43:17

Quote from: DCR on Thu Oct 30, 2008 - 08:32:10
He means converting to it as an adult as opposed to those who were raised in it as children (who are commonly referred to as "cradle Catholics" in this case).

So someone else can choose your religion for you, and the church counts you as a member?  ?

You begin to get into the topic of infant baptism.  Not sure if you want to go there.  Talk about a loaded subject.

From what I've seen in many surveys, churches that baptize babies have a much harder time hanging on to them (as members) than those who convert teens and adults.

As for me, I don't want to cheat with meaningless numbers.  And I will never be a part of a church that does.

Quote from: stevehut on Thu Oct 30, 2008 - 09:14:55
From what I've seen in many surveys, churches that baptize babies have a much harder time hanging on to them (as members) than those who convert teens and adults.

As for me, I don't want to cheat with meaningless numbers.  And I will never be a part of a church that does.

For us, those "numbers" are not "meaningless."  Infants are not baptized in order to "hang on to them" as they get older.  Again, you would have to understand why infants are baptized within the Catholic faith to have a better understanding.  It isn't about "numbers."

Quote from: Circuitridingpreacher on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 20:03:32Your being allowed to live is staked on His mercy, but your eternity is staked on His redemption. Your arguments only mirror what you know of that redemption.

So, God's mercy is different than his redemption?  Is that difference nominal (in name only, superficial) or essential (radically and utterly different)?  And what is that difference?

Quote from: Circuitridingpreacher on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 20:03:32There were a lot of people there and at many or more events than Mary was. They are no more central to the gospel than she is. Mere participation/observation does not make one "central to the gospel".

So, according to you, Jesus' Baptism and his Transfiguration are no big deal?  Just interesting anecdotes from the life of Jesus?

Quote from: Circuitridingpreacher on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 20:03:32Now you move from participating in events to being central to the gospel. What part of redemption did she accomplish?

The part in which Jesus obtained his humanity.

Quote from: Circuitridingpreacher on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 20:03:32Mary is no more central to the gospel than Mary Magedelene or the Apostle John. They happened to be there for certain events, but they have no participation in the actual redemption of sinful men.

So, John's composing of the Gospel, three NT letters and the book of the Revelation don't matter squat?

Quote from: Circuitridingpreacher on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 20:03:32If God felt it not necessary to add to the word of the exaltation of Mary, why do you have the need?

But he did.  See again Luke 1

Quote from: Circuitridingpreacher on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 20:03:32Here is your proof that you do not understand the gospel. Those things are all historical records of incidents of the incarnation, but they are not the gospel. The gospel is not clearly revealed until the writings of Paul, specifically Romans. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John tell what Christ did, but still left it unclear as to why exactly He did it and what exactly was accomplished in what He did. It is in the epistles that the fuller meaning of Christ's work of redemption (the gospel) is revealed.

*I* don't understand the Gospel?  You are basically saying we can rip out the four Gospels from the New Testament, and maybe even just about everything else, except Romans--and *I*'m the one who misunderstands the Gospel?

But, let's go with your premise.  St Paul never mentions the Virgin Birth.  Can we chuck that doctrine?  St. Paul never mentions the Transfiguration (thought St. Peter does), so can we chuck that doctrine?  St. Paul never mentions Jesus' baptism.  So can we chuck that doctrine (which includes the teaching on the Holy Trinity)?

Are you willing to assert that the Virgin birth, Jesus' baptism and the Transfiguration are nothing at all, of no importance whatsoever?  And if so, where did you get this teaching?  Did you invent it yourself, or get it from some other teacher?

Quote from: Circuitridingpreacher on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 20:03:32...and it is in the epistles where Mary was totally ignored. Why is that?

Don't hide now, deal with the issue.

Whoops.  You apparently forgot: "But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive adoption as sons" (Galatians 4.4-5 NKJV)

But, maybe Galatians isn't the sort of Paul writing you think is very important.

Quote from: broach972 on Thu Oct 30, 2008 - 09:29:30
1- Infants are not baptized in order to "hang on to them" as they get older. 

2- Again, you would have to understand why infants are baptized within the Catholic faith t

1- I have never believed that.  My only point there, was that infant baptizees frequently leave their church as they grow older.  But conversely, adult (or teen) converts tend to remain faithful much longer.  Survey after survey has shown this.

2- Yes, I understand Original Sin.  And I, for one, was baptized Catholic at age 6 mos.  And I quit at age 9.  Likewise, most of my childhood Catholic friends.

Quote from: Snargles on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 20:13:43
Another problem I have with praying to dead saints (or asking them to interceed for us) is we are acting like they are all walking around heaven or fishing in the crystal river that flows by the throne of God. Dead people are in the grave until the Lord returns and we are all taken up to heaven for judgement. When can put Elijah (taken to heaven alive), Moses (buried by God) and even Mary (too complicated to consider) in a category by themselves but the other dead saints are bidding their time in the ground until the trumpet blows. No use praying to worm fodder.

I think you need to read your Scripture again.  St. Paul says, "For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain.  But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what shall I choose I cannot tell.  For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better" (Philippians 1.21-23 NKJV).  When we die, we do not lie in the ground being chomped on (though our bodies do); rather we go to be with Christ.

Also, from the Revelation given to John: "When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held.  And they cried with a loud voice, saying, 'How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?' Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed" (Revelation 6.9-11 NKJV).

The physically dead are not truly dead.  Their bodies are dead and await the general resurrection, but their souls are alive and aware and are with Christ (or in torments).

Quote from: DCR on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 21:37:34Just to reiterate... the specific issue I am trying to focus on is the issue of the physically living attempting to initiate contact with the physically deceased.  The question of whether the physically dead are able to observe us or not or whether they themselves "pray" or not... are separate issues.  My concern is whether it is appropriate for us to contact them.  Such a thing seems to only be the target of condemnation in the Old Testament.  Since we only have that to go by on this question, and since I'm not seeing other precedent for such being acceptable... I cannot be comfortable with it.

You raise a good point.  It is only in the Old Testament that such a prohibition lies.  Why is that?  Because Christ's redemption of the dead had not yet taken place.  As St. Peter notes in his epistle (1 Peter 3.18-22), the souls in prison had not yet seen Christ and heard his Gospel.

Now, clearly we, as believers, do not want to ask intercessions/help from demons or the souls of the unjust (just was we wouldn't ask physically living pornographers for help on marriage and sex).  But given Christ's victory over death, the bonds which formerly separated us from our believing loved ones have been broken.

Quote from: DCR on Wed Oct 29, 2008 - 21:37:34How "historical" is what I'm wondering about.  By faith, I'm sure that you accept and believe that the church has always permitted and encouraged this all the way to the Apostles.  You apparently decided that you were going to put your trust in the Orthodox Church, since you decided that this was the historical church whose teachings have been preserved intact across time.  I'm not convinced of this though.  So, I don't simply take the Orthodox Church's word that this was always done all the way back to the first century.  You might possibly be able to produce some writings from some time after the apostolic age.  But, as far as the apostles go, the writings preserved in the New Testament seem to be the only thing we have to go by here, in terms of what was encouraged and practiced along the lines of this issue here.

We're probably at an impasse on convincing each other on this issue.  But, thanks for entertaining the discussion thus far.

I tried to be clear in my reply above: I'm not saying that I've defnitively proven from Scripture that we are exhorted to ask the prayers of the departed saints.  I also wanted to be clear that simply because I'm claiming that you can't prove we are prohibited from asking the prayers of the departed saints that that somehow proves my point.  It doesn't, logically speaking.

Furthermore, you now me better, I hope, than to think that I simply made the decision one day to accept what the Church says without question, and that simply because the Church says it that that somehow constitutes proof.  In all my dealings on these boards over the past three years, I think you know that I have been pretty scrupulous in making the case for my various claims from Scripture first and then from the earliest historical evidences we have.  I normally don't cite the Seventh Ecumenical council (in the eight century) to prove that icons were used in the first century.  No, I point to the first century mosaics in the catacombs.

In fact, in the catacombs are requests for those whose bodies are interred there to pray for those left in this life.  For example: an infant who died after only a year old is asked to pray for its mother.  You can find out more information on this here: The Christian Catacombs of Rome.

But there is Scriptural evidence as well:
2 Maccabees 15:12-14: "The vision he [Judas Maccabeus] saw was this: Onias, who had been high priest [he had died] . . . was praying with this hands outstretched for the whoole nation of the Jews.  Then in the same manner another man appeared . . . . Onias then spoke, saying, 'This is Jeremiah, the prophet of God, a man who loves his brothers and prays fervently for the people and the holy city" (SAAS version of the LXX).

Quote from: stevehut on Thu Oct 30, 2008 - 07:57:48

Quote from: CDHealy on Tue Oct 28, 2008 - 23:51:55
And I guarantee you, if you break out into glossalalia at a Presbyterian church, you'll be escorted to the side.

Actually, the first recorded modern practice of tongues-speaking was in a Presby church.

And that Presbyterian Charismatic denomination is just all over the Yellow Pages if I want to find my nearest one.

Quote from: stevehut on Thu Oct 30, 2008 - 08:43:17

Quote from: DCR on Thu Oct 30, 2008 - 08:32:10
He means converting to it as an adult as opposed to those who were raised in it as children (who are commonly referred to as "cradle Catholics" in this case).

So someone else can choose your religion for you, and the church counts you as a member?  ?

Happens all the time.  Although I "made a decision" to be baptized at the age of seven, in my independent Christian church, my mother chose my religion for me before I was even born by getting my dad (a Southern Baptist) to agree that our family would be members of the Christian churches and that that was the religion we would be taught.  So I grew up with only one version of Christianity being taught me.  I had no say in the matter, no one asked my vote.

Quote from: CDHealy on Thu Oct 30, 2008 - 10:04:32

Quote from: stevehut on Thu Oct 30, 2008 - 07:57:48

Quote from: CDHealy on Tue Oct 28, 2008 - 23:51:55
And I guarantee you, if you break out into glossalalia at a Presbyterian church, you'll be escorted to the side.

Actually, the first recorded modern practice of tongues-speaking was in a Presby church.

And that Presbyterian Charismatic denomination is just all over the Yellow Pages if I want to find my nearest one.

Actually, if my memory serves correctly, I was thinking that the modern-day charismatic and/or Pentecostal movement was an outgrowth of the Holiness movement and/or the Nazarenes... who split off from the Methodists.

Quote from: stevehut on Thu Oct 30, 2008 - 09:14:55
From what I've seen in many surveys, churches that baptize babies have a much harder time hanging on to them (as members) than those who convert teens and adults.

As for me, I don't want to cheat with meaningless numbers.  And I will never be a part of a church that does.

A recent book, Quitting Church by Julia Duin shows that mainstream evangelicals are losing adult members left and right as well.  Member retention is a universal problem among all Christian groups.  Not a surprise: we're all so infected with sin and selfishness.

Terry Mattingly, former professor of journalism at Emmanual School of Religion, now an Orthodox Christian, has an article covering Duin's book.

Quote from: stevehut on Thu Oct 30, 2008 - 09:41:001- I have never believed that.  My only point there, was that infant baptizees frequently leave their church as they grow older.  But conversely, adult (or teen) converts tend to remain faithful much longer.  Survey after survey has shown this.

This is demonstrably false.  See my post above re: Duin's new book.

I think Average Sunday Attendence is the best measure.

My own experience:

I grew up nominally Lutheran, after college I "converted" and joined a local coC for about 11 years then went Catholic.

You make a good point, K.

While individual congregations might "lose" members, are those members jettisoning the Christian faith altogether, or is it merely a shifting of the sheep?

I have a somewhat similar path: raised independent Christian churches, went to Ozark, got ordained, served in ministry, then became an Anglican/Episcopalian, then "came to myself in a far country" (wink), and became Orthodox.

But I never stopped being a Christian.

Quote from: CDHealy on Thu Oct 30, 2008 - 10:06:23
So I grew up with only one version of Christianity being taught me.  I had no say in the matter, no one asked my vote.

Same here.