I've noticed an anti-Catholic prejudice in many Christian materials - wondering...

[clwcain]

I promise I won't debate the issue with you all but I have some questions in the same spirit the one poster asked about sacrifices. I've been curious for years about two things: One being, what is the basis for believing that Mary was w/o sin? And two, what is the basis for appealing to the saints?

 

Again I promise I won't debate; would just like to be enlightened as to where these beliefs stem from.

 

Carli, the short answer for you is the testimony of the Apostles and the witness of the Church Fathers.

 

For good summaries of both items, consider the following links:

 

The aforementioned Catholic Answers. This link goes directly to the page on Mary & the Saints. You can navigate to other sections by the sidebar on the left.

 

Also, Dave Armstrong's website may be of help, although I'll confess I've always found it hard to read. It is not well laid out, so scroll past the advertisement for his books and about halfway down the page you'll find links to articles he's written and conversations he's archived. Some friends of mine tell me that his books defending the Biblical roots of Catholic belief and practice are excellent.

 

I can find more links, if you'd like. Just let me know.

 

HTH

[8filltheheart]

In my practice as a Christian, I offer a sacrifice of praise to the Lord. That is what we do in worship service, as well in every aspect of our life (in theory anyway). We are called of "offer our bodies as living sacrifices" which to me means to be willing to put God's will above my own in all matters.

 

What sacrifice does worship entail for you? I've never heard this before.

 

I'm learning so much in this thread. Thanks to all of you!

 

 

The celebration of Mass is center of Catholicism. The Holy Mass is the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. This is the crux of our faith. It would take an extremely long time for me to figure out how to explain it on my own, so I am copying from one of my favorite priests, Fr. John Hardon:

 

From the Council of Trent, "The same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, is present and offered in an unbloody manner." Thus the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice which means that by this oblation (the offering of bread and wine for consecration at Mass......this gets really hard to explain this way......Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ through consecration in Mass) "the Lord is appeased. He grants grace and the gift of repentance, and He pardons wrongdoings and sins, even grave ones. For it is one and the same victim. He who now makes the offering through the ministry of priests and he who then offered himself on the cross. The only difference is the manner of the offering."

 

The Mass cannot be understood apart from Calvary, of which it is a re-presentation, memorial, and effects the merits gained by Christ.

 

The re-presentation means that b/c Christ is really present in his humanity, in heaven andon the altar, he is capable now as he was on Good Friday of freely offering himself to theFather. He can no longer die b/c he now has the glorified body, but the essence of his oblation (the offering of the bread and wine for consecration) remains the same.

 

The Mass is also a paschal meal. Christ, who offers himself to the Father as a sacrifice gives himself to us as heavenly food.

 

Finally, the Mass is the divinely ordained means of applying the merits of Calvary. Christ won for the world all the graces it needs for salvation and sanctification. But, these blessings are conferred gradually and continually since Calvary, mainly through the Mass.

****************************

 

The very idea that Catholics worship anyone other than Christ is rather ludicrious since the whole focus in on Christ's sacrifice. Everything is all about Him!!

 

I would love to try to explain it to you in my own words, but I still have a few things left to do to finish getting ready for our school yr to start tomorrow. However, to explain in my words what the above means........

There has always been sacrifices in an attempt to appease God. The OT is full of bloody sacrifice, though they are completely inadequate. Christ becomes the once for all sacrifice for our sins. But, just as the Jews ate the flesh of the lamb that saves them from the angel of death, we too are commanded by Christ to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

 

The priest is "in persona Christi," meaning that Christ is acting through the personhood of the priest. God is timeless......not confined to our understanding of time. The Mass is the celebration of the exact same sacrifice as Calvary. We are participants in that sacrifice.

 

I have got to log off. One link that gives an excellent explanation of how Catholic theology and OT theology are intertwined (the NT is the fulfillment of the OT) in the celebration of the Eucharist is Scott Hahn's "The Fourth Cup."

http://webpages.marshall.edu/~trimbol3/4thcup4.htm

 

Another on the Mass is by Archbishop Fulton Sheen......I love his writings!! I just found this one tonight in a google.

 

http://www.catholicprimer.org/sheen/sheen_calvary_mass.pdf

[Faithr]

Since I'm really not all that articulate and I'm very tired and about to go to bed I'll just link you to some places that will answer better than I can right now:

 

Here's an answer to the Mary conceived without sin question: http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_conceived_without_sin_immaculate_conception.htm

 

Here's an answer to the praying to saints question: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/saints.html

 

I hope they help clarify things.

 

And now I'm going to bed! Good night!

[8filltheheart]

I promise I won't debate the issue with you all but I have some questions in the same spirit the one poster asked about sacrifices. I've been curious for years about two things: One being, what is the basis for believing that Mary was w/o sin? And two, what is the basis for appealing to the saints?

 

Again I promise I won't debate; would just like to be enlightened as to where these beliefs stem from.

 

I am copying this from an old post on this forum months ago re:Mary and then I have to log off.

 

I will do my best to summarize Church teaching, but most of it is simply going to leave you with more questions because theology is a huge part of Catholicism. Scripture is taken as a whole. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old but must be understood in the context of Judaism.

 

Yes. We believe Mary was sinless. However, Mary's sinlessness is TOTALLY and completely different than the sinlessness of Christ. God chose Mary to be the mother of the Redeemer from the beginning of time. She was to become the Ark of the New Covenant. If you think in terms of the Ark of the Covenant that simply contained the 10 Commandments, any who were not worthy that touched the Ark died.

 

The reason man needs a redeemer is b/c God cannot be in the presence of sin. God preserved Mary from sin. He freed her from original sin in order to preserve the "Ark." Mary was "full of grace." Full.....filled by God, not of her own violiation.....and that "extra" grace from the hand of God provided her the ability to not succumb to sin. If only those worthy were able to touch the Ark.....does it not make some sense that God would preserve the human nature of the woman He chose as the mother of His only son?

 

Conversely, Christ is sinless b/c Christ is God. Period.

 

ETA: It occurred to me tonight while listening to our priest speak that I could post more on the connection between Mary and the Ark than just convenantal understanding. Scripturally they are linked as well. When King David first sees the Ark, he leaps for joy. When Mary first arrives at Elizabeth's house, John the Baptist leaps for joy. Both recognize what is in their presence......Arks of Covenants from God.

 

HTH

[Jenny in Atl]

I have a friend who is Jewish and became Catholic. He refers to himself as a Hebrew Catholic.

 

It's interesting, one is born a Jew no matter if you practice the faith or not. So even if you practice another faith or what some see as a continuation of the faith, you still are a Jew? I don't know enough about the law. We need Eliana. I wonder how those who convert to Judaism are seen. Are the real Jews or just Jewish in faith?

[clwcain]

It's interesting, one is born a Jew no matter if you practice the faith or not. So even if you practice another faith or what some see as a continuation of the faith, you still are a Jew? I don't know enough about the law. We need Eliana. I wonder how those who convert to Judaism are seen. Are the real Jews or just Jewish in faith?

 

FWIW, from the Catholic POV (I won't presume to speak for any of the Protestants or the Orthodox as it's beyond my experience) a Jew is still a Jew even once he's "completed".

 

He's no longer bound by the Mosaic Law, but many continue to follow it nonetheless.

 

The difference is that the person has accepted the Church's assertion that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah and that God's part of the Old Covenant has been fulfilled, leaving the New Covenant sealed with the Blood of the Christ.

 

How the New and Old Covenants coexist, since God is unchanging and eternal, is beyond my knowledge and understanding. I know Pope Benedict has written extensively on the subject, while he was still Cardinal Ratzinger. But I cannot now recall the title of his book on the matter.

 

I cannot speak to the question of converts to Judaism. I have some friends who were told conversion isn't possible by a Hasidic rabbi, but I don't know if he was speaking about their involvement in a Hasidic community or their practice of the post-Temple Jewish faith. The husband of the couple grew up a Reform Jew, but his girlfriend was a Methodist, IIRC.

[Spy Car]

No. Who's Tony Alamo? Is he akin to Jack Chick? And if it's way off topic, I can always google-whack him.

 

 

If I'm not to late, I'd urge you not to bother as I believe you would be quite upset to read the things Tony Alamo has had to say about Roman Catholicism. There's no upside, trust me.

 

I can understand why they'd be upset. I just don't have a better term in my experience. And dialog with the Jews has changed dramatically since the post-WW2 era, for obvious reasons. I know some folks who blame the change of tone in Jewish-Catholic dialog on Vatican 2, but that requires an ignorance of history I endeavor to avoid.

 

Cheers!

 

As it happens, I'll be meeting with some Orthodox Jewish Rabbis tomorrow, perhaps, if the moment seems right, I'll ask what term they prefer.

 

I was under the impression Catholic-Jewish relations were improving, is this counter to your feeling?

 

Bill

[dangermom]

Dangermom,

 

'Appeal' would work as a synonym. In fact often wording in a prayer often reflects this, for ex. "And we ask Blessed Mary, Ever Virgin, to pray for us to the Lord our God."

 

But actually there is more to prayer than just 'appealing' and this is where things get complicated and Protestants get a little nervous about this because again the subtlety is a bit hard to negotiate, but we also 'venerate' saints!!!!! Ahhhh! Doesn't that seem close to worshiping them!!!!! But no, it isn't, because it is more like honoring, showing respect, etc. like you would for a very important or beloved hero on earth. You might have a parade for them, a fan club, bestow on them medals etc etc. Well, when those holy heroes get to heaven, you show your respect and love by venerating them. It still isn't worship in the 'thou shalt not have other gods before Me' sense of the word.

OK, thanks. I did know a good chunk of that but it's nice to have a clear explanation.

 

Okay, I'm going to scare you even further...

 

Hah, you can't scare me. I'm un-scare-able. :D

[clwcain]

I was under the impression Catholic-Jewish relations were improving, is this counter to your feeling?

 

Yes. While there seems to be more conversation, it's my impression that most of those involved in the official activities are getting along by avoiding the centrally irreconcilable truth of each faith's claim.

 

Quite simply, if the Jews today are right that the Messiah still hasn't come then Christians are, as Paul notes in one of his Epistles, the most wretched and pitiable of all creatures. At the end of the day if the Jews today are correct then Christians are deluded, still in their sins, and, for the Catholics and Orthodox (and a few Lutherans & Anglicans) we worship a piece of bread as the Almighty God Incarnate.

 

And that raises all sorts of questions about the Temple, the necessity of sacrifice under the Law, etc. to say nothing of the apparent fruits of the Spirit over the last 2000 years in politics, theology, philosophy, government, social organization, art, science, literature, music, and holiness.

 

Conversely, if the Catholics are right, the Jews of today missed something along the way, and they wait for the fulfillment of prophecies and the Covenant that has already occurred.

 

How God squares that circle is beyond me. And I freely admit that the realm of official dialog is not my cuppa' joe. It's far too "diplomatic" for my taste and skills. ;)

 

Does that answer your question?

 

Oh, and since my wife had run across Tony Alamo, I was spared the effects of google-whacking him. But very little, even of the rabidly anti-Catholic propaganda, really stirs me up any more. There comes a point in any discussion when you realize that your interlocutor is beyond reason. I suspect, a priori, that Tony Alamo, whomever he may be, has hit this point already. So it profits me nothing to get angry.

 

As The Who taught me, "I'll just get on my knees and pray." :D

 

Enjoy your conversation with the Rabbis. The only Orthodox Rabbi I know of has Mass said for his daughter by a Catholic priest every year on the anniversary of her death since, as far as he is concerned he is still bound by the Law to offer sacrifice for her and the Catholic Church is the only place he can find priests and sacrifice in continuity with the Temple.

 

FWIW

[Spy Car]

I wonder how those who convert to Judaism are seen. Are the real Jews or just Jewish in faith?

 

I cannot speak to the question of converts to Judaism. I have some friends who were told conversion isn't possible by a Hasidic rabbi, but I don't know if he was speaking about their involvement in a Hasidic community or their practice of the post-Temple Jewish faith. The husband of the couple grew up a Reform Jew, but his girlfriend was a Methodist, IIRC.

 

I'm not Jewish so take this with a grain of salt.

 

The Book of Ruth clearly establishes the legitimacy in the Tanakh (what y'all might call the Old Testament) of conversion.

 

However, the degree to which conversion to Judaism is welcomed varies from branch to branch of Judaism. Generally speaking the more Orthodox the more a potential convert is going to be discouraged. That said, the Orthodox will take as a convert one who will not take NO for an answer. I'm not sure about the Hasidic (though I'd expect it was the same).

 

For most religious Jews, it is enough for "righteous gentiles" to follow the Noachide Laws to be "right in G-d's eyes" [my phrase], and believe it unnecessary for them to take on the full burdens of the Jewish faith.

 

Reform Jews are the most open to conversion (which is to say they will discourage the least, as proselytizing is not a Jewish "value" [my phrase]) and then Conservative, Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox in order of "resistance". To be accepted as a "convert" you have to accept that you will likely be turned away (perhaps many times) before you are accepted as "serious" and taken in.

 

To further complicate things, the Orthodox tend not to recognize converts to Reform or Conservative Judaism as Jews. This is a matter of extreme controversy, especially in Israel.

 

And while it should not be the case, it is my impression (from knowing converts to Orthodox Judaism) that they can feel a certain "outsider" status. The father of one of my closest friends is a convert to Orthodox Judaism and this is a closely held family secret and not known to community-at-large. This is not the "ideal" (in fact it is the opposite) but rather an unfortunate "reality" in this particular case.

 

I hope that sheds some light (however imperfect) on things. I wish someone who was actually Jewish was answering this (rather than me) but I did my best.

 

Bill

 

Bill

[clwcain]

Bill,

 

Your observations regarding the ongoing sense of remaining an outsider has been commented upon by friends of mine who "swam the Bosphorus", that is to say became Orthodox Christians. Since much of contemporary Orthodoxy is caught up in nationalism and racial identity, many converts feel like outsiders even after years "in" the community.

 

This is certainly not universal, but it is the dominant impression I have been left with over the years of talking with friends of mine who have "Doxed".

[Karenciavo]

It's interesting, one is born a Jew no matter if you practice the faith or not. So even if you practice another faith or what some see as a continuation of the faith, you still are a Jew? I don't know enough about the law. We need Eliana. I wonder how those who convert to Judaism are seen. Are the real Jews or just Jewish in faith?

 

Messianic Jews think of themselves as Jews.

[tibbyl]

Messianic Jews think of themselves as Jews.

 

Messianic Judaism and Jews for Jesus are Christian evangelistic movements whose goal is to convert Jews to Christianity. Naturally, they are quite controversial.

 

http://www.rickross.com/groups/messianic.html

http://www.rickross.com/groups/jews.html

[TXMomof4]

I'm not Jewish so take this with a grain of salt.

 

The Book of Ruth clearly establishes the legitimacy in the Tanakh (what y'all might call the Old Testament) of conversion.

 

However, the degree to which conversion to Judaism is welcomed varies from branch to branch of Judaism. Generally speaking the more Orthodox the more a potential convert is going to be discouraged. That said, the Orthodox will take as a convert one who will not take NO for an answer. I'm not sure about the Hasidic (though I'd expect it was the same).

 

For most religious Jews, it is enough for "righteous gentiles" to follow the Noachide Laws to be "right in G-d's eyes" [my phrase], and believe it unnecessary for them to take on the full burdens of the Jewish faith.

 

Reform Jews are the most open to conversion (which is to say they will discourage the least, as proselytizing is not a Jewish "value" [my phrase]) and then Conservative, Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox in order of "resistance". To be accepted as a "convert" you have to accept that you will likely be turned away (perhaps many times) before you are accepted as "serious" and taken in.

 

To further complicate things, the Orthodox tend not to recognize converts to Reform or Conservative Judaism as Jews. This is a matter of extreme controversy, especially in Israel.

 

And while it should not be the case, it is my impression (from knowing converts to Orthodox Judaism) that they can feel a certain "outsider" status. The father of one of my closest friends is a convert to Orthodox Judaism and this is a closely held family secret and not known to community-at-large. This is not the "ideal" (in fact it is the opposite) but rather an unfortunate "reality" in this particular case.

 

I hope that sheds some light (however imperfect) on things. I wish someone who was actually Jewish was answering this (rather than me) but I did my best.

 

Bill

 

Bill

 

Their resistance to the idea of conversion makes complete sense since they are the "seed of Abraham". It's not just a choice of changing your religious identification, but of changing your heritage. I could see they would allow someone to follow their religious practices, but you can't just decide to join a new "race".

 

I'm still not sure I get the whole sacrifice thing. I understand the Old Testament sacrifices. I get that. I'm going to have to do some more studying on this other though.

 

Thanks for all the info.

[Spy Car]

Yes. While there seems to be more conversation, it's my impression that most of those involved in the official activities are getting along by avoiding the centrally irreconcilable truth of each faith's claim.

 

Quite simply, if the Jews today are right that the Messiah still hasn't come then Christians are, as Paul notes in one of his Epistles, the most wretched and pitiable of all creatures. At the end of the day if the Jews today are correct then Christians are deluded, still in their sins, and, for the Catholics and Orthodox (and a few Lutherans & Anglicans) we worship a piece of bread as the Almighty God Incarnate.....

 

How God squares that circle is beyond me. And I freely admit that the realm of official dialog is not my cuppa' joe. It's far too "diplomatic" for my taste and skills. ;)

 

Does that answer your question?

 

Yes, thank you. My own taste, I'll admit, runs to drinking from the cup of dialogue. Just look at this thread. Anyone who has been paying attention, and who has an open heart and an open mind, will now see that (for sake of example), Roman Catholics do not "worship" Saints but rather ask the Saints to intercede (or to pray on their behalf) in a fashion not much different than a Protestant asking a friend or minister (or members of the WTM forum) to pray with (or for) them.

 

To me this kind of dialogue is useful as it opens understanding and diminishes enmity.

 

Same with the wonderfully interesting discussion on faith and works. I'm an outsider to the faith, but it has often seemed to me than Protestants and Catholics talk past one another, when the differences between them (you) doesn't strike me as that profound when examined closely, and certainly aren't differences worth spilling blood over (literally or figuratively).

 

At the end of the day, I suppose someone's theology may prove to be "right" and everyone else may be "wrong", or maybe God is wondrous enough for the human predilection for "exclusivist" TRUTH is not his way, or maybe it is all a human invention, I don't know.

 

I know it does serve my sense of "Godliness" or "Goodliness" that we try to love, respect and understand one another until we find out for sure.

 

 

 

Oh, and since my wife had run across Tony Alamo, I was spared the effects of google-whacking him. But very little, even of the rabidly anti-Catholic propaganda, really stirs me up any more. There comes a point in any discussion when you realize that your interlocutor is beyond reason. I suspect, a priori, that Tony Alamo, whomever he may be, has hit this point already. So it profits me nothing to get angry.

 

 

I'm not as evolved as you are on this one I'm afraid. Hate-mongering toward Catholics (or anyone else) strikes me as an evil I wish fervently would vanish from the earth.

 

In Alamo's case, I believe he went to prison for tax-evasion, and mercifully I haven't heard of him since.

 

Good night all,

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Messianic Jews think of themselves as Jews.

 

Again, Jews who practice Judaism believe that they are Messianic Jews, and believe in their Messiah has not yet arrived. They see these other folks as "Christians".

 

I'm not saying who is right, and who is wrong, but I think a Jew wouldn't like the term Messianic Jew (for a Christian of Jewish ancestry) much better than the term "completed Jew".

 

My 2 cents.

 

Bill

[Faithr]

My dh is Jewish. His family is Jewish and they are atheists. So they are atheist Jews! Once a Jew, always a Jew as far as I can tell. Because it is both a nationality and religion. I think the different branches of Judiasm treat converts differently. But I could be wrong. I can't remember the technicalities. But a Reformed person might have a different perspective than an Orthodox in defining who is a Jew and who isn't. But that is as far as my knowledge goes. I'll ask my dh and if he doesn't know (and he grew up in a very assimilated/atheistic household so he really doesn't know much about his Jewish heritage, which is quite sad, really) but I have friend who was raised Zionist (though now she doesn't practice her faith at all and is actually raising her kids Catholic because she married a Catholic guy) anyway, I'll ask her. She's better informed about these kinds of things!

[Nicole M]

Yes, thank you. My own taste, I'll admit, runs to drinking from the cup of dialogue. Just look at this thread. Anyone who has been paying attention, and who has an open heart and an open mind, will now see that (for sake of example), Roman Catholics do not "worship" Saints but rather ask the Saints to intercede (or to pray on their behalf) in a fashion not much different than a Protestant asks a friend or minister (or members of the WTM forum) to pray with or for them.

 

To me this kind of dialogue is useful as it opens understanding and diminishes enmity.

 

Same with the wonderfully interesting discussion on faith and works. I'm an outsider to the faith, but it has often seemed to me than Protestants and Catholic past one another, when the differences between them (you) doesn't strike me as that profound when examined closely, and certainly aren't differences worth spilling blood over (literally or figuratively).

 

At the end of the day, I suppose someone's theology may prove to be "right" and everyone else may be "wrong", or maybe God is wondrous enough for the human predilection for "exclusivist" TRUTH is not his way, or maybe it is all a human invention, I don't know.

 

I know it does serve my sense of "Godliness" or "Goodliness" that we try to love, respect and understand one another until we find out for sure.

 

 

 

I'm not as evolved as you are on this one I'm afraid. Hate-mongering toward Catholics (or anyone else) strikes me as an evil I wish fervently would vanish from the earth.

 

In Alamo's case, I believe he went to prison for tax-evasion, and mercifully I haven't heard of him since.

 

Good night all,

 

Bill

 

Beautifully said, Bill. Thank you.

[Nicole M]

As the OP, I feel a bit responsible for what has happened here. And for a few pages, that was not a good feeling! But now, pages later, I feel funny interrupting an incredibly wonderful conversation. But for my own sense of closure, I want to follow up on a few items.

 

First, back to the prejudice / bias thing. Someone suggested that bias and prejudice exist everywhere against all kinds of folks. I get that. We pick up on bias all the time, and discuss it. I like to use sources by authors from radically different backgrounds so that we can compare what is important to each. Just the other day my 16yo son came to me with a list of books I'd found, about a particular subject. ("Mom! Look at this! Not one book on this list about X!" "Yes, son, we call that bias-by-omission.") Usually I get it, why an author might have a particular bias.

 

But what I was noticing with the anti-Catholic thing was different. Early in this thread I quoted a review of a book about Augustine - that sentence was more along the lines of what I'd seen. We're not talking about educating a child in a particular doctrine. What I was seeing were mean-spirited jabs that appeared to me to come out of nowhere and were inconsistent with the rest of the text. The last time this happened, I was reading aloud and my youngest son commented: "seems like Mr. Author has some tissues-without-the-"t" about Catholics, now doesn't it?" So I have been thinking about it and wondering.

 

Perhaps I should have been more specific at the front end of this, especially since some of you did not know what I was talking about. I apologize. Patty Joanna answered my question quite nicely, and many others of you gave me additional insight.

 

I feel I should have responded to more of you individually, and I apologize. You have been generous in your time and careful thinking here, and I am grateful.

 

Colleen, did Carol in Cal. answer your question with her explanation of "mainline protestants"? And yes, I have a Mike's in my fridge for you. (Boy: "Dad! Don't drink that! It's Colleen's!" Dad: "Um. Do I know a Colleen?") So next time you and the menfolk are coming south to visit your folks, just tell Hans you need to take a detour. Take the 705 spur, go up the hill, left on Stevens and right at the elementary school. House on the left with big messy garden in front. Really, it's not that far out of your way!

 

Again, thank you all. I have learned quite a lot. None of the ideas in this conversation are new to me, but I did not have the information arranged in my mind in a way that I could access it, could explain these various pov. I am very, very grateful.

 

Nicole

[Gretchen in NJ]

I would like to thank Nichole and the posters. I found the conversation very informative.

[SnowWhite]

Again, Jews who practice Judaism believe that they are Messianic Jews, and believe in their Messiah has not yet arrived. They see these other folks as "Christians".

 

I'm not saying who is right, and who is wrong, but I think a Jew wouldn't like the term Messianic Jew (for a Christian of Jewish ancestry) much better than the term "completed Jew".

 

My 2 cents.

 

Bill

 

Wouldn't the term "Catholic Jew" or "Jewish Catholic" make the most sense and be most self-explanatory?

[Karenciavo]

Messianic Judaism and Jews for Jesus are Christian evangelistic movements whose goal is to convert Jews to Christianity. Naturally, they are quite controversial.

 

http://www.rickross.com/groups/messianic.html

http://www.rickross.com/groups/jews.html

 

Well, we are friends with Jews who believe Jesus is the Messiah and they call themselves Messianic Jews.

[Gretchen in NJ]

Well, we are friends with Jews who believe Jesus is the Messiah and they call themselves Messianic Jews.

:iagree:

[H.S. Burrow]

I would like to thank Nichole and the posters. I found the conversation very informative.

 

 

:iagree: I have found this thread to be very educational. Thanks to all who have posted in it. I have been reading it daily...and taking notes!

[Peek a Boo]

Yes, thank you. My own taste, I'll admit, runs to drinking from the cup of dialogue. Just look at this thread. Anyone who has been paying attention, and who has an open heart and an open mind, will now see that (for sake of example), Roman Catholics do not "worship" Saints but rather ask the Saints to intercede (or to pray on their behalf) in a fashion not much different than a Protestant asking a friend or minister (or members of the WTM forum) to pray with (or for) them.

 

To me this kind of dialogue is useful as it opens understanding and diminishes enmity.

 

Bill

 

i think most Protestants would maintain that the biggest difference is that we don't ask dead people to pray for us ;)

 

But i do agree that the dialogue has been helpful and that many misconceptions have been cleared up!

[clwcain]

i think most Protestants would maintain that the biggest difference is that we don't ask dead people to pray for us ;)

 

And we contend that they're not dead, for they have fallen asleep in Christ. :D

[OnTheBrink]

And we contend that they're not dead, for they have fallen asleep in Christ. :D

 

If they're sleeping, how can they pray?:confused:

[8filltheheart]

i think most Protestants would maintain that the biggest difference is that we don't ask dead people to pray for us ;)

 

But i do agree that the dialogue has been helpful and that many misconceptions have been cleared up!

 

 

Ah.....but that is difference in POV exactly!! We don't believe they are dead! They are saints. The word saint has a very definite meaning......someone who is in heaven. They are living in the presence of God. If heaven is truly the joy of constant presence and worship of God, who better to ask pray for you than the very ones in His presence.

[clwcain]

If they're sleeping, how can they pray?:confused:

 

Because they're not sleeping in Heaven, where they see the Face of God and participate in the Eternal Sacrifice of Christ the Great High Priest.

 

Does that clarify matters?

[laylamcb]

And we contend that they're not dead, for they have fallen asleep in Christ. :D

 

Do you believe, then, that they are, for example, in the "great cloud of witnesses" spoken of in scripture? Is that what you mean? :001_smile:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

If they're sleeping, how can they pray?:confused:

 

"Fall asleep" is a metaphor for death. "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed."

[laylamcb]

Oops! Just saw your reply, Chris. I think I interpreted you rightly. That makes sense to me in a way that it (praying to saints) never did before. Thanks!

[OnTheBrink]

Because they're not sleeping in Heaven, where they see the Face of God and participate in the Eternal Sacrifice of Christ the Great High Priest.

 

Does that clarify matters?

 

Not really, but it's ok. :)

[Plaid Dad]

And we contend that they're not dead, for they have fallen asleep in Christ. :D

 

If it helps, the passage that is often used to explain this doctrine is Mark 12:20-27.

[*anj*]

Ah.....but that is difference in POV exactly!! We don't believe they are dead! They are saints. The word saint has a very definite meaning......someone who is in heaven. They are living in the presence of God. If heaven is truly the joy of constant presence and worship of God, who better to ask pray for you than the very ones in His presence.

 

The word "saint" also means "holy one", so it includes all who are in Christ whether on earth or in heaven, which is the way it is used most often in the New Testament. The Bible doesn't tell us that we should be asking people who are in heaven to pray for us, nor does it say that people in heaven are praying for us.

I do realize that your church's Tradition teaches otherwise, and I also realize that there are deutero-canonical writings that support what you're talking about. I think that this is another challenge of having these conversations, because I would say that if a teaching can't be proven by Scripture I will not accept it. You would say that Scripture and Tradition are inseparable, and we reach an impasse.

 

ETA: I re-read my own words, and I hope they aren't read with a snarky tone. I don't mean it that way. If I were speaking with you in person you wouldn't hear disdain in my voice, truly. I just wanted to point something out succinctly.

[clwcain]

Oops! Just saw your reply, Chris. I think I interpreted you rightly. That makes sense to me in a way that it (praying to saints) never did before. Thanks!

 

Yes, the "great cloud of witnesses", and Paul's explanation of dormition in Christ are key Scriptural pointers to the Communion of Saints.

 

Just as devils hate us, surround us, and actively work to separate us from God in any way they can, so we have on our side the angelic hosts and the Communion of Saints to aid us in the spiritual combat.

 

As Catholics, we also rely on the witness provided by Sacred Tradition, as handed on to us by the Apostles and their successors (the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome). The Tradition offers many documented miracles to support the assertions of the Church regarding the Communion of Saints, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, etc. We're talking objective evidence that has been subjected to scientific examination and found to have "no natural explanation". Two such documented miracles are still required of anyone whose Cause for Canonization is in progress before it can advance, although one of the required miracles can be "waived" if the person was of manifest holiness or died a martyr.

 

Catholics may use the term "saint" colloquially, meaning a holy person. But it does have a very precise meaning within the Church. When the Church speaks of "saints" these are the men and women she's talking about.

 

And, this is also crucial, the relatively few saints who have been canonized by the Church are not the outer limit but the bare minimum of people we know who are certainly in Heaven. I have a son who died at birth. I had the grace to Baptize him before he expired.

 

He is certainly in Heaven, given the Church's understanding of Infant Baptism, Original Sin, the promises of Christ, and the efficacy of the Sacraments. He'll never be elevated to the dignity of the altar (that is to say he's unlikely to be Beatified or Canonized). But he intercedes for us daily.

 

I have particular attachment to the saints for whom I am named, as well as those for whom my children are named. But the named saints aren't the limit of the Heavenly Host.

 

HTH

[clwcain]

You would say that Scripture and Tradition are inseparable, and we reach an impasse.

Actually we don't reach an immediate impasse. The Catholic response to sola scriptura boils down to "where did you get the scriptures?" The answer, as far as Catholics and Orthodox are concerned, is Tradition. It was handed on by the Apostles to their appointed successors.

 

But, and I'll stress this, I'm really not looking to provoke this discussion here. I simply point out the above by way of contributing to the ongoing discussion.

 

ETA: I re-read my own words, and I hope they aren't read with a snarky tone. I don't mean it that way. If I were speaking with you in person you wouldn't hear disdain in my voice, truly. I just wanted to point something out succinctly.

 

I didn't take umbrage at the tone. Your point was well crafted, cogent, and precise. I don't ask for more from my interlocutors. :D

[8filltheheart]

The word "saint" also means "holy one", so it includes all who are in Christ whether on earth or in heaven, which is the way it is used most often in the New Testament. The Bible doesn't tell us that we should be asking people who are in heaven to pray for us, nor does it say that people in heaven are praying for us.

I do realize that your church's Tradition teaches otherwise, and I also realize that there are deutero-canonical writings that support what you're talking about. I think that this is another challenge of having these conversations, because I would say that if a teaching can't be proven by Scripture I will not accept it. You would say that Scripture and Tradition are inseparable, and we reach an impasse.

 

ETA: I re-read my own words, and I hope they aren't read with a snarky tone. I don't mean it that way. If I were speaking with you in person you wouldn't hear disdain in my voice, truly. I just wanted to point something out succinctly.

 

My lunch break is over and we are doing school, so I have to log off. I totally understand your POV.

 

Honestly, however, most Tradition is based either on scripture or writings that go back to the early Church Fathers. Teachings don't have to be stated explicitly in scripture, but are often from the understanding of scriptures as a whole and often based from the understanding of tradition of the Jews.

 

Similarly to the teaching on the sinlessness of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, the understanding of the intercession of saints comes from the whole.

 

I am copying this from another site, so this is not my own presentation. I simply don't have the time to do it on my own.

 

The Bible directs us to invoke those in heaven and ask them to pray with us. Thus in Psalms 103, we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21). And in Psalms 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2).

 

Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, we read: "[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3-4).

 

And those in heaven who offer to God our prayers aren’t just angels, but humans as well. John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). The simple fact is, as this passage shows: The saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.

[*anj*]

Actually we don't reach an immediate impasse. The Catholic response to sola scriptura boils down to "where did you get the scriptures?" The answer, as far as Catholics and Orthodox are concerned, is Tradition. It was handed on by the Apostles to their appointed successors.

 

But, and I'll stress this, I'm really not looking to provoke this discussion here. I simply point out the above by way of contributing to the ongoing discussion.

 

Well then (the figurative) we would say that the Scriptures came through the hands of people who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. We don't believe that there is a living, breathing Tradition that can add to the Scripture over time. Even those who believe in charismatic prophetic gifts would stop short at saying that those words of prophecy are equal to Scripture.

 

But I don't want to quibble or provoke anyone here either. I am uncomfortable with these discussions using this medium because it is so easy to misunderstand or misinterpret the written word. I am much more at ease discussing things of this nature face to face because there can be actual relating going on, not merely the reading of words. A thread on a message board is different than a book. Books are written for an audience, their intention and tone are understood. This thread is like a conversation, and I think that the rules are somehow different.

 

I didn't take umbrage at the tone. Your point was well crafted, cogent, and precise. I don't ask for more from my interlocutors. :D

Thank you. I appreciate that.

[Melinda in VT]

The word "saint" also means "holy one", so it includes all who are in Christ whether on earth or in heaven, which is the way it is used most often in the New Testament. The Bible doesn't tell us that we should be asking people who are in heaven to pray for us, nor does it say that people in heaven are praying for us.

I do realize that your church's Tradition teaches otherwise, and I also realize that there are deutero-canonical writings that support what you're talking about. I think that this is another challenge of having these conversations, because I would say that if a teaching can't be proven by Scripture I will not accept it. You would say that Scripture and Tradition are inseparable, and we reach an impasse.

 

ETA: I re-read my own words, and I hope they aren't read with a snarky tone. I don't mean it that way. If I were speaking with you in person you wouldn't hear disdain in my voice, truly. I just wanted to point something out succinctly.

 

Well, we only reach an impasse if the goal of the conversation is for Catholics to convince Protestants that Catholicism is right to ask saints to intercede or for Protestants to convince Catholics that it is wrong to ask saints to intercede.

 

We don't reach an impasse if the goal of the conversation is for Protestants to understand what Catholics are doing when they ask saints to intercede and why Catholics think that is a good/acceptable religious practice. I can understand how someone reached their opinion/belief without holding it myself.

[clwcain]

I am much more at ease discussing things of this nature face to face because there can be actual relating going on, not merely the reading of words.

 

*anj*,

 

We're in total agreement here. I prefer doing this over port and cigars. Scotch, too, if the mood strikes. All following an excellent meal. :D

[*anj*]

Well, we only reach an impasse if the goal of the conversation is for Catholics to convince Protestants that Catholicism is right to ask saints to intercede or for Protestants to convince Catholics that it is wrong to ask saints to intercede.

 

We don't reach an impasse if the goal of the conversation is for Protestants to understand what Catholics are doing when they ask saints to intercede and why Catholics think that is a good/acceptable religious practice. I can understand how someone reached their opinion/belief without holding it myself.

 

That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion.

[*anj*]

*anj*,

 

We're in total agreement here. I prefer doing this over port and cigars. Scotch, too, if the mood strikes. All following an excellent meal. :D

 

And Belgian Chocolate? :D

[clwcain]

Well, we only reach an impasse if the goal of the conversation is for Catholics to convince Protestants that Catholicism is right to ask saints to intercede or for Protestants to convince Catholics that it is wrong to ask saints to intercede.

 

We don't reach an impasse if the goal of the conversation is for Protestants to understand what Catholics are doing when they ask saints to intercede and why Catholics think that is a good/acceptable religious practice. I can understand how someone reached their opinion/belief without holding it myself.

 

True, but without clear definitions laid out at the start of the discussion, it does quickly reach a frustrating impasse, even if persuasion is not the purpose.

 

We often, as several folks noted, end up talking past one another because we all think we're speaking the same language, but we're not. We don't use the same words with the same meanings or connotations.

[clwcain]

And Belgian Chocolate? :D

 

Really dark? Or milk?

Have you ever had goat milk chocolate?

 

Wow. We're waaaay off the reservation now. :D

[*anj*]

True, but without clear definitions laid out at the start of the discussion, it does quickly reach a frustrating impasse, even if persuasion is not the purpose.

 

We often, as several folks noted, end up talking past one another because we all think we're speaking the same language, but we're not. We don't use the same words with the same meanings or connotations.

 

Thank you. Check your rep box! :001_smile:

[Nicole M]

Really dark? Or milk?

Have you ever had goat milk chocolate?

 

Wow. We're waaaay off the reservation now. :D

 

Well, if there's chocolate involved, then you better come on over to my place for this discussion. Seattle area.

[clwcain]

Thank you. Check your rep box! :001_smile:

 

Wow. Thank you, oh Great and Powerful *anj*!

[*anj*]

Really dark? Or milk?

Have you ever had goat milk chocolate?

 

Wow. We're waaaay off the reservation now. :D

 

Well, dark is my preference. Milk is okay if it's wrapped around pecans, cashews, and/or really good caramel.

 

No, I've never even heard of goat milk chocolate! I can add that to my list of things to try.

Yup, we're way off the reservation, but I like to think of it as a little ecumenical lightening of the tone! ;)

[clwcain]

Well, if there's chocolate involved, then you better come on over to my place for this discussion. Seattle area.

 

Fine with me. The weather in Texas is too hot for sitting outside with cigars and chocolate. Now in a few months...

 

But the Pacific NW is alright by me. :D