Hey guys. I'm a little bit curious - what is the deal with saints in the Catholic religion? In the ten commandments in the catholic bible, it says something like "i am the one true god, worship none other than me" or something like that... but Catholics pray to/through saints, and i was just wondering why that was and how it can be explained 
if anyone knows please post I can't speak for other Catholics, but I seek help in communicating with God through the help of Saints, and ask the saints to watch over me and my loved ones. I don't know of anybody who actually worships any of the Saints as a "God", that would indeed be wrong IMHO. I think it is more a case of being able to identify with a Saint more than for example an Angel. An Angel was created out of the light and does not have a "soul", only we humans have been granted that. On the other hand a Saint was at one time a human like us and elevated (or promoted as the case may be) to Sainthood. The Bible teaches us that there is only one God, and I believe that to be true. Differant people of differant cultures chose to call God by differant names, and may worship God differantly than I do, but who's to actually say one way is better than another? When all is said and done, there is no "My God" or "Your God", there is only God...singular.
If you look at roman history there existed a group of Christians called Iconoclasts who vandalised and destroyed all holy images in churches.
A huge amount of history was destroyed by them and they were for a time legally supported by the Roman empire.
Luckily times changed although many puritans hold similiar views.
Andy Warhol's iconic images of Madonna caused uproar in the Christian community when they were first released but are now commonly accepted.
http://gtx2.net/images/georgewarhol.jpg
Seeing as when he released them he highlighted the notion that a living person (Madonna) could be worshipped as a religious icon.
An idea which is now widely accepted. | kimrei wrote: |
If you look at roman history there existed a group of Christians called Iconoclasts who vandalised and destroyed all holy images in churches.
A huge amount of history was destroyed by them and they were for a time legally supported by the Roman empire.
Luckily times changed although many puritans hold similiar views.
Andy Warhol's iconic images of Madonna caused uproar in the Christian community when they were first released but are now commonly accepted.
http://gtx2.net/images/georgewarhol.jpg
Seeing as when he released them he highlighted the notion that a living person (Madonna) could be worshipped as a religious icon.
An idea which is now widely accepted. |
Art does not justify blasphemy.
Unfortunately for the catholic faith, the previous statment seems to be widely considered false.This is a common misconception.
We do not worship or pray to saints, we pray WITH saints. It is no different than me asking you or someone else to pray for me, it's the same basic idea, only it is applying to the people in Heaven.
By saying "praying with them"...
When we pray with saints, we are asking them to pray for us. We ask them for help because we believe they can help us. We converse with saints in the same way we converse with God, we open our hearts out to them. We should also do this with our fellow christians, where an openness and helpful attitude is all around. We experience our spiritual journey together towards God. We share our experiences, and together as a Catholic Church or as a christian community or a community of believers we worship God alone. The communion of saints we profess in describes saints in heaven, pilgrims on earth and souls in purgatory, all working together towards eternal happiness in the presence of God.
The communion is also known as love.
actually, we do not concider saints as gods if that's what you mean. saints were people who lived and had such a great life that they should be taken as examples to follow. they are now in heaven and when we pray to a saint what we actualy do is to ask them for help in our life.
I agree that catholics don't actually pray TO saints, but WITH THEM (well, some of them anyway. I do know some people who call themselves catholic and pray TO the saints.) Personally, I don't believe a "saint" can really help you get to God because in the end they were human, too, and aren't angels or anything. Their status as "saints" is usually granted by the Catholic church, not GOD. And, why do you need someone to go to God? I believe you should pray directly to Him.
| Quote: |
| I agree that catholics don't actually pray TO saints, but WITH THEM |
I don't agree and I think the concession is both overly generous and factually incorrect in a large number of cases. As someone with a catholic family and many catholic friends and acquaintences I can tell you that many catholics pray TO and not WITH.
This is emphasised by the ridiculous use of Patron saints.
Lost something ? Pray to St Christopher.
Got a sick pooch? You need to pray to Hubert of Liege, Patron of dogs.
Going on a trip to Eygyt ? Don't forget a quick prayer to Mark the Evangelist.
Worried about driving - pray to John the Baptist the patron of motorways.
There are countless thousands of these patron saints. Why ?
Even if we allow the point that people pray WITH the saints it is problematic. Here are three problems with this whole notion.
1) Scriptural objections.
The New Testament seems (at least to me) to define a saint as anyone born again in Christ. Catholic dogma seems to redefine this for its own ends. Thus Paul tells us :
| Quote: |
| "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." Romans 1:7 |
and in Ephesians we read :
| Quote: |
| "Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;" Ephesians 3:8 |
2. The concept of intercession is invented after the fact.
Firstly, the saints are all dead. The only mention given to speaking/praying to the dead in scripture is in the context of sorcery, witchcraft and necromancy - all strongly condemned. The bible clearly states that there is only only mediator between man and God. | Quote: |
| “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”. Timothy 2:5 |
Finally, although the bible mentions praying for others several times (Corinthians 1:11; Ephesians 1:16; Philippians 1:19 - a few examples), at no point does it mention asking someone in heaven to pray for something/someone. Nor does it ever mention someone in heaven praying for someone on earth. Thus the comparison made between praying for someone here on earth and praying to the saints is, scripturally-speaking, dubious and unsupported.
3. Practical objections
The Bible does not indicate that the saints are anything other than limited beings, even if they are in heaven. There is no reason to suppose that they can hear the prayers of people on earth, let alone multitudes of such people simultaneously. To do this would require divine powers such as those possessed by God himself. There is no suggestion anywhere in scripture that this is the case.
Jesus himself points out that
| Quote: |
| ...All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Matthew 28:18 |
Food for thought perhaps.....
Regards
Chris.As I am not Catholic, I can't give you a 1st person view of this whole thing, but I have grown up with a Catholic family and I attend a Catholic high school.
As most of the otehr people have said, Catholics aren't really meaningfully praying to the Saints (yes, capitalized because saints are considered anyone of Catholic faith who has died) as a substitute for God. They do pray to them however:
| Quote: |
| O Glorious Saint Bartholomew, Jesus called you a person without guile and you saw in this word a sign that he was the Son of God and King of Israel. Obtain for us the grace to be ever guileless and innocent as doves. At the same time, help us to have your gift of faith to see the Divine hand in the events of daily life. May we discern the signs of the times that lead to Jesus on earth and will eventually unite us to him forever in heaven. Amen. |
In that prayer, they are speaking directly to Saint Bartholomew. Though, they mean it as a way to speak to God. The human mind is on the 'natural' level of time and space, according to Christian teachings. So someone like God, who is on the 'spiritual' level, can process more things in His mind. He can hold all prayers without categorizing them, unlike humans. So we pray to particular Saints who have been patronized over a certain topic.
Catholics also pray to Mary, the Mother of Jesus. She can be considered a Saint, and they pray to her so that she can tell Jesus who in turn lets God know. Doesn't a mother have a better influence over her son than anyone else does? And would a father turn away his son if he truly loved him?
God bless,
Pampoon | pampoon wrote: |
Catholics also pray to Mary, the Mother of Jesus. She can be considered a Saint, and they pray to her so that she can tell Jesus who in turn lets God know. Doesn't a mother have a better influence over her son than anyone else does? And would a father turn away his son if he truly loved him?
|
Mary is another contentious issue for other Christian sects (and I use the word sect as a purely descriptive term meaning 'branch' of a main religion, not in any pejorative or demeaning sense, I would like to be clear on that).
Most non-catholic sects do not attach anything like the importance to Mary that the Catholics do.
Many Catholic churches are devoted almost entirely to Mary, in terms of iconography (Jesus appears, if at all, as a helpless infant in his 'mother's arms), services which have litanies of honorific titles for Mary, processions in her honour. Titles include Salve Regina (Holy Queen) and the prayer of the same name goes :
| Quote: |
| "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." |
This is understood best in context.
Alfonsus de Liguori (1696-1787) was the principal proponent of the Marianist Movement and wrote a book "The Glories of Mary" in which he proclaims that Mary was given "rulership over one half of the kingdom of God". He goes on that "Mary rules over the kingdom of mercy and Jesus rules over the kingdom of justice". This was not greeted with concern by the pontificate but, instead, Liquori was cannonised, declared 'Doctor of the Church' and his book was widely promoted. It has also influenced Popes. As Mary Collins notes (she is a former Catholic Nun, no longer in the faith), | Quote: |
Pope Benedict XV said of Mary that "[O]ne can justly say that with Christ, she herself redeemed mankind."
Pope Pius IX said: "Our salvation is based upon the holy Virgin... so that if there is any hope and spiritual healing for us we receive it solely and uniquely from her." |
This is way beyond any simple notion of intermediary or go-between and places such importance in Mary that she is truly a power in the kingdom of God second only to God himself, and even then it is a close run contest.
Now we should consider the dichotomy between Catholic dogma and doctrine and the actual contents and context of scripture. There are numerous points of contention. Here are a few :
1) Immaculate conception. This is a central point of Catholic dogma - Mary was a virgin and, further, she was:
| Quote: |
| untainted by original sin from the instant of conception. (Catechism" 490-492). |
and
| Quote: |
| ALL-HOLY -- Mary, "the All-Holy," lived a perfectly sinless life. ("Catechism" 411, 493) |
Here is a link to official Catholic doctrin on the issue
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm
Yet in In Luke 1:46-47, Mary said: | Quote: |
| "My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour". Mary knew that she needed a savior. |
clearly indicating that she was with sin and in need of a saviour.
In Romans we find two verses on the issue | Quote: |
| 3:23"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God". |
and
| Quote: |
| 3:10 "There is none righteous, no, not one". |
And in revelations : | Quote: |
| 15:4 "Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? For thou only art holy". |
2. Mary as the Mother of God.
| Quote: |
| Because she is the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, therefore Mary is the Mother of God. ("Catechism" 963, 971, 2677). |
Yet scriptural interpretation indicates that Jesus, in incarnation, was both fully God and fully man. Mary was only the mother of Jesus as man, and not the mother of Jesus as God.
Colossians says | Quote: |
| 1:16-17 "For by him [Jesus] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things [including Mary] were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things [including Mary] , and by him all things consist". |
(My italics)
John says : | Quote: |
| 8:58 "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am." |
and Jesus himself says | Quote: |
| 17:5"And now O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." |
Clearly stating that he existed even before the world began. Jesus came first -- not Mary.
Next
3. The Assumption
| Quote: |
| At the end of her life, Mary was taken up ("assumed") body and soul into Heaven. ("Catechism" 966, 974) |
There is absolutely no biblical reference to this anywhere. Even John (who Mary lived with) fails to mention it. When Enoch and Elijah were taken up to Heaven, the Bible recorded it (with Elijah, in some detail).
What is the history of this doctrine ? The Assumption of Mary was officially declared to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith in 1950.
Yet, as Mary Collins again points out :
| Quote: |
| In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. The early Church clearly considered the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary to be a heresy worthy of condemnation. Here we have "infallible" popes declaring something to be a heresy. Then in 1950, Pope Pius XII, another "infallible" pope, declared it to be official Roman Catholic doctrine. |
Finally
4. Mary as Queen of Heaven
| Quote: |
| God has exalted Mary in heavenly glory as Queen of Heaven and earth. ("Catechism" 966) She is to be praised with special devotion. ("Catechism" 971, 2675) |
Yet Psalms tells us | Quote: |
| 148:13"Let them praise the name of the Lord: for his name alone is excellent; his glory is above the earth and heaven." |
This makes it quite clear that only God’s name (not Mary’s) is to be exalted.
Luke is even clearer when Jesus corrects a woman for glorifying Mary; | Quote: |
| 11:27-28"And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." |
And even more crucially, in Revelations we have the most detailed picture of Heaven in scripture: God is seated on the throne, surrounded by 24 elders and four living creatures. The Lamb (Jesus) is standing in the center of the throne. Thousands upon thousands of angels circle the throne, singing God's praises. Mary is not in the picture at all.
Finally from Mary Conner we have this useful table of comparisons which is worth including :
Regards
ChrisThanks Chris that was one of the most useful things i have ever read regarding catholic views. I was brought up in a church of christ and am now going to an indpendent church with no denomination (just christians). This is probably the furthest away a christian group can go from catholics? maybe anyway. But my girlfriend was brought up as a catholic, she turned when she saw another church but her parents remain catholic.
Recently i went to a "holy comunion" with her and her parents and the topic of religion came up!
Her mum said alot of things that i could see in no way why and how they would come to belive that. Like praying to the saints, and holding them to the same degree as Jesus.
She did not know anything at all apart from the catholic way and when she asked who i prayed to i said jesus, god and the holy spirit as one. She likened this to praying to saints???
To prove a point she brought up a church devoted to mary in the country of malta wich is able to produce miracles? The fact that a church for mary, and mary alone can produce miracles is confusing. This would mean that either you can pray to saints and they do have some kind of divine power, or that satan is involved because satan can perform miracles. If saints do not have godly power does this mean that catholics worship satin? and will both catholics and christians go to heaven?
Wish i had the same reiligious knowledge as chris! 
| all-australian-reject wrote: |
Wish I had the same reiligious knowledge as chris! |
I should, of course, be clear and state that I have problems with all sects of Christianity and am not saying that only Catholicism is disingenuous in its statements of dogma. As an atheist I rejected the Christian theology a long ago but since I was raised and educated in Catholicism I retain much of the knowledge bashed into me by my teachers, so this is an area in which I can speak with some experience and knowledge.
I think my attitude towards Christianity can be summarised quite simply. I think the basic message is a good and noble one - love thy neighbour, or do as you would be done by. This is a good starting point for anyone trying to develop a personal philosophy and understand their place and role in the universe.
The problem comes when the supernatural elements enter the mix and the primary focus then shifts from how to live a good life to how to ensure eternal life in heaven. At that point we shift from philosophy to religion and that shift is one I am not prepared to make and which I personally believe is a negative thing.
Like many religions, Christianity, if stripped back to a basic philosophy, has a lot of useful and important things to say about life and living and at that level I think Christianity is still relevant and important today. I also think that this approach of 'philosophising' Christianity and stripping much of the supernatural theology away has actually been going on for a long time in the Church of England. Many clerics of that sect here in the UK are quite ambivolent about some of the main 'supernatural' elements of Christianity (even the resurrection itself in some cases), and have, instead, focussed on Jesus as exemplar of a good life rather than Jesus as son of God. This then redefines Christianity as a philosophy in the classic sense of an examination of how to live a good life - something that any Greek philosopher from 2500 years ago would recognise as the central concern of philosophy.
This, of course, is controvertial (the rise of the evangelical wing of the Church can, in this context, be seen as a reaction against this 'secularisation'). I would, however, welcome and encourage this trend since my own personal belief is that Christianity as philosophy has a lot to offer but Christianity as religion does not.
Regards
Chris.Its really a joke of the Catholic religion, because The only God dont like that we give honor, faith, glory, etc... to any other being or thing in the universe, and the Pope and catholic people want to change the rules, I dont understand yhat situation, Why is so difficult to pray to God in the name of Jesus only, why we need intersesors when Jesus came to save us and said I m the Way and the True and the Life , no one comes to The Father withpout me.
Im so sad because some parents are catholics and they prefer the Virgin and other saints to invoque God
I don't even know where to start on this one, but I don't have much time so I will just say one thing adressed earlier in a quote by Mary Conner, I think.
| Quote: |
Quote:
In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. The early Church clearly considered the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary to be a heresy worthy of condemnation. Here we have "infallible" popes declaring something to be a heresy. Then in 1950, Pope Pius XII, another "infallible" pope, declared it to be official Roman Catholic doctrine.
|
The Pope can speak infalliably, that does not me that he nor all of his actions are infallible. When a Pope speaks infallible in can only be on issues of doctrine and morality and occurs very rarely. | MyNameIsJim wrote: |
I don't even know where to start on this one, but I don't have much time so I will just say one thing adressed earlier in a quote by Mary Conner, I think.
| Quote: |
Quote:
In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. The early Church clearly considered the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary to be a heresy worthy of condemnation. Here we have "infallible" popes declaring something to be a heresy. Then in 1950, Pope Pius XII, another "infallible" pope, declared it to be official Roman Catholic doctrine.
|
The Pope can speak infalliably, that does not me that he nor all of his actions are infallible. When a Pope speaks infallible in can only be on issues of doctrine and morality and occurs very rarely. |
I'm familiar with the doctrine of infallibility but I would argue that the above IS a doctrinal matter.
Chris.I apologize that was not the point that I was trying to emphasize, the point was the the Pope is not infalible, he can speak infallibly. The Pope sins and makes mistakes like the rest of us and yes he is wrong from time to time. Pope John Paul II issued statements about genetic engineering only to take them back and reverse his position several years later. This is because when he stated those view he was not speaking infallilbly. When a Pope speaks infallible it is in a written statement in which it is very clear what is being said infallibly, because the whole statement is not usually put forth as infallible.
| Quote: |
| When a Pope speaks infallible it is in a written statement in which it is very clear what is being said infallibly, because the whole statement is not usually put forth as infallible. |
Pope Gelasius issued such a written decree Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticis et Apocryphis which states that :
| Quote: |
| The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below some which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics |
Amongst the writings which are itemised is Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae, Apocryphus
This entire decree and its condemnation was also reaffirmed by Pope Hormisdas in A.D. 520.
Regards
ChrisBikerman, for supposedly being a liberal academic you sound remarkably like a right wing anti-Catholic religous bigot like Jim Tetlo or Jack Chick?
You are using *PRECISELY* the kinds of anti-Catholic arguments that I see these people making on ChristianForums.com, the #1 most trafficed Christian forum on the net. Strangely, I've never seen it anywhere else on the net before and it has never shown its ugly face on this forum before. I've been asking around and I can't find anyone who knows anything about this extremely rare form of religious bigotry. In the real world this strange anti-Catholic madness hardly exists at all.
Where do you people come from?
| Bikerman wrote: |
3. The Assumption
| Quote: | | At the end of her life, Mary was taken up ("assumed") body and soul into Heaven. ("Catechism" 966, 974) |
There is absolutely no biblical reference to this anywhere. Even John (who Mary lived with) fails to mention it. When Enoch and Elijah were taken up to Heaven, the Bible recorded it (with Elijah, in some detail). |
You seem strangely confident in the completeness of the historical account of the Gospels for an atheist. I’ve NEVER seen an atheist assert ANYTHING like *that* before!!
| Bikerman wrote: |
What is the history of this doctrine ? The Assumption of Mary was officially declared to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith in 1950.
Yet, as Mary Collins again points out : |
This is an intentionally misleading half truth, and being as educated as you obviously are you could not be unaware of that.
*ALL* orthodox denominations celebrate the assumption of Mary, not just the Roman Catholic Church. That is 75% of Christendom. The Eastern Orthodox Church and the RCC disagree as to whether she was bodily assumed before her death or after. This is an ancient disagreement, and your implication by innuendo that the RCC just made up this doctrine in 1950 is TROLL BAIT!!!
TROLL ALERT TROLL ALERT TROLL ALERT TROLL ALERT TROLL ALERT TROLL ALERT!!! | mike1reynolds wrote: |
| Bikerman, for supposedly being a liberal academic you sound remarkably like a right wing anti-Catholic religous bigot like Jim Tetlo or Jack Chick? |
So I'm a liberal academic one minute (a claim I have never made so I don't know what the 'supposedly' refers to). Next I'm mathematically foolish, equivocal and refuse to take sides. Then I become a right wing bigot who hangs out in weird places on the net and spouts madness against Catholicism (a religion I was brought up in and spent 20yrs studying).
Any other personal insults you would care to sling ? You may as well get it off your chest now you've started...
Regards
ChrisHow would being a liberal academic be an insult?
You quoted Mary Collins, a well known anti-Catholic bigot, as any Catholic familiar with her will tell you.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| Quote: |
There is absolutely no biblical reference to this anywhere. Even John (who Mary lived with) fails to mention it. When Enoch and Elijah were taken up to Heaven, the Bible recorded it (with Elijah, in some detail). |
You seem strangely confident in the completeness of the historical account of the Gospels for an atheist. I’ve NEVER seen an atheist assert ANYTHING like *that* before!! |
I was clear to state my personal position at the start of the post and I think it was clear and accurate. I do not accept the NT as historical or a complete account of anything, since I am well aware of the history and chronology of this part of the Christian scripture. I was making the point that the various doctrines surrounding Mary are unsupported by scripture and that this is surprising given the magnitude of the event which one would have expected to rate comment from at least St John who commented on similar happenings previously. The point is accurate and, I think, fairly made.
| Quote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | What is the history of this doctrine ? The Assumption of Mary was officially declared to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith in 1950. Yet, as Mary Collins again points out : |
This is an intentionally misleading half truth, and being as educated as you obviously are you could not be unaware of that.
*ALL* orthodox denominations celebrate the assumption of Mary, not just the Roman Catholic Church. That is 75% of Christendom. The Eastern Orthodox Church and the RCC disagree as to whether she was bodily assumed before her death or after. This is an ancient disagreement, and your implication by innuendo that the RCC just made up this doctrine in 1950 is TROLL BAIT!!! |
I said nothing about RC making the doctrine up in 1950 but I accept that my words could have been better chosen to reflect the long history of the basic belief. Whilst what I wrote was accurate I would agree that it may give the impression that the RCC acted suddenly and alone which would not be either true or fair. It was not a particularly deliberate thing regardless of what you think but I am happy (as I always try to be) to correct the impression given.
I also accept that the Orthodox Church in general accept the assumption as doctrine - I was juxtaposing the Protestant position but I should have mentioned the Eastern and other Orthodox churches to be fair. To balance things slightly I also left out/neglected consideration of the doctrinal differences between the Orthodox church and Catholicism regarding the Immaculate conception.
As for the rest of your post - I'm not getting into an exchange of personal abuse, since it serves no purpose and demeans the debate.
I think my posts have been moderate in tone and fair in content. I have made my position perfectly clear so that nobody can be mislead. I have refrained from personal comment and certainly from personal abuse, since I regard the use of such ad-hominem fallacies as one of the worst examples of debating weakness.
I agree that my views are fairly trenchant and may be challenging to some but I would also say that they are supported and referenced by fact wherever possible (far more than is the norm) and I make an effort to try not to misrepresent or mislead and am happy to correct myself if I do so inadvertently.
If you have genuine problems with my posts then I will try to deal with them in a genuine manner, but there is no way I can sensibly deal with abuse and insult other than to leave it alone.
Regards
ChrisFor starters, I found some of the posts to be very informative. And while I may not agree with it, it at least makes more sense. See, I believe that the Saints aren't in Heaven yet. They won't be until Jesus comes back to take us all. I think they are only sleeping, but that's my opinion. And while I do believe that others can pray for me, I don't think the dead can. There are several people that I pray for, but I don't expect them to pray to me to make it happen. Most of the time, they don't even have to ask.
Anyway, thanks again for the posts.
| livilou wrote: |
For starters, I found some of the posts to be very informative. And while I may not agree with it, it at least makes more sense. See, I believe that the Saints aren't in Heaven yet. They won't be until Jesus comes back to take us all. I think they are only sleeping, but that's my opinion. And while I do believe that others can pray for me, I don't think the dead can. There are several people that I pray for, but I don't expect them to pray to me to make it happen. Most of the time, they don't even have to ask.
Anyway, thanks again for the posts. |
That sounds like a uniquely Seventh Day Adventist point of view, verses all of the rest of Christianity. The key phrase here is "soul sleep". Only SDA's believe in soul sleep, no other formal denomination of Christianity does (although there are many "non-denominational Christians" who do, regardless of whether they are really Christian or not...)
Last edited by mike1reynolds on Thu Dec 21, 2006 8:06 am; edited 1 time in total | mike1reynolds wrote: |
| livilou wrote: | For starters, I found some of the posts to be very informative. And while I may not agree with it, it at least makes more sense. See, I believe that the Saints aren't in Heaven yet. They won't be until Jesus comes back to take us all. I think they are only sleeping, but that's my opinion. And while I do believe that others can pray for me, I don't think the dead can. There are several people that I pray for, but I don't expect them to pray to me to make it happen. Most of the time, they don't even have to ask.
Anyway, thanks again for the posts. |
That sounds like a uniquely Seventh Day Adventist point of view, verses all of the rest of Christianity. The key phrase here is "soul sleep". Only SDA's believe in soul sleep, no other Christians do. |
I didn't know that, but thanks for telling me.
BTW, I'm not SDA in case you haven't figured that out yet. lolThen you must be non-denominational...?
(Once you dismiss Apostolic Tradition, you dismiss the very foundations of Christianity. I say this as a devout Methodist who follows the Biblical exegesis of John Wesley very closely.)
Actually, that's what we consider ourselves to be. Our church is called Full Gospel because we feel we follow the Full Gospel of Christ (at least as we understand it).
And please explain your comment in () more.
Every non-denominational I have come in contact with on the internet (never met it in real life) has been rabidly anti-Catholic (i.e. attacking 75% of Christendom, EOC, OOC and Anglican, as well as Catholic), and when theologically knowledgeable, when pressed on the matter TOTAL AND COMPLETELY rejects any validity to the knowledge of the Apostles and the information passed down through Apostolic Tradition. God have mercy on their souls.
How can anyone reject the tradition and knowledge of the Apostoles? They are the ones who wrote the entire NT.
As far as other religions: As long as a person is following the Bible to the best of their understanding, and received that understanding through study and prayer, then they are right. Who am I to say they aren't?
| livilou wrote: |
| How can anyone reject the tradition and knowledge of the Apostoles? They are the ones who wrote the entire NT. |
I have seen it on ChristianForums.com, the #1 Christian site on the web, on the General Theology board there, and I have also seen it on MeetChristians.com on the Bible & Theology board there.
I agree with you, how can this be, yet it is, and I suspect that it is not Christian at all. I think that many of these are Satanists or something of that sort, pretending to be something that they are not.
| livilou wrote: |
| As far as other religions: As long as a person is following the Bible to the best of their understanding, and received that understanding through study and prayer, then they are right. Who am I to say they aren't? |
Theologians can twist points of theology just as much as lawyers can twist points of law. In fact the top doctrinal body within the United Methodist Church (how I was raised) is called the Methodist Judiciary Council, and its members are called justices. Not just anyone can read the law or the scriptures and come up with their own interpretation, there is a judicial standard in place for both contexts. Anyone who deviates sharply from any of the main stream interpretations of the Bible lack any credibility in my opinion. For example, lots of people believe in the rapture because they latch onto just three verses in the Bible to construct a whole world view which is entirely contrary to Apostolic Tradition.
So there is a close association between belief in the rapture and dupes for this anti-Catholic hate rhetoric. A lot of people, mostly uneducated Americans with no understanding at all of Apostolic Tradition, fall hook line and sinker for these anti-Catholic arguments that are in truth anti-Christian.
One of their main arguments is an appeal to the theological notion of sola scriptura, but in twisted form. Real sola scriptura does not reject all historical context, but these people claim that sola scriptura does, and they go on to say that all tradition is man made and that only the Bible comes from God. They insist that Catholics put Apostolic Tradition before the Bible and insist that this is evil. Any argument you make to these people that taking historical context into account in one's interpretation is not evil, falls flat, because most of the people spearheading the charge in these arguments are trolls who probably aren't Christians at all, they just get a kick out of manipulating Christians into fighting with each other. | livilou wrote: |
| How can anyone reject the tradition and knowledge of the Apostoles? They are the ones who wrote the entire NT. |
Not so. There are several hypothesis concerning origin and source for the Gospels and other books of the NT.
The Two Source hypothesis deals with the origin of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke which, analysis shows share content and chronology to a large degree). Also, remember that many of the Apostelic gospels are not included in the official Christian NT ( Thomas and the other 'Apocryphal' gospels, the Gnostic gospels of Mary Magdalene and others eg 1, 2, 3)
| livilou wrote: |
As far as other religions: As long as a person is following the Bible to the best of their understanding, and received that understanding through study and prayer, then they are right. Who am I to say they aren't? |
Would this include Christian scripture not included in the Bible? What about later developments of Christian theology such as Islam? How would this view of 'right' reconcile the fact that several interpretations of the Bible which would, I am sure, claim to originate with sincere prayerful contemplation, contradict each other in ways which necessitate one or the other being incorrect? Examples 1, 2, 3, 4.
Regards
ChrisThe Gnostic gospels are not part of Apostolic Tradition, the Apostles destroyed these works. Anything like the equivolent of Apostolic Tradition for these works, the oral tradition associated with these works, was destroyed by the Apostles in the 4th century. All that we have today of the surviving Gnostic gospels are texts in an almost total vacuum of context. What little context we do have for these works comes from the very Apostles that destroyed any serious contemplation of these works until the last century.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| The Gnostic gospels are not part of Apostolic Tradition, the Apostles destroyed these works. Anything like the equivolent of Apostolic Tradition for these works, the oral tradition associated with these works, was destroyed by the Apostles in the 4th century. All that we have today of the surviving Gnostic gospels are texts in an almost total vacuum of context. What little context we do have for these works comes from the very Apostles that destroyed any serious contemplation of these works until the last century. |
Firstly, the Apostles could hardly have destroyed anything in the 4th Century since they would have all been dead for centuries.
The Nag Hammedi library has this to say :
| Quote: |
| That Gnosticism was, at least briefly, in the mainstream of Christianity is witnessed by the fact that one of its most influential teachers, Valentinus, may have been in consideration during the mid-second century for election as the Bishop of Rome.3 Born in Alexandria around 100 C.E., Valentinus distinguished himself at an early age as an extraordinary teacher and leader in the highly educated and diverse Alexandrian Christian community. In mid-life he migrated from Alexandria to the Church's evolving capital, Rome, where he played an active role in the public affairs of the Church. A prime characteristic of Gnostics was their claim to be keepers of sacred traditions, gospels, rituals, and successions – esoteric matters for which many Christians were either not properly prepared or simply not inclined. Valentinus, true to this Gnostic predilection, apparently professed to have received a special apostolic sanction through Theudas, a disciple and initiate of the Apostle Paul, and to be a custodian of doctrines and rituals neglected by what would become Christian orthodoxy. |
and
| Quote: |
| While the historical and theological details are far too complex for proper explication here, the tide of history can be said to have turned against Gnosticism in the middle of the second century. No Gnostic after Valentinus would ever come so near prominence in the greater Church. Gnosticism's emphasis on personal experience, its continuing revelations and production of new scripture, its asceticism and paradoxically contrasting libertine postures, were all met with increasing suspicion. By 180 C.E. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon, was publishing his first attacks on Gnosticism as heresy, a labour that would be continued with increasing vehemence by the church Fathers throughout the next century. |
In other words it was the proponents of one faction amongst early Christians who condemned and suppressed the Gnostic writings, not the Apostles.
As for content and context :
The Gnostic society have this to say about one document - The Gospel of Thomas | Quote: |
| There is a growing consensus among scholars that the Gospel of Thomas – discovered over a half century ago in the Egyptian desert – dates to the very beginnings of the Christian era and may well have taken first form before any of the four traditional canonical Gospels. During the first few decades after its discovery several voices representing established orthodox biases argued that the Gospel of Thomas (abbreviated, GTh) was a late-second or third century Gnostic forgery. Scholars currently involved in Thomas studies now largely reject that view, though such arguments will still be heard from orthodox apologists and are encountered in some of the earlier publications about Thomas. |
One treatment of the history can be read here another here and a third here .
A complete listing of the documents is here
An audio introduction to Gnosticism can be heard here
The complete library of available audio on the topic is :
Gnosticism and its Legacy,; Christ: The Misunderstood Redeemer ; The Sorrow of Sophia ; Hermes: Thrice Great Hierophant of Gnosis ; Helmsman of the Ship of Light ; Highlights from the Acts of John ; Redemption and Redeemer in the Gospel of Thomas ; Gnostic Initiation ; Monotheism and its Shadow ; Millennial Anxiety and Timeless Gnosis ; The Doomsday Syndrome ; Gnostic Cinema ; J.R.R. Tolkien's Gnosis for Our Day ; Joseph Campbell: A Modern Sage ; Philip K. Dick's Gnosis
An English translation can be read on-line here and an alternative here
The Gospel of Mary is another important document in that it presents a different picture of the Apostles and the relationships they had with Jesus. In this Gospel Mary (Magdalene) is depicted as the closest of Jesus's followers and party to the deep teachings of Jesus in a way not shared even by the other Apostles. The early church fathers suppressed this in line with their general policy of minimising the role of women in the early church. Later, Pope Gregory the Great (AD 591). declared that Mary Magdalene had been a prostitute in a sermon which was finally - 1961 - accepted by the Church to be in error. (There was never any scriptural basis for this claim).
A translation into English can be found here with additional information here and here
Regards
ChrisThe Apostolic Period doesn’t end until the end of the ecumenical period in the 4th century.
The Gospel of Thomas is my favorite, I think it has obvious value, even if the oral traditions associated with it are completely destroyed, probably because it said some things in overt opposition to Apostolic Tradition. The Book of Revelations was almost declared heretical as well and was only narrowly included, because it also runs against the grain of Apostolic Tradition.
I never really cared for those folks, it is only after running into supposed Christians attacking virtually all real Christians that I suddenly got quite upset at any charlatan claiming to be Christian that rejects Apostolic Tradition. I even took a chunk out of a junior Methodist pastor who obviously hadn’t studied Wesley as much as he though he had. Methodism is full of ignorant conservatives, even if Wesley was a “liberal theologian” in the classical sense.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| The Apostolic Period doesn’t end until the end of the ecumenical period in the 4th century. |
Which is NOT the same as saying that | Quote: |
| the oral tradition associated with these works, was destroyed by the Apostles in the 4th century |
. Or do you think it is ? Personally I would say that the Bishops were the successors of the Apostles.....
| Quote: |
| The Gospel of Thomas is my favorite, I think it has obvious value, even if the oral traditions associated with it are completely destroyed, probably because it said some things in overt opposition to Apostolic Tradition. The Book of Revelations was almost declared heretical as well and was only narrowly included, because it also runs against the grain of Apostolic Tradition. |
Opposition to the Apostolic tradition is opposition to a tradition, nothing more. The whole concept is a creation of the Antipope Hippolytus (3rd century AD), although it almost certainly originates in Egypt - probably Alexandria
| Quote: |
| I never really cared for those folks, it is only after running into supposed Christians attacking virtually all real Christians that I suddenly got quite upset at any charlatan claiming to be Christian that rejects Apostolic Tradition. I even took a chunk out of a junior Methodist pastor who obviously hadn’t studied Wesley as much as he though he had. Methodism is full of ignorant conservatives, even if Wesley was a “liberal theologian” in the classical sense. |
Why do both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches not keep any of these traditions?
I fail to see why a Christian should have to hold this doctrine or be considered a charlatan. It simply means imitating the apostles and it can be argued that there is much about the behaviour and conduct of several that one would not wish to imitate.
The only scriptural injunction to obey something of this sort that I can think of would be Thessalonians 2:15, translated as | Quote: |
| “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” |
It is arguable that paradosis (the word used in the Hebrew) translates as 'teachings' rather than 'tradition'.
Tradition is often useful as a binding/uniting factor and I would not seek to deny it, but tradition is also a matter of interpretation and an easy excuse for clerical interference/abuse of the congregation (the Catholic 'Indulgences' scams spring to mind, not to mention the Witch trials, the Inquisition and the main anti-Semitic episodes in Church history.
It was Apostolic Tradition, for example that was used after Paul questioned the validity of Jewish Christian's adherence to the Jewish law in relation to faith in Christ.
A few examples of problems/inconsistency :
How do you know which "apostolic tradition" is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches? All three teach that they alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of all others.
Some traditions desribed by Tertullian as being practices which | Quote: |
| "without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone" |
would include :
baptising by immersion three times; giving the one baptised a "drink of milk and honey" then forbidding the person from taking a bath for a week; an interdiction against kneeling in Sunday mass; and making the sign of the cross on the forehead.
To my knowledge non of these are now in the traditions of Catholic or Orthodox churches (correction....3 time immersion is still tradition with the Orthodox I find)
The earliest, universal oral tradition clearly states that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews so why does the Roman Catholic church question this tradition to this day?
A challenge? Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral revelation" (tradition) differs from "written" (scripture)?
Regards
Chris | Bikerman wrote: |
| A challenge? Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral revelation" (tradition) differs from "written" (scripture)? |
The books that differed, like the Gnostic gospels, were thrown out. Your challenge is spurious, Apostolic Tradition was the litmus test by which the NT canon was compiled. Any book that differed from Apostolic Tradition was thrown out.
I don’t get the point of the question, the question seems to be motivated by a misunderstanding about the historical process by which the NT was compiled. I also don’t understand what the thrust of your entire post is supposed to be. You seem to be arguing against Apostolic Tradition from a vague position that is modeled in part after fanatically conservative religious objections from the Born Yesterday crowd, but since you’re an atheist, that doesn’t make much sense. | mike1reynolds wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | A challenge? Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral revelation" (tradition) differs from "written" (scripture)? |
The books that differed, like the Gnostic gospels, were thrown out. Your challenge is spurious, Apostolic Tradition was the litmus test by which the NT canon was compiled. Any book that differed from Apostolic Tradition was thrown out. |
No. There is very little in
* 1 and 2 Clement * Shepherd (or Pastor) of Hermas * Didache * Book of Enoch (debatably OT) * Epistle of Barnabas * Apocalypse of Peter * The Infancy Gospel of James * Third Epistle to the Corinthians, to name but a few, which would be contrary to Apostolic tradition at the time. It is more complicated than that and is certainly dependant to some degree on political and social choices made at various points in Church history..
| Quote: |
I don’t get the point of the question, the question seems to be motivated by a misunderstanding about the historical process by which the NT was compiled. I also don’t understand what the thrust of your entire post is supposed to be. You seem to be arguing against Apostolic Tradition from a vague position that is modeled in part after fanatically conservative religious objections from the Born Yesterday crowd, but since you’re an atheist, that doesn’t make much sense. |
I am arguing that AT is a possibly useful but certainly fallible mechanism and should be acknowledged and regarded as such rather than being treated as if it were some ultimate arbiter or strictly kept dogmatic practice because it is neither.
Apostolic tradition presumably started out as a uniform set of conventions and rules, agreed by the 12 or so and passed on to the Bishops of the early Church. It now covers around 300 branches and around 14 distinct families of Christianity which in many cases have an understanding of that tradition which is widely divergent and often contradictory. The ability to define and interpret such AT is a major power and the Clergy have, at various times, exercised the power for political and personal gain. Power corrupts, regardless of the power holder and so my general point is that over reliance on 'tradition' which is by definition a matter of interpretation and trust, is something to be understood and regarded in that light. It also points up some of the contradictions in most, if not all, Christian theologies which make it a useful analytical tool for those who wish to explore these and determin their importance and scope.
Regards
ChrisYou bring up some good points. There were several apostolic traditions that were battling it out. It was a war between different apostolic lineages and only Peter’s and a little of John’s traditions won out, the rest was burned.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| I am arguing that AT is a possibly useful but certainly fallible mechanism and should be acknowledged and regarded as such rather than being treated as if it were some ultimate arbiter or strictly kept dogmatic practice because it is neither. |
Good or bad, it is the ultimate arbiter of the great majority of Christian theology, and non-denominational Christian who reject this are highly prone to the most rabid sort of religious bigotry. In that context, I would say that it is a good thing, and any attack on it has being a good foundation for *their* purposes is a really bad idea. When Christians start discarding Apostolic Tradition things only go from bad to worse!
Now from an academic point of view, I’m a liberal theologian all the way, in the mold of Elaine Pagel. That is what it sounds like you are arguing for now, but once again, your point of view as you have professed it previously would be a long long way away from Elaine Pagel or any liberal theologian. | Bikerman wrote: |
| livilou wrote: | | How can anyone reject the tradition and knowledge of the Apostoles? They are the ones who wrote the entire NT. |
Not so. There are several hypothesis concerning origin and source for the Gospels and other books of the NT.
The Two Source hypothesis deals with the origin of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke which, analysis shows share content and chronology to a large degree). Also, remember that many of the Apostelic gospels are not included in the official Christian NT ( Thomas and the other 'Apocryphal' gospels, the Gnostic gospels of Mary Magdalene and others eg 1, 2, 3)
| livilou wrote: |
As far as other religions: As long as a person is following the Bible to the best of their understanding, and received that understanding through study and prayer, then they are right. Who am I to say they aren't? |
Would this include Christian scripture not included in the Bible? What about later developments of Christian theology such as Islam? How would this view of 'right' reconcile the fact that several interpretations of the Bible which would, I am sure, claim to originate with sincere prayerful contemplation, contradict each other in ways which necessitate one or the other being incorrect? Examples 1, 2, 3, 4.
Regards
Chris |
I can't be the judge of that since I can't see into that person's mind or heart. The only judge of that question is God. All I can go on is what I've learned through my study and prayer.
I'll be the fist person to state that some of my beliefs don't follow the mainstream, but it's what I've gotten through study and prayer. Example: I believe that Adam and Eve were created on the eighth day. Many men and women were created on the fifth day. And since I have no idea how long a day was to God, by our measurement of time, I have no idea long it actually took. It could have been one day, it could have been a thousand years, it could have been a million years. I have no way of knowing. There are a few other things, but I'll save them for later. | ChrisCh wrote: |
| Hey guys. I'm a little bit curious - what is the deal with saints in the Catholic religion? In the ten commandments in the catholic bible, it says something like "i am the one true god, worship none other than me" or something like that... but Catholics pray to/through saints, and i was just wondering why that was and how it can be explained if anyone knows please post |
It is not really difficult to answer this kind of objection. After all Catholics believe that the saints in heaven are alive before God and continue to be members of His Church. Non-Catholics often ask for the prayers of others. The Catholics not only ask for the prayers of those who still live on earth, they also ask for the prayers of those who already live in the presence of God. It is a very natural thing to do isn't it?
