His Eminence, The Pope.

[Furchizedek]

How do "saints," such as St. Anthony, hear your prayers to him? Is it some sort of mental telepathy? Is he hanging around one's house waiting for such requests? Or is he everywhere, monitoring the thoughts of almost 8 billion people on this planet? And once he gets a request to help someone find some misplaced, usually trivial thing, like one's mittens that one's mother should have sewn on to one's snowsuit sleeves, how does St. Anthony know where the lost item is, and how then does he convey that information back into the mind of the loser, so to speak? Can St. Anthony enter into human minds?

A Catholic says: "Then why do I always find my keys? Yesterday St. Anthony helped me find my checkbook. A couple of weeks ago he helped me find a missing flip-flop."

Saint Anthony helped this Catholic find A MISSING FLIP-FLOP!

When you believe in things that you don't understand
Then you suffer
Superstition ain't the way -Stevie Wonder

 

[Furchizedek]

Talking and condemning aren't mutually exclusive.

@Furchizedek argued that Catholics shouldn't do it,

Jesus says they shouldn't do it. What part of "But thou, WHEN thou prayest, ...pray to thy Father." (Matthew 6:6) don't you understand?

that Satan loves when they do,

I think I may have put (IMO) after that. But it should be obvious that Satan would be pleased by all this Catholic praying to dead human beings.

and that because they do it, they don't love Jesus.

Actually, Jesus says that too:

"If a man love me, he will keep my words."(John 14:23)
"He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings." (John 14:24)
And the word which you have heard, is not mine; but the Father's who sent me." (John 14:24)

 

[Furchizedek]

Not to beat you; to see whether you're acting hypocritically.

... in secret. Don't forget that part.

Edit: and I'm talking about this post: His Eminence, The Pope.

If you don't want to call what you say there "condemning," fine - the term we use doesn't matter. The point I'm trying to get at is whether you take the same attitude toward public prayer that you take toward praying to Mary.

It's not my attitude. It's Jesus' attitude. "But thou, when thou prayest, ...pray to thy Father." (Matthew 6:6)

I have seen this before, Catholics want to force an argument with the other person, me in this case, when their argument is with Jesus. It's Jesus who says, "But thou, when thou prayest, ...pray to thy Father." (Matthew 6:6) Your argument is clearly with him (IMO).

Why don't you just stand up proudly and say, "To hell with you and what you say, Jesus. We're Catholics and we're going to do what we want and if we want to pray to dead human beings we will. You're not the boss of us. Who do you think you are, anyway? You're not the pope, you know."

So you don't think that God sees and hears all?

Um, yes, perhaps, -trick question maybe, but I think Jesus knows that his Father does not respond to prayers to dead human beings, angels, and idols, and that's why Jesus told us to pray to the Father WHEN we pray. Instead of trying to defend indefensible (IMO) Catholic practices, why not simply obey Jesus? Wouldn't that be better? What if you simply stopped praying to Mary and other dead human beings and addressed ALL your prayers directly to God the Father as Jesus said to do? Wouldn't that be better? Then you wouldn't have to spend so much "clever" time justifying why you won't obey Jesus. And while you're at it, stop calling priests, "Father" too. They're not your Father and Jesus says: "Call no man your father upon the earth: "for one is your Father, which is in heaven." (Matthew 23:9) And yes, I know there are a lot of clever arguments for why calling priests, "Father" is OK. Catholics have had 2000 years to work out their sophistries.

Why not simply obey Jesus? Would your whole Catholic world end if you obeyed Jesus? (Maybe it would, maybe obeying Jesus would be your ticket out of there.) Oh my God, the sky is falling, we have to choose between doing what the church wants us to do, or obeying Jesus. But if you stopped calling priests, "Father," they'd notice it right away, right? I know they would. And there would be trouble. So you have to go along with the practice and throw Jesus and what Jesus said under the bus.

Let's quote the whole thing. I'll bold the part you keep leaving out:

'But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret;"

You think that the whole passage is a command from Jesus, correct?

It seems to be. What do you think it is?

How about when Protestants pray in legislative assemblies or classrooms? How about when they bow their heads for the invocation at a public event?

Good points indeed.

Yes, I don't like it, and I don't attend such events if I know in advance that's going to happen.

Are these people deliberately and willfully not keeping Jesus's words?

Yes, it would seem so, if they are aware of Jesus' words. YOU are aware of them, right? We pretty well know that.

Do they "loveth Jesus not?"

Jesus seems to say so. I can only quote what Jesus says.
"If a man love me, he will keep my words."(John 14:23)
"He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings." (John 14:24)

Is there any part of that that you don't understand?

I mean, you're arguing that Christians ought to obey Jesus's instructions in Matthew 6:6 every single time they pray, right?

Of course they should. Are you suggesting that Christians should willfully disobey Jesus' instructions some of the time?[/QUOTE]

 

[Furchizedek]

Then the HS must be extremely schizophrenic

This is blasphemy, imo.

((IMO) all throughout my posts so that Frankenstein doesn't turn me in.)

since so many Christians have so many different opinions on so many different aspects of Christian theology.

And how does the fact that "so many Christians have so many different opinions on so many different aspects of Christian theology," make the Spirit of Truth a schizophrenic? Jesus said the Spirit of Truth would guide us into all truth, but he never said "immediately." You seem to be adding that condition. The Spirit of Truth will NOT force a closed mind into new truth. If someone says, "My sect already has all the truth," the Spirit of Truth will not change that (IMO). The Spirit of Truth cannot operate in a mind that thinks it already knows it all (IMO).

When Jesus said, "...The Spirit of truth, ...will guide you into all truth." (John 16:13), you can just as readily add the word "eventually" to what Jesus said, as you can add "immediately." How long it takes is God's problem, not ours to worry about.

Also, the gospels have it that the HS will guide the "Church",

Where? Chapter and verse please.

so which church do you think that is?

It's the "Christian" church, all Christians (IMO). The Catholic sect is not mentioned in the bible.

 

[pearl]

Jesus says

Do you not see the irony here? If not for the Catholic church you would not know what 'Jesus says'.
The church produced the New Testament, not vice versa. The Bible did not come down from heaven, whole and intact, given by the Holy Spirit. Just as the experience and faith of Israel developed its sacred books, so was the early Christian Church the matrix of the New Testament. The Bible, then, is the church's book. The New Testament did not come before the church, but from the church.

 

[Furchizedek]

Do you not see the irony here? If not for the Catholic church you would not know what 'Jesus says'.
The church produced the New Testament, not vice versa. The Bible did not come down from heaven, whole and intact, given by the Holy Spirit. Just as the experience and faith of Israel developed its sacred books, so was the early Christian Church the matrix of the New Testament. The Bible, then, is the church's book. The New Testament did not come before the church, but from the church.

You should not conflate the Catholic church sect with "the early Christian Church." (IMO). Pick one and stick to it.

I suggest you pick up a copy of Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities." The Catholic sect simply ground down the others and drew all power to itself and wrote the history they wanted to write. (IMO) And then they had the audacity to torture and kill people who refused to believe what they were selling.

"...the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service." (John 16:2)

And too, what you call "The Bible" is 80% the scriptures of the Jews. Your sect had nothing to do with that except to appropriate it for its own use. If you took away the OT and the writings of Paul and about Paul, you wouldn't have much left, and then if you boiled down the redundant parts of the four "gospels" of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, you'd have just a few pages detailing a very few days in Jesus' life. And you say your sect is responsible for that?

 

[savagewind]

Do you not see the irony here? If not for the Catholic church you would not know what 'Jesus says'.

That is not true. A sedulous person for God's will be done can find Jesus in the Hebrew Scriptures. And then, having faith, he or she can hear him. The people who wrote the words about Jesus found him there. Didn't they?

 

[savagewind]

There is no telling if I personally would have found Jesus if not for the Catholic Church which begot the Protestant sects which in turn begot the Jehovah's Witnesses. They were the ones who made me curious and willing to search for him. I doubt very much that I might have investigated the Jewish Scriptures for it which might not have been in English for me anyway.

I found Jesus because I KNEW they were wrong about the Word. I would not have known that the Hebrew Scriptures were wrong.

 

[metis]

Dear Mother Mary, speak to Jesus for me.
Amen

"But thou, WHEN thou prayest, ...pray to thy Father." (Matthew 6:6)

These two simply are not contradictory because these prayers are ultimately "to thy Father". The church has always believed that one can pray "to thy Father" for another, and my guess is that you have done that as well.

 

[metis]

But it should be obvious that Satan would be pleased by all this Catholic praying to dead human beings.

And how could you possibly know this-- unless you're in cahoots with Satan yourself?

BTW, ever hear of something called "resurrection"? Ever stop and think that some may already be in heaven?

 

[metis]

This is blasphemy, imo.

Not really as my hypothetical assessment is based on what you have posted, measured within the fact that there are thousands of Christian denominations.

Where? Chapter and verse please.

Ever hear of "Pentecost"? Ever read whereas where Jesus said that if two or more meet in his name that he would be there also (a reminder that "church" means "congregation", and I doubt Jesus was referring to people meeting to play poker)? Ever read whereas Jesus said he would guide his church until the end of time? These you should find very easy to look up yourself.

It's the "Christian" church, all Christians (IMO). The Catholic sect is not mentioned in the bible.

That defies what the gospels say since the "Church" was defined by the apostles as relating to their flock and not some sort of loosey-goosey theological free-for-all.

And when you quote from the Bible, just a reminder that it was the CC that chose that canon.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why not simply obey Jesus?

Why don't you?

Here you are complaining about the mote in the eye of Catholics, and unless you're posting from a library, it sure seems like you haven't given up all your posessions as Jesus instructed, because at the very least you have a cell phone or computer. Should we go through all of Jesus's commands and see how you measure up?

 

[pearl]

You should not conflate the Catholic church sect with "the early Christian Church." (IMO). Pick one and stick to it.

The early churches were centralized early on, 2nd cent, unless you want to deny history. The Catholic church is the only one with a history in Christianity for 1500 years. Solid continuity are mark of an institutional structure (presbyter-bishops and deacons) designed to preserve the apostolic heritage. The Pastorals have found a way to highlight the uniqueness of the apostle and at the same time to extend his influence beyond his lifetime. Apostolicity is personified in Paul and this apostle provided for the aftermath of his departure by passing on his heritage to the presbyter-bishops under the supervision of Timothy and Titus. Paul, "a teacher of the nations" (1Tim 2:7) and the chief function of his heirs is to teach "sound doctrine" (Titus 2:1), carrying on the guidance given to his converts by the apostle. The bishop must "hold firmly to the sure word as it was taught" (Titus 1:9). Timothy is admonished, "continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it." (3I14).
The enemy against whom this advice is directed are teachers who are introducing new ideas, a group described as insubordinate men, empty talkers, and deceivers." The historical circumstances in which the Pastoral Epistles were written involved great danger fo the form of Christianity that would ultimately be designated "orthodoxy".

 

[pearl]

That is not true. A sedulous person for God's will be done can find Jesus in the Hebrew Scriptures. And then, having faith, he or she can hear him. The people who wrote the words about Jesus found him there. Didn't they?

And where did this faith come from? The Gospels were written with post Resurrection faith, not during Jesus' lifetime.
And it is these same gospels that find Jesus the fulfillment of Hebrew Scripture, the only Scripture of the time. That does not mean that the authors of Hebrew Scripture wrote with the intention that there would be a divine man Jesus as messiah. And those who wrote searched Scriptures after experiencing the Resurrected Christ as the Jesus they knew. There was church before the writing of the NT.

 

[Furchizedek]

That is not true. A sedulous person for God's will be done can find Jesus in the Hebrew Scriptures. And then, having faith, he or she can hear him. The people who wrote the words about Jesus found him there. Didn't they?

Oh, a new word (for me), "sedulous." Never heard it before. Thanks, savagewind. Also, the stories about Jesus don't come from the Catholic church. The "church" at the time, the body of early Christian believers, simply kept them and produced them when necessary. Had not the "church" collected them, sooner or later someone else would have in all likelihood. (IMO). Also now, it seems that the celestial government has given us its own account of Jesus' doings on earth. In many ways the celestial account dovetails the human accounts because actual things happened, but in other ways it corrects and fills in the human accounts. (IMO) So it seems impossible that we would not have had any knowledge of Jesus had not the four gospels been written by non-Catholic Jews and later assembled by the early Christian church.

 

[metis]

The "church" at the time, the body of early Christian believers, simply kept them and produced them when necessary. Had not the "church" collected them, sooner or later someone else would have in all likelihood.

But when the canon was in the process of being selected, there were roughly 1000 "books" to chose from according to the theologian William Barclay, and some of the books found in your Bible today were not used in many local churches. It took almost 1/2 century for the Church to decide, and other groups had different sets of scriptures, with some of them having very difference perceptions about Jesus.

It was this confusion that made it necessary to have the canon selected and finalized, and even with that there still was some variations across the Old World.