Catholic bullshit and defenses for it

[IndyFront]

According to what i read,Kabbalah is kind of politheism,and considered by Talmud jews as heresy.

Sounds incorrect. Not sure about the Talmud but I know Kabbalah is considered by its followers as a necessary part of the study of Torah: the study of Torah (the Tanakh and rabbinic literature) being an inherent duty of observant Jews.

I'm not a Kabbalist personally, I'd have to ask my mom as she the Kabbalist Jew, not I.

 

[King Arts]

Sounds incorrect. Not sure about the Talmud but I know Kabbalah is considered by its followers as a necessary part of the study of Torah: the study of Torah (the Tanakh and rabbinic literature) being an inherent duty of observant Jews.

I'm not a Kabbalist personally, I'd have to ask my mom as she the Kabbalist Jew, not I.

One thing I do find funny is even Jews understand that you don't just take the Bible alone.

 

[King Arts]

While that is a somewhat related topic, again, I didn't say anything about the saints, or icons. I specifically said that early Christian sources, from the New Testament to the Apostolic Fathers to early church fathers, didn't "venerate" Mary. Are you here to engage with what I'm actually saying, or do you just want to use me as a punching bag for all the problems you have with the Reformation?

I mean it is related. Mary at the end of the day is a human. So she is a saint. The highest of saints yes, but still a saint. So venerating saints if I can show it was done to the saints by the early Church then I can also show that a higher degree of veneration to Mary is ok. As long as it does not rise to the level of putting her equal to or above Jesus.

That's a good question. It's not exactly fair to expect me to answer, given I have yet to get an answer to my question, but I'll go ahead and answer.

Prayer, as it is shown to be done in the Old and New Testaments, is a religious ritual by which people give thanks to a spiritual authority and ask it for intercession. We know it is ritualistic because Christians are instructed to pray continually (1 Thessalonians 5:17) and are shown doing so (Acts 12:12). That's not the same as simply asking a fellow believer for a favor, or saying thank you to them for something. You say it, then you're done. You don't make a ritual out of it.

Christians are instructed to call upon elders to pray for them (James 5:14). However, the Bible doesn't call that act of asking for prayer to itself be prayer. If I ask my pastor to pray for me, I'm not praying to my pastor in the process of doing that.

Again the Bible alone is not the sum of all Christian practice there are things that are outside the Bible that are used to teach or practice the faith.

Also even in the Bible there is a passage dealing with intercession of the saints. 2 Maccabees 15:14–17

 

[ATP]

Sounds incorrect. Not sure about the Talmud but I know Kabbalah is considered by its followers as a necessary part of the study of Torah: the study of Torah (the Tanakh and rabbinic literature) being an inherent duty of observant Jews.

I'm not a Kabbalist personally, I'd have to ask my mom as she the Kabbalist Jew, not I.

According to books i read,Talmud was created between 93AD and about 500AD, and Kaballah about 1200AD - book of Zohar,if i remember correctly.Then,it had many vesrions,chasyds and Chabad Lubowicz are one of many.

It also influenced masons and rosecross in Europe, masons even have some mysteries in upper echelons made on them, and in islam sufi.Or,maybe sufi influenced them?
Well,that is all,sorry.

 

[Stargazer]

I'll begin my response here. This may be a quirk of translation but that's not what I get from that passage (I use the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition). The text from that version reads:

Adoration is a very specific action and intrinsic to the Catholic sense of worship. We absolutely should not adore God's creatures in the manner we are called to adore God. If John had knelt and responded to the angel that he would do as God had commanded him or something to that effect (that is to say, without granting the angel any more special consideration than respect for the angel's station as a messenger of God) I do not believe the angel would have rebuked him. John's error was in misappropriating the love due to God to the angel whom he perceived as so magnificent in the moment. It's also of note that the angel didn't, for example, smite him right then and there (or some other punishment) for idolatry. He was only rebuked but not punished so he clearly didn't break the Law in some way.


You are partially correct. Let's say for example you perform these specific actions: kneeling by the bedside, folding your hands, bowing your head, and speaking your prayers.

What will differentiate a prayer such as a Hail Mary (in veneration of Mary [duh]) from an Our Father (to God) is going to be what you are doing interiorly. The Hail Mary (and the Rosary) is supposed to be said while meditating on Jesus. You are, interiorly, directing your love and devotion to her son and love him for that. The words of the Hail Mary are to aid you in doing so.

This is an acknowledgement of her status, that of a woman uniquely blessed by the Lord for his purpose. It's object is, chiefly, the adoration of Jesus with respect to the Incarnation.

is the only call to action in the prayer and it's asking her to pray for us. I would hardly consider that worship of Mary. The interior reflection and offering of adoration to Jesus and the reserved, respectful exterior actions are worship of God while still directed toward Mary and solely for the purpose of asking for her to intercede on our behalf.

Now, where this can go all wrong is when the love for God is directed at Mary, for Mary, and divorced from the understanding that all good and right things are His. At that point, you've definitely taken a wrong turn and are worshiping Mary.

I say you are partially correct because, I think, your issue is that it sounds like circular logic (am I understanding your objection correctly?). It is not circular reasoning because of the very real possibility you perform the prayer incorrectly and you stray into idolatry. Rather, it's more like two distinct aspects of prayer that feed into each other. (See my last section on form and matter). You must actively be performing those exterior and interior actions in the correct manner.


With respect to intercession, we get to murkier territory that I am less comfortable really getting into the weeds of. However, as I understand it, the Catholic Church has a rigorous process for determining sainthood that neatly explains such a thing. That is, that to determine sainthood there must be actual, verifiable, and attributable miracles and signs to indicate such. If for example, in determining that St. Jude was a) indeed saintly and b) in heaven and c) listening to us and d) able to perform extraordinary acts in the service of God there was a miracle indicating Jude's unique and active influence then I think we can believe that the saints in Heaven can act on earth. Additionally, it is a fact that spiritual beings can act on Earth. Even now, God will send his angels to intervene in people's lives. So, the chain of logic is this:

• Spiritual beings can act on Earth, even without fleshly bodies.
• The saints are determined to be saints by their active influence in miracles attributed to their unique circumstances or qualities.
• If the saints can intervene on Earth, then so to can Mary.
• Additionally, there are likely many people in history who died in a state of grace and who have not specifically been tested by the Church to determine their sainthood.
• Therefore, there are many members of the Church who are unknown and also able to intervene in the lives of the living members of the Church.
• Additionally, we know that those in Purgatory are those member of the Church who are guaranteed salvation.
• We do not know when such souls will be released from Purgatory.
• Therefore, given the nature of a soul in Purgatory (guaranteed salvation but at an uncertain time) we can ask for them to pray for us as well.

I would counter that prayer has both a form and a matter. In Catholicism, these terms are usually used in reference to Sacraments but I think they apply equally here. The matter in this case being asking for intercession by a saint, or Mary, or a family member in purgatory, or what have you. The form being the act of prayer (folded hands, bowed head, etc). I believe it's relevant because the matter is not different to Catholics when you ask your friend to pray for you because you're about to get surgery or when asking Mary. The form, however, is different. On Earth, you just need to text your friend, or ask in person, or what ever you do physically. However, that option isn't open for the saints or Mary or whoever you're asking to pray for you. That's just the reality of it. The form is going to be different- the matter is not. Taken together, for Catholics, it will amount to the same thing and doesn't violate the 1st commandment.

With regard to Revelation 19:10, it seems to me that you are reading things into the text in order to justify behavior that you have concluded a priori is acceptable for reasons that are not found in the Bible. John performed an action, and we can agree that what he started to do was wrong (and I don't really buy that the angel not responding more severely is an indication that John wasn't breaking the Law. It was wrong for him to do, but wrong for reasons other than going against the Law? Scripture has no category for that). You are trying to insert this whole context about what's going on interiorly, and that's just not what the angel said. The angel didn't say "Hey, what you're doing is fine, just be sure you're directing your love interiorly to God while you're doing it." No, the angel said that John must not do that. Simple as that. And by that same standard, I don't see how performing such action towards Mary or the saints is appropriate for a Christian to do, no matter if you think you are "interiorly" directing your love toward God.

And then with regard to intercession of the saints, I think you have a number of false and unfounded premises going on.

The only "spiritual beings" shown in Scripture to act on Earth are angels (or demons). Angels are not the spirits of deceased saints. So it does not follow that because angels can act on Earth, that deceased saints also can. And even though angels are shown to act, Christians are never given license to pray to angels and ask them for intercession anywhere in Scripture.

There is also no indication given in Scripture that any deceased saints are listening to the prayers of Christians on earth.

The distinction between matter and form isn't really something that is taught in Scripture. It doesn't really change what I said: asking other Christians living here on Earth to pray for you is never categorized in Scripture as an act of prayer in itself, period. So it's really not valid to compare that to the ritual, religious act of praying to the saints and pretend that it's the same thing.

 

[posh-goofiness]

The angel didn't say "Hey, what you're doing is fine, just be sure you're directing your love interiorly to God while you're doing it." No, the angel said that John must not do that. Simple as that.

Sure, but the point of contention between us is what "that" is. You say it's the act of falling to his knees and worshiping the angel. I say it's the offering of homage and love due to God given to the angel. I may have missed it, but now that I've answered you what I mean when I say "worship", what is it that you mean by "worship"?

And by that same standard, I don't see how performing such action towards Mary or the saints is appropriate for a Christian to do, no matter if you think you are "interiorly" directing your love toward God.

Then we'll have in impasse here that we won't be able to argue around either way. The Catholic conception of prayer consider these things axiomatic, that is to say, everything down the line is derived from the starting point.

The only "spiritual beings" shown in Scripture to act on Earth are angels (or demons). Angels are not the spirits of deceased saints. So it does not follow that because angels can act on Earth, that deceased saints also can. And even though angels are shown to act, Christians are never given license to pray to angels and ask them for intercession anywhere in Scripture.

I think I may have been unclear in that chain of logic. The only reason spiritual beings are included in it is to establish that in this world beings not of flesh can act in it, full stop. The part where the saints come in is where the Church tests whether a saint is actually a saint by collecting evidence for their actions on earth. Once again, we'll be at an impasse if you will not believe that the saints have verifiable and documented miracles performed after their death and recorded by the Church (in the course of determining their sainthood).

However, I dispute that we cannot pray for angelic intercession. There are times that an angel was asked for something or interceded for us- Lot's request for the Angel to stay his hand in Genesis 19:20-22

20 There is this city here at hand, to which I may flee, it is a little one, and I shall be saved in it: is it not a little one, and my soul shall live?
21 And he said to him: Behold also in this, I have heard thy prayers, not to destroy the city for which thou hast spoken.
22 Make haste and be saved there, because I cannot do any thing till thou go in thither. Therefore the name of that city was called Segor.

Or Zecharaiah 1:12-13 where an angel intercedes on Zacharias' behalf.

12 And the angel of the Lord answered, and said: O Lord of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, and on the cities of Juda, with which thou hast been angry? this is now the seventieth year.
13 And the Lord answered the angel, that spoke in me, good words, comfortable words.

To square that circle, the Catholic conception of prayer, at the very least least, needs to have some merit because to have both simultaneously be true (able to pray to ask and then receive intercession) and the proscription of idolatry (and the angel's response to John in Revelation) there necessarily needs to be some characteristic that is different between what Lot or Zacharias did and what John does. Otherwise, at least for Catholics, it's considered a contradiction which cannot happen.

There is also no indication given in Scripture that any deceased saints are listening to the prayers of Christians on earth.

Not in Scripture, no. But as stated before, verifiable action is what's backing the belief.

The distinction between matter and form isn't really something that is taught in Scripture. It doesn't really change what I said: asking other Christians living here on Earth to pray for you is never categorized in Scripture as an act of prayer in itself, period. So it's really not valid to compare that to the ritual, religious act of praying to the saints and pretend that it's the same thing.

Well, yes. On Earth, it's not necessary to pray for others to hear you. You can just ask them. But the living in Heaven and the living in Purgatory aren't here. The only means of communication with them is prayer.

 

[Stargazer]

Sure, but the point of contention between us is what "that" is. You say it's the act of falling to his knees and worshiping the angel. I say it's the offering of homage and love due to God given to the angel. I may have missed it, but now that I've answered you what I mean when I say "worship", what is it that you mean by "worship"?

Well, to start with, I would point to the book of Psalms as the model for worship. A simple definition of worship is that worship is the act of prayer, praise, and thanksgiving in submission to an entity you recognize as higher than yourself. That is what we see done throughout the Psalms.

I think I may have been unclear in that chain of logic. The only reason spiritual beings are included in it is to establish that in this world beings not of flesh can act in it, full stop. The part where the saints come in is where the Church tests whether a saint is actually a saint by collecting evidence for their actions on earth. Once again, we'll be at an impasse if you will not believe that the saints have verifiable and documented miracles performed after their death and recorded by the Church (in the course of determining their sainthood).

Yeah, we're given no reason in Scripture to expect that deceased saints can act on Earth, and I would be skeptical of extra-Biblical accounts of miracles attributed to saints, to say the least.

However, I dispute that we cannot pray for angelic intercession. There are times that an angel was asked for something or interceded for us- Lot's request for the Angel to stay his hand in Genesis 19:20-22

Or Zecharaiah 1:12-13 where an angel intercedes on Zacharias' behalf.

To square that circle, the Catholic conception of prayer, at the very least least, needs to have some merit because to have both simultaneously be true (able to pray to ask and then receive intercession) and the proscription of idolatry (and the angel's response to John in Revelation) there necessarily needs to be some characteristic that is different between what Lot or Zacharias did and what John does. Otherwise, at least for Catholics, it's considered a contradiction which cannot happen.

Looking in these passages, I'd note a few things. One, in both cases the angels are already present and conversing with Lot a and Zechariah. Lot makes a request of the angel, and Zechariah asks a question (not even an request for something, really). Neither are religious, ritualistic acts of prayer to entities that aren't physically present, so neither establishes that it's appropriate for Christians to pray in such a matter to angels, let alone saints.

And neither involve the physical act of falling down and worshipping (or adoring, if you want to use that translation) the angels.

So it's pretty clear on the face of it that Lot and Zechariah's interactions with angels were different than John's, and I don't see how these examples lend evidence to the Roman Catholic practice of ritualistic prayer to ask for intercession from saints that are no longer on this Earth.

Well, yes. On Earth, it's not necessary to pray for others to hear you. You can just ask them. But the living in Heaven and the living in Purgatory aren't here. The only means of communication with them is prayer.

As a Christian, I see no reason to believe that's a valid means of communication with them to begin with. It's not necessary or commanded as a Christian to communicate with them and ask them things, either.

 

[posh-goofiness]

Well, to start with, I would point to the book of Psalms as the model for worship. A simple definition of worship is that worship is the act of prayer, praise, and thanksgiving in submission to an entity you recognize as higher than yourself. That is what we see done throughout the Psalms.

I see. If I'm understanding your explanation worship is vocally spoken, somewhat lyrical (or fully sung), praise or asking for something. It should always be directed solely to the Lord. Presumably, this isn't the only means of worship, since you are welcome to say prayers quietly in your mind?

Yeah, we're given no reason in Scripture to expect that deceased saints can act on Earth, and I would be skeptical of extra-Biblical accounts of miracles attributed to saints, to say the least.

As a Christian, I see no reason to believe that's a valid means of communication with them to begin with. It's not necessary or commanded as a Christian to communicate with them and ask them things, either.

I understand your position. This is probably a bit too personal so feel free to tell me to take a long walk off a short pier if you like but have you never felt the presence or action of a dead family member after they've died? No direction or sign of their influence watching you or offering you guidance? If yes, this is the same justification for praying for a saint, angel, or other person to pray or intercede for you. If no, then I suppose we won't really be able to resolve this disagreement.

And neither involve the physical act of falling down and worshipping (or adoring, if you want to use that translation) the angels.

So it's pretty clear on the face of it that Lot and Zechariah's interactions with angels were different than John's, and I don't see how these examples lend evidence to the Roman Catholic practice of ritualistic prayer to ask for intercession from saints that are no longer on this Earth.

I think your analysis supports my position and not yours. There are two things here to note. First, in Revelation John does the things you say are wrong (worshiping the angel) while Lot and Zacharias do not (ie. they do as I said in my post- respectful behavior toward the angel). Second, while I do acknowledge that the angels have some presence in the physical world in those passages, in Genesis the angel says that he heard his prayers and in Zecharaiah, the angel is said to have spoke in me. I think those passages indicate that something other than a simple physical interaction is happening there. At the very least, would you concede there's some doubt or ambiguity about it?


It occurs to me after I've written these responses that I might be misunderstanding something. To you, is prayer synonymous with worship? That is to say, prayer is worship rather than being a means of worship (or perhaps it's easier to say a tool used in worship)?

 

[TyrantTriumphant]

Again the Bible alone is not the sum of all Christian practice there are things that are outside the Bible that are used to teach or practice the faith.

Also even in the Bible there is a passage dealing with intercession of the saints. 2 Maccabees 15:14–17

Why are you using 2 Maccabees as evidence when arguing with Protestants? Protestants do not view either Maccabees book as part of the Bible and therefore do not see them as possessing divine authority.

 

[posh-goofiness]

Why are you using 2 Maccabees as evidence when arguing with Protestants? Protestants do not view either Maccabees book as part of the Bible and therefore do not see them as possessing divine authority.

I mean, there is the idea that your shouldn't accept the terms of your rival in a debate. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura isn't something Orthodox or Catholics follow so we should argue from that point of view.

 

[King Arts]

Why are you using 2 Maccabees as evidence when arguing with Protestants? Protestants do not view either Maccabees book as part of the Bible and therefore do not see them as possessing divine authority.

How convenient the part of the Bible where a dead prophet acts on behalf of Israel and is in favor of saintly intercession “is not part of the Bible.”

Well traditional Christians disagree and think it is part of the Bible.

This is why sola scripture is a stupid position because the Bible was compiled by men it was men that put all the documents together. If you don’t trust the men of the church to have been guided by god then you can do whatever you want and pick and choose. Heck why not do what Luther almost did and say the books of James and Hewbrews and revelations are not part of the Bible?

 

[TyrantTriumphant]

How convenient the part of the Bible where a dead prophet acts on behalf of Israel and is in favor of saintly intercession “is not part of the Bible.”

Well traditional Christians disagree and think it is part of the Bible.

This is why sola scripture is a stupid position because the Bible was compiled by men it was men that put all the documents together. If you don’t trust the men of the church to have been guided by god then you can do whatever you want and pick and choose. Heck why not do what Luther almost did and say the books of James and Hewbrews and revelations are not part of the Bible?

I could go into the reasons for why Protestants don't consider the Apocryphal books to be divinely inspired, and I will if you really want me to, but I don't see the point since you wouldn't actually care about the explanation. Much like how I or any other Protestant wouldn't care about any argument that uses Maccabees as its source.

My point was that using it in an argument with a Protestant is pointless since they will immediately dismiss you. Usually in arguments people try to convince their opponent by using evidence that the other side actually will care about. Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time.

 

[Stargazer]

I see. If I'm understanding your explanation worship is vocally spoken, somewhat lyrical (or fully sung), praise or asking for something. It should always be directed solely to the Lord. Presumably, this isn't the only means of worship, since you are welcome to say prayers quietly in your mind?

I don't think it necessarily needs to be lyrical or sung. Jesus' prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane recorded in John doesn't appear to have been lyrical. I'm not sure it's valid to say that inward thoughts that are not outwardly expressed at all, even quietly, can properly be considered "prayer". I'd be interested if any examples of such a thing from Scripture come to mind.

I understand your position. This is probably a bit too personal so feel free to tell me to take a long walk off a short pier if you like but have you never felt the presence or action of a dead family member after they've died? No direction or sign of their influence watching you or offering you guidance? If yes, this is the same justification for praying for a saint, angel, or other person to pray or intercede for you. If no, then I suppose we won't really be able to resolve this disagreement.

I don't see any problem with the question. No, I've never experienced the presence or action of a dead family member. And if I were to experience some sort of spiritual presence, I don't think that would prove influence or communication from a deceased family member because as a Christian I see no reason to think such a thing is possible to begin with.

I think your analysis supports my position and not yours. There are two things here to note. First, in Revelation John does the things you say are wrong (worshiping the angel) while Lot and Zacharias do not (ie. they do as I said in my post- respectful behavior toward the angel). Second, while I do acknowledge that the angels have some presence in the physical world in those passages, in Genesis the angel says that he heard his prayers and in Zecharaiah, the angel is said to have spoke in me. I think those passages indicate that something other than a simple physical interaction is happening there. At the very least, would you concede there's some doubt or ambiguity about it?

Other translations don't use the term "prayers" in Genesis 19:

‭Genesis 19:21 NASB1995‬
He said to him, “Behold, I grant you this request also, not to overthrow the town of which you have spoken.

And in Zechariah the phrase used is that the angel was "speaking with" Zechariah. It is clear that the angel was physically present with Zechariah and was conversing with him, Zechariah wasn't praying ritualistically to the angel and asking for intercession.


‭Zechariah 1:9, 12-14, 19, 21 NASB1995‬
[9] Then I said, “My lord, what are these?” And the angel who was speaking with me said to me, “I will show you what these are.”
[12] Then the angel of the Lord said, “O Lord of hosts, how long will You have no compassion for Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which You have been indignant these seventy years?” [13] The Lord answered the angel who was speaking with me with gracious words, comforting words. [14] So the angel who was speaking with me said to me, “Proclaim, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “I am exceedingly jealous for Jerusalem and Zion.
[19] So I said to the angel who was speaking with me, “What are these?” And he answered me, “These are the horns which have scattered Judah, Israel and Jerusalem.”
[21] I said, “What are these coming to do?” And he said, “These are the horns which have scattered Judah so that no man lifts up his head; but these craftsmen have come to terrify them, to throw down the horns of the nations who have lifted up their horns against the land of Judah in order to scatter it.”

So the situations are similar to John and the angel in Revelation in that the angels were physically present to converse with. No, I don't think we can say from Scripture that something other than physical action and conversation was going on between Lot and the angels in Genesis 19, or between Zechariah and the angel in Zechariah 1.

It occurs to me after I've written these responses that I might be misunderstanding something. To you, is prayer synonymous with worship? That is to say, prayer is worship rather than being a means of worship (or perhaps it's easier to say a tool used in worship)?

Yes, I think that the religious, ritualistic prayer that we see in the Psalms and throughout Scripture, and are instructed as Christians to do towards God and for each other, falls under the category of worship. And again, nowhere in Scripture is asking for prayer or anything else from other Christians here on Earth categorized or commanded as prayer in itself. So drawing comparisons between such requests and prayer to saints no longer on Earth, and saying the practice of the former means the latter is appropriate to do, even commanded, is invalid.

I mean, there is the idea that your shouldn't accept the terms of your rival in a debate. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura isn't something Orthodox or Catholics follow so we should argue from that point of view.

Well the funny thing is, we both (supposedly) accept the authority of Scripture as Christians. That's all I'm arguing from. If you were to argue that a given belief or practice is valid for Christians based on an authority outside of Scripture, it would then fall to you to establish why Christians should recognize that authority. But that's opening a whole other can of worms.

 

[Zachowon]

Considering the utter ignorance about Catholic theology shown by some here *rolls eyes*

But I expect little else from so-called 'Bible Protestants' who pick and chose what parts of the Bible they follow and thus fall for multiple heresies with great self-righteousness and enthusiasm.

The creator of this thread is Orthodox AFAIK

 

[posh-goofiness]

I don't think it necessarily needs to be lyrical or sung. Jesus' prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane recorded in John doesn't appear to have been lyrical. I'm not sure it's valid to say that inward thoughts that are not outwardly expressed at all, even quietly, can properly be considered "prayer". I'd be interested if any examples of such a thing from Scripture come to mind.

Yes, I think that the religious, ritualistic prayer that we see in the Psalms and throughout Scripture, and are instructed as Christians to do towards God and for each other, falls under the category of worship. And again, nowhere in Scripture is asking for prayer or anything else from other Christians here on Earth categorized or commanded as prayer in itself. So drawing comparisons between such requests and prayer to saints no longer on Earth, and saying the practice of the former means the latter is appropriate to do, even commanded, is invalid.

Ah, then I think we've reached the end of anything we can really convince each other of here. It's just a completely irreconcilable point of view. It would allow someone who is outwardly praising the Lord with their words to be cursing his name simultaneously in their mind. That loophole gets closed if they are taken as a pair and codependent/coordinated.

I don't see any problem with the question. No, I've never experienced the presence or action of a dead family member. And if I were to experience some sort of spiritual presence, I don't think that would prove influence or communication from a deceased family member because as a Christian I see no reason to think such a thing is possible to begin with.

Would you not necessarily jump to the presence of the adversary then? Not an angel because it would specifically feel like a dead family member.

Well the funny thing is, we both (supposedly) accept the authority of Scripture as Christians. That's all I'm arguing from. If you were to argue that a given belief or practice is valid for Christians based on an authority outside of Scripture, it would then fall to you to establish why Christians should recognize that authority. But that's opening a whole other can of worms.

We do and I am trying to stay within the confines of what a Protestant would consider Scripture so we can at least continue discussing this instead of going "well, you've definitely got an alien worldview guess I'm giving up entirely". Now, if you'd like me to take a few steps outside those bounds then the first point I'd like to get into is

If you were to argue that a given belief or practice is valid for Christians based on an authority outside of Scripture

So far, I've been justifying the intercession of saints and angels using Scripture. Whether we agree on the interpretation of the Scripture is the true divide here. Protestants just flat out reject that anyone might have an authoritative voice on the interpretation of Scripture. There's little point to me trying to justify why, for example, I'll accept a priest telling me exactly how to interpret a specific verse or apply a specific teaching to my life because, for a Protestant, there's always that out. Even just going to your pastor- if you personally disagree with them then you're not really going to have a problem ignoring them. It's just an axiomatic difference neither of us is ever going to be able to overcome.

Now, as for attempting to justify an authority subordinate to Scripture (because that is the proper Catholic teaching), I would say that the apostles were given the specific task to spread the faith and, pursuant to that task, how it should be interpreted. Additionally, since they were mortal they were given the power to ordain others to special positions in the Church to spread, keep, and continue interpreting the faith. That line of ordained clergy continues to this day in the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Consequently, it is a simple exercise of reason to determine that the subordinate authority to Scripture is those specially appointed to teach and keep it. As I wrote earlier, I find it highly doubtful that any Protestant will accept this so it's just not something I bother to bring up normally.

My point was that using it in an argument with a Protestant is pointless since they will immediately dismiss you. Usually in arguments people try to convince their opponent by using evidence that the other side actually will care about. Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time.

This would be true if two people start with the same axioms underlying their arguments. Protestants and (Orthodox/Catholics) simply don't. They have diametrically opposed axioms embedded into their arguments that make it impossible to really convince the other of anything. Granted, there's plenty of things shared it's only certain crucial points that jam up the whole thing. The thing about Sola Scriptura is that even a single teeny-tiny baby step outside what's in Scripture is a step too far. Your own personal revelation is, I would argue, exempted by Protestants which, well... I'd call it an honest bit of cognitive dissonance but since most Protestants will vehemently say that Catholics are heretics already (also lol worthy) I would counter and say is the clever argumentative work of the adversary.

 

[King Arts]

I could go into the reasons for why Protestants don't consider the Apocryphal books to be divinely inspired, and I will if you really want me to, but I don't see the point since you wouldn't actually care about the explanation. Much like how I or any other Protestant wouldn't care about any argument that uses Maccabees as its source.

My point was that using it in an argument with a Protestant is pointless since they will immediately dismiss you. Usually in arguments people try to convince their opponent by using evidence that the other side actually will care about. Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time.

But that same argument can be used at Protestants who point to the Bible alone when traditional Christians have more than that and just pointing to what you think the Bible says isn’t convincing and is a waste of time.

The creator of this thread is Orthodox AFAIK

Yes but I’ve been mostly defending Catholics teaching here because everyone who is arguing against it is doing bad ignorant arguments as @LordSunhawk said. I do think there are good arguments against Catholics but so far only one argument is even halfway credible and that is the argument against Mary worship which you can say that Catholics do take veneration too far.

 

[Stargazer]

Ah, then I think we've reached the end of anything we can really convince each other of here. It's just a completely irreconcilable point of view. It would allow someone who is outwardly praising the Lord with their words to be cursing his name simultaneously in their mind. That loophole gets closed if they are taken as a pair and codependent/coordinated.

I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning here. We're talking about the definition of worship, and what the appropriate practice of worship is for a Christian. The scenario you suggest isn't a kind of loophole, because a Christian wouldn't be cursing God's name in his mind while worshipping. If he somehow was, that would be a sinful thought in itself and be something he needs to repent of. I'm not sure wherein this "loophole" lies.

Would you not necessarily jump to the presence of the adversary then? Not an angel because it would specifically feel like a dead family member.

I don't know what it means for it to "feel like a dead family member". I've never experienced anything I would describe as that. Past that, as a Christian, I don't see subjective testimony of people having that kind of "feeling" as valid evidence that deceased family members can influence and communicate to people like that.

We do and I am trying to stay within the confines of what a Protestant would consider Scripture so we can at least continue discussing this instead of going "well, you've definitely got an alien worldview guess I'm giving up entirely". Now, if you'd like me to take a few steps outside those bounds then the first point I'd like to get into is

So far, I've been justifying the intercession of saints and angels using Scripture. Whether we agree on the interpretation of the Scripture is the true divide here. Protestants just flat out reject that anyone might have an authoritative voice on the interpretation of Scripture. There's little point to me trying to justify why, for example, I'll accept a priest telling me exactly how to interpret a specific verse or apply a specific teaching to my life because, for a Protestant, there's always that out. Even just going to your pastor- if you personally disagree with them then you're not really going to have a problem ignoring them. It's just an axiomatic difference neither of us is ever going to be able to overcome.

Now, as for attempting to justify an authority subordinate to Scripture (because that is the proper Catholic teaching), I would say that the apostles were given the specific task to spread the faith and, pursuant to that task, how it should be interpreted. Additionally, since they were mortal they were given the power to ordain others to special positions in the Church to spread, keep, and continue interpreting the faith. That line of ordained clergy continues to this day in the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Consequently, it is a simple exercise of reason to determine that the subordinate authority to Scripture is those specially appointed to teach and keep it. As I wrote earlier, I find it highly doubtful that any Protestant will accept this so it's just not something I bother to bring up normally.

Ok, this is a little hard for me to follow, but I'll try to comment. I'd agree that the apostles were given the task to spread the faith - but I would note that in the New Testament all Christians are given that task; it's not a task unique to the apostles. And pursuant to that task, all Christians must have the ability to interpret Scripture. I wouldn't frame it as having "authority" over other Christians beyond the use of reason when reading the Scriptures.

The apostles did have a unique authority to interpret the Scriptures (meaning the Old Testament), shown in the writing of the New Testament. That authority came from the fact that they were directly receiving revelation from God in how to interpret the OT. That revelation has ceased, it is no longer in operation. As such, that authority wasn't passed down. No one today has the authority to interpret Scripture in the same manner that the apostles did. Anyone claiming to have that kind of authority would by extension be claiming to receive ongoing revelation in the same way the apostles did.

 

[posh-goofiness]

I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning here. We're talking about the definition of worship, and what the appropriate practice of worship is for a Christian. The scenario you suggest isn't a kind of loophole, because a Christian wouldn't be cursing God's name in his mind while worshipping. If he somehow was, that would be a sinful thought in itself and be something he needs to repent of. I'm not sure wherein this "loophole" lies.

Well, when I asked if prayer and worship are synonymous, that is to say, the same thing you said that yes they are. Furthermore, you've said that the physical actions you take are whole and entire what prayer is. It follows then that it doesn't matter what someone's doing/feeling/saying in their head while they're carrying out the physical actions of prayer. Earlier in the thread you stated it doesn't matter what anyone is doing interiorly when I brought up what a Catholic is supposed to be doing when praying the Hail Mary which seems consistent. So-

1. Worship = prayer
2. Prayer is the physical actions taken when praising God.
3. Interior/mental demeanor or actions do not matter in prayers.
4. Therefore, interior/mental demeanor or actions do not effect worship.
5. So you can pray while cursing God's name and it would still be a valid prayer.

Clearly, this is some sort of dissonance between what you say and what you believe because you are also claiming that this hypothetical would be sinful (which I of course agree with). It follows then, that the interior demeanor or actions do matter during prayer which will then reopen the question of what John was doing in Revelation. This is because I claim that it was both the falling to his knees and the adoration of the angel that were the issue and not the falling to his knees itself. Hopefully, this is clearer than my previous response.

Ok, this is a little hard for me to follow, but I'll try to comment. I'd agree that the apostles were given the task to spread the faith - but I would note that in the New Testament all Christians are given that task; it's not a task unique to the apostles. And pursuant to that task, all Christians must have the ability to interpret Scripture. I wouldn't frame it as having "authority" over other Christians beyond the use of reason when reading the Scriptures.

The apostles did have a unique authority to interpret the Scriptures (meaning the Old Testament), shown in the writing of the New Testament. That authority came from the fact that they were directly receiving revelation from God in how to interpret the OT. That revelation has ceased, it is no longer in operation. As such, that authority wasn't passed down. No one today has the authority to interpret Scripture in the same manner that the apostles did. Anyone claiming to have that kind of authority would by extension be claiming to receive ongoing revelation in the same way the apostles did.

Apologies, again, for my lack of clarity.

So I agree in part and disagree in part. The spreading of the faith is for all the Church to do, on this we are in agreement. The authoritative interpretation is where I disagree. First, it seems manifestly false that

That revelation has ceased, it is no longer in operation.

The apostles were teaching from personal revelation that is elevated to authoritative interpretation of Scripture and God's will (by virtue of their station). Personal revelation is occurring every day, all the time, to anyone engaged and learning from Scriptures. If instances of personal revelation have ceased we are truly lost because why would you have any particular reason to care about your personal interpretation of Scripture. Sola Scriptura falls completely apart if you believe your interpretation of Scripture is not via personal revelation through the Holy Spirit.

Second, this part also seems manifestly false.

The apostles did have a unique authority to interpret the Scriptures (meaning the Old Testament), shown in the writing of the New Testament.

If the apostles could only authoritatively interpret the Old Testament then anything they claimed about Jesus after his death, any appearances they spoke of, any ambiguity they clarified is not authoritative. Why bother accepting the letters to ______? Why bother accepting Revelation?

Lastly, given my previous two objections this statement must be incorrect.

Anyone claiming to have that kind of authority would by extension be claiming to receive ongoing revelation in the same way the apostles did.

Now, I could be misinterpreting something here because that's a pretty blatant sort of contradiction that I think you've stated. So if I'm barking up the wrong tree I'd definitely like to know. Once that's cleared up we can move onto your assertion that the authority wasn't passed down.

 

[Stargazer]

Well, when I asked if prayer and worship are synonymous, that is to say, the same thing you said that yes they are. Furthermore, you've said that the physical actions you take are whole and entire what prayer is. It follows then that it doesn't matter what someone's doing/feeling/saying in their head while they're carrying out the physical actions of prayer. Earlier in the thread you stated it doesn't matter what anyone is doing interiorly when I brought up what a Catholic is supposed to be doing when praying the Hail Mary which seems consistent. So-

1. Worship = prayer
2. Prayer is the physical actions taken when praising God.
3. Interior/mental demeanor or actions do not matter in prayers.
4. Therefore, interior/mental demeanor or actions do not effect worship.
5. So you can pray while cursing God's name and it would still be a valid prayer.

Clearly, this is some sort of dissonance between what you say and what you believe because you are also claiming that this hypothetical would be sinful (which I of course agree with). It follows then, that the interior demeanor or actions do matter during prayer which will then reopen the question of what John was doing in Revelation. This is because I claim that it was both the falling to his knees and the adoration of the angel that were the issue and not the falling to his knees itself. Hopefully, this is clearer than my previous response.

No, I think you're starting to really mischaracterize the things I've been saying, bordering on making a straw man.

One, I didn't say that prayer and worship are synonymous. I said that prayer falls under the category of worship. All prayer is worship, but not all worship is prayer.

Two, I didn't say that the physical actions are the "the whole and entire" of what prayer is. I said I wasn't sure if it's valid to say that thoughts expressed without any physical expression of those thoughts counts as prayer. That is not to say that physical expression of prayer made while inwardly thinking contradictory thoughts is somehow valid as prayer. And again, I said I wasn't sure. I'd appreciate if you didn't take something I expressed uncertainty about and act like I said that thing definitively.

The first three points on your list there are you putting words in my mouth, not things I actually said. As such, in no way am I saying you can pray while cursing God's name and it would still be a "valid prayer".

Apologies, again, for my lack of clarity.

So I agree in part and disagree in part. The spreading of the faith is for all the Church to do, on this we are in agreement. The authoritative interpretation is where I disagree. First, it seems manifestly false that

The apostles were teaching from personal revelation that is elevated to authoritative interpretation of Scripture and God's will (by virtue of their station). Personal revelation is occurring every day, all the time, to anyone engaged and learning from Scriptures. If instances of personal revelation have ceased we are truly lost because why would you have any particular reason to care about your personal interpretation of Scripture. Sola Scriptura falls completely apart if you believe your interpretation of Scripture is not via personal revelation through the Holy Spirit.

...no. Personal revelation does happen through the reading of Scripture, but it does not function apart from Scripture to reveal any previously unrevealed truth about God. In writing the New Testament, the apostles received new revelation in order to write truthful things about God, the nature of his incarnation as Jesus Christ, the meaning of his atoning sacrifice on the cross, and many other things that had not been revealed in previous Scripture. That kind of revelation is no longer in operation, and that is what I was referring to.

Second, this part also seems manifestly false.

If the apostles could only authoritatively interpret the Old Testament then anything they claimed about Jesus after his death, any appearances they spoke of, any ambiguity they clarified is not authoritative. Why bother accepting the letters to ______? Why bother accepting Revelation?

I didn't say anything about the apostles only authoritatively interpreting the OT, as if that's the only thing they could authoritatively interpret. Yes, obviously, the apostles could authoritatively interpret, through divine revelation, the things they witnessed about Jesus. I never said anything to suggest otherwise. You're arguing against something I never said.

Now, I could be misinterpreting something here because that's a pretty blatant sort of contradiction that I think you've stated. So if I'm barking up the wrong tree I'd definitely like to know. Once that's cleared up we can move onto your assertion that the authority wasn't passed down.

Yeah, I think you're missing the mark in understanding what I've been saying.

 

[posh-goofiness]

No, I think you're starting to really mischaracterize the things I've been saying, bordering on making a straw man.

One, I didn't say that prayer and worship are synonymous. I said that prayer falls under the category of worship. All prayer is worship, but not all worship is prayer.

Two, I didn't say that the physical actions are the "the whole and entire" of what prayer is. I said I wasn't sure if it's valid to say that thoughts expressed without any physical expression of those thoughts counts as prayer. That is not to say that physical expression of prayer made while inwardly thinking contradictory thoughts is somehow valid as prayer. And again, I said I wasn't sure. I'd appreciate if you didn't take something I expressed uncertainty about and act like I said that thing definitively.

The first three points on your list there are you putting words in my mouth, not things I actually said. As such, in no way am I saying you can pray while cursing God's name and it would still be a "valid prayer".

Ah, I didn't mean to mischaracterize, that's how I understood your replies. In that case, returning to the start of this line of thought

Well, to start with, I would point to the book of Psalms as the model for worship. A simple definition of worship is that worship is the act of prayer, praise, and thanksgiving in submission to an entity you recognize as higher than yourself. That is what we see done throughout the Psalms.

I don't think it necessarily needs to be lyrical or sung. Jesus' prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane recorded in John doesn't appear to have been lyrical. I'm not sure it's valid to say that inward thoughts that are not outwardly expressed at all, even quietly, can properly be considered "prayer". I'd be interested if any examples of such a thing from Scripture come to mind.

Yes, I think that the religious, ritualistic prayer that we see in the Psalms and throughout Scripture, and are instructed as Christians to do towards God and for each other, falls under the category of worship. And again, nowhere in Scripture is asking for prayer or anything else from other Christians here on Earth categorized or commanded as prayer in itself. So drawing comparisons between such requests and prayer to saints no longer on Earth, and saying the practice of the former means the latter is appropriate to do, even commanded, is invalid.

I have a few questions then:

1. In Revelation John was worshiping the angel, was he praying to it, praising it, or offering thanksgiving? Was it his feeling that the angel was higher than himself that counted as the worship?
2. Let's say I'm saying the Our Father every hour in my head- is this prayer? Is this worship?
3. If you're unsure if internal actions like this are actually prayer, then am I right in assuming that the inverse (like ogling someone) are definitely sins?

To your request for examples in Scripture of silent prayer:

12 And it came to pass, as she multiplied prayers before the Lord, that Heli observed her mouth.
13 Now Anna spoke in her heart, and only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard at all. Heli therefore thought her to be drunk,

26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity. For we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit himself asketh for us with unspeakable groanings.
27 And he that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what the Spirit desireth; because he asketh for the saints according to God.

23 Prove me, O God, and know my heart: examine me, and know my paths.

Is that sufficient to accept silent prayer as valid worship?

...no. Personal revelation does happen through the reading of Scripture, but it does not function apart from Scripture to reveal any previously unrevealed truth about God. In writing the New Testament, the apostles received new revelation in order to write truthful things about God, the nature of his incarnation as Jesus Christ, the meaning of his atoning sacrifice on the cross, and many other things that had not been revealed in previous Scripture. That kind of revelation is no longer in operation, and that is what I was referring to.

How do you know this- that revelations about new, unrevealed truths are not occurring?

I didn't say anything about the apostles only authoritatively interpreting the OT, as if that's the only thing they could authoritatively interpret. Yes, obviously, the apostles could authoritatively interpret, through divine revelation, the things they witnessed about Jesus. I never said anything to suggest otherwise. You're arguing against something I never said.

The apostles did have a unique authority to interpret the Scriptures (meaning the Old Testament), shown in the writing of the New Testament. That authority came from the fact that they were directly receiving revelation from God in how to interpret the OT. That revelation has ceased, it is no longer in operation.

That's what you said. "The apostles did have a unique authority to interpret the Scriptures (meaning the Old Testament), shown in the writing of the New Testament."