Idolatry to assist in finding a new pope.

I will add a couple of thoughts here. hopefully we might see that we are not that far apart from one another.

Early Prostetants, like Luther and Tyndale and some anabaptists believed that dead in Christ sleep until they are resurrected. There are still groups, like our SDA friends and Jehovah's Witnesses that affirm this proto-protestant doctrine. Messier Calvin got his start by writing against this doctrine and affirming the Catholic Doctrine that the Saints are alive and awake in Heaven.

We Catholics, if we agree with the Church, believe that the Saints are people who have become perfectly united with Jesus Christ. That belief has consequences in that, being united with Christ, they imitate Him and indeed share in His role, His holy work, of saving the world. This would include interceding for sinners, and sharing in the rejoicing in Heaven when even one sinner repents.
It can also include other even more controversial things such as sharing in His sufferings -at least while the Saints are yet on earth.

The Saints in Heaven are totally in love with Jesus and want to do what He does. It is inconceivable to me that God would forbid them from praying, i.e. talking to Him. Nor could I imagine that God is indifferent to what they say. We believe that our prayers rise up through the holy hands of the 24 elders, or maybe 24 million elders, like incense before God the Father. We believe that a “white-robed army” of Holy Martyrs, i.e. those who died for Jesus, has a special place in Heaven at the Altar of Sacrifice and that God the Father is especially attuned to hear their requests.

We believe that the faithful on earth are surrounded by a huge cloud of witnesses, much like athletes competing in a stadium are surrounded by their fans. We don’t believe they whisper like anesthetized golf spectators. We believe they are cheering us on like Cub fans used to cheer on Ernie Banks. We believe we are prevented from hearing the roars of crowd because the beauty and majesty and power would be way too much for us to bear.

 

Since you are post seems to be making more the historical point than the Biblical one...

I would like to explore that for a minute.

What document do you find referencing the reformers break with the Catholic view on immortality of the soul? You mention

Early Prostetants, like Luther and Tyndale and some anabaptists believed that dead in Christ sleep until they are resurrected

Where are you getting that?

Seconly - I quoted 1Thess 4 where it actually uses that language. Are you opposed to the text?

Thirdly - When was the RC statement on the immortality of the soul first codefied?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Dear BobRyan,

All good questions, can I get back to you on them?

I'd rather wrap the answer up in one post. For now let me say, that the views of Luther and Tyndale, the Bible translator, are not widely publicized because most protestants moved back towards the Catholic view and it is somewhat embarrassing to find that their early heroes espoused 'soul sleep'.

And one more thing, boy is it hard to stop, I might not find any particular 'time' when 'soul immortality' was codified by the Catholic Church because I don't believe there was ever a controversy about the topic until the Reformation came along. So I might find something about it in the Council of Trent but that won't mean that we came up with the doctrine in the 16th cty.

I'll get back to you later after I look into some of my old books.....

your brother in Christ,

raymond

 

Dear Bobryan,

on the subject of reformers, and even John Milton, tied to 'soul sleep', try these two links

www.temcat.com/reformat.htm

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/8936/SOULREFM.HTM\

One as you might guess is an SDA site. I don't think you will have a problem with that. the truth is the truth.

your brother

 

Good sites all!

Good quotes -- keepers!

You are a scholar and a gentleman Raymond.

In Christ,

Bob

 

raymond>>>And one more thing, boy is it hard to stop, I might not find any particular 'time' when 'soul immortality' was codified by the Catholic Church because I don't believe there was ever a controversy about the topic until the Reformation came along. <<<<

Dear Bobryan et. al.,

On this note, i.e. the after-life and how we Catholics pray for dead people and believe in a 'communion of Saints', there is a pretty logical argument that one of these practices, praying for the dead, is simply a hold-over from Judaism.

Religious Jews pray for the dead. They claim they 'always' have. I once had a discussion with an Orthodox Jew who claimed that David prayed and fasted for the souls of Saul and Jonathan after they were killed.

'always', if you accept the Jews' claim at face value, would include the time of the Lord Jesus
and the early Church. This would lead the conclusion that Church never 'adopted' this practice, rather the Church had it from the beginning.

 

Orthodox Jews claim that "Satan is a good angel" and claim that they have always viewed him that way.

We know from scripture that this COULD NOT be true of OT Judaism - but "they claim it anyway".

Your use of current Jewish tradition where Bible texts are lacking for OT Jewish views is no more "subtantive" than to use current RC tradition where Bible texts are lacking in the first century.

My point is that the basis of your position is on an equal footing with a method that is already held to be in question.

But if it was true that there was a Jewish Tradition for this at the time of Christ - then it could not have been the Sadducees since they did not believe in a living-death or life-in-death. Further - Christ already established that the traditions of the Jewish church as of the first century were in error -- in Mark 7.

(Not all tradition but simply pointed to the existence of error saying "and you do many such things as this"). So even if you had documents from that period or before showing it to be a "tradition" how would you prove that it was not another example of "you do many such things as this"??

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bobryan>>So even if you had documents from that period or before showing it to be a "tradition" how would you prove that it was not another example of "you do many such things as this"??<<<

That would indeed be harder to do. I personally think that if it is proven that the practice of praying for the dead was wide-spread during the time of Christ, and IF He thought it was somehow evil, then He and the NT would have condemned it in no uncertain terms. No?

 

One has to conclude that in saying the following

[quote
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''[/quote]

Christ was not declaring that He had an exhaustive list of all tradition-infractions being delineated. Since we don't see this practice mentioned as being practiced by Christ or His disciples - and since Christ is explicitly saying that they have other problems that are not being mentioned ... it is hard to make the case "if there was a problem it would have been singled out".

Your argument is that all problems with tradition would be listed in scripture. I think that is a tough position to defend in view of this passage.

The level of difficulty in supporting your position is compounded by the fact that we don't see the practice in OT or NT and it is uncertain that it was even a tradition at that time.

 

Bobryan>>since Christ is explicitly saying that they have other problems that are not being mentioned ... it is hard to make the case "if there was a problem it would have been singled out"<<<

Perhaps I should have said, if there was a BIG problem, then it would have been mentioned. Maybe not in one particular passage, then somewhere in the NT or somewhere in the extra-biblical documents of the 1st CTY Church. St. Paul makes mention of baptizing for the dead to support his argument for the Resurrection of the Body, so it is safe to assume that at least some in the early Church believed it was possible for those still living can do something to help those who are not.

 

As I said - given that Christ says that the many things they do are making void the commandments of God in favor of tradition and thereby making void their worship -- it is hard to argue that they are "small things" that He claims are not listed but rather in the "many things such as THESE".

It is a difficult case to make that they are ALL listed if they are of that magnitude RATHER than the case that He is simply giving an example of ONE such case.

Paul does not argue that some have the tradition that being baptized on behalf of dead people and that resurrection MUST be true otherwise what validity would such an error have. To draw that from the text is to make it say something it does not say.

EVEN the RCC will not tolerate the error of being baptized on behalf of dead people! I think Mormons are the only ones that go for that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Greetings,

You said: who place them above or equal to Jesus Christ in the area of intercession.

Response: I don't think you understand what intercession is about. Mary and the Saints are NOT above or equal to Jesus. Who do you think they are praying to? They are praying to Jesus.

When you ask Mary to intercede: Mary prays to Jesus, AND I pray to Jesus. Now there are two people: Me and Mary praying to Jesus. We still depend on Jesus. Jesus is still the intercessor. How does this in ANY way make them above or equal to Jesus?

peace

 

Mother of God Queen of Heaven.

Father of Christ - KING of the Universe.

-------------------------

Hmmm.

And what about co-redemptrix WITH Christ, Co-mediatrix WITH Christ - sinless LIKE Christ ascended LIKE Christ -- allpowerful LIKE Christ??

Does "any of that" sound like "equality WITH Christ"??

Imagine how such sayings of mariolotry would have impressed the ignorant masses of the dark ages.

Just a question.

 

Bobryan>>>>Paul does not argue that some have the tradition that being baptized on behalf of dead people and that resurrection MUST be true otherwise what validity would such an error have. To draw that from the text is to make it say something it does not say.<<<<<

Dear Bobryan,

My point is, St. Paul does not condemn the practice when he mentions it. I do believe he is using it as a plank in his argument, but if you won't accept that, let's focus on my first point.

If you, Bobryan were to discuss the practice of Baptizing on behalf of the dead, and you did not make it very clear that you believe the practice is an abomination, then you would not be being honest. Given the fact you had to let me know how you feel,as you have, is a token to me of your honesty.

St. Paul was just as forthright and honest. You resemble him in this aspect Don't you think he, given the fact the topic had been broached, would have told us how he really feels? Wouldn't he have also been obliged to call a spade a spade?

 

Absolutely correct! That is my argument as well.

This is WHY I make the point that the practice can not be "some Mormon error" like baptism for the dead -- (An error that even the RCC recognizes as invalid) -- upon which Paul is building the case FOR the resurrection.

The very fact that he appeals to it as living PROOF that there MUST be a resurrection -- means that it is VALID NT practice - -not some bogus Mormon idea of "baptism for dead people".

It is precisely BECAUSE he validates it and even EMPLOYES it positively to prove the doctrine of the resurrection that it CAN NOT be the bogus error some have invented it to be.

(The text is actually asking the question about VALID NT Baptism "in view of" the state of the dead and the hope of resurrection. It argues that Christians would NOT be baptized (into Christ's death and resurrection) IF in fact the dead are not raised).

That is true. USING error to BUILD a doctrinal case FOR something valid like "The resurrection" is illogical -- indeed, unconscionable!

Absolutely correct! The practice he is identifying HAD to be a VALID one for him to use it as he does. It is in fact the normal - regulare WELL DEFINED NT mode of Baptizing believers INTO The death-burial and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6:1-6)

Not the bogus Mormon idea of "baptizing the living on behalf of the dead". An error so gross that that even the RCC rejects it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

A brief joke to hopefully lighten things up a bit:

Catholics do not recognise any church other than their own

Protestants do not recognise the authority of the Pope

Baptists do not recognise each other at the liquor store

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Hahahahha Matt you got that right!

 

HAHAHA!

That's a riot! Reminds me of the time when I was 18 and that was the state of CO drinking age. Anyway, my girlfriend and I would go to the club on Saturday night. It would crack me up to see another person from our Baptist church with a pitcher of beer, but as soon as they saw us they would quickly turn and walk in another direction.