Zobel said:

---

Wasn't Rome conquered by barbarians? What does that matter? The chain of succession is unbroken.

---

I like this standard.

They were also sacked by a certain woman's brother right before her husband asked for an annulment. May have had an impact on a certain bishop's decision making and the unity of the western church outside of Luther.

"the principal Church whence episcopal unity had its rise" - St. Cyprian (c. 258 AD) in reference to the Church in Rome.

"the supreme pontiff, the bishop of bishops" - Tertullian (c. 220 AD) in reference to the Bishop of Rome.

"presiding over the brotherhood of love" - St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD) in a letter to the Church in Rome.

"Because it would be too long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions of all the churches, we point to the tradition of that very great and very ancient and universally known Church, which was founded and established at Rome, by the two most glorious Apostels, Peter and Paul: we point I say, to the tradition which this Church has from the Apostles, and to her faith proclaimed to men which comes down to our time through the succession of her bishops, and so we put to shame . . . all who assemble in unauthorized meetings. For with this Church, because of its superior authority, every Church must agree that is the faithful everywhere in communion with which Church the tradition of the Apostles has been always preserved by those who are everywhere" - St. Irenaeus (c. 100-190 AD), in his work, "Adversus Haereses".

(LINK to quotes)

+++

I do take issue with the idea that the early Church was not unified - not one. Because it was Jesus' ardent prayer to God the Father, "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you." (Jn 17:21). This does not mean that they did not argue or feel jealousness towards one another. That is human nature. However, even then they knew the importance of unity.

Interestingly, today's gospel reading is about Jesus asking the Apostles, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" They answer, "John the Baptist" or "Elijah" or "Jeremiah" or "one of the prophets." They Jesus asks them, "Who do you say that I am?" I can only imagine a stark silence before Simon Peter replies, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

At which point Jesus tells Peter that "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father." Jesus goes on to then give Peter "the keys to the Kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

St. Peter is this rock that Jesus built his church upon.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

To not pray to the aotc? Or Mary? When the disciples ask Jesus how to pray He addresses the Father. Not the Aotc or Mary or anyone or any symbol. It's directly to father.

I would think to argue you should pray to Aotc oe Mary you'd have to support it scripturally no?

"I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time."
1 Timothy 2:1-6 NIV

This says we have ONE mediator. Jesus.

Forgive my ignorance but I don't understand the desire or need to pray to Mary.

---

Fair. No one is worshipping adoring or praying to the AotC. That would be idolatry. Catholics view Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant through the lens of typology. It's simply a way to understand her role in salvation history. In the OT, no one prayed or worshipped the AotC, but they definitely respected it for its power and they knew it was a means of communication with God. Prayer is not worship because worship requires sacrifice. That is clear from the Bible. No Catholic would ever suggest you should worship or adore Mary. She is a creature just like the rest of us. She also needed to be saved. We believe she was saved proleptically by a singular grace of God. We venerate/honor her as the most sublime of ALL creatures, but a creature nonetheless.


No Catholic or Orthodox christian would ever say that we have any mediator with God the Father other than Jesus. The Catholic Church and Orthodox Church have always believed that Jesus Christ is the one mediator between God and man. It is the death and resurrection of Jesus alone by which people are saved. Full stop. The Catholic Church has always believed that Jesus Christ is the one mediator between God and man. It is the death and resurrection of Jesus alone by which people are saved. The Bible doesn't prohibit praying to Mary or any of the saints. The Bible prohibits necromancy. Prayers to Mary or any of the saints who have gone on to their eternal reward is not necromancy.


All prayers to saints (including the Mother of God) are prayers for intercession with Jesus. If you attend a Mass, you will sometimes hear a litany of saints where the priest will go through a long list of saints by name with the congregation saying "pray for us" after each saint is named. The faith of the Church is that the saints are not really dead, but are fully alive in Jesus Christ, who is life itself (John 11:25; 14:6) and the bread of life who bestows life on all who eat his flesh and drink his blood (John 6:35, 48, 51, 53-56). The saints are alive in heaven because of the life they have received through their faith in Christ Jesus and through their eating of his body and blood.

The book of Revelation shows the saints worshipping God, singing hymns, playing instruments, making requests to Christ to avenge their martyrdom, and offering prayers for the saints on earth (Rev. 4:10, 5:8, 6:9-11). Because they are alive, more fully alive than we are, we believe that we can go to them to intercede for us with God. We do not need to see apparitions or hear their voices in order to believe they will pray for us in heaven. We trust that the saints will accept our requests for help and will present them to Christ for us.
If you don't want to pray to saints for their intercession that's fine. There is nothing inherently flawed in not praying to saints and Catholics are not required to do so. It is another tool in the arsenal of weapons to help us become saints.

God expects us to pray for one another. We see this in both the Old and New Testaments. In a dream, God commanded King Abimelech to ask Abraham to intercede for him: "For [Abraham] is a prophet and he will pray for you, so you shall live" (Gen. 20:7). When the Lord is angry with Job's friends because they did not speak rightly about God, he tells them, "Let my servant Job pray for you because I will accept his [prayer], lest I make a terror on you" (Job 42:8).

Paul wrote to the Romans: "I exhort you, brothers, through our Lord Jesus Christ and through the love of the Spirit, to strive with me in prayers to God on my behalf, that I may be delivered from the disobedient in Judaea and that my ministry may be acceptable to the saints in Jerusalem, so that in the joy coming to you through the will of God I may rest with you" (Rom. 15:30-32).

James says: "Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (James 5:16-17). Thus, according to Scripture, God wants us to pray for one another. This must mean that prayer for one another cannot detract from the role of Jesus Christ as our one mediator with God.

Second, the reason that Christians have the power to pray for one another is that each person who is baptized is made a member of the Body of Christ by virtue of the Holy Spirit's action in baptism (1 Cor. 12:11-13). It is because the Christian belongs to Jesus Christ and is a member of his Body, the Church, that we can make effective prayer.

The reason we pray to the saints is that they are still members of the Body of Christ. Remember, the life which Christ gives is eternal life; therefore, every Christian who has died in Christ is forever a member of the Body of Christ. This is the doctrine which we call the Communion of the Saints. Everyone in Christ, whether living or dead, belongs to the Body of Christ.

From this it follows that a saint in heaven may intercede for other people because he still is a member of the Body of Christ. Because of this membership in Christ, under his headship, the intercession of the saints cannot be a rival to Christ's mediation; it is one with the mediation of Christ, to whom and in whom the saints form one body.

Ultimately, all prayers are TO God and the prayers of a righteous man (saints) praying to God, whether for hiumself or for someone else, avails much (James 5:6). The real ground of disagreement is that Catholics and Orthodox Christians believe the saints in heaven are fully alive and as shown in Revelation Rev. 4:10, 5:8, 6:9-11 are interceding for us.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

To not pray to the aotc? Or Mary? When the disciples ask Jesus how to pray He addresses the Father. Not the Aotc or Mary or anyone or any symbol. It's directly to father.

I would think to argue you should pray to Aotc oe Mary you'd have to support it scripturally no?

"I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time."
1 Timothy 2:1-6 NIV

This says we have ONE mediator. Jesus.

Forgive my ignorance but I don't understand the desire or need to pray to Mary.

---

The reason we pray to the saints is that they are still members of the Body of Christ. Remember, the life which Christ gives is eternal life; therefore, every Christian who has died in Christ is forever a member of the Body of Christ. This is the doctrine which we call the Communion of the Saints. Everyone in Christ, whether living or dead, belongs to the Body of Christ.

---

So if your grandmother was a Christian, is it allowable to pray to your grandmother for intercession?

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Thanks. I had not even heard of "Saint" Vincent before. I wonder why anyone would consider his opinions authoritative as to anything?

---

Martin Luther was an obscure Augustinian monk long before anyone "heard of" him. Why would anyone consider his opinions authoritative as to anything?

---

Luther's opinions aren't considered to be authoritative and nobody believes what he said just because he said it.

Luther had this wild idea that the common person should be able to read the Scriptures themselves in their native language and we should probably make sure what "the church" says agrees with it.

Crazy concept.

---

That is very much a crazy concept. Ask the Southern Baptists who read "slavery is good, actually" into it. Or the Dispensationalists who read "the modern nation of Israel is actually the biblical Israel". Or any of the kooks who made millions writing books about the rapture, that is not actually even in scripture

---

Ah yes...better to tell them they can burn heretics because that's what the Scripture says...

I appreciate the response! I definitely understand the logic here and can agree with it on that basis. Where I lack understanding is effective purpose. Why beseech A saint on your behalf to God when you can ask Jesus on your behalf to God. Where's the benefit?

It's a beautiful thought isn't it. My kids have seen me tear up kneeling after receiving Jesus in the Eucharist because in that moment I not only feel closest to my Lord and savior, but also my mother.

I ask my mom to pray for me believing she is now with the saints praying before the altar in heaven, from which I have just been fed.

I also pray for my mom and her soul that if she is still going through her purgation process that my prayers might be applied to her and be of help to her, like a drop of water on the tongue from Lazarus.

PabloSerna said:

---

"the principal Church whence episcopal unity had its rise" - St. Cyprian (c. 258 AD) in reference to the Church in Rome.

"the supreme pontiff, the bishop of bishops" - Tertullian (c. 220 AD) in reference to the Bishop of Rome.

"presiding over the brotherhood of love" - St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD) in a letter to the Church in Rome.

"Because it would be too long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions of all the churches, we point to the tradition of that very great and very ancient and universally known Church, which was founded and established at Rome, by the two most glorious Apostels, Peter and Paul: we point I say, to the tradition which this Church has from the Apostles, and to her faith proclaimed to men which comes down to our time through the succession of her bishops, and so we put to shame . . . all who assemble in unauthorized meetings. For with this Church, because of its superior authority, every Church must agree that is the faithful everywhere in communion with which Church the tradition of the Apostles has been always preserved by those who are everywhere" - St. Irenaeus (c. 100-190 AD), in his work, "Adversus Haereses".

(LINK to quotes)

+++

I do take issue with the idea that the early Church was not unified - not one. Because it was Jesus' ardent prayer to God the Father, "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you." (Jn 17:21). This does not mean that they did not argue or feel jealousness towards one another. That is human nature. However, even then they knew the importance of unity.

Interestingly, today's gospel reading is about Jesus asking the Apostles, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" They answer, "John the Baptist" or "Elijah" or "Jeremiah" or "one of the prophets." They Jesus asks them, "Who do you say that I am?" I can only imagine a stark silence before Simon Peter replies, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

At which point Jesus tells Peter that "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father." Jesus goes on to then give Peter "the keys to the Kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

St. Peter is this rock that Jesus built his church upon.

---

You forgot to mention the unmistakable allusion of the keys that Christ gives Peter to the key of the royal steward in Isaiah 22. Jesus, the heir of David and the last Davidic king, is alluding to the key taken from the corrupt Shebna by King Solomon and given to Eliakim in Isaiah 22, whereby Eliakim is made master of the royal house and was given the key of the house of David and thereby delegated the king's authority over the kingdom, including authority to close and shut, while the king was absent.

The word key really doesn't appear much in the Old Testament. It's not a common trope. We find it twice: once in Judges, referring to an actual key used to open a lock in the story, and then in Isaiah 22. The key of David is, on a literal level, the key to the royal chamber. The steward in question, Shebna, is a corrupt leader who abuses the key for his own interests. He is the number-two authority in the kingdom, and he forgets what that authority is for. It seems that the symbol of the key on the shoulder was, historically, this person's vesture of office. He controlled access to the king, effectively mediating the king's justice, mercy, and favor.

When Jesus invokes this language in Matthew, ramping it up with the allusion to opening and shutting, binding and loosing, the implications are quite clear: this is the man who has his full authority. Even later rabbinical Jewish readings of the New Testament recognize the way that Jesus invokes the language of binding and loosing that was applied to the Pharisees and their successors. Like the ancient royal steward, the power rests in the office, not the person; it passes down from person to person. It is possible for someone to abuse the authority, but it is not possible for the authority just to go away because it is the authority of the king himself, God.

The kingdom of Israel was always understood to stand for the kingdom of God on earth. If you wanted to see the kingdom of God, you looked to the kingdom of Israel. Jesus ultimately applies this logic to himself: if you want to see the kingdom of God, you look to Jesus. But through this passage in Matthew, it is also clear that if you want to look to Jesus, you also have to look to Peter, because he has the keys.

Even if we all agreed about all of that, which is definitely not a given, it begs the question, does the office succeed to Peter's successors in the chair of the Bishop of Rome? A discussion for another time.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

I appreciate the response! I definitely understand the logic here and can agree with it on that basis. Where I lack understanding is effective purpose. Why beseech A saint on your behalf to God when you can ask Jesus on your behalf to God. Where's the benefit?

---

I appreciate your sincerity. Please understand that I am not trying to convince you to do anything that your conscience wouldn't abide. But, at the same time, I want to disabuse you of any misapprehensions about the communion of the saints.

To answer your question about where's the benefit, I would ask you a question: do you ask others to pray for you? If so, why?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

To not pray to the aotc? Or Mary? When the disciples ask Jesus how to pray He addresses the Father. Not the Aotc or Mary or anyone or any symbol. It's directly to father.

I would think to argue you should pray to Aotc oe Mary you'd have to support it scripturally no?

"I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time."
1 Timothy 2:1-6 NIV

This says we have ONE mediator. Jesus.

Forgive my ignorance but I don't understand the desire or need to pray to Mary.

---

The reason we pray to the saints is that they are still members of the Body of Christ. Remember, the life which Christ gives is eternal life; therefore, every Christian who has died in Christ is forever a member of the Body of Christ. This is the doctrine which we call the Communion of the Saints. Everyone in Christ, whether living or dead, belongs to the Body of Christ.

---

So if your grandmother was a Christian, is it allowable to pray to your grandmother for intercession?

---

Yes. We don't know with certainty whether any person is in heaven or purgatory, but I think we can have confidence, trusting in God's mercy that they are there and that they are praying for us. I have often asked my grandmother to pray for me or to pray for my children (her great grandchildren) when we are struggling with something in life. I also pray regularly for the souls of my departed friends and family who might be going through final purification before entering into the beatific vision. It's just one big prayer fest back and forth!

In all seriousness, if you want to understand the ancient doctrine of the communion of the saints, you can probably just go to Catholic.com and search for some info. Otherwise, if you do some reasearch on the early church and the church until the Reformation, you will see that the CoS is ubiquitous. Prayers for the dead and to the saints for intercession are quite common and you won't see any "corrective" writings coming from ecclesial authorities or the fathers on this topic. It was just assumed to be part of the fabric of Christian life.

I have zero doubt there are things I am wrong on. I'm more trying to get healthy understanding of concepts I'm clearly ignorant of. I'm also not trying to win any debate or make anyone give a rock solid defense of their beliefs. AdmittedlyI typically have poor tact or communication in trying to probe others beliefs to understand them.

So for me I pray for others that never ask for prayer. Ie in tbe example of seeing a stranger that has drawn my attention. I believe we are called to pray for others, as we see the saints do in revelation. But again that can happen without request.

On the flipside we do ask for prayer from others specifically or ask what we can pray for them. In this case it's like the first, interceding on their behalf but with another element. There is intimacy there. Which can serve many purposes. 1. What another's struggles may be can reveal issues or sin in our own lives we are unaware of. 2. It can remind us to be grateful and humble as we may not be struggling with what others in that moment are. 3. It can make us aware of real needs by fellow believers we can help with. 4, we can be privy to the work of God in others lives we wouldn't be in our lives. 5. It helps bring unity to the body.

I'm not sure how any of those reasons are applicable to beseeching saints in heaven. And to ask another how do you know which saints to ask for help? Are some better than others etc?

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

I have zero doubt there are things I am wrong on. I'm more trying to get healthy understanding of concepts I'm clearly ignorant of. I'm also not trying to win any debate or make anyone give a rock solid defense of their beliefs. AdmittedlyI typically have poor tact or communication in trying to probe others beliefs to understand them.

So for me I pray for others that never ask for prayer. Ie in tbe example of seeing a stranger that has drawn my attention. I believe we are called to pray for others, as we see the saints do in revelation. But again that can happen without request.

On the flipside we do ask for prayer from others specifically or ask what we can pray for them. In this case it's like the first, interceding on their behalf but with another element. There is intimacy there. Which can serve many purposes. 1. What another's struggles may be can reveal issues or sin in our own lives we are unaware of. 2. It can remind us to be grateful and humble as we may not be struggling with what others in that moment are. 3. It can make us aware of real needs by fellow believers we can help with. 4, we can be privy to the work of God in others lives we wouldn't be in our lives. 5. It helps bring unity to the body.

I'm not sure how any of those reasons are applicable to beseeching saints in heaven. And to ask another how do you know which saints to ask for help? Are some better than others etc?

---

I agree with all of your points on prayer. Beautiful. I had a priest tell me once that God's favorite way to send us blessings is through another person. Rarely does God directly "zap" us with something. It usually involves at least one other person.

But back to your question to me. I don't see asking your friends or family to pray for you as being any different than me asking a saint to pray for me. Literally no difference for me theologically. If one were to take your point about "one mediator" to the extreme, then one might say "why are you asking these people to pray for you? Go directly to Jesus." Obviously, all Christians believe in intercessory prayer because we all do what scripture tells us to do, which is pray for each other, whether we pray for others without being asked or whether we ask others to pray for us. It could all be taken as inconsistent with the idea that we have one mediator, Jesus.

The only real difference is that I include the saints in heaven on my list of people to ask to pray for me and I also pray for those who might still be in the process of being purified before entering the beatific vision.

All good questions. There are many patron saints for certain causes.

For example, St. Jude is the Patron saint of Lost Causes and the impossible. He is invoked when all other avenues have been exhausted, and hope seems lost. He is believed to have been the son of Mary of Clopas and the cousin of Jesus. His story is amazing and he is one of the most venerated saints.

St. Anthony is the Patron Saint for lost objects…and I can attest that when I ask for his help in finding something lost he almost always delivers and it's immediate!

The saints are there for you if and when you ask for their intercession. Mary is the Queen of Heaven so she would be above all.

Is the implication that St. Jude, for example, is omniscient akin to God? So if there are a million people on earth praying or asking for intercession at one time, St. Jude has no limitation and can handle that all in a supernatural way?

Unity doesn't come through a bishop. It comes through Christ. I take issue with the idea that because the Roman bishop was not the singular leader of the church that the church cannot be unified.

Believe it or not, the Orthodox Church reads that gospel too. And it has never accepted the claims of papal supremacy, especially not in their modern forms.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Is the implication that St. Jude, for example, is omniscient akin to God? So if there are a million people on earth praying or asking for intercession at one time, St. Jude has no limitation and can handle that all in a supernatural way?

---

When we are in God's presence, we enjoy the fullness of His presence, yes? If this is true, then the teaching is as follows: Since He is omniscient, and we are totally united to Him, we can share in HIS omniscience. In your example, St Jude could hear millions of prayers and elevate those prayers from his spot in heaven because God has given him the ability to to hear those millions of prayers. St Jude, even in heaven, is in no way capable of accomplishing this by his own power or ability.

ETA: why would God do it this way? Idk. I honestly don't have a very solid practice of praying to the saints. I rarely say the rosary. Maybe I should be better, but as a Catholic, I can be in good standing with the Church without this personal practice in my daily life

Article XXI: The Invocation of the Saints

Apology of the Augsburg

Quote:

---

[10] Moreover, even supposing that the saints do pray for the church, it still does not follow that they are to be invoked. However, our Confession affirms only this much, that Scripture does not teach us to call upon the saints or to ask the saints for help. Because neither a command, nor a promise, nor an example from Scripture about invoking saints can be brought forward, it follows that the conscience can find no certainty about such invocation. And since prayer ought to be made from faith, how do we know that God approves such invocation? Without the testimony of Scripture, from what source do we know that the saints hear the prayers of individuals? [11] Some evidently attribute divinity to the saints, namely, that they discern the silent thoughts of our minds. They debate about "morning knowledge" and "evening knowledge," perhaps because they have some doubt whether the saints hear us in the morning or in the evening. They invent these things not for the purpose of honoring the saints but to defend their lucrative worship. [12] The opponents cannot produce anything against our argument that since invocation lacks the testimony of God's Word, we cannot possibly affirm that the saints are aware of our invocation or, supposing that they are aware, that God approves it. [13] Therefore the opponents should not force us to adopt something so uncertain, because prayer without faith is not prayer. For when they cite the example of the church, it becomes clear that this is a new custom in the church; for even when the ancient prayers mention the saints, they still do not invoke the saints. Besides, this novel invocation is not the same as the invocation of individuals.

Robert Kolb, Timothy J. Wengert, and Charles P. Arand, The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2000), 238239.

---

The Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ. So you answered your own question.

I cited a number of early church figures that clearly disagree with your assessment of the situation. There are more, but I can also see your predicament with going further down that path.

I understand today five churches use the title of patriarch of Antioch: one Oriental Orthodox (the Syriac Orthodox Church); three Eastern Catholic (the Maronite, Syriac Catholic, and Melkite Greek Catholic Churches); and one Eastern Orthodox (the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch).

The Banned said:

---

Since He is omniscient, and we are totally united to Him, we can share in HIS omniscience.

---

Is this accepted by the Catholic church? That humans share in God's omniscience after death?

AgPrognosticator said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Since He is omniscient, and we are totally united to Him, we can share in HIS omniscience.

---

Is this accepted by the Catholic church? That humans share in God's omniscience after death?

---

I guess I'd have to back up a little bit and clarify.

We can share in whatever part of God's omniscience that He would choose to share with us. So we aren't going to be just like God or a mini-God or anything like that. But, if God finds it fitting for the saints in Heaven to petition Him on behalf of believers in earth, He could give them the ability hear more prayers than they naturally could otherwise. But that doesn't mean they would also share in His power to creat life, understand the entirety of existence and how things came to be, etc.

The other part is to remember that Heaven is outside of time, so millions of "simultaneous" prayers isn't exactly like it is while we're earth bound. It's possible God wouldn't expand their abilities at all. Even conceptualizing how time on earth correlates with "time" in a timeless place is impossible for me.

I may have botched that a bit as I'm getting ready for work, so maybe someone else can come along and tidy this up.

I dunno. I don't think you need to undersell theosis. We have plenty of luminaries in the church talking about it - "God made man so that man might become god" as St Athanasius put it. We become like Him, grown up to the full stature of Christ says St Paul. St Maximos writes that we are drawn up to the full height as He came down to ours - made like Him in every way save uncreated. Or, simply put, gods by grace what He is by nature.

There is nothing "ridiculous" about the will of God for his Church. We may disagree on who actually is the Vicar of Christ, literally a stand in for Jesus here on earth, but the idea that Jesus understood the importance "that they may be one" is not ridiculous.

If you were to give it some serious consideration, I think the fact that we humans seek to elect leaders or have a history of monarchy to rule over the people is part of our nature. This was not lost on Jesus when he established his Church. The question is, which of the Apostles was that man? Then what happened after that?

When Jesus said to Peter, "Feed my sheep" he wasn't talking about some pet, it was the Church. He gave this directive to Peter.

Dispense with the "repent" comments, I'm not asking you the same. Let's have a non-personal discussion, ok?

This is more critical to the whole idea of authority than you can imagine. I posit that the early Church, beginning with the 12 Apostles fully understood this dynamic. It makes zero sense not to have a leader.

And the other apostles were not shepherds? Does St Paul not say he has concern for all the churches? Did St James not have the chief rule at the Council of Jerusalem as St John Chrysostom said? Did St Peter not found Antioch? Was St Paul not a co-founder of the church of Rome? Didn't St Ignatius say where the bishop is there is the church? The bishop - not the bishop of Rome?

Didn't St Augustine and St John Chrysostom both say that the Rock which Christ would build His Church would be not on St Peter but on the faith of his confession? Didn't St Ambrose say that our rock is our faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church, and if we are a rock we will be in the Church, and he who has conquered the flesh is a foundation of the Church? Didn't St Augustine also say that St Peter as "Rocky" is the Christian people?

Didn't Fermilian say that Pope Stephen - and NOT St Cyprian - was breaking the peace and unity of the catholic church by threatening to excommunicate St Cyprian? Didn't he say that Stephen's claim about the succession of Peter was boasting, and "open and manifest folly"? Didn't he say - "he (Stephen) is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate form the communion of ecclesiastical unity, for while (he) thinks that all may be excommunicated by (him), (he) has excommunicated (himself) alone by all"? We know for a fact that at the time of St Cyprian neither the churches of Africa or the East accepted this doctrine.

Even if St Peter was the leader of the Twelve - regardless of what sense we understand that - it still does not follow that the bishop of Rome becomes some kind of spiritual or theological prince over the entirety of the college of bishops.

The doctrine of papal primacy is not historical, it was never accepted by the Church, it was never part of the Ecumenical councils and indeed several of them show the opposite. It is an assault on the brotherhood of the church and resulted in the heresy of the filioque leading to schism.

I don't mind having the discussion be personal, because your church has anathematized the rest of Christendom over this topic. That is offensive. The whole thing of the supreme pontiff is offensive and schismatic. You anathematized me over this.

The Banned said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Since He is omniscient, and we are totally united to Him, we can share in HIS omniscience.

---

Is this accepted by the Catholic church? That humans share in God's omniscience after death?

---

I guess I'd have to back up a little bit and clarify.

We can share in whatever part of God's omniscience that He would choose to share with us. So we aren't going to be just like God or a mini-God or anything like that. But, if God finds it fitting for the saints in Heaven to petition Him on behalf of believers in earth, He could give them the ability hear more prayers than they naturally could otherwise. But that doesn't mean they would also share in His power to creat life, understand the entirety of existence and how things came to be, etc.

The other part is to remember that Heaven is outside of time, so millions of "simultaneous" prayers isn't exactly like it is while we're earth bound. It's possible God wouldn't expand their abilities at all. Even conceptualizing how time on earth correlates with "time" in a timeless place is impossible for me.

I may have botched that a bit as I'm getting ready for work, so maybe someone else can come along and tidy this up.

---

This is only tangentially related, but since you mentioned that Heaven is outside of time, I have wondered if we will even notice that our family members aren't there, or will everyone who will ever be granted entrance be there at the same time?

I don't know how there can be a "before" or "after" in a timeless environment.

Obviously this is imposing a human understanding on something that is transcendent, but this is the stuff that keeps me up at night

" You anathematized me over this."

The pearl clutching in this statement alone. Oh my! I will respond to your detailed rebuttal soon enough, thank you for the opportunity.

Zobel said:

---

Yeah, based on the tone of this response I'm not going to waste any more time on this topic with you. Feel free to have the last word.

---

I disagree with Pablo on a lot, but you literally told him that you are very ok with making an internet discussion about the faith "personal". You told him to repent from his Catholic faith. How can this not be read as anything other than hostile?

I'm not saying sarcasm was the best response, but to me it looks like you went much lower