Per Hebrews 12, Jesus is the one mediator (of the new covenant) between God the Father and man. Intercessory prayer by saints in heaven, especially the Blessed Virgin Mary, is not the same thing as being "one mediator."

If you think that praying to the Virgin Mary is bypassing Jesus- you don't fully understand.

Quote:

---

If you think that praying to the Virgin Mary is bypassing Jesus- you don't fully understand.

---

That's why there are double arrows...

Because Paul recommends intercessory prayer in 1 Timothy 2:1. The entire bible is made up of people interceding for others in prayer (Abraham, Moses, Joshua, etc.). And James tells us that the prayer of a righteous person is very powerful (James 5), and who is more righteous than a Christian in heaven?

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Why is an intercessor needed?

---

The couple at the wedding of Cana didn't "need" an intercessor nor do we. Nonetheless, they got one and we see Christs first miracle based on Mary's intercession and we see Mary instructing them to follow His commands. You don't need an intercessor to be a Christian. You can be a great Christian and never ask a friend or pastor or saint to pray for/with you. Nonetheless, you are missing out the fullness of our faith and possibly many miracles.

"2 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. 3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." 4 And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come." 5 His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."" -John 2:2-5

Interesting how that word "woman" keeps popping up for Mary!? Consider doing a deep dive on the early church's teachings and church fathers' thoughts on the subject. There truly is only one conclusion you can make.

Behold Your Mother: A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines: Tim Staples: 9781938983917: Amazon.com: Books

" Tim Staples is Director of Apologetics and Evangelization here at Catholic Answers, but he was not always Catholic. Tim was raised a Southern Baptist. Although he fell away from the faith of his childhood, Tim came back to faith in Christ during his late teen years through the witness of Christian televangelists. Soon after, Tim joined the Marine Corps. During his four-year tour, he became involved in ministry with various Assemblies of God communities. Immediately after his tour of duty, Tim enrolled in Jimmy Swaggart Bible College and became a youth minister in an Assembly of God community. During his final year in the Marines, however, Tim met a Marine who really knew his faith and challenged Tim to study Catholicism from Catholic and historical sources. That encounter sparked a two-year search for the truth. Tim was determined to prove Catholicism wrong, but he ended up studying his way to the last place he thought he would ever end up: the Catholic Church! He converted to Catholicism in 1988 and spent the following six years in formation for the priesthood, earning a degree in philosophy from St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Overbrook, Pennsylvania. He then studied theology on a graduate level at Mount St. Mary s Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland, for two years. Realizing that his calling was not to the priesthood, Tim left the seminary in 1994 and has been working in Catholic apologetics and evangelization ever since."

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This is one of the topics I least understand how it can be embraced in any true Christian practice. Sorry.

---

There's clearly a difficult line between asking Mary to pray (as a saint who is alive, and queen mother) and treating her as if she is higher than Christ, that whatever she asks of Him will be granted and that you appeal to her with expectation. Early English reformers critiqued this practice hundreds of years ago.

If there is an external law or idea to God, to which He must submit, He's not God. However, you can fall into the ditch on many sides. With Romanism this is one form; in Protestantism it's the idea of justice in atonement, that God can't get around sacrificing Jesus because of Justice.

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This is one of the topics I least understand how it can be embraced in any true Christian practice. Sorry.

---

There's clearly a difficult line between asking Mary to pray (as a saint who is alive, and queen mother) and treating her as if she is higher than Christ, that whatever she asks of Him will be granted and that you appeal to her with expectation. Early English reformers critiqued this practice hundreds of years ago.

If there is an external law or idea to God, to which He must submit, He's not God. However, you can fall into the ditch on many sides. With Romanism this is one form; in Protestantism it's the idea of justice in atonement, that God can't get around sacrificing Jesus because of Justice.

---

Are you claiming that the Church taught this? Or that some Christians believed this personally?

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This is one of the topics I least understand how it can be embraced in any true Christian practice. Sorry.

---

There's clearly a difficult line between asking Mary to pray (as a saint who is alive, and queen mother) and treating her as if she is higher than Christ, that whatever she asks of Him will be granted and that you appeal to her with expectation. Early English reformers critiqued this practice hundreds of years ago.

If there is an external law or idea to God, to which He must submit, He's not God. However, you can fall into the ditch on many sides. With Romanism this is one form; in Protestantism it's the idea of justice in atonement, that God can't get around sacrificing Jesus because of Justice.

---

Are you claiming that the Church taught this? Or that some Christians believed this personally?

---

Lex orandi, lex credendi. Read the part before what you bolded.

If you know your Roman Catholic history, it would be unsurprising that much prevalent practice was critiqued by reformers. Your tradition is the one that gave us Hocus Pocus. Your priests denied laity the blood of Christ. You can claim priestly error all day long but who's responsible for oversight of priests if not the bishop? Who's the ultimate authority in your church, if not the pope? When does management take responsibility for the frontline workers it hires? I'm not here to fight that battle, nor was that my intent in posting, but contemporary Roman Catholics need to start squaring with the idea that things their church has since shrugged off, were used to jettison many faithful Roman Catholics. That's all I have to say on the subject.

Whether the queen mother is Esther, Bathsheba, or Mary, her role is one of intercession with the King, her son. Esther interceded with King Xerxes on behalf of the nation, Bathsheeba interceded on behalf of Adonijah with King Solomon, and Mary interceded on behalf of the couple who ran out of wine at Cana with King Jesus. That is what Queen Mothers do, per the bible...

I will likely agree to your points in the OT however Christ came to be THE intercessor.

I would partially equate this to the idea of giving credence to still making sacrifices, on top of the one time perfect sacrifice that Christ was for us. There is now no reason to do that. Christ is it.

The way I interpret all of this is that if you are going to Mary or another Saint for intercession, you are not going to Christ for intercession. Why not? You can say you're going to both, but at the end of the day there is some kind of acknowledgement that Christ's intercession is not supreme or sufficient.

ETA 1 Timothy 2 hardly gives much detail for how to appropriately go about this.

Quote:

---

The way I interpret all of this is that if you are going to Mary or another Saint for intercession, you are not going to Christ for intercession. Why not? You can say you're going to both, but at the end of the day there is some kind of acknowledgement that Christ's intercession is not supreme or sufficient.

---

The way I see it, and the way the graphic shows it, is that Christ intercedes for us with His Father. Many are the intercessors who intercede for us with Jesus, the Son. That's why it's OK to ask your pastor to pray for you, your wife to pray for you, and your fellow worshipers to pray for you. Ultimately, all of the prayers by humans go to Christ and to the Father. Revelation 5:8 and 8:3 show that the saints and angels present our prayers to God in the form of incense....

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Whether the queen mother is Esther, Bathsheba, or Mary, her role is one of intercession with the King, her son. Esther interceded with King Xerxes on behalf of the nation, Bathsheeba interceded on behalf of Adonijah with King Solomon, and Mary interceded on behalf of the couple who ran out of wine at Cana with King Jesus. That is what Queen Mothers do, per the bible...

---

This is what I'm talking about. We must assume that Christ only interceded insomuch as it is His will and desire, else she is above Him. It cannot be automatic or assumed.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I will likely agree to your points in the OT however Christ came to be THE intercessor.

I would partially equate this to the idea of giving credence to still making sacrifices, on top of the one time perfect sacrifice that Christ was for us. There is now no reason to do that. Christ is it.

The way I interpret all of this is that if you are going to Mary or another Saint for intercession, you are not going to Christ for intercession. Why not? You can say you're going to both, but at the end of the day there is some kind of acknowledgement that Christ's intercession is not supreme or sufficient.

ETA 1 Timothy 2 hardly gives much detail for how to appropriately go about this.

---

You have bigger problems my friend. Christians still offered sacrifices at the temple after His death til it was destroyed. If you read revelation, there is an altar and there are priests in heaven. What purpose do they serve, then? Or the divine council?

But yes, you should beseech both, not forsaking Christ.

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I will likely agree to your points in the OT however Christ came to be THE intercessor.

I would partially equate this to the idea of giving credence to still making sacrifices, on top of the one time perfect sacrifice that Christ was for us. There is now no reason to do that. Christ is it.

The way I interpret all of this is that if you are going to Mary or another Saint for intercession, you are not going to Christ for intercession. Why not? You can say you're going to both, but at the end of the day there is some kind of acknowledgement that Christ's intercession is not supreme or sufficient.

ETA 1 Timothy 2 hardly gives much detail for how to appropriately go about this.

---

You have bigger problems my friend. Christians still offered sacrifices at the temple after His death til it was destroyed. If you read revelation, there is an altar and there are priests in heaven. What purpose do they serve, then? Or the divine council?

But yes, you should beseech both, not forsaking Christ.

---

I am not denying that it was done (sacrifices); that doesn't make their actions correct. There is no scriptural mandate to continue this practice.

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This is one of the topics I least understand how it can be embraced in any true Christian practice. Sorry.

---

There's clearly a difficult line between asking Mary to pray (as a saint who is alive, and queen mother) and treating her as if she is higher than Christ, that whatever she asks of Him will be granted and that you appeal to her with expectation. Early English reformers critiqued this practice hundreds of years ago.

If there is an external law or idea to God, to which He must submit, He's not God. However, you can fall into the ditch on many sides. With Romanism this is one form; in Protestantism it's the idea of justice in atonement, that God can't get around sacrificing Jesus because of Justice.

---

Are you claiming that the Church taught this? Or that some Christians believed this personally?

---

Lex orandi, lex credendi. Read the part before what you bolded.

If you know your Roman Catholic history, it would be unsurprising that much prevalent practice was critiqued by reformers. Your tradition is the one that gave us Hocus Pocus. Your priests denied laity the blood of Christ. You can claim priestly error all day long but who's responsible for oversight of priests if not the bishop? Who's the ultimate authority in your church, if not the pope? When does management take responsibility for the frontline workers it hires? I'm not here to fight that battle, nor was that my intent in posting, but contemporary Roman Catholics need to start squaring with the idea that things their church has since shrugged off, were used to jettison many faithful Roman Catholics. That's all I have to say on the subject.

---

Dude. I asked a question and you have this reaction? It was a simple question to understand where you were coming from.

1. Assigning the kind of power to Mary that you are talking about was a regional issue. Just like selling of indulgences was a regional issue. It was not practiced or recognized by the entire church. Ever wonder why the reformation kicked off in specific areas? It's because the abuses were in those areas, not all over. When theses issues were brought up, Rome agreed with the reformers and "took responsibility for it's front line workers" by telling them to knock it off and clarifying doctrine.

2. When English bishops split from Rome, many priests stayed loyal to Rome. The English response was to imprison and execute these priests. Is that how management is supposed to take responsibility for their workers? Maybe the Catholic Church should have just executed all the priests that weren't acting appropriately? The case of John Hus is still held against the Church today by some protestants, so something tells me if done on a wide scale, you would still disapprove. What was the Church supposed to do, in your opinion, outside of what it did: correct the issue once it was made known?

3. Hocus Pocus was a slur generated by Reformed protestants in England because they didn't believe in the real presence, and wanted to make fun of Catholics using Latin. Not sure how we "gave" you that.

Every single protestant denomination has had multiple splits and off shoots due to some doctrine or another. Based on you criteria, everyone is doing a terrible job of getting their front line workers in line.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I will likely agree to your points in the OT however Christ came to be THE intercessor.

I would partially equate this to the idea of giving credence to still making sacrifices, on top of the one time perfect sacrifice that Christ was for us. There is now no reason to do that. Christ is it.

The way I interpret all of this is that if you are going to Mary or another Saint for intercession, you are not going to Christ for intercession. Why not? You can say you're going to both, but at the end of the day there is some kind of acknowledgement that Christ's intercession is not supreme or sufficient.

ETA 1 Timothy 2 hardly gives much detail for how to appropriately go about this.

---

I know you've read this before, but it's worth repeating. If you ask a friend to pray for you, are you saying Christ's intercession isn't sufficient? And yes, a friend praying for you is a friend interceding for you.

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This is one of the topics I least understand how it can be embraced in any true Christian practice. Sorry.

---

There's clearly a difficult line between asking Mary to pray (as a saint who is alive, and queen mother) and treating her as if she is higher than Christ, that whatever she asks of Him will be granted and that you appeal to her with expectation. Early English reformers critiqued this practice hundreds of years ago.

If there is an external law or idea to God, to which He must submit, He's not God. However, you can fall into the ditch on many sides. With Romanism this is one form; in Protestantism it's the idea of justice in atonement, that God can't get around sacrificing Jesus because of Justice.

---

Are you claiming that the Church taught this? Or that some Christians believed this personally?

---

Lex orandi, lex credendi. Read the part before what you bolded.

If you know your Roman Catholic history, it would be unsurprising that much prevalent practice was critiqued by reformers. Your tradition is the one that gave us Hocus Pocus. Your priests denied laity the blood of Christ. You can claim priestly error all day long but who's responsible for oversight of priests if not the bishop? Who's the ultimate authority in your church, if not the pope? When does management take responsibility for the frontline workers it hires? I'm not here to fight that battle, nor was that my intent in posting, but contemporary Roman Catholics need to start squaring with the idea that things their church has since shrugged off, were used to jettison many faithful Roman Catholics. That's all I have to say on the subject.

---

Dude. I asked a question and you have this reaction? It was a simple question to understand where you were coming from.

1. Assigning the kind of power to Mary that you are talking about was a regional issue. Just like selling of indulgences was a regional issue. It was not practiced or recognized by the entire church. Ever wonder why the reformation kicked off in specific areas? It's because the abuses were in those areas, not all over. When theses issues were brought up, Rome agreed with the reformers and "took responsibility for it's front line workers" by telling them to knock it off and clarifying doctrine.

2. When English bishops split from Rome, many priests stayed loyal to Rome. The English response was to imprison and execute these priests. Is that how management is supposed to take responsibility for their workers? Maybe the Catholic Church should have just executed all the priests that weren't acting appropriately? The case of John Hus is still held against the Church today by some protestants, so something tells me if done on a wide scale, you would still disapprove. What was the Church supposed to do, in your opinion, outside of what it did: correct the issue once it was made known?

3. Hocus Pocus was a slur generated by Reformed protestants in England because they didn't believe in the real presence, and wanted to make fun of Catholics using Latin. Not sure how we "gave" you that.

Every single protestant denomination has had multiple splits and off shoots due to some doctrine or another. Based on you criteria, everyone is doing a terrible job of getting their front line workers in line.

---

I put the part before your bolding in because it is important. Cutting it out and asking a question that, in my experience, leads to plausible deniability, warranted more explanation. No offense in that respect was intended.

The point is that there is historical practice that the pope allowed to flourish and took years to correct, and not without being forced. Remember, though, the Protestants don't have a pope. You can criticize them for every man being a pope, but that doesn't absolve you of what accrues to your bishop because of your own structure. You can't have it both ways.

Are we to think of Christ's intercession for us in the same context as our prayers (intercession if you choose to use the word) for our fellow Christians? Surely, we can agree on the idea that the intercession of Christ is likely a different type of work than the prayers (or intercession) that us men are making. And our human "intercession" is a petition to Christ. It isn't a petition to Mary, Peter, Paul, or any other saint that has a treasury of merit.

Just a quick glance at the BLB leads me to see that the Greek word used in 1 Tim 1 for "petitions" is not the same as the word used for "intercede" in Romans 8:34. Maybe this is all in the noise and not relevant, but it piqued my interest nonetheless.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I will likely agree to your points in the OT however Christ came to be THE intercessor.

I would partially equate this to the idea of giving credence to still making sacrifices, on top of the one time perfect sacrifice that Christ was for us. There is now no reason to do that. Christ is it.

The way I interpret all of this is that if you are going to Mary or another Saint for intercession, you are not going to Christ for intercession. Why not? You can say you're going to both, but at the end of the day there is some kind of acknowledgement that Christ's intercession is not supreme or sufficient.

ETA 1 Timothy 2 hardly gives much detail for how to appropriately go about this.

---

You have bigger problems my friend. Christians still offered sacrifices at the temple after His death til it was destroyed. If you read revelation, there is an altar and there are priests in heaven. What purpose do they serve, then? Or the divine council?

But yes, you should beseech both, not forsaking Christ.

---

I am not denying that it was done (sacrifices); that doesn't make their actions correct. There is no scriptural mandate to continue this practice.

---

Why would there be one, though? They know what worship is and have been show by the Christ and the disciples. You're treating the scriptures as exhaustive. They are not (John 21:25); are you using the correct hermeneutic when you treat the Bible that way?

I'll play along for giggles....what would be the earliest record of the early Church behaving this way? This has not been a focus of some things I have looked at with the early Church.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I'll play along for giggles....what would be the earliest record of the early Church behaving this way? This has not been a focus of some things I have looked at with the early Church.

---

The acts of the apostles?

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This is one of the topics I least understand how it can be embraced in any true Christian practice. Sorry.

---

There's clearly a difficult line between asking Mary to pray (as a saint who is alive, and queen mother) and treating her as if she is higher than Christ, that whatever she asks of Him will be granted and that you appeal to her with expectation. Early English reformers critiqued this practice hundreds of years ago.

If there is an external law or idea to God, to which He must submit, He's not God. However, you can fall into the ditch on many sides. With Romanism this is one form; in Protestantism it's the idea of justice in atonement, that God can't get around sacrificing Jesus because of Justice.

---

Are you claiming that the Church taught this? Or that some Christians believed this personally?

---

Lex orandi, lex credendi. Read the part before what you bolded.

If you know your Roman Catholic history, it would be unsurprising that much prevalent practice was critiqued by reformers. Your tradition is the one that gave us Hocus Pocus. Your priests denied laity the blood of Christ. You can claim priestly error all day long but who's responsible for oversight of priests if not the bishop? Who's the ultimate authority in your church, if not the pope? When does management take responsibility for the frontline workers it hires? I'm not here to fight that battle, nor was that my intent in posting, but contemporary Roman Catholics need to start squaring with the idea that things their church has since shrugged off, were used to jettison many faithful Roman Catholics. That's all I have to say on the subject.

---

Dude. I asked a question and you have this reaction? It was a simple question to understand where you were coming from.

1. Assigning the kind of power to Mary that you are talking about was a regional issue. Just like selling of indulgences was a regional issue. It was not practiced or recognized by the entire church. Ever wonder why the reformation kicked off in specific areas? It's because the abuses were in those areas, not all over. When theses issues were brought up, Rome agreed with the reformers and "took responsibility for it's front line workers" by telling them to knock it off and clarifying doctrine.

2. When English bishops split from Rome, many priests stayed loyal to Rome. The English response was to imprison and execute these priests. Is that how management is supposed to take responsibility for their workers? Maybe the Catholic Church should have just executed all the priests that weren't acting appropriately? The case of John Hus is still held against the Church today by some protestants, so something tells me if done on a wide scale, you would still disapprove. What was the Church supposed to do, in your opinion, outside of what it did: correct the issue once it was made known?

3. Hocus Pocus was a slur generated by Reformed protestants in England because they didn't believe in the real presence, and wanted to make fun of Catholics using Latin. Not sure how we "gave" you that.

Every single protestant denomination has had multiple splits and off shoots due to some doctrine or another. Based on you criteria, everyone is doing a terrible job of getting their front line workers in line.

---

I put the part before your bolding in because it is important. Cutting it out and asking a question that, in my experience, leads to plausible deniability, warranted more explanation. No offense in that respect was intended.

The point is that there is historical practice that the pope allowed to flourish and took years to correct, and not without being forced. Remember, though, the Protestants don't have a pope. You can criticize them for every man being a pope, but that doesn't absolve you of what accrues to your bishop because of your own structure. You can't have it both ways.

---

I think this has a bit of modern bias. I'm not sure why the pope should be expected have all the details of what's going on 1000 miles away when he is relying on information on the wrong doing to be sent to him from the bishops doing the wrongdoing. There is very little evidence that he was aware of how Tetzel and Co were going about their business until Luther went public about it. Once he went public, the pope stepped in. As it should be. I truly believe that Luther could have been a saint for what he did until his pride got in the way.

As for the rest of that second paragraph, I really don't know what you're trying to get at. The best I can make sense of it is that apparently the pope is in charge of being aware of all error, everywhere, all the time and correcting it instantly. It doesn't work that way. He's a human with limited abilities as we all are.

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This is one of the topics I least understand how it can be embraced in any true Christian practice. Sorry.

---

There's clearly a difficult line between asking Mary to pray (as a saint who is alive, and queen mother) and treating her as if she is higher than Christ, that whatever she asks of Him will be granted and that you appeal to her with expectation. Early English reformers critiqued this practice hundreds of years ago.

If there is an external law or idea to God, to which He must submit, He's not God. However, you can fall into the ditch on many sides. With Romanism this is one form; in Protestantism it's the idea of justice in atonement, that God can't get around sacrificing Jesus because of Justice.

---

Are you claiming that the Church taught this? Or that some Christians believed this personally?

---

Lex orandi, lex credendi. Read the part before what you bolded.

If you know your Roman Catholic history, it would be unsurprising that much prevalent practice was critiqued by reformers. Your tradition is the one that gave us Hocus Pocus. Your priests denied laity the blood of Christ. You can claim priestly error all day long but who's responsible for oversight of priests if not the bishop? Who's the ultimate authority in your church, if not the pope? When does management take responsibility for the frontline workers it hires? I'm not here to fight that battle, nor was that my intent in posting, but contemporary Roman Catholics need to start squaring with the idea that things their church has since shrugged off, were used to jettison many faithful Roman Catholics. That's all I have to say on the subject.

---

Dude. I asked a question and you have this reaction? It was a simple question to understand where you were coming from.

1. Assigning the kind of power to Mary that you are talking about was a regional issue. Just like selling of indulgences was a regional issue. It was not practiced or recognized by the entire church. Ever wonder why the reformation kicked off in specific areas? It's because the abuses were in those areas, not all over. When theses issues were brought up, Rome agreed with the reformers and "took responsibility for it's front line workers" by telling them to knock it off and clarifying doctrine.

2. When English bishops split from Rome, many priests stayed loyal to Rome. The English response was to imprison and execute these priests. Is that how management is supposed to take responsibility for their workers? Maybe the Catholic Church should have just executed all the priests that weren't acting appropriately? The case of John Hus is still held against the Church today by some protestants, so something tells me if done on a wide scale, you would still disapprove. What was the Church supposed to do, in your opinion, outside of what it did: correct the issue once it was made known?

3. Hocus Pocus was a slur generated by Reformed protestants in England because they didn't believe in the real presence, and wanted to make fun of Catholics using Latin. Not sure how we "gave" you that.

Every single protestant denomination has had multiple splits and off shoots due to some doctrine or another. Based on you criteria, everyone is doing a terrible job of getting their front line workers in line.

---

I put the part before your bolding in because it is important. Cutting it out and asking a question that, in my experience, leads to plausible deniability, warranted more explanation. No offense in that respect was intended.

The point is that there is historical practice that the pope allowed to flourish and took years to correct, and not without being forced. Remember, though, the Protestants don't have a pope. You can criticize them for every man being a pope, but that doesn't absolve you of what accrues to your bishop because of your own structure. You can't have it both ways.

---

I think this has a bit of modern bias. I'm not sure why the pope should be expected have all the details of what's going on 1000 miles away when he is relying on information on the wrong doing to be sent to him from the bishops doing the wrongdoing. There is very little evidence that he was aware of how Tetzel and Co were going about their business until Luther went public about it. Once he went public, the pope stepped in. As it should be. I truly believe that Luther could have been a saint for what he did until his pride got in the way.

As for the rest of that second paragraph, I really don't know what you're trying to get at. The best I can make sense of it is that apparently the pope is in charge of being aware of all error, everywhere, all the time and correcting it instantly. It doesn't work that way. He's a human with limited abilities as we all are.

---

You're absolutely right: that's one of the English reformer's criticisms of the pope being the head of Christ's church on earth. He's not Christ and can't hope to be, and it's evident in how things here are administered

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Are we to think of Christ's intercession for us in the same context as our prayers (intercession if you choose to use the word) for our fellow Christians? Surely, we can agree on the idea that the intercession of Christ is likely a different type of work than the prayers (or intercession) that us men are making. And our human "intercession" is a petition to Christ. It isn't a petition to Mary, Peter, Paul, or any other saint that has a treasury of merit.

Just a quick glance at the BLB leads me to see that the Greek word used in 1 Tim 1 for "petitions" is not the same as the word used for "intercede" in Romans 8:34. Maybe this is all in the noise and not relevant, but it piqued my interest nonetheless.

---

No, we should not see Christ's intercession the same as our fellow Christians. It's a totally different type of intercession, as you say. But they are both types of intercessions. I can see why you would equate the two, but it isn't necessary. Just let the word mean what it means, then describe how Christ intercedes differently than we do for our friends.

Same thing with the word "pray". Protestants hear about "praying to the saints" and assume that is the same type of prayer we give to God. "Pray" just means to ask. "Pray thee tell me...." for example.

Once we get definitions correct, then we can discuss how the same word can be used in different contexts. If I pray for you, I intercede for you. But how I intercede is no where near the same thing as how Jesus intercedes for you. And how Mary or any other saints interceding for us is different than the intercession of Christ.

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This is one of the topics I least understand how it can be embraced in any true Christian practice. Sorry.

---

There's clearly a difficult line between asking Mary to pray (as a saint who is alive, and queen mother) and treating her as if she is higher than Christ, that whatever she asks of Him will be granted and that you appeal to her with expectation. Early English reformers critiqued this practice hundreds of years ago.

If there is an external law or idea to God, to which He must submit, He's not God. However, you can fall into the ditch on many sides. With Romanism this is one form; in Protestantism it's the idea of justice in atonement, that God can't get around sacrificing Jesus because of Justice.

---

Are you claiming that the Church taught this? Or that some Christians believed this personally?

---

Lex orandi, lex credendi. Read the part before what you bolded.

If you know your Roman Catholic history, it would be unsurprising that much prevalent practice was critiqued by reformers. Your tradition is the one that gave us Hocus Pocus. Your priests denied laity the blood of Christ. You can claim priestly error all day long but who's responsible for oversight of priests if not the bishop? Who's the ultimate authority in your church, if not the pope? When does management take responsibility for the frontline workers it hires? I'm not here to fight that battle, nor was that my intent in posting, but contemporary Roman Catholics need to start squaring with the idea that things their church has since shrugged off, were used to jettison many faithful Roman Catholics. That's all I have to say on the subject.

---

Dude. I asked a question and you have this reaction? It was a simple question to understand where you were coming from.

1. Assigning the kind of power to Mary that you are talking about was a regional issue. Just like selling of indulgences was a regional issue. It was not practiced or recognized by the entire church. Ever wonder why the reformation kicked off in specific areas? It's because the abuses were in those areas, not all over. When theses issues were brought up, Rome agreed with the reformers and "took responsibility for it's front line workers" by telling them to knock it off and clarifying doctrine.

2. When English bishops split from Rome, many priests stayed loyal to Rome. The English response was to imprison and execute these priests. Is that how management is supposed to take responsibility for their workers? Maybe the Catholic Church should have just executed all the priests that weren't acting appropriately? The case of John Hus is still held against the Church today by some protestants, so something tells me if done on a wide scale, you would still disapprove. What was the Church supposed to do, in your opinion, outside of what it did: correct the issue once it was made known?

3. Hocus Pocus was a slur generated by Reformed protestants in England because they didn't believe in the real presence, and wanted to make fun of Catholics using Latin. Not sure how we "gave" you that.

Every single protestant denomination has had multiple splits and off shoots due to some doctrine or another. Based on you criteria, everyone is doing a terrible job of getting their front line workers in line.

---

I put the part before your bolding in because it is important. Cutting it out and asking a question that, in my experience, leads to plausible deniability, warranted more explanation. No offense in that respect was intended.

The point is that there is historical practice that the pope allowed to flourish and took years to correct, and not without being forced. Remember, though, the Protestants don't have a pope. You can criticize them for every man being a pope, but that doesn't absolve you of what accrues to your bishop because of your own structure. You can't have it both ways.

---

I think this has a bit of modern bias. I'm not sure why the pope should be expected have all the details of what's going on 1000 miles away when he is relying on information on the wrong doing to be sent to him from the bishops doing the wrongdoing. There is very little evidence that he was aware of how Tetzel and Co were going about their business until Luther went public about it. Once he went public, the pope stepped in. As it should be. I truly believe that Luther could have been a saint for what he did until his pride got in the way.

As for the rest of that second paragraph, I really don't know what you're trying to get at. The best I can make sense of it is that apparently the pope is in charge of being aware of all error, everywhere, all the time and correcting it instantly. It doesn't work that way. He's a human with limited abilities as we all are.

---

You're absolutely right: that's one of the English reformer's criticisms of the pope being the head of Christ's church on earth. He's not Christ and can't hope to be, and it's evident in how things here are administered

---

Then I guess it's a good thing he doesn't claim to be Christ. But one does not need to be Jesus to be the administrative head of the Church on earth. Why would that be necessary?

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I'll play along for giggles....what would be the earliest record of the early Church behaving this way? This has not been a focus of some things I have looked at with the early Church.

---

The acts of the apostles?

---

As in Scripture "Acts" or the parts that were left out?

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This is one of the topics I least understand how it can be embraced in any true Christian practice. Sorry.

---

There's clearly a difficult line between asking Mary to pray (as a saint who is alive, and queen mother) and treating her as if she is higher than Christ, that whatever she asks of Him will be granted and that you appeal to her with expectation. Early English reformers critiqued this practice hundreds of years ago.

If there is an external law or idea to God, to which He must submit, He's not God. However, you can fall into the ditch on many sides. With Romanism this is one form; in Protestantism it's the idea of justice in atonement, that God can't get around sacrificing Jesus because of Justice.

---

Are you claiming that the Church taught this? Or that some Christians believed this personally?

---

Lex orandi, lex credendi. Read the part before what you bolded.

If you know your Roman Catholic history, it would be unsurprising that much prevalent practice was critiqued by reformers. Your tradition is the one that gave us Hocus Pocus. Your priests denied laity the blood of Christ. You can claim priestly error all day long but who's responsible for oversight of priests if not the bishop? Who's the ultimate authority in your church, if not the pope? When does management take responsibility for the frontline workers it hires? I'm not here to fight that battle, nor was that my intent in posting, but contemporary Roman Catholics need to start squaring with the idea that things their church has since shrugged off, were used to jettison many faithful Roman Catholics. That's all I have to say on the subject.

---

Dude. I asked a question and you have this reaction? It was a simple question to understand where you were coming from.

1. Assigning the kind of power to Mary that you are talking about was a regional issue. Just like selling of indulgences was a regional issue. It was not practiced or recognized by the entire church. Ever wonder why the reformation kicked off in specific areas? It's because the abuses were in those areas, not all over. When theses issues were brought up, Rome agreed with the reformers and "took responsibility for it's front line workers" by telling them to knock it off and clarifying doctrine.

2. When English bishops split from Rome, many priests stayed loyal to Rome. The English response was to imprison and execute these priests. Is that how management is supposed to take responsibility for their workers? Maybe the Catholic Church should have just executed all the priests that weren't acting appropriately? The case of John Hus is still held against the Church today by some protestants, so something tells me if done on a wide scale, you would still disapprove. What was the Church supposed to do, in your opinion, outside of what it did: correct the issue once it was made known?

3. Hocus Pocus was a slur generated by Reformed protestants in England because they didn't believe in the real presence, and wanted to make fun of Catholics using Latin. Not sure how we "gave" you that.

Every single protestant denomination has had multiple splits and off shoots due to some doctrine or another. Based on you criteria, everyone is doing a terrible job of getting their front line workers in line.

---

I put the part before your bolding in because it is important. Cutting it out and asking a question that, in my experience, leads to plausible deniability, warranted more explanation. No offense in that respect was intended.

The point is that there is historical practice that the pope allowed to flourish and took years to correct, and not without being forced. Remember, though, the Protestants don't have a pope. You can criticize them for every man being a pope, but that doesn't absolve you of what accrues to your bishop because of your own structure. You can't have it both ways.

---

I think this has a bit of modern bias. I'm not sure why the pope should be expected have all the details of what's going on 1000 miles away when he is relying on information on the wrong doing to be sent to him from the bishops doing the wrongdoing. There is very little evidence that he was aware of how Tetzel and Co were going about their business until Luther went public about it. Once he went public, the pope stepped in. As it should be. I truly believe that Luther could have been a saint for what he did until his pride got in the way.

As for the rest of that second paragraph, I really don't know what you're trying to get at. The best I can make sense of it is that apparently the pope is in charge of being aware of all error, everywhere, all the time and correcting it instantly. It doesn't work that way. He's a human with limited abilities as we all are.

---

You're absolutely right: that's one of the English reformer's criticisms of the pope being the head of Christ's church on earth. He's not Christ and can't hope to be, and it's evident in how things here are administered

---

Then I guess it's a good thing he doesn't claim to be Christ. But one does not need to be Jesus to be the administrative head of the Church on earth. Why would that be necessary?

---

For the exact reason you lay out: it's too much for one man to handle and he can't be aware of scandals, heresies, controversies, and a great many other things that go on without his knowledge. That's why bishop is the highest episcopal level instituted by the church. He must be able to know his charges and parishioners.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I'll play along for giggles....what would be the earliest record of the early Church behaving this way? This has not been a focus of some things I have looked at with the early Church.

---

The acts of the apostles?

---

As in Scripture "Acts" or the parts that were left out?

---

Earliest record is what you asked for.

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This is one of the topics I least understand how it can be embraced in any true Christian practice. Sorry.

---

There's clearly a difficult line between asking Mary to pray (as a saint who is alive, and queen mother) and treating her as if she is higher than Christ, that whatever she asks of Him will be granted and that you appeal to her with expectation. Early English reformers critiqued this practice hundreds of years ago.

If there is an external law or idea to God, to which He must submit, He's not God. However, you can fall into the ditch on many sides. With Romanism this is one form; in Protestantism it's the idea of justice in atonement, that God can't get around sacrificing Jesus because of Justice.

---

Are you claiming that the Church taught this? Or that some Christians believed this personally?

---

Lex orandi, lex credendi. Read the part before what you bolded.

If you know your Roman Catholic history, it would be unsurprising that much prevalent practice was critiqued by reformers. Your tradition is the one that gave us Hocus Pocus. Your priests denied laity the blood of Christ. You can claim priestly error all day long but who's responsible for oversight of priests if not the bishop? Who's the ultimate authority in your church, if not the pope? When does management take responsibility for the frontline workers it hires? I'm not here to fight that battle, nor was that my intent in posting, but contemporary Roman Catholics need to start squaring with the idea that things their church has since shrugged off, were used to jettison many faithful Roman Catholics. That's all I have to say on the subject.

---

Dude. I asked a question and you have this reaction? It was a simple question to understand where you were coming from.

1. Assigning the kind of power to Mary that you are talking about was a regional issue. Just like selling of indulgences was a regional issue. It was not practiced or recognized by the entire church. Ever wonder why the reformation kicked off in specific areas? It's because the abuses were in those areas, not all over. When theses issues were brought up, Rome agreed with the reformers and "took responsibility for it's front line workers" by telling them to knock it off and clarifying doctrine.

2. When English bishops split from Rome, many priests stayed loyal to Rome. The English response was to imprison and execute these priests. Is that how management is supposed to take responsibility for their workers? Maybe the Catholic Church should have just executed all the priests that weren't acting appropriately? The case of John Hus is still held against the Church today by some protestants, so something tells me if done on a wide scale, you would still disapprove. What was the Church supposed to do, in your opinion, outside of what it did: correct the issue once it was made known?

3. Hocus Pocus was a slur generated by Reformed protestants in England because they didn't believe in the real presence, and wanted to make fun of Catholics using Latin. Not sure how we "gave" you that.

Every single protestant denomination has had multiple splits and off shoots due to some doctrine or another. Based on you criteria, everyone is doing a terrible job of getting their front line workers in line.

---

I put the part before your bolding in because it is important. Cutting it out and asking a question that, in my experience, leads to plausible deniability, warranted more explanation. No offense in that respect was intended.

The point is that there is historical practice that the pope allowed to flourish and took years to correct, and not without being forced. Remember, though, the Protestants don't have a pope. You can criticize them for every man being a pope, but that doesn't absolve you of what accrues to your bishop because of your own structure. You can't have it both ways.

---

I think this has a bit of modern bias. I'm not sure why the pope should be expected have all the details of what's going on 1000 miles away when he is relying on information on the wrong doing to be sent to him from the bishops doing the wrongdoing. There is very little evidence that he was aware of how Tetzel and Co were going about their business until Luther went public about it. Once he went public, the pope stepped in. As it should be. I truly believe that Luther could have been a saint for what he did until his pride got in the way.

As for the rest of that second paragraph, I really don't know what you're trying to get at. The best I can make sense of it is that apparently the pope is in charge of being aware of all error, everywhere, all the time and correcting it instantly. It doesn't work that way. He's a human with limited abilities as we all are.

---

You're absolutely right: that's one of the English reformer's criticisms of the pope being the head of Christ's church on earth. He's not Christ and can't hope to be, and it's evident in how things here are administered

---

Then I guess it's a good thing he doesn't claim to be Christ. But one does not need to be Jesus to be the administrative head of the Church on earth. Why would that be necessary?

---

For the exact reason you lay out: it's too much for one man to handle and he can't be aware of scandals, heresies, controversies, and a great many other things that go on without his knowledge. That's why bishop is the highest episcopal level instituted by the church. He must be able to know his charges and parishioners.

---

Is this another one of those papal maximalist arguments? No one ever claimed the pope needs to know all things at all times in order to be in charge. We have thousands and thousands of bishops that handle business in their area. The pope is only needed when the bishops in their area aren't handling business and unity is being harmed. This idea that because the pope is the head bishop that all other bishops have no real, local authority is a caricature of the Catholic Church.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Because Paul recommends intercessory prayer in 1 Timothy 2:1. The entire bible is made up of people interceding for others in prayer (Abraham, Moses, Joshua, etc.). And James tells us that the prayer of a righteous person is very powerful (James 5), and who is more righteous than a Christian in heaven?

---

Not in his current state.

Is. 63:16 For you are our Father,
though Abraham does not know us,
and Israel does not acknowledge us;
you, O Lord, are our Father,
our Redeemer from of old is your name.

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This is one of the topics I least understand how it can be embraced in any true Christian practice. Sorry.

---

There's clearly a difficult line between asking Mary to pray (as a saint who is alive, and queen mother) and treating her as if she is higher than Christ, that whatever she asks of Him will be granted and that you appeal to her with expectation. Early English reformers critiqued this practice hundreds of years ago.

If there is an external law or idea to God, to which He must submit, He's not God. However, you can fall into the ditch on many sides. With Romanism this is one form; in Protestantism it's the idea of justice in atonement, that God can't get around sacrificing Jesus because of Justice.

---

Are you claiming that the Church taught this? Or that some Christians believed this personally?

---

Lex orandi, lex credendi. Read the part before what you bolded.

If you know your Roman Catholic history, it would be unsurprising that much prevalent practice was critiqued by reformers. Your tradition is the one that gave us Hocus Pocus. Your priests denied laity the blood of Christ. You can claim priestly error all day long but who's responsible for oversight of priests if not the bishop? Who's the ultimate authority in your church, if not the pope? When does management take responsibility for the frontline workers it hires? I'm not here to fight that battle, nor was that my intent in posting, but contemporary Roman Catholics need to start squaring with the idea that things their church has since shrugged off, were used to jettison many faithful Roman Catholics. That's all I have to say on the subject.

---

Dude. I asked a question and you have this reaction? It was a simple question to understand where you were coming from.

1. Assigning the kind of power to Mary that you are talking about was a regional issue. Just like selling of indulgences was a regional issue. It was not practiced or recognized by the entire church. Ever wonder why the reformation kicked off in specific areas? It's because the abuses were in those areas, not all over. When theses issues were brought up, Rome agreed with the reformers and "took responsibility for it's front line workers" by telling them to knock it off and clarifying doctrine.

2. When English bishops split from Rome, many priests stayed loyal to Rome. The English response was to imprison and execute these priests. Is that how management is supposed to take responsibility for their workers? Maybe the Catholic Church should have just executed all the priests that weren't acting appropriately? The case of John Hus is still held against the Church today by some protestants, so something tells me if done on a wide scale, you would still disapprove. What was the Church supposed to do, in your opinion, outside of what it did: correct the issue once it was made known?

3. Hocus Pocus was a slur generated by Reformed protestants in England because they didn't believe in the real presence, and wanted to make fun of Catholics using Latin. Not sure how we "gave" you that.

Every single protestant denomination has had multiple splits and off shoots due to some doctrine or another. Based on you criteria, everyone is doing a terrible job of getting their front line workers in line.

---

I put the part before your bolding in because it is important. Cutting it out and asking a question that, in my experience, leads to plausible deniability, warranted more explanation. No offense in that respect was intended.

The point is that there is historical practice that the pope allowed to flourish and took years to correct, and not without being forced. Remember, though, the Protestants don't have a pope. You can criticize them for every man being a pope, but that doesn't absolve you of what accrues to your bishop because of your own structure. You can't have it both ways.

---

I think this has a bit of modern bias. I'm not sure why the pope should be expected have all the details of what's going on 1000 miles away when he is relying on information on the wrong doing to be sent to him from the bishops doing the wrongdoing. There is very little evidence that he was aware of how Tetzel and Co were going about their business until Luther went public about it. Once he went public, the pope stepped in. As it should be. I truly believe that Luther could have been a saint for what he did until his pride got in the way.

As for the rest of that second paragraph, I really don't know what you're trying to get at. The best I can make sense of it is that apparently the pope is in charge of being aware of all error, everywhere, all the time and correcting it instantly. It doesn't work that way. He's a human with limited abilities as we all are.

---

You're absolutely right: that's one of the English reformer's criticisms of the pope being the head of Christ's church on earth. He's not Christ and can't hope to be, and it's evident in how things here are administered

---

Then I guess it's a good thing he doesn't claim to be Christ. But one does not need to be Jesus to be the administrative head of the Church on earth. Why would that be necessary?

---

For the exact reason you lay out: it's too much for one man to handle and he can't be aware of scandals, heresies, controversies, and a great many other things that go on without his knowledge. That's why bishop is the highest episcopal level instituted by the church. He must be able to know his charges and parishioners.

---

Is this another one of those papal maximalist arguments? No one ever claimed the pope needs to know all things at all times in order to be in charge. We have thousands and thousands of bishops that handle business in their area. The pope is only needed when the bishops in their area aren't handling business and unity is being harmed. This idea that because the pope is the head bishop that all other bishops have no real, local authority is a caricature of the Catholic Church.

---

That doesn't square with how historic popes have viewed themselves (in their own words) and acted, though. I don't think it's intentionally motte and bailey, but it's hard to avoid with the long history of the church (note that I'm trying to be gracious here). If you have to choose between believing someone's words and actions, I know few people that would choose words. Sure, if you make the umbrella of 'unity' big enough it covers all things, but that renders unity so useless a word as to mean, 'anything the pope disagrees with.' You have a hierarchal structure: it's not something you can hand waive away as a caricature when it's inconvenient.