After reading this article from Mightychurch.com’s news items section: Vatican gives green light to sainthood I just want to ask the following four questions:
1: Does the person perform the miracle, or does God perform the miracle? Who should receive the credit?
2: (From New Testament - “saints” are simply all believers in Jesus Christ. If you truly believe in Jesus you receive eternal life)
Is there a greater reward waiting in heaven; greater than simply being accepted there?
3: Does the church of Rome say that “saints” attain different levels of priveledge in heaven, contrary to what the New Testament writers had to say on this issue? (including the teachings of Peter the apostle)
4: What priviledges do Catholics see Mary MacKillop receiving from God, as payment to her for being faithful to the Catholic Church, and for receiving their honor of being “sainted”?
The Miracle is attributed to Mary McKillop’s intercession. That is, one asks her to pray for them, she does and God answers her prayer.
That’s how the RC church sees it. Of course the problem that Catholics fail to see is that MM is ‘asleep’ in her grave awaiting the second coming - and not capable of taking any calls - and that any prayers to her are a waste of time. Scripture exhorts us to pray to either God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Spirit ( who intercedes for us - Romans 8:26-27 ). Indeed, we all know that Paul refers to the Christians in various NT churches as “saints” - and all Christians are indeed called saints.
If RC’s think that their ‘saints’ ( either canonised or on their ‘L’ plates prior to ‘canonisation’ ) perform miracles, then they are downgrading God as the author of miracles. Also, if MM is what they regard as a ‘saint’, then may I suggest that a mere ‘2’ miracles ( occurring in 1961 and 1995 ) indicates a very light ‘work schedule’ for someone who died in 1909. The opening paragraph of today’s news report read :
SYDNEY’S St Mary’s Cathedral is abuzz with enthusiasm about Mary MacKillop being approved for sainthood even though some prayers to her were never answered..........
I would dare suggest that MILLIONS of prayers to her have certainly gone unanswered - for a plainly obvious reason. The RC church has many non biblical beliefs and practices. The practice of praying to ‘saints’ and to the dead is not part of Scripture - but appeals to the many who have a superstitious approach to their spirituality - and cling to non-Biblical beliefs and practices that have more to do with cultural mumbo-jumbo and nothing to do with God’s word rightly understood. Praying to ‘dead saints’ all fits in neatly with a misinformed system of belief that relies on ‘works’ that mankind does in order to earn their salvation - rather than accept that God has done it ALL - through the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I can’t disagree too much with you Kevin, although I didn’t want to bash the RC’s - I want them to just think about their reasons for doing things, and their theological stance on proclaiming people Saints.
Owen said:
The Miracle is attributed to Mary McKillop’s intercession. That is, one asks her to pray for them, she does and God answers her prayer.
But isn’t that the usual process with every prayer a “saint” makes. Surely the prayers of many are answered. We don’t deserve a catholic form of knighthood when God answers a prayer, surely.
Or, do Catholics say that prayers only count when a devout Catholic person has one apparantly answered. (Just a thought)
I also wonder how people can assess the medical state of someone about one hundred years ago. Diagnosis in those days was mostly guesswork, and cancer would be the guess of the doctor of the day. Although I have heard that six independent doctors were consulted in the process of assessing whether a miracle occurred.
Quoth Ken
“Or, do Catholics say that prayers only count when a devout Catholic person has one apparantly answered. “
Ken, I just bet you and yours all ask someone who is a solid praying person, someone who is right with God to pray for you when you need it. The Catholics see this as the same thing.
Quoth Kevin
OK.
1) If you used that ungracious approach to talking to Catholics then don’t be shocked to find out they only get offended. You achieve nothing except a kind of righteous grandstanding.
2) The canonised saints don’t perform miracles (although I suspect the simple folks might think they do), they pray for them on our behalf (see my comment to Ken)
3) The issue of whether the dead are asleep or cognizant is hardly resolved. It is one of many reasons for division between communions. I know you think your mob is right, but so does everyone else.
4)
I would dare suggest that MILLIONS of prayers to her have certainly gone unanswered
I’m amazed anyone would use that arguement. The same is levelled by atheists at God. The answer is the same; sometimes the answer is “no”. BTW, ultimately that question is the same one too- that is- it is God who answers the prayers of Mary McKillup and any other saint. So it He who says Yea or Nay to the prayer. It is her intercession which is at question.
5)
Praying to ‘dead saints’ all fits in neatly with a misinformed system of belief that relies on ‘works’ that mankind does in order to earn their salvation
How so? If you don’t understand their beliefs then I guess this might be true. Certainly it became so when the doctrine of Indulgences was formed (and is disreputably still on the books) but it is not inherent in any way that I can see. The dead in Christ, if they can perceive our lot will certainly pray for us, if so, why not ask them particularly?
I think the paraphrasing in John Michael Talbot’s “The Lords Supper” the “Confiteor” sums it up nicely. In that song he addresses the glorious dead with “...and I ask you, my brothers and my sisters to pray for me, pray for me, will you pray for me unto the Lord our God?”
To ask the great Christians in the past to pray for us is to get them back into the race again. But they have already run their race. They are resting from their labor. Why get them to work again?
Besides, Jesus told us clearly who can pray with us. He said in Matthew 18:19, “Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.” Notice the important clause “on earth.” The people who pray together must be “on earth.” This definitely rules out those who have left this earth.
When Jesus taught the disciples to pray, He never encourages the disciples to ask Abraham or Moses or Noah to pray for them. Asking the deceased to pray for us is unheard of in the Bible, and contradicts the teaching of the Bible.
What is your response to this argument?
(By the way, are you of the High Church doctrine of Anglican? I can’t remember if you are medium rare or well done in doctrinal terms, heh,heh)
Ken
High church/ Anglo-Catholic form of Anglicanism is what I grew up with. My heart still revels in the ritual etc but I worship in a small community church with Charismatic and Emerging Church leanings.
Re your question. If the Glorious dead can perceive our lot then prayer would be their joy not a chore. For those of us of this persuasion then the whole church is engaged in prayer, not as a chore but a joy and the communion goes waaaaay back. I am fairly persuaded by this and find it a happier picture than the stop start, have an interval then back on again kind of Dispensationalist sort of model.
I guess the rest of my response will have to wait- gotta choof off to work and try and fight an insanely useless computer system.
BTW, since I am now working for a catholic organisation perhaps I should more vehemently make this case?
Owen,
I believe in the words of the New Testament because these words relate the Christianity of the early church. It was written by people who were disciples or followers, and records in writing what people believed. This is the way Jesus wants us to follow him.
I dont think it wise, or correct, to then follow new ideas which conflict or contradict Jesus’ teachings or the thoughts of Apostles. (These ways go waay further back than the traditions of the church of Rome)
This from Wiki
Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings are claimed to have been accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the third century.
In the 4th century, in his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the 27-book NT canon, and he used the word “canonized” (kanonizomena) in regards to them. The North African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the 27-book NT canon together with the OT Septuagint books, a decision that was confirmed by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.
These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.
Owen, the dead are dead, unable to answer prayers even if they wanted to. They are at rest!! But Jesus is alive and so is God; so we should pray to them only. Anything else is simply idolatry.
If you want to place your own interpretation on christianity, and not trust the Word of God, that is your choice. The New Testament speaks very clearly on who we should pray to (God) and that we should pray in the name of Jesus, because without him, God would not listen to us.
Why water down that powerful gift of grace by introducing mere dead mortals into the picture?
Unfortunately, the spread of the gospel has been hindered by Rome for centurys, as it tried for years to ban the reading of scripture by the populace. They have been dragged kicking and screaming to allow it nowdays, but they still don’t teach its message clearly, but insist it be viewed through the grid of catholic theology and tradition.
Have a happy Christmas all, peace and love abounding.
Ken
That response is a huge discussion
One that has trod similar boards at Syd Ang before
We have differing opinions as to how this should play out
Ultimately though it comes down to this. As a typical Syd Ang person I suspect you place a huge emphasis on theology
I place a lower emphasis on it
so we have different priorities at the outset
The we will have a huge discussion around the emphasis that the early church plays in understanding scripture.
I will note (as you just did) that the early church defined the canon, therefore I will argue it has bearing on its interpretation
You will argue more strongly that scripture shouold speak for itself
I will argue that not all dogma should derive directly fdrom scripture
you will argue the opposite
There is unlikely to be a point of agreement as we have seen each others arguements and not been persuaded
how should this continue do you think?
Owen, do you consider both of us could be correct? That both sides could be right? Not possible!
It is a shallow argument. The bible is very easy to understand, and it is made difficult only by the introduction of arguments about tradition.
Obviously both arguments can’t be right, so we should let scripture interpret scripture, which it already does. Either both arguments are wrong or one argument is correct. If you don’
t accept scripture and theology (which is the understanding of God’s message) then we definitely are never going to meet in the middle.
I am willing to believe the message that scripture truthfully speaks, and I dismiss beliefs which contradict it. How can one disagree with scripture and say they are Christian? I cant see that proposition is logically valid.
Catholic arguments will never convince me.
No argument can change convinced people’s minds when they are made up, so maybe we should let someone else say something?
[ Edited: 22 December 2009 05:47 PM by Ken Austin]
The world held its breath for Pope Benedict XVI to declare Mary MacKillop to be in line for sainthood over last weekend. The technical term in the Roman Catholic Church is canonisation, the culmination of a three-step process. The first step is to determine whether the person’s life possesses “heroic virtue”. Once so determined, the title Venerable is applied (as is now the case for the late Pope John Paul II). In Mary MacKillop’s case she became Venerable in 1992. Then follows the search for attestation of a miracle. Once confirmed the subject is beatified and the Venerable becomes Blessed. Again this happened for Mary MacKillop in 1995. The final step to sainthood is the attestation of a second miracle. This was the Pope’s recent announcement, which enables Mary MacKillop to be canonised and receive the title of Saint.
Now no one wishes to belittle Mary MacKillop’s achievement in Australia—the founding of a religious order and her work among the poor with the establishment of an orphanage, a women’s refuge and a home for older women. Those achievements can be celebrated at home and abroad and no-one should complain. It is not the woman but the theology behind this move with which Anglicans would disagree. Firstly, to award such a person with sainthood for these achievements and two alleged miracles is to misunderstand what the Bible describes as the qualifications of a saint.
Put simply, anyone whose sins have been forgiven by God, through faith in Jesus Christ, is a saint. Through God’s Holy Spirit, faith in Jesus makes us whole, indeed “holy”. It is not the achievements of a person’s life, but rather the gift of God through Christ, that makes us saints. Anyone looking at the letters of the Saint Paul can see how he writes to ordinary Christians as “saints”. It is not some rarefied title, but the humbling appellation that reminds us we belong to God and in his sight we are “holy”.
The second problem with the Roman Catholic Church’s process of canonisation is that it obscures the importance of God’s description of his people and replaces it with a human analysis of miracle working. Who can prove that the reported miracles were actually the work of Mary MacKillop? Did the persons healed pray to only Mary or did they not also pray to God? Even if they prayed to Mary MacKillop, what evidence is there that it was Mary MacKillop’s intercession that healed them? Furthermore, what evidence is there in the Bible that the departed saints (I use the term advisedly) pray for us?
The New Testament describes all Christians as saints. Thus the authors of the various books of the New Testament are described by the church as St Matthew, St Mark, St Luke, etc. Yet there is no evidence in the early church history that any of these Christians were scrutinised for two miracles, before we rightly referred to them as saints.
We do greater honour to the work of Christ if we regularly refer to all Christians as saints and not be scared that such an appellation is the result of human pride. On the contrary, it is a title that God has bestowed upon us through our union with Christ, and we should therefore own it with pride.
Kevin
The article was predictable, well written and, added nothing to the discussion that I can see.
Ken
I don’t consider both of us to be right. Personally I consider you to be wrong but I hardly think it matters a lot. Undoubtedly you do cos attacking the RC Communion is something you do regularly.
Incidentally, I also consider myself to be wrong. I just think I am less wrong than you. Don’t get too worried by that, if you think about that statement rationally you will note that this is true in most arguments. It is only the extent to which a person believes they could be wrong that varies.
I don’t believe there is any denomination with a true theology. If an accurate theology could be obtained then the Bible should be a clearer document than it is. Since it is not I am quite convinced that God meant this to be so and that the message is “don’t get too caught up in theology people, that is another idolatrous trap.”
Owen, I didn’t want this thread to get bogged down with a general discussion about the merits of Catholicism generally. If you want to, start up a new thread on a general topic.
My first post spoke about the Catholic process of making MM a “Saint”, and Catholics not seeming to be aware that all Christians are “saints”.
All people were sinful and only God’s grace brings about forgiveness through our committed faith in Jesus. Or, that is what the New Testament teaches clearly. Our sainthood is said to be a result of faith in Jesus, not in what we do. (Faith not works is the prescribed method.)
The NT also says that no single person, on that premise, is worthy of a higher status than other believers. We don’t end up with a mansion with harbour view up there because a Pope liked what we did.
The Sydneyanglicans post by Kevin,above, hits the nail directly on the head, and answers my original four questions.
I think it represents the true Christian position clearly, and points one of the many errors that the Catholic Church has made as part of its tradition of errors.
I hope further discussion centres on the Mary MacKillop sainthood subject, and does not wander off, with irrelevant general topics creeping in.
[ Edited: 23 December 2009 02:01 PM by Ken Austin]
Ken
I remember attending the ordination of a family friend as a Catholic priest. The Bishop spoke on exactly that subject. ie; all Christians are saints and all are also priests. He also spoke about those who were recipients of grace in such a way that they were set aside to capital “S” saints… also spoke to how some set aside their lives in such a way that they become priests (sort of capital “P” priests I guess)
I find the term “true Christian” vaguely irritating as it assumes much and claims a lot more than I believe is its due.
Ken
I don’t consider both of us to be right. Personally I consider you to be wrong but I hardly think it matters a lot. Undoubtedly you do cos attacking the RC Communion is something you do regularly.
Owen, I dont attack the RC Communion, I just disagree with the teachings of Rome. So does the Bible in so many ways too. I go along with scripture, that’s all. I have RC friends, I have nothing against them personally.
I remember attending the ordination of a family friend as a Catholic priest. The Bishop spoke on exactly that subject. ie; all Christians are saints and all are also priests. He also spoke about those who were recipients of grace in such a way that they were set aside to capital “S” saints… also spoke to how some set aside their lives in such a way that they become priests (sort of capital “P” priests I guess)
That is the interpretation that Rome puts on it. All priests just parrot RC policy really. If they don’t, they are out of a job.
It’s not what scripture says, so I disagree.
Ken
That response was less than becoming. Essentially it says something like:
Even when they say something palatable it’s just propoganda
That’s a claim to their essential dishonesty.
If I was to reverse that claim and say
“When you say you believe the Word of God, you are just parroting nonsense generated at Syd Ang HQ to lull the rest of us into accepting their authority” it becomes less OK huh?
All I am saying is that I believe in the words of scripture. I would be happy to parrot those words. Syd Ang HQ may also believe in scripture. I am glad they do.
I do not believe rubbish coming out of the Vatican about Saints etc. Scripture speaks plainly on this topic and it is not in agreement.
You are welcome to Vatican teaching, in shovel fulls, if you want. Bye.
Vatican praises The Simpsons during its 20th anniversary
From: AP December 24, 2009
TO put it as the devout Ned Flanders would, the Vatican’s newspaper thinks The Simpsons are an okely dokely bunch.
L’Osservatore Romano congratulated the show on its 20th anniversary, praising its philosophical leanings as well as its stinging and often irreverent take on religion.
Without Homer Simpson and the other yellow-skinned characters “many today wouldn’t know how to laugh,” said the article titled Aristotle’s Virtues and Homer’s Doughnut.
The paper credited The Simpsons - the longest-running American animated program - with opening up cartoons to an adult audience.
The show is based on “realistic and intelligent writing,” it said, though it added there was some reason to criticise its “excessively crude language, the violence of certain episodes or some extreme choices by the scriptwriters”.
Religion, from the snore-evoking sermons of the Rev. Lovejoy to Homer’s face-to-face talks with God, appears so frequently on the show that it could be possible to come up with a “Simpsonian theology”, it said.
Homer’s religious confusion and ignorance are “a mirror of the indifference and the need that modern man feels toward faith”, the paper said.
It commented on several religion-themed episodes, including one in which Homer calls for divine intervention by crying: “I’m not normally a religious man, but if you’re up there, save me, Superman!”
“Homer finds in God his last refuge, even though he sometimes gets His name sensationally wrong,” L’Osservatore said.
“But these are just minor mistakes, after all, the two know each other well.”
The Vatican praising Homer Simpson ? Now that’s what I call a miracle ;
Centuries of murder and torture under the leadership of many Popes. Only eradicated by Napoleon in Spain, only to continue in Italy until independence in the 19th century.
Now that’s a church I want to be a part of!!
[ Edited: 26 December 2009 11:32 AM by Ken Austin]
Yes Kevin, that youtube sketch by Monty Python is funny!!
But, the Catholic Inquisition was not so funny. If you think that the Nazis were bad by what they did to Jews during the few years of the haulocaust then watch this link from youtube.
I think it is essential watching for every Catholic in the world. Not to mention people from other denominations.
It is a really good documentary story that every person should know about a very true part of history. It was like the haulocaust of the Nazis, but it lasted over 600 years. 600 years of murder and torture by the Catholic Church,persecuting anyone who didnt follow the ways of Mother church.
It starts of a bit corny with a song introduction, but keep watching. You will learn much about world history.
[ Edited: 26 December 2009 12:08 PM by Ken Austin]
I agree KEN - the RC Inquisition was an unbelievably cruel period of history. That it went on for 600 years boggles my mind. Thanks be for the age of enlightenment - and the enlightenment that comes from truly knowing God - and rightly understanding the Bible - and the concept of God’s love. I intend to read more in-depth church history in 2010.
Cheers, Kevin
PS Which titles are best for looking at the period of the Inquisition ?
[ Edited: 27 December 2009 03:53 PM by Kevin Goddard]
Yup
It was a time of nastiness at the extreme end.
Protestants (esp in England) took to heresy and witch trials as a sort of response- and an efficient way of rooting out those nasty papists.
All up, at that time in Europe, a great place to be was elsewhere.
It is true that the English reacted to attacks by Catholic countries, who didn’t like them breaking away from ‘Mother Church’. England regarded it necessary to root out people who were a security risk. And it was a time of medieval ways, and it is true the things you say. Many bad things were done by ‘protestants’, but not to the scale of the 600 year inquisition. Catholicism was the agressor in chief.
England was not carrying out these practices up until the 1850,s as Catholic Spain and Italy did. Inquisitors under Papal blessing carried on till this time.
Catholics look to Popes for leadership, claiming that they are God’s Vicar, or representative on Earth. 600 years of blessing the Inquisition? Catholics see the Pope as the leader on theology, even to being able to overrule scripture. The Catholic situation is not paralled in the Reformed Church. Catholics are following a defect leadership from an historical perspective.
Scripture does not recommend an Inquisition. Men are sinful, but scripture is not.
Christians look to Scripture to leadership on how to live, how to evangalise etc. Christians do not force people to convert or obey their Church. If they do, regardless of Denomination, they are not following Christ.
Catholics do not truly look to Holy Scripture for truth about God, in fact most of them don’t know what most of the Bible says to believers.
[null]London 2012 Olympics: 'Snow bird' Skelton finds fabulous form in FloridaTelegraph.co.uk (blog)[{}]... owns most of the top rides of 2004 Olympic champion Rodrigo Pessoa); Tom Tisbo, CEO of Suncast, one of America's largest producer of domestic durables; and Kimberley Boyer, grand-daughter of the billionaire evangelical financier Robert Van Kampen.
[null]Mitt's Muffled SoulNew York Times[{}]Christ or Christianity came up repeatedly. Four years later, he still avoids the word, trumpeting his faithfulness without specifying the faith. What's surprising is that no one around him — not reporters, not rivals — talks about it all that much, ...
RSS Feed