News-Record.com

Heh. He'll make as good a saint as any of the rest of that "holy" crowd, I expect.

"Also Monday, church officials from France delivered to the Vatican a dossier detailing the purported miraculous cure of a nun who prayed to John Paul".........
is it just me or is there something dreadfully wrong with that statement ? a nun prayed "to" john paul....hmmm.....i actually thought that particular function was reserved towards God ?! but this isn't the first time i've hear of this in the rcc.....but then again the rcc believes that a man (priest) can absolve sin....so i guess i shouldn't be too shocked ! personally i pray to God and believe only He can absolve my sin....but that's just me...........

I asked a Catholic friend about this subject some time back when the push was on to saint Mother Teresa. He said that he didn't know the answer, so he queried his priest, who educated him on the Catholic theology of prayer and saintly miracles.

Apparently, "praying to" a saint is seen by Catholics as a misnomer. As is the idea of saints "performing miracles."

It always helps to have friends of varying religious traditions so that you can get these details. I heartily recommend ASKING rather than JUDGING.

A lot of these issues, of course, were debated during the Reformation period. The priest is said to be acting as the channel of grace when he pronounces absolution, not actually “forgiving” people himself. Even some of the Reformers recognized the office of presbyter as being able to assure parishioners of God’s forgiveness in a special way as ordained authorities in Christ’s Body, just not in the Roman way.

Auricular Confession (private confession to a priest) has its proverbial pitfalls: perfunctory or superficial repentance; works-oriented penances, very intimate knowledge of parishioners lives, dependency of parishioners on priestly absolution rather than personal accessing of “the throne of grace.” The Reformers generally maintained the “Keys” principle on which auricular absolution is based, but saw it either as the exercise of church discipline, pastoral counseling or public declaration of God’s forgiving grace at the General Confession in congregational worship. There had been too much doctrinal confusion and scandal regarding the private confessional.

And the Scriptures nowhere advocate the singling out of persons, no matter how righteous and notable their lives had been to called “saints” in the RCC sense. In fact, ALL Christians are referred to throughout the NT as saints: i.e. all who had been redeemed, baptized and filled with the Spirit. Our sanctification, or sainthood, is conferred upon us by grace through faith, by virtue of Christ’s all-sufficient atonement. In Acts 26, the ascended Jesus speaks from heaven to Paul on the road to Damascus, saying: “And I (Paul) said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest . . . that they (all Christians) may receive forgiveness of sins . . . which are SANCTIFIED BY FAITH that is in me.”

All the special sainthood status of the RCC does is further enhance its excessive hierarchicalism. Between Papal excesses, the celibate and insular priesthood, and special exalted saints, the average little parishioner can feel rather substandard and “ordinary.” This is NOT the picture presented in the Bible. The laity ARE “the saints;” they are the Body; they ARE ALL “seated together with Christ in heavenly places.” Some may be especially commended and noted, but the sainting of a few is most definitely not established as an institution or exalted category. Paul speaks of some as being “examples,” but that’s as far as it goes!

And there is absolutely no mention or even a hint in the Bible that Christians should pray to anyone or anything but God the Father, in Jesus name, in the power of the Holy Spirit. The RCC may claim that the people are not supposed to pray TO saints, but the fact is that they most certainly do, and use that language continually. Certainly, at the rather paganized levels of Romanism in less developed countries it is a common phenomenon. And of course, Mary is everywhere prayed TO. Not only does this smack of pre-Christian polytheistic practice, but it goes against the clear teachings of the Scriptures, and gives rise to all manner of superstition and error.

The Roman Church has many good qualities about it, and is orthodox in its Creeds, but has still to come to terms with the truths restored by the Reformation, even with all its shortcomings and limitations. Vatican II may have taken steps to bring the RCC back to its roots in Scripture, early practice, and the Apostles doctrine, but also retained many things that can still blur and hide the Gospel of grace, and the infallible Word.

I am certainly not trying to unduly single out the RCC or its people; certainly Protestantism today, with all its heterodoxy and liberalism, is just as liable to critique as the RCC. I disagree with some of its postions and practices, but do not claim that it is not Christian. The Church, generally, is in great need of major restoration and reformation. Reformata et reformanda (not sure of the Latin)

"I asked a Catholic friend about this subject"..... would you expect an unbiased answer ? i was advised to ASK rather than JUDGE - my first source is always the word of God (bible). i spent many years pondering and reading and praying about catholic dogma, theology, tradition etc. - why? - b/c my wife's whole side of the family are catholic - not that any of them actually attend church services or read the scriptures or raise their children as Christian but nonetheless they call themselves catholic and even among them there is no agreement as to what they are "allowed" to do by the rcc. it's pretty much, do whatever you want b/c they're borne catholic and that's all that is required.
nikos, "The priest is said to be acting as the channel of grace when he pronounces absolution, not actually “forgiving” people himself.".......
this seems like dangerous territory to me.....as for me i need no "channel" other than the risen Christ, who after all said He would intercede for me (My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:) and i don't find Him abdicating His authority to any man.
anyone who believes that Christains are not to judge, have not studied scripture, it is my responsibility to judge those within the faith and God will judge those without.
"And of course, Mary is everywhere prayed TO. Not only does this smack of pre-Christian polytheistic practice, but it goes against the clear teachings of the Scriptures, and gives rise to all manner of superstition and error."......... it seems this is just a misnomer according to some !?
if anyone is interested in what the catholics teach and believe, there is a little light reading on this subject - it is called the catechism, there are roughly 2865 tenets to observe.....

I have no idea what "praying to" either a deceased person or a disembodied god-figure cold possibly be an act of: words said as appeasement, or praise...as a duty...or? hopes, perhaps, proffered?
wishes asked for fulfillment?

I am an ex-Catholic, and I never thought I was praying "to" a saint or Mary. I only vaguely now remember even sensing I was "praying TO" someone (?) or something(?) I thought was a god-figure. Even recently as facing the actual possible (but then sometimes luckily not actual) death of loved ones, including child and wife, I coulod not find any reasonable way to utter words or think thoughts "directed TO" some supernatural or once-living person. It all just escapes me, aside from the very human need for emotional succor.

"The priest is said to be acting as the channel of grace when he pronounces absolution, not actually “forgiving” people himself.".......
“this seems like dangerous territory to me.....” In John 20 Jesus says:

21: Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22: And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23: Whose soever sins ye remit, THEY ARE REMITTED unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

This, of course, is an apostolic endowment. After having been chosen by God, having sat under Jesus instruction and discipleship for several years and now having received the Holy Spirit, they were given the promised status of: “as the Father sent me so send I you.” It seems, in this wording, that they were endowed with the authority regarding absolution of sins. The idea in the Catholic Church is that this same authority was passed on to the bishops of the Church, who then endowed the priesthood with the same. Consequently, they are able to pronounce the absolution of sins, based on the Atonement, by the authority invested in the Church, through her bishops. This is what I meant when I said that priests are seen as “channels of grace,” and not as the source themselves of that grace.

However, I agree with you that it is “dangerous territory.” Although I see the “logic” of the Catholic argument above, it seems to conflict with scriptures that provide direct access to the Father, and the forgiveness of sins in this manner – I John 1:9 for one. The Reformers also renewed the vitality of the concept of the priesthood of all believers (Peter’s “a royal priesthood” et al.) They also retained (rightly I believe) the authority of the Church and her ordained presbyters (elders) to maintain church discipline: general admonition and sanctions for major offenses not repented of, excommunication in extreme cases, etc. This they saw as the legitimate use of the Keys of the Kingdom, which were given to all the apostles (the Church), which were the prototypes of all Church bishops and elders – not just of Peter as the first pope; “this rock” seen as Peter’s confession, not the papacy.

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19: And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matt. 16:18 & 19)

Regardless how one sees this being executed in church life, it obviously, in context, was important for her general well being. I pointed out the dangers of auricular confession in my other entry, so I won’t belabor the point. Every minister I have ever known has been willing to hear his parishioner’s “confessions” and to offer pastoral counsel, including the assurance that God forgives the penitent. Although any Christian can assure another Christian of this forgiveness, there is something special about one’s ordained presbyter doing so: he represents Christ and the Church in his divinely ordained calling. The Roman manner of doing all this rests upon the idea of “automatic” absolution by the priest by virtue of his sacramental authority. While, as I pointed out, this has some merit in Scripture, it is pressed too far by their doctrine of the priesthood, and does not generally offer the interaction of pastoral counseling and assurance from Scripture. It must be noted the RCC has attempted to remove some of the abuses of the confessional and to offer more pastoral counseling in its post-Vatican II mode. And for whatever reasons, auricular confession is far less common than in previous times.

I also believe that public assurance of God’s promised forgiveness to the penitent (“absolution”) by the presbyter/minister in the public worship/liturgy of the Church (particularly in the Eucharistic setting, is a very much needed element of Church life. In this setting the full authority of the Scriptures and the Church is given to GOD’S promise of forgiveness in Christ, and gives people an opportunity to repent and confess, leaving their guilt in God’s “sea of forgetfulness.” This is sadly lacking in many churches today. In particular, Liberal churches choke on the word sin, much less seek forgiveness – unless it is for the sin of using the wrong light bulbs or “taking our environment for granted.” Anyway, just some thoughts – too many I guess. Sorry.

nikos,
your thoughts are always welcome - you are well studied, passionate and compassionate. imo anyone who has received revelation fits into this category " Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." revelation, just as wisdom is from above and it done not come by accident.
as for me, i enjoy what you have to say and most often i feel the same as you - spreading the 'Word" is kingdom work even if it is on a blog !

Superstitious mythical mumbo jumbo -

Thanks, Buz. I really appreciate your commitment to the Lord, and your willingness to uphold the Faith in a public venue. We know that our labors are not invain in the Lord, and that Christ is glorified in all loving service.

Wow Nikos...is that what the United Episcopal Church teaches. What is it...denomination number 21 now?

As predictable, another round of ad hominem diatribe! When it comes to real moral and spiritual debate, beyond the age of the earth and evolutionary theories, athesits, humanists and liberal religionists seldom enter into substantive dialogue; they tend to get all emotional and argumentative. Personal attack is a sure sign of ethical shallowness and NO real answers. My purpose on this site is not to REPRESNENT any church or denomination, but to express my personal views. Normally folks tend to be courteous and respectfully air their particular opnions in the realm of ideas and not personal attack. So much for civility.