A popular justification for praying to Mary is that it's no different than soliciting prayer from living Christians. However, that justification backfires. If it's no different, then what's so special about praying to Mary? What's the advantage of praying to Mary rather than your saintly deceased grandmother? Indeed, it would make more sense to pray to your grandmother since she knows who you are, whereas there's no reason to think Mary is in any position to know you from Adam's off-ox.
Of course, at that point the Catholic will pivot and stress what makes prayer to Mary so different and so much better. She's the Mother of God, Mother of the Church, Queen of Heaven, Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix. So it turns out that prayer to Mary is nothing like asking a garden-variety Christian friend to pray for you. And the difference is predicated on Marian dogmas. But in that event the original comparison becomes unrecognizable after all the necessary qualifications are added.
You seem to be equivocating regarding what those who ask for Mary's prayers mean when they say it's "no different than soliciting prayer from living Christians." You know that they mean that the PRINCIPLE is the same, but the RESULTS (in theory) are different. They take James 5:16 seriously, and thus ask for the prayers of an extremely righteous person. Can you not see how this is a coherent account of prayer?
ReplyDeleteHow can a righteous person who doesn't know you help you?
Deletei) I'm not the one who's equivocating. Catholic apologists are.
Deleteii) Jas 5:16 has no reference to prayers to the dead.
iii) As far as Jas 5:16 goes, why assume the saints in heaven vary in degrees of holiness–with Mary at the top of the pecking order?
Hawk,
DeleteWhy can't they? Do you think people in heaven can see anything on Earth? Scripture seems to say they do. Do you not pray for people around the globe that you do not know? And what does it mean to “know” in heaven...to know something IN GOD? I'd think to “know” something in God is not even in the same category as earthly “knowing.”
--
Steve,
ii) That’s simple. The church doesn’t believe they’re dead.
iii) Why do you draw such a distinct line between Heaven and Earth? Do we all just become the exact same after death? Like robots, unconcerned about our loved ones on Earth? Are we zapped into a “filled up” holiness that was set by God? Admittedly, much of what we know about Mary comes from Tradition, but most Christians on the planet don't have a problem with that. And no one did at all until the Reformation.
"Why can't they? Do you think people in heaven can see anything on Earth? Scripture seems to say they do."
DeleteMany Marian prayers aren't equivalent to people in heaven merely "seeing" things on Earth. Many Marian prayers treat Mary like she's a goddess. Like she can read people's minds and hearts. Like she has extrasensory perception. Like she can foresee future events. Like she can forgive their sins. And so on.
"Do you not pray for people around the globe that you do not know?"
Sure, I pray for people I don't know, but at most I can only do so in a general way. Also, at most, I only know about them indirectly such as through what I hear about them from others I know. Secondhand at best. By contrast, Marian prayers treat Mary like she knows them each directly and personally.
"And what does it mean to “know” in heaven...to know something IN GOD? I'd think to “know” something in God is not even in the same category as earthly “knowing.”
Are you suggesting Christians in heaven somehow access or share in divine omniscience?
"ii) That’s simple. The church doesn’t believe they’re dead."
For that matter, Jas 5:16 has no reference to Christians praying to other living Christians either. It has reference to a "righteous" person praying to God on behalf of others.
"iii) Why do you draw such a distinct line between Heaven and Earth? Do we all just become the exact same after death? Like robots, unconcerned about our loved ones on Earth? Are we zapped into a “filled up” holiness that was set by God?"
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, though I could guess. It'd be clearer if you simply spelled out your argument.
"Admittedly, much of what we know about Mary comes from Tradition, but most Christians on the planet don't have a problem with that. And no one did at all until the Reformation."
That's a faux Catholic trope. For one thing, the Reformers didn't have a problem with tradition per se, but with tradition that conflicted with biblical teaching. Such as what Catholics teach about Mary as the Mother of God, Mother of the Church, Queen of Heaven, Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix.
Truth isn't decided by majority vote. Suppose it's true "most Christians on the planet don't have a problem with that". That has no bearing on whether or not Mary is the Mother of God, Mother of the Church, Queen of Heaven, Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix. For example, in Athanasius' day, the majority of Christians on the planet had become Arians, but that doesn't mean Arianism is true. In Elijah's day, the majority of Israel had bent the knee to Baal, but that doesn't mean Baal is true.
Mike:
Delete"That’s simple. The church doesn’t believe they’re dead."
Really?
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/credo.htm
Mike:
Delete"Like robots, unconcerned about our loved ones on Earth?"
We weren't Mary's loved ones on earth. Thanks for proving my point.
So the logic of your statement would we that we should pray to dead Christian relatives.
"Are we zapped into a 'filled up' holiness that was set by God?"
Do you think there are unholy people in heaven? Do you think the saints are unholy?
Why, after hundreds or thousands of years in heaven, would there be any difference in the holiness of one saint compared to another? How long does it take the holiness container to be filled up? And why think the holiness container is larger for some saints than others? What, exactly, do you think holiness is?
"Admittedly, much of what we know about Mary comes from Tradition…"
How do you know what you call Marian "tradition" isn't a euphemism for legendary embellishment?
"…but most Christians on the planet don't have a problem with that. And no one did at all until the Reformation."
i) Until fairly recently in church history, if you challenged the theological status quo you were burned at the stake. So most Christians had precious little incentive to question the theological status quo. And before the age of literacy, they were pretty dependent on what they were taught by Catholic or Orthodox religious leaders. A sizable chunk of the human population is Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim. Many people never question their religious indoctrination. Or if they have private doubts they keep it to themselves. So how does appealing to statistics prove anything?
ii) For that matter, Catholics in the past used to believe things that modern-day Catholics don't believe, or vice versa. Take funerals/burial for suicides or the fate of unbaptized babies. So a lot depends on the period of church history.
Hawk,
Delete"Many Marian prayers aren't equivalent to people in heaven merely "seeing" things on Earth. Many Marian prayers treat Mary like she's a goddess. Like she can read people's minds and hearts. Like she has extrasensory perception. Like she can foresee future events. Like she can forgive their sins. And so on."
We're not debating the content of the prayers...we're debating the principle behind praying to the saints at all. There's no one who thinks she can forgive sins and you know that.
"Sure, I pray for people I don't know, but at most I can only do so in a general way. Also, at most, I only know about them indirectly such as through what I hear about them from others I know. Secondhand at best. By contrast, Marian prayers treat Mary like she knows them each directly and personally."
So you concede that it is valid to pray for people you don't "know?"
"Are you suggesting Christians in heaven somehow access or share in divine omniscience?"
I'm suggesting that death is mysterious, that to be in the presence of God is utterly unlike anything we can compare it to, and that we CAN participate in the divine nature, like Peter tells us. All a gift of God.
"For that matter, Jas 5:16 has no reference to Christians praying to other living Christians either. It has reference to a "righteous" person praying to God on behalf of others."
What else do you think they're asking the saints to do? They ask them to pray to God on their behalf.
"I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, though I could guess. It'd be clearer if you simply spelled out your argument."
I'm saying that gnosticism has crept into Protestant eschatology. The belief that there's no continuity in personhood between this life and the next is unbiblical.
"Such as what Catholics teach about Mary as the Mother of God, Mother of the Church, Queen of Heaven, Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix."
I'm not Catholic. But I don't know how you could possibly say she's not the Mother of God. To feign belief that ANYONE who ascribes that title to her is somehow saying that she's ontologically anterior to God is laughable. Her being the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven IS A CHRISTOLOGICAL statement, not a Marian statement. Do you accept the third ecumenical council? Or the second Helvetic confession?
"Truth isn't decided by majority vote..."
I was just making an observation, not an argument. Please don't condescend to me about an argumentum ad populum.
--
Steve,
Maybe I should have been more nuanced. The church doesn't believe they're in some soul sleep. What are your opinions on that?
--
For both of y'all,
Mike:
Delete"That’s simple. The church doesn’t believe they’re dead."
So you're a Christian Scientist. You think death is an illusion. Humans don't really die.
Sorry, Steve we were cross-posting.
Delete"We weren't Mary's loved ones on earth. Thanks for proving my point. So the logic of your statement would we that we should pray to dead Christian relatives."
I was just making a point about saints in general, not just Mary. Orthodox Christians only pray to those declared saints by the church.
"Do you think there are unholy people in heaven? Do you think the saints are unholy? Why, after hundreds or thousands of years in heaven, would there be any difference in the holiness of one saint compared to another? How long does it take the holiness container to be filled up? And why think the holiness container is larger for some saints than others? What, exactly, do you think holiness is?"
I think we're talking past one another...I was saying the idea of a "holiness container" is absurd. We grow more like Christ for all eternity. How could there be an end to that? I'm not sure what's confusing about that.
"How do you know what you call Marian "tradition" isn't a euphemism for legendary embellishment?"
How do you know it isn't?
"i) ...A sizable chunk of the human population is Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim. Many people never question their religious indoctrination. Or if they have private doubts they keep it to themselves. So how does appealing to statistics prove anything?"
Answered that above.
"ii) For that matter, Catholics in the past used to believe things that modern-day Catholics don't believe, or vice versa. Take funerals/burial for suicides or the fate of unbaptized babies. So a lot depends on the period of church history."
I'm not Catholic. And your statement is the same for Protestants.
"So you're a Christian Scientist. You think death is an illusion. Humans don't really die."
DeleteUm, no. Not at all. It seems to me that you're knowingly misrepresenting my view. I'm saying that conscious existence continues after death. That's all. Do you agree?
"We're not debating the content of the prayers...we're debating the principle behind praying to the saints at all."
DeleteThe post is literally about praying to Mary. And it's not as if praying to the saints and praying to Mary are unrelated.
"There's no one who thinks she can forgive sins and you know that."
Catholics argue Mary can forgive sins committed against her.
"So you concede that it is valid to pray for people you don't "know?"
Nothing for me to concede since that wasn't my argument.
"I'm suggesting that death is mysterious, that to be in the presence of God is utterly unlike anything we can compare it to, and that we CAN participate in the divine nature, like Peter tells us. All a gift of God."
You're equivocating. I didn't ask whether one can "participate in the divine nature" but about divine omniscience.
Also, if by "participate in the divine nature" you're referring to deification (theosis), that's hardly what the apostle Peter was referring to in 2 Pet 1:4. For one thing, the passsage isn't about a metaphysical transformation of human nature, as if human nature can somehow possess divine energies.
"What else do you think they're asking the saints to do? They ask them to pray to God on their behalf."
Sure, that's what Catholics argue, but that's not derivable from what you have said about Jas 5:16 in this thread.
Besides, it's highly debatable James had in mind what Catholics have in mind when they talk about praying to the saints.
"I'm saying that gnosticism has crept into Protestant eschatology. The belief that there's no continuity in personhood between this life and the next is unbiblical."
Most conservative Protestants (e.g. conservative evangelicals, Calvinists) do believe there's "continuity in personhood" between this life and the next. Of course, you don't mean what Protestants mean when you talk about "continuity in persohood between this life and the next". You mean something quite different because you want to use it to say this "continuity" supports the saints hearing our prayers and so on.
Also, suppose (arguendo) Protestants don't believe there's continuity in personhood between life and death. That's not tantamount to gnosticism, not without a further argument. Gnosticism takes many forms, but ideas such as God is unknowable, God didn't interact with matter though there are lower gods who interact with matter, that's beause matter is evil, "sin" is ignorance, "salvation" is knowledge (gnosis). These are more central to gnosticism than continuities or discontinuities between life and death.
In short, it's clear you understand neither Protestant theology nor gnosticism.
"I'm not Catholic."
DeleteAre you Eastern Orthodox?
"But I don't know how you could possibly say she's not the Mother of God. To feign belief that ANYONE who ascribes that title to her is somehow saying that she's ontologically anterior to God is laughable. Her being the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven IS A CHRISTOLOGICAL statement, not a Marian statement. Do you accept the third ecumenical council? Or the second Helvetic confession?"
Don't play dumb. When Catholics use terms like "Mother of God" alongside the other titles for Mary (which you conveniently ignored) they mean something quite different from the mere fact that Mary was Jesus' mother. To put it another way, if Catholics simply meant Mary was the God-bearer (theotokos), obviously without siding with the Nestorians on Jesus' nature (Christotokos), then that'd likely be acceptable to most conservative Protestants too.
"I was just making an observation, not an argument. Please don't condescend to me about an argumentum ad populum."
No, you weren't merely "making an observation". You used "tradition" about Mary to argue for your position on Mary and (implicitly) against the position of Protestants on Mary when you said: "much of what we know about Mary comes from Tradition, but most Christians on the planet don't have a problem with that. And no one did at all until the Reformation."
"Maybe I should have been more nuanced."
That's an understatement!
"The church doesn't believe they're in some soul sleep. What are your opinions on that?"
To my knowledge, most conservative Protestants don't subscribe to soul sleep, though there are some notable exceptions.
"I'm saying that conscious existence continues after death. That's all. Do you agree?"
Sure, I could agree with the general statement that "conscious existence continues after death" (though one could disagree with it depending on how you define the terms), but that's not all you're saying, is it? You're using it to support an argument for prayer to the saints, aren't you? If so, you'd have to make the case, because "conscious existence continuing after death" alone doesn't get you to "therefore prayer to the saints [in the Catholic and/or Orthodox sense] is licit".
"Orthodox Christians only pray to those declared saints by the church."
Deletei) How does the Orthodox church know who is or isn't a saint? How does the Orthodox church know that saints are ranked by degrees of holiness, with Mary at the top?
ii) Your position is arbitrary. At least I know my late grandmother was a devout Christian. And she knew me. Moreover, there's evidence from grief apparitions and crisis apparitions. So if you're going to justify prayers to the dead, relatives who've gone on to glory are better candidates than official saints.
"I was saying the idea of a 'holiness container' is absurd."
Which is irrelevant to my own position.
"We grow more like Christ for all eternity. How could there be an end to that? I'm not sure what's confusing about that."
You act as though that's self-evident. What reason is there to think that's an endless process? In what respect do you think Christians are supposed to resemble Christ? And why would that be unending?
"How do you know it isn't?"
i) That's evasive. When you deflect my question, I take it to mean you don't have a good answer so you punt to me.
ii) I don't need to *know* that Marian traditions reflect literary embellishment. I'm not the one who relies on Marian traditions, unlike you. There's a higher burden of proof if you rely on something. By contrast, it's sufficient for me to say I don't have good reason to think those traditions are trustworthy.
Short of special revelation, how would anyone be in a position to know that Mary prays for us or intercedes for us?
"I'm not Catholic."
Since my post specifically targeted the Roman Catholic cult of Mary, you could have spared us some unnecessary detours by coming clean about your religious identity.
Hawk,
Delete"The post is literally about praying to Mary. And it's not as if praying to the saints and praying to Mary are unrelated."
I'll be sure to never bring up an argument more foundational than the topic ever again.
"Catholics argue Mary can forgive sins committed against her."
And?
"You're equivocating. I didn't ask whether one can "participate in the divine nature" but about divine omniscience."
I'm not arguing FOR any particular heavenly epistemology. I don't care about the mechanics of how saints could see or know or "hear" anything on Earth.
"Sure, that's what Catholics argue, but that's not derivable from what you have said about Jas 5:16 in this thread."
If prayers of the righteous are powerful, and those surrounding the throne of God are righteous and have been made perfect, then their prayers are valuable. We can argue about the first two premises, but if you grant them, the conclusion follows. That's all I was using that passage for. I didn't mean to imply that those who disagree with the practice don't take it seriously.
"In short, it's clear you understand neither Protestant theology nor gnosticism."
Good grief, I wasn't saying Protestantism IS gnostic in toto. I was saying that the idea that there is some great division between heavenly and earthly existence is gnostic.
"Are you Eastern Orthodox?"
Yes.
"Don't play dumb. When Catholics use terms like "Mother of God" alongside the other titles for Mary (which you conveniently ignored) they mean something quite different from the mere fact that Mary was Jesus' mother. To put it another way, if Catholics simply meant Mary was the God-bearer (theotokos), obviously without siding with the Nestorians on Jesus' nature (Christotokos), then that'd likely be acceptable to most conservative Protestants too."
I didn't ignore them...they don't apply to me or my tradition's practice.
"No, you weren't merely "making an observation". You used "tradition" about Mary to argue for your position on Mary and (implicitly) against the position of Protestants on Mary when you said: "much of what we know about Mary comes from Tradition, but most Christians on the planet don't have a problem with that. And no one did at all until the Reformation.""
I don't pit Scripture and Tradition against each other. Do you consider her ever-virgin?
"That's an understatement!"
I'm not sure why you're responding to a statement I made to Steve...or that you even knew what I was referencing.
"Sure, I could agree with the general statement that "conscious existence continues after death" (though one could disagree with it depending on how you define the terms), but that's not all you're saying, is it? You're using it to support an argument for prayer to the saints, aren't you? If so, you'd have to make the case, because "conscious existence continuing after death" alone doesn't get you to "therefore prayer to the saints [in the Catholic and/or Orthodox sense] is licit"."
Haha, I never said it does! It is simply a presupposition necessary to the idea of asking the heavenly saints to pray for us.
All the deliberate obfuscation from you and Steve is regrettable. It's no wonder only those who agree with y'all comment on this blog anymore. Which sucks, because I enjoy all (and agree with 90%) of the content.
Steve,
DeleteYou know the Orthodox position on your questions, so I'm not gonna rehash them here.
"i) That's evasive. When you deflect my question, I take it to mean you don't have a good answer so you punt to me. ii) I don't need to *know* that Marian traditions reflect literary embellishment. I'm not the one who relies on Marian traditions, unlike you. There's a higher burden of proof if you rely on something. By contrast, it's sufficient for me to say I don't have good reason to think those traditions are trustworthy."
You made the claim that they're embellishments. Of course I can't prove them. You can't even prove anything about her in Scripture in that sense. But the idea that something has to be written down to be reliable is post-Enlightenment skepticism at its worst.
"Short of special revelation, how would anyone be in a position to know that Mary prays for us or intercedes for us?"
If saints in heaven pray for us, and Mary is a saint, then she prays for us.
"Since my post specifically targeted the Roman Catholic cult of Mary, you could have spared us some unnecessary detours by coming clean about your religious identity."
I wasn't trying to hide it, and I apologize if it came off that way. I was just trying to talk about how the fundamental principles of asking the saints to pray for us. If it was the wrong place to bring that up, I apologize.
--
Hawk and Steve,
It seems to me (and forgive me if I'm wrong), that there is deliberate obfuscation on your part in this discussion, but I also know that comments sections aren't ideal for relaying positions (and I know for damn sure I ain't a great writer). I really do enjoy this blog, but if I can't be related to in good faith, I'll bow out from commenting on further posts. That being said, if I have said anything mean or spiteful, I regret that and sincerely ask for your forgiveness. God bless.
Mike
Delete"I'll be sure to never bring up an argument more foundational than the topic ever again."
1. I already played along with your "more foundational" argument about prayer to the saints anyway. I already tried to address your arguments about prayer to the saints. So it's not as if I ignored your "more foundational" argument.
2. I guess your strategy now is to pretend like you didn't really say anything about prayer to the saints.
"And?"
Are you unable to follow your own argument? You were the one who said: "There's no one who thinks she [Mary] can forgive sins and you know that." I responded with "Catholics argue Mary can forgive sins committed against her." Now your response is "And?". At this point, you're arguing in bad faith.
"I'm not arguing FOR any particular heavenly epistemology. I don't care about the mechanics of how saints could see or know or "hear" anything on Earth."
1. Sure, again, let's pretend you aren't really arguing for prayer to the saints, despite everything else you've said prior to this point.
2. However, if you are arguing for prayer to the saints, then it's fair game to ask how that's possible including "the mechanics of how saints could see or know or 'hear' anything on Earth".
"If prayers of the righteous are powerful, and those surrounding the throne of God are righteous and have been made perfect, then their prayers are valuable. We can argue about the first two premises, but if you grant them, the conclusion follows. That's all I was using that passage for. I didn't mean to imply that those who disagree with the practice don't take it seriously."
1. Again, this isn't arguing from Jas 5:16. You'd need to accurately exegete Jas 5:16 first.
2. I could agree the "prayers of the righteous are powerful". I could also agree "those surrounding the throne of God are righteous and have been made perfect" (though it depends on the specifics of what you mean by terms like "perfect", hence my earlier question to you about whether you're arguing Christians in heaven have access or share in divine omniscience). And I could even agree with your conclusion that "their prayers are valuable". Nevertheless all this still doesn't get us to anything like what Catholics or Orthodox mean when they talk about prayer to the saints (e.g. patron saints of this or that who are perpetually listening to us and interceding and advocating for us before God).
3. In fact, Christians in heaven could be praying for Christians on earth without our knowledge at all. For example, my saintly grandmother in heaven could be asking God to help me in this or that way without my knowledge at all. That'd be between God and her. The only way I'd know about it is if God somehow reveals to me or allows her to tell me that's what she's doing (perhaps like how God allowed Samuel's apparition to appear to king Saul, though I wouldn't wish to seek out a witch of Endor to do so!).
4. Point being, there's a lot more you'd need to argue and establish besides the prayers of Christians in heaven are "valuable" in order to get you to what Catholics or Orthodox mean by prayer to the saints.
"Good grief, I wasn't saying Protestantism IS gnostic in toto. I was saying that the idea that there is some great division between heavenly and earthly existence is gnostic."
DeleteGood grief, I wasn't saying you said "Protestantism IS gnostic in toto"! I was saying that you don't understand Protestantism or gnosticism if you think Protestants disbelieve in the "continuity of personhood" between life and death or if you think the "continuity of personhood" is a core feature of gnosticism when some gnostics believe in this "continuity" while others disbelieve it.
"I didn't ignore them...they don't apply to me or my tradition's practice."
Again, this is where you could have been upfront about your beliefs instead of wasting our time.
"I don't pit Scripture and Tradition against each other."
I never claimed you "pit Scripture and Tradition against each other". Rather I responded to your claim: "much of what we know about Mary comes from Tradition, but most Christians on the planet don't have a problem with that. And no one did at all until the Reformation".
"Do you consider her ever-virgin?"
If you're referring to Mary's perpetual virginity, then I doubt that, because the NT depicts Mary with other children and the NT depicts Jesus with siblings.
"I'm not sure why you're responding to a statement I made to Steve..."
In case you haven't noticed, anyone is free to respond (or not respond) to any statements anyone makes.
"or that you even knew what I was referencing."
It's true you're not always clear in saying what you really mean.
"Haha, I never said it does! It is simply a presupposition necessary to the idea of asking the heavenly saints to pray for us."
Haha, yeah, you're just rewording and repeating my exact point which I originaly brought up against you when I said "You're using it to support an argument for prayer to the saints, aren't you?" (emphasis mine).
"All the deliberate obfuscation from you and Steve is regrettable."
I think you're psychologically projecting your problem onto us because there's a far better case that you're the one who's "deliberately obfuscating" the issues. Such as not being upfront about being Orthodox rather than Catholic. That's something that came out of you only after your initial comment, yet your initial comment appeared to be a defense of the Catholic idea of prayer to Mary (in light of Steve's post), which you now apparently don't defend.
"It's no wonder only those who agree with y'all comment on this blog anymore. Which sucks, because I enjoy all (and agree with 90%) of the content."
DeleteI can't speak for every Triablogue member, but I can speak about Triablogue from my own experience:
1. To my knowledge, Triablogue has never disallowed anyone who disagrees from commenting simply because they disagree. If Triablogue bans anyone, it's because they're consistently and repeatedly arguing in bad faith or something along those lines.
2. In fact, rightly or wrongly, it seems to me Triablogue has a reputation of being something like a scrappy cage fighter. This is in contrast to other Christian apologetics ministries where everyone has to play nice, get along, and act a certain way - or else they can't comment, at least not for long. Not that we wish to be unkind, but these sorts of social pleasantries, niceties, etiquette, and so on can sometimes or often times get in the way of people saying what they really want to say. Instead, it seems to me Triablogue allows virtually anyone and everyone to comment, even or especially those who vehemently disagree. In other words, it seems to me any and all are welcome to come and debate us. All we ask is it's a clean fight. Again, that's been my impression of Triablogue.
3. If (arguendo) there are less people who disagree with us commenting today than in the past, then it seems to me that's not due to any change in our policy or attitude. Triablogue seems to have always been consistent with regard to welcoming any all to come and debate and even exchange blows. Atheists, evolutionists, Catholics, freethinkers, and anyone else are free to hit us with their best shot. Likewise they should expect our best shots in return too. No quarter is given in this regard.
4. Rather, if (arguendo) there are less people who disagree with us commenting today than in the past, I suspect the main reason is because many people don't like scrappy cage fights. Many people would rather have pleasant and civil exchanges. Hence Christian apologetics ministries which faciliate civil exchanges tend to be more popular.
5. As far as that goes, I certainly don't object to civil exchanges. In fact, I support civil exchange in general. However, it's not always possible to be civil about everything. How can one always be civil when talking about something that should be viscerally offensive (e.g. certain aspects of the LGBTQ movement)?
6. Moreover, as should be obvious to anyone paying attention to our culture and society, our nation has become quite extreme in demanding people be "tolerant" toward others, but "tolerance" of such a kind that disallows people from saying what they truly think. This attitude seems almost Orwellian to me. It's as if we're approaching thought police, thought crime, etc. And it seems to me this attitude may have infected some other Christian ministries too.
7. In any case, I think Triablogue tends to be a place which allows true freedom of expression. Not suggesting Triablogue is perfect, or at least I certainly haven't been, in fact all other Triablogue members are far better than I am, but I think we do strive to allow people to say what they really want to say. I think that's a cut above at least some other Christian apologetics ministries.
Delete8. Again, many if not most people today don't seem to appreciate open and honest exchanges of ideas, especially if these exchanges turn to (verbal) blows or cage matches. Many people only want to hear "nice talk". Again I don't object to civil discourse in general, but sometimes that's not possible. When it's not possible, then I think it'd be better to air our grievances out in the open than to let them simmer like in a pressure cooker, waiting to explode.
"It seems to me (and forgive me if I'm wrong), that there is deliberate obfuscation on your part in this discussion, but I also know that comments sections aren't ideal for relaying positions (and I know for damn sure I ain't a great writer). I really do enjoy this blog, but if I can't be related to in good faith, I'll bow out from commenting on further posts. That being said, if I have said anything mean or spiteful, I regret that and sincerely ask for your forgiveness. God bless."
I appreciate your sentiments. I don't think we've obfuscated let alone obfuscated deliberately. Nor do I see where we haven't argued in good faith with you. If anything, I suspect it's quite the reverse and you're psychologically projecting these things onto us. However, I'm happy to forget and forgive all this too. Let bygones be bygones. All the best to you too.
A new book out titled "Mary in Early Christian Faith and Devotion", by Stephen Shoemaker, appears to address the development of t/Tradition regarding Marian devotion. Haven't read it yet as a disclaimer, just found out about it today.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteI've argued at length against praying to the deceased and angels, and I've documented that the practice is inconsistent with the Bible and early Christian tradition outside of scripture. See the collection of posts here, for example. The posts linked there include interactions I've had with Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics on the subject. We've said a lot in previous posts about the issues you're raising regarding how much people in heaven know about events on earth, what capabilities those in heaven have, etc. Not only does early Christian tradition not support your position, but it even opposes what you're arguing for. In the earliest centuries of church history, there was widespread agreement that we're to pray only to God. Similarly, there's widespread patristic evidence against beliefs about Mary that later became popular in Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic circles. See here for documentation. We've addressed the arguments you're raising many times.
And the issue isn't just whether people are to ask Mary to pray for them. That alone would contradict scripture and early Christian tradition. But what Catholics and Orthodox are doing goes beyond that. Here's an example of how Catholics do more than just ask Mary to pray for them:
"With a still more ardent zeal for piety, religion and love, let them continue to venerate, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, conceived without original sin. Let them fly with utter confidence to this most sweet Mother of mercy and grace in all dangers, difficulties, needs, doubts and fears. Under her guidance, under her patronage, under her kindness and protection, nothing is to be feared; nothing is hopeless. Because, while bearing toward us a truly motherly affection and having in her care the work of our salvation, she is solicitous about the whole human race." (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus)
And here's a post that provides examples of Eastern Orthodox doing more than just asking Mary to pray for them.
" If it's no different, then what's so special about praying to Mary?"
ReplyDeleteOh - didn't 'cha know she softens up Jesus in Catholic thought? Can Jesus EVER say no to Mary? your greatest, most perfect mother even not grant your prayer?
Not the sophisticated theological answer you may have been wanting - but the kind that is seeped into everyday Catholic piety.