I've been raised a Protestant, and I've recently become convinced that praying to Mary and the Saints isn't wrong. But whenever I try to do it I feel awkward.
How do you guys choose what saint to pray to?
Who is your favorite saint to pray to?
How often do you pray to saints instead of God?
Is there anything else I should know?
Venerating Saints is nothing new. Just as the followers who kissed the bonds of Ignatius Bishop of Antioch or treasured the bones of Polycarp and even commemorate the anniversary of his martyrdom
It's the same as asking someone to pray for you. You're just asking a saint in the afterlife to talk to God for you.
The problem for me, in the past, had been whether or not saints in heaven could hear me.
>having to ask
Supposedly god knows your every thought, not only that, but knows what path your life will take. You shouldn't ask for anything if you believe that, god already knows. He knows what's better for you than you do, and he'll grant you what you need rather than what you want.
Also, one more question: are there certain saints you're supposed to pray to for certain things?
I think I heard someone prayed to Saint Francis to ask God for that someone to find their soulmate. Is Saint Francis the saint of love or something?
>It's not the same.
God seems to appreciate it when you get more than just yourself to pray for something. Asking multiple people to pray for a certain thing does not mean you doubt God's power or love.
Do you deny the Communion of Saints?
The reason why there is the Veneration of Saints and their invocation was a testimony to this very Communion that the beloved martyrs of the Church are not separated even in death for they have found new life in Christ.
The fact that the living can invoke them in prayers for intercession testifies that the Church is that of the living. Those who fallen asleep are alive and ready to help out the faithful on Earth through their intercessions.
Praise given to the Saints are given for their service and devotion to God just as the faithful had done to the bones of Polycarp.
How does convertion even works in this case? You've already been baptized, I guess you just keep doing what you did but inform yourself more about it and attend Catholic mass?
Anyway, unification will probably happen within our lifetimes.
I think to join the Catholic church I have to go to a weekly RCIA class or something for 8 months to a year. I don't think I'm allowed to take communion or to go to the confessional until I join.
I don't know how it works with Eastern Orthodox churches though.
>You're just asking a saint in the afterlife to talk to God for you.
Imagine being a saint up there.
You are like some kind of telephone operator.
Constantly getting pings from earth begging to win soccer games or wars or deliver Uncle Pedro from a drunken bender.
Then you have to relay this to The Big Man.
Patron saints are just the Church aping Roman household gods.
Relics didn't take off with the Church until Constantine I started sending his hair and fingernail clippings to the edges of the Empire for people to worship.
Saint's miracles aren't real and magic doesn't exist.
Protip: you don't pray TO the saint. You ask them to pray FOR you, like you would on Facebook or in a Bible study when your cat breaks a leg or whatever.
As for which saint, generally whichever one is the patron of whatever problem you are facing. Going into a horrible battle? St. George is your man. Having a tooth pulled out? St. Apollonia would be good. And so on.
>Christianity should be just like Judaism
>And when the funeral pile was ready, Polycarp, laying aside all his garments, and loosing his girdle, sought also to take off his sandals,— a thing he was not accustomed to do, inasmuch as every one of the faithful was always eager who should first touch his skin. For, on account of his holy life, he was, even before his martyrdom, adorned with every kind of good.(Chpt 13)
>But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this, and to become possessors of his holy flesh. For this end he suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, "lest," said he, "forsaking Him that was crucified, they begin to worship this one." This he said at the suggestion and urgent persuasion of the Jews, who also watched us, as we sought to take him out of the fire, being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners ), nor to worship any other.(chpt 17)
>no one prays to saints
keep telling yourself that
>Accordingly, we afterwards took up his bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, whither, being gathered together, as opportunity is allowed us, with joy and rejoicing, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already finished their course, and for the exercising and preparation of those yet to walk in their steps.(Chpt 18)
Are you even Catholic/Orthodox or are you just trolling at this point?
Nope. We know this is false due to the popularity of the Martydom of Polycarp which records the veneration of relics dumbass.
The fact that there are already shrines dedicated to Peter and Paul found in Rome dating to the 2nd Century completely destroys this shit.
Protestantism is just shit and history simply solidifies this fact.
Get butthurt retard.
ITT Protestants showing how they aren't like the first Christians.
Thank you for showing how your beliefs are in fact something new added into Christianity rather than something that had been practiced
I said popularized, not invented. Learn to read before you go around insulting people.
While we're at it,
The earliest account we have of the martyrdom of Polycarp is from the 4th century, and it merely claims that his remains were buried respectfully and no miracles are attributed to them. The narrative you linked to is a compilation from various high medieval hagiographies.
No, the Martydom of Polycarp is accepted by the Academia to be dated to the mid second century not the fourth.
And sorry, but Protestants don't treat the remains of Saints as being Holy or being more precious than Jewels and Gold. It even explicitly states that they commemorate his death yearly.
Nobody in the academia would take your shit here seriously and well it's already proven by a lack of citation or sources.
Genius dumbturd. My point shows other evidences of veneration of saints and the very fact of the popularity of the Martydom of Polycarp to disprove your point.
Grow a brain already hypocrite loser
Clicking on random ones
>obtain for us
>request for us
>pray for us
Again, none of those are directly praying TO the saint, but asking the saint for their prayers.
Captcha: select images of statues
>The authenticity of these letters, bound up as it is with that of the Ignatian epistles, has been disputed, but they are certainly genuine.
>This obviously genuine and contemporary account of the martyrdom of Polycarp, in the form of a letter from the Church of Smyrna to the Church of Philomelium, is the earliest known history of a Christian martyrdom, the genuineness of which is unquestionable, and its value is enhanced by the fact that in the extant MSS. a short account is given of the history of the text. From this it appears that Gaius, a contemporary of Irenaeus who had himself seen Polycarp when he was a boy, copied the text from a manuscript in the possession of Irenaeus. Later on Socrates in Corinth copied the text of Gaius, and finally Pionius copied the text of Socrates. Pionius, who is supposed to have lived in the 4th century, says that the existence of the document was revealed to him in a vision by Polcycarp, and that when he found it the MS. was old and in bad condition.
> The date of the martyrdom of Polycarp is fixed by the chronicle of Eusebius as 166-7, but this date has now been almost universally abandoned, as according to the letter to the church at Smyrna, Polycarp's martyrdom was on Saturday, Xanthicus 2, that is Feb. 23, in the proconsulship of Statius Quadratus, and from a reference in Aelius Aristides, Waddington (Memoire sur la chronologie de la vie du rheteur, Aelius Aristide, Paris, 1864) showed that Quadratus became proconsul of Asion in 153-4. Now, Feb. 23 fell on a Saturday in 155. It is therefore suggested that Feb. 23, 155 was the date of the martyrdom.
>No, the Martydom of Polycarp is accepted by the Academia to be dated to the mid second century not the fourth.
The earliest text of Polycarp's martyrdom that mentions respect for his remains that I can find is from Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiae, written in 323.
If you can find an earlier source whose provenance and historicity is verifiable please link to it.
Now where is your academic sources to show that the Martydom of Polycarp is in fact 4th century?
I always wondered what's with Protestantism and reviving ancient heresies.
That is, Iconoclasm and Arianism.
Why there were no Gnostic Protestants?
Save for Baptists claiming to be "spiritual successors" to Cathars.
I can't be too sure but they have a lot of similarities with the opponents of St Irenaeus. He actually stated that the mark of a false church is its opposing and contradictory doctrines, something we find in Protestantism today.
Calvinism is basically Monothelitism and even closer to the Gnostics and Manicheans who don't believe in free will. If we want we can even say that it is Nestorian.
Baptists are also if they want to be consistent quite fatalist in their doctrine whether they like it or not. The very definition of Sola Fide would have to entail Calvinism as its logical conclusion.
Only Luther managed to steer clear of these heresies by adopting Catholic Sacramental theology. His version of Sola Fide doesn't include free will but in practice, it isn't really that at all given how he doesn't give two shits about Predestination and asked the faithful to view themselves as amongst the elect, basically making the Predestination conditional in practice where one must enter it.
The question though is what did Athena did that is edifying for others to follow in her example to strive towards God?
Yerin is an innocent Orthodox who goes to Matins and Liturgy regularly thus I can pray to her. I am currently petitioning Patriarch Kiril to canonize her as a Saint!
She "points" to Zeus, the son of Cronus which is simply the Greek name for the Phonecian God El, or the God of Israel. Thus, her absolute devotion is a model we should all strive towards.
It does, it's why it's commonly cited as one of the earliest testimonies to the cultus of the saints.
The bones of Polycarp were denied because the authorities thought that the Christians would worship them. The author rebuts by saying that affection is given to the Martyrs for their faith in God and deeds but they can never forsake Christ!
It is even plainly stated that the very bones of Polycarp are worth more than jewels and gold, alongside being Holy!
His death is even commemorated yearly akin to the feasts given to Saints.
Protestants don't give this sort of description to their so called martyrs or important figures remains or belongings.
Except of course Zeus is not the Triune god of Christianity.
I want to give you a kiss for that cute answer though.
Why not? Zeus the son, Cronus the Father, Athena the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Just as you can call worship "veneration" and get away with it, why can't I get away with worshipping that Trio by calling them the Triune God?
>Can't come up with actual arguments
>Spouts shit instead
Good job, you get a gold star by being able to cum on my face <3
At first you claim Athena to be a saint and now she becomes equivalent to God herself. Show me where the Early Christians and Catholics treat saints and martyrs as equivalent to God before making such crappy assertions.
>TFW ITT I'm the only one who cites scholarly sources and Protestants don't
OP, you should pray first and foremost to the Virgin Mary, as she is the Mother of God. The glorify her very much glorifying Christ, because when you call her the Theotokos it also affirms that Christ is your Lord and God.
After that, you should pray to the saint of your parish, which will be named after one.
Get icons of both of them, and of course an icon of Christ.
For other saints you want to pray to, look them up and see which are most inspiring. You can look up Orthodox hymns or prays to them if you want, Orthodox Wiki generally has some.
When you pray to saints, it does not have to be praying to them "instead of God". The Jesus prayer should be perpetual if possible, even during prayers to saints.
God bless you, and may love follow you.
>At first you claim Athena to be a saint
Never said that, actually. Just that it's completely okay to pray to her as long as I tack on "pass this along" to the end. Nowhere did I say she was a saint.
Besides, I also didn't say Athena was the Holy Spirit, merely a manifestation of it. Similar to how for example trip fag Constantine tried to justify Mary as a feminine manifestation of the Holy Spirit. If you'd like, though, we can downgrade Athena to simply a saint and not a direct emanation of the will of Zeus.
I mean, you could instead take responsibility for your own life and own up to your shortcomings instead of supplanting yourself to the mother of one of millions of gods, but I guess if prayer makes you feel better, you'll become more comfortable with it with repetition. Like all brainwashing.
T. Lapsed Catholic.
>Similar to how for example trip fag Constantine tried to justify Mary as a feminine manifestation of the Holy Spirit
This is an absolute lie. I said Holy Wisdom is a feminine way of talking about the Second Person of the Trinity, I never said anything about Mary being a feminine manifestation of the Holy Spirit. You are a viper fathering lies.
Okay, then it may have been someone else in a conversation we were having, but the "Marian apparitions and miracles are simply the feminine manifestation of the Holy Spirit" but if you say you never did that I'll accept your memory over mine.
Catholics and Orthodox don't even believe in the crap you are posting right now.
Plus, the fact that Athena isn't even considered or canonized a Saint or had done anything that could be considered edifying to the faith of others means she cannot be by definition a saint that would be venerated.
It doesn't take half a brain if you read my citations from the Martydom of Polycarp why the Saints are venerated. It is explained in the document itself.
If any the same accusation of Orthodox and Catholics worshiping saints is akin to that faced by the Christians in the Martydom of Polycarp.
Stop using shit hackpologetics and actually make a proper argument.
This also explains why there are prayers to the Saints in Early Christianity.
Things like these shows Protestantism's rejection of the cultus of the saints to be an innovation foreign to Christianity itself
When i was a child i mostly used to pray to Holy Mary and Archangel Michael(My name is Michael, so he was closest "saint" to me)
>had done anything that could be considered edifying to the faith of others
Remeber, she "points" to Zeus, Son of Cronus whom the Phonecians call El.
Respect for remains is common to almost all cultures, by the way. It's why even secular people tend to have respectful funeral rituals. That is a huge divide from ancestor worship by a different name.
I don't see "Christian" people walking around with prayer beads devoted to pagan gods, only pagan goddesses. If burying a male statue upside down was a bigger thing than the rosary, the conversation would be about that instead.
Zeus is not Jesus. He never died on a cross, offered his flesh and blood in the form of bread and wine and resurrected after his death for three days.
It doesn't take half a brain to know that Zeus is not related in any way to the Triune God of Christianity. It only takes stupidity and retcon, like you are doing here right now.
Philosophy is also common to almost all cultures. Is it bad and idolatrous? Remember, the Church Fathers were influenced by Pagan Greek philosophy and used them to explain Christian doctrine.
Protestants aren't Christian.
You can't even cite or refer to any scholarly source to back up your claim that the Early Christians reject the practice of venerating Saints or somehow that such practice involves the recognition of the Saints as equivalent to God.
No one in the academia takes shit like this seriously.
Protestants are arguably Gnostics.
They reject free will and must do so to be consistent. Their only consistent conclusion is Calvinism.
The Gnostics also reject free will that souls are predestined by the true God. So does Protestants!
They also have differing beliefs amongst themselves. So does Protestants!
>Philosophy is also common to almost all cultures. Is it bad and idolatrous?
No, it very specifically is not. That's the point: treating remains with an elevated amount of respect is in no way pagan or idolatrous. People would go visit the tombs or houses of people they find interesting or inspirational even in a completely secular context. And they treat generally treat remains with respect, even in the context of war. It's a natural human inclination. However, nobody engages in ancestor worship in a secular context, it is strictly spiritual. Some people think "what would Alexander do" but they would not talk to Alexander and expect a response. Thus, in the spiritual sphere, this behaviour if directed anywhere other than God is idolatry, no matter what you call it. Just like how worshipping Cronus+Zeus(by way of Athena) is idolatry, even if I try and change the names. Like you said, it would take stupidity and retcons to deny it.
Constantine, I know your dirty little secret.
I know it from /int/ that you are actually Taiwanese.
You did something with your younger brother too
Except of course it's not. It's only your assertion overall that makes it that way.
You can't even cite a Church Father who disagrees with this practice whereas I in contrast had provided academical references attesting to the Early Christians venerating Saints and the reasons behind them namely because they are not separated from each other in death, their deeds and what they had done. Earlier ITT I've even pointed out the fact that the very act of invoking and venerating Saints testifies to the Communion of Saints and that God is the very God of the living and not of the dead.
Some of these have commonalities with the practice of ancestor worship but the motive and practices differ substantially to make the Christian veneration of Saints, the worship of departed ancestors.
Thus your own point is just shitty retcon overall. You have to make a strawman and ignore the overall scholarship on this issue to make your point. I do the opposite.
>You can't even cite a Church Father who disagrees with this practice
I can't cite a pagan authority who disagrees with pagan practices? Yeah, I guess that is a problem.
There is nowhere in the Bible where we are advised to worship or otherwise venerate the dead. In fact, we are specifically advised to do otherwise, even with the dead who are righteous. Now, you're going to claim that death does not exist for the saved after the arrival of Jesus, and that Christians neither suffer the first nor the second death, only the damned suffer any death. Which is a nice bit of theorycrafting, but would imply that Jesus never died either, as he was sinless and the cessation of earthly existence doesn't "count" as a death for some bizarre reason.
Why the fuck are you such a cunt to Constantine, man?
>Church Fathers were pagan.
Do you have any idea what in the hell you're saying?
Those in heaven and hades have both suffered the first death. Only those in hades will suffer the second death. The prohibition against communing with the dead did not make a distinction. The saints cannot hear your prayers unless He who can tells them about it, much less do anything about it.
Yes. Those identified as "Church Fathers" by the pagan churches were pagans themselves. The church that grew to smother the actual early church honors them with the title.
Good by your own admission there are no Christians until the Protestants came along. Well done.
Nowhere in the Bible does it forbid the veneration of Saints. The Bible does show the intercession of saints in Revelations like it or not in the form of incense. The Jews themselves had a sort of tradition of venerating angels as well and in the Deuterocanon we see instances of Saintly intercession. This means your whole "muh sola scriptura" shit won't work here especially when Maccabees is considered historical and that it is included in the canon of Scripture of the Early Christians onwards. Only the Protestants threw it out.
God says so himself that he is the God of the living. Saints in heaven in Revelation are shown to be aware of what's going on down at Earth. They are not unconscious or dead somehow. Thus your own attempt to refute me is redundant and Biblically unsound. This makes your whole later attempt at retcon pointless especially when I never claimed that death does not exist for Christians. They do physically die just as Christ did. But they aren't somehow unaware of what's going on or separated from the faithful on Earth.
Equating heaven with Sheol is really, really, really, really wrong, and basically saying John 3:16 is a lie. It's also crypto-Gnostic to look at heaven as some mutually exclusive realm as opposed to an intersection dimension.
>Good by your own admission there are no Christians until the Protestants came along. Well done.
No, the church that would eventually come to smother the actual church (the Synagoge of Satan, eventually Babylon) was pagan. There were plenty of actual Christians in the very beginning. The various protestant churches aren't these actual early Christians, but different reconstruction attempts based on rejecting Babylon, with varying degrees of success. I would argue that sincere Christians even existed within the confines of Babylon, just not the institution itself nor the most powerful authorities.
>Saints in heaven in Revelation are shown to be aware of what's going on down at Earth.
In a visual way, not telepathically. If you shout all your prayers, perhaps it is possible one of them might hear you depending on the exact logistics, but they do not have the power of God. Again, if He passes your prayer to a saint, then they would know what you said.
Hades didn't defeat the church. That'a why we can even have this conversation instead of all agreeing to be pagans. And again, there were probably sincere Christians who loved God more than idols and did the ceremonies out of habit or fear, rather than the current justification of beloved idols.
No, deceased Christians have suffered the first death, which resulted in Sheol before Jesus and now Hades if not in a state of Grace. Suffering the first death in a state of Grace results in heaven. Those in heaven will have everlasting life in New Jerusalem after the end of days, but that doesn't change the fact that they are currently dead. Now, if you found yourself on New Jerusalem and found someone currently designated as a saint, it would be okay to commune with them and ask them to pray for you.
So God let heretics destroy his church. After all if a so called proto-protestant sect did survive, why don't we have mentions of them? Why no artifacts and evidence for their existence? Authors or historians at the time would mention them but we got nothing. They are nothing more than just conspiracy theories like Mozart being black or We Wuz Kangz n SHiet.
Thus you never even answered the argument in the first place. God abandoned his Church if we take your view of history. Plus, no serious academician today would even bother taking your nonsense as credible. None.
Revelations explicitly show the Saints in Heaven aware of things going on down on Earth. That's that. This awareness shows that the Saints aren't dead and can indeed hear the prayers of the living and even help them should God permit.
Hades also defeated the Church according to you. The fact that there is no continuation of your crap beliefs to that of the Early Christians shows this. In contrast, the Catholics and Orthodox can demonstrate core doctrines being held by the Early Church and are backed up by scholarly evidence and research. Protestants in contrast don't.
This is why God had abandoned and allowed his church to fall for centuries he ignored humanity and left them all to rot and die in Hell. Your "there are true Christians" crap won't work when they don't exist. No evidence for their existence is ever found and attested by anyone thus making the most plausible explanation that they are just your retarded wishful thinking.
This is idiotic. We know that through the story of Lazarus that those who are righteous will be in the so called Bosom of Abraham rather than be in Sheol. The fact is that Revelations and the book of the Maccabees alongside the Jewish veneration of Angels destroys your assertions here.
>Why no artifacts and evidence for their existence?
We do have them. They are called heretics by the pagan churches.The fact that there were councils debating things (for example, the exact role of Mary) means there was controversy within the church, from sincere Christians working to separate the truth from Satan's lies. These weren't proto-protestants so much as just people with good connections to their conscience and the Holy Spirit. Modern protestant churches are an attempt to recapture this integrity in an institutional way, with extremely varying degrees of success.
>God abandoned his Church if we take your view of history.
God never abandoned his church, because the church is not a set of Cathedrals and doctrines and hats but the communion of man with God. Anyone who sincerely followed their concience and loved God was a part of the church, even for the centuries that paganism was the law of the land. We have evidence for this in Revelation also, where a distinction is made between the true believers and those that surround them, even within the Synagogue of Satan.
>This awareness shows that the Saints aren't dead
Death doesn't imply a lack of awareness. And Revelation does indeed show the saints looking down on earth. What it describes not show is them having the superpowers to listen to a prayer that would be necessary without being God. God is showing them what He wants, they are not looking down and reading minds. And, again, it shows no communion with them, only one sided observation.
The Catholic and Orthodox ca trace their church back to Babylon. For the most part, Protestants can trace their churches back to the Bible. I would rather believe within the confines of a flawed reconstruction of the early church than a perfect reconstruction of the pagan church that smothered it.
I got trips, means jie jie will be my valentine and I'll be her cute little kitten :3
Several examples of post-Talmudic prayers to angels can be found
in the Jewish service even today. One such invocation, one of the
most famous and most familiar to those who participate in daily
prayer, is a piyyut generally included in the prayers for forgiveness
(Selihot) recited before and after Rosh Hashana. The precise date of
origin of this piyyut is difficult to establish. It is entitled ‘Usherers of
Mercy’, and begins with the words:
Usherers of mercy, usher in our [plea for] mercy, before the Master
of mercy, You who cause prayer to be heard, may you cause our
prayer to be heard before the Hearer of prayer, You who cause our
outcry to be heard, may you cause our outcry to be heard, before the
Hearer of outcry, You who usher in tears, may you usher in our tears,
before the King Who finds favor through tears. Exert yourselves and
multiply supplication and petition before the King, God, exalted and
most high, etc.4-From link, pg 80
Christ is eternal life. This does not change the fact that the cessation of earthey existence is telling first death. Otherwise, Christ would never have died, and you can't "ressurect" something that is still alive.
Whichever church you belong to, there is probably someone of that same church on the opposite side of the planet, yes? You cannot communicate with this person supernaturally, as that would be witchcraft. You can communicate through natural means, such as a telephone, and that wild be fine. Once a person has died, there is no natural means to communicate with them. Attempting to communicate thrush supernatural means is still a sin. If God chooses to pass a prayer along to someone in heaven, that is possibly a different matter.
Revelation does not show an attempt to communicate with the dead, only that they were made aware of certain happenings by God. It certainly does not show them answering prayers.
I think you are right. The heretics besides their weirdass beliefs that contradict those of today's Protestants have many similarities with Protestants such as,
a)Not being able to agree with each other
c)Disregard for Tradition and Scripture
d)Reducing the significance of Sacraments
e)Disbelief in free will
Also...no one debated the exact role of Mary idiot. It was whether or not it is right to call her "Theotokos". Nestorious rejects this and his Christology ends up being fucked up. And why not? it entails that the very person in Mary's womb isn't a Divine person.
Modern Protestant churches are just conmen and illegitimate. You can't even cite scholarly sources to prove your wishful thinking and you want to make this claim. How much more delusional can you get?
God still abandoned his Church by your logic like it or not because there were no one being true to God and God let those true to him fall away. If this isn't so we would see a traces and evidence for a proto-prot church. Guess what? We don't. No serious scholar would ever believe in this sort of crap. So too bad. The so called true believers all fell away according to you. They ceased to exist. You know why? Because even the heretics who share many in common with Protestants have beliefs that even Protestants reject!
Revelation also show Saints transferring prayers to God in the form of incense. This added by their awareness of things going on down on Earth pretty much destroys your entire argument against them. At one point, even the Saints on Earth address them!
Orthodox and Catholic can trace themselves back to the Early Christians and the Apostles. Protestants can't and have to create pseudo-history or resort to muh sola scriptura, an approach that is historically and logically unsound.
Fug off from this board and go back to Creatard Ministries International inbred.
Someone on one side of the planet is not made perfect by Christ yet. If they were made perfect, obviously they could know when I was talking to them regardless of whether or not I was there.
Yep, you'll be baptized (unless the baptism of the faith you're in right now is recognized) and confirmed, then you'll be able to receive the Eucharist.
Best of luck, bud. It's a great process.
This from Orthodox who believe that creating graven images is not a sin? It is true that a given protestant church has lots of differences from the actual early Church pre-Babylon, because each if a flawed attempt to reconstruct it. But a sincere flawed attempt to grasp the truth is much better than a successful grasp of lies.
>You can't even cite scholarly sources to prove your wishful thinking and you want to make this claim.
Can you cite scholarly sources that bread turns into flesh?
>because there were no one being true to God and God let those true to him fall away. If this isn't so we would see a traces and evidence for a proto-prot church
The actual early church is the one that existed directly after Jesus left earth. We have evidence for it in scripture. The difference between that church and the pagan church we have later, combined with the evidence we have for that church stamping out others, illuminates what happened. From the Bible we know that true believers existed in the Synagogue of Satan, thus some Catholics and Orthodox must be sincere Christians also. But the churches themselves are not of God, but rather Satan.
Revelation shows the saints continuing to worship God. They are the holy ones. They do not show a saint going "hey, Jimmy Smith really needs to [insert aspect Roman deity would usually take care of], think we can help him out?"
One of the best-known stories in the Babylonian Talmud describes
a prayer to celestial bodies as intermediaries between man and God.
It relates the story of repentance of Eleazar ben Dardoya, and appears
in BT AZ 17a:
It was said of R. Eleazar b. Dordia that he did not leave out any harlot
in the world without coming to her. Once, on hearing that there
was a certain harlot in one of the towns by the sea who accepted a
purse of denarii for her hire, he took a purse of denarii and crossed
seven rivers for her sake. As he was with her, she blew forth breath
and said: As this blown breath will not return to its place, so will
Eleazar b. Dordia never be received in repentance. He thereupon went,
sat between two hills and mountains and exclaimed: O, ye hills and
mountains, plead for mercy for me! They replied: How shall we pray
for thee? We stand in need of it ourselves . . . So he exclaimed: Heaven
and earth, plead ye for mercy for me . . . Sun and moon, plead ye for
mercy for me! . . . Ye stars and constellations . . . Said he: The matter
then depends upon me alone! Having placed his head between his
knees, he wept aloud until his soul departed. Then a bath-kol was heard
proclaiming: ‘Rabbi Eleazar b. Dordia is destined for the life of the
world to come’.20
If we follow your logic on images then God also contradicted himself by sanctioning the construction of His temple to be filled on the walls with Cherubims.
Taking the prohibition on images in the Protestant sense means that all art is bad. Anything that requires one to draw is wrong and bad. This is simply retarded.
All the Protestants cannot by definition be Christians. All our sources show that none of the Early Christians are like them. Except the Gnostic heretics.
All the Church Fathers believed that bread turns into flesh of Christ in the Eucharist. Every single one from the beginning until today. So too bad idiot. Plenty of works such as JND Kelly's "Early Christian Doctrines" covered this.
Now fuck off with this bullshit.
The actual early church is also apparently wiped out and destroyed by heretics. God let it be so without help or assistance to save them. He let them all fall into error without any way to aid them. What type of God is this? A deceitful one unworthy of worship. That's who.
All your shit here so far is just your shit interpretation of Scripture and shitty conspiracy theory. You can't even cite a scholarly source to back yourself up. You are no better than idiots like Sye Ten and Ken Ham.
Your church is not from God. It's from Satan. The very fact that it entails a God who lies proves this and Satan is the father of lies. By gone.
19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.
20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.
Oops, looks like Sola Scriptura failed you yet again.
The images were holy, but not worshipped. Moses' snake is a similar example. Art isn't bad, worship of anything other than God is bad, including art. If you just make a golden calf statue, no big deal. Worshipping it as a god is the problem.
>All our sources
All the sources that survive from Babylon onward, minus the records of meetings where there was controversy, and thus sincere Christians. The ultimate source, the Bible, also shows us this.
>All the Church Fathers believed that bread turns into flesh of Christ in the Eucharist.
Provide a scholarly source showing it actually does.
>The actual early church is also apparently wiped out and destroyed by heretics.
As an earthly in situation, not a spiritual one. The actual church is in the hearts of all believers, which existed despite belonging to the Synagogue of Satan. Evidence of "heresy" and attempts at reformation are evidence of that.
Your bible quote has nothing to do with what I said.
Your soul is in a state of Grace, and thus sinless, but you will not return to a permanent pre-fall state before New Jerusalem. Otherwise, the apostles raising dead followers were both unimaginably cruel and had the power to make a soul unperfect.
>. But whenever I try to do it I feel awkward
Maybe it is because your nature tells you it is wrong even if your reason can rationalize it. Have you ever considered Islam?
It is cool that a Protestant would go Catholic just for aesthetic reasons but come on man, find some truth.
No one worshiped Icons so your argument is pointless.
The Bible wasn't even defined yet or even completed for fuck's sake. It was largely oral before being written down and this means Sola Scriptura is pointless and retarded.
Plus, your interpretation of the Bible does not equate to what the Bible actually says. You are simply rearranging the mosaic like a heretic.
I had already noted JND Kelly's "Early Christian Doctrines", now fuck off.
"Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
pg 78 onwardss.
It took centuries before the Reformation even occurred. This means that God abandoned humanity until then by your logic. It means a God who can't keep his promise. You are just parotting the same bullshit I had already debunked.
Idiots like you should be sent to the trashcan
The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; and the oral tradition or living faith of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed tothe varying opinions of heretical sects—together form one infallible source and rule of faith. Both are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the key and true interpretation of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI, 1981 ed., vol. 3, p. 606)
God also apparently made the means of attaining it so difficult that he must therefore predestined some to have it and others to be eternally damned.
Your god is a sick maniac. Only the mentally challenged will worship him.
>No one worshiped Icons so your argument is pointless.
Worship by any other name is still worship, or else I can "venerate" Athena all I want.
>Sola Scriptura is pointless and retarded
I don't believe in a doctrine called "Sola scriptura." I just believe in scripture and reject the traditions of the pagans. The Holy Spirit is our guide, not man.
>(Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
I didn't ask you to cite evidence of pagan beliefs, I asked you for a scholarly source that shows the bread actually turns into flesh.
>It took centuries before the Reformation even occurred. This means that God abandoned humanity
Nope. Again, the protestant churches are attempts to institutionalize the individual integrity true believers had within the confines of the Babylonian church. It has only been partially successful. There are sheep and goats everywhere and they will be separated, and some allow themselves to be deceived.
>Idiots like you should be sent to the trashcan
People like you should be saved. May God bless you with eyes to see and ears to hear.
We had already settled that shit before so it won't work anymore.
The Holy Spirit contradicts himself. This is evident in how all the Protestants who do the same as you can't even agree on core matter of doctrine. Fuck off.
Reinforcing my point about God abandoning humanity once more. Plus The Church Fathers are Christians idiot.
The Holy Spirit also did a bad job judging by how everyone became Pagans for centuries.
Your shit about the Protshit churches answer nothing. Parroting bullshit once again. And as usual, no scholarly sources to back your conspiracy up. No proper scholarly source would even say that some Babylon exist and shit. That's being like SJWs which is what you are.
People like you should be aborted so that we would have less idiots to cope with.
Second Temple Judaism knows both of angelic figures
that communicate knowledge of heavenly matters to the initiate, and
of human figures of superhuman dimensions who share divine prerogatives
such as sitting on a heavenly throne and treasuring divine
wisdom.2 Sometimes the angelic and the human even seem to merge:
Enoch is Metatron.-pg 97, Saints and Role Models in Judaism and Christianity
>The Holy Spirit also did a bad job judging by how everyone became Pagans for centuries.
The path is narrow. If the world does not hate you, you do not love God.
>No proper scholarly source would even say that some Babylon exist and shit.
But the Bible does.
>People like you should be aborted so that we would have less idiots to cope with.
May God aid you on your journey.
Here, typical Protestant arrogant self righteousness.
Fuck off with this bullshit already.
You don't have God on your side, only Satan for your God is the father of lies. He promised that not even Hades will destroy his church but lo and behold, Hades need not do anything, other people just did the job and God just don't care. He dindu muffin!
Only Satan the father of lies will do such a thing.
Your interpretation of the Bible is shit. I might as well become a trap and get my boipucci pounded
>Maybe it is because your nature tells you it is wrong even if your reason can rationalize it.
Or maybe I'm just so used to thinking it's wrong, that it's hard for me to change.
>Have you ever considered Islam?
I plan on reading the Quran once I finish the Bible. Unfortunately I still haven't read the entire Bible...
But yeah, I kinda do admire Muslims, because they stick with their religion and aren't pussies. They all seem committed to it.
Islam has cool stuff like, you have to go to Mecca, you have to pray 5 times a day, and there's also Ramadan.
Mary was a blessed woman among women, and she was honoured to bear Christ, but she was just human - not a god, and not an intermediary.
ANY other statement is unbiblical and is teachings of man, not of God.
I forgot to add that Jesus never even critiqued this tradition. In fact, Saints don't even have a mediatoral role in the sense of Christ so your whole argument is basically redundant. Either ITT, it's been shown how Protestantism is heresy
And she was also the New Eve and Ark alongside being adored by the Church since the beginning. We know this through the existence of the Odes of Solomon. Sola Scriptura is not even Christian Soctrine retarded piss of shit
ITT Protestowned talking shit without scholarly citation whatsoever
Stupid nigger. That doesn't even demonstrate why intercession of the saints is wrong dipshit. Mary Doesn't have all the power idiot! Play strawman all you want. It's the only way for Protshits to win anyways
First of all, we no longer have need of any human agency or intermediary in order to petition God, as Jesus Christ Himself is our High Priest and Mediator.
Secondly, as children of the God who have been born again and have been indwelt and sealed by the Holy Spirit, we may come into the very presence of God....and there lay before Him any requests we have.
So what? This doesn't destroy the veneration and intercession of Saints. Dipshit. The fact it exists reinforces the fellowship of the Holy Spirit and Christ himself as being the God of the living. Idiotic piece of crap
where does it say anywhere in the Bible that Mary can answer prayer? Or that anyone other than Jesus should be prayed to?
To pray to or through someone who is physically dead is something that is never seen in the Word of God
Revelations show the Saints in Heaven delivering prayers of the Saints on Earth to God. It even shows the Saints on Earth directly invoking the Saints in heaven! Ouch loser! You can't even show me an academic source to disprove my point! What a wimp
Jesus is God and is the only one that should be prayed to. Mary lived a sinful life just like the rest of us.
The 'creation' of saints is another falsehood by the catholic church. If one trusts in Christ only, they will be saved.
I don't know. As an atheist, if I were to say a religion had more authority in its words, I would say Islam at least says their scripture is direct from god, whereas Christians had a debate on it and declared that humans were inspired by God to pick the right books.
Though, both books have scientific errors and seem to be written by people of their time with no understanding of modern facts such as the earth being round and space travel.
Also if god is all know, why didn't he gives Jews instructions on what time to observe the Sabbath if they were in space? Nasa had to just say whatever time it was in Cape Canaveral. Also yeah... The Bible didn't say specifically the Earth was flat, but other things well...
The bible also says give up your wealth to the poor...
Calvinists are not a minority and given the very definition of Sola Fide, that is the only logical conclusion
That contradicts itself:
>so the divine verdict and pardon of the believing sinner is based not upon anything in the sinner, nor even faith itself, but upon Jesus Christ and his righteousness alone, which are received through faith alone.
While the faith does not grant salvation by itself, without it than there would be no salvation.
>Other people, Arminius for instance, taught that God does not choose who goes to heaven and hell because that would mean that we really don’t have any free will. If people have no way to choose God, forgiveness, and salvation, then you can’t really blame or punish them for being sinful. These people sometimes still use the word “predestination” (and this is where it gets a little confusing) but they don’t understand it to mean God chooses who is saved and who is damned. Arminians use the word as a way of saying that God, being the almighty, all-knowing Creator of everything, does know how everything works out in the end. Yes, God knows who ultimately chooses salvation, but that is different from God making that choice for us. Arminians don’t believe in fate, that you have no real freedom to choose, as Calvinists do. They believe that in the end, God knows who makes it, but we don’t! So, just because God is omnipotent, doesn’t really change our life. We still have to choose God or not.
Protestants love contradicting themselves. You just shown it by citing Arminianism here about the UMs.
The faith itself comes from God by the definition of Sola Fide.
From the Westminster Confession itself,
>1. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.
Note the final statement, the very definition of Sola Fide which leads to Calvinism as its logical conclusion. Arminus is just a pucci to accept it.
Wow Sakurahime, I'm really astonished! You're really redpilled, you have impressed me.
Thanks for all that read, now I understand why you had that thingy of Constancia lol
Thank you Metatron.
I like to thank bookos for making this all possible alongside Orthodox Christianity.net. Without them, I would not be able to get the redpill on Christianity.
Remember, Constantina is a Taiwanese lady that has a trap fetish.
>Note the final statement, the very definition of Sola Fide which leads to Calvinism as its logical conclusion. Arminus is just a pucci to accept it.
You just don't want to accept that not all Protestants are Calvinists because it fucks with your worldview that lets you easily demonize them.
Alright, I tried my best, how many did I get right, russians?
Where did I say that?
I say that Calvinism is the logical conclusion of Sola Fide.
This is different from saying that all Protestants are Calvinists.
But you don't seem to understand that one of the main things about Protestantism and Sola Fide is it allows for personal interpretations of the Bible. For example:
>For many are called, but few chosen. -Matthew 22:14
Can in fact, be interpreted as a defense for, or an argument against, Calvinism. The argument being that the "called" part implies free will, which Calvinism does not allow.
We know that so called "personal interpretations of the Bible" is kinda not applied in practice. It's why Luther hated Calvin so so much over the Eucharist.
Also, the very definition of Sola Fide that all Protestants agree on is that even the faith itself comes from God, not the individual. This is the logical consequence of Total Depravity.
Arminus himself have to appropriate Catholic Molinism to defend his views and argue against Calvinism.
And lastly, your use of Matthew 22:14 and the conflicting interpretations between Protestants themselves over this demonstrates how we don't even know the truth about what that very verse means. Both cannot be right given their contradictory nature.
So which is it, Calvin or Arminus or something else all together?
At least I have the Consensus Patrum to back my point on this. You don't.
What does sola fide have to do with personal interpretation? That's sola scriptura. Sola fide is against personal interpretation if anything, because it states as dogma that the "faith alone" interpretation is the authoritative one, and all others are wrong.
Consensus Patrum simply refers to the take of the Church Fathers on a particular issue of faith or the interpretation of Scripture. This is important to demonstrate that one's own interpretation of Scripture isn't something new that one pulls out of his arse and prevent the Scriptures from being perverted.
>getting into heated religious arguments on a Tibetan tapestry discussion forum
>on the Sabbath
tsk tsk shame on you all
Consensus Patrum reflects how the Early Christians from the beginning until the present interpreted Scripture as the thoughts of all the Fathers coinhere into a single testimony.
Of course, Protestants cannot follow this since it will ultimately destroy their doctrines, especially with regards to the Early Church's take on Scripture and Tradition.
The Protestant view is that if you build on someone's interpretation, and than another interpretation of that interpretation, and so on and so forth, you're going to get something distorted and people following doctrine that is not aligned with God's will.
It's fine to read someone elses interpretation, look at the Bible, and decide it makes sense, but you can't start interpreting and drawing conclusions from other people's conclusions of those conclusions.
Good, your very definition of the Protestant view just described what is going on in Protestantism itself. It was there since the beginning.
Your second statement of course becomes nonsensical when one considers the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. Tradition itself consolidate and give clarity to the Scriptures. It gives objectivity in contrast to the relative interpretations of heretics.
The very fact that the entirety of Scripture itself was historically from the dawn of Christianity read by groups and not individuals shows that there is regulative and authoritative interpretation involved. Given the fact that the NT corpus itself is simply just Tradition written down and the oral tradition being the node to interpret it, all the Church Fathers are doing is simply expressing that very same oral interpretive tradition inherited from the beginning, fortifying them in the process of the countless of heresies that exist amongst them and alongside them.
With this in mind, your whole "muh sola scriptura" and your statement which of course implies that one can disagree with Tradition if it doesn't agree with one's own biases when approaching Scripture itself which creates a whole relativistic picture of Protestantism, a landscape where we can't even know what the Bible is saying.
Wait do any modern, non third-world Christians actually still believe in saints' miracles or healing properties of relics? How the hell can anyone suspend disbelief in magic enough to accept this? What possible reason would there be for God to give magical powers to non-prophets, or to enchant their bones so touching them cures ailments?
>Tradition itself consolidate and give clarity to the Scriptures. It gives objectivity in contrast to the relative interpretations of heretics.
What if if the tradition that was build up is distorted and wrong? Than suddenly everyone in the church is going against the will of God. Even if someones personal interpretation of scripture is wrong, that doesn't mean that Orthodox tradition is correct.
Individual Protestant denominations are built upon the consensual interpretations of the people who make up that denomination.
Besides, one of the problems with Orthodox and Catholic tradition from a Protestant point of view is some of them are arbitrarily and unnecessary. Why do some Orthodox Church still use the Julian calendar when it isn't correct? Why are what Rites are used so rigid? Why should a church use a liturgical language if no one can understand it?
One of the driving forces of the Protestant movement is that such pomp separates people from God. Instead of a person having a relationship with God, they have a relationship with the church that has a relationship with God.
Because most people aren't edgy autists in 4chan, and so they kept their ancestral traditions, which they translated to christian iconography when they converted back then, until today.
You can easily not believe in magic yet believe in the power of a saint.
After all, isn't all a matter of faith, in the end?
I'm not even christian 2bh.
Christ said you can move a mountain with enough faith (although he said this sort of thing required immense fasting and prayer, so it's probably only limited to the most advanced of monastics). Why should we think miracles are impossible? we are not deists. We are Orthodox Christians, the Body of Christ, our faith is our most prized possession.
Your question is irrelevant when the Protestant interpretation of Scripture is one we can't even find at all present in the Church Fathers. None.
Catholicism and Orthodoxy in contrast can easily find similarities between them and the Fathers.
To even take your own scenario into account is to imply that God doesn't care about his own faithful. He doesn't guide them and instead, abandons them. The very church Christ had promised will not fall thus fell, not by Hades itself but by its ownself. Thus, we have a God that lies. A God who isn't faithful to his own word. A God who deceives.
Also, modern scholarship on the development of Christian worship shows that the current rites of Orthodoxy we now have are in fact the various traditions of Earlier Christian worship being incorporated and combined. So the question on the liturgy is pointless and redundant. It is also only Catholicism that simply uses the language that many don't understand in worship, Orthodoxy accommodates to the people.
The Protestant movement actually divorces from God even more such that we don't even know what he wants or the meaning of his own Scripture. In fact one must ignore history itself and be unbiblical by claiming the 66 book canon as the True Scripture.
This is clearly deceitful sophistry and a landscape where God is not to be found. He cannot be known at all for the Protestants can't even agree with each other and yet claim their own interpretations as Scripture's own meaning in defiance to that of the Church Fathers. It simply separates one from God and advocates arrogance and egotism for Scripture can now mean whatever one wants it to mean, not what its authors meant for it to be.
The Orthodox follower is divorced from God. Why does a man need the authority of another man to give the Eucharist?
As Philippians 1:1 shows, the term "saint" is used to refer to the living (of course it also applies to to the dead). Thus prayers with the righteous living should be of the same value as the prayers of the righteous dead. Why should the authority of church leaders decide who is a saint and who isn't,
Why would the saints of appointed by the schismatic Catholic Church not be saints, especially if miracles are ascribed to them? If the Catholic Church is not the true church, especially after Vatican II, than why are their appointed saints still performing miracles? Any argument you could make against them could also be made by a Catholic against the Orthodox Church.
Now to why I even brought up Roman Catholic saints and the idea of living saints in the first place.
While a lot of faith healers are charlatans, some of them seem like they have actually healed people. Plenty of saints have also failed to perform miracles regularly, and I'm sure many of their miracles are just as coincidental or placebo as those of a faith healer. If God has performed miracles for Protestants or allowed Protestant holy men to work miracles, much like a startsy such as Saint Seraphim of Sarov, than they must also have the approval of God. If they have the approval of God, If Roman Catholics and Protestants can have God the blessing of God, than the authority of the Orthodox Church is no more legitimate than they are.
>Why should the authority of church leaders decide who is a saint and who isn't,
Church leaders *don't* decide that. They can canonize saints, but they do this when enough laity are venerating someone as a saint, it's a very bottom up process. It also doesn't require the person performed miracles or anything like that.
The Orthodox Church does not recognize the validity of any miracles attributed to the Latin Church in schism.
Nigga do you even know what the Liturgy means in Orthodox theology? It means the work of the people. The priest is simply akin to Moses who leads the people. There is no chaos and disorder unlike the worship of the Pentecostals and that of Hillsong. It is to emphasize unity and order which is why Ignatius of Antioch emphasizes the need for the Eucharist being performed by the bishop or one who is appointed by him.
Next off, your whole argument tries to make the case for miracles for Protestants. So what? Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus have reports and testimonies of their own miracles too. This doesn't prove anything. In fact, this really has nothing to do with addressing the main point I had argued prior about how Protestants are in fact more separated from God. And we see no response to that but rather even more avocation of relativism.
If any, the situation you presented here simply reinforces the point I made earlier, that we are even further from God should we take the Protestant approach. Now we have miracles that everyone does. And everyone is divided into differing factions with contradictory views. So whose authority is legitimate? We have no litmus test whatsoever to determine who is right given you reject history and the Fathers and not all of these churches can be right. Only one for each have their own contradictory viewpoints and two contradictory things cannot be true at the same time. Thus, we have a God who actively hides the truth that would enable human beings to gain Salvation. He makes it such that human beings cannot know anything at all in this regard, a true state of theological relativism where only a few will be able to obtain the truth, out of mere luck!
After all this is the only way you can argue your case since once we start bringing academical sources into the mix, all would point to the fact that Protestantism is just some foreign thing that arise centuries later; not being present in Early Christianity.
A more simple yet destructive argument against Sola Scriptura can go like this,
Show by Scripture Alone the proof for God's existence.
If the Protestant agrees, he is guilty of logical fallacy(Circular Reasoning)
If he doesn't, he is opposing the very maxim of Sola Scriptura since reason becomes the main authority in proving God's existence.