-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
S
[quote=catholic123;493408]
Dear Catholic123, If the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone is
perfect, and it is perfect, because God is perfect, and everything in God is
perfect, then no procession from the Son is needed to add to the perfect
procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone. If the Holy Spirit
proceeds from both the Father and the Son, but then the Holy Spirit is denied
a procession from Himself, there is inequality and imperfection in God. If the
Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, the Father and Son are
fused together in one indistinct, confused Fatherson. And then the Holy Spirit
is the Son of the love union of the Father and the Son together. And then God
the Father becomes God the Grandfather, God the Son becomes the Father of
the Holy Spirit, and God the Holy Spirit becomes God the Grandson. It is
semi-Sabellian heresy.
For more information, if you want to know why John 15:26 forbids us from
saying "and the Son", see the theology of Saint Photios the Great in: Saint
Photios. (1987). The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Joseph P. Farrell, trans.
Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press; and see: Saint Photios. (1983). On
the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Holy Transfiguration Monastery,
translators. Boston, MA: Studion Publishers. For more on the Filioque itself,
from a general author who is objective, and who presents the Orthodox view
without either agreeing or disagreeing with it, see:
Siecienski, A. Edward. (2010). The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal
Contoversy. New York: Oxford University Press.
If the Filioque is true, the Spirit is not equal to the Father and Son, but is
subordinated to their common essence, their impersonal or personal union of
one Fatherson merged and confused together.
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
July 16, 2011 AD
PS If the Filioque is denied, the Father and the Son are not separated from
each other. Neither are they fused together into one Fatherson, as the
Filioque does. The Father and the Son are distinct and not the same person
as each other, but they are united as 2 of the persons of One God, together
consubstantially with the 3rd person, the Holy Spirit. But the Filioque implies
that the Father and Son together alone are one God, a Binity, a Duality,
Binitarianism, and the Spirit is a mere afterthought to the union of the Father
and Son together, a union in which the Holy Spirit does not participate,
and thus the Holy Spirit is relegated to an inferior, subordinated role.
To tell you the truth. You are one of these people who never bother to put in the time and effort to research anything about the Catholic Church before making any claims. You rather condemn all Catholics because it is a lot easier for you to do. How do you know that Catholics are not saved? How do you know the hearts and minds of every single Catholic person on the Earth? If a person does not believe like you do, do you think they are not saved? And do you and every single person of your religion is perfect? The truth is only God knows the hearts and minds of people so he is the only one who can judge. What happened to love thy neighbor as yourself? and do not tell me that you are doing this out of "love" because that is the most common cop-out many use.
Last edited:
S
Tobby17, I disagree with you that the Catholic Church is not of God. But I agree with you that the Roman Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church. The true Church is called the Catholic Church. It is also called the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Catholic Church, the Eastern (Greek) Orthodox Church, and the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It doesn't believe in the Filioque.
We read:
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." -- Hosea 4:6
(1) The words of the Nicene Creed were altered by Rome under pressure from Emperor Henry II. Pope Benedict VIII appended "and the Son" (the famous filioque) in the year 1014 in patent violation of Scripture (see John 15:26), while the manner in which it was inserted was clearly illegal.
(2) By the early twelfth century, Hugh of St. Victor, following the pattern set by St. Augustine, insisted that there were "thirty sacraments" and was allowed to remain a respectable theologian in the Occidental Church. As of this time, the Church had not determined the number of sacred rites, and it was only with the publication of Peter Lombard's Sentences in the mid-twelfth century that the actual enumeration of sacraments was fixed at seven.
(3) Today, Thomas Aquinas is considered the major theologian of the Roman Church. Yet his works were condemned by popes and proclaimed heretical in 1277. The Franciscans were forbidden to read his works, and it was not until years later that Thomas' teaching gained respectability. Subsequently, his works were selected by the Roman See as normative and worthy of merit.
...
(5) Pope John XXII (1323) proclaimed that Franciscan poverty was heretical, and those practicing it were forever excommunicated from the Roman fold. ("Cum inter nonnullos") His predecessor Nicholas III had asserted that the doctrine of the poverty of Christ was the "true doctrine, the denial of which was heresy" ("Exiit qui seminat.")
*(6) All popes of 1415 into the twentieth century declared that the reception of the Eucharist under the forms of bread and wine was clearly against the will of Almighty God. (Today this is common practice in the Roman Church.) In 1377, Pope Gregory XI excommunicated the English theologian John Wyclif for saying that the Church is the "People of God." (Note: During the conciliar years 1962-1965, Vatican II in countless passages referred to the custody of the Church residing in the hands of "the People of God".)"
(THE MYTH OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY: Rev. Fr. Marc Auer. (1990). Buffalo, NY: The Cenacle/ Liberty, TN: The St. John of Kronstadt Press; p. 82.).
God bless you all in Christ Jesus, Amen. Scott R. Harrington Erie PA
July 2011 AD
We read:
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." -- Hosea 4:6
(1) The words of the Nicene Creed were altered by Rome under pressure from Emperor Henry II. Pope Benedict VIII appended "and the Son" (the famous filioque) in the year 1014 in patent violation of Scripture (see John 15:26), while the manner in which it was inserted was clearly illegal.
(2) By the early twelfth century, Hugh of St. Victor, following the pattern set by St. Augustine, insisted that there were "thirty sacraments" and was allowed to remain a respectable theologian in the Occidental Church. As of this time, the Church had not determined the number of sacred rites, and it was only with the publication of Peter Lombard's Sentences in the mid-twelfth century that the actual enumeration of sacraments was fixed at seven.
(3) Today, Thomas Aquinas is considered the major theologian of the Roman Church. Yet his works were condemned by popes and proclaimed heretical in 1277. The Franciscans were forbidden to read his works, and it was not until years later that Thomas' teaching gained respectability. Subsequently, his works were selected by the Roman See as normative and worthy of merit.
...
(5) Pope John XXII (1323) proclaimed that Franciscan poverty was heretical, and those practicing it were forever excommunicated from the Roman fold. ("Cum inter nonnullos") His predecessor Nicholas III had asserted that the doctrine of the poverty of Christ was the "true doctrine, the denial of which was heresy" ("Exiit qui seminat.")
*(6) All popes of 1415 into the twentieth century declared that the reception of the Eucharist under the forms of bread and wine was clearly against the will of Almighty God. (Today this is common practice in the Roman Church.) In 1377, Pope Gregory XI excommunicated the English theologian John Wyclif for saying that the Church is the "People of God." (Note: During the conciliar years 1962-1965, Vatican II in countless passages referred to the custody of the Church residing in the hands of "the People of God".)"
(THE MYTH OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY: Rev. Fr. Marc Auer. (1990). Buffalo, NY: The Cenacle/ Liberty, TN: The St. John of Kronstadt Press; p. 82.).
God bless you all in Christ Jesus, Amen. Scott R. Harrington Erie PA
July 2011 AD
S
[quote=catholic123;492750]Now hold on, where you are wrong is saying that all of the
sudden in 1054 AD the Church just started making things up and adding things. No, what
happened was that these teaching had been believed by everyone, and the Church had
simply seen no reason to outline it as Church doctrine. The Church often doesn't put
things as doctrine until people begin to challenge this doctrine. Before 1000 AD, the
Church was unified and very little was disputed. Only after 1000 AD did people begin to
question what the Church taught, and through the years, the Church was forced to define
what she has always believed. If you read the writings of the early Church fathers, you will
realize that these teaching have always been there, but they weren't defined until later,
simply because there was no need to.[/quote]
Dear catholic123, That simply is not so. After 1014 AD, Roman Catholicism began
preaching innovations. Which is the authentic Roman Catholic Church? Pope Benedict
VIII in 1013-1014 AD, who insisted on promoting the Filioque, or Pope St. Leo III who in
806 AD forbid the inclusion of the Filioque in the Latin creed in the St. Peter's Cathedral,
the Vatican, Lateran Palace, in papal Rome. Pope St. Leo III had two plaques in Latin and
in Greek languages without the Filioque put into silver on the walls of the Vatican. These
plaques today have disappeared. See how desperate into deception the supporters of the
Filioque dogma are to spread their heresy. The chief reason the Roman Catholic Church
later promoted the Filioque is the undue influence of the Frankish kings from Emperor
Charlemagne in 800 AD to Emperor Henry II in 1014 AD. Charlemagne actually accused
the Greek Orthodox Church from deleting the Filioque from the original Nicene Creed. This
is a sheer blatant lie. In the Greek language, the Nicene Creed of the second ecumenical
council of Constantinople in 381 AD did not have the words "and the Son", which is
"Filioque" in Latin. The original Latin creed also said "qui ex Patre procedit", and NOT
"qui ex Patre Filioque procedit". So which Pope is the true Catholic? Pope St. Leo III, who
forbad the Filioque, or Pope Benedict VIII, who enforced it? According to Orthodoxy,
Pope St. Leo III is a saint of the Orthodox Church, because he forbad the Filioque. He did
the right, true Christian thing. He didn't promote his own private opinions. He promoted
the Catholic "faith once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3).
We read: "(7) Pope Pius V (1566-1572) claimed that all "Huguenots (or French
Protestants) should be "exterminated". This is now explained away by historians
claiming that such was a person "opinion" of the pope, therefore not infallible. Regardless,
it remains an official utterance of the "Vicar of Christ"!
"(8) In 1642, Pope Urban VIII declared that the earth was the center of the universe,
and as such was the "unending teaching of the Church".
"(9) John Hus (1374-1415) was condemned and burned at the stake because he taught
openly that neither pope nor cardinal could establish doctrine contrary to Holy Scripture.
He also was one of the first to condemn indulgences, and asked that the chalice be offered
to the people at the Eucharist. ...
"Defenders of the papacy will say that such proclamations were not infallible, and they
are right, to a point. However, one can search high and low, ask any priest or bishop in
the Roman Church, check any textbook, and he will be unable to find a list of infallible
teachings, since none exists. Some have estimated that there are anywhere from one to
sixteen, but that is a presumption. We know that there is only one "official" infallible
proclamation - that of the Assumption of Mary into heaven which was formally proclaimed
in 1950, and possibly the very proclamation of infallibility itself. While researching this
study, I approached seven different agencies of the Rome Catholic Church: NOT ONE WAS
ABLE TO PRODUCE A LIST OF INFALLIBLE PRONOUNCEMENTS OF POPES! In fact, one priest
mentioned that he had never thought of the question and, now that he did, was amazed
that "it had never occurred to (him) before."
"We have seen that popes taught heresy -- Honorius, Liberius, Callistus, Zozimus, Vigilius;
yet we have not even begun to touch on the grossly immoral lives of the popes through
the ages. This alone would take a volume much larger than the one you now have in
your hand. However, this legacy of popes does not directly concern us here. What does
concern us is that these same men claim the place of God on earth -- for what else in
the view of Rome is a Vicar of Christ?
"Historical support, as we have seen, is almost totally lacking in the case of "Pastor
aeternus", the proclamation of papal infallibility by Vatican Council I. As such, the
conciliar documents turn to three previous councils for definition and support. This is
a most curious tactic to be sure, for there is certainly nothing in those previous
assemblies to lend support for the new dogma. ..." (THE MYTH OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. p.
83. Rev. Fr. Marc Auer. (1990). Buffalo, NY: The Cenacle/ Liberty, TN: The St. John of
Kronstadt Press.)
See also: Holy Apostles Convent. (1990). The Lives of the Pillars of Orthdoxy: St. Photios,
St. Gregory Palamas, St. Mark of Ephesus. Buena Vista, CO: Holy Apostles Convent. See
the section in this very most excellent of Orthodox books (almost as excellent as the
book "The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit" by St. Photios) called "Brief Orthodox Replies
to the Innovations of the (Roman) papacy."
God save us. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington July 3/16, 2011 AD
sudden in 1054 AD the Church just started making things up and adding things. No, what
happened was that these teaching had been believed by everyone, and the Church had
simply seen no reason to outline it as Church doctrine. The Church often doesn't put
things as doctrine until people begin to challenge this doctrine. Before 1000 AD, the
Church was unified and very little was disputed. Only after 1000 AD did people begin to
question what the Church taught, and through the years, the Church was forced to define
what she has always believed. If you read the writings of the early Church fathers, you will
realize that these teaching have always been there, but they weren't defined until later,
simply because there was no need to.[/quote]
Dear catholic123, That simply is not so. After 1014 AD, Roman Catholicism began
preaching innovations. Which is the authentic Roman Catholic Church? Pope Benedict
VIII in 1013-1014 AD, who insisted on promoting the Filioque, or Pope St. Leo III who in
806 AD forbid the inclusion of the Filioque in the Latin creed in the St. Peter's Cathedral,
the Vatican, Lateran Palace, in papal Rome. Pope St. Leo III had two plaques in Latin and
in Greek languages without the Filioque put into silver on the walls of the Vatican. These
plaques today have disappeared. See how desperate into deception the supporters of the
Filioque dogma are to spread their heresy. The chief reason the Roman Catholic Church
later promoted the Filioque is the undue influence of the Frankish kings from Emperor
Charlemagne in 800 AD to Emperor Henry II in 1014 AD. Charlemagne actually accused
the Greek Orthodox Church from deleting the Filioque from the original Nicene Creed. This
is a sheer blatant lie. In the Greek language, the Nicene Creed of the second ecumenical
council of Constantinople in 381 AD did not have the words "and the Son", which is
"Filioque" in Latin. The original Latin creed also said "qui ex Patre procedit", and NOT
"qui ex Patre Filioque procedit". So which Pope is the true Catholic? Pope St. Leo III, who
forbad the Filioque, or Pope Benedict VIII, who enforced it? According to Orthodoxy,
Pope St. Leo III is a saint of the Orthodox Church, because he forbad the Filioque. He did
the right, true Christian thing. He didn't promote his own private opinions. He promoted
the Catholic "faith once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3).
We read: "(7) Pope Pius V (1566-1572) claimed that all "Huguenots (or French
Protestants) should be "exterminated". This is now explained away by historians
claiming that such was a person "opinion" of the pope, therefore not infallible. Regardless,
it remains an official utterance of the "Vicar of Christ"!
"(8) In 1642, Pope Urban VIII declared that the earth was the center of the universe,
and as such was the "unending teaching of the Church".
"(9) John Hus (1374-1415) was condemned and burned at the stake because he taught
openly that neither pope nor cardinal could establish doctrine contrary to Holy Scripture.
He also was one of the first to condemn indulgences, and asked that the chalice be offered
to the people at the Eucharist. ...
"Defenders of the papacy will say that such proclamations were not infallible, and they
are right, to a point. However, one can search high and low, ask any priest or bishop in
the Roman Church, check any textbook, and he will be unable to find a list of infallible
teachings, since none exists. Some have estimated that there are anywhere from one to
sixteen, but that is a presumption. We know that there is only one "official" infallible
proclamation - that of the Assumption of Mary into heaven which was formally proclaimed
in 1950, and possibly the very proclamation of infallibility itself. While researching this
study, I approached seven different agencies of the Rome Catholic Church: NOT ONE WAS
ABLE TO PRODUCE A LIST OF INFALLIBLE PRONOUNCEMENTS OF POPES! In fact, one priest
mentioned that he had never thought of the question and, now that he did, was amazed
that "it had never occurred to (him) before."
"We have seen that popes taught heresy -- Honorius, Liberius, Callistus, Zozimus, Vigilius;
yet we have not even begun to touch on the grossly immoral lives of the popes through
the ages. This alone would take a volume much larger than the one you now have in
your hand. However, this legacy of popes does not directly concern us here. What does
concern us is that these same men claim the place of God on earth -- for what else in
the view of Rome is a Vicar of Christ?
"Historical support, as we have seen, is almost totally lacking in the case of "Pastor
aeternus", the proclamation of papal infallibility by Vatican Council I. As such, the
conciliar documents turn to three previous councils for definition and support. This is
a most curious tactic to be sure, for there is certainly nothing in those previous
assemblies to lend support for the new dogma. ..." (THE MYTH OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. p.
83. Rev. Fr. Marc Auer. (1990). Buffalo, NY: The Cenacle/ Liberty, TN: The St. John of
Kronstadt Press.)
See also: Holy Apostles Convent. (1990). The Lives of the Pillars of Orthdoxy: St. Photios,
St. Gregory Palamas, St. Mark of Ephesus. Buena Vista, CO: Holy Apostles Convent. See
the section in this very most excellent of Orthodox books (almost as excellent as the
book "The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit" by St. Photios) called "Brief Orthodox Replies
to the Innovations of the (Roman) papacy."
God save us. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington July 3/16, 2011 AD
C
My youth leader once gave us an analogy to faith that I think might help. The faith can be compared to a thanksgiving dinner. Believing in Jesus is like the Turkey, it is necessary, and if you have that, you have a thanksgiving dinner, you can't have thanksgiving dinner without the turkey. And you could just be content with the turkey, but do the squash and pie and potatoes and sides take away from the dinner. No. The rather add a very important aspect to thanksgiving dinner, and many would even say necessary, although not nearly as necessary to the turkey. In the same way in our faith, the saints and the Eucharist and the many other "doctrines" of which many think take away from Jesus, actually add to Him. Like the sides in a Thanksgiving dinner, the turkey is most important but the sides add, not take away from, the dinner. And the many helpful things in our faith like the saints and Rosary, ect. don't take away from Jesus or the faith, but rather add to it.
yeah i agree wid u, i don lyk bashing someone for beliving in something,its funny how missionary come to nepal and tell hindus how rong they are and how right we are wid aweful explanation it seriously sucks..We have learnt the truth and have not learnt to walk in it cuz we got all the knowledge and yet lack power
L
Hi, I'm still trying to figure out this whole website..so forgive me if I reiterate a point someone has already made. =]
I'm a cradle Catholic, but I never understood the whole "Marian Devotion" thing until very recently. I had soooo much trouble with trying to figure out how I could love Mary without making her higher than Jesus in my prayer life.
I knew the reasons for believing of course:
Theotokos: Greek word meaning "Mother of God"...because Jesus was 100% human and 100% divine, and these two natures could not be separated, Mary was mother of the whole Jesus. Even though she didn't give him his divinity. Are you half your mother's and half your father's? No. Even if your parents are divorced, all of you belongs to both of them. So, Mary is truly Mother of God.
Ok..and as Catholics, we pray to Mary for guidance. She will always lead us to her son because he is the focus of her existence. Jesus wants us to do this, he wants us to let his mom bring us closer to him. He gave the Church to Mary and Mary to the Church while he was hanging on the cross. (John 19:26-27) What an amazing gift!!! Mary always points to her son, never herself (this can be seen in all artistic depictions of Mary)
On a personal note...Recently, there was an issue I had been struggling to understand for a long time. I had prayed and prayed for months that I might find peace, but it never came. I knew that God was taking care of me and that he wanted me to feel his love for me, but I wouldn't allow myself to surrender to him. Finally, I wrote a letter to Mary. I explained the issue to her, and asked, "Mary, I know your son is trying to speak to me right now, and I know I need to hear what he has to say. Please be a microphone so I can know what he's trying to tell me." And I kid you not, within two hours, I had an answer to all the loneliness and pain I had been feeling for many many months. Mary did not give me relief, she helped me to accept God's love in an amazing way. Mary is my "spiritual mommy" because Jesus gave her to me.
I'm sorry I didn't cover all of your statements..these are just the ones that have meant the most to me personally...May God bless you! <3
I'm a cradle Catholic, but I never understood the whole "Marian Devotion" thing until very recently. I had soooo much trouble with trying to figure out how I could love Mary without making her higher than Jesus in my prayer life.
I knew the reasons for believing of course:
Theotokos: Greek word meaning "Mother of God"...because Jesus was 100% human and 100% divine, and these two natures could not be separated, Mary was mother of the whole Jesus. Even though she didn't give him his divinity. Are you half your mother's and half your father's? No. Even if your parents are divorced, all of you belongs to both of them. So, Mary is truly Mother of God.
Ok..and as Catholics, we pray to Mary for guidance. She will always lead us to her son because he is the focus of her existence. Jesus wants us to do this, he wants us to let his mom bring us closer to him. He gave the Church to Mary and Mary to the Church while he was hanging on the cross. (John 19:26-27) What an amazing gift!!! Mary always points to her son, never herself (this can be seen in all artistic depictions of Mary)
On a personal note...Recently, there was an issue I had been struggling to understand for a long time. I had prayed and prayed for months that I might find peace, but it never came. I knew that God was taking care of me and that he wanted me to feel his love for me, but I wouldn't allow myself to surrender to him. Finally, I wrote a letter to Mary. I explained the issue to her, and asked, "Mary, I know your son is trying to speak to me right now, and I know I need to hear what he has to say. Please be a microphone so I can know what he's trying to tell me." And I kid you not, within two hours, I had an answer to all the loneliness and pain I had been feeling for many many months. Mary did not give me relief, she helped me to accept God's love in an amazing way. Mary is my "spiritual mommy" because Jesus gave her to me.
I'm sorry I didn't cover all of your statements..these are just the ones that have meant the most to me personally...May God bless you! <3
E
What does that have to do with us today? The people there knew she was his mother. And I am sure honored her as such. Is mary here on earth telling us to follow Christ? That would be kinda hard since she is awaiting the return of here savior and has yet to even received her glorified body yet. Mary is not God, She is not omniscient. How would she pick (if she could) what part of the earth to go to? We saw an angel in Daniels time who was stopped and was prevented from getting there in a timely manor. How could mary, who is not yet made above an angel get anywhere?
W
Don't YOU know that she was His mother? Then why don't you honor her as such? Secondly, the Bible teaches that the saints in Heaven are not spiritually dead but living and active members of the Church. So why couldn't she appear throughout the world if that is what her Son(who is God after all) wanted. And lastly, even if the Bible didnt say these things, does that mean they are not true?
C
Wedding feast at Cana, Mary takes the servants to Jesus. She doesn't say, well let me go and see what I can do about it and find some wine, she says lets go see my son, he can fix it. Same with our prayers, she doesn't try to fix them herself, she takes them to Jesus, like:
(taken from Praying to the Saints)
One charge made against it is that the saints in heaven cannot even hear our prayers, making it useless to ask for their intercession. However, this is not true. As Scripture indicates, those in heaven are aware of the prayers of those on earth. This can be seen, for example, in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of "golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.
Another charge commonly levelled against asking the saints for their intercession is that this violates the sole mediatorship of Christ, which Paul discusses: "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5).
But asking one person to pray for you in no way violates Christ’s mediatorship, as can be seen from considering the way in which Christ is a mediator. First, Christ is a unique mediator between man and God because he is the only person who is both God and man. He is the only bridge between the two, the only God-man. But that role as mediator is not compromised in the least by the fact that others intercede for us. Furthermore, Christ is a unique mediator between God and man because he is the Mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15, 12:24), just as Moses was the mediator (Greek mesitas) of the Old Covenant (Gal. 3:19–20).
The intercession of fellow Christians—which is what the saints in heaven are—also clearly does not interfere with Christ’s unique mediatorship because in the four verses immediately preceding 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul says that Christians should interceed: "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and pleasing to God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1–4). Clearly, then, intercessory prayers offered by Christians on behalf of others is something "good and pleasing to God," not something infringing on Christ’s role as mediator.
(taken from Praying to the Saints)
One charge made against it is that the saints in heaven cannot even hear our prayers, making it useless to ask for their intercession. However, this is not true. As Scripture indicates, those in heaven are aware of the prayers of those on earth. This can be seen, for example, in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of "golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.
Another charge commonly levelled against asking the saints for their intercession is that this violates the sole mediatorship of Christ, which Paul discusses: "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5).
But asking one person to pray for you in no way violates Christ’s mediatorship, as can be seen from considering the way in which Christ is a mediator. First, Christ is a unique mediator between man and God because he is the only person who is both God and man. He is the only bridge between the two, the only God-man. But that role as mediator is not compromised in the least by the fact that others intercede for us. Furthermore, Christ is a unique mediator between God and man because he is the Mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15, 12:24), just as Moses was the mediator (Greek mesitas) of the Old Covenant (Gal. 3:19–20).
The intercession of fellow Christians—which is what the saints in heaven are—also clearly does not interfere with Christ’s unique mediatorship because in the four verses immediately preceding 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul says that Christians should interceed: "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and pleasing to God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1–4). Clearly, then, intercessory prayers offered by Christians on behalf of others is something "good and pleasing to God," not something infringing on Christ’s role as mediator.
C
Just some more info on praying to the saints
Taken from Praying to the Saints
"Directly to Jesus"
Some may grant that the previous objections to asking the saints for their intercession do not work and may even grant that the practice is permissible in theory, yet they may question it on other grounds, asking why one would want to ask the saints to pray for one. "Why not pray directly to Jesus?" they ask.
The answer is: "Of course one should pray directly to Jesus!" But that does not mean it is not also a good thing to ask others to pray for one as well. Ultimately, the "go-directly-to-Jesus" objection boomerangs back on the one who makes it: Why should we ask any Christian, in heaven or on earth, to pray for us when we can ask Jesus directly? If the mere fact that we can go straight to Jesus proved that we should ask no Christian in heaven to pray for us then it would also prove that we should ask no Christian on earth to pray for us.
Praying for each other is simply part of what Christians do. As we saw, in 1 Timothy 2:1–4, Paul strongly encouraged Christians to intercede for many different things, and that passage is by no means unique in his writings. Elsewhere Paul directly asks others to pray for him (Rom. 15:30–32, Eph. 6:18–20, Col. 4:3, 1 Thess. 5:25, 2 Thess. 3:1), and he assured them that he was praying for them as well (2 Thess. 1:11). Most fundamentally, Jesus himself required us to pray for others, and not only for those who asked us to do so (Matt. 5:44).
Since the practice of asking others to pray for us is so highly recommended in Scripture, it cannot be regarded as superfluous on the grounds that one can go directly to Jesus. The New Testament would not recommend it if there were not benefits coming from it. One such benefit is that the faith and devotion of the saints can support our own weaknesses and supply what is lacking in our own faith and devotion. Jesus regularly supplied for one person based on another person’s faith (e.g., Matt. 8:13, 15:28, 17:15–18, Mark 9:17–29, Luke 8:49–55). And it goes without saying that those in heaven, being free of the body and the distractions of this life, have even greater confidence and devotion to God than anyone on earth.
Also, God answers in particular the prayers of the righteous. James declares: "The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. Elijah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit" (Jas. 5:16–18). Yet those Christians in heaven are more righteous, since they have been made perfect to stand in God’s presence (Heb. 12:22-23), than anyone on earth, meaning their prayers would be even more efficacious.
Having others praying for us thus is a good thing, not something to be despised or set aside. Of course, we should pray directly to Christ with every pressing need we have (cf. John 14:13–14). That’s something the Catholic Church strongly encourages. In fact, the prayers of the Mass, the central act of Catholic worship, are directed to God and Jesus, not the saints. But this does not mean that we should not also ask our fellow Christians, including those in heaven, to pray with us.
In addition to our prayers directly to God and Jesus (which are absolutely essential to the Christian life), there are abundant reasons to ask our fellow Christians in heaven to pray for us. The Bible indicates that they are aware of our prayers, that they intercede for us, and that their prayers are effective (else they would not be offered). It is only narrow-mindedness that suggests we should refrain from asking our fellow Christians in heaven to do what we already know them to be anxious and capable of doing.
In Heaven and On Earth
The Bible directs us to invoke those in heaven and ask them to pray with us. Thus in Psalms 103, we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21). And in Psalms 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2).
Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, we read: "[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3-4).
And those in heaven who offer to God our prayers aren’t just angels, but humans as well. John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). The simple fact is, as this passage shows: The saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.
Taken from Praying to the Saints
"Directly to Jesus"
Some may grant that the previous objections to asking the saints for their intercession do not work and may even grant that the practice is permissible in theory, yet they may question it on other grounds, asking why one would want to ask the saints to pray for one. "Why not pray directly to Jesus?" they ask.
The answer is: "Of course one should pray directly to Jesus!" But that does not mean it is not also a good thing to ask others to pray for one as well. Ultimately, the "go-directly-to-Jesus" objection boomerangs back on the one who makes it: Why should we ask any Christian, in heaven or on earth, to pray for us when we can ask Jesus directly? If the mere fact that we can go straight to Jesus proved that we should ask no Christian in heaven to pray for us then it would also prove that we should ask no Christian on earth to pray for us.
Praying for each other is simply part of what Christians do. As we saw, in 1 Timothy 2:1–4, Paul strongly encouraged Christians to intercede for many different things, and that passage is by no means unique in his writings. Elsewhere Paul directly asks others to pray for him (Rom. 15:30–32, Eph. 6:18–20, Col. 4:3, 1 Thess. 5:25, 2 Thess. 3:1), and he assured them that he was praying for them as well (2 Thess. 1:11). Most fundamentally, Jesus himself required us to pray for others, and not only for those who asked us to do so (Matt. 5:44).
Since the practice of asking others to pray for us is so highly recommended in Scripture, it cannot be regarded as superfluous on the grounds that one can go directly to Jesus. The New Testament would not recommend it if there were not benefits coming from it. One such benefit is that the faith and devotion of the saints can support our own weaknesses and supply what is lacking in our own faith and devotion. Jesus regularly supplied for one person based on another person’s faith (e.g., Matt. 8:13, 15:28, 17:15–18, Mark 9:17–29, Luke 8:49–55). And it goes without saying that those in heaven, being free of the body and the distractions of this life, have even greater confidence and devotion to God than anyone on earth.
Also, God answers in particular the prayers of the righteous. James declares: "The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. Elijah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit" (Jas. 5:16–18). Yet those Christians in heaven are more righteous, since they have been made perfect to stand in God’s presence (Heb. 12:22-23), than anyone on earth, meaning their prayers would be even more efficacious.
Having others praying for us thus is a good thing, not something to be despised or set aside. Of course, we should pray directly to Christ with every pressing need we have (cf. John 14:13–14). That’s something the Catholic Church strongly encourages. In fact, the prayers of the Mass, the central act of Catholic worship, are directed to God and Jesus, not the saints. But this does not mean that we should not also ask our fellow Christians, including those in heaven, to pray with us.
In addition to our prayers directly to God and Jesus (which are absolutely essential to the Christian life), there are abundant reasons to ask our fellow Christians in heaven to pray for us. The Bible indicates that they are aware of our prayers, that they intercede for us, and that their prayers are effective (else they would not be offered). It is only narrow-mindedness that suggests we should refrain from asking our fellow Christians in heaven to do what we already know them to be anxious and capable of doing.
In Heaven and On Earth
The Bible directs us to invoke those in heaven and ask them to pray with us. Thus in Psalms 103, we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21). And in Psalms 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2).
Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, we read: "[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3-4).
And those in heaven who offer to God our prayers aren’t just angels, but humans as well. John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). The simple fact is, as this passage shows: The saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.