Prayers for the Catholic Church

[JayP]

I really do not know why so many of you get charged up to argue a point and ignore what someone else (in this case me) about the basis of the discussion.

I have no interest in responding to the post “how do you justify this in terms of the Bible saying….”

Did I not state that what I like about being Catholic means I downplay in your pool where the rules are justify it by the scripture.

Hey….seriously, remember sola scriptura is YOUR motto…not ours.
You do not want to believer in saints or miracles or even miracle whip more power to you.

We can argue and discuss a view of is XXX a good or bad thing for a Christian to be doing. And fruitfully. And learn

Do liberal Mennonite groups with women pastors and conservative ones that do not both believe scripture is ok with their practice?
Sure do.

I think people that are dead can pray. For us, for things, etc. and God hears all prayers and does with their petitions what he wishes to.
I will comment just to clarify, Catholics do not believe Saints literally perform miracles themselves. Nor do their relics. All real miracles are performed via Gods power and God alone.

[Ken]

FWIIW, miracles attributed to a saint is a pretty good confirmation they are in heaven,

Are they? Or are we simply drawing conclusions from their life story. Let's take the example of the latest saint, the teenager Carlo Acutis and the two miracles attributed to him, which both occurred AFTER his death. He died in 2006.

In the first miracle the description is as follows:

In 2013 on the death anniversary of Acutis, Luciana Vianna had taken to Mass her 4-year-old son, Mattheus, who had the congenital defect of an annular pancreas which made eating difficult. Beforehand, she had prayed a novena asking for Acutis's intercession. During the prayer service following Mass, Mattheus kissed the clothing relic of Acutis and asked he should not "throw up as much". Immediately following the Mass, he told his mother that he felt healed and asked for solid foods when they arrived home. Until then, he had been on an all-liquid diet. His doctors subsequently confirmed a normal appearing pancreas by ultrasound.

And the description of the second miracle is as follows:

On 23 May 2024, Pope Francis recognised a second miracle attributed to the intercession of Acutis.The miracle attributed to his intercession occurred in 2022, when a Costa Rican woman named Valeria Valverde had fallen off her bike in Florence, Italy, and suffered a brain haemorrhage with doctors giving her a low chance of survival. Her mother, Lilliana, prayed for the intercession of Acutis and visited his tomb. The same day, Valverde began to breathe independently again and was able to walk the next day with all evidence of the haemorrhage having disappeared.

I mean...OK, whatever. Maybe those were miracles, maybe not. Sick kids get better all the time. But there is nothing Biblical about the notion that dead people perform miracles.

This is right out of the Bible
2 Kings 13:

“20 Elisha died and was buried.

Now Moabite raiders used to enter the country every spring. 21 Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man’s body into Elisha’s tomb. When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet.“

I imagine most of us that fall under the Protestant category are challenged with the idea that relics could without even prayer, or faith for a miracle such as the example above, could perform such a miracle. But it is Scriptural.

I think the ancient churches of Catholics (western Church) and Eastern Orthodox (Eastern Church) continued the original faith that miracles did and do happen.

Another challenge for Protestants (any denomination not of the original Church) is after the Reformation if you can’t find it in Scripture than reject it.

However the original Church began with the Holy Spurit and with both Oral and written instruction-not everything was written but understood by oral teachings by Jesus and the Apostles as well. (Example 2 Thessalonians 2:15 : therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. By our WORD indicates teachings that were not written down)

Look, miracles are an article of faith. I get that. We have no way of independently knowing that a 4-year old who touched a piece of fabric from Carlo Acutis who had died years earlier was actually healed through a miracle performed by the dead Carlo Acutis. That is the point of miracles. They are articles of faith and not scientific evidence.

I'm not making an argument about whether any of this happened or not. That isn't the point and it is an impossible argument to make either way. What I am doing is criticizing the Catholic tradition of requiring two miracles before someone is honored as a saint. I think it leads to a lot of cultish and superstitious behavior that is not really Biblical or Christian.

Protestant traditions are not perfect either. I don't think we look at our history enough to be frank. But at least with Protestant traditions we don't need to find miracles to attach to historical figures in order to find them worthy of honor. For example, no one (that I am aware of) claims that Menno Simons performed miracles. Or that relics of his clothing did so after his death. Yet he is still worthy of remembering and honoring for his works and writings and influence.

[barnhart]

The charismatic sections of Protestantism are subject to cultish/superstitious ideas around the supernatural as well.

[Ken]

The charismatic sections of Protestantism are subject to cultish/superstitious ideas around the supernatural as well.

Are you referring to things like speaking in tongues, faith healing, snake handling and that sort of thing? If so, then yes, obviously.

[Valerie]

The charismatic sections of Protestantism are subject to cultish/superstitious ideas around the supernatural as well.

Are you referring to things like speaking in tongues, faith healing, snake handling and that sort of thing? If so, then yes, obviously.

Seems it’s not just the Catholic Church in need of prayer, so do churches that deny Scriptural teachings of Jesus and the Apostles teachings of faith and believing in the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus marveled at the faith of the Centurion who recognized that Jesus by His word could perform a miracle, He was displeased at His elect’s lack of faith, doubting, and accusations of Beelzebub at work. Truly we are at a time of little faith - as Timothy said, having a form of Godliness but denying its power.

Sad state of the churches who deny miracles, they will not see them, and indeed they are rare in these days. Because faith is waning. Spiritual discernment is a gift, we are not to deny the Spirit but test the spirits to se if they are from God.

Paul encouraged us to speak in tongues so that’s not a cult thing- snake handling I’ve never seen as my Pentecost experience never “went there” but I’m thankful to have witnessed the Gifts of the Spirit coupled with the Fruit of the Spirit- as Jesus and the Apostles taught and we read.

Mark 16: “And these signs will follow those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues, they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover. “

Naturally, that passage is misinterpreted in various ways our belief is taking up serpents is not a little serpent, but finding the demonic realm and the spirit. Not to test God by purposely handling serpents which I’ve heard about, but never saw.. I do not criticize Christians who believe God at His word.

[Ken]

The charismatic sections of Protestantism are subject to cultish/superstitious ideas around the supernatural as well.

Are you referring to things like speaking in tongues, faith healing, snake handling and that sort of thing? If so, then yes, obviously.

Seems it’s not just the Catholic Church in need of prayer, so do churches that deny Scriptural teachings of Jesus and the Apostles teachings of faith and believing in the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus marveled at the faith of the Centurion who recognized that Jesus by His word could perform a miracle, He was displeased at His elect’s lack of faith, doubting, and accusations of Beelzebub at work. Truly we are at a time of little faith - as Timothy said, having a form of Godliness but denying its power.

Sad state of the churches who deny miracles, they will not see them, and indeed they are rare in these days. Because faith is waning. Spiritual discernment is a gift, we are not to deny the Spirit but test the spirits to se if they are from God.

Paul encouraged us to speak in tongues so that’s not a cult thing- snake handling I’ve never seen as my Pentecost experience never “went there” but I’m thankful to have witnessed the Gifts of the Spirit coupled with the Fruit of the Spirit- as Jesus and the Apostles taught and we read.

Mark 16: “And these signs will follow those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues, they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover. “

Naturally, that passage is misinterpreted in various ways our belief is taking up serpents is not a little serpent, but finding the demonic realm and the spirit. Not to test God by purposely handling serpents which I’ve heard about, but never saw.. I do not criticize Christians who believe God at His word.

Nowhere in this thread have I made the claim that miracles don't occur. Am I highly skeptical of claims of modern miracles like speaking in tongues or faith healing whether in the Pentecostal or Catholic tradition? Absolutely. But I recognize that it is not always possible to subject articles of faith to scientific scrutiny.

I am simply critical of the Catholic requirement that at least 2 miracles be attached to any historic person before honoring them with sainthood. I think that focusing Christianity on miracles, as some strains of Catholicism and charismatic Christianity tends to do, misses the forest for the trees. And misses what the teachings of Jesus and Christianity are really about.

[JayP]

There are more requirements than just two miracles for sainthood. I suppose one can debate what they should be. But for a church as large and as old as the RCC it seems right that there are rules and a process otherwise everyone’s pet person would be a saint.

In a similar way I appreciate the church’s position on apparitions. Many of you may not realize that first, many of the “popularized” apparitions are not official. Medijurgie being a prime example. Finally, even the approved ones such as Fatima and Lourdes do not require you to believe. I appreciate the position that no new revelation is needed for salvation.

In other words, we have what we need. And no secret messages, personal revelations, apparitions, sainthood is either necessary. OR importantly more than private revelation. That is a great protection against gnostic type thinking

[Ken]

There are more requirements than just two miracles for sainthood. I suppose one can debate what they should be. But for a church as large and as old as the RCC it seems right that there are rules and a process otherwise everyone’s pet person would be a saint.

Of course I am well aware that there are more requirements than miracles for sainthood. I'm just quibbling with miracles being a threshold requirement for religious honor.

And one can be still be selective about who an organization chooses to officially honor without demanding to see miracles. For example, the Nobel Prize committee is very selective and deliberate about who they honor with the Nobel Prize and they don't demand to see miracles. Not everyone's pet scientist wins a Nobel Prize.

[JayP]

I am glad the RCC has higher standards than the Nobel prize.

You realize the standards for a Nobel is Barack Obama got one for not being George Bush..

I seriously cannot understand your complaint a out the RCC wanting two miracles for sainthood.
It is their club, their saints…their rules.

When the Orthodox decide Taar Nicholas II was a saint, we didn’t complain.
It is their club.

The Pope does not bitch when Eastern names some bishop’s son the new bishop.

Why do you care about our definition of saint, I a, sure you do not like our definitions of sacraments, relics, or titles for Mary? Lol

[Ken]

I am glad the RCC has higher standards than the Nobel prize.

You realize the standards for a Nobel is Barack Obama got one for not being George Bush..

I seriously cannot understand your complaint a out the RCC wanting two miracles for sainthood.
It is their club, their saints…their rules.

When the Orthodox decide Taar Nicholas II was a saint, we didn’t complain.
It is their club.

The Pope does not bitch when Eastern names some bishop’s son the new bishop.

Why do you care about our definition of saint, I a, sure you do not like our definitions of sacraments, relics, or titles for Mary? Lol

Relax. I'm not saying anything that Martin Luther didn't say in his criticism of the Catholic Church in its veneration of saints as intermediaries between people and their God. Which he also found to be un-Biblical.

This is a general theology subforum. I should think that taking issue with or pointing out specific points of theology is apropos.