Why pray to anyone but Jesus?

As for prophesies in the Church outside of the Bible, Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae was pretty darn prophetic.

John 16:12-13 says the Holy Spirit will reveal things later on.

Acts 10:9-16…St. Peter’s dream, not searching in scriptures, determined the kosher laws no longer valid.

Acts 15:1-30 The Council of Jerusalem, not the Bible, decided on whether or not Gentiles should be circumcised before becoming Christian.

What do you mean exactly? I’m not agreeing with you.

Yeah, and the miracle of the sun was prophesied, so was the attempted assassination of Pope St. John Paul II. Those prophecies both came through the children who received the apparition of Fatima.

The Catholic Church still believes in prophecy, but nothing that modern prophets say is required for belief because everything we are required to believe is handed down from the Apostles either in Scripture or in Sacred Tradition. (Actually, we are not even required to believe that modern prophecies are real. Still, it’s pretty hard to deny in the face of all the evidence for them. At least I think it is.)

Don’t interpret scripture based on speculation.

John 16:12-13- The Holy Spirit did come and reveal things later and the things were written in the other books of the new testament.

Acts 10:9-16- It is in the bible so that makes my point clear.

Acts 15:1-30 It is in the bible, just like I said.

Jesus could do lots of things, but it is clear that God likes to work through people and things. Witness the passage in the old testament when some soldiers throw one of their dead comrades into a crypt - and when it touches the bones of Elisha, he comes back to life. (Which also supports the practice of relics, which weirds a lot of non-Catholics out as well.)

So clearly God works through holy people. He doesn’t “need” to, He’s God, but He doesn’t “need” to do anything in any particular way. The question isn’t what Jesus could do if He felt like it, but what He wants us to do, and the tradition of praying to (through) saints is well established.

And actually, Luther still thought they were important and should be read. He just didn’t think they were inspired. So really similar to the Catholic view of some extra-Biblical books. Such as the Didache and the Protoevangelium of James, two personal favorites of mine.

What about the example of the rich man in hell who appeals on behalf of his brothers to Abraham?

Are you saying that you think Abraham could not have intervened had he so chosen on the brothers’ behalf, to ask God to allow someone to warn them about the existence of hell?

Abraham responds, not that he can’t intervene, but that it would not do any good.

You know this how?

  1. How do you know this anyway? How do you know the bible is revelation at all? What standards for knowing this do you have that others can’t claim also apply to the Koran or book of Mormon?
  2. As has been said, the bible itself says there will be additional revelation and that it doesn’t contain everything.
  3. To actually answer your question: It turns out that God actually thought of that - He built a Church on a Rock, against which the gates of Hell will not prevail, and sent the Paraclete to guide it in answering those types of questions.

I would have to read the story again, but I do my best not to speculate. Its better to just say you don’t know the answer than to speculate. If you do speculate make sure to say it is your opinion.

I was listening to a preacher and he said the reason that people settled on mountain tops after the flood was, because they were afraid it would flood again. That is an example of speculation, the bible never says why they lived on the mountains, so its just a guess to say why they lived there.

I think you only know it’s in the Bible because the Catholic bishops in the fourth century made a list of books of the Bible that included that book, and you have to rely on the hope that they made the right decision. Do you have any reason for thinking the Book of Acts is inspired other than because the fourth century Catholic Church said so? If not, why do you trust their decision?

Actually you are you said the saints were on earth. Revelation 8 describes the Angels praying for the saints on earth.

St Michael the Archangel Pray for us.

It appears you are not interested in learning, only making your own decrees and tradition based on…men’s opinions I guess. You try to be your own Pope, but under what authority I don’t know. :shrug:

How do I know that saints also means people on earth? I know it from reading the verses with the word saint in it and understanding the context around it. Also, protestants believe saints also mean Christians on earth. Even though I’m sure you don’t care what the protestant definition on saint is.

Where does the bible say there will be additional revelation? Are you going to give me the verse in John that is talking about the Holy Spirit? That verse is referring to the holy spirit coming and those new revelations are in the rest of the new testament.

Are you talking about rev 8:3?

Revelation 8:3
Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all God’s people, on the golden altar in front of the throne

It never says the angel was praying for anyone, it says he was given much prayers to offer. He was offering (giving) the prayers, he was not praying.

No where is the Holy Spirit limited in the Bible to the writings of the Apostles.

That is nothing but you reading your erroneous tradition in and limiting God.

God had always communicated with his people orally.

Just because it did not get written down in specific canonical books does not mean you throw the word if God in the trash.

We have a dispute here right? You are telling us we are wrong or sinning by invoking saints in prayer. We are calling you a heretic for denying the word of God given by the apostles to the church.

Let’s settle this via Matt 18, Which church should we take it to to get the definitive judgement on this?

What’s the difference?

No no. I’m clear on that you think the word can apply to those on earth, and don’t care whether you use it that way or not. The question is why you think that that passage about what is happening in heaven refers only to those saints on earth.

Where does the bible say there will be additional revelation? Are you going to give me the verse in John that is talking about the Holy Spirit? That verse is referring to the holy spirit coming and those new revelations are in the rest of the new testament.

Didn’t you say you try not to speculate? How do you know that that verse refers to the other scriptural writings - does he say that the this revelation will come in a very specific printed form by a certain date recognizable in a certain way somewhere, and I just missed it? And even if so, how do you know which writings those are? That is, how do you know that the Koran isn’t just a much later version of the bible that is more accurate?

Also though - hold fast to the traditions, both written and oral, and the whole rock thing, keys to heaven, gates of hell not prevailing, all that sort of thing. And a million other things. Please note that one sentence statements that a verse means what you think it means is not an argument, you’re gonna have to give more than that. That sort of thing is along the same lines as me simply saying that “the bible shows that Catholicism is true,” with the slight difference that I’m right. (Being a little tongue in cheek here, but it is something you’ve done a couple times now.)

Revelation 18:20 calls the people in heaven saints. (It also shows people on earth speaking to the saints in heaven, which supports praying to saints.) I think the Bible uses the word “saints” to refer sometimes to people on earth and sometimes to people in heaven, depending on the context.

Where does the bible say there will be additional revelation? Are you going to give me the verse in John that is talking about the Holy Spirit? That verse is referring to the holy spirit coming and those new revelations are in the rest of the new testament.

How do you know? You can’t go telling us we have to prove what we believe from the Bible if the Bible doesn’t say we have to do that. The idea that everything has to be in the Bible, isn’t in the Bible! Therefore it is self-refuting, and it follows that we don’t have to only believe things that are in the Bible. Do you see how logic leads us to that conclusion? Because the idea that everything has to be in the Bible, isn’t in the Bible, and therefore it is self-refuting. What do you think of that argument?

The difference is it never says the angel was praying. The difference is the angel was offering the prayers, which means giving the prayers. What the means who knows. It could mean that the angel was carrying the prayers.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.