Questions on Intercession of the Saints

Valletta · Jul 24, 2024

Deblee said:
Valletta said: The early Christians understood Mary was the mother of God.

Depends which "early Christians" you are talking about. It was the Council of Nicea around 400 AD who decided on that. If that were the generally held belief before that time, the Council would have been unnecessary.

From the time of Jesus until 400 years later Mary was known as the mother of Jesus, period. If you can point me to documentary evidence to the contrary from that time period, I will surely read it and consider it carefully and respectfully.

Actually that Council decided whether Jesus was one person or two, and the subject of Mary came up as a related subject. Councils were often formed when a various heresies started to become popular enough that the ideas warranted attention. Many times something was known for centuries but was being challenged, and sometimes councils restated what was said at a previous council. As I pointed out, Elizabeth called Mary the "mother of our Lord." The words "Our Lord" were used to refer to God.

prodromos · Jul 24, 2024

Deblee said:
Are you saying that Jesus Christ did not exist until Mary gave birth to him?

Clearly you did not read my post before replying. I explicitly stated that He existed before He was conceived in Mary's womb. If you can't respond truthfully to the arguments made then there is no point having this discussion.

Deblee said:
Who was His mother before Mary came along? Answer: no one, because God does not have a mother. He has existed forever.

God is outside of time, but He entered into time when He was conceived and born of the virgin Mary. From that moment God the Son had a mother. You could also state that God forknew Mary as His mother

Deblee said:
She only contributed her DNA to His physical body, and that's why she is called His mother.

Utter nonsense. She contributed her life, committing herself humbly to the role God had preordained for her. Try telling your own mum that the only reason she is your mother is because she contributed a bit of her DNA.

Deblee · Jul 24, 2024

Valletta said:
Actually that Council decided whether Jesus was one person or two, and the subject of Mary came up as a related subject. Councils were often formed when a various heresies started to become popular enough that the ideas warranted attention. Many times something was known for centuries but was being challenged, and sometimes councils restated what was said at a previous council. As I pointed out, Elizabeth called Mary the "mother of our Lord." The words "Our Lord" were used to refer to God.

At this point, anything else I have to say on the subject would simply be a repetition of what I said before.

I am making a collection of the writings of the anti-nicene fathers. I have not yet read them all. So far, I have found no mention of Mary at all. If anyone knows of anything pertinent to this discussion in those writings or any others preceding 400AD, I would very much appreciate knowing about it.

Have a blessed day!

concretecamper · Jul 24, 2024

@Deblee

The Council of Ephesus in the late 4th Century was called to battle the Nestorian Heresy.

The Title Mother of God was given to Mary as a result of the Church adequately defining the 2 Natures of Christ. She was given that title because of her relationship with her Son, not because of any merit of her's.

You can easily Google the 12 anathemas written by St Cyril and accepted by the Council. If you subscribe to some of these Heresies, it isn't a good thing.

Valletta · Jul 24, 2024

Deblee said:
At this point, anything else I have to say on the subject would simply be a repetition of what I said before.

I am making a collection of the writings of the anti-nicene fathers. I have not yet read them all. So far, I have found no mention of Mary at all. If anyone knows of anything pertinent to this discussion in those writings or any others preceding 400AD, I would very much appreciate knowing about it.

Have a blessed day!

No mention of Mary??? I gave you some examples to get you started back in #129.

Valletta · Jul 24, 2024

IceJad said:
To me she is just a saint like all believers are. I personally don't mind people invoking Mary in prayers but I don't find it to be theologically sound given that Jesus has said He is the way, the truth and the life. No one goes to God the Father except through Him.

Following your logic you could also say there is no theological reason to read the Bible because no one goes to God except through Him. Or for sure any part of the Bible that did not specifically talk about Jesus.

jas3 · Jul 24, 2024

Deblee said:
It was the Council of Nicea around 400 AD who decided on that.

No, Nicaea was in 325 AD and addressed the matter of the Trinity. You're thinking of Ephesus, which was in 431 AD.

Deblee said:
If that were the generally held belief before that time, the Council would have been unnecessary.

The existence of dissenters like Nestorius doesn't invalidate the orthodoxy of a belief. If it did, then one could reject the Trinity on the basis that a large number of self-professed Christians rejected it, which was the impetus for the Council of Nicaea.

Deblee said:
From the time of Jesus until 400 years later Mary was known as the mother of Jesus, period. If you can point me to documentary evidence to the contrary from that time period, I will surely read it and consider it carefully and respectfully.

I assume you're already familiar with the sources quoted here? Mary and the Early Fathers - Mary, Mother of God - Catholic Online

Deblee said:
You could say that

Jesus = God, but you cannot say that

God = Jesus, because

God = Jesus + the Father + the Holy Spirit.

It is not a good idea to try to express something that transcends concepts like identity and value with mathematical equations. I mean this in the nicest way possible, but all three of these equations are meaningless.

Deblee said:
Mary can be the mother of Jesus, but she cannot be the mother of God because God = Jesus + the Father + the Holy Spirit.

I am sure you don't mean this as if God is composed of parts, but that's really the only way this statement can be true.

Deblee said:
I am making a collection of the writings of the anti-nicene fathers.

I sure hope you mean ante-nicene fathers ^_^

Deblee said:
I have not yet read them all.

You're going to be waiting to come to a conclusion for a very long time if you want to read them all. The Schaff Ante-Nicene Fathers series is 10 volumes long and has about 9,000 pages of text. But the link I gave you has relevant texts from before 400 and should point you in the right direction.

IceJad · Jul 24, 2024

Valletta said:
Following your logic you could also say there is no theological reason to read the Bible because no one goes to God except through Him. Or for sure any part of the Bible that did not specifically talk about Jesus.

The bible is a collection of writings that give us understanding of the nature of God and His works and plans. But the bible won't save and won't forgive sins. That would be God Himself. The bible serves as a guide to God. When we have an understanding of bible even losing the book, we don't lose our path to God. The reason the bible still persist is the same reason we still need maps. For others who don't know the way to find the way and to pass on this knowledge.

The Israelites understood this during their Babylonian captivity; that oral traditions might become lost and misremembered. Therefore they compiled all their traditions into a collection called Torah. The Torah don't maintain their covenant with God but the writings in the Torah preserves the understanding and requirements of their covenant.

Prayers, worship and fellowship all still goes back to God Himself in the name of our Saviour Jesus.

Valletta · Jul 24, 2024

IceJad said:
The bible is a collection of writings that give us understanding of the nature of God and His works and plans. But the bible won't save and won't forgive sins. That would be God Himself. The bible serves as a guide to God. When we have an understanding of bible even losing the book, we don't lose our path to God. The reason the bible still persist is the same reason we still need maps. For others who don't know the way to find the way and to pass on this knowledge.

The Israelites understood this during their Babylonian captivity; that oral traditions might become lost and misremembered. Therefore they compiled all their traditions into a collection called Torah. The Torah don't maintain their covenant with God but the writings in the Torah preserves the understanding and requirements of their covenant.

Prayers, worship and fellowship all still goes back to God Himself in the name of our Saviour Jesus.

I agree. Whether we go through a fellow human being or saint or angel, whether through prayer or acts of charity, it all goes to God.

IceJad · Jul 24, 2024

Valletta said:
I agree. Whether we go through a fellow human being or saint or angel, whether through prayer or acts of charity, it all goes to God.

The point of contention from my view point is the invocation of saints (be it the apostles or Mary) in prayer. I had a discussion with a good Catholic friend of mine not too long (took us 3.5 hours of talking) about this subject. So let me brief the conversation to several keys points.

Point 1
His point: there is no difference between asking the saints and asking a friend to pray for you as there is a communion of saints.
My point: yes but I don't put that request in the form a prayer to God. I ask the person separately and we pray in to Jesus alone. Also I don't put adoration and exultation of the person I asked from. To clarify this; I have see and read a lot of Catholic prayers. In all of them there is a form of adoration and exultation of the interceding saint. Example "O Peter prince of the apostles" and "Holy Mary Virgin of Virgins". To me this veers too close to worship since it is uttered in the form a prayer.

Point 2
His point: this is standard practise and knowledge among in the early Christians including the apostles. The Church is only carrying on this tradition.
My point: why is there no primary source of information from the apostles. Writing confirming this in the form of canonized Scripture.
His point: there is confirmation based on Scriptures then quoted some.
My point: that is interpretation of the passage but not a direct instruction. In layman terms "reading between the line" which could as easily be interpreted to mean something else.

Point 3
My point: why is something so crucial to the relationship to God not recorded down in first hand? There is a lack of confirmation from the writings of the apostle regarding what the Church deem essential doctrine.
His point: it was common knowledge and understanding before the Protestant reformation. It was only after the reformation that the Protestants re-examine the practices of the Church.

After 3.5 hours we can't find a common ground regarding saintly intercession. To my understanding it likely never will. It is a matter of trust. The Catholics will trust the Church teachings and traditions while the Protestants will trust the Scriptures alone. We agreed to leave it at that.

Deblee · Jul 25, 2024

concretecamper said:
@Deblee

The Council of Ephesus in the late 4th Century was called to battle the Nestorian Heresy.

The Title Mother of God was given to Mary as a result of the Church adequately defining the 2 Natures of Christ. She was given that title because of her relationship with her Son, not because of any merit of her's.

You can easily Google the 12 anathemas written by St Cyril and accepted by the Council. If you subscribe to some of these Heresies, it isn't a good thing.

My mistake --it was the Council of Ephesus, 431 AD, instigated by Pulcheria, the sister of Theodosius II, because of her power struggle with Nestorius, the Patriarch of Byzantium. She won.

prodromos · Jul 25, 2024

If intercessory prayer by the Saints was not of God, why then does God bless it so abundantly? I've personally witnessed this myself and have read and heard testimony from hundreds of others.

prodromos · Jul 25, 2024

Deblee said:
My mistake --it was the Council of Ephesus, 431 AD, instigated by Pulcheria, the sister of Theodosius II, because of her power struggle with Nestorius, the Patriarch of Byzantium. She won.

What input did she have at the Council? I've not read anything from her in regards to the Council.

Deblee · Jul 26, 2024

prodromos said:
What input did she have at the Council? I've not read anything from her in regards to the Council.

It was she who persuaded her brother, Theodosius II, to call the council. She had an inordinate amount of influence over him. He was a child when their parents died. Pulcheria became regent, in effect the empress, until he reached his majority.

This is a long story. I researched it last year before my heart attack and consequent surgery. I probably have some info on this story somewhere (it's fascinating, really), but I'll see if I can find a link to give you if you're interested.

It sounds as if Nestorius was a mysogynist, and Pulcheria was an early women's libber, so they went head to head, and the Council at Ephesus was designed to defeat Nestorius. Which it did.

I have a problem with accepting the findings of a council that was called for political reasons. I prefer to keep my studies to earlier times.

Deblee · Jul 26, 2024

prodromos said:
What input did she have at the Council? I've not read anything from her in regards to the Council.

I'm including a link to a series of 3 videos entitled Byzantium the Lost Empire, narrated by John Romer. I believe this video contains all 3 parts. This is where I first heard of Pulcheria and Nestorius.

I did go on from there to research them further. I'll try to dig out that info. I had a heart attack last year, spent 22 days in 4 different hospitals, 4 months recuperating at my daughter's and only made it home once in all that time. I don't know where my notes are. So it may take awhile.

I found these videos to be fascinating. I've watched them several times. I'm amazed that I learned so little about the Byzantine Empire while growing up and in school. It was barely mentioned. There is historical information in there about the Orthodox Church as well, naturally.

Deblee · Jul 26, 2024

Deblee said:
I'm including a link to a series of 3 videos entitled Byzantium the Lost Empire, narrated by John Romer. I believe this video contains all 3 parts. This is where I first heard of Pulcheria and Nestorius.

I did go on from there to research them further. I'll try to dig out that info. I had a heart attack last year, spent 22 days in 4 different hospitals, 4 months recuperating at my daughter's and only made it home once in all that time. I don't know where my notes are. So it may take awhile.

I found these videos to be fascinating. I've watched them several times. I'm amazed that I learned so little about the Byzantine Empire while growing up and in school. It was barely mentioned. There is historical information in there about the Orthodox Church as well, naturally.

Sorry --I forgot the link!

Deblee · Jul 27, 2024

prodromos said:
What input did she have at the Council? I've not read anything from her in regards to the Council.

Prodomos-
I found my notes on the conflict between Pulcheria and Nestorius. In fact, I printed out quite a bit of material from the Internet. I have a scholarly paper on the subject with footnotes for reference. The other piece is like a newspaper article, lacking in references but the book it was taken from may have them.

I can't give you links. I found the first piece by searching on Google. I used "Virgin Mary Pulcheria Dragos Boicu" for search parameters. It brought up the article, but I couldn't get a URL to copy.

The second one I couldn't get. It's an article on Wondrium Daily, August 14, 2022 by Jonny Lupsha. The information is taken from a book, I think, titled "Warriors, Queens, and Intellectuals: 36 Great Women before 1400". No author given.

I don't know how interested you are in the subject, but I hope that helps.

prodromos · Jul 28, 2024

Deblee said:
Prodomos-
I found my notes on the conflict between Pulcheria and Nestorius. In fact, I printed out quite a bit of material from the Internet. I have a scholarly paper on the subject with footnotes for reference. The other piece is like a newspaper article, lacking in references but the book it was taken from may have them.

I can't give you links. I found the first piece by searching on Google. I used "Virgin Mary Pulcheria Dragos Boicu" for search parameters. It brought up the article, but I couldn't get a URL to copy.

The second one I couldn't get. It's an article on Wondrium Daily, August 14, 2022 by Jonny Lupsha. The information is taken from a book, I think, titled "Warriors, Queens, and Intellectuals: 36 Great Women before 1400". No author given.

I don't know how interested you are in the subject, but I hope that helps.

What I'm after is whether or not the Empress had any influence on the outcome of the Council. I'm sure you are aware that when Emperor Constantine called the first Council of Nicaea, that he actually leaned towards Arianism, yet the Council he called condemned the same as heresy and he promulgated the decisions of the Council.
In the same way, Nestorianism was condemned as heresy by the Council of Ephesus in 431 and again by the Council of Chalcedon 20 years later. God may have used the political wrangling of the time to bring about the Councils, but it was the bishops in the Council that defended orthodoxy against heresy, not the Empress or the Emperor.

Deblee · Jul 28, 2024

prodromos said:
What I'm after is whether or not the Empress had any influence on the outcome of the Council. I'm sure you are aware that when Emperor Constantine called the first Council of Nicaea, that he actually leaned towards Arianism, yet the Council he called condemned the same as heresy and he promulgated the decisions of the Council.
In the same way, Nestorianism was condemned as heresy by the Council of Ephesus in 431 and again by the Council of Chalcedon 20 years later. God may have used the political wrangling of the time to bring about the Councils, but it was the bishops in the Council that defended orthodoxy against heresy, not the Empress or the Emperor.

The information I have originates with a teaching course titled "Warriors Queens etc" by Joyce Salisbury PHD. You can find it by the title on Google, but it looks like you would have to buy a DVD. They have it on Amazon. I can't find the article about it on Wondrium Daily that I somehow accessed last year. I printed out a copy of it at that time. But when I put the URL in, it comes up 404.

I'll check YouTube. Someone may have posted it there.

Deblee · Jul 28, 2024

Deblee said:
The information I have originates with a teaching course titled "Warriors Queens etc" by Joyce Salisbury PHD. You can find it by the title on Google, but it looks like you would have to buy a DVD. They have it on Amazon. I can't find the article about it on Wondrium Daily that I somehow accessed last year. I printed out a copy of it at that time. But when I put the URL in, it comes up 404.

I'll check YouTube. Someone may have posted it there.

No free access on YouTube, not exactly, anyway. If you sign up for The Great Courses on YouTube, you can get the first seven days free. It's 7.99 a month after that, but you can quit anytime. So you could watch "Warriors Queens etc" and then quit, if you wanted to. Don't know if you want to go to that much trouble or not, but it's the only source I know of for the information I gave you.

Questions on Intercession of the Saints

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Active Member

I stand with Candice.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads