The Prayer Cross

[Peacemaker]

"Protestant" prayers are to someone who can actually hear them, God.

I'm sure Catholics believe that their prayers are being heard by the intended recipient.

Unfortunately, Mary and the saints are not persons to whom we are to pray. The issue isn't who they believe can hear them but whether or not those persons can hear them in the way that Catholic dogma asserts. In addition, prayers to the saints depends on the treasury of merit, a false doctrine. In addition, prayers to the saints is not a doctrine that enjoys "the consensus of the Fathers," a direct violation of their own rule of faith. The list could go on and on.

 

[LaxScrutiny]

...Those of us who are consistent Protestants find it utterly repugnant. I'll gladly put that statement into the written record. It amounts to using prayer as "word magic." That's a direct violation of the Decalogue's command not to take God's name in vain, for that's what the commandment is referring to....

Chanting, using rote prayer, reading scripture out loud, many other variations, one of the effects is to set aside the ego and importance of self.

For you, "you" are praying. For the Catholic, and with other religions as well, the self is set aside through prayer.

What you do and what a Catholic (or for that matter a Buddhist, Hindu, etc) is simply two different things. There is no trademark on the word "prayer" so all are free to refer to what they do with this term.

You are setting a standard, the standard is what you practice, and those who fail to live up to that standard are doing it wrong, they are beneath you. You would do well to examine that notion.

 

[Peacemaker]

...Those of us who are consistent Protestants find it utterly repugnant. I'll gladly put that statement into the written record. It amounts to using prayer as "word magic." That's a direct violation of the Decalogue's command not to take God's name in vain, for that's what the commandment is referring to....

Chanting, using rote prayer, reading scripture out loud, many other variations, one of the effects is to set aside the ego and importance of self.

For you, "you" are praying. For the Catholic, and with other religions as well, the self is set aside through prayer.

What you do and what a Catholic (or for that matter a Buddhist, Hindu, etc) is simply two different things. There is no trademark on the word "prayer" so all are free to refer to what they do with this term.

You are setting a standard, the standard is what you practice, and those who fail to live up to that standard are doing it wrong, they are beneath you. You would do well to examine that notion.

Of course in chiding me, you are setting a standard, and those who fail to live up to that standard are wrong, they are beneath you. Do you pay attention to what you write? Are you aware of the level of self-contradiction in what you say? Thank you for mirror-reading, yet again.

My standard is not what I practice, rather it's what Scripture teaches. Catholics and Protestants, may have two different rules of faith, but Catholicism is the one advocating extra-Scriptural practices with respect to prayer. That's the issue between us, not what we "perceive." As usual, you completely misconstrue the issue.

Catholics aren't trying to "set aside" self through prayer. They are trying to manipulate God on the basis of the merit of the saints, for, in Roman Catholic theology, one is saved not by faith in Christ alone and His merits alone, but by faith in Christ and his merits, the merits of the saints, the merits of the Church, and one's own congruent merit. That, LAX, is the issue here - who intercedes before the Father on our behalf? Mary? Christ? Which does Scripture actually teach? They aren't expressing dependence on Christ alone or aquiecence to God's will alone, rather, they are depending on sources of merit (and consequently intercession) other than Christ alone and thus outside of what Scripture has provided. Marian dogmas, to take just one example, are not to be found in Scripture. My standard isn't my practice...my standard is what Scripture teaches.

 

[LaxScrutiny]

...Those of us who are consistent Protestants find it utterly repugnant. I'll gladly put that statement into the written record. It amounts to using prayer as "word magic." That's a direct violation of the Decalogue's command not to take God's name in vain, for that's what the commandment is referring to....

Chanting, using rote prayer, reading scripture out loud, many other variations, one of the effects is to set aside the ego and importance of self.

For you, "you" are praying. For the Catholic, and with other religions as well, the self is set aside through prayer.

What you do and what a Catholic (or for that matter a Buddhist, Hindu, etc) is simply two different things. There is no trademark on the word "prayer" so all are free to refer to what they do with this term.

You are setting a standard, the standard is what you practice, and those who fail to live up to that standard are doing it wrong, they are beneath you. You would do well to examine that notion.

Of course in chiding me, you are setting a standard, and those who fail to live up to that standard are wrong, they are beneath you. Do you pay attention to what you write? Are you aware of the level of self-contradiction in what you say? Thank you for mirror-reading, yet again.

My standard is not what I practice, rather it's what Scripture teaches. Catholics and Protestants, may have two different rules of faith, but Catholicism is the one advocating extra-Scriptural practices with respect to prayer. That's the issue between us, not what we "perceive." As usual, you completely misconstrue the issue.

Catholics aren't trying to "set aside" self through prayer. They are trying to manipulate God on the basis of the merit of the saints, for, in Roman Catholic theology, one is saved not by faith in Christ alone and His merits alone, but by faith in Christ and his merits, the merits of the saints, the merits of the Church, and one's own congruent merit. That, LAX, is the issue here - who intercedes before the Father on our behalf? Mary? Christ? Which does Scripture actually teach? They aren't expressing dependence on Christ alone or aquiecence to God's will alone, rather, they are depending on sources of merit (and consequently intercession) other than Christ alone and thus outside of what Scripture has provided. Marian dogmas, to take just one example, are not to be found in Scripture. My standard isn't my practice...my standard is what Scripture teaches.

There is no self contradiction. My life, my path, my self, I am not "right". I do not know everything I need to know. I always have room to learn, and I always have room to be wrong and to make mistakes. I also feel that there is more than one path available.

I do not hear anything like this from you. You are retreating into a defensive posture and want to make me just like you. I am not. I am not like anyone. We are all different.

If you depend on Christ alone, then you don't need dogma, you don't need prayer, you don't need to condemn other's practice and belief with every word you write. You don't need to concern yourself with others at all, but you cannot let others alone. Your head is filled with others. Because you need to hold up others in front of you so you can compare and see how your own standard is so much above them.

There has never been a hint of humility in your words. Me, I'm an asshole, I never deny it. But every day I stay open to my failings, my ignorance, and I walk my path and have space open to grow into. Where is your space? Your head is so full of words and calculations and reasons and comparisons, I'm surprised you actually find room for god in there.

Try letting it all go, just once. Be ignorant. Find the child's mind, where there is room for something new to come in, where everything you see is new.

I doubt you'll try. You are locked into your words, they fill your head and you are scared to be lost without them. But you would still be there without them, and so would god.

 

[Krieg1981]

"WWJD'? Sell tacky christer bling, thats what! Too bad they couldn't figure 'Fine Corinthian Leather' into this.....

 

[Peacemaker]

Thanks for the psychobabble, LAX, Let's break this down:

My life, my path, my self, I am not "right". I do not know everything I need to know. I always have room to learn, and I always have room to be wrong and to make mistakes. I also feel that there is more than one path available.

Here's the contradiction: If there is "more than one path available" then how do you know this? I've asked you this many times. "I feel" is not an epistemic warrant for anything. So, you're awash on a sea of subjectivity.

But then you come along and say things like this: You are setting a standard, the standard is what you practice, and those who fail to live up to that standard are doing it wrong, they are beneath you. You would do well to examine that notion.

Here's the self-contradiction. In saying this, you are setting a standard. The standard is that those who are like me are "doing it wrong," and they are beneath you. So, on the one hand, there is more than one path, but the path I am on is "wrong" - by your own continued insistence. That's why I asked you if you pay attention to the contradictory stances. On the one hand, "there is more than one path," but the path upon which I have chosen to plant my feet is "wrong." Of course, the place I have chosen to plant my feet is the one that says, among other things, there is only one path.

I'll make this even more simple for you. To determine, for example, that there is more than one path in any meaningful way, you have to know what things ought to be. In other words, for LAX to say that b) (more than one path) is more plausible than a) (only one path), he must know that reality more closely corresponds to b) than to a). So, while talking about your "feelings," which is a subjective claim you are smuggling in an objectivist claim about the state of affairs. That's not just contradictory, that's illusory.

And here's how this works out in the statement you made to which I replied above: Objective truth is truth that is dependent upon the object; subjective truth is dependent upon the subject. Objective truth is true regardless of what the subject thinks, dreams, imagines, believes, etc because it is based on the ontology of the object. Subjective truth can never leave the subject. It is confined to each individual subject. Therefore, it is impossible for a subjective truth to be true for more than one subject (even if two subjects hold the same proposition, it is not really the same proposition for the first subject’s proposition is only true for the first subject, etc.). Yet you are trying to get me to accept your subjective truth, as if that is truth for me not just you. What's more you couch this in terms of what I should do. That's a statement about what ought to be. The only way you can know what "ought to be" is if you know what actually "is." That's what makes your written responses self-contradictory, and you the mirror-image of me. That constitutes mirror-reading.

If you depend on Christ alone, then you don't need dogma, you don't need prayer, you don't need to condemn other's practice and belief with every word you write.

And with every word you write to me you condemn what I practice and believe.

I depend on Christ alone is a statement about the merits of Christ alone, the imputed righteousness of Christ on the behalf of His people at the cross and His resurrection, not a statement about "dogma." I depend on prayer, because I am commanded by Christ to pray. Prayer is part of being dependent upon Christ - and that's the point you continue to miss here. Instead, you've chosen to make this personal. I believe that would constitute, on the basis of one your last comments to me "OT spam..."

And here's another conundrum for you: Any statement that a person doesn't need dogma is, in fact, a dogmatic statement. So, I don't need dogma but you do? Further, the statement that there is more than one path is a dogmatic statement - emotive, but nevertheless, dogmatic.

There has never been a hint of humility in your words.

I've never claimed to be "humble." I've never claimed be a nice person. On the other hand, apparently, you think humility is a virtue. Again, that's a statement about what ought to be, which entails a knowledge of what is, yet all we have from you to warrant your beliefs is your subjective intuition.

Really? So the statement that man must depend on Christ and Him alone for His salvation is a statement of "pride?" Statements that there is objective, knowable truth are "proud?" But statements that truth is just subjective is "humble?" I think you're projecting here, and the reason for that is that I think you find the notion that there is such a thing as absolute, knowable Truth is repugnant to you but won't just come out and say so. So, your humility is quite false. You obviously have strong feelings. In reality, you're the one full of pride, because you are using your personal subjective opinions to justify your worldview and seeking to subject me to them. Yet, when I ask you to provide an epistemic warrant for your intuitions, you constantly shy away. You're the mirror-image of what you find distasteful in me.

Well, then, I lay this out for you in detail with what I've stated about Catholicism and prayer: I don't subscribe to the notion that people get off with a free pass for claiming to be Christians or that there practices or doctrines are correct. I subject that claim to Scripture. If it fails to measure up to Scripture, then I judge that harshly. And, in case you find that distasteful, I'll remind you that Jesus had harsh things to say about false teachers. Should Christians not imitate Christ? The Bible employs harsh, judgmental language for apostates, false teachers, and other enemies of the faith. The Bible is full of taunt-songs. In the Bible, most false teachers are professing believers. Here's a sample:

Here's what Jesus said about false teachers in the Sermon on the Mount:
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. 21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

And the rest of the Bible:

Acts 8 (New International Version)

20Peter answered: "May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. 23For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin."

1 Timothy 1 (New International Version)

8We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Hebrews 10 (New International Version)

26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." 31It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

2 Peter 2 (New International Version)

1But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; 5if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men 8(for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. 10This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority.

Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; 11yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord. 12But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.

13They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. 14With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! 15They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness. 16But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—a beast without speech—who spoke with a man's voice and restrained the prophet's madness.

17These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. 18For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. 19They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. 20If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."

Jude 1 (New International Version)

3Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. 4For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

5Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

8In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. 9But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" 10Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them.

11Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.

12These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. 13They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

14Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him." 16These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.

And it will suffice to say that there are numerous taunt songs in Scripture directed toward such persons.


Here's what he said about the sorts of prayers I've discussed here:

And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.

Why mention that? Well, it seems to me when I speak up I'm being charged with objections that, when bundled together, pull in contradictory directions. On the one hand, when I say, "Catholicism is wrong on this issue," I'm being told I'm not humble (and humility is, of course, a Christlike virtue). At the same time, by taking a position that Christ took and the Bible advocates, I'm too Christian. So, which is it to be?


Catholicism gets some things correct; it gets others very, very wrong. Prayers to the saints are just one of them. Further, if you could be bothered to read what I've stated about Protestants in this thread alone, you'd know I'm an equal opportunity critic, for Protestants are guilty of the same sorts of things. The prayer cross is one, "in Jesus name" is another.

Try letting it all go, just once. Be ignorant. Find the child's mind, where there is room for something new to come in, where everything you see is new.

Been there, done that. I've made up my mind. I've taken my stand. You've obviously taken yours too. Let's see how open your mind really is. Come over to Triablogue and interact with us there for at least 3 months.

If things like doubt and "being ignorant" and on a journey are virtues, why doesn’t it cut both ways? Why couldn’t “honest doubt” or being on a journey or whatever you wan to call it, chart journey from reluctant atheist to evangelical, "dogmatic," Christian? Why is your position humble but my position prideful?

I doubt you'll try. You are locked into your words, they fill your head and you are scared to be lost without them.

Thank you for the psychobabble. Of course, this is just something you feel, not anything you actually know. So, why should I even take this seriously? Since you've admitted your view is (simply) what you feel, why should I look at your statements as anything more as statements akin to recommending a flavor of ice cream or why I'm to be pitied because I don't like strawberries?

Note well how judgmental you are toward me. You're a very judgmental relativist.

But you would still be there without them, and so would god.

Again, something you feel, not something you know.

This thread is about prayer, specifically Christian prayer, so I think that entitles me to say something about it. Otherwise, that's just, "OT Spam" right?

Well, let's look at Christian prayer. Does the prayer cross qualify? No. Does the rosary? No. Why? Aside from ideas I've already expressed, we can look at other examples in Scripture. Read the prayers of the OT. Read public prayers in the Bible. They are individualized, whereas the rosary, to take just one example, really isn't. They are very, very specific. In the Bible, prayers to God move from the particular to the general.The public prayers of Scripture begin life as prayers by individuals about individuals or individual circumstances. They are very concrete. Very specific.Biblical prayers move from the particular to the general, whereas rosary prayers move from the general to the particular as do prayers in the Book of Common Prayer. That’s the difference, and what a difference it makes. Rote prayers are empty abstractions. Like a fairy godmother giving a four-year old three wishes.

Is it okay to write a prayer, for example, to offer in church? Yes, certainly, but we need to think about our prayers. If we recite an ancient prayer, it should be because it is truly applicable, something that expresses something specific in the life of the local congregation. Indeed, the Psalms are a prayer book for corporate prayer. But that's not the issue, the issue here is the sacramentalization of objects (like the rosary), prayers to saints (forbidden),and the use of magic phrases. These are all not to be found in Scripture. And, after a while, some nominal believers begin to notice that prayer is profoundly irrelevant to the practicalities of life. Life goes on just the same whether they pray every day, or skip a day, or drop the habit entirely. Why? Because the churches' practice is poor. It demeans prayer; it places a stumbling block before other believers as well as nonbelievers. Unbelievers often view prayer as a means to manipulate God with good reason.

Whether God answers them positively or not isn't the real issue here. The real issue is simply this: The Church needs to recover its theology of prayer. How? The church needs to model its prayer life on the prayer life of Scripture, not what people "feel," and that's something all Christians need to take to heart, especially today, including me, when so many churches have either lost the Gospel or are losing it altogether. We have no really good examples to follow in the churches anymore. That's a recipe for apostasy of the churches one day.

 

[LaxScrutiny]

Pea, I have to leave for work shortly and this is a wordy post, but I want to at least answer something you keep repeating.

But then you come along and say things like this: You are setting a standard, the standard is what you practice, and those who fail to live up to that standard are doing it wrong, they are beneath you. You would do well to examine that notion.

Here's the self-contradiction. In saying this, you are setting a standard. The standard is that those who are like me are "doing it wrong," and they are beneath you. So, on the one hand, there is more than one path, but the path I am on is "wrong" - by your own continued insistence. That's why I asked you if you pay attention to the contradictory stances. On the one hand, "there is more than one path," but the path upon which I have chosen to plant my feet is "wrong." Of course, the place I have chosen to plant my feet is the one that says, among other things, there is only one path.

I do have only a vague knowledge of Calvinism, but I do not believe it is your religion to have to analyse other people's beliefs and practices and constantly try to criticize them and refute them. I am not addressing your religion or beliefs here. You can believe what you will, and practice your religion as much as you want. I am addressing how you are criticizing other people's beliefs, and doing so relentlessly. You obviously think about this constantly, you have built it so deeply into your character that you have juxtaposed it with your religious beliefs. Christ does not require you to care whether Catholics recite the Lord's prayer or not. That is just one example of something you do over and over, seemingly to the point of obsession.

You are setting a standard for other people and condemning them for not living up to it. That standard is your belief and practice. It is self-righteous and self-aggrandizing.

This is not me "setting a standard". Such talk is Relativism, you want to put my analysis on a level with yours and we all have the same rights, don't we? You are being judgemental, and when I call you on it your defence is that I am judging you. Here is news for you: If you don't like me judging you, that isn't a defence that allows you to continue judging me. If I am wrong, so are you. If you want me to stop, that is the same reason you should. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the square of the hypotenuse is the sum of the square of both sides. Capiche?

Meanwhile, of course, you only believe in Relativism when it is convenient for protecting your behaviour. Relativism is tool that can be used early on, we pass through it to find a neutral benchmark to understand what it is we are believing in. It isn't a defense mechanism to fall back on when we are challenged.

And with every word you write to me you condemn what I practice and believe.

No, I am asking you to step back and realize that your religion is separate from your obsession.

I'm not attacking your religion, believe it or not, and I'm not attacking you, believe it or not. But your response is a misrepresention of what I was trying to say to you.

 

[B.J.]

Catholicism gets some things correct; it gets others very, very wrong. Prayers to the saints are just one of them.

I'm really getting very tired of all this Catholic bashing. Say what you want about your own religion, but please stay away from things you obviously don't know anything about. I've only picked this one small statement out of many of what you've said about us that's very wrong, and you wouldn't really understand unless you're a practicing Catholic.

 

[SpeedRacer]

So back to the original discussion about this Prayer Cross thing that they're selling on TV.

My mom says that they used to sell them (not on TV) back when she was a kid/teenager. Stupid and crappy then, stupid and crappy now. I wonder if the Oriental Trading catalog will have their own knockoff version of this in a year or two - they seem to pick up on the latest religious junk movements a little bit after they start, like the WWJD or "Soldier of the Lord" stuff.

My favorite part of the ad is when you see the bf/gf or husband/wife together and you think he's about to give her a ring or whatever...OH SNAP ITS A PRAYER CROSS!