Vatican hypocrisy

[12th Doctor]

Score one for us Protestants.  Just kidding.
But seriously, Phil (and all the other R.C.'s on this forum), do you believe that in the long run, Vatican II was a mistake?  I've run into an increasing number of Catholics in New York who believe that the Latin Mass should be restored to church services.

Church is out of touch and losing members as is.

America is not the world.  The Roman Catholic church is a global church and its numbers are increasing quite rapidly.  Even in America the Church is growing. There may be a downturn in the attendance of middle class and wealthy white people who have left the Church, but this has been made up by new members from places like  the Phillipines and Latin America.

Absolutly correct.  In fact, out of all the organized Churches in the West, the Catholic Church currently has the highest number of converts into it.  However, it is losing members in the West at the same rate all the other organized Churches are, thus, a net loss of membership.

All these people are either becoming Godless, or they are going to Evangelical churches which survive off or glitter, sparkle and making parishoners feel happy.  If they want to leave for these so-called churches and pat themselves on the back for being the worst possible Christians they can be, then we can't really stop them, and I really don't want them in my Church anyway.

Just so we are clear on terms, organized churches include Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican/Episcapal, Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian.

You had to go and destroy your own argument, which you were winning, with that bigotry.

Perhaps those lapsed Catholics left the church because they didn't want to be surrounded by insufferable  Church Ladies, or Church Boys, as the case may be. I know that is one reason why I profoundly dislike congregations  of any sort -- not because I could never accept the theology, but because I can find better use of my time than endure moralising jackasses.

Even more than that, not to refight the Thirty Years' War, like you seem to be doing so far, who is to say that the Christian experience offered by the evangelical churches in fact is closer in spirit to that of the primitive Church of the 1st and second century? Because, really, there is much in Catholic theology that is simply fantastic:

(1) The Adoration of Mary
(2) Intercession of the saints
(3) Prayers for the dead

... and, perhaps, if I am going to be honest with myself, the singularly hateful teaching of the Catholic Church ...

(4) The heartfelt and intellectual acceptance of Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection on the Cross is not good enough for a sinner's salvation --  in addition, you must maintain traditions of the Church as well to remain in a state of Grace.

Of course, I can also see your points that those upper class whites who leave the Church do so to indulge themselves with a sinfully clear conscience. And that Catholic teaching on, say, poverty or Eternal Damnation, is fundamentally sound, while, in comparison, those of the megachurches' teachings are usually pretty crude and materialistic (from personal experience in LA -- one sermon was entitled, "How to increase your life's blessings"). But your, dare I say it?, intolerance in calling them the worst possible Christians they can be, is simply vile. I cannot stand for it.

I was exercising use of hyperbole there.  I didn't really mean it.  I was just trying to goad someone. 

Oh, and also, it looks like I have driven you out of your hole.  I'm sorry that you hate the Catholic Church, and I really am not in the mood to tell you why you are wrong at the moment.

[12th Doctor]

However... since you have made the charges, I suppose that I have no choice but to answer them.  (Sigh) I was really hoping I wouldn't have to engage in something like this today... and I am sure, for the rest of the night.

[12th Doctor]

Perhaps those lapsed Catholics left the church because they didn't want to be surrounded by insufferable Church Ladies, or Church Boys, as the case may be.

Couldn't avoid making a strike against the Catholic Church because of the misdealings of a handful of preists, could you?  I'm not going to bring this argument to the area of child molestation, because I really don't think it is nessesary to go there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, what do you do then?  If you worship at home, and in private, then I have no problem with that.  If you go to one of these churches where the "minister" (generally a guy who hasn't even been through theological training) is making $150,000 a year and preaching how we should pat ourselves on the back for being wealthy and hating gays and non-Christians, then I feel sorry for you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, by calling several Protestant churches legitament, I am refighting the 30 Years War?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you not adore your mother?  Why, therefore, should we not adore and respect the mother of Jesus, who is God?  So long as she is not worshiped, which the Catholic Church specifically condemed as a heracy, then what is wrong?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Christ tells us to pray for one another.  Paul reiterates this message again, and again, and again, and again (Romans 15:30, Col 4:3, 1 Thess 3:25) when he specifically asks for other people to pray for him (intercede) on his behalf, to God.  Paul also tells others that he, and his followers always pray from them (2 Thess 1:11).  He also tells Timothy to offer prays and petitions for all men (1 Tim 2:1-7).

Since living people can always pray for one another, why not those who are with God?  To say that there is much of a difference between those on Earth and in Heaven shows a very narrow understanding of the Kingdom of God.  First off, no one ever really dies:

Mark 12:26-27

26
As for the dead being raised, have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God told him, 'I am the God of Abraham, (the) God of Isaac, and (the) God of Jacob'?
27
He is not God of the dead but of the living. You are greatly misled."

As is further evidenced by the fact that we see Jesus conversing with Elijah and Moses in Mark 9:4.  Farther more, if they are conversing, they must be discussing something.  If they are discussing something, then Jesus must be listening to what they are saying. 

Even further evidence that God listens to his people's prayers comes to us in Revaltions 6:9-11 when the martyrs cry out to God for vindication.

I can go on, but I will stop here, for now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This has to do with a belief in purgatory, which, I could most certainly get into, but only if you wish to venture down this road.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Example?  How exctly is it that the Catholic Church is so "hateful"?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, those things are adequate for salvation, however, we try to keep to the comandments of Christ as closely as possible, which includes communion, baptism, and other sacraments.  I think you are imagining that the Church is saying things that it is not saying.

And, I am assuming that you are taking a stab at the Church for not being intellectual.  I find this ironic, since the Catholic Church has done more to advance the understanding of Christian theology than all the other Christian groups combined.  People spend years in the seminary and in Catholic divinity schools to adapt an intellectual understanding of the faith, and the Catholic Church actively promotes this in the leity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Glad we can agree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, people who do not have a developed understanding and committment to fighting poverty and who think that they are blessed by having a lot of money are good Christians?

[12th Doctor]

And, a point I forgot:

While you are absolutely right that some fundamentalist churches might be closer to what the Catholic Church was like in the first few centuries, it is not 129 AD anymore.  Things change, and the faith community changed.  Who is to say that that was not what God intended?  Also, do you really want things in Christianity to be like they were in first few centuries, before herecies like believing Mary was a God and saying that our physical bodies are illusions and, therefore, Christ really didn't suffer for us, were stamped out?  If that is what you want, then fine.  I would rather people have some semblence of truth, though.

[Brandon H]

There will always be those who are intollerant of others. All we can do is pray for them.

[Keystone Phil]

But seriously, Phil (and all the other R.C.'s on this forum), do you believe that in the long run, Vatican II was a mistake? 

Not at all.

Church is out of touch and losing members as is.

Yeah, we won't be offering lap dances in the pews anytime soon so we don't expect your type to return. We have fundamental beliefs and we won't apologize if they're "out of touch" with society.

[12th Doctor]

There will always be those who are intollerant of others. All we can do is pray for them.

Well, I thank you for your prays, but I assure you, I will never tollerate intollerance or feux-Christian teachings, taught by preachers making 200k a year.

[Brandon H]

There will always be those who are intollerant of others. All we can do is pray for them.

Well, I thank you for your prays, but I assure you, I will never tollerate intollerance or feux-Christian teachings, taught by preachers making 200k a year.

Not referring to you at all, but I'll pray for you anyway. Intollerant = Anti-Catholic / Anti-Christians. You have more patience than I do to respond to some of these people's postings.

[12th Doctor]

There will always be those who are intollerant of others. All we can do is pray for them.

Well, I thank you for your prays, but I assure you, I will never tollerate intollerance or feux-Christian teachings, taught by preachers making 200k a year.

Not referring to you at all, but I'll pray for you anyway. Intollerant = Anti-Catholic / Anti-Christians. You have more patience than I do to respond to some of these people's postings.

Ha... sorry.  Thank you.

[J. J.]

Just as a note, I found precisely one reference to a relic associated with Jesus that could be considered stolen and rests in the Vatican, the Image of Edessa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa

I should add that it was stolen by the Persians first and recoved by the Byzantines.

The Pope is apparently not a fence.

[12th Doctor]

BTW... I come out sounding stronger than I would like.  I am not saying that all of these churches or preachers are bad... but it has certainly been my expirence that a majority of them are.

[12th Doctor]

Just as a note, I found precisely one reference to a relic associated with Jesus that could be considered stolen and rests in the Vatican, the Image of Edessa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa

I should add that it was stolen by the Persians first and recoved by the Byzantines.

The Pope is apparently not a fence.

Did you mean the Pope is not a thief?

[J. J.]

Just as a note, I found precisely one reference to a relic associated with Jesus that could be considered stolen and rests in the Vatican, the Image of Edessa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa

I should add that it was stolen by the Persians first and recoved by the Byzantines.

The Pope is apparently not a fence.

Did you mean the Pope is not a thief?

"Fence" is a colloquial term for someone who traffics in stolen goods, but not someone who actually steals them.  He arranges for the disposal of stolen goods.

The Pope is not a fence, I would strongly suspect his not pulling too many bank jobs or mugging people either.

[12th Doctor]

Just as a note, I found precisely one reference to a relic associated with Jesus that could be considered stolen and rests in the Vatican, the Image of Edessa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa

I should add that it was stolen by the Persians first and recoved by the Byzantines.

The Pope is apparently not a fence.

Did you mean the Pope is not a thief?

"Fence" is a colloquial term for someone who traffics in stolen goods, but not someone who actually steals them.  He arranges for the disposal of stolen goods.

The Pope is not a fence, I would strongly suspect his not pulling too many bank jobs or mugging people either.

Oh, okay.  Well

The More You Know I guess.

[Storebought]

Perhaps those lapsed Catholics left the church because they didn't want to be surrounded by insufferable Church Ladies, or Church Boys, as the case may be.

Couldn't avoid making a strike against the Catholic Church because of the misdealings of a handful of preists, could you?  I'm not going to bring this argument to the area of child molestation, because I really don't think it is nessesary to go there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, what do you do then?  If you worship at home, and in private, then I have no problem with that.  If you go to one of these churches where the "minister" (generally a guy who hasn't even been through theological training) is making $150,000 a year and preaching how we should pat ourselves on the back for being wealthy and hating gays and non-Christians, then I feel sorry for you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, by calling several Protestant churches legitament, I am refighting the 30 Years War?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you not adore your mother?  Why, therefore, should we not adore and respect the mother of Jesus, who is God?  So long as she is not worshiped, which the Catholic Church specifically condemed as a heracy, then what is wrong?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Christ tells us to pray for one another.  Paul reiterates this message again, and again, and again, and again (Romans 15:30, Col 4:3, 1 Thess 3:25) when he specifically asks for other people to pray for him (intercede) on his behalf, to God.  Paul also tells others that he, and his followers always pray from them (2 Thess 1:11).  He also tells Timothy to offer prays and petitions for all men (1 Tim 2:1-7).

Since living people can always pray for one another, why not those who are with God?  To say that there is much of a difference between those on Earth and in Heaven shows a very narrow understanding of the Kingdom of God.  First off, no one ever really dies:

Mark 12:26-27

26
As for the dead being raised, have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God told him, 'I am the God of Abraham, (the) God of Isaac, and (the) God of Jacob'?
27
He is not God of the dead but of the living. You are greatly misled."

As is further evidenced by the fact that we see Jesus conversing with Elijah and Moses in Mark 9:4.  Farther more, if they are conversing, they must be discussing something.  If they are discussing something, then Jesus must be listening to what they are saying. 

Even further evidence that God listens to his people's prayers comes to us in Revaltions 6:9-11 when the martyrs cry out to God for vindication.

I can go on, but I will stop here, for now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This has to do with a belief in purgatory, which, I could most certainly get into, but only if you wish to venture down this road.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Example?  How exctly is it that the Catholic Church is so "hateful"?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, those things are adequate for salvation, however, we try to keep to the comandments of Christ as closely as possible, which includes communion, baptism, and other sacraments.  I think you are imagining that the Church is saying things that it is not saying.

And, I am assuming that you are taking a stab at the Church for not being intellectual.  I find this ironic, since the Catholic Church has done more to advance the understanding of Christian theology than all the other Christian groups combined.  People spend years in the seminary and in Catholic divinity schools to adapt an intellectual understanding of the faith, and the Catholic Church actively promotes this in the leity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Glad we can agree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, people who do not have a developed understanding and committment to fighting poverty and who think that they are blessed by having a lot of money are good Christians?

Ok, now you're seriously putting words in my mouth.

(1) When I said "Church Ladies" and "Church Boys", I meant exactly those haughty and clannish sorts of both genders who go out of their way to reject the presents of converts, or even the curious, from their oh-so-pure congregational "family." I should know about them -- I never felt less welcome than I did among Catholics during part of the service that heretics were allowed to celebrate.

Sex, or sexual abuse, or any of that, was the last thing on my mind. It really ought to be the last in yours, too.

(2) I said, through my own experience, that I attended one of those megachurches and found them spiritually lacking, both in the spirit of the crowd (can't even call them a "congregation") and the nature of the sermons themselves.

Furthermore, do you seriously think that I would waste time with a pack of bigots in any religiose setting? I can barely tolerate being around my own friends for any length of time, let alone strangers.

(3) About Mary: Mary was chosen as the woman to give birth to Christ because she was virginal, a devoted Jew (but not sinless), and had direct descendancy to King David. But, no, she lived and died like every other person at the time, was not assumed bodily into Heaven, and is absolutely not the way any person can find redemption.

(4) The Bible's injunction for one living member of the church, praying for strength or well-being to another, as you mention here:

Christ tells us to pray for one another.  Paul reiterates this message again, and again, and again, and again (Romans 15:30, Col 4:3, 1 Thess 3:25) when he specifically asks for other people to pray for him (intercede) on his behalf, to God.  Paul also tells others that he, and his followers always pray from them (2 Thess 1:11).  He also tells Timothy to offer prays and petitions for all men (1 Tim 2:1-7).

cannot be used to imply that we can escape our sins by directing prayers to anyone but the Person who is capable of forgiving them. Elijah can't forgive our sins. Neither can Paul, or anyone else in Heaven but Jesus.

(5)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Example?  How exctly is it that the Catholic Church is so "hateful"?

[/quote]

NO! I did not call the Catholic Church "hateful". I called the one Roman Catholic teaching that Grace can come only through performing the sacraments of the church, in addition to the acceptance of Jesus's resurrection, evil.

Why?

Because anything that stands between us and our redemption is by definition evil -- a great example being this: Why do Catholics need to confess their sins to a priest before God is ready to forgive them?

(6)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I said that to counter the emotionalism that is too often seen in the evangelical churches these days. They feel Jesus in their heart, but they don't intellectually engage the consequences of choosing to lead a Christian life. That had nothing at all to do with my problems with the Catholic church.

[12th Doctor]

Ok, now you're seriously putting words in my mouth.

(1) When I said "Church Ladies" and "Church Boys", I meant exactly those haughty and clannish sorts of both genders who go out of their way to reject the presents of converts, or even the curious, from their oh-so-pure congregational "family." I should know about them -- I never felt less welcome than I did among Catholics during part of the service that heretics were allowed to celebrate.

This is not the way that it should be, and anyone who was unwelcoming to you is not being a Catholic.  I'm sorry that this was your expirience, I truely am, since this reflects poorly on us and does not represent what we are taught.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry about the misinterpritation of what you are trying to say, but I would hope that you would understand that this whole situation is so prevalent in people's attitudes towards the Church, that I jusmped to the conclusion that, your seemed emphasis on "Boys" was a not-so-vieled attack.  I appologize.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm glad that you don't, since I certainly made clear that I was not sure of this, I am pleased to find out that that is not the case.  However, I would say that Christ intends His Church to be a community one, so, while I applaud your efforts to worship in private, I would recommend that you get involved in a faith community, but only one that you feel furthers your personal Christian expirience.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair enough.  I figured that since you put "Intellegent" in Italics, and the subject appeared to be the Catholic Church, that you were saying the Church was non-intellectual.  Again, I misunderstood you.

As for the rest of this... Geez... where do I begin?  I guess the begining is as good a place as any.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I really don't feel like breaking this down into an argument over the New Covenant, and the New Ark, and the New Adam and the New Eve because I don't think it would do any good anyway.  I'll simply say that your understanding of Catholic theology is rather laxed.

First off, God picked Mary from the time she was concieved to be the Mother of God.  He did not just pick her because she was some random devout person, who happned to fit the profile.  This is not to say that Mary was concieved by the Holy Spirit in the way Jesus was.  Catholics believe that Mary was filled with the saving grace of God from the time she was concieved, and thus is free of original sin, because of it.  We know this, because when the angel comes to Mary in Luke 1:28 he calls Mary "full of Grace".  In Greek, this term is summed up in one word kecharitomene, there for indicating that this is a property that Mary pocesses.  Kecharitomene is the perfect passive participle of charitoo and since it is used in this tense, it seems to indicate that Mary is not only now filled will grace, but always has been and always will be.  If she has always been filled with grace, then she was born without original sin, by the power of God.

As for the Assumption (not "Assention", because Mary was taking to Heaven by God, who assumed her.  She did not do it of her own power), if you say that Mary "lived and died like everyone else", then why could she not have been assumed into Heaven the same way that Elijah and Enoch (and perhaps others) were?  She is the Mother of Christ.  Acctually, this doctrine has never been fully defined, as even Pius XII was silent on whether she died or not, simply stating that at the end of her Earthly life, she was assumed into Heaven.

This idea is supported by the Bible.  Once Jesus dies on the cross, we are told in Matthew 27:52-53 that:

"[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many."

Christian teaching has always been that these OT figures ("saints" does not only apply to those with the official recongnition) were assumed into Heaven aftet this event.

Why is Mary any less special?

Finally, you are correct that no one can find salvation through Mary.  I wouldn't dare argue that and neither does the Church.  Salvation comes but from the grace of God.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, first off, as I said before, only God has the grace to save us.  There is no dispute about that.  But clearly, Jesus, Paul and everyone else tells us to pray for one another, because God listens to those prayers.

And, also, I would read John 20:23

 22
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit.
23
Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

(5)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, you said the Catholic Church was doing hateful things, so I simply assumed that you believed it was hateful.  And now we are doing "evil" things, no less.  So, then the Catholic Church is evil?  I'm glad I got that out of you finally.

We preform the sacraments, because this is what Christ has commanded us to do.  I could give a break down of each, if you like.  We form in a community, because Christ told us to be a part of a community of believers.

As for your quip about confession, look at the passage from John.  I have many more where that came from, if you so wish.

[Storebought]

The only real practice of the Roman Catholic Church that really offends, which goes far beyond just typical theological disputes about the nature of Mary, the text of the Mass, purgatory, etc., is not merely the notion, but the true practice, that Jesus's resurrection wasn't good enough to save us, and that grace, as dispensed by the Church, is a necessary complement.

I tried my longest not to start quoting Scripture, but when you have this:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast (Eph. 2:8-9)

it cannot possibly produce this:

Christ instituted the sacraments of the new law. There are seven: Baptism, Confirmation (or Chrismation), the Eucharist, Penance, the Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders and Matrimony. The seven sacraments touch all the stages and all the important moments of Christian life:1 they give birth and increase, healing and mission to the Christian's life of faith. There is thus a certain resemblance between the stages of natural life and the stages of the spiritual life.

all of which was deduced by Thomas Aquinas, himself citing the Tradition of the church, outside of scripture.

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church

[12th Doctor]

The only real practice of the Roman Catholic Church that really offends, which goes far beyond just typical theological disputes about the nature of Mary, the text of the Mass, purgatory, etc., is not merely the notion, but the true practice, that Jesus's resurrection wasn't good enough to save us, and that grace, as dispensed by the Church, is a necessary complement.

I tried my longest not to start quoting Scripture, but when you have this:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast (Eph. 2:8-9)

it cannot possibly produce this:

Christ instituted the sacraments of the new law. There are seven: Baptism, Confirmation (or Chrismation), the Eucharist, Penance, the Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders and Matrimony. The seven sacraments touch all the stages and all the important moments of Christian life:1 they give birth and increase, healing and mission to the Christian's life of faith. There is thus a certain resemblance between the stages of natural life and the stages of the spiritual life.

all of which was deduced by Thomas Aquinas, himself citing the Tradition of the church, outside of scripture.

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church

Once again, you miss understand the Catholic possition (BTW, you never bothered to address any of my points).  The Catholic possition is that we are saved by the grace of God manifested in our faith and our works.  While it is true that we believe the sacraments give grace, it is a grace that is given only by God, through the act, not by a priest or by ourselves.  And there is plenty of scriptual significance to the sacraments.  Whoever you heard that Aquinas used only tradition to form the sacraments from is terribly misleading you.  First off, the sacraments, all of them, were firmly in place centuries before Aquinas was even born, so I don't know why you site him, in particular.  You could just as easily have gone back to the 3rd century and sited someone from that time, because all the sacraments that we know of had been established by then.

If you ever choose to engage me in debate, instead of throwing out random points, I would be more than happy to provide more information, but since you don;t even appear to be paying attention to a word I am saying now, it would seem pretty usless to indulge in this.

James 2:14-26

14
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
15
If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,
16
and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?
17
So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18
Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
19
You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
20
Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?
21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22
You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.
23
Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God."
24
See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25
And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?
26
For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

[12th Doctor]

Heck, if you want something from Paul to rebuke your Paul based argument, how about this?

Romans 2:5-8

5
By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God,
6
who will repay everyone according to his works:
7
eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works,
8
but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.

[J-Mann]

Christ tells us to pray for one another.  Paul reiterates this message again, and again, and again, and again (Romans 15:30, Col 4:3, 1 Thess 3:25) when he specifically asks for other people to pray for him (intercede) on his behalf, to God.  Paul also tells others that he, and his followers always pray from them (2 Thess 1:11).  He also tells Timothy to offer prays and petitions for all men (1 Tim 2:1-7).

cannot be used to imply that we can escape our sins by directing prayers to anyone but the Person who is capable of forgiving them. Elijah can't forgive our sins. Neither can Paul, or anyone else in Heaven but Jesus.

You're essentially right about this, but I think you're completely mischaracterizing how and why Catholics ask Saints for intercession. We absolutely don't ask a Saint for anything directly, whether that be a miracle, forgiveness, etc. We do not pray to them.  We do ask noted Saints to pray for us. 

Saints generally lived a model life, served as examples, or overcame suffering through faith. Like any living person who has overcome tribulation or serves as a role model, we hold up Saints as the highest examples of our faith in action.  When met with an obstacle or when we need guidance, we can always turn to our brothers and sisters in the faith to help us and pray for us, whether they are living or dead.

Always we ask Saints to pray to God for us -- Catholics do not believe that Saints themselves are lesser gods, but we do trust them to intercede on our behalf. Catholics normally face fierce opposition to our adoration of Saints by Protestants who misunderstand their role in our faith.  Those very same Protestants often turn to their friends and family and ask for their prayers. In the same manner, we seek the prayers of the Saints. We believe that their roles in teaching and guiding humanity did not end at their deaths -- they are still taking an active role in watching mankind and praying for us.

[Storebought]

Once again, you miss understand the Catholic possition (BTW, you never bothered to address any of my points). 

In addition to typing here, I'm also reading the 1992 Catechism, The Catholic Encyclopedia, as well as typing a report that's due tomorrow. And my desktop is a sight.

The Catholic possition is that we are saved by the grace of God manifested in our faith and our works.  While it is true that we believe the sacraments give grace, it is a grace that is given only by God, through the act, not by a priest or by ourselves.  And there is plenty of scriptual significance to the sacraments. 

Debating the role of the sacraments in the Catholic church is a research topic itself. From the Catholic Encyclopedia definition of the Sacrament, they argue that the basis of the seven sacraments lies with Tradition, as well as the Bible (I can honestly tell you, arguing on Tradition is as pointless as me trying to quote Luther to you). Not to mention the heavy priest-oriented nature.

Whoever you heard that Aquinas used only tradition to form the sacraments from is terribly misleading you.  First off, the sacraments, all of them, were firmly in place centuries before Aquinas was even born, so I don't know why you site him, in particular. 

I cited Aquinas because the Catechism cited Aquinas.

If you ever choose to engage me in debate, instead of throwing out random points, I would be more than happy to provide more information, but since you don;t even appear to be paying attention to a word I am saying now, it would seem pretty usless to indulge in this.

Likewise, I'm reading Catholic Online, so that I can inform myself as to what Catholic practice is day-to-day. In this instance, I'm reading why (how) Catholics can pray to Mary, and why she is called "Mother of God", a formula that strikes me as slightly dismissive of God. When I have a question that I cannot answer myself, or find the answer to myself, then I will then ask you about it.

I guess I can only admit to being, how to say?, overwhelmed by the nature of the Catholic doctrine. If I pick out random points here and there, it is because those are the topics that I have read that make the least (scriptural) sense to me.

James 2:14-26

14
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
15
If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,
16
and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?
17
So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18
Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
19
You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
20
Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?
21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22
You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.
23
Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God."
24
See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25
And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?
26
For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

Never mind that even Luther, who I will not quote to you, said as much.

[Storebought]

Heck, if you want something from Paul to rebuke your Paul based argument, how about this?

Romans 2:5-8

5
By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God,
6
who will repay everyone according to his works:
7
eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works,
8
but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.

Of course, there is a massive difference in conception between our understanding of the word, "work." To me, it means the outwardly reflection of the change brought by acceptance of Jesus as our saviour. But from what I read so far, in Catholicism, "work" means fulfilling conditions necessary to achieve salvation.

For example, one must be baptised in the Catholic church to even hope of not avoiding Hellfire.

Faith without works = "I can go to Cancun and whore around on Saturday night, but I still go to fellowship with my brothers on Sunday afternoon"

[Storebought]

I really don't feel like breaking this down into an argument over the New Covenant, and the New Ark, and the New Adam and the New Eve because I don't think it would do any good anyway.  I'll simply say that your understanding of Catholic theology is rather laxed.

First off, God picked Mary from the time she was concieved to be the Mother of God.  He did not just pick her because she was some random devout person, who happned to fit the profile.  This is not to say that Mary was concieved by the Holy Spirit in the way Jesus was.  Catholics believe that Mary was filled with the saving grace of God from the time she was concieved, and thus is free of original sin, because of it.  We know this, because when the angel comes to Mary in Luke 1:28 he calls Mary "full of Grace".  In Greek, this term is summed up in one word kecharitomene, there for indicating that this is a property that Mary pocesses.  Kecharitomene is the perfect passive participle of charitoo and since it is used in this tense, it seems to indicate that Mary is not only now filled will grace, but always has been and always will be.  If she has always been filled with grace, then she was born without original sin, by the power of God.

As for the Assumption (not "Assention", because Mary was taking to Heaven by God, who assumed her.  She did not do it of her own power), if you say that Mary "lived and died like everyone else", then why could she not have been assumed into Heaven the same way that Elijah and Enoch (and perhaps others) were?  She is the Mother of Christ.  Acctually, this doctrine has never been fully defined, as even Pius XII was silent on whether she died or not, simply stating that at the end of her Earthly life, she was assumed into Heaven.

This idea is supported by the Bible.  Once Jesus dies on the cross, we are told in Matthew 27:52-53 that:

"[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many."

Christian teaching has always been that these OT figures ("saints" does not only apply to those with the official recongnition) were assumed into Heaven aftet this event.

Why is Mary any less special?

Finally, you are correct that no one can find salvation through Mary.  I wouldn't dare argue that and neither does the Church.  Salvation comes but from the grace of God.

I was really interested in the meaning of that Greek word, charitoo, which in this tense Mary is forever filled.

Looking at the Strong's concordance, while that word does in fact mean "grace", it's in the sense of "highly favored," ... precisely because she was a pure blood member of the royal line of David .. not as full of some sort of "saving grace."

And it's not good to speculate that she was assumed into Heaven, the writer of Acts would have certainly mentioned the fact if she had been.

[Storebought]

I should probably consolidate some of these posts, but that would be awkward. Rather than pointlessly dragging out another page on this debate, I'll just link to two apologetic sites that list every argument you could ever make in favor of one's own religion and against the other person's.

Highlights:

1. Catholics list Protestants as being members of the Great Heresies

http://www.catholic.com/library/Great_Heresies.asp

and instructs its members on how to tutor them, as one tutors an ignorant Catholic, or as Soulty has been tutoring me. Though I can take cold comfort in that lay Catholics are instructed to talk to us, as opposed to just stomp us flat, like Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons.

2. For their part, the Evangelicals, as represented by Dr. John Ankerberg, debate points of Catholic theology so arcane I'm surprised people even remember them all:

http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/archives-rc.htm

What is hilarious, though, is that Dr Ankerberg classes the Catholics with the Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses as an unbiblical heresy.

3. The layout of the two websites are so similar in content that I wonder if some clever agnostic hadn't invented them both, just to double the profit.

[Virginian87]

1. Catholics list Protestants as being members of the Great Heresies

What a load of crap.  Probably no one except Opus Dei actually takes that seriously.