Yet you hold to this non-scriptural doctrine, while condemning Church doctrines which aren't explicitly mentioned in scripture.
The angels, whose nature is superior to human nature, and saints (literally "holy") are in heaven. Why would the angels be excluded from the Mystical Body of Christ?
Communion of Saints is the Spiritual Union which Unites the Faithful upon Earth, the Souls in Purgatory, and the Angels and Saints in Heaven, in the One (1) Mystical Body, the Church, of which Jesus Christ is the Head, and the Participation of All in the One (1) Supernatural Life.From the Catechism:
The term "communion of saints" therefore has two closely linked meanings: communion in holy things (sancta)" and "among holy persons (sancti)."
Angels in heaven are holy persons.
Certainly have...It's all over the bible, OT as well as New...
Yet you hold to this non-scriptural doctrine, while condemning Church doctrines which aren't explicitly mentioned in scripture.
So you are saying that Martin Luther made up 'faith alone' so it's alright for you guys to make this up???
Communion of Saints is the Spiritual Union which Unites the Faithful upon Earth, the Souls in Purgatory, and the Angels and Saints in Heaven, in the One (1) Mystical Body, the Church, of which Jesus Christ is the Head, and the Participation of All in the One (1) Supernatural Life.
The body of Christ is the Bride...There are no angels who are part of the Bride of Christ...It's not only non-biblical, it's terrible theology...
Rather, "the Bible alone" is not be construed to mean that the Bible alone in the formal sense can be used to know and understand God's truth and will (which would even disallow reason), but that it alone is The infallible and sufficient standard for faith, salvation and obedience and growth in grace.
As such both formally provides the truth needed for salvation, so that a soul may read Acts 10:36-47 and be saved, and provide other texts for growing grace. In addition, it materially provides for helps in understanding, including the magisterium with its teachers (but not as assuredly infallible men who are the superior authority versus Scripture).
And in contrast to the alternative, that of the church via its magisterium being the supreme authority, it is abundantly evidenced that Scripture is the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims .
By which the stewards of Divine revelation and promises where reproved, by an itinerant Preacher whom they rejected. Thus the church began in dissent from those who thought more of themselves than what was written, (cf. 1Cor. 4:6), being corrected by those without it via Scripture, and thus the body of Christ has been preserved.
It's impossible, because the books of the Bible were compiled long after the books were written. No writing in an individual book could refer to the collective whole.
Rather than it being impossible, the fact is that Scripture provided for writings being recognized as Scripture (due to their unique Divine qualities) and authoritative (before a church of Rome would claim it is necessary to do so), as evidenced by the approx. 250 quotes in the NT. Thus in principle Scripture provided for more writings to be established as Scripture, as well as no more being like unto it, and thus for a canon of Scripture to be established.
Yet you hold to this non-scriptural doctrine, while condemning Church doctrines which aren't explicitly mentioned in scripture.
There is not real comparison, for you can only wish that PTDS had the support the core doctrines we concur on. And here it is well evidenced that Scripture was the transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, and provides for recognition of writings as Scripture due to their qualities. One of which was conformity to what had prior been established by God's power, a test which PTDS dramatically fails, as in all of Scripture and its approx 100 prayers to Heaven, not one exists of prayer by believers to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord.
And not only does the Holy Spirit not provide any, but He Himself cries unto the Father, (Gal. 4:6) >and instructs us to do that same, (Mt. 6:9) and teaches that believers have direct access to God in the holiest of all, (Heb. 10:19)
and that there only one Heavenly intercessor btwn God and man, (1Tim. 2:5)
and who ever lives to make intercession for believers, (Heb. 7:25)
by whom they come directly to the throne of grace,
while the only example of prayer to someone else in Heaven (presumed) but the Lord was by pagans. (Jer. 44) All the texts you can muster on prayer and attempts to extrapolate PTDS from human relationships and bridge the manifest separation btwn the Heavenly and earthly realm (requiring one to be in either one for communication btwn created beings, unlike omnipresent God) cannot overcome the absence of even one example of PTDS, esp in the light of prayer being such a basic practice, and that it is contrary to the examples and instructions on who to address prayer ton Heaven to.
Nor is asking another believer on earth to pray for you the same as bowing and beseeching another believer in Heaven who can hear virtually infinite amounts of mental prayer addressed them him, which only God is shown being able to do. At best you can only hold PTDS as speculation, and less than departed saints or angels ordaining elders in Heaven or taking up collections.
And from #45,
The Church wrote, preserved and canonized the Bible. The Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth." Jesus had harsh words for those who would not listen to "the church."
Mere bluster, as (even if allowing for the first claim) this not only presumes that,
1. the stewards of Scripture are necessarily the perpetually infallible interpreters of it, which is untenable (and that Rome had an infallible indisputable canon prior to Luther's death over 1600 years after the last book was penned),
but that
2. the church of the living God being the pillar and foundation of truth means it is the supreme authority, not Scripture itself, which is extrapolation beyond what either stulos or zaō provide, while Rome seems more dead than living.
And
3, that Rome's claim to formal historical descent, or any claim to it, makes it the perpetual supreme infallible authority.
Why would the angels be excluded from the Mystical Body of Christ?
WHY? Because we see Scripture as the supreme authority, not Rome, yet which herself does not officially define the Body of Christ as consisting of angels as well. But RCs have great liberty to engage in private interpretation.
Scripture defines the Body of Christ as being the church, made up of redeemed souls,
"For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:" "For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." (Ephesians 5:29-30)
And which body the Lord bought with His own sinless shed blood, and over whom elders/bishops oversee.
"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." (Acts 20:28)
In contrast to the "church of the firstborn," (Heb. 12:23) the angels of God are
"all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation" (Hebrews 1:14)
The term "communion of saints" therefore has two closely linked meanings: communion in holy things (sancta)" and "among holy persons (sancti)." Angels in heaven are holy persons
That is simply another example of the specious logic RC's typically employ, for having the common attribute of being holy does not make angels in Heaven to be saints of the body of Christ, His church.
And regardless even if they were, that does not mean they were prayed to in Scripture, so that they should be today, for which the Holy Spirit provides zero examples for, and instead only evidences prayer to Heaven addressed directly to God, and teaches the same.