@Generally_aware@MichaelHF2023@fractaIthoughts@thattradgal This is why miracles are required for an individual's canonization. Simplifying the situation a great deal, the miracle is received as evidence of their effectual intercession before God on our behalf, i.e., of their being in heaven and being able to intercede (cf. James 5:16).
@Generally_aware@MichaelHF2023@fractaIthoughts@thattradgal Yes, the latter, for the reason @fractaIthoughts provided. The Body of Christ, the Church, has communion with itself. Its parts are distinguishable, but they are undivided; the blessed in heaven are distinguishable from the Church on earth, but not separated.
@Generally_aware@MichaelHF2023@fractaIthoughts@thattradgal I feel like I left this ambiguous by saying "there is reason to think..."
There is more in Scripture--e.g., Paul writes of the *life* we have in and through Christ--to warrant prayer to the saints in heaven (NOT necromancy, mind you), but the account of 1 Sam 28 is...
@MichaelHF2023@fractaIthoughts@thattradgal@Generally_aware In that case, you're ascribing to the witch a supernatural power that allows her to control one of God's prophets and judges, in spite of his own will and God's. The alternative is that God allows Samuel to answer, even though Saul and the witch sin gravely by their necromancy.
@MichaelHF2023@fractaIthoughts@thattradgal Quite to the contrary: the account of Saul's sin and Samuel's rebuke is evidence that the dead are aware of the living (so far as God wills it, the Church would say). This incident is relevant to your concerns, too @Generally_aware.
https://t.co/lWqSZPsZub
@DaveSomething4@MichaelHF2023@thattradgal Where does the bible say 1) the saints are in heaven at this time 2) are capable of hearing 3) are allowed to hear 4) are the saints whose prayers are answered.
@kps2014@NSanctification@Ken_FiveSolas St. Thomas Aquinas does not disagree on that exegesis, but typological relations are not necessarily one-to-one relationships. The Ark can (and does, as it happens) anticipate both the Lord and His Mother.
@Ken_FiveSolas@NSanctification ...your resistance doesn't make the evidence non-existent.
Re: Mary's supposed other children, Scripture itself thoroughly counters your prooftexting. Brant Pitre lays out the Scriptural evidence well. (His use of Eusebius isn't essential.)
https://t.co/lPwK2rin79
Peace.
@Ken_FiveSolas@NSanctification But take it as it is: "all have sinned" excludes no one, except it must, because the Lord is excluded, so "all" must not mean "excepting no one." Mary, by other Scriptural evidence, is known to have been excepted, as well. You may not be persuaded by the evidence, but...
@NSanctification@Ken_FiveSolas watching at that point, and you'll have seen enough to (hopefully) recognize the references to Jesus' siblings aren't what you believe them to be.
https://t.co/lPwK2rin79
Peace.
@NSanctification@Ken_FiveSolas As to Mary's perpetual virginity, the Scriptural evidence is both more comprehensive and more complex than a few prooftexts. Brant Pitre presents that evidence pretty well. I don't expect you'll like his use of Eusebius, but that additional evidence is just...additional. Stop...
@NSanctification@Ken_FiveSolas As an exegetical tool, typology is used by Paul, for example, so this sort of approach is useful to the Church and attested in Scripture