Question about praying to Saints in churches.

[Goatee]

It is a blessing to have the saints to intercede for us and the Holy Mother of Jesus.

 

[Charlie7399]

If anyone wants to rely on their Church Tradition to defend prayer to the saints, then there isn't much to argue. All we're trying to say is that it can't be defended from a purely biblical standpoint. Whether you believe in sola scriptura or not is an entirely different matter.

 

[Goatee]

Info worth a read!

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/praying-to-the-saints

 

[Goatee]

Deleted

 

[prodromos]

I'm sorry to tell you, again, that there isn't. It's all a presumption.

I feel very sorry for you Albion. You speak of things you truly know nothing about.

BTW, this doesn't mean that the saints do not pray for us mortals. I do have to correct people when they attempt to morph this fact into the other claims about us praying to them, of them hearing our individual prayers, them acting as intermediaries on behalf of individual humans, or claiming that any of this is supported by Scripture.

Sorry, where did I claim this was supported by scripture? It's in the life of the Orthodox Church.

 

[St Faustina]

This is simply a statement of your personal beliefs. There isn't any Biblical support for the concepts under discussion. Yes, the souls of those who have died live on, but neither are we advised to pray to them, nor is there any indication that they can hear those prayers.

According to whose interpretation? Yours? Who has advised you not to pray to Saints? Catholics are not people of the Book. We do NOT determine doctrine based on one book of the Bible. We include the entire Bible AND Tradition AND the Magisterium. If it is valid for you to discard 1,400 years of Tradition and discerning, why would it be valid for you or any other protestant to believe in a "doctrine" that was developed yesterday, 50 years ago or a couple of hundred years ago.

 

[St Faustina]

1. The saints on Heaven are not dead, but alive in Christ
2. God, who is omnipotent, can hear the prayers of the saints on Earth
3. Therefore, every saint in Heaven can hear the prayers of every saint on Earth

You see the logical problem here? You can't deduct point 3 from points 1 and 2. Also, all I'm saying is that Revelation is highly symbolic. That doesn't mean we shouldn't consider it valid for doctrine, but it does mean that we should be extra careful when reading it. It's too easy to read something into the text, as you've just demonstrated. Let's not forget the people who use it to say that the Catholic Church is the harlot of Babylon.

If it is valid to discard 1,400 years of Tradition and discerning of doctrine, why would it be valid to believe in a "doctrine" that was developed by one disgruntled Catholic 600 years ago? A disgruntled Catholic who wanted to get rid of the book of Revelation, James and Jude.

 

[Albion]

According to whose interpretation? Yours?

Oh, please. If you're intending to discuss here on these forums, you're going to have to get over using that stale retort.

Who has advised you not to pray to Saints?

I said it has no Scriptural support.

Catholics are not people of the Book. We do NOT determine doctrine based on one book of the Bible. We include the entire Bible AND Tradition AND the Magisterium. If it is valid for you to discard 1,400 years of Tradition and discerning, why would it be valid for you or any other protestant to believe in a "doctrine" that was developed yesterday, 50 years ago or a couple of hundred years ago.

I have no idea what, exactly, you're trying to say there. The Bible is the word of God--even according to your church--and it certainly wasn't written 50 years ago or a couple of hundred years ago.

You are right that your church isn't guided in doctrinal matters by the word of God in Scripture, not to the exclusion of human speculation and custom, but Catholics here very seldom come right out and say "We don't care that the Bible offers no support for what we do." You at least are to be commended for being forthright about that.

However, I also may point out that in your post you tried to use the Bible to support your contention that praying to the dead is all right. As a matter of fact, the Bible does not support that idea. That's why you are now saying that it doesn't matter.

 

[Albion]

I feel very sorry for you Albion. You speak of things you truly know nothing about.

As though you would know.

 

[Albion]

If it is valid to discard 1,400 years of Tradition and discerning of doctrine, why would it be valid to believe in a "doctrine" that was developed by one disgruntled Catholic 600 years ago?

How the Bible can be described, with a straight face, as something developed 600 years ago by a disgruntled Catholic, I really don't know. And as for "Tradition," if it actually were either 1400 years old or discerning, you might have a point; but legend, speculation, and superstition are still legend, speculation, and superstition...even with a classier name.

 

[Charlie7399]

If it is valid to discard 1,400 years of Tradition and discerning of doctrine, why would it be valid to believe in a "doctrine" that was developed by one disgruntled Catholic 600 years ago? A disgruntled Catholic who wanted to get rid of the book of Revelation, James and Jude.

I stated before that we are discussing this from a purely biblical standpoint. Whatever tradition the Roman church has is of no concern to us right now. Therefore yes, it is valid to discard tradition when it has no basis in Scripture, for we don't have any assurance of how truthful it is. Especially later tradition, as it is known that this doctrine was not found anywhere before the 3rd century. One can argue, therefore, that this "disgruntled" Catholic did nothing but purify the faith of uncertain doctrines.

Also, smearing Luther is of no use. We know he was not a perfect man and that sometimes he struggled with his faith. However, hat faith was strong enough to prevent him from removing books from the Bible without any consistent argument, no matter how little he thought of them. It was also strong enough for him to always develop doctrine based on the only certain source we have (Scripture) through the lenses of tradition, and not through his own. Most (if not all) of Lutheran ideas can be traced back to the earliest Church Fathers. Don't think we can say the same about Papal Infallibility. So you should stop trying to use silly arguments like that, they don't work.

Also, if I may add, he was only "disgruntled" because the Roman church wanted his head on a plate for speaking against their abuses. He didn't leave to create his church, he was expelled (and nearly killed) because he didn't shut up when they told him to. If that seems fair to you, then I can do nothing but pray.

 

[St Faustina]

Oh, please. If you're intending to discuss here on these forums, you're going to have to get over using that stale retort.


I said it has no Scriptural support.


I have no idea what, exactly, you're trying to say there. The Bible is the word of God--even according to your church--and it certainly wasn't written 50 years ago or a couple of hundred years ago.

You are right that your church isn't guided in doctrinal matters by the word of God in Scripture, not to the exclusion of human speculation and custom, but Catholics here very seldom come right out and say "We don't care that the Bible offers no support for what we do." You at least are to be commended for being forthright about that.

However, I also may point out that in your post you tried to use the Bible to support your contention that praying to the dead is all right. As a matter of fact, the Bible does not support that idea. That's why you are now saying that it doesn't matter.

I believe I wrote Scripture + Tradition + Magisterium but you go ahead and edit my posts as you see fit. Why should I believe you or anyone else's interpretation? One persons/church interpretation is different from another person or church. 50000+ denominations, all claiming their interpretation is correct. Is the Holy Spirit guiding all of them? No, the Holy Spirit can never be the author of confusion.

It all boils down to authority. What authority do you or your church have and when was your church invented? I guarantee it was not around prior to 1500's. In short we can debate till we are blue in the face but you will not be able to convince me otherwise because you and your church have no authority. We believe we are the Church that Christ breathed on in the Upper room and have a clear line of evidence of authority from the Upper room to 2015. You obviously believe the same but you won't be able to prove it.

 

[Charlie7399]

Oh, look, the classical circular argument!

"The Roman church is always right."
"Why do you say that?"
"Because the Roman church says so."
"And why do you believe the Roman church?"
"Because the Roman church is always right!"

We're getting tired of this already.

 

[St Faustina]

I stated before that we are discussing this from a purely biblical standpoint. Whatever tradition the Roman church has is of no concern to us right now. Therefore yes, it is valid to discard tradition when it has no basis in Scripture, for we don't have any assurance of how truthful it is. Especially later tradition, as it is known that this doctrine was not found anywhere before the 3rd century. One can argue, therefore, that this "disgruntled" Catholic did nothing but purify the faith of uncertain doctrines.

Also, smearing Luther is of no use. We know he was not a perfect man and that sometimes he struggled with his faith. However, hat faith was strong enough to prevent him from removing books from the Bible without any consistent argument, no matter how little he thought of them. It was also strong enough for him to always develop doctrine based on the only certain source we have (Scripture) through the lenses of tradition, and not through his own. Most (if not all) of Lutheran ideas can be traced back to the earliest Church Fathers. Don't think we can say the same about Papal Infallibility. So you should stop trying to use silly arguments like that, they don't work.

Also, if I may add, he was only "disgruntled" because the Roman church wanted his head on a plate for speaking against their abuses. He didn't leave to create his church, he was expelled (and nearly killed) because he didn't shut up when they told him to. If that seems fair to you, then I can do nothing but pray.

Who is this "we' you speak of when you say "we have no proof of assurance"? Are you speaking on behalf of the Lutherans or are you speaking for all protestants or for all christians?

 

[Charlie7399]

Who is this "we' you speak of when you say "we have no proof of assurance"? Are you speaking on behalf of the Lutherans or are you speaking for all protestants or for all christians?

I'm saying "we" as in "we who are debating this issue based solely on Scripture", as I said twice already.

 

[Albion]

I believe I wrote Scripture + Tradition + Magisterium but you go ahead and edit my posts as you see fit.

I know what YOU wrote. Yes, the above is it.

What I was responding to was your comment, "Who advised you not to pray to the Saints?" I had said nothing about anyone advising me not to pray to the saints. What I had said was that the idea of praying to the saints is unscriptural.

 

[Charlie7399]

"If anyone wants to rely on their Church Tradition to defend prayer to the saints, then there isn't much to argue. All we're trying to say is that it can't be defended from a purely biblical standpoint. Whether you believe in sola scriptura or not is an entirely different matter."

I said this on post #162. Look it up.

 

[St Faustina]

Oh, look, the classical circular argument!

"The Roman church is always right."
"Why do you say that?"
"Because the Roman church says so."
"And why do you believe the Roman church?"
"Because the Roman church is always right!"

We're getting tired of this already.

Well you believe your church teachings are always right don't you? You believe Lutheranism teaches the correct doctrine and possesses the fullness of truth otherwise you would not be a Lutheran. You would not entrust your soul to a church that teaches false doctrines and neither would Catholics.

Otherwise what would be the point, we are talking about where our soul will spends eternity so who wants to mess with that...we all want to get it right. Of course you believe your church is always right when it comes to it's doctrine just as an Anglican believes their church is right and just as a Methodist believes it's doctrines are always right.

 

[topcare]

There is ample evidence they can hear our prayers in the life of the Orthodox Church. Christ has one body, and all christians dead or alive are members of that one body. There really is nothing separating us.
I mentioned Saint Nectarios earlier, and one of the things I noticed while visiting Mt Athos here in Greece was the large numbers of pilgrims coming from Romania. This is due to a recent miracle of St Nectarios in 2009. A village in Romania had been without a priest for many years. Despite their requests to the Bishop, he had no priests available to send to them. One day, however, a priest showed up, despite them having been told no priest would be sent. This priest performed funeral services for all those who had died in the absence of a priest, married those who had been living as husband and wife despite not being able to marry, baptised all those who had been born since they last had a priest, heard their confessions and served the Divine Liturgy so that they could all receive Holy Communion. After this he told them that he was leaving. They were very upset that he would not be staying but when they understood they could not convince him otherwise, they gave thanks to God for the short time he was able to serve their community. They wrote a letter to the bishop thanking him for sending the priest but also requesting that another could come and stay permanently. The bishop was very surprised as he had not in fact sent a priest and was also concerned as an unknown priest had served in his jurisdiction without his authority, so he asked who the priest was. They answered that they did not know his name, as although he wrote all their certificates (baptismal and marriage) in Romanian, he signed his name in another script which they could not read. When one of them was brought to the bishop, he recognised that it was in Greek and read "Nectarios, Bishop of Pentapolis". When he went to the island of Aegina in Greece where St Nectarios' relics remain, at the monastery he established, he confirmed that it was indeed his signature.
This happened in 2009. St Nectarios died in 1920.

Praise be to God!

 

[Charlie7399]

Well you believe your church teachings are always right don't you? You believe Lutheranism teaches the correct doctrine and possesses the fullness of truth otherwise you would not be a Lutheran. You would not entrust your soul to a church that teaches false doctrines and neither would Catholics.

Otherwise what would be the point, we are talking about where our soul will spends eternity so who wants to mess with that...we all want to get it right. Of course you believe your church is always right when it comes to it's doctrine just as an Anglican believes their church is right and just as a Methodist believes it's doctrines are always right.

I don't believe Lutheranism is right because I'm a Lutheran. I'm a Lutheran because I believe Lutheranism is right. I arrived at that conclusion after a very long study of theology and Church tradition. I'm a Lutheran because I believe, by evidence, that it upholds the historical doctrines of the earliest Church and Church Fathers. That doesn't mean I believe whatever Lutheranism teaches is right just because Lutheranism teaches it. In fact, it's quite the opposite. I don't think you've really addressed my point, though.