Praying to Mary - A Biblical Defense

[Bible Highlighter]

One charge made against it is that the saints in heaven cannot even hear our prayers, making it useless to ask for their intercession. However, this is not true. As Scripture indicates, those in heaven are aware of the prayers of those on earth. This can be seen, for example, in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of "golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.

Sometimes Fundamentalists object to asking our fellow Christians in heaven to pray for us by declaring that God has forbidden contact with the dead in passages such as Deuteronomy 18:10–11. In fact, he has not, because he at times has given it—for example, when he had Moses and Elijah appear with Christ to the disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3). What God has forbidden is necromantic practice of conjuring up spirits. "There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. . . . For these nations, which you are about to dispossess, give heed to soothsayers and to diviners; but as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you so to do. The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren—him you shall heed" (Deut. 18:10–15).

God thus indicates that one is not to conjure the dead for purposes of gaining information; one is to look to God’s prophets instead. Thus one is not to hold a seance. But anyone with an ounce of common sense can discern the vast qualitative difference between holding a seance to have the dead speak through you and a son humbly saying at his mother’s grave, "Mom, please pray to Jesus for me; I’m having a real problem right now." The difference between the two is the difference between night and day. One is an occult practice bent on getting secret information; the other is a humble request for a loved one to pray to God on one’s behalf.

The answer is: "Of course one should pray directly to Jesus!" But that does not mean it is not also a good thing to ask others to pray for one as well. Ultimately, the "go-directly-to-Jesus" objection boomerangs back on the one who makes it: Why should we ask any Christian, in heaven or on earth, to pray for us when we can ask Jesus directly? If the mere fact that we can go straight to Jesus proved that we should ask no Christian in heaven to pray for us then it would also prove that we should ask no Christian on earth to pray for us.

Praying for each other is simply part of what Christians do. As we saw, in 1 Timothy 2:1–4, Paul strongly encouraged Christians to intercede for many different things, and that passage is by no means unique in his writings. Elsewhere Paul directly asks others to pray for him (Rom. 15:30–32, Eph. 6:18–20, Col. 4:3, 1 Thess. 5:25, 2 Thess. 3:1), and he assured them that he was praying for them as well (2 Thess. 1:11). Most fundamentally, Jesus himself required us to pray for others, and not only for those who asked us to do so (Matt. 5:44).

The Bible directs us to invoke those in heaven and ask them to pray with us. Thus in Psalms 103, we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21). And in Psalms 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2).

Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, we read: "[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3-4).

Source

But you can't do that. You cannot take one obscure verse that is not all that clear and build a whole theology upon it. The verse can easily be read as not being as you say. We need clear verses saying we can pray to dead saints. The fact that you will not see any command or example of believers praying to the dead is reason enough not to do it. But Scripture also condemns contacting the dead for any reason. You just do not want to see it (even despite the fact that it is obvious).


...

 

[Phil 1:21]

It would be helpful to show any prayers recorded in Holy Scriptures directed towards anyone other than God. Over 200+ prayers in the Bible and all of them directed towards God. Zero towards others who are departed.

The title of this thread is a bit loaded because, in reality, there is no Biblical defense for it. The correct answer that a few Catholics have given is that praying to Mary is not scriptural; it’s a matter of Sacred Tradition. I can respect that answer because it’s an honest one. I may not agree with their Sacred Tradition, but I can respect their acceptance of it. I used to be Roman Catholic, so I understand how these things go.

Simply referring to Sacred Tradition is much better than the Biblical gymnastics we’ve seen played out here where people try to cite Job 1:5, Matthew 12:46-50, John 2:1-12, or Revelation 5:8 or 8:4 as a defense for praying to Mary and/or the saints, and then get wrapped around the axle when they find out the verses don’t say what they want them to say. If someone truly does not believe that scripture is the final authority from God, then they should have no problem responding to the original question by stating that their belief with respect to this subject is not scriptural, but found in Sacred Tradition.

 

[amariselle]

No. I provided Scripture in support of my position. She rejects my conclusions. She provided Scripture in support of her position, and I rejected her conclusions. The only difference is that I do not equate my own personal interpretations of Scripture with the inspired Word of God itself, and can therefore accept the fact that others interpret Scripture differently than I do. For all practical purposes she seems to believe that her interpretations are equal to the Word of God, and that is likely why she cannot accept the fact that we do not bow down and treat her conclusions as though they are Scripture.

You do the exact same thing with your church's "interpretations". You absolutely equate Catholic Church interpretations with the inspired word of God itself.

You believe and accept that the official interpretations given by the Catholic Church are equal to the word of God, you also believe "Sacred (Catholic) Tradition" is equal to the word of God. You expect others to likewise accept the official Catholic position on all such matters.

So, please, spare me the patronizing comments and accusations, and stop pretending you don't do the exact same things you constantly accuse all us terrible "Sola Scriptura" "Protestants" of doing.

You have your "interpretations" just like we do.

 

[PeaceB]

Explain how they don't.

I already did. None of the verses states that we are forbidden to pray to saints. That is merely your interpretation of those verses, but the verses themselves say no such thing.

If you want a lengthy debate, all of your arguments are refuted by this article:

Any Friend of God is a Friend of Mine | Catholic Answers

You can debate against the points raised in the article. I have no interest in attempting to persuade you of my position, because it is already clear that you are not open to changing your mind, and simply want to engage in endless debate until we admit that we are wrong.

 

[Goatee]

But you can't do that. You cannot take one obscure verse that is not all that clear and build a whole theology upon it.


...

Sola Scripture believers do that all the time! Lol

 

[redleghunter]

You give good definitions, but your definition of Tradition is typically Protestant, and it's wrong. See my signature.
"call no man father" to prove it's wrong to call priests "father" is a classic example of eisegesis, biblical illiterates do it all the time.

I did not give a definition of 'tradition.' The use of 'tradition' today by the Catholic church can mean quite a few things. Tradition of 1st century AD? 5th century AD? 11 century AD? You can see someone standing from the 21st century looking back can call everything from the end of 1st century AD through today as 'tradition.'

That is the tradition you are arguing from. Not a supposed list of oral traditions not written down which has become a dual pillar of truth along with Sacred Scriptures. Such was even alien to early church fathers such as St. Irenaeus:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 1)--http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm)

The Scriptures seem to be, according to Irenaeus, synonymous to Tradition.

Now what did I mean about 'tradition' not handed down by the apostles themselves as Irenaeus mentioned was received?

Cardinal John Henry Newman had the following to say to justify Roman Catholic tradition not found in the NT nor even in the early church. Newman actually gives quite a very good visual of the religious syncretism many Catholics argue here on CF has roots in the NT. Newman makes it clear the history is against such notions.

"We are told in various ways by Eusebius [Note 16], that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison [Note 17], are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church. {374}

Greeks dedicate images to devils, and call them gods; but we to True God Incarnate, and to God's servants and friends, who drive away the troops of devils." [Note 18] Again, "As the holy Fathers overthrew the temples and shrines of the devils, and raised in their places shrines in the {377} names of Saints and we worship them, so also they overthrew the images of the devils, and in their stead raised images of Christ, and God's Mother, and the Saints. And under the Old Covenant, Israel neither raised temples in the name of men, nor was memory of man made a festival; for, as yet, man's nature was under a curse, and death was condemnation, and therefore was lamented, and a corpse was reckoned unclean and he who touched it; but now that the Godhead has been combined with our nature, as some life-giving and saving medicine, our nature has been glorified and is trans-elemented into incorruption. Wherefore the death of Saints is made a feast, and temples are raised to them, and Images are painted ... (John Henry Newman [made a cardinal by Pope Leo III in 1879]; Application of the Third Note of a True Development—Assimilative Power, Chapter 8; Newman Reader - Development of Christian Doctrine - Chapter 8)

As Roman Catholic historian Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger points out more in this doctrinal development of tradition. Some based on spurious or false documents as in the Isidorian decretals:

In the middle of the ninth century—about 845—there arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian decretals...About a hundred pretended decrees of the earliest Popes, together with certain spurious writings of other Church dignitaries and acts of Synods, were then fabricated in the west of Gaul, and eagerly seized upon Pope Nicholas I at Rome, to be used as genuine documents in support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors.

That the pseudo–Isidorian principles eventually revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, and introduced a new system in place of the old—on that point there can be no controversy among candid historians.

The most potent instrument of the new Papal system was Gratian’s Decretum, which issued about the middle of the twelfth century from the first school of Law in Europe, the juristic teacher of the whole of Western Christendom, Bologna. In this work the Isidorian forgeries were combined with those of the other Gregorian (Gregory VII) writers...and with Gratia’s own additions. His work displaced all the older collections of canon law, and became the manual and repertory, not for canonists only, but for the scholastic theologians, who, for the most part, derived all their knowledge of Fathers and Councils from it. No book has ever come near it in its influence in the Church, although there is scarcely another so chokeful of gross errors, both intentional and unintentional. — (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), pp. 76-77, 79, 115-116. The Pope and the Council : Döllinger, Johann Joseph Ignaz von, 1799-1890 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive)

Perhaps the above from Roman Catholic historians (one a Cardinal) should give you an indication why some Protestants and Evangelicals challenge the claim Roman Catholic traditions as "apostolic."

I do thank Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning for his candor with the following:

"It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour." — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, pp. 227,28) (The temporal mission of the Holy Ghost : or, Reason and revelation : Manning, Henry Edward, 1808-1892 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive)

Cardinal Newman had a similar theme when discussing tradition from antiquity:

"in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8. The Vatican Council

Notice I am not giving a drive by from "Mystery Babylon" junk theology. I quoted prominent Roman Catholic theologians two of which were Cardinals. The summary of all of the above is Rome does not need the Bible (history), church history or even earlier traditions to justify new traditions. Not only that, but Rome also has the authority to make later developments binding even though the earlier church did not practice them or in some cases even heard of them.

Don't you find that concerning? The only 'place' I can find such self proclaimed and self assured power is in the following quote:

"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them."

 

[Phil 1:21]

But you can't do that. You cannot take one obscure verse that is not all that clear and build a whole theology upon it. The verse can easily be read as not being as you say. We need clear verses saying we can pray to dead saints.

I agree. Revelation 5:8 says...

"When He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp, and they held the golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints."

It says the bowls of incense are the prayers of the saints, not that they are the prayers of believers on earth made to the saints. This one is so easy to debunk it's not even funny.

 

[amariselle]

I already did. None of the verses states that we are forbidden to pray to saints. That is merely your interpretation of those verses, but the verses themselves say no such thing.

If you want a lengthy debate, all of your arguments are refuted by this article:

Any Friend of God is a Friend of Mine | Catholic Answers

You can debate against the points raised in the article. I have no interest in attempting to persuade you of my position, because it is already clear that you are not open to changing your mind, and simply want to engage in endless debate until we admit that we are wrong.

I will say this one more time, and then I am finished. I for one am done with the intellectual dishonesty going on here.

I shared those verses without a single added comment, yet you repeatedly tell me I have added my own interpretation. I did not.

If you don't want to address what those verses say, that is fine. Your choice. But you need to stop claiming I added my own "interpretation", when I shared only those verses and no personal opinions or thoughts on them whatsoever.

Honestly, I think you know exactly what those verses say, and you simply would rather not go there. Perhaps it's a little too inconvenient.

Your choice.

I'm done going around in endless circles.

God bless.

 

[kepha31]

It would be helpful to show any prayers recorded in Holy Scriptures directed towards anyone other than God. Over 200+ prayers in the Bible and all of them directed towards God. Zero towards others who are departed.

First, prayer is not worship. Second, there is nothing "Christian" about being hypercritical about a doctrine, belief or practice you refuse to make any attempt at understanding. That requires shedding prejudice and narrow mindedness. It also requires a lot of reading. Third, no one is obligated to have a devotion to any saint, it's not mandatory. We do it because we are a family and it works. Dividing the family of God in heaven from the family of God on earth is a false man made Protestant tradition.

In His story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31), we find our compelling prooftext:
Asking Saints to Intercede: Clear Teaching of Jesus
James 5:14-18
Note here that the Bible itself recommends asking someone else to pray: “the elders” of the Church,
Dialogue: "Why pray to a saint rather than to God?"
vs 18: “The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.” We see the same dynamic in the following passage:

1 Kings 13:6
This is the biblical rationale for asking others, of more spiritual stature in the kingdom, or holier (or, best of all, both!) to pray for us.

But that is not yet the same as asking a (dead) saint to pray for us. How does one arrive at that conclusion? It takes a little more work, but it is possible to ground it, too, in Scripture by less direct, explicit biblical data.

In Revelation 5:8, the “twenty-four elders” (usually regarded by commentators as dead human beings) “fell down before the Lamb . . . with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” They appear to have other people’s prayers, to present to God. So the obvious question is: what are they doing with them? Why does Revelation present dead saints presenting the prayers of other saints to God?

If they have them, it stands to reason as a rather straightforward deduction, that they heard the initial prayers as well, or at least were granted knowledge of them in some fashion, granted ultimately through the power of God.

Revelation 8:3-4 is even more explicit. Rather than equate incense and prayers, it actually distinguishes between them, and presents the scenario that the prayers and incense are presented together:
Dialogue: "Why pray to a saint rather than to God?"

Does God Forbid Absolutely ALL Contact with the Dead?

Bible on Invocation of Angels and Saved Human Beings
Read more at Bible on Invocation of Angels and Saved Human Beings

What you mean by the Communion of Saints and what we mean are not the same.
Saints, Purgatory, & Penance (Index Page)

 

[PeaceB]

You do the exact same thing with your church's "interpretations". You absolutely equate Catholic Church interpretations with the inspired word of God itself.

You believe and accept that the official interpretations given by the Catholic Church are equal to the word of God, you also believe "Sacred (Catholic) Tradition" is equal to the word of God. You expect others to likewise accept the official Catholic position on all such matters.

So, please, spare me the patronizing comments and accusations, and stop pretending you don't do the exact same things you constantly accuse all us terrible "Sola Scriptura" "Protestants" of doing.

You have your "interpretations" just like we do.

The Church is the pillar and the ground of the truth. What it binds on Earth is bound in Heaven, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The personal opinions of Amariselle, not so much.

 

[Goatee]

I will say this one more time, and then I am finished. I for one am done with the intellectual dishonesty going on here.

I shared those verses without a single added comment, yet you repeatedly tell me I have added my own interpretation. I did not.

If you don't want to address what those verses say, that is fine. Your choice. But you need to stop claiming I added my own "interpretation", when I shared only those verses and no personal opinions or thoughts on them whatsoever.

Honestly, I think you know exactly what those verses say, and you simply would rather not go there. Perhaps it's a little too inconvenient.

Your choice.

I'm done going around in endless circles.

God bless.

The CC as has been shown many times, has evidence to back up it's beliefs yet you won't accept those beliefs but, you think we should accept yours! Lol

 

[PeaceB]

I will say this one more time, and then I am finished. I for one am done with the intellectual dishonesty going on here.

I shared those verses without a single added comment, yet you repeatedly tell me I have added my own interpretation. I did not.

If you don't want to address what those verses say, that is fine. Your choice. But you need to stop claiming I added my own "interpretation", when I shared only those verses and no personal opinions or thoughts on them whatsoever.

Honestly, I think you know exactly what those verses say, and you simply would rather not go there. Perhaps it's a little too inconvenient.

Your choice.

I'm done going around in endless circles.

God bless.

You have said that you are finished numerous times, only to continue on again shortly thereafter. Will this time be any different?

With all due respect, it is you who is playing games. Both you and I know that you interpret those verses to prohibit prayer to saints, that the Scriptures do not state that, and that I reject your interpretation.

 

[amariselle]

The Church is the pillar and the ground of the truth. What it binds on Earth is bound in Heaven, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The personal opinions of Amariselle, not so much.

Exactly. That's what I thought.

 

[amariselle]

You have said that you are finished numerous times, only to continue on again shortly thereafter. Will this time be any different?

With all due respect, it is you who is playing games. Both you and I know that you interpret those verses to prohibit prayer to saints, that the Scriptures do not state that, and that I reject your interpretation.

 

[Goatee]

As I have stated many times before. The Apostles heard 'all' of the teachings of Jesus, of which, there would not be enough books in the world to record!

The Apostles did not teach or pass down through Apostolic Tradition only that which is in the Bible!

Many more 'truths' have been revealed to the Catholic Church because of the Apostolic Tradition and the Holy Spirit.

The Bible is a guide. God lives outside of scripture too. Jesus continues to steer the Catholic Church. The gates of hell will not prevail!

Sola Scripture is very much MAN MADE.

 

[amariselle]

The CC as has been shown many times, has evidence to back up it's beliefs yet you won't accept those beliefs but, you think we should accept yours! Lol

You should really read some of your own historians.

They do an excellent job of explaining the "evidence" the Catholic Church has to "back up" its beliefs.

 

[PeaceB]

Exactly. That's what I thought.

I could not care less what you think.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Exactly. That's what I thought.

PM sent.

 

[Goatee]

You should really read some of your own historians.

They do an excellent job of explaining the "evidence" the Catholic Church has to "back up" its beliefs.

Depends who you read

 

[amariselle]

Depends who you read

I think you should take an honest look at history. Not only the parts you like or agree with.