Praying to Saints

[repentant]

Well, I think you should definently read the book A Case For Christ by Lee Strobel because it answers so many of the things you just brought up. Firstly, you asked what the Church did before the Bibly existed. The major part of becoming a Christian priest or a Jewish priest back in those days was they had to memorize the entire scripture. Now that sounds impossible because I mean I have a hard time memorizing one verse, but that is seriously what they did and I believe they were only able to do that through the power of God. Also, early monks spent hours a day copying scripture onto papyrus which would then be dispersed and probably sold and taken to other regions. And you put the scripture by Paul where he says to "hold the traditions" but maybe you should do some research on your traditions and find out when they were created. Over time, more and more traditions were created, so I have a big, gut feeling that when Paul referred to traditions, he did not mean many, if any, of the major ones the Catholic and Orthodox churches put extreme importance on today.

What Scripture? There was none yet, before the Bible. Also the Orthodox Traditions were "created" centuries ago, the Church is 2000 years old. I think you should read some books on the early Church Father's and you will see that.

 

[12volt_man]

Yes, we ask her to intercede as well.

But what is prayer if not building a statue, lighting a candle and bowing down to it?

My quote exists your doesn't.

That's news to me, especially since I've already shown where they are found.

James 5:16
"Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much."

This also speaks of the importance of confessing sins to a Priest, which Protestant denoms. argue as well.

This verse says nothing about praying to the dead, nor the Roman Catholic tradition of confessing prayers to priests for absolution.

So do you deny the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church?

No, I affirm the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the church over the traditions of men.

speaking of the gulf in between heaven and hell, not the living and dead in heaven.

Fair enough.

 

[Psalm40]

Why not, rather than putting your traditions of men (because you belong to a man-made sect) over the entire body of the Sacred Scripture which was preserved, compiled, passed on, and canonized by the CATHOLIC CHURCH, actually study the Scriptures before you, before you trust the words of your "pastor."

 

[12volt_man]

You should learn what the quotes mean when you try to use them to prove something wrong.

I do know what the verses mean. They mean that God doesn't want us praying to the dead.

 

[GraceAnneWinter]

James 5:16
"Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much."

This also speaks of the importance of confessing sins to a Priest, which Protestant denoms. argue as well.

How do you know it also means that we should pray to saints, or ask them to intercede? It doesn't say they have the ability to do that in heaven. I think if something were to be done like that then it would bring it up much more and more specifically in scripture.

 

[repentant]

But what is prayer if not building a statue, lighting a candle and bowing down to it?



That's news to me, especially since I've already shown where they are found.



This verse says nothing about praying to the dead, nor the Roman Catholic tradition of confessing prayers to priests for absolution.



No, I affirm the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the church over the traditions of men.




Fair enough.

For one I'm not Catholic, I'm Orthodox, but this thread applies to us as well.

We don't have statues.

I said post them before you posted them.

How does "confess your sins to another" not have to do with confessing to a Priest. And also, we have a different view of the dead in Christ than you do obviously. Who is more righteous, us on earth, or someone in heaven?

 

[GraceAnneWinter]

This is in Deuteronomy 18:9-13

9 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. 10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in [a] the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. 13 You must be blameless before the LORD your God.

 

[repentant]

I do know what the verses mean. They mean that God doesn't want us praying to the dead.

Read them again. These quotes you posted have to do with fortune telling, and consulting the dead for the purpose of psychic powers. Has nothing to do with asking the dead in Christ, the righteous in heaven to intercede. We don't ask them to appear to us, and answer us, like these quotes apply.

 

[Psalm40]

Grace,

Tell me, what is the canon of Scripture? In which book are we told the "table of contents" of the Bible?

The Bible itself confirms the authority of the Church, but the Church upholds the inspiration of the Bible. The two are inseparable. The Bible comes from the Church and serves as a teaching tool and guide in matters of faith and morals which were given to the Church by Christ Himself. It is a written testimony of the ministry of Jesus and the history of the early Church.

There is no “inspired table of contents” anywhere in Scripture telling believers what books should and should not be included in the Bible. This is even true for the Old Testament. We take the canon of the Old Testament on faith because Jewish tradition already had done the job. The decision as to which books should and should not be included in the Christian Bible was made by the Catholic Church in the councils of Hippo (A.D. 393) and Carthage (A.D. 397 and A.D. 419). These decisions were ratified and redefined by the Second Council of Nicea (787), Florence (1440) and Trent (1525-46). For more information about the process of canonization, check out Where We Got the Bible, by Henry G. Graham (published by Tan Books, Rockford, Illinois) or the detailed chronology provided on this web-site: http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ45.HTM


“Since the Bible does not indicate which books belong within it, and since Protestants do not believe the Church has any authority to infallibly determine which books belong and which books don’t, Protestants are left in an epistemological dilemma. Hence they are forced to the logical but heretical conclusion that there may be inspired books that should be in the Bible but were left out in error, and that there may be uninspired books in the Bible that have no business being there, but were added in error” (excerpt from the essay "From Controversy to Consolation", by Bob Sungenis, another former Fundamentalist who reconciled to the Catholic Church after examining the Scriptural evidence against Protestantism).

Protestants cannot be certain that the Bible is in fact the inspired Word of God. Sure, one can quote 2 Timothy 3:16-17 all one likes, but other books such as the Koran, the Book of Mormon and the Hindu Vedas all claim to be divinely inspired. A book claiming itself as divinely inspired does not guarantee it is divinely inspired! For example, there were several books circulating in the first and second centuries that claimed to be inspired or seemed to be inspired (among them, The Gospel of Peter, The Shepherd [used as an early catechism in the early Church], The Epistle of Barnabas, The Acts of Paul, and The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians) but did not make it into the Bible.

So if you cannot be certain which books belong in the Bible (other than by the Catholic Church’s authority), it is impossible to state that it should be one’s sole, reliable authority.

“The irony is that while Protestants use the theory of sola scriptura to advance their attacks on the Catholic Church, they have no infallible way of knowing what comprises Scripture in the first place” (ibid, page 124).

Fundamentalists will argue that the Catholic Church did not give us the canon; the Holy Spirit did. Indeed, this fact cannot be denied. But look at how He gave it. How did the Holy Spirit work through the members of the early Church to produce those writings, and how did He communicate the canon to the Church? “By asserting that the Holy Spirit gave the canon to the Church, the Protestant must admit that the Holy Spirit guided the Church into an infallible decision” (ibid, page 125).

Isn’t that in line with what Jesus promised the Church? He promised to guide his Church into all truth (John 16:13) and to be with her until the end of the world (Matthew 28:19-20).

And if indeed that is true, then there is no rational basis to deny that the Church has been infallibly guided throughout the ages to proclaim the Gospel and interpret Scripture, and will always be until Christ’s return.

the Bible only exists, thanks to the Catholic Church who preserved her, through whom the Holy Spirit has always worked, and will continue to work until Christ comes again in glory.

You have yet to prove your interpretation of Scripture is correct over the Catholic Church’s or the thousands of other denominations out there.

Basically, Protestant theologies are all based on personal interpretations on the Bible, which the Catholic Church produced. As Vincent of Lerins stated: “Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. . . . Thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning” (The Notebooks [A.D. 434]).

Let me give you a “brief” history of the Bible.

Realize that none of the original texts of the OT and NT exist. Luckily, the Jews would carefully preserve the texts of the OT, but even between various copies, “variances” occurred. In the first two centuries when the NT was being copied, writing materials were reeds or quills, and sheets of papyrus, which were cut into strips and dried, then laid down vertically (side by side) with a horizontal layer placed on the top and the whole arrangement was gummed together and then “sand-papered” (actually, oyster shells). The sheets were about 10x5”, glued together into strips which could be rolled up. Sadly, these sheets did not last very well.

In AD 300, these sheets were put into a “book” form, that is, simply laid together with a cover to protect them. But these early collections seldom or never contained the whole Bible, since the canon of Scripture for the NT was still being determined. About this time also, the copies were made onto parchment rather than papyrus. (It wouldn’t be until about 800 that a real type of “paper” could be imported from Asia.)

Fewer than 20 papyrus rolls, and 4,000 parchment and paper copies made before the days of printing press, containing parts of the NT still exist. Nearly half of these were lectionaries used for liturgical purposes. All of these have many copyist and editorial mistakes. However, scholars say that only one-tenth of one percent of writing errors (either through copying, or from dictation/stenography) would make any change in the meaning.

The scarcity and incompleteness of manuscripts and stenographic transpositions, made it very hard to “look up” anything in the Bible. Until the 13th Century, the Bible was not even divided into chapters. The archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton, did that for the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible. The division of the Scriptures into verses did not take place until after the invention of printing, and this was first attempted in the 16th century by the Domincan Order.

All copyists and the people who paid them were members of the Catholic Church. All the Popes and early scholarly authorities of the magisterium who determined what books were to be allowed into the Bible were… members of the Catholic Church.

Given the fact that EXCLUSIVELY the Catholic Church compiled, copied, protected, distributed, canonized the contents of the Bible we have today, then we can be sure that the Catholic Church would neither do nor teach anything contrary to them, for it would have been easier for the Church simply to have altered the books of the New Testament to suit her own “evil, corrupt agenda.” But you accept the Bible as the Word of God. Thus, wherever you differ from the Catholic Church, perhaps you will have to admit you really have no certainty that you are understanding and interpreting the Scriptures correctly. If your interpretations do not reflect those of the men who compiled, preserved, and canonized the Bible, I am willing to bet that it is not those Catholic Christians who were misguided, but you who are.

That is the reality of Protestantism. And we don’t have enough space here to go into why Protestant interpretations are confused and incomplete, but let me tell you that Protestants wrestle endlessly with difficult passages that the great doctors of the Catholic Church deciphered 1,500-1,900 years ago!!!

Therefore, unless you can prove your interpretation of the Bible is more enlightened and informed than that of the Catholic Church, for reasons above, your theology is nothing more than another “option” of “personal interpretations” like the thousands of cults, Gnostic sects, and other deviant groups.

This is why I can never be a Protestant.

 

[12volt_man]

Why not, rather than putting your traditions of men (because you belong to a man-made sect)

That's odd, my Bible tells us that Christ established the church.

But then, what does Jesus know? He doesn't have the pope to tell him what to believe.

actually study the Scriptures before you, before you trust the words of your "pastor."

Actually, I do study the scriptures. I've been teaching them for going on ten years in various Bible study classes and new believers' classes.

I have to sit before a panel every few weeks where I'm grilled like a fish about what I've taught in that time.

I'm also proud of my pastor to say that he is the first one to tell us, just as I tell those I teach and preach to, to always examine what he has to say in light of scripture, rather than just to take his word for it.

 

[repentant]

This is in Deuteronomy 18:9-13

9 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. 10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in [a] the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. 13 You must be blameless before the LORD your God.

Look at it...mediums, fortune tellers, consults the dead, ect. Not praying to saints. You are confused. This is speaking of witchcraft, and conjuring the dead, not asking them to intercede.

 

[12volt_man]

We don't ask them to appear to us, and answer us, like these quotes apply.

So then, what do Roman Catholics do when Mary allegedly appears to them at Lourdes, Fatima and other places?

 

[Psalm40]

The Bible is a Catholic book. Read above (page 5).

 

[GraceAnneWinter]

Well, I am not so sure that anything in heaven would be considered a duty.

But anyway, Revelation states that the saints offer up prayers. If Revelation is, at least in part, a vision of heaven, then this does not mean it's only the saints on earth offering these prayers. If it's a vision of heaven, then the saints offering prayers are also in heaven.

Michelle

Yes, duty wasn't the word I should have used, I mean more something like ability. Do saints have the ability to listen to multiple people on Earth? Revelations 5:8 keeps getting brought up. It refers to the prayers of the Saints, but does not say that the prayers of these Saints are intercessions for people on Earth. It does not say at all that they were able to hear people's prayers/requests for intercession.

 

[repentant]

So then, what do Roman Catholics do when Mary allegedly appears to them at Lourdes, Fatima and other places?

A. For the third time, I'm not catholic.
B. If she does appear, it was not through divination or conjuring up spirits, but because through the will of God, she appeared. In other words the people she appeared to, did not ask for it. Just like Moses and Elijah appeared at the Transfiguration.

Nice try.

 

[12volt_man]

How does "confess your sins to another" not have to do with confessing to a Priest.

How does it have anything to do with confessing to a priest for absolution?

Who is more righteous, us on earth, or someone in heaven?

Neither. In Christ is in Christ.

It's not a matter of degree, but of location.

 

[GraceAnneWinter]

Yeah this is speaking of so called fortunes tellers and people who claim to speak to the dead. We don't speak to the dead, or ask them to speak to us.

Well, aren't you claiming to speak to someone dead when you talk to a Saint. Yes, their souls are alive in heaven, but they experienced death. So what is the difference?

 

[Psalm40]

Yes, duty wasn't the word I should have used, I mean more something like ability. Do saints have the ability to listen to multiple people on Earth? Revelations 5:8 keeps getting brought up. It refers to the prayers of the Saints, but does not say that the prayers of these Saints are intercessions for people on Earth. It does not say at all that they were able to hear people's prayers/requests for intercession.

Well, that the saints and angels (who exist outside of our concept of time) are cognizant of earthly affairs is WELL DOCUMENTED in Sacred Scripture!!!! (Looks like everyone is ignoring what I am posting... which is usually the protestant approach to Scripture -- ignore what doesn't jive w/one's personal interpretation; hence why Martin Luther threw out 7 books and wanted to throw out James,Hebrews and Esther!)

The angels express joy over the repentance of sinners (Lk. 5:10). They observe us (1 Cor. 4:9).

1 Cor. 13:12 says "we see through a glass darkly" but someday we'll "know fully" everything we need to know.

This verse applies to the saints who have passed on into a state of supernatural understanding.

They have been limited from the contraints of time and space and are in full communion with the omniscient God. In Matt. 18:10, Christ Jesus speaks about our guardian angels (see also Ps. 34:7, 91:11; Acts 12:15; Heb. 1:14) who "do always behold the face of My Father which is in Heaven." Given that angels and glorified saints are so aware of our affairs, why not ask them to pray for us?

They pray for and with us.

What ELSE do you think they're doing in Heaven?

Most Protestants seem to think that Heaven is a Club Med of sorts. But when I am in the throneroom of God I will not have any desire to "play football" or whatever that dumb song said: I want to be PRAYING AND PRAISING MY LORD AND SAVIOUR.

Reminds me of when I was cloistered for a time, no contact with the outside world, but the Holy Spirit (who never ceases to unite the Body of Christ) would bring me the prayer intentions of my loved ones and friends on the outside and I in turn would lift those back up to God.

I don't know how that worked, but the Holy Spirit unites us and intercedes with and for us.

The earliest documented "prayer" to a saint was to St. Joseph around A.D. 60.

 

[GraceAnneWinter]

What Scripture? There was none yet, before the Bible. Also the Orthodox Traditions were "created" centuries ago, the Church is 2000 years old. I think you should read some books on the early Church Father's and you will see that.

I mean the works that became scripture. Like the letters of Paul and the Gospels and all the works of the Old Testament. Those were viewed as holy and inspired by God, and later became the Bible. Yes, I know the Church is 2000 years old. But Paul made that statement about traditions before the Orthodox Church was even created. And as time went by more and more traditions were created. The ones you practice today have all been around for probably over a thousand years, but most of them were created after Paul's statement.

 

[Psalm40]

I mean the works that became scripture. Like the letters of Paul and the Gospels and all the works of the Old Testament. Those were viewed as holy and inspired by God, and later became the Bible. Yes, I know the Church is 2000 years old. But Paul made that statement about traditions before the Orthodox Church was even created. And as time went by more and more traditions were created. The ones you practice today have all been around for probably over a thousand years, but most of them were created after Paul's statement.

See page 5, Grace.

The Bible exists only because of the Church. It didn't preceed the Church.