Praying to the saints/Asking them to pray for us?

[Major1]

I made that comment because you repeatedly claim Maccabees is not in the Old Testament canon when it clearly was considered to be by the early Church.

Catholic apologists claim that Maccabees supports prayers for the dead, however I don't believe anyone, Catholic or Orthodox, has ever claimed the origin of the practice in Maccabees. That, I believe, is the erroneous claim made by some Protestants.

No argument there. You may not be aware but the Orthodox Church is no stranger to persecution.

This, I believe, is unsupported by the historical record, nor by archaeology. There was no fixed canon as we understand today, but a number of slightly different groupings of books held to by different groups. It is also important to note that different books in the Old Testament were seen to have different levels of inspiration. The books of Moses and the Prophets, for example, were held in much higher esteem than the books of history or poetry. The so called Masoretic Text was not established until some time around the 2nd century, and that by the Jews in response to the explosive growth of Christianity.

You might call them "Apocrypha", but we call them "Deuterocanonical".

It was actually Jerome who was the first to seperate these books based on his exposure to what had now become established as the Jewish Canon. All the ancient Christian Traditions included them. They are found in the Syriac Old Testament, the Ethiopian Old Testament (used by Ethiopian Jews) and of course the Greek Old Testament. The book of Tobit and the Wisdom of Sirach were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.


In the Orthodox Church we have always used the Septuagint as our Old Testament. What Rome declared in response to Luther has absolutely no impact on that whatsoever.

Apart from your mischaracterisation of "magic" in Tobit, the other things you see as false teachings, we see as expressions of love for the departed. While those who have passed away can do no more, we rely on God's mercy and believe that through our acts of love on their behalf that God will help them. We do not believe that our eternal fate is set in stone until Christ returns.


This claim requires citation. Which Hebrew Canon are you referring to?

Given that there was no concept of a fixed Old Testament Canon or specific ordering of books within at the time of Christ, that is a rather large leap you have to make to reach that conclusion. If you find comfort in that conclusion then God bless you.

Thank you for your comments and Christian attitude.

Your post is longer and contains more information than I like to respond to at one time.

I would say however that it has been my understanding that the Catholic church did not add the until Apocrypha 1546 when it officially declared some of the apocryphal books to belong to the canon of scripture. These are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch. Doesn't that then indicate that the early church did not use them?????

I believe history says that it was done as a reaction to the Reformation conflict.

As for the Apocrypha books themselves, having read them I can only say to you that what is found in them is very, very unbiblical...IMO.

As for the question you posed about the "claim requires citation. Which Hebrew Canon are you referring to?"

Please check...... Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics.

 

[All4Christ]

Thank you for your comments and Christian attitude.

Your post is longer and contains more information than I like to respond to at one time.

I would say however that it has been my understanding that the Catholic church did not add the until Apocrypha 1546 when it officially declared some of the apocryphal books to belong to the canon of scripture. These are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch. Doesn't that then indicate that the early church did not use them?????

I believe history says that it was done as a reaction to the Reformation conflict.

As for the Apocrypha books themselves, having read them I can only say to you that what is found in them is very, very unbiblical...IMO.

As for the question you posed about the "claim requires citation. Which Hebrew Canon are you referring to?"

Please check...... Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics.

Quick clarification...the Orthodox Church has included the Deuterocanonical books from the start of the Church and never has changed our canon. That said, we didn't see the need to define it further. We tend to avoid defining things that aren't needed, as we believe we have kept the same faith from the beginning of the Church. Of course, we can agree to disagree on that part

ETA: We have different levels of authority in Scripture. For example, e deuterocanonical books are not used in liturgical readings.

 

[Major1]

Quick clarification...the Orthodox Church has used the Deuterocanonical Church from the start of the Church and never has changed our canon. That said, we didn't see the need to define it further. We tend to avoid defining things that aren't needed, as we believe we have kept the same faith from the beginning of the Church. Of course, we can agree to disagree on that part

ETA: We have different levels of authority in Scripture. For example, e deuterocanonical books are not used in liturgical readings.

Help me out here. Didn't the Orthodox church begin around 1000 AD by a split from the RCC?

So you are saying since the beginning of the "Orthodox" church not in fact the 1st church or early church. Correct?

 

[All4Christ]

Help me out here. Didn't the Orthodox church begin around 1000 AD by a split from the RCC?

So you are saying since the beginning of the "Orthodox" church not in fact the 1st church or early church. Correct?

Not correct. We began at the original apostolic church and the RCC and Orthodox split. It wasn't the RCC and then we split off. I am indeed saying the 1st Church and early apostolic church.

It would be more accurate to say the East and West parts of the church split, not that we branched off from the other church. Of course, Orthodox sometimes say the west broke off from us, and Catholics say the opposite. Either way, in an unbiased view, it was a mutual split. Personally, I believe the Eastern opinion was the orthodox (lower case o) view, as many western beliefs were new.

We believe the RCC schismed from us. They believe we schismed from them. Others yet believe it was a mutual schism. Either way, both sides excommunicated the other.

Ultimately, it boils down to the Eastern and Western sections of the Church split.

ETA: Technically, the ex communications started with the leaders of the two halves, not the people. Of course, this probably is oversimplified....so apologies for that!

 

[prodromos]

ETA: We have different levels of authority in Scripture. For example, e deuterocanonical books are not used in liturgical readings.

Although there are parts of the Deuterocanonicals used in the Liturgy. The Hymn of the Three Youths, for example, has been an integral part of the Liturgy since at least the 4th Century, long before the Protestant reformation.

 

[All4Christ]

Although there are parts of the Deuterocanonicals used in the Liturgy. The Hymn of the Three Youths, for example, has been an integral part of the Liturgy since at least the 4th Century, long before the Protestant reformation.

True. I was referring mainly to gospel, epistle and OT readings. It certainly has influence on the hymnography.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I made that comment because you repeatedly claim Maccabees is not in the Old Testament canon when it clearly was considered to be by the early Church.

Catholic apologists claim that Maccabees supports prayers for the dead, however I don't believe anyone, Catholic or Orthodox, has ever claimed the origin of the practice in Maccabees. That, I believe, is the erroneous claim made by some Protestants.

No argument there. You may not be aware but the Orthodox Church is no stranger to persecution.

This, I believe, is unsupported by the historical record, nor by archaeology. There was no fixed canon as we understand today, but a number of slightly different groupings of books held to by different groups. It is also important to note that different books in the Old Testament were seen to have different levels of inspiration. The books of Moses and the Prophets, for example, were held in much higher esteem than the books of history or poetry. The so called Masoretic Text was not established until some time around the 2nd century, and that by the Jews in response to the explosive growth of Christianity.

You might call them "Apocrypha", but we call them "Deuterocanonical".

It was actually Jerome who was the first to seperate these books based on his exposure to what had now become established as the Jewish Canon. All the ancient Christian Traditions included them. They are found in the Syriac Old Testament, the Ethiopian Old Testament (used by Ethiopian Jews) and of course the Greek Old Testament. The book of Tobit and the Wisdom of Sirach were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.


In the Orthodox Church we have always used the Septuagint as our Old Testament. What Rome declared in response to Luther has absolutely no impact on that whatsoever.

Apart from your mischaracterisation of "magic" in Tobit, the other things you see as false teachings, we see as expressions of love for the departed. While those who have passed away can do no more, we rely on God's mercy and believe that through our acts of love on their behalf that God will help them. We do not believe that our eternal fate is set in stone until Christ returns.


This claim requires citation. Which Hebrew Canon are you referring to?

Given that there was no concept of a fixed Old Testament Canon or specific ordering of books within at the time of Christ, that is a rather large leap you have to make to reach that conclusion. If you find comfort in that conclusion then God bless you.

Actually, if you read the Lutheran Confessions, you will find no list (canon) because who are we to close it if something comes to light archaeologically?

 

[prodromos]

I would say however that it has been my understanding that the Catholic church did not add the until Apocrypha 1546 when it officially declared some of the apocryphal books to belong to the canon of scripture. These are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch. Doesn't that then indicate that the early church did not use them?????

Such a view suggests that the Church did not teach that Christ was true God and true man until the Church declared such in response to heresies claiming otherwise.

I believe history says that it was done as a reaction to the Reformation conflict.

That is true, but for Luther to make the claim that the 'Apocrypha' did not belong in the Bible canon clearly implies that prior to his claim it was included in the canon. Luther's claims did not exist in a vacuum.

As for the Apocrypha books themselves, having read them I can only say to you that what is found in them is very, very unbiblical...IMO.

That is because they don't line up with certain Protestant interpretations of the rest of Scripture. We don't share your interpretations so don't share those issues.

As for the question you posed about the "claim requires citation. Which Hebrew Canon are you referring to?"

Please check...... Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics.

Unfortunately your link does not provide citations of manuscripts, so for all I know it could be referring to the 8th century manuscript which is the current basis for the MT. Such a claim would need to show evidence from 1st century texts at the least, preferably earlier, listing only those books in the order claimed. The fact that there was more than one 'canon' held to by different Jewish factions doesn't help your case (unless they all list them in that order).

 

[prodromos]

Help me out here. Didn't the Orthodox church begin around 1000 AD by a split from the RCC?

That is the claim made by Catholic apologists. I didn't think you put much stock in their claims.

 

[Major1]

That is the claim made by Catholic apologists. I didn't think you put much stock in their claims.

I don't. I thought that since you do it would mean more to you.

 

[prodromos]

I don't. I thought that since you do it would mean more to you.

I don't put any stock in the claims of Catholic apologists. I don't understand why you think I do.

 

[WarriorAngel]

What do you think about praying to the saints or asking them to pray for us ? Is it biblical? Did you think the early church did it? Can the saints in heaven hear us?
What does your church ex. Angilcan,Eastern Orthodox,Roman Catholic,Lutheran, believe in praying to the saints or asking them to pray for us?

Cloud of witnesses / Saints shall judge nations etc.
Yes, and yes.

We are all loving beings [and should be]
And we 'pray' [which is actually a term for talk] for one another.
Those closest to God are favored because well, they are closest to God.
[in Heaven]
It says prayers of the saints are like incense ....

 

[Sammy-San]

What do you think about praying to the saints or asking them to pray for us ? Is it biblical? Did you think the early church did it? Can the saints in heaven hear us?
What does your church ex. Angilcan,Eastern Orthodox,Roman Catholic,Lutheran, believe in praying to the saints or asking them to pray for us?

Aren't all believers saints?

 

[Resha Caner]

It is possible the departed saints are praying for us, but my concern is the tendency to think departed saints have some kind of omniscient power by which they can hear the prayers of billions of believers across time and space.

When I ask my wife to pray for me, I say it to her in person. I have never had the opportunity to speak with the dead ... and to be honest I don't think it's possible. Whatever prayers they are offering are based on their finite knowledge there in the same way as my finite knowledge here. As such, I prefer to commune with those I know rather than those I don't know. Getting to know the departed saints is something for a future day.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

The only thing mentioned on this is in the book of Maccabees which is NOT included in the canon of Scriptures as it is not and has not been considered to be inspired.

The Catholic church grabbed onto that one particular thing and made it what they say it is today.

It does not matter what the RCC says or what I say. What matters is what God says.

1 Tim. 2:5........
"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus".


"That being the Word of God, why would we then pray to those who are dead?

What about Luke 20:38 ?
"
For he is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all live to him."

Do you believe that God is in fact God of the Dead since you refer to the saints as so?

 

[parousia70]

NO. I do not see that at all. I do not assume or say what "YOU" think.

You don't see your narrow definition of the word "pray"?
Every heard/used the phrase "pray tell"? as in "pray tell where have you been?"

IF you have the need to pray to dead people in heaven

People in heaven are the OPPOSITE of Dead.

believing that they will in some way help you achieve or realize what it is you are praying for....then wonderful. DO IT!!!

If you feel the need to ask your neighbors to pray for you, believing that they will in some way help you achieve or realize what it is you are praying for....then wonderful. DO IT!!!
I don't see a tinkers darn worth of a difference between the two practices.

Its odd to me that those of us who do ask the saints for their prayers don't get our knickers in a twist about those who don't, but those who don't ask the saints for their prayers typically have a real deep, carnal need to vehemently oppose the practice.
I appreciate that your attitude seems to be an exception.

All I am saying is that it is not a Biblical requirement or an essential of the Christian faith.

Is praying for one another a Biblical requirement essential to the faith?

 

[Major1]

You don't see your narrow definition of the word "pray"?
Every heard/used the phrase "pray tell"? as in "pray tell where have you been?"


People in heaven are the OPPOSITE of Dead.



If you feel the need to ask your neighbors to pray for you, believing that they will in some way help you achieve or realize what it is you are praying for....then wonderful. DO IT!!!
I don't see a tinkers darn worth of a difference between the two practices.

Its odd to me that those of us who do ask the saints for their prayers don't get our knickers in a twist about those who don't, but those who don't ask the saints for their prayers typically have a real deep, carnal need to vehemently oppose the practice.
I appreciate that your attitude seems to be an exception.


Is praying for one another a Biblical requirement essential to the faith?

You are welcome to do as you wish. That is not what is in view here.

What I am saying is that there are no Bible verses contained in the 66 books of the canon of Scriptures which direct the living to ask the dead to pray for them or vice averse.

Praying for the dead is not a biblical concept. Our prayers have no bearing on someone once he or she has died. The reality is that, at the point of death, one’s eternal destiny is confirmed. Either he is saved through faith in Christ and is in heaven where he is experiencing rest and joy in God’s presence, or he is in torment in hell.

No one should ever believe that someone may be able to pray for him, thereby effecting some kind of favorable outcome, after he has died. The Bible teaches that the eternal state of mankind is determined by our actions during our lives on earth.

Ezek. 18:20..........
“The soul who sins is the one who will die. . . . The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him”.

The writer to the Hebrews tells us in 9:27.....
“Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment”.

That tells us without a question that no change in one’s spiritual condition can be made following his death—either by himself or through the efforts of others. If it is useless to pray for the living, who are committing “a sin that leads to death” as recorded in 1 John 5:16, continual sin without seeking God’s forgiveness, how could prayer for those who are already dead benefit them, since there is no post-mortem plan of salvation?

There is really no need to debate or argue this with me. You are welcome to do as you choose to do but all you have to do to convince me of YOUR opinion and YOUR choice is to post the Bible Scriptures
from any of the 66 canonized Scriptures which tell us to pray for the dead.

Have a wonderful day and may the Lord bless you.

 

[Major1]

What about Luke 20:38 ?
"
For he is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all live to him."

Do you believe that God is in fact God of the Dead since you refer to the saints as so?

“In what sense are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob alive? Did Jesus (and Luke) mean that their ‘souls’ were with God, they were immortal?

Or did he mean that although they were not presently alive they would be on the day of resurrection and that because of God’s covenant with the patriarchs a resurrection was necessary? …

For both Jesus and Luke the resurrection of the dead was clearly a future event (14:14; Acts 23:6; 24:15, 21). Nevertheless in some way they believed that the patriarchs were alive at the present time. Jesus and Luke believed both in a conscious life immediately after death (cf. 16:19-31; 23:39-43) as well as a final day of resurrection” (Stein, 500).

 

[JoeP222w]

What do you think about praying to the saints or asking them to pray for us ?

2 different things here. There is only one intecessor for man and that is Jesus Christ. It is idolatry and blasphemy to pray to saints.

Asking living saints to pray for us is a good thing. Asking dead saints to pray for us is necromancy and an abomination.

Is it biblical?

To ask our living brothers and sisters in Christ to pray for us, yes, that is biblical.

Asking dead saints to pray for us, no that is completely unbiblical.

Did you think the early church did it?

Asking their living brothers and sisters in Christ to pray for them, yes.

Praying to dead saints, I don't know. If they did, they were doing it against biblical truth. The church is not the sole infallible authority for the Christian, the Bible is.

Can the saints in heaven hear us?

There is no indication whatsoever in the Bible of this being the case that I am aware of.

What does your church ex. Angilcan,Eastern Orthodox,Roman Catholic,Lutheran, believe in praying to the saints or asking them to pray for us?

Praying to saints: that would be sin.

Again, asking living saints to pray for us, nothing wrong with that. Asking dead saints to pray us would be sin.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

“In what sense are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob alive? Did Jesus (and Luke) mean that their ‘souls’ were with God, they were immortal?

Or did he mean that although they were not presently alive they would be on the day of resurrection and that because of God’s covenant with the patriarchs a resurrection was necessary? …

For both Jesus and Luke the resurrection of the dead was clearly a future event (14:14; Acts 23:6; 24:15, 21). Nevertheless in some way they believed that the patriarchs were alive at the present time. Jesus and Luke believed both in a conscious life immediately after death (cf. 16:19-31; 23:39-43) as well as a final day of resurrection” (Stein, 500).

There is a difference between being dead and separated from ones body.
God is as written in Luke not a God of the dead but the living and by that it's pretty clear that those who belong to Christ and has his spirit never will die nor perish.

Once we (a believer dies) die we get taken either to heaven or to heaven through the cleansing process of purgatory.
We live on from the very moment we leave this world, its not death it's more like a transition.
We die of course, but we're never dead.

At the final day we get our resurrected bodies and get truly glorified as Christ himself is.

The reason I quoted Luke it's to shed some light on why we believe in prayers to Mary and the saints (Mariology and Hagiography).
There's one church divided into three, victoria ecclesia (the victorious church, the saints in heaven, the fighting church (
De ecclesiae repugnatur pugnantibus, us living on earth) and the suffering church (Pro eo quod laboravit ecclesia, the one in purgatory).

Despite divided by time momentarily and level of "readiness" and preparation to be with God we're still one living and in a figurative speaking breathing church.

We may pray for those who've gone before us and we believe are in purgatory and we may pray to/ talk to/ ask the saints in heaven to intercede for us to Christ.

So can we communicate with them?
Answer is by Christ, he's the bridge that binds us together.
Expressed with the the words: with him and through him and in him.

With him (his sacrifice at the Calvary) we're justified, through him (we pray to God and have communion and fellowship with the saints) and in him our soul find it's peace.

Sooo, when I'm reaching out to Mary I'm praying to her through Christ.
If it wasn't for Christ communicating with any who've gone prior to us would be impossible and in vain.

Please pay attention to how deeply Christological this is.
I mean how could we ever cross any valley if we there wasn't for the bridges?