Questions on Intercession of the Saints

[concretecamper]

Kissing and praying to icons is something that is taught and is compulsory

False

I'm just stating facts.

Incorrect facts

You know, people should make sure they know the facts before they criticize.

 

[ozso]

False

False meaning it's not taught and not expected? The Fourth Council of Constantinople : 869-870 AD indicates otherwise.

Visual witness indicates otherwise:

Incorrect facts

Even though they're easy to substantiate.

You know, people should make sure they know the facts before they criticize.

I have made sure. And so far I haven't criticized the tradition. I've just brought it into perspective.

 

[concretecamper]

False meaning it's not taught and not expected? The Fourth Council of Constantinople : 869-870 AD indicates otherwise.

Visual witness indicates otherwise:

Even though they're easy to substantiate.

I have made sure. And so far I haven't criticized the tradition. I've just brought it into perspective.

You have yet to show it is compusary to kiss and pray to icons. Next

 

[ozso]

You have yet to show it is compulsory to kiss and pray to icons. Next

So far you haven't said that it's not obligatory to pray to saints / icons of saints. If it's not why not come right out and say so? Because it actually is?

 

[concretecamper]

So far you haven't said that it's not obligatory to pray to saints / icons of saints. If it's not why not come right out and say so? Because it actually is?

I responded to your comment where you said it is compulsory to kiss and pray to icons. That statement is false. I'm not sure why it is so hard to understand.

People do kiss icons and use them as a tool for prayer, but it IS NOT compulsory.

 

[ozso]

I responded to your comment where you said it is compulsory to kiss and pray to icons. That statement is false. I'm not sure why it is so hard to understand.

People do kiss icons and use them as a tool for prayer, but it IS NOT compulsory.

It seems expected and required based on the Fourth Council of Constantinople and other Catholic sources I've come across. Is it not something Catholics are taught they're supposed to do?

 

[concretecamper]

It seems expected and required based on the Fourth Council of Constantinople and other Catholic sources I've come across. Is it not something Catholics are taught they're supposed to do?

The Council you are referencing says venerate. Venerate does not mean kissing or praying to.

Catholics are taught that it is efficacious to kiss or use an icon as a tool for prayer, but by no means is it compulsory.

 

[Valletta]

Except for the fact that it's full of instructions. Most importantly for Christians, the instructions given by Christ. On how to pray for example.


You're right the Bible doesn't say anything about putting crosses on top of churches. That's a man-made tradition. Man-made tradition doesn't necessarily equate to sinning. But it should in honesty be acknowledged as being man-made tradition.

And why do you make a speech like this after using Psalm 103:20 and James 5:16 as instruction? You can't have it both ways, saying the Bible isn't and instruction manual after using it as an instruction manual.

As far as compulsory goes: All who are not disposed to venerate the icons of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the angels or saints are excommunicated

If anyone then does not venerate the icon of Christ, the saviour, let him not see his face when he comes in his father’s glory to be glorified and to glorify his saints’, but let him be cut off from his communion and splendour; similarly the image of Mary, his immaculate mother and mother of God, we also paint the icons of the holy angels just as divine scripture depicts them in words; we also honour and venerate those of the highly renowned apostles, prophets, martyrs and holy men as well as those of all the saints. Let those who are not so disposed be anathema from the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit. Fourth Council of Constantinople : 869-870 AD

It's not an instruction manual, as I said. I never said it did not contain a number of instructions, from the Ten Commandments to "Do this," which is the command of Jesus for a priest to bless and break the bread, say the words of consecration, and distribute it to the people. This is the "source and summit" of the Catholic faith. I am not familiar with that Council but I will take a look--you learn something new every day. You avoided responding to my example of the manmade tradition you use for the canon of the Bible. Essentially Protestants, a thousand years or so after the canon was established, dropped seven books from the OT but use the same order of books established by the Catholic Church--that is Protestant tradition. The 66 book Bible was not in existence for most of Christianity and that list of books should be acknowledged as manmade. Remember there was no Bible for early Christians and that the Church existed before one word of the NT was written. Jesus left many details up to the Church, as I've mentioned before Jesus never commanded His Church to compile a list of the books of the New Testament or to go out and hand out Bibles. If the Church wants to require everyone to venerate icons or everyone to fast for so many hours before communion it has every power to do so. Those kinds of practices and disciplines of reverence can be changed. Catholics and our brothers and sisters in the East take the Word of God very seriously, you will see much of the mass described in Revelation. The earliest of Christians spent some time in planning churches when first allowed freedom of worship, it was ten to twenty years when the first churches were built--it was decided to make the churches ornate on the inside. The practice of icons grew out of paintings from early Chrisitiantiy, icons developed in the East and all of these things are meant to honor God and keep our thoughts on God.

 

[Valletta]

It seems expected and required based on the Fourth Council of Constantinople and other Catholic sources I've come across. Is it not something Catholics are taught they're supposed to do?

No, Catholics today are not required to kiss any object. Once a year at Good Friday, and there is no requirement to attend any Good Friday services, the priest will invite Catholics to come up and kiss or touch a cross. That's a tradition. Or you can kneel and pray before the cross.
Saint Therese of Lisieux once said she didn't think she ever went more than three minutes without thinking of Our Lord, the rest of us need reminders. I have some crucifixes around my house, and an old family Bible from the 1800s sitting out which help remind me of God. It's the same idea with icons and statues, and depictions of of saints, some of whom started out as prolific sinners, are examples for us as well.

 

[ozso]

The Council you are referencing says venerate. Venerate does not mean kissing or praying to.

Catholics are taught that it is efficacious to kiss or use an icon as a tool for prayer, but by no means is it compulsory.

Alright, I apologize for using the word compulsory.

 

[ozso]

No, Catholics today are not required to kiss any object.

It's more of an Eastern Orthodox tradition.

 

[ozso]

It's not an instruction manual, as I said. I never said it did not contain a number of instructions, from the Ten Commandments to "Do this," which is the command of Jesus for a priest to bless and break the bread, say the words of consecration, and distribute it to the people. This is the "source and summit" of the Catholic faith. I am not familiar with that Council but I will take a look--you learn something new every day. You avoided responding to my example of the manmade tradition you use for the canon of the Bible. Essentially Protestants, a thousand years or so after the canon was established, dropped seven books from the OT but use the same order of books established by the Catholic Church--that is Protestant tradition. The 66 book Bible was not in existence for most of Christianity and that list of books should be acknowledged as manmade. Remember there was no Bible for early Christians and that the Church existed before one word of the NT was written. Jesus left many details up to the Church, as I've mentioned before Jesus never commanded His Church to compile a list of the books of the New Testament or to go out and hand out Bibles. If the Church wants to require everyone to venerate icons or everyone to fast for so many hours before communion it has every power to do so. Those kinds of practices and disciplines of reverence can be changed. Catholics and our brothers and sisters in the East take the Word of God very seriously, you will see much of the mass described in Revelation. The earliest of Christians spent some time in planning churches when first allowed freedom of worship, it was ten to twenty years when the first churches were built--it was decided to make the churches ornate on the inside. The practice of icons grew out of paintings from early Chrisitiantiy, icons developed in the East and all of these things are meant to honor God and keep our thoughts on God.

Saying "the Bible" can be misleading. The Book of Ester doesn't contain any instructions from God for example. The instructions of Jesus, regarding His several instructions on prayer, went into effect when He spoke them, not after someone wrote them down. The written instructions from Paul, John, Peter and James were in effect at the time or before they were written. And their words, especially those of Jesus, are the primary authority and foundation of the Church. Which is why the Church for the first few centuries did not add onto those instructions. Centuries after the Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers and earliest church fathers died, others started coming up with brand new material.

 

[Valletta]

Saying "the Bible" can be misleading. The Book of Ester doesn't contain any instructions from God for example. The instructions of Jesus, regarding His several instructions on prayer, went into effect when He spoke them, not after someone wrote them down. The written instructions from Paul, John, Peter and James were in effect at the time or before they were written. And their words, especially those of Jesus, are the primary authority and foundation of the Church. Which is why the Church for the first few centuries did not add onto those instructions. Centuries after the Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers and earliest church fathers died, others started coming up with brand new material.

Indeed, instructions such as "Do this," the "breaking of the bread," the mass, was quickly implemented on Sunday in order to honor Jesus on the day of his Resurrection. Catholic refer to the Word of God that was passed down (besides Sacred Scripture) as Sacred Tradition. The "deposit of the faith," is Sacred Tradition passed down through the Apostles, and Sacred Scripture. The deposit of the faith ended with the death of the last Apostle. You are mistaken, it cannot be added to or subtracted from, but as time goes by the Catholic Church does come to a deeper understanding and God can reveal veiled truths over time.

 

[concretecamper]

Centuries after the Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers and earliest church fathers died, others started coming up with brand new material.

Such as?

 

[ozso]

Indeed, instructions such as "Do this," the "breaking of the bread," the mass, was quickly implemented on Sunday in order to honor Jesus on the day of his Resurrection. Catholic refer to the Word of God that was passed down (besides Sacred Scripture) as Sacred Tradition. The "deposit of the faith," is Sacred Tradition passed down through the Apostles, and Sacred Scripture. The deposit of the faith ended with the death of the last Apostle. You are mistaken, it cannot be added to or subtracted from, but as time goes by the Catholic Church does come to a deeper understanding and God can reveal veiled truths over time.

I said it was not added to or subtracted from for centuries.

 

[ozso]

Such as?

Once saved always saved.

Or how about, Francis Appoints Homosexualists to Shape Doctrine?

I take it those are a couple of add-ons you're not too keen on.

 

[jas3]

But where in the bible do you find any distinct kind of saint referred to as "canonised"? Also, this thread was originally about the practice of praying to saints, not asking them to pray for us. To quote the original post: "But there is one aspect of praying to the saints for intercession that baffles me." (emphasis mine.)

My point is that arguing about canonization is irrelevant; even if we restrict the discussion to saints as the term for all Christians as used in the Bible, the doctrine of the intercession of the saints still stands. Whether you call the same man "Athanasius" or "Saint Athanasius," the debate here is not whether to give him a title, it's whether he can pray for us right now.

As for praying to saints versus asking them to pray for us, as @Valletta said, those are the same thing. Prayer to saints is always asking ( = praying) them to pray ( = ask God) for us, on the basis that in the book of James, the saints (using the word in its biblical sense) are told to pray for one another, and that the fervent prayer of a righteous saint accomplishes much.

 

[ozso]

My point is that arguing about canonization is irrelevant; even if we restrict the discussion to saints as the term for all Christians as used in the Bible, the doctrine of the intercession of the saints still stands. Whether you call the same man "Athanasius" or "Saint Athanasius," the debate here is not whether to give him a title, it's whether he can pray for us right now.

As for praying to saints versus asking them to pray for us, as @Valletta said, those are the same thing. Prayer to saints is always asking ( = praying) them to pray ( = ask God) for us, on the basis that in the book of James, the saints (using the word in its biblical sense) are told to pray for one another, and that the fervent prayer of a righteous saint accomplishes much.

That's a good explanation of how it works. But it begs the question why no one ever asked anything of Moses for example. Why the only person throughout all of scripture who was appealed to in prayer is God. (Psalm 103:20 is not David asking the angels for anything). I think maybe people started appealing to others in heaven for intercession because they became afraid of approaching God directly.

 

[jas3]

That's a good explanation of how it works. But it begs the question why no one ever asked anything of Moses for example. Why the only person throughout all of scripture who was appealed to in prayer is God. (Psalm 103:20 is not David asking the angels for anything). I think maybe people started appealing to others in heaven for intercession because they became afraid of approaching God directly.

Psalm 103:20 at least should contradict any argument that "the saints in heaven can't hear us or are too busy worshiping God to pay attention to us," which are arguments I've heard against the intercession of saints.
As for pre-Incarnation Jewish belief in the intercession of the saints, you're right that we don't have a record of someone invoking a saint's name in a prayer, but that doesn't invalidate the authenticity of the Christian practice; if it did, Christians would also not be able to be free of the Mosaic Law.

The belief that saints could intercede for the living after death wasn't new in Christianity, either, as we see in 2 Maccabees 15.

 

[ozso]

Psalm 103:20 at least should contradict any argument that "the saints in heaven can't hear us or are too busy worshiping God to pay attention to us," which are arguments I've heard against the intercession of saints.
As for pre-Incarnation Jewish belief in the intercession of the saints, you're right that we don't have a record of someone invoking a saint's name in a prayer, but that doesn't invalidate the authenticity of the Christian practice; if it did, Christians would also not be able to be free of the Mosaic Law.

The belief that saints could intercede for the living after death wasn't new in Christianity, either, as we see in 2 Maccabees 15.

What occurs in 2 Maccabees 15 is what's described in the passage as a vision a sort of dream. I know all of the proof texts because there's only a few, and they're not very good examples of the practice being scriptural.

Whereas in 99.9% of the entirety of scripture, everyone prays to God and no one else other than God.

Now there is a very clear example in scripture of communicating with the spirit of a saint. And that's in 1 Samuel 28. But that's not a method Christians want to repeat.

It's interesting that the only real example of it taking place in all of scripture, is when Saul dabbled in the occult.