What scriptures support praying to the saints?

[Standing Up]

Am no seminarian, not a cradle Catholic and have simply read what is available to everyone online. There are too many sources to list here or go into and the detail is lengthy, but a google of St James liturgy should get one started. And I would spend at least a little time in the Catholic encyclopedia at newadvent.org as well as some informative sites from our Eastern brothers.

CHURCH FATHERS: Divine Liturgy of St. James
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Liturgy of Jerusalem
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Antiochene Liturgy
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Antiochene Liturgy

If you by this statement are unfamiliar with the call for saints to pray for us in the current liturgy then, no disrespect, but your opinion in that regard as a former seminarian might be called suspect by some. That same part of today's liturgy is a call for "martyrs" to pray for us in the St James version and apparently also in many if not all ancient versions of liturgies.

Didn't we talk about this and you sorta agreed there was no direct tie to apostles?

 

[jackmt]

Am no seminarian, not a cradle Catholic and have simply read what is available to everyone online. There are too many sources to list here or go into and the detail is lengthy, but a google of St James liturgy should get one started. And I would spend at least a little time in the Catholic encyclopedia at newadvent.org as well as some informative sites from our Eastern brothers.

CHURCH FATHERS: Divine Liturgy of St. James
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Liturgy of Jerusalem
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Antiochene Liturgy
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Antiochene Liturgy

If you by this statement are unfamiliar with the call for saints to pray for us in the current liturgy then, no disrespect, but your opinion in that regard as a former seminarian might be called suspect by some. That same part of today's liturgy is a call for "martyrs" to pray for us in the St James version and apparently also in many if not all ancient versions of liturgies.

To be clear, I am a former RC and believe many, if not most, of its teachings to be heretical, antibiblical, and/or pagan in origin. So citing RC sources in justification of RC heresies is circular reasoning. God called me out of the RCC early on in my studies to follow Christ so I 'missed' a lot.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Didn't we talk about this and you sorta agreed there was no direct tie to apostles?

As I recalled you were dismissive, feeling it was a slam dunk that the wiki statement regarding 4th century precluded any possibility of an Apostolic connection with the Saint James Liturgy. If that is all one is willing to read about and accept regarding that liturgy and how we got it and other liturgies; then yes, I would agree you cannot make a 4th century direct connection to an Apostle because they were long gone by then. And there we be no point in taking that further with you.

I do not agree and without looking back I believe I attempted to point out the wiki article "earliest date" does not mean this liturgy was not in use prior to the 4th century. It means simply the earliest doc that clearly cross references it is dated from that period.

IMO it would be impossible to have the degree of standardization across the board that they already exhibit in the 4th century without having a long history of liturgies and shared parent versions from prior centuries. Even the same wiki article alludes to there being evidence of earlier "forms" of this liturgy. Am pretty certain it was the same Bishop of Jerusalem, Saint Cyril, that is quoting from this liturgy to establish it's use when he was Bishp there, who also comments on the uniformity of liturgies throughout the empire. You do not just suddenly get that uniformity in the 4th century without a lot of effort to maintain it prior to then.

My understanding from reading both my links listed to Catholic encyclopedia and from a couple of EO sites clearly point to there having been an earlier first century version of Saint James liturgy at the Church in Jerusalem which was a common original parent for both the Saint James and the EO liturgies from the 4th century.

And while phrases and some sentences vary the formats are apparently all remarkably similar - meaning the part in the Mass where even today we invoke a request to Saints to pray for us would be a common part to all or at least most liturgies at all times and everywhere.

In the oldest Saint James version for which we have a copy (around 1000 years old) this request is to "martyrs". Never mind this same exact St James liturgy is apparently stilled used in some places today. What amazes me is that many do not seem impressed or marvel at all that a Church in those days would be so diligent to keep the order of Mass in an unchanged form for 700 years in the time period between this 4th century and when this oldest copy is made. It leaves me speechless. The effort it takes to keep a group of people in Churches today doing the same thing even week to week or month to month is crazy, never mind for centuries and we have technology to help us. They did this in the worst of conditions and times.
If the Church in Jerusalem kept that format for 700 years what should we think they were doing for the 300 years prior?

For me the obvious level of concern for maintaining the sanctity of the liturgy from the 4th century forward cannot be said to have begun then, especially given the apparent connections between this liturgy and some in use in the East.

And how could people studying these ancient liturgies see a common thread between this particular version and several EO versions, which as I recall those Churches trace their liturgies to the same Jerusalem Church but roughly 300 years earlier?

I mean unless we have proof all these claims are false and fabricated there must have been something there to make them say there is.

As for Apostles direct connection and our wanting proof today (as in what? copies signed by them?) I would think we probably have more documentation regarding liturgies from the early church than we do Bible manuscripts dating from the same period.

So yes, to me the fact we have;

• liturgies containing a request for intercessory prayer from a martyrs in a common form that at least some say has the same prayer section going back to the 1st century

• we have 1st century writers speaking of intercession on the part of Heavenly Host, (The Shepard)

• and certainly early 2nd and onward speaking of intercession by martyrs(who are Saints),

• and that we have no Apostles speaking against what would necessarily be a practice by many before they all left their ministry

is enough for me to conclude we have Apostolic Authority (direct connection)for teaching it.

 

[Incariol]

Praying to the dead and for the dead are forbidden in Scripture. The ''saints'' are dead people. Jesus did not come to start a new religion. Nor did He come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.

The first entry in my dictionary does not use the word 'magic.' You conjure up the dead when you call upon them to intercede for you, thus attempting to influence the future. Put any spin on it you like, like exchanging the word 'through ' for 'to,' but this is still what you are doing when you pray to ''saints.''

To pray is simply to ask. Our English word comes from the German word fragen - to ask. In old English prithy, or I pray thee, or I ask you, is the same expression found in the OT when one man inquires of another.

No, the saints are not dead.

John 11:26 and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"


and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

 

[jackmt]

They physically died. This is what the commandment proscribes: praying to or for dead people; i.e., people who were alive in the flesh but are no longer. Word games may win you an argument or two, but the Father seeks those who will worship Him in spirit and in truth.

 

[Incariol]

They physically died.

And they are alive in Christ. I'd say saying things like that is very dangerous.

This is what the commandment proscribes: praying to or for dead people; i.e., people who were alive in the flesh but are no longer.

And now you are just tacking on additional words to make it fit.

Revelation 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

Word games may win you an argument or two, but the Father seeks those who will worship Him in spirit and in truth.

 

[Whisper of Hope]

They physically died. This is what the commandment proscribes: praying to or for dead people; i.e., people who were alive in the flesh but are no longer. Word games may win you an argument or two, but the Father seeks those who will worship Him in spirit and in truth.

Amen, brother. Since you are a former Catholic, would you please read this article Is prayer to saints/Mary biblical, and tell me what you think about it? Thank you, in advance, brother. Keep fighting the good fight of faith. May God bless you, brother.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

To be clear, I am a former RC and believe many, if not most, of its teachings to be heretical, antibiblical, and/or pagan in origin. So citing RC sources in justification of RC heresies is circular reasoning. God called me out of the RCC early on in my studies to follow Christ so I 'missed' a lot.

I gathered you considered yourself has having "left".

My point was simply that for a Catholic man to get to seminary and not have at least some appreciation for and understanding of some rather simple Catholic concepts and how those are supported in history is at least odd and some would say suspect.

If by circular you mean all the ancient docs from the early Church discussed are in some way Catholic or connected to the Church, we agree. There is only One Church in our view and the early Church represents that One Church( would think a seminarian would know that as well). So am not sure how one would expect there to be non-Catholic early Church docs for us (or anyone) to reference back to show an early Church position.

We do have the writings of some heretics as well as many responses to heresies by which we can gleam the non-Catholic position even though we may not have copies of their works. But even if we go there, am not aware of any heretics that denied intercessory prayer until after the Reformation. So claiming a heretic position represents the "true" Church (and conversely the RCC being heretic) is no help to your position because you have no proof any Church held this view against intercessory prayer until after the Reformation.

I said you could google and please do so to your hearts content or consult whatever resource you can find in a library. Even the wiki article admits to a good deal of what I said, at least the parts I said are not disputed by almost anyone. So if you think I made a circular argument then please straighten me out with the one you make against it.

Let me know if you can find one reference anywhere to a Church or person prior to the reformation holding intercessory prayer as "heretical, antibiblical, and/or pagan in origin". Good luck with that.

BTW saying Scriptures declare it is not the challenge. Both sides claim that much and it is part of what is being disputed here. You made the claim regarding the Church, so stick instead to your traditions and show a single Church or person holding this view against intercessory prayer as demonstrated from their writings that is not post Reformation.

 

[jackmt]

I gathered you considered yourself has having "left".

There is only One Church in our view and the early Church represents that One Church( would think a seminarian would know that as well). So am not sure how one would expect there to be non-Catholic early Church docs for us (or anyone) to reference back to show an early Church position.

So if you think I made a circular argument then please straighten me out with the one you make against it.

BTW saying Scriptures declare it is not the challenge. Both sides claim that much and it is part of what is being disputed here. You made the claim regarding the Church, so stick instead to your traditions and show a single Church or person holding this view against intercessory prayer as demonstrated from their writings that is not post Reformation.

The RCC didn't exist till after sometime in the 4th century. Anything claiming to be of the RCC before then is revisionist history. Praying to the dead is antibiblical, heretical, and pagan in origin. Only after Luther did the RCC add the Apocrypha, specifically Maccabees, to canon of Scripture to justify praying for the dead and purgatory. Peter was not the first pope. Pontifex Maximus was the title of the chief priest in ancient Rome. Peter wrote of the priesthood of all believers.(I Peter2:9) There was no special class of priests in the church established by Christ.

And please don't refer to me as a seminarian.

 

[Incariol]

The RCC didn't exist till after sometime in the 4th century. Anything claiming to be of the RCC before then is revisionist history. Prayers to the dead is antibiblical, heretical, and pagan in origin.

Cool opinion, I guess.

 

[jackmt]

Cool opinion, I guess.

Say something worthwhile or go away.

 

[Incariol]

Say something worthwhile or go away.

What? Like make incendiary claims that everyone on this forum has seen here before without backing them up at all?

Oh well, sure, I might as well correct one of your errors while I'm at it.

Pontifex Maximus was the title of the chief priest in ancient Rome

This is wrong. The Pontifex Maximus was the head of the College of Pontiffs. While this priesthood may have evolved into the most politically potent religious institution in Rome, it was hardly the "chief" priesthood. It ranked a mere fourth, formally, after the rex sacrorum, Flamen Dialis, Flamen Martialis and Flamen Quirinalis.

Maccabees was in the canon prior to Luther. The fact that the RCC chose to be redundant in their subsequent councils as to the canon doesn't mean it hadn't been previously established.

 

[jackmt]

What? Like make incendiary claims that everyone on this forum has seen here before without backing them up at all?

Oh well, sure, I might as well correct one of your errors while I'm at it.



This is wrong. The Pontifex Maximus was the head of the College of Pontiffs. While this priesthood may have evolved into the most politically potent religious institution in Rome, it was hardly the "chief" priesthood. It ranked a mere fourth, formally, after the rex sacrorum, Flamen Dialis, Flamen Martialis and Flamen Quirinalis.

Maccabees was in the canon prior to Luther. The fact that the RCC chose to be redundant in their subsequent councils as to the canon doesn't mean it hadn't been previously established.

You are right about Pontifex Maximus. I was being sloppy. Sorry. But it is one of the titles of the pope. And again, there was no special class of priests in the early church; all believers were now a royal priesthood as originally intended by God. (Exodus 19:5,6 & I Peter 2: 9,10) In this same passage of Peter we are told how he understood "Thou art Peter..." and how it applies to all believers equally.

The Apocrypha were not deemed Scripture by the early church because they had not been accepted by the Hebrews as Scripture. The RCC was reluctant to include them but felt their hand was forced by Luther's theses.

 

[Standing Up]

Pontifex Maximus was first used in pagan religion. It was used later by some in the church.

Pontifex Maximus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Incariol]

The Apocrypha were not deemed Scripture by the early church because they had not been accepted by the Hebrews as Scripture.

This simply is not the case. The Jews did not have a canon until well into the Common era, and Maccabees is listed as canonical Scripture in several church councils.

The RCC was reluctant to include them but felt their hand was forced by Luther's theses.

Probably weren't that reluctant, since the canon of Scripture dates back to about the 4th century C.E.

 

[Standing Up]

Let me know if you can find one reference anywhere to a Church or person prior to the reformation holding intercessory prayer as "heretical, antibiblical, and/or pagan in origin". Good luck with that.

.

But we still have nothing that agrees with it, but vague pseudograph. And Hermas' angel is questioning what the problem is when it was done! As a Christian, didn't you get the memo-go directly to God.

 

[jackmt]

This simply is not the case. The Jews did not have a canon until well into the Common era, and Maccabees is listed as canonical Scripture in several church councils.



Probably weren't that reluctant, since the canon of Scripture dates back to about the 4th century C.E.

No response about the priesthood of all believers and no special subclass of priests?

 

[Incariol]

No response about the priesthood of all believers and no special subclass of priests?

Do you see one?

 

[jackmt]

Do you see one?

I thought not, but I also thought I'd give you the opportunity in case it was an oversight on your part.

 

[katherine2001]

Is there a minister in your church? Does everyone in your church run the services and preach the sermon?