May 11, 2005
Praying to the Saints
Prompted by the continual insistance by one of our "separated" brothers in Christ that it is wrong to ask the saints to pray for us, I have decided it worthwhile to post an explanation of why we, as Catholics, pray to the saints. This explanation is taken from Catholic Answers, an outstanding apologetics organization.
Praying to the SaintsThe historic Christian practice of asking our departed brothers and sisters in Christ—the saints—for their intercession has come under attack in the last few hundred years. Though the practice dates to the earliest days of Christianity and is shared by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, the other Eastern Christians, and even some Anglicans—meaning that all-told it is shared by more than three quarters of the Christians on earth—it still comes under heavy attack from many within the Protestant movement that started in the sixteenth century.
Can They Hear Us?
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.
Some might try to argue that in this passage the prayers being offered were not addressed to the saints in heaven, but directly to God. Yet this argument would only strengthen the fact that those in heaven can hear our prayers, for then the saints would be aware of our prayers even when they are not directed to them!
In any event, it is clear from Revelation 5:8 that the saints in heaven do actively intercede for us. We are explicitly told by John that the incense they offer to God are the prayers of the saints. Prayers are not physical things and cannot be physically offered to God. Thus the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God mentally. In other words, they are interceding.
One MediatorAnother charge commonly levelled against asking the saints for their intercession is that this violates the sole mediatorship of Christ, which Paul discusses: "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5).
But asking one person to pray for you in no way violates Christ’s mediatorship, as can be seen from considering the way in which Christ is a mediator. First, Christ is a unique mediator between man and God because he is the only person who is both God and man. He is the only bridge between the two, the only God-man. But that role as mediator is not compromised in the least by the fact that others intercede for us. Furthermore, Christ is a unique mediator between God and man because he is the Mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15, 12:24), just as Moses was the mediator (Greek mesitas) of the Old Covenant (Gal. 3:19–20).
The intercession of fellow Christians—which is what the saints in heaven are—also clearly does not interfere with Christ’s unique mediatorship because in the four verses immediately preceding 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul says that Christians should interceed: "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and pleasing to God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1–4). Clearly, then, intercessory prayers offered by Christians on behalf of others is something "good and pleasing to God," not something infringing on Christ’s role as mediator.
"No Contact with the dead"
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.
Overlooking the Obvious
Some objections to the concept of prayer to the saints betray restricted notions of heaven. One comes from anti-Catholic Loraine Boettner:
"How, then, can a human being such as Mary hear the prayers of millions of Roman Catholics, in many different countries, praying in many different languages, all at the same time?
"Let any priest or layman try to converse with only three people at the same time and see how impossible that is for a human being. . . . The objections against prayers to Mary apply equally against prayers to the saints. For they too are only creatures, infinitely less than God, able to be at only one place at a time and to do only one thing at a time.
"How, then, can they listen to and answer thousands upon thousands of petitions made simultaneously in many different lands and in many different languages? Many such petitions are expressed, not orally, but only mentally, silently. How can Mary and the saints, without being like God, be present everywhere and know the secrets of all hearts?" (Roman Catholicism, 142-143).
If being in heaven were like being in the next room, then of course these objections would be valid. A mortal, unglorified person in the next room would indeed suffer the restrictions imposed by the way space and time work in our universe. But the saints are not in the next room, and they are not subject to the time/space limitations of this life.
This does not imply that the saints in heaven therefore must be omniscient, as God is, for it is only through God’s willing it that they can communicate with others in heaven or with us. And Boettner’s argument about petitions arriving in different languages is even further off the mark. Does anyone really think that in heaven the saints are restricted to the King’s English? After all, it is God himself who gives the gift of tongues and the interpretation of tongues. Surely those saints in Revelation understand the prayers they are shown to be offering to God.
The problem here is one of what might be called a primitive or even childish view of heaven. It is certainly not one on which enough intellectual rigor has been exercised. A good introduction to the real implications of the afterlife may be found in Frank Sheed’s book Theology and Sanity, which argues that sanity depends on an accurate appreciation of reality, and that includes an accurate appreciation of what heaven is really like. And once that is known, the place of prayer to the saints follows.
"Directly to Jesus"
Some may grant that the previous objections to asking the saints for their intercession do not work and may even grant that the practice is permissible in theory, yet they may question it on other grounds, asking why one would want to ask the saints to pray for one. "Why not pray directly to Jesus?" they ask.
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).
Since the practice of asking others to pray for us is so highly recommended in Scripture, it cannot be regarded as superfluous on the grounds that one can go directly to Jesus. The New Testament would not recommend it if there were not benefits coming from it. One such benefit is that the faith and devotion of the saints can support our own weaknesses and supply what is lacking in our own faith and devotion. Jesus regularly supplied for one person based on another person’s faith (e.g., Matt. 8:13, 15:28, 17:15–18, Mark 9:17–29, Luke 8:49–55). And it goes without saying that those in heaven, being free of the body and the distractions of this life, have even greater confidence and devotion to God than anyone on earth.
Also, God answers in particular the prayers of the righteous. James declares: "The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. Elijah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit" (Jas. 5:16–18). Yet those Christians in heaven are more righteous, since they have been made perfect to stand in God’s presence (Heb. 12:22-23), than anyone on earth, meaning their prayers would be even more efficacious.
Having others praying for us thus is a good thing, not something to be despised or set aside. Of course, we should pray directly to Christ with every pressing need we have (cf. John 14:13–14). That’s something the Catholic Church strongly encourages. In fact, the prayers of the Mass, the central act of Catholic worship, are directed to God and Jesus, not the saints. But this does not mean that we should not also ask our fellow Christians, including those in heaven, to pray with us.
In addition to our prayers directly to God and Jesus (which are absolutely essential to the Christian life), there are abundant reasons to ask our fellow Christians in heaven to pray for us. The Bible indicates that they are aware of our prayers, that they intercede for us, and that their prayers are effective (else they would not be offered). It is only narrow-mindedness that suggests we should refrain from asking our fellow Christians in heaven to do what we already know them to be anxious and capable of doing.
In Heaven and On Earth
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).
And those in heaven who offer to God our prayers aren’t just angels, but humans as well. John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). The simple fact is, as this passage shows: The saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.
There are several other excellent articles pertaining to Mary and the Saints on the Catholic Answers website.
In Christ,
Joe
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Joe,
"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. 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."
This discussion is not about whether or not saints in heaven can acknowledge us or hear us. This is about whether the Bible teaches us to pray to saints in heaven. In the past, you have used Revelations 5:8 as proof that saints in heaven are prayed to from earth. The question was posed to you, if you believe the prayers in the bowl to be directed to the ANGELS in Revelations, do you also believe that God's wrath is also directed to the ANGELS in heaven?? Let us take the same logic you have used and apply to the bowls filled with God's wrath. Is God mad at Himself? Afterall, the angels are presenting the bowl of God's wrath to God. Is God's wrath directed at the ANGELS in heaven? The answer is no. We can discuss the interpretation of Revelations at another time, but understand that Revelations is agreed by both Catholics and Protestants to be very symbolic and imagery. Either way, if you believe that the prayers in the bowl were directed to the saints, you must take that same interpretation when it comes to the bowls of God's wrath.
Rev 15:7 "And one of the four beasts gave unto the seven angels seven golden vials full of the wrath of God, who liveth for ever and ever."
The wrath of God is not directed at Himself nor the angels. Nor are the prayer of saints directed to the angels.
God Bless
Joe, (again)
"If being in heaven were like being in the next room, then of course these objections would be valid. A mortal, unglorified person in the next room would indeed suffer the restrictions imposed by the way space and time work in our universe. But the saints are not in the next room, and they are not subject to the time/space limitations of this life.
This does not imply that the saints in heaven therefore must be omniscient, as God is, for it is only through God’s willing it that they can communicate with others in heaven or with us."
All of what you have posted has holds no water simply because this is not found in Scripture. Is it possible, of course it is. I do not know the details of Heaven and what the saints who have gone before us are able to do in Heaven. All I have right now is God's Word. While I agree that we will have new bodies when we get to Heaven, I do not know what abilities we will have in Heaven. Nor does the Bible tell us in detail.
"Does anyone really think that in heaven the saints are restricted to the King’s English? After all, it is God himself who gives the gift of tongues and the interpretation of tongues. Surely those saints in Revelation understand the prayers they are shown to be offering to God."
Again, the discussion is not about whether the angels are aware that prayers take place. It is about whom do we pray with and to. Nothing in the Bible shows that an angel in Heaven is the target of a prayer from someone on earth. Not one Scripture shows it.
The Bible teaches about the gifts of the Spirit. However, it makes no mention of prayers to saints. You have yet to show an example. All you have shown so far is creativity. The discussion of being free from time and space limitations somehow enabling those who go to Heaven with greater abilities that enable them to hear multitudes of prayers from Earth at one time is possible...it is not Biblical. I do not have the mind of God. His thoughts are higher than ours. For me to rationalize and come up with a conclusion that God has not approved, is wrong. God has sent angels to deliver messages. God sends angels to protect. However, never in the Bible has an angel been target of prayer. Not one time at all. The way you pray to Mary or any other saint, is not found in the Bible at all. If it was important, God/Jesus Christ would have provided multiple examples of an angel being prayed to. If Jesus had not specified that those on Earth come together in His name, than your argument would be a little bit stonger. However, Jesus did specify how to pray with others in His name. Not only that, it is not taught at all in the Bible, nor practiced where a saint or angel in heaven is seeked for to pray to or with.
God Bless (TBC)
Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at May 11, 2005 06:13 PMJoe,
Let me give you an example of me asking a fellow Christian to pray for me.
Me: Brother, would you come into agreement with me that my cousin comes to know the Lord.
Fellow Christian: No problem.
Now, either I go home and pray and trust that my friend prays as well for it...or we can pray right there together.
If I see a fellow man who may not know the Lord, or is stubborn to God's will, I will be moved to pray for that individual. If I see that a fellow brethren is weak, I will pray for that person, without being asked. This is what we are called to do. It is no where near the same as praying to saints in Heaven. It is not the same as that child asking his mom to pray for Him. But above all, there is no command by God to pray with those in Heaven.
Let us go back to Dt 18. Even though I believe this along with Isaiah 8:18 to condemn seeking the dead for help, for arguments sake I will take your view on these Scriptures for now and I do stress "for now."
Now back to Dt. 18.
"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
20But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. "
Speaking that which God has not commanded will lead to that prophet's death.
That brings us back to Lev 10 with Aaron's sons. They presented an offering which God did not command.
In the Bible, which we believe to be God's Word, God does not teach Mary or any other saint in Heaven to prayed to. God doesn't even trust His saints, and heaven is impure in His sight, why would He even consider entrusting prayers from saints on earth to those in Heaven. Especially when He did not command such a thing be done.
For all the rational, and logic you believe, the bottom line, is that prayer to saints in heaven and to Mary is not practiced at ALL, AT ALL, in the Bible. There is not one example of someone on earth seeking someone who is in Heaven to pray with them. Not one instance. All of your logic and rational is nothing more than presuming. You are presuming something that God did not command, unless you can show me otherwise in the Scriptures. Which, despite the large post, you have failed to do.
God Bless(TBC)
Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at May 11, 2005 08:01 PMJoe
"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)."
I know Marc already pointed this out, but once again you have taken the Psalms out of context. The Psalms is about praise. The theme in Psalms is about God's greatness and how worthy God is of all praise.
Psalms 148:7
Praise the Lord from the earth, you great sea creatures and all ocean depths.
The Psalm goes on to show that lightning, hail, rain, trees and birds all should praise the Lord. The Psalm does not teach us to command angels to praise God, for that is what they do constantly. THe Psalmist is showing us how good God is and how worthy He is to be praised. Let everything that has breath praise the Lord. That is how the book of Psalms ends.
However the point is moot because praise is one thing...and prayer is another thing. Praise is what the Psalmist was doing. Telling God how wonderful He is and how good He is constitutes praise. Telling God how much you love Him is praising Him. Nonetheless, if you believe that this means we are to invoke those in heaven to praise God based on this Psalm, then you ought to believe that you can invoke your dog or your goldfish or your garden plants to praise God. Ultimately, there is no dialogue of prayer to an angel shown here in this Psalm. This is not, and I repeat not an example of someone praying to an angel or a saint in Heaven. The Psalmist was telling everything to praise God because He is worthy.
God Bless
Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at May 11, 2005 08:19 PMJoe,
"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).
I believe that angels pray with us, in regards to the fact that all prayers are addressed to God. However, this passage as you can see mentions nothing of the sort that the angels are praying for or with us.
"And those in heaven who offer to God our prayers aren’t just angels, but humans as well. John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). The simple fact is, as this passage shows: The saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.
Once again, the passage does not at indicate that the prayers were directed to the angels themselves. It does not indicate that the angels were beseeched for aid in prayer. Going back to the angels holding God's wrath in bowls. Using the same logic that you have used, one can assume that either the wrath of God is directed at the angels or that God presented to Himself His own wrath.
God did command that we pray with those on earth and pray for one another on earth. God did not command that saints and angels in heaven be sought for in aid for prayer.
Does Revelation 5:8 indicate the following scenario?
Angel#1 with bowls of prayer: "Lord, these are saints who asked me to help them in prayer, I ask that you meet their needs"
Angel#2: "ditto"
Obviously not! There is nothing to indicate that the angels were sought after by the saints on earth for prayers. Even in Tobit(a book that we don't believe to be inspired)...the angel presented a record of someone's prayers. However, in the early part of Tobit, you can see that the prayer was directed only to God. No one else was sought.
1. We are not commanded to pray to or with those in Heaven.
2. There is not one example of prayers to saints or angels from someone on earth, to be found in the Bible.
3. If God did not command it, it is wrong to presume for you most likely will be wrong.
"In addition to our prayers directly to God and Jesus (which are absolutely essential to the Christian life), there are abundant reasons to ask our fellow Christians in heaven to pray for us. The Bible indicates that they are aware of our prayers, that they intercede for us,"
Once again, show me where it says to ask our fellow Christians in heaven to intercede for us?
"and that their prayers are effective (else they would not be offered). It is only narrow-mindedness that suggests we should refrain from asking our fellow Christians in heaven to do what we already know them to be anxious and capable of doing."
Does God instruct us to do so?? The answer is a resounding no.
God Bless
SandT,
I don't accept "Sola Scriptura" namely because it isn't BIBLICAL. Just because something isn't in the Bible doesn't mean that it is bad....period. Obviously even you believe this because you hold on to "Sola Scriptura" as an absolute when Scripture itself never attempts to make such a claim. As I've said before, historically it is a fact that the Church gave us the Bible as we know it today.
So again, regardless of whether or not it is in the Bible, why is it wrong to ask Mary or the saints in heaven to pray for us?
Your points about Revelation, do not contradict what I have said, rather they support it...regardless of what you might say, it was still the saints and the angels acting as intermediate means of either the offering up the prayers or the distributing of God's wrath. Also the angel offering up the prayers of all the saints is doing just that...offering up their prayers. Why does God allow an angel to do this? Why did God need to use them at all? He wished to reveal to us the communal nature of eternity and the Body of Christ.
The prayers of Catholics to the saints and to Mary simply reflect the deeper understanding the Catholic Church has of the Mystical Body of Christ...we refuse to make it a finite, limited Body. We believe that we are united with our brothers and sisters in Christ regardless of whether they are in heaven or on earth. The fact is that thousands of miracles have been worked through the intercession of the saints....a clear sign that "Christ" is working in their midst and in response to their prayers. And, least we forget, ALL THAT CATHOLICS ARE ASKING MARY AND SAINTS TO DO IS TO PRAY AND INTERCEDE FOR US....no different that what you do with your "earthly" brothers and sisters in Christ.
So if you wish to reject this teaching simply because the "Bible doesn't specifically tell us to do it" than do so, but you cannot and should not condemn it as something wrong or bad on that basis, for to do so is to make intercessory prayer something wrong or bad...it really is that simple. If Catholics are wrong than they are simply offerin up "empty" prayers, although the thousands of miracles worked through the intercession of Mary and the Saints are a testament that these prayers are heard.
Does God tell us not to ask Mary and the saints to pray for us "in the Bible"...the answer is a resounding no.
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
The error in it is simple. God did not command it. Now you ask the following
"Does God tell us not to ask Mary and the saints to pray for us "in the Bible."
I'll be honest...God does not say "do not pray to Mary or saints in heaven."
At the same time, God, by your own admission does not instruct us to do so. Nor does He teach to do so, nor is there any practice of this in the early church that is found in the Bible.
However, does God warn against doing that which He does not command? The answer is a resounding YES!
Jesus was specific when He taught about prayer amongst the brethren. On Earth is what the Lord taught. Not one one on Earth and one in Heaven.
I've said it before, I will not use external sources(i.e. miracles) to validate something that is not taught in the Bible.
Aarons sons did something that was not commanded and died. In Dt. 18 God warns of the consequence of the prophet who speaks in God's name that which He has not commanded. God does not command or teach about prayers to saints or angels in Heaven.
"So if you wish to reject this teaching simply because the "Bible doesn't specifically tell us to do it" than do so, but you cannot and should not condemn it as something wrong or bad on that basis.."
Since the Bible is God's Word and God's Word does not command us to do such a thing, I reject it. Since God has warned us against doing that which He has not commanded in regards to praise, prayer and worship...I believe that it is not of God. It's that simple.
"And, least we forget, ALL THAT CATHOLICS ARE ASKING MARY AND SAINTS TO DO IS TO PRAY AND INTERCEDE FOR US....no different that what you do with your "earthly" brothers and sisters in Christ."
It is not the same. I do not give my earthly brother devotion such as you do with prayers to Mary. I do not call anybody on earth my hope, my sweetness or my life. For Jesus is the only one who is my hope, my truth, my way and the life.
I do not bow down before anyone on Earth. I do not shower my earthly brothers with devotion while praying with them.
You praying to saints and Mary is no where in the same zip code as me praying for/with an earthly brother.
I could go into so many reasons with Biblical proof why praying to saints is wrong. But the most obvious and simple reason...it is not commanded of us in the Bible. It is not taught. There is not one instance of it being practiced at all in the Bible. The way you support the doctrine is by coming to a conclusion through presumption.
No concrete statements or lessons on praying saints are found in the Bible. At least I can show you where it says not to go beyond what is written. At least I can show you 2 Tim 3:16 to support the paramount authority vested in Scripture. We have been through this discussion already. Just re-read it again.
However, you cannot show me one instance, one statement that demonstrates that we are to pray to the saints in Heaven.
God has warned and showed us that it is an error to do that which He has not commanded. Prayers to Mary...not at all commanded. Prayers to saints..not at all commanded. That is a different gospel from the one preached by Christ and the apostles. All this is what makes it wrong.
God Bless
Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at May 11, 2005 11:05 PMSandT,
The heart of this discussion is simple. You insist that we are to follow the Bible alone, we do not believe this...simply because it isn't biblical. Show me in the Bible where Jesus or any of the Apostles commanded us to use the Bible as our "sole" source of authority....
It's a contradicting statement in that the Apostles had no clue that the Bible would ever be put together.
I believe in the intercession of Mary and the saints for three reasons:
1) The miracles that are worked through their intercession.
2) The understanding I have of the Mystical Body of Christ.
3) The teaching of the Catholic Church, who is the Bride of Christ...she teaches us in accordance with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
I have explained to you that it is logical why Christ and the Apostles wouldn't have talked about these things.
1) Because entrance into heaven had only been possible after Christ's resurrection.
2) At that point almost all of Christ's followers were still alive (with the exception of those who had gone before).
3) They had only begun to understand what the Mystical Body of Christ was.
It really comes down to a question of authority. I will put my faith in the Church Christ founded...it is that simple. It was Jesus Christ who gave that Church the authority to "bind and loose" in heaven and on earth...so if the Church says they can intercede for us then they can.
Everything that you insist supports your claim originates in your own "personal" interpretation...not what has been handed down, not what has been believed by those who lived after the time of Christ or the Apostles...simply in a very relativistic way...truth as understood by SandT. If each individual has the "authority" to interpret "truth" for themselves, as they believe the Bible is leading them to do, are we really so surprised to see such division within the realm of Protestantism?
In Christ,
Joe
SandT
Why are you so hurting? What void is in your heart? Is the darkness ever calling? Lash out, run your mouth, insist your truth. Oh why God, did I get into this groove. Am I so bent on descruction? Must my wisdom oversee his? Jesus my saviour, take hold of me once more, and let me bear his truth. My heart cries out forgive me, I struggle each day with it, but somehow I don't have the courage, to take off those shackles of oppression. On and on I go, like a mouse caught in a maze, why is the Spirit not leading me, must I be right in the first place? Sometime I will understand, but not because of me, I know what I have forgotten, to simply ask of thee.
AMEN
I would like to point out to you, that nowhere in scripture or was it taught by God that we are to use the internet. You better read that poem again.
Posted by: Daejin at May 12, 2005 09:09 AMJoe,
The whole sola scriptura bit..we had this discussion in full. 110 posts is how long it goes. So I will not go through it one more time. Because eventually you bring up the early church. I showed you that early church fathers such a Augustine referred to Scripture and only Scripture as having paramount authority. That means supreme authority. So enough with the whole "everyone after the apostles believed in tradition" bit. Apparently, as much as you may try to twist the meaning of paramount, Augustine gave this attribute to the Holy Scriptures. A lot of people probably believed this about the Scriptures during Augustine's time. I still believe it.
"It was Jesus Christ who gave that Church the authority to "bind and loose" in heaven and on earth...so if the Church says they can intercede for us then they can."
So, like I have said all along you believe it is truth if the Roman Catholic Church teaches it. Even if it is not found in the Bible.
I on the other hand believe that God is thorough and complete. I believe that the Bible is God's complete work.
For those who read this, know this...
Paul writes in Galatians
"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed."
If we are to believe the Bible to God's infallible Word, then we accept that what we read of Christ and the Apostles is the gospel we are to follow.
Jesus specifies believers on earth praying with each other...not one in heaven and one on earth. Prayers to saints are contrary to this.
The Bible says that there is one mediator between man and God. TO give the title of co-mediatrix to someone else is contrary to the gospel of Christ.
Of course, this is a moot point if you do not look at the Bible as having paramount authority.
Joe, I will end the discussion here. I want you to know that I love you like a brother. I may not know you, but I am praying for you and your family. My prayer is simple, that God bless you and your family and that He draws you closer and closer to Him each day. I pray the same prayer for myself. May we both submit to the will of God.
God Bless
Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at May 12, 2005 10:27 AMSandT,
Thank you for your prayers, know that I pray for you and sincerely appreciate your zeal however misdirected it might be. I likewise pray that we both submit to the will of God and continue to love one another as Christ has loved us.
I will leave you with one final thought...in terms of St. Augustine. Keep in mind that St. Augustine also stated:
And then again:
Indeed, I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so. (Against the Letter of Mani, [397 A.D.]).
St. Augustine was distinctly Catholic, a man who loved and cherished God's Word, just as we do. That being said, let us look at what St. Augustine, a man who held Scripture as a "paramount" authority (not sole authority though), on asking for the saints' intercession and prayers.
This Church is holy, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church, fighting as she does against all heresies. She can fight, but she cannot be beaten. All heresies are expelled from her, like the useless loppings pruned from a vine. She remains fixed in her root, in her vine, in her love. The gates of hell shall not conquer her (Sermons to Catechumens, On the Creed [395 A.D.]).
"A Christian people celebrates together in religious solemnity the memorials of the martyrs, both to encourage their being imitated and so that it can share in their merits and be aided by their prayers" (Against Faustus the Manichean [A.D. 400]).
"There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for the dead who are remembered. For it is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended" (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]).
"At the Lord’s table we do not commemorate martyrs in the same way that we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us that we may follow in their footsteps" (Homilies on John 84 [A.D. 416]).
"Neither are the souls of the pious dead separated from the Church which even now is the kingdom of Christ. Otherwise there would be no remembrance of them at the altar of God in the communication of the Body of Christ" (The City of God 20:9:2 [A.D. 419]).
You can't have it both ways...don't attempt to use St. Augustine against the Catholic Church when he clearly supports her teachings. Another saint who lived at the time of St. Augustine also addresses this:
"You say in your book that while we live we are able to pray for each other, but afterwards when we have died, the prayer of no person for another can be heard. . . . But if the apostles and martyrs while still in the body can pray for others, at a time when they ought still be solicitous about themselves, how much more will they do so after their crowns, victories, and triumphs." (Against Vigilantius 6 [A.D. 406]).
It is what it is....praying to the saints isn't something the Catholic Church simply invented.
In Christ,
Joe
SandT and Joe:
"Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands of falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. (Interesting in light of the above discussion, but not why I am quoting this.) You then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. It is written: 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.' So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another."
SandT:
I think that this clearly shows that there is some things not addressed in Scripture that are ok to do. Whether that extends to prayers to the saints remains with your own conscience.
Joe:
I think that it is clear that we should not pass judgment on one another. It's ok to say what you believe, but not at the cost of causing another to stumble in their conscience or convictions. Nor does your beliefs give you any right to look down on your "separated brothers". Take this as a friendly reminder.
All,
Just attempting to keep things in perspective.
In Christ,
Thomas
Posted by: Thomas at May 12, 2005 12:45 PMJoe,
We already discussed the letter to Mani. You know we did. It had a cascade effect which bought me to show you that Augustine gave Scripture paramount authority.
"That being said, let us look at what St. Augustine, a man who held Scripture as a "paramount" authority (not sole authority though), on asking for the saints' intercession and prayers."
Paramount authority means that it is the ultimate authority. In this country we have a court system. Local courts have authority. State courts have authority as well. But the paramount authority is the U.S. Supreme court. Paramount means supreme. If a matter is not able to be settled in the state court, i.e. the Florida election, it is subject to an overruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. Augustine gives Scripture the attribute of being supreme. Augustine also implores in his teachings to not believe anything unless there is proof in the Scripture. That is my stance.
If Augustine said do not believe him if it is not proven in Scripture, then I won't. So if Augustine preaches about the prayers to saints or about Mary or purgatory or any other teaching that is not found in the Bible or proven by the Bible, according to Augustine's own admission we should not believe it.
God Bless
Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at May 12, 2005 03:33 PMSandT,
Let's not get off track here...St. Augustine, who you claim attests ONLY to the authority of Scripture is telling us that we ought to ask the martyrs to pray for us...how can this be?
Secondly, there is a difference between "paramount" and "sole"...St. Augustine doesn't reach the same conclusion as you, he never claims that Sacred Scripture is the "sole" source of authority...and you know it:
But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church (Letter of Augustine to Januarius, [400 A.D.]).
So say what you will about St. Augustine, but I think he is quite clear on the matter.
I quess you have no reply to what Thomas had to say.... I will say this to you and to Thomas...if I came across as judgmental I apologize. But I believe I was pointing out a fact...you, SandT, are guided simply by that which YOU determine Sacred Scripture is telling you is true. You ONLY reference the Early Church Fathers when it is convenient for you...as seen in the argument above, yet you refuse to acknowledge them when they DIRECTLY contradict what you hold to. Thomas, this isn't false judgment, this is the truth.
I love all of you, especially those of you who attempt to engage us in dialogue, namely SandT and Thomas. I pray for each of you and your families. I appreciate that you take the time to come to this site. If our discussions, at times, become heated I sincerely believe that it is only because we believe in our professions so firmly. If we read the Early Fathers we find similar discussions occurring....this gives me great hope. I love all my "separated brethren" dearly....I admire your zeal and I share with you certain beliefs...but I sincerely believe that we must continue to deal with the issues...as we do. Let us continue to move forward with Christ.
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
First, I do not believe the written works of Augustine to be flawless. Only the Bible is flawless. My point of bringing Augustine up was to show that contrary to what you said, not all early church fathers were in agreement with the church being equal to the Bible in terms of authority.
You seem to be confusing authority and truth. There are levels of authority. Paramount authority means the highest authority. The supreme authority. This is what Augustine wrote.
Please do not miscontsrue what I am saying. The Bible is the ultimate authority in matters pertaining to the faith. Augustine did give authority to councils. Authority is to be given to our churches. However, the authority above all of it...is the Bible. Paramount..meaning no equal. Augustine clearly says that Scripture has the highest authority. The 5 fold ministry has authority. But their authority is submissive to the word of God. Do you understand. So if something is contrary to the Word of God, it is wrong. Let God be true and every man a liar.
Above all, I mention Augustine merely to show one thing. The claim you make that the early church fathers were completely unified in all teachings with the current Roman Catholic church is false and misleading. I will address this at another time as I am pressed for time. Our church is throwing a free gospel concert and I hope it goes well:)
GOd Bless
Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at May 13, 2005 06:32 PMSandT,
I don't see how any teaching of St. Augustine is contradicted by the Catholic Church...period. St. Augustine doesn't jump to the same conclusion as you in terms of authority:
Do not raise against us the authority of Cyprian as favoring the repetition of Baptism, but join us in Cyprian's example for the preservation of unity. For this question of Baptism has not yet been completely worked out, but still the Church kept the most wholesome practice of correcting what was wrong, not repeating what was given; healing what was wounded in heretics and schismatics, not curing what was already sound. I believe this practice comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices not found in their writings not in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are kept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commended and handed down by the Apostles themselves. (Baptism, [400 A.D.])
And then again...
But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church. (Letter of Augustine to Generosus, [400 A.D.])
So stop trying to make it appear that St. Augustine believed something that he clearly did not. It is one thing to call Scripture's authority paramount it is an entirely different thing to call it exclusive.
Again, St. Augustine, a man who claimed the authority of Sacred Scripture to be paramount had no problem telling other believers that they should ask the saints to pray for them. Ironic isn't it? Do you understand?
Oh, one more thing...St. Augustine was one of those Christians, I mean Catholics, who didn't initially have a "Bible." Thanks be to God, he was one of the Early Church Fathers who contributed to the compilation of the Bible. The Bible he helped compile contained those books that Luther would later throw out...in fact he specifically named them in Christian Instruction written between 397 and 426 A.D.
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
This is written by Augustine.
"Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord; but [let them show their church] by a command of the Law, by the predictions of the prophets, by songs from the Psalms, by the words of the Shepherd Himself, by the preaching and labors of the evangelists; that is, by all the canonical authorities of the sacred books."
This is a writing On the Unity of the CHurch.
Here it is clear. It does not matter what bishops or councils decree or write. It does not even matter what miracles are claimed. But what matters is that it is proven via the sacred books, the Holy Scriptures.
How about more from Augustine.
"Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God." (On the Unity of the Church 10)
This clearly shows that the catholic bishops whom Augustine did indeed give authority, had to submit to the authority of Scripture. Please understand me Joe. Bishops have authority, but they still must submit to the Holy Scriptures. That is what sola scriptura is about.
Augustine vs. Maximinimus
"But now I ought not to quote the Nicean, nor you the Ariminensian Council, as if to judge beforehand. I will not be bound by the authority of this, nor you by the authority of that. On the authority of the Scriptures and not on any one's own, but on the common witnesses of both, let matter contend with matter, cause with cause, reason with reason."
Augustine again showing that he is not bound by the authority of the councils, but by the authority of Scriptures. This clearly shows that the HIGHEST authority was given to Scriptures.
Here are some other church fathers and their view on the authority of Scripture.
"There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things then the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach these let us learn." (Hyppolitus, Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 9)
Athanasius
"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded
Councils for the faith's sake; for divine SCRIPTURE is SUFFICIENT ABOVE ALL
things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of
the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated
the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but
be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine
Scripture."
Clearly another support for the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY that is found in Scripture.
Cyril of Jerusalem
"For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures."
The way you explain communion of saints is by ingenious reasoning. There is no proof set forth of it Scripture. All you have presented are mere probabilities. Maybe the saints know our hearts, maybe they do pray for us...however there is no solid proof in Scripture. Praying to saints and Mary as a co-mediatrix is not only not proven by the Scriptures, but it is contrary to the Scriptures.
Irenaeus
"When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and assert that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For they allege that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but via voice" (Against Heresies, 3:2:1)
This sounds like you making this mistake that Irenaeus speaks of.
Now back to the issue of saints and why it is wrong. The answer is that this "tradition" of praying to saints and Mary are contrary to the word of God.
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You SHALL NOT BOW DOWN to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God"(Exod 20:4-5).
God says do not bow down. Now if you claim that you do not worship, fine. However, it is not condemned to bow down before a statue of Mary, or any saint or any picture of saint. After all they are in heaven. If you knowingly make an image of something you believe to be in heaven, then allow people to bow down to it, that is contrary to God's Word. Plain and simple. Even Peter and the angel in revelations were so turned off by attempts to be bowed down to. If Peter told a man not to bow down to him, what makes you think that would be different now? The angel told John not to bow down either. Not anything in Scripture...that much I am certain. For me, the Bible is the ultimate authority. For me the Bible is complete and all that the Lord wants us to know in our relationship with the Heavenly Father is in that book. For you, it is the Bible as well as what the Roman Catholic church dictates.
God’s word has forever remained the same. The traditions of the Roman Catholics have not. I have shown you clear cut proof that the early church fathers looked to Scripture as the ultimate authority. Once again, Augustine did believe in the authority of the councils and bishops, however he gave more authority, I repeat MORE AUTHORITY to the Holy Scriptures. I do not ascribe to the teachings of the early church fathers. I agree with that which harmonizes with Scripture. My authority is that Bible. I will one day move and have to find a new church, and I will test that church against the Bible. That in itself is biblical.
Back to the Roman traditions…the Council of Elvira rejected images of anything to be present in the churches. Why has that changed?
Speaking of which, how about the interpretation of Peter’s confession of who Christ was?
I can show you various church father’s who interpreted that the confession of Peter being the savior is the rock.
Have you read Augustine’s writings called Retractions? He even goes back to correct his prior teaching on this topic. Two things should be noted by this, a) Augustine later changed his view as Peter being the Rock. And b) As a man writing this, Augustine shows that he is flawed and was always in the process of learning.
Joe, you always turn to tradition to explain away something that is not biblical. That is what most Roman Catholics will do. Another mistake is that you make it appear as if all the early church fathers were 100% in sync with the current Roman Catholic church. I have shown that this is not the case. The traditions of men can change. God’s word is unchanging. I agree with early church fathers such as Cyril and Augustine the point of using the Holy Scripture for proof and verification of a teaching. Praying to saints, bowing down to statues of Mary or saints, or Mary as co-mediatrix is not proven by the Scriptures at all.
God Bless
SandT,
I find this very humorous! So are you:
The funny thing is that anyone who knows anything about St. Augustine would laugh a little at this. St. Augustine fought was speaking of churches like yours: outside of the Catholic Church. He fought diligently against anyone that suggested it was possible to be Christian and non-Catholic.
By the way, the early Church fathers aren't Scripture - they aren't infallible. But they are utterly Catholic in their thought.
Also, since you believe so much in Scriptures, how about this one: Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you. I dare you to abide by this one . . .
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
"I do not ascribe to the teachings of the early church fathers. I agree with that which harmonizes with Scripture. My authority is that Bible."
I'll make it more clear for you. Joe and yourself have a tendency to point to "tradition."
Now when you cannot find an example of praying to saints in the Bible, at least Joe will say that the Bible is not his only source of God's revelation. Then Joe will say that "tradition" is another source. Now in regards to Mary and this "tradition" or the saints and this "tradition", what is it that makes it "tradition."
Why is Jerome's rejection of the apocrypha not tradition? Why is not the Council of Elvira's decree that there should be no images placed in the churches not tradition? What about other early church father's and their silence about prayers to saints and silence about Mary not tradition? Joe will attempt to make it seem that all the early church fathers were in agreement in regards to prayers to saints, prayers to Mary, and the interpretation of Mt 16. This is far from true. They highly varied. Have you read Retractions by Augustine Jay???
As far me mentioning the early church fathers and their view on the authority of Scripture was for the following purpose. To illustrate that something contained within the Holy Scriptures moved the early church fathers, to whom you cling on to support this "tradition", to give the highest authority to Scripture. I am well aware that Augustine was fighting other churches. However he did not say that because the Nicene council has spoken, the matter is settled. He even said it does not matter if a catholic bishop should speak. Ultimately, Augustine gave authority to Scripture over the authority he gave to the bishops of the universal church.
Augustine
"Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God." (On the Unity of the Church 10)
I am not making this up Jay. It is clear to the open mind that these passages show that if anything, that a lot of early church father's did give the highest authority to the Scriptures. It is clear that Cyril did say that all things should be proven with the Holy Scriptures and not by ingenious reasoning.
Once again, I do not follow the teachings of the early church father's Jay. They are men who are fallible. They were flawed in their teachings.
As far as them being ROMAN CATHOLIC I don't think so. By giving Scriptures higher authority than councils or catholic bishops, that automatically disqualifies them. Did they refer to Mary as co-mediatrix? Maybe some did...but definitely not all. Did they teach about the assumption of Mary? I doubt it. Did they all teach about prayers to saints? No.
Did they all believe Peter to be the Rock? No.
The point is that they varied on the staples of ROMAN Catholicism. They were not unified on items that unique to ROMAN Catholicism.
If every early church father taught about the church being equal to the Holy Scriptures in authority, you might have a case. But unfortunately for you, a lot of them teach the contrary. If all taught about prayers to saints, then you might have a stronger argument.
Nevertheless, I agree with the early church fathers on that which harmonizes with Scripture, and I reject that which doesn't because that comes from the heart of a man.
"Also, since you believe so much in Scriptures, how about this one: Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you. I dare you to abide by this one . . ."
I abide by it, you just have not gotten the true meaning of it yet;)
God Bless
SandT,
1) The Catholic Church does view Sacred Scripture as the "Word of God" and therefore completely authoritative, but in realizing that it was out of the "Apostolic Tradition" that the Scriptures come to us and the fact that Scripture itself attests to the authority of the Church, she (the Church) acknowledges the reality of their complete dependence on each other.
2) If, as you claim, all these Early Church Fathers would ONLY hold to what Sacred Scripture confirmed then obvious it is YOU who are misinterpreting Sacred Scripture. Your attempts at explain St. Augustine's beliefs makes him out to be some kind schizophrenic. You claim that CLEARLY St. Augustine rejected the Church as authoritative if it contradicts Sacred Scripture, but then you fail to explain why he would instruct us to ask the saints for their prayers, why he would call Mary the Ever-Virgin, why he would say the the Eucharist is indeed Christ's Body and Blood, and so forth. Least we forget, St. Augustine was a bishop of the Catholic Church who clearly also attested to Apostolic Succession.
You also amaze me with your comments about the silence of the Early Church Fathers on praying to the saints and on Mary. We have already CLEARLY shown just how many of the Early Church Fathers attested to Mary's Perpetual Virginity.
As far as praying to the saints I showed you what St. Augustine had to say about that above. You quoted St. Cyril of Jerusalem as one of those in agreement with you, but he had this to say about praying to the saints:
Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first the patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition: next we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already asleep, for we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holy and most solemn Sacrifice is laid out. - Catechetical Lectures, 350 A.D.
You also reference St. Jerome above, he had this to say on asking the saints to pray for us:
You say in your book that while we live we are able to pray for each other, but afterwards when we have died, the prayer of no person for another can be heard; and this is especially clear since the martyrs, though they cry venegeance for their own blood, have been able to obtain their request. But if the Apostles and martyrs while still in the body can pray for others, at a time when they ought still solicitous about themselves, how much more will they do so after their crowns, victories, and triumphs? - Against Vigilantius, 406 A.D.
So you see...you are mistaken in claiming that they didn't teach on such matters.
You went on to say that they didn't believe Peter to be the Rock (i.e. the head of the Church). Yet we CLEARLY have shown that they did: REFERENCE: The Primacy of Peter and The Primacy of Peter: The Biblical and Historical Proofs for the Papacy. Again, you are CLEARLY mistaken in what you would have us believe.
Your closing comment might be my favorite...it reveals the danger of "personal" authority. Again, truth for you really isn't what the Bible actually says but rather what you interpret Sacred Scripture to say. So it really isn't the Bible that is authoritative, rather it is you and your ability to decipher "truth" from Scripture. No thanks my friend, I'll stick with 2000 years of Catholicism. By the way, we have CLEARLY shown what Scripture and the Early Fathers have said about the Eucharist.
Union through Communion: The Necessity of the Eucharist
The Eucharist in the Economy of Salvation: What the Church Teaches
REFERENCE: The Real Presence (the Eucharist)
THIS IS THE LAMB OF GOD WHO TAKES AWAY THE SINS OF THE WORLD: Understanding the Eucharist
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
"You claim that CLEARLY St. Augustine rejected the Church as authoritative if it contradicts Sacred Scripture, but then you fail to explain why he would instruct us to ask the saints for their prayers, why he would call Mary the Ever-Virgin, why he would say the the Eucharist is indeed Christ's Body and Blood, and so forth."
As far as I know, according to Augustine, Jesus was the only post-Adamic man born with out sin. As far as being a virgin, while I believe that she is had other children, it does not lessen who Mary was. What I am saying is that, whether or not Mary was a virgin does not make a difference in the gospel of Christ. Her being sinless does. And I can show you plenty of early church fathers who have written about it. I am not making this up, I will be glad to type it out if you don't believe me.
I can show you writings of the early church fathers that are not consistent with Mary being sinless or Mary's immaculate conception.
"And now that we are about to bring this book to a conclusion, we think it proper to do on this subject of Original Sin what we did before in our treatise On Grace, --adduce in evidence against the injurious talk of these persons that servant of God, the Archbishop Ambrose, whose faith is proclaimed by Pelagius to be the most perfect among the writers of the Latin Church; for grace is more especially honoured in doing away with original sin. In the work which the saintly Ambrose wrote, Concerning the Resurrection, he says: 'I fell in Adam, in Adam was I expelled from Paradise, in Adam I died; and He does not recall me unless He has found me in Adam,--so as that, as I am obnoxious to the guilt of sin in him, and subject to death, I may be also justified in Christ.' Then, again, writing against the Novatians, he says: 'We men are all of us born in sin; our very origin is in sin; as you may read when David says, 'Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.' Hence it is that Paul's flesh is 'a body of death;' even as he says himself, 'Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?' Christ's flesh, however, has condemned sin, which He experienced not by being born, and which by dying He crucified, that in our flesh there might be justification through grace, where previously there was impurity through sin.' The same holy man also, in his Exposition Isaiah, speaking of Christ, says: 'Therefore as man He was tried in all things, and in the likeness of men He endured all things; but as born of the Spirit, He was free from sin. For every man is a liar, and no one but God alone is without sin. It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin. Whosoever, indeed, is free from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind.' Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he says: 'It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin's womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus ALONE of those who are born of woman is HOLY inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He REPELLED it by His heavenly majesty.' These words, however, of the man of God are contradicted by Pelagius, notwithstanding all his commendation of his author, when he himself declares that 'we are procreated, as without virtue, so without vice.' What remains, then, but that Pelagius should condemn and renounce this error of his; or else be sorry that he has quoted Ambrose in the way he has? Inasmuch, however, as the blessed Ambrose, catholic bishop as he is, has expressed himself in the above-quoted passages in accordance with the catholic faith, it follows that Pelagius, along with his disciple Coelestius, was justly condemned by the authority of the catholic Church for having turned aside from the true way of faith, since he repented not for having bestowed commendation on Ambrose, and for having at the same time entertained opinions in opposition to him." (On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin, 2:47-48)
That is Augustine quoting Ambrose. A couple of things to note. Augustine supports Ambrose's comments that all are born with sin.
"For every man is a liar, and no one but God alone is without sin."
That would include Mary.
Point 2.
"or the Lord Jesus ALONE of those who are born of woman is HOLY inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He REPELLED it by His heavenly majesty.'"
Jesus is the only one born of woman who is Holy. Not Jesus and Mary, but Jesus alone. He did not experience corruption by contact with Mary's womb, but He repelled it. What could Augustine who is quoting Ambrose have meant? It is clear that he meant that Jesus repelled the corruption that was with Mary at the time of his conception. Mary was with sin.
Now, my point of this all is to show you that once again, the early church fathers did not agree with the Roman Catholic church as it stands today on items that are unique to Roman Catholicism. I will be glad to show you more early church father quotes that support my argument.
As for the interpretation of Mt.16...have you or have you not read Retractions by Augustine? Yes or no?
God Bless
SandT,
And yet St. Augustine clarifies himself:
Having excepted the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins, - for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear Him in whom there was no sin? - so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they lived here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do you suppose would have been their answer? Would it be what Pelegius says, or would it be what the Apostle John says? I ask you, however excellent might their holiness have been when in the body, if they had been so questioned, would they not have declared in a single voice: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us!"
- Nature and Grace, 415 A.D.
So, here we CLEARLY find St. Augustine making the exception, just as the Catholic Church has always done. St. Ambrose also agreed with this teaching as well:
Come, then, and search out Your sheep, not through Your servants or hired men, but do it Yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sara but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin. - Commentary on Psalm 118 387-388 A.D.
In your defense, you stated that what you had said was only "as far as you know", so consider this a friendly instruction on what these men actually believed ;-)
You state that you "believe she had other children, it does not lessen who Mary was." It completely lessens who she was and is, if the Catholic Church's teaching on her Immaculate Conception (a teaching held by St. Ambrose and St. Augustine) is true. Again, truth and reality according to SandT. I find great comfort in the fact that I don't attempt to decipher "truth" for myself, but rather have the Church that Christ founded to teach and to guide me. It is liberating when "truth" isn't dependent on my interpretation of it, but rather as it is handed down from Christ and the Apostles. Where is your church's "apostolic succession"? Show me a line back to the Apostles...
I have not read the Retractions completely. I have read various parts, but never it in its entirety. But please tell us what you interpret St. Augustine to be saying about Matt 16 and how it relates to the primacy of St. Peter.
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
Once again, you have taken Augustine's writings way out of context.
Augustine was in the midst of a challenge. His opponent, was proposing that Mary among others were sinless. Augustine was proposing the opposite. However, he did claim that he did not want to talk about Mary out of respect towards the Lord.
The argument against Pelagius was not about Mary. It was about the sinless nature's of a select few according to Pelagius which included Mary.
"But there is clearly much acuteness in the question put by our author(Pelagius)," How must we suppose that those holy men quitted this life, -- with sin, or without sin?" For if we answer, "With sin," condemnation will be supposed to have been their destiny, which it is shocking to imagine; but if it be said that they departed this life "without sin," then it would be a proof that man had been without sin in his present life, at all events, when death was approaching. But, with all his acuteness, he overlooks the circumstance that even righteous persons not without good reason offer up this prayer: "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors;" and that the Lord Christ, after explaining the prayer in His teaching, most truly added: "For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your Father will also forgive you your trespasses." Here, indeed, we have the daily incense, so to speak, of the Spirit, which is offered to God on the altar of the heart, which we are bidden "to lift up," - implying that, even if we cannot live here without sin, we may yet die without sin, when in merciful forgiveness the sin is blotted out which is committed in ignorance or infirmity."
Augustine clearly shows that even those who are righteous have sinned. Contrary to Pelagius's argument.
The part you quote is Augustine summarizing Pelagius's argument.
"He then enumerates those "who not only lived without sin, but are described as having led holy lives, -- Abel, Enoch, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joshua the son of Nun, Phinehas, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Joseph, Elisha, Micaiah, Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah, Mishael, Mordecai, Simeon, Joseph to whom the Virgin Mary was espoused, John." And he adds the names of some women, -- "Deborah, Anna the mother of Samuel, Judith, Esther, the other Anna, daughter of Phanuel, Elisabeth, and also the mother of our Lord and Saviour, for of her," he says, "we must needs allow that her piety had no sin in it." We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin."
Now, if you want to make the argument that Mary was made sinless after bearing Christ, fine. However, please recognize first that Augustine was discussing Pelagius's stance. If you read this as Augustine's own words, fine...however none of it says that she was born sinless. This is more evident when he clearly points out that in bearing Christ she may have had the ability to overcome sin. The mere mention of overcoming sin shows that if anything, Augustine believed that Mary at some point knew sin. Especially since in a later writing mentions that Christ repelled sin with His majesty when in the womb of Mary.
Augustine is not saying that Mary was always sinless. That much is certain. He was presenting to the reader Pelagius's points. Out of respect towards Christ, Augustine did not want to even discuss Mary and sin together. He then argues even if he leaves Mary out of it, that Pelagius is still wrong on the others being sinless. Once again, if you interpret this to mean that Augustine supports Mary becoming sinless after bearing Christ, that's a little bit more understandable. Augustine merely mentioning that Christ allowing Mary to overcome sin in this writing combined with Augustine's mentioning Christ repelling the sin in Mary in another writing shows that if anything, Augustine does not teach about Mary being born without sin.
Additionally, you have other early church fathers such as John Chrysostom who taught that Mary did not profit just because she bore Christ.
" He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she hath no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she hath power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. "-John Chrysostom
On one hand you have Augustine teaching that Mary may have been made sinless and I do stress maybe. On the other hand you have John Chyrsostom teaching that there was no benefit in having bore Christ unless she followed what Christ said. Two early church fathers two different perspectives.
None of whom mention anything about being born without sin. Different from what the current Roman Catholic church teaches.
God Bless
Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at May 17, 2005 06:08 PMsandt,
like a tree at that time the Church was still a seedling, like all living being it must grow bigger. you read books then talk as if you know our Church fathers. then you twisted their opinion and for your own design of the tree. tell me, are you a bonsai enthusiast by any chance?
SandT,
What are you talking about? What do you suppose St. Augustine meant then? You claim that he was trying to argue the opposite of Pelagius, which I and St. Augustine would agree with, BUT he doesn't go as far as you to say that those who have sin includes Mary. In fact he CLEARLY states the opposite...again:
...so I say with the exception of the Virgin...
What would this "honor" for Christ be other than the reality that He, Jesus, had the power to create his Mother sinless. In his statement,
Having excepted the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins, - for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear Him in whom there was no sin?
He CLEARLY indicates this for he states as much in His question.
Regardless of this, St. Augustine, a bishop and doctor of the Catholic Church was indeed just that...Catholic.
I will say to you again....for you it is truth and reality according to SandT. Sacred Scripture REQUIRES an authoritative interpreter, so if we claim that the interpreter is each of us individually then we make Christianty the most relativistic religion in the world, something Protestantism is rapidly achieving. I find great comfort in the fact that I don't attempt to decipher "truth" for myself, but rather have the Church that Christ founded to teach and to guide me. It is liberating when "truth" isn't dependent on my interpretation of it, but rather on what it is, as it is handed down from Christ and the Apostles. Where is your church's "apostolic succession," something St. Augustine explained was absolutely necessary? Show me a line back to the Apostles in your church...
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
I said that even if you take the argument that Augustine was made sinless after bearing Christ that in this writing he does not acknowledge that Mary was born that way. Rather he acknowledges that Christ can cleanse Mary. However in a subsequent writing after(appx. 3-4 yrs after) he further clarifies in Unity of the Church and quotes Ambrose.
"He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He REPELLED it by His heavenly majesty.' These words, however, of the man of God are contradicted by Pelagius,"
He did not avoid contact of corruption by being born...but rather He repelled it. Jesus repelled the corruption that was present in the womb of Mary. Why would someone who believed Mary to be born sinless herself, describe Christ repelling corruption in her? The only conclusion is that the writer viewed Mary as having had sin in her life prior to the birth of Christ.
Now I will grant that some early church fathers did view Mary in a higher fashion than most protestants do. However, they also did not view Mary as high as current Roman Catholicism does. Augustine does not teach that Mary was born sinless. Contrary he teaches that she at some point she was corrupt. I do not believe Augustine believed her to be sinless after Christ. But for the argument, that is not important. My argument is that Augustine recognizes, by his own writings that Christ did repel the corruption by his majesty. This corruption was in reference to Mary's womb.
In addition, John Chrysostom, another early church father believed that there was no benefit for Mary in having given birth to Christ. I'll quote again.
" He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she hath no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she hath power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. "-John Chrysostom
Both Augustine and Chrysostom admit that Mary had knew sin. One of them may have believed that she was made sinless by giving birth to Christ, the other believed and taught that Mary had no advantage by giving birth to Christ. All this to show that all the early church fathers differed in opinions on a lot matters. Including those items unique to Roman Catholicism.
I raise this point because the genesis of bringing up the early church fathers was due to the fact that you kept referring to them as being unified in the view of praying to saints and to Mary. I am showing that the early church fathers were not unified as you or Jay claim. Hence my example of John Chrysostom and Augustine's view on Mary's sinless nature. It makes no sense to refer to the early church fathers when they not only differed among each other, but differed on various doctrines present in current Roman Catholicism.
God Bless
Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at May 18, 2005 04:36 PMSorry about the typo....I meant to say that even if you accept Augustine believed Mary to have been made sinless after bearing Christ.....
Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at May 19, 2005 12:04 AMDear SandT:
As a protestant, I grapple with the issue of the veneration of saints in the Catholic church. I have not found any direct scripture in the Bible stating that a righteous person prayed to a saint. That's a real rain on my parade, because I otherwise like Catholicism and even think I'd make a good nun.
But this is also troubling me: the Church Fathers, as far back as the third century A.D., said it's okay for saints to intercede. St. John of Damascus during the 5th century said we should "worship" the saints as Jesus' heavenly brothers and sisters.
Since the Sola Scriptura doctrine didn't come along until more than one thousand years later, and if the Catholics were wrong about praying to saints for all that time, why would God allow the vast majority of the sincere souls of Christendom to be damned for a thousand years?
Jesus transfered His power to His disciples and told them they would be like Him, able to work miracles. If they became like Jesus, able to work miracles, why would that power suddenly stop upon their deaths?
About things that are not commanded in the Bible, which incidentally comes from the Old Testament, what about things we do everyday, like use the internet, watch tv (is that being idle?), eat bacon (a cloven-hoofed animal), eat beef (another cloven-hoofed animal), eat oysters, crabs and lobster (scavengers), pierce our ears, wear tattoos, drive cars, practice law as adversaries, become tax collectors, receive blood and organ donations, adopt children, use behavioral medicines, pray with our heads uncovered, and on and on...?
Posted by: Alice at June 21, 2005 02:44 AMAlice, you bring up a good point. In the book of Acts we read of Peter praying and a crippled man getting healed. Stuff like that happens lots even after Jesus' death.
So if Peter and others could pray and miracles happened, why can't Peter and his friends do the same for us today? Also, if asking Peter to pray for us was once a good thing, why should it be an abomination now? I can understand a Protestant doubting whether asking a Saint to pray for us actually works - but I still do not understand how their deaths turn something good (asking for prayer) into an offense against God.
Posted by: Broken Record at June 21, 2005 11:11 AM
