[soc.religion.christian] invoking saints

jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (07/26/90)

David Wagner wrote:

    That the saints and angels pray for us, I should not dispute.  In
    Zechariah 1:12 an angel prays "Lord Almighty, how long will you
    withhold mercy from Jerusalem and from the towns of Judah, which you
    have been angry with these seventy years?  Similarly in Rev. 6:10,
    the martyrs under the altar in in heaven pray: "How long, Sovereign
    Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth
    and avenge our blood?"

OK, so the departed saints and angels pray for us.  (Presumably with
some effect.)

    What is in dispute, however, is that we should ask the departed
    saints for aid in bringing our requests to God.  That I cannot
    recommend to anyone.  Rather I should recommend against such a
    practice, because it is subject to much abuse, and because we know
    that God hears our prayers for Jesus' sake.

    We have no basis for believing that the prayers of the departed
    saints are any more effective than our own.

Compare these two statements with the NIV version of St. Paul that you
posted:
    
    "I urge you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of
    the Spirit, to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me.
    Pray that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea and that my
    service in Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints there, so that
    by God's will I may come to you with joy and together with you be
    refreshed."

It is not clear to me that you are gathering the drift of what St. Paul
is doing here.  He is asking people to pray for him.

He is basically "praying to" saints, just like Catholics do.

So, three points:

1. Does this mean that Christ is somehow too severe to hear St. Paul's
prayers, so he needs someone else to pray for him?  Is that why he's
asking people to pray for him?

2. Or perhaps other people's prayers are more effective than his?  Is
that why St. Paul is asking other people to pray for him?

3. Or is St. Paul about to lapse into idolatry perhaps?  He is
addressing prayers to creatures, after all, rather than to our one sole
Mediator, Jesus Christ.

Let me adapt the prayer that the Holy Ghost gave us, so we can see what
a Catholic prayer to a Saint might look like (I dedicate this one to our
moderator.  Ummm, if he doesn't mind.):

    I urge you, St. Charles, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of
    the Spirit, to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me.
    Pray that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea and that my
    service in Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints there, so that
    by God's will I may come to you with joy and together with you be
    refreshed.  Amen.

Joe Buehler

[I am certainly happy to join you in prayer.  However the issue in
question is not whether it's appropriate to ask people to pray for
you, but whether it's appropriate to make such a request of someone
who is dead, and who furthermore you didn't know even when he was
alive.  Paul's letter does not seem to be evidence on that question.
You may of course make arguments that it shouldn't matter.  I am
certainly willing to listen to such arguments.  But simply citing Paul
doing something whose appropriateness is not under discussion doesn't
seem entirely relevant.  --clh]

ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (07/30/90)

>[I am certainly happy to join you in prayer.  However the issue in
>question is not whether it's appropriate to ask people to pray for
>you, but whether it's appropriate to make such a request of someone
>who is dead, and who furthermore you didn't know even when he was
>alive.  

Why is it OK for someone who is alive to be a mediator for you to God
and not some one who is dead?  And since when are we required to *know*
the people (alive or dead) from whom we ask prayers.  I'm sure that on
many occasions we have asked strangers -- albeit christian strangers --
to pray for us.

I'm not at all convinced that the "main" question is whether we know the
people whom we ask to pray for us, or whether they are dead or alive.  

I thought the question was whether it is alright for a mere creature to
mediate between another creature and God.  And if it's OK for one group
of creatures (living people who we know), why is it not alright for
another group of creatures (dead people whom we may or may not have
known).

Paul's letter seems to indicate that it is, indeed, proper for a
creature to mediate between another creature and God.  Now, does 
the mediating creature have to be physically alive (I'm sure the saints in 
heaven are *far* more alive than we are -- if aliveness has anything to
do with closeness to God!) for them to be an effective mediator between
us and God??

>--clh]

chris

[There are two separate issues.  You seem to be confusing them, and
thus answering an attack that is not being made.  The most serious
Protestant concept about the role of the saints and Mary is that they
are commonly invoked in ways that implicitly assign them roles
conflicting with Christ's.  Simply asking them to pray for you is not
something that would conflict with Christ's role.  It may be that
we're dealing here with something that is part of "popular piety",
i.e. not an official part of Catholic doctrine.  However Protestants
generally feel that putting statues to the saints in prominent places
in churches, having processions of their relics, and other practices,
are at the very least conducive to confusing the roles of saints with
Christ's.  The quotation from Liguori is very worrisome in this
context, particularly the comment "Sinners receive pardon by ... Mary
alone".  The second concern is in my view somewhat less serious.
Protestant tradition is that it is not appropriate to pray either to
or for people who are dead.  I'm not going to justify that concern
here, partly because I think at least some of it is ill-founded.  But
it is certainly behind some of what you see in discussions here.  Thus
a typical attack on veneration of the saints would go: The saints are
being venerated with a type of veneration that is only appropriate to
God; and even if this were fixed and it was clear that you were simply
asking the saints to pray for you, it would still be inappropriate to
ask the dead to pray for you.

Paul's letter is not relevant to either of these points.  It is not
relevant to the first one because the first concern is that the
veneration being offered to saints has gone considerably beyond simply
asking them to pray for you.  There is no disagreement about the
propriety of asking people to pray for you, so citing Scripture on
that issue isn't going to solve anything.  It is not relevant to the
second issue, because Paul's letter is talking about people who are
alive, so it doesn't speak to the question of whether it is
appropriate to ask prayers of those who are dead.

Now, as to your comment about whether it is alright for a mere
creature to mediate between another and God.  You are right that this
is the issue.  But there may be a problem with words here.
Protestants normally reserve the term mediator to describe Christ's
role.  He is mediator between God and man because he is both God and
man himself, and reconciled us to God.  To me (and I think to most
Protestants), the term "mediator" implies someone who stands between
the two parties, as it were.  When someone else prays for me, he does
not stand between me and God.  He stands beside me, and is in the same
position I am in.  It is improper for anyone other than Christ to play
the role of mediator in this sense.  This objection applies equally to
live and dead people.  It applies to anyone other than Christ.

I'm trying here simply to clarify what is and isn't being said, not to
assert these arguments on my own behalf.  For myself, I accept Charles
Williams' concept that there are several Ways, including a Way of
Affirmation of Images and a Way of Rejection of Images.  I believe,
with Williams, that God allows us to in our own way emulate Christ,
and bear each others' burdens.  We may each represent Christ to each
other.  In this sense, in a temporary and limited fashion, I think
people actually can act as mediators for each other.  

The danger, I think, is to institutionalize this practice in such a
way that rather than each of us representing Christ to our fellow
Christians, it is restricted to designated saints, and to priests.
When what should be like a dance, with the roles constantly changing
(you'll note the allusion to Lewis), is frozen into hierarchical form,
people forget that representing Christ to each other is part of the
calling of each Christian, and come to think of Christ as approachable
only through the official mediators.  This abuse may not be, properly
speaking, anything that the Catholic Church teaches.  However it is at
the very least a common problem to which Catholic practice can
succumb.

There are dangers to the Protestant way of doing things as well.  By
refusing any mediation by our fellow Christians, we stand in danger of
becoming isolated, refusing to engage in the kind of exchange that
should constitute Christian life.  

It is probably not practical for every person to adopt the same
absolutely perfect balance.  Thus one can understand the development
of two Ways, one of which emphasizes Christians representing Christ to
each other, and the other of which emphasizes the direct relationship
to Christ.  Each of them will have its own peculiar form of
degeneracy.  The hope is that having both in the Church will allow
mutual correction.  Unfortunately, the two Ways have largely split
into separate groups that are, if not mutually hostile, at least
mutually wary.  Thus I fear both have drifted from the center, and it
may well be that the suspicions each has of the other are justified,
at least in many cases.

--clh]

tp0x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Carl Price) (08/06/90)

>Why is it OK for someone who is alive to be a mediator for you to God
>and not some one who is dead?


Because dead people are asleep in the ground awaiting the resurrection, that's
why. Psalm 6:5, and elsewhere -- I could elaborate if people are interested.

TP

tp0x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Carl Price) (08/06/90)

The dead are asleep in the ground?

Do ye not therefore, err, not understanding the Scriptures, nor the
power of God? ...And, as concerning the dead that they rise again, have
you not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spoke to him,
saying: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Issac, and the God of
Jacob?  He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.  You
therefore do greatly err.  Mk 12:24, 26-27

Is Christ not the Vine and we the branches?  [Jn 15:1-8]  Is this such a
tenuous relationship that dead cuts it off?
_______________________________________________________________________
Who said anything about cutting off the relationship?

Heb 11:39,40 speaks of the saints of old not yet recieving the promises --
which, if you recall, included bodily inheritance of the earth. Obviously
the promises are inseparable from the Second Coming. The bit you quoted
about God being the God of the living was a case of Christ proving the
*resurrection* of the dead, and *not* any immortality of their souls.
(Show me the phrase "immortal soul" anywhere in the Bible)
What about 1 Thessalonians 5:13-18 ? Those who are asleep are to be raised
in the resurrection at the return of Christ -- ALL AT ONCE (Dan 12:2). Paul
in 1 Thess 5 is comforting the brethren who are concerned about the state of
the dead. If they were in heavenly bliss he would undoubtedly have mentioned
that. BUT HE DIDN'T.

You still wonder what the significance of Christ's words about God as God of
the Living, not of the Dead, was, if Abraham & sons are asleep in the
ground awaiting the resurrection. May I remind you all of Romans 4:17 -- God
speaks of those things which are not (yet) as though they were? Abraham
and the other fathers of Israel are as good as alive because they will be
raised again. They have to be, in order to bodily inherit the land that they
have not yet -- Gen 15:7 . Again, this is the significance of the second
coming.

TP

jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (08/06/90)

Whoops, I confused things a bit by using St. Charles in my prayer lifted
from St. Paul.  I was not addressing the prayer to the moderator!  Here
is a corrected version:

    I urge you, HOLY ANGELS AND SAINTS, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by
    the love of the Spirit, to join me in my struggle by praying to God
    for me.  Pray that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea
    and that my service in Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints
    there, so that by God's will I may come to you with joy and together
    with you be refreshed.

The words in caps are all I've changed from the Scripture version.

Chris understands the point.  The only difference between the above and
St. Paul's version is:

-> St. Paul addressed men on earth
-> My version addresses angels and men in Heaven

The mediatorship of Christ, etc., has nothing to do with this issue.  If
I can ask my brother to pray for me, I can ask St. Michael the angel, or
St. Moses, or St. John the Baptist.  What does it matter if one's on
earth, and another in Heaven?  We all love one another.

Objections have to center around one of the following:

-> the saints and angels can't hear us
-> they hear, but don't care
-> they hear, care, but can't do anything for us
-> they hear, care, but aren't allowed to do anything for us

(Etc.  You can think up your own variations.)

The problem we are having here is not one of abuses.  If someone wants
to guard against abuses, that's fine, I'm all for it.  But I don't think
that's what is going on here, I think people are denying the legitimacy
of invocation of the Saints, and this in unbiblical.

I request that those who have been arguing against the practice repost
(or email me) the following as your own.  (It's a small fragment from the
ancient prayer called the Litany of the Saints.)

    St. Michael, pray for us.
    All you holy Angels and Archangels, pray for us.
    All you holy orders of blessed spirits, pray for us.
    St. John the Baptist, pray for us.
    St. Joseph, pray for us.
    All you holy Patriarchs and Prophets, pray for us.
    St. Peter, pray for us.
    St. Paul, pray for us.

jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (08/08/90)

    >Why is it OK for someone who is alive to be a mediator for you to God
    >and not some one who is dead?
    
    
    Because dead people are asleep in the ground awaiting the resurrection, that's
    why. Psalm 6:5, and elsewhere -- I could elaborate if people are interested.
    
    TP

I do not agree with your view of the state of the dead.  However, it is
easier to point this out:

Your objection does not apply to angels.

So, let us ask St. Michael and all the holy angels to pray for us.

Joe Buehler

walsh@astro.pc.ab.com (08/12/90)

In article <Aug.8.03.40.48.1990.12905@athos.rutgers.edu>, jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes:
>     >Why is it OK for someone who is alive to be a mediator for you to God
>     >and not some one who is dead?
>     
>     
>     Because dead people are asleep in the ground awaiting the resurrection, 
>     that's why. Psalm 6:5, and elsewhere -- I could elaborate if people 
>     are interested.
>     
>     TP
> 

3 objections to this "sleep of the dead" idea:
	a. The Lord's parable of Lazarus and the rich man. None of the
dead were sleeping here, which means in your view this was a misleading
parable.
	b. The Lord's statement to the good thief: "Today you will be
with Me in Paradise." Not: "Today you will sleep, when you wake up you
will be with me in Paradise."
	c. When Moses appeared on Mount Tabor he wasn't snoozing.

I know you can answer with your own set of quotations, but i think these
are noteworthy.

	ando.
  

tp0x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Carl Price) (08/21/90)

>I know you can answer with your own set of quotations, but i think these
are noteworthy.

What an incredibly depressing comment. I too have felt this way, that "everyone
has their own set of quotations" and it is pointless to discuss anything.

I am going to respond to the objections of the passages you quoted. I will not
suggest that my perspectives are right, but want only for them to be
convincingly plausible.

1) Rich Man and Lazarus, Luke 16
Jesus has been telling parables for two chapters already, so it seems to me
that this could be a parable too. The "Pharisees also, who were covetous", had
just interrupted him with derision, and he condemned them for justifying
themselves before men but being abominable before God.
Then he tells a parable about a rich man and a beggar -- answering to the
social positions of the Pharisees and the poor Jews whom they were supposed to 'be shepherding? And compares their ultimate positions; the actual circumstances
need be no more or less literal than the banquet where guests were compelled to
come in from the "highways and hedges".
Again, I don't expect you to believe this, I just want you to appreciate that
I can be rational and see Luke 16 in this way.

2) Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration. I don't want to sound flippant, but
popping the two of them down onto earth from heaven to meet with Jesus is
essentially no more or less implausible than raising them briefly, or than
raising any of us for judgement at all. No extra credulousness is needed.
From their point of view, since death is (hypothetically) unconscious, they
see the Messiah just before seeing him again in glory -- the intervals
between each sight and their natural lives are unperceived.

3) We can shift the punctuation (which is absent, as you know, from the
original) of Jesus' words on the cross and read him as saying "Verily I say
unto you today, thou shalt be with me in Paradise." This would, if correct,
be meaningful, as Jesus is saying that the thief is being judged then and will
not have to wait for Judgement day to be told one way or the other.

Okay?

Tom

[On item 3: Generally translators depend upon grammatical and
contextual clues to assign the punctuation.  This is not noted in the
UBS Greek as a passage where there are any questions about the
punctuation, nor does the Anchor Bible Luke indicate any issue.  It
looks awkward even in English, particularly when you look at the
question that the thief had asked.  --clh]