jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (06/27/90)
This is the last thing I will post on this, because, as Cindy said, this is about wound down. Forget "veneration", please, that's not part of what was being discussed. Praying "to" saints is misleading terminology and should be forgotten completely. Talk about "asking saints for prayers" instead, because that's all that is being done. St. Paul asks people to pray for him, right in the NT. The only difference between that and the Catholic practice is that the people Catholics are asking to pray for them happen to be dead and in Heaven. There is nothing here opposed to the one mediatorship of Christ; saints are not asked to do anything that only God can do, they're asked to obtain things from God by praying for us. The practice of asking Saints for prayers is a necessary one as much as asking other people to pray for us is necessary. No more, no less. If it's useless to ask others for prayers, St. Paul wouldn't do it. If you object that the saints cannot hear us or don't care, then consider the passages dealing with the good and bad angels. The Devil certainly knows what goes on down here, why not the good angels? Our Lord talks about the children's angels, and about the joy of the angels when a sinner does penance. Over and out, Joe Buehler
mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) (06/27/90)
clh writes: >Christian life. However in my conversations with friends who grew up >in the Catholic Church, I find that most of them believe that the >invocation of saints had reached the point of being superstitious. >The saints were not used as fellow Christians, appreciation of which >deepened their prayer lives. Rather they were used as charms to help >find lost things, protect against winter colds, etc. Discussing Catholicism in these terms is rather like discussing Protestantism in terms of the excesses of the tele-evangelists. I very much doubt you would find ANY modern thinking Catholic who invoked the saints in these ways, though you would find plenty on the fringes of the church who would. Certainly, such invocation of the saints plays NO part in the official worship of the church. The problem with "friends who grew up as Catholics" is that most of them were never told what Catholicism is all about. This is a big problem with the Catholic Church - it tends to believe that anyone who attended a few Catholic services as a child knows all about Catholicism. Another problem is that these days many Catholics are so ecumenical that they are too embarrassed to point out what distinguishes Catholicism from Protestantism. I have many friends who "grew up as Catholics" whose "knowledge of Catholicism" actually comes from the standard prejudiced image of the Church which is commonly found in the media in Britain and the USA. Matthew Huntbach [One needs to be neither too much or too little influenced by abuses. I certainly do not blame you for what happens among the ignorant. Yet it is legitimate to try to set things up to minimize the likelihood of abuse. If a practice is not esential to the Gospel, and if it tends to be misunderstood and lead to superstition, it is reasonable for a church to choose to give it up. This is an area in which I believe people need to act in mutual respect. I do not condemn you for continuing to follow your practices and attempting to do so in a pure form. I'm simply asking you to understand that it might seem to others that it was wiser to give up the practices completely. There are others who carry this further than I, including banning organs from church etc. I do not agree with this, but I understand and respect their commitment. --clh]
chrisdu@uunet.uu.net (Chris Durham) (07/02/90)
[This is responding to an editorial comment that I made on the issue
of praying to Mary and the saints. Although I accepted the defense of
Catholic practice that has appeared here, I commented that Protestant
misgivings on the subject are not simply due to misunderstanding what
Catholics mean by prayer in this context. Prayer to saints has quite
commonly degenerated into superstition. This does not necessarily
mean that the practice needs to be abandoned. When things are abused,
one has to decide whether to correct the abuse or abandon the thing.
Reasonable people can disagree over which is appropriate. But it is
not simply misunderstanding that causes Protestants to be suspicious
of devotion to the saints. -clh]
I agree that catholic teaching needs to be more explicit in these areas.
I as a Catholic do not remember being taught these distinctions in CCD
classes when I was in grammar and high school. However, when there
was an instance of Catholic-bashing on a local newsgroup at my college,
I saved the following article for just such an occurence as this....
Please note that the following was meant for a college audience and
was in response to earlier posts which I do not have.
:Many questions have been raised about Roman Catholic teachings and
:practices on this bulletin board. (See posts circa November '86.)
:What we have attempted to do is to respond to the questions and
:misconceptions raised .For anyone who is sincerely seeking the truth,
:these responses are provided. We begin with the subject:
:PRAYING TO MARY AND THE SAINTS. Others will follow later.
:
:If someone would like to discuss any of these questions, please feel
:free to contact us at ***-**** [ deleted -cbd ]
:
:Sincerely,
:
:The Oratory Staff
: ****************
: **************** [ names withheld ]
:P.S. The University Oratory is the Roman Catholic Parish and Newman
:Center serving **************** University and the University of ***********
:
:
:SUBJECT: PRAYING TO MARY AND THE SAINTS.
:
:
:Praying to Mary and the Saints: Before explaining or presenting the
:Roman Catholic position on praying to Mary and the saints, we need to
:agree on the definition of "praying". From the arguments that we
:hear from many non-catholics, we assume that there is a great
:difference in what we mean in the term "praying". IF prayer
:is communion with God, and used only in that context, Roman
:Catholicism would agree that I can only pray to God.
:BUT, if prayer is used in a wider context, as
:talking, as conversation, then it seems reasonable to extend this
:conversation or "prayer" to the saints or "friends of God."
:
: In Roman Catholicism, we speak of the four pillars of Prayer:
: 1. Lectio Divina or divine listening.
: 2. Meditatio or reflecting on the revelation of God or the divine.
: 3. Oratio or prayer which is speaking to God, and
: 4. Contemplatio or dwelling in wholeness.
:
:Oratio, which many wrongly assume is the only way to
:describe praying, takes on four dimensions:
:
: 1.Adoration or Worship of the Divine.
: 2.Thanksgiving or Gratitude for blessings received.
: 3.Contrition or expressing sorrow for what we have done wrong;
: asking for forgiveness for our sinfulness.
: 4.Petition or asking God to grant certain favors.
:
:Roman Catholicism agrees that strictly speaking prayer in this sense
:belongs only to God. Only God deserves adoration;
:all gifts come from Him, so only He is ultimately to be thanked; if
:there were no God, then we would have no need of contrition; and
:finally, only God is giver. This principle is commonly misunderstood
:by many catholics and non-catholics as well.
:
:
:However, Roman Catholicism does believe in honoring the saints which
:includes Mary, the Mother of God. We do not adore
:her; but the honor we give her is called
:hyperdulia, which means special recognition because of her
:unique role in the plan of salvation. We are fully aware that Mary
:and the saints are creatures of God, human beings. The Virgin Mary,
:as mother of Jesus and as archetype of the church, has been
:emphasized from the earliest times in the church. Before the 4th
:century, St. Irenaeus spoke of her powerful intercession. At the
:Council of Ephesus (431 A.D.) the title THEOTOKOS (Birthgiver
:to God, or Mother of God) was fixed for all times as her chief
:attribute. And from this stemmed the belief in her powerful
::intercession with her Divine Son to aid the faithful, both in this
:life and in the life after death. As Jesus is now interceding for
:you, so Mary is united with him in seeking to help you. George
:Maloney, S.J., in his book The Everlasting Now (Ave
:Maria Press-Notre Dame, Indiana ,1980), explains this clearly and
:beautifully. "As Jesus is now interceding for you, so Mary is united
:with him in seeking to help you." And further, "This would mean in
:the teaching of the church that the angels and saints can and do
:intercede for you when you pray to them. It means that Mary and the
:angels and saints are now living with full consciousness, memory and
:understanding of our needs, of the needs of all the living on earth
:and those who have passed into the future life."
:
:When Roman Catholics use the expression "pray to Mary or a saint", we mean,
:not prayer in the strict sense used above, but rather we speak to them.
:Perhaps a better preposition than "to" would be "with" or "for". These last
:two prepositions are used in their proper grammatical sense. After all,
:prepositions show relationships. We ask a saint to pray to God with us and
:to pray to God for us. We believe the saints are our friends who have been
:victorious in their lives of faith and that we are one in the Body of
:Christ. For those who wish to pray only to God and not in union with Mary
:and the saints, the Roman Catholic Church says "that is fine". Many, however,
:feel a relationship with the saints and ask the saints to unite with their
:prayers to God through Jesus Christ, the one mediator for all of us.
:
:
:Sincerely,
:
:The Oratory Staff,
:*********************
:********************* [ names withheld ]
-Chris Durham
Internet: chrisdu@sco.COM Technical Support
UUCP: ...!{uunet,ucscc}!sco!chrisdu The Santa Cruz Operationmmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) (07/02/90)
[This is responding to comments in which I said that many of my Catholic friends found that invocations of the saints had become superstitious. After a protest from Matthew, I commented: >people need to act in mutual respect. I do not condemn you for >continuing to follow your practices and attempting to do so in a pure >form. I'm simply asking you to understand that it might seem to >others that it was wiser to give up the practices completely. --clh] Your original comments (which I have repeated above) clearly read to me that you considered the use of saints as "good luck charms" to be a general and integral part of the faith, and not an error to which Catholics were particularly susceptible. It is as if I were to say that from my experience Protestantism was about men in ill-fitting suits appearing on television, suggesting that they had magic healing powers, and asking for large sums of money so they could buy themselves expensive cars, air-conditioned dog-kennels, etc etc. My feeling is that the many weird cults and charlatans that have sprung from American Protestantism indicate precisely the danger of denying the need for a Universal and ordered Church. Indeed, it is an interesting exercise to note how many of the things which Luther criticised in the Catholic Church of his time have close counterparts in the tele-evangelists. However, I know well that these are errors into which Protestantism can fall, and not an integral part of Protestantism. In fact, I had better add that I am sure there are people doing good evangelical work on the television, but that here in the UK where we don't have such things, we only get to hear about the more notorious abuses. Matthew Huntbach [I am sorry you got that impression. I said specifically that I accept the defense of prayers to the saints given by people in this group. I noted that getting rid of something that is being abused is only one approach, and that people of good will could well disagree whether it's better to do that or purify it. I certainly did not intend to imply that superstition is intrinsic to the Catholic faith. I was simply trying to make sure people realized that Protestants are doing what they are doing as a conscious choice, not simply because they misunderstand Catholic intent. One of the things that the Reformation did was to remove a lot of practices that had been subject to abuse, in order to concentrate attention on the fundamentals of the Faith. I do not condemn the other approach, which says that all of these things have some value, and it's worth going to the effort to clean them up when abuses occur. It's clear that both approaches have their characteristic ways of degenerating. Catholicism degenerates into superstition and abuse of ecclesiastical power. Protestantism degenerates into hypocritical Bible-thumping and legalism. I do not mean to raise Catholic abuses and deny Protestant ones. --clh]
cms@dragon.uucp (07/02/90)
In article <Jun.24.02.41.44.1990.4392@athos.rutgers.edu>, cms@dragon.uucp writes: > In article <Jun.20.03.53.05.1990.12901@athos.rutgers.edu>, jmgreen@pilot.njin.net (Jim Green) writes: > [For Protestants, angels are the intermediary??? Generally > Protestants oppose anything that would detract from a direct > relationship with God, or with Christ's role as the only mediator > between God and man. I don't think most of us would want to refer to > angels as intermediaries. Heh heh, I should have specified that what Protestants believe Protestants believe is not the same thing as what Catholics believe Protestants believe. For Protestants, angels are the intermediary because Protestants do not specify whom they wish their mediary to be, even though all people must pray through a mediary (I won't cite the Biblical passages again). This is the Catholic understanding of prayer to God. I meant that this is what Protestants do, not that this is what Protestants believe they do. I saw a movie once called "The Littlest Angel." A boy dies, goes to heaven, and tries to pray to God: Every time he prays, a celestial choir of angels shows up behind him and sings "DEEEAAAARRR GOOODDDD," whereupon he becomes frustrated and tries praying quieter and quieter, but even then the angels still sing his prayers to God. This is the Catholic attitude. Also, as an aside, Catholics do not view angels and saints as "detractors" from the only mediator between God and human beings, who is Jesus Christ. You certainly don't need to refer to the angels as intermediaries; an understanding of the method is less important than an understanding of the result, which is a relationship with God. I told the Father in Confession once that I often prayed to God to help me get the right cards I needed when playing solitaire. I told him my parents told me that was an inappropriate thing to pray for. Father said it was a perfectly appropriate thing to pray for; at that stage in my life, at least, he said, establishing a relationship with God was more important than the kinds of things I prayed for. What's important to us as children often isn't important to us as adults, however, this doesn't make the importance of the childhood thing any less profound in terms of our relationship with God. > I have to say that although I accept the defense of Catholic practice > that has appeared here in principle, I have some qualms about the > practice. I do not doubt that for the people who have written these > postings, asking Mary or various saints to pray for them adds to their > Christian life. However in my conversations with friends who grew up > in the Catholic Church, I find that most of them believe that the > invocation of saints had reached the point of being superstitious. > The saints were not used as fellow Christians, appreciation of which > deepened their prayer lives. Rather they were used as charms to help > find lost things, protect against winter colds, etc. This does not > necessarily mean that the practice needs to be abandoned. When things > are abused, one has to decide whether to correct the abuse or abandon > the thing. Reasonable people can disagree over which is appropriate. > But it is not simply misunderstanding that causes Protestants to be > suspicious of devotion to the saints. There is some reason. > > --clh] I pray to Saint Bede, patron saint of scholars, to help me in my Bible studies as well as studies in general. I might ask my Professor to pray for me. If I were having trouble in math, it makes sense to ask a math Professor to pray for you; he might understand the difficulties of math and convey this to God. Of course, God knows this already, but perhaps the process by which God knows everything is by virtue of the kinds of people he created, including people in the math field. I've prayed to Saint Anthony to help me find things because Saint Anthony is the patron saint of lost things; it can get superstitious if you allow it to. This is true of all people; just as many Protestants as Catholics believe in ghosts, however, Catholics almost instinctively do not equate ghosts, and their associated stories, with apparitions of the saints. One is supersitition, the other is religion; it's as simple as that. On your last two sentences, I agree with you completely. My reply to his article indicated that he truly did not understand invocation of the saints when he placed such prayer in an either-or position with respect to prayer to God which excludes the saints in direct invocation. Did God ever actually help me play solitaire? I say, unequivocally, yes, God did indeed help me play solitaire. Did he always or even ever help me to win? Perhaps, perhaps not; but that isn't the original question, is it? -- Sincerely, Cindy Smith _///_ // SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ // _///_ // <`)= _<< CARPENTER _///_ //<`)= _<< <`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ \\ _\\\_ <`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ <`)= _<< >IXOYE=('> \\\ \\ \\\ \\_///_ // // /// _///_ // _///_ // emory!dragon!cms <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<< \\\ \\<`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgia
cathy@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Cathy Johnston) (07/02/90)
In article <Jun.27.01.11.22.1990.16720@athos.rutgers.edu> OFM writes: >>... However in my conversations with friends who grew up >>in the Catholic Church, I find that most of them believe that the >>invocation of saints had reached the point of being superstitious. >>The saints were not used as fellow Christians, appreciation of which >>deepened their prayer lives. Rather they were used as charms to help >>find lost things, protect against winter colds, etc. > ... >it is legitimate to try to set things up to minimize the likelihood of >abuse. If a practice is not esential to the Gospel, and if it tends >to be misunderstood and lead to superstition, it is reasonable for a >church to choose to give it up. This is an area in which I believe >people need to act in mutual respect. I do not condemn you for >continuing to follow your practices and attempting to do so in a pure >form. I'm simply asking you to understand that it might seem to >others that it was wiser to give up the practices completely... --clh] One more fact which ought to be pointed out is that elaborate veneration of saints is a practice of a portion of the Catholic church which is, by and large, poor, female, ethnic and not well educated. Within the Catholic church, criticism of veneration of saints is often couched in racist, sexist and elitist terms, and even defense of these practices comes from those who do not practice them and who couch their defense in terms of patronizing superiority. Neither side of the argument has actually ever sent a letter to the National Shrine of St. Jude, or walked ten miles in procession to a saint's shrine on that saint's feast day. Few people actually seem to ask these folks what *they* think they are doing, and it's not clear that there is enough shared vocabulary to communicate even if they were to ask. So what we have here is a practice (criticizing other people's pieties) which inside the Catholic church is closely associated with the sins of racism and sexism and general lack of Christian charity. The first time this was pointed out to me, I must say that it certainly pricked *my* conscience! Which really does explain pretty well why the whole topic makes me very uncomfortable... Just one more perspective... -- Cathy Johnston cathy@gargoyle.uchicago.edu cathy@gargoyle.uchicago.bitnet "If this is the way you treat your friends, Lord, no *wonder* you have so few of them!" -- St. Theresa of Avila (after her mule had just dumped her uncermoniously in a river they were crossing)
cms@dragon.uucp (07/02/90)
In article <Jun.26.23.17.50.1990.12583@athos.rutgers.edu>, ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes: > In article <Jun.24.02.41.44.1990.4392@athos.rutgers.edu>, cms@dragon.uucp writes: >> for Catholics, either angels or saints are the intermediary. > > Irregardless of whether you are Catholic or Protestant, any and all Christains > have Jesus Christ as their intermediary. Neither an angel nor a saint can > be an intermediary between God and man. > > Don't you believe Jesus when he says, > "I am the way and the truth and the Light. NO MAN COMETH TO THE FATHER BUT > BY ME." (John 14:6) > > That is, no single person can communicate with the Father unless Jesus is the > intermediary. Jesus is the ONLY link between the Father and man. Catholics believe this wholeheartedly. I say this only because your words seem to indicate that Catholics might not believe this, for some reason. Jesus Christ is the only mediary between God and man. As indicated earlier, the New Testament refers to Jesus Christ as the only mediator, yet in the same breath speaks of the angels carrying prayers to God. There is no conflict. Also, I thought I made it clear, that while the angels do indeed carry the prayers of Protestants to heaven, this is not equivalent to saying that Protestants themselves believe that this is what is happening. Ignorance of the method is unimportant; belief in Jesus Christ is paramount. Any Catholic will tell you: If you pray to the saints, fine, if you don't, that's okay. It isn't essential to our salvation any more than worshipping in a church every Sunday without fail is essential to the salvation of the average Protestant: It's just something we do as an expression of our faith. -- Sincerely, Cindy Smith emory!dragon!cms
ssimmons@unix.cie.rpi.edu (Stephen Simmons) (07/05/90)
In article <Jun.26.23.17.50.1990.12583@athos.rutgers.edu> ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes: >In article <Jun.24.02.41.44.1990.4392@athos.rutgers.edu>, cms@dragon.uucp writes: >> for Catholics, either angels or saints are the intermediary. > >Irregardless of whether you are Catholic or Protestant, any and all Christains >have Jesus Christ as their intermediary. Neither an angel nor a saint can >be an intermediary between God and man. > >Don't you believe Jesus when he says, >"I am the way and the truth and the Light. NO MAN COMETH TO THE FATHER BUT >BY ME." (John 14:6) > >That is, no single person can communicate with the Father unless Jesus is the >intermediary. Jesus is the ONLY link between the Father and man. It is true that Jesus is our intermediary, but I think that Cindy has pointed out that this does not exclude angels from being inbetween also. Neither does this passage suggest this. What we are talking about is something like this: Catholic view: (a) Human --> Angel/Saint --> Jesus --> the Father (b) Human <-- Angel/Saint <-- Jesus <-- the Father Protestant view: (c) Human --> Jesus --> the Father (d) Human <-- Jesus <-- the Father None of the above are explicitly incorrect, and some have been used in the Bible. Stephen, in Acts 7:59 prayed directly to Jesus. I think it is hard to argue that there was an intermediary of any kind between Jesus and Stephen here. On the other hand, John received the revelation of Jesus Christ from an angel, specifically, Jesus' angel (Rev. 1:1). Furthermore, there are some Protestants that argue that the angel was not an angel per se, but a saint! They base this upon the idea that the angels just means "messenger" in Greek (don't quote me on this) and that the angel of the Revelation said this: "See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book." Rev. 22:9 and: "See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus; worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." Rev. 19:10 Here the angel is called John's brother, fellowservant, and holds to the testimony of Jesus. But also, there are places in the Bible were it is written, "The Holy Spirit said..." (Acts 21:11, for example). Therefore, we have New Testament examples of (b), (c), and (d). The only remaining one then, is a human praying to a saint/angel who relays this to Jesus or the Father. I do not say that there are no examples, but that I do not know of any. Why is there lacking an example of the fourth kind? Because God hears all things. He doesn't need agents to listen in on things. An angel told Daniel, "Your prayer was heard from the first day you humbled yourself before God..." Humility, not number of people praying for you or the importance of the carrier, is the true measure of the hearing of the prayer. Humility, whether yours or someone else's praying with you (whether saint alive, saint "dead", or an angel), is what makes the prayer fervent and effective. The diagrams above are crude; for example, I am of the view that I am to ask things of the Father, but not of Jesus (i.e. Jesus said, I do not say that I will ask the Father for you...). But I commune, or talk with all three members of the Trinity. God talks back to me; I see no possible way that there could be an angel or a saint that carries the words of God to me or my words to God. God knows what I say. I do not need another human or an angel to attempt to appease God for me; God would not be satisfied. It is only out of his love that he listens to us. However, I have read/heard quite a number of stories of people talking with angels (I don't believe them all...), but even in the most bizarre of these the angel does not carry the person's words to God! As long as Catholicism leads people to ask saints to pray with them, and not for them, they are not doing wrong; but, consider that the saints (under question) are in heaven; they have a much bigger picture of things of things than we do. Wouldn't it be better to let them alone and let them pray for God's will, rather than asking them to pray with us in what might be our will and not God's? On the otherhand, there are dangers and abuses of the system, or way of life of praying to or through or with the saints. As an example, I quote from "Our Lady's Urgent Appeal to Us in the 1980's", pp. 10 & 12 by the International Fatima Rosary Crusade (apparently approved by Most Rev. Laurent Morin, Bishop of Prince Albert). I find a great contrast between what Catholic practices are, as described by the net, and what this booklet describes. Don't take offence at this; I want answers though, as these statements seem to take disregard for the Biblical ideas that salvation is not by works, that Jesus Christ is the only way, that Jesus Christ has overcome the world, etc. "Our Lady said [to the children at Fatima] 'You have seen Hell where the souls of poor sinners go, to save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my immaculate Heart.'" The same source writes, "St. Alphonsus, (Doctor of the Church) teaches that Devotion to Mary is necessary for Catholics in order to save their souls. He also teaches that Mary has snatched many souls from the clutches of Hell and saved them for Heaven because these persons have repeated during their lifetime some little act of devotion to Our Lady -- for example, praying the three Hail Mary's to Our Lady every day, or fasting on Saturdays in Her honor. ... Thus we can see why God wants to even better establish devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary throughout the world because thereby many more souls would be saved. God furthermore wants mankind to realize that God grants graes to us through Mary. As Pope Leo XIII taught, all graces come to us from God through the humanity of Jesus Christ, through the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary to us." p. 10 In this passage, we find stated that Mary has "saved" many souls! And the way she saved them was because those persons honored Mary, and not necessarily God. Admittedly, devotion is not the same thing as worship, but it implies that we spend time holding the person devoted, in honor. This disturbs me, because nowhere in the Bible does it say for one to devote oneself to another person, not to their phyiscal or spiritual needs, but to their honor. Paul lamented that marriage was a problem for him, because it would take away from the time that he could devote to the Lord. It is ironic that the priests who remain celibate to devote time to Lord will end up devoting time to Mary. Is this really proper? "Let us lift up our heads and raise our hope in God, for He said that the Blessed Virgin would defeat the devil and his followers and his plots: 'I will put enmities between thee and the Woman, and thy seed and Her seed: She shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for Her heel.' (Gen. 3:15) And the Blessed Virgin has come in our time at Fatima and promised us Victory in our time, over all these forces of evil. 'In the end My immaculate Heart will triumph and a period of peace will be given to mankind.'" p. 12 Clearly, this misquotes Gen. 3:15, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; IT [thy seed, not Mary] shall bruise [or crush in modern translations] thy head, and thou shalt bruise HIS [not her] heel." Jesus, the (note singular) seed of the Woman, is the One of brought the victory (past tense). We are now in a transition period between the end of the war and the start of the New Government, which will be everlasting (Isaiah). I think that there are a number of other things in the above passages that I know Protestants would object to. But this whole booklet, including the above passages seemed to be very much like Marian worship. No, the writers did not use *worship* but carefully used devotion instead. But at any rate, the pictures, as well as the text elevated Mary on a pedastal (the cover has a picture of Mary on top of the world; another had Mary on top of a tree, with children kneeling near the tree). James tells us "My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto you assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, 'Sit thou here in a good place'; and say to the poor, 'Stand thou there,' or 'sit thou here under my footstool': are ye not then partial in yourselves and are become judges of evil thoughts?" (Jas. 2:1-4). The Bible sayys we are to honor *all* men, not one particular person.(1Pet. 2:17). On these passages, I think I know what the opinions of the Protestants are, but what are the opinions of the Catholics? Is this acceptable to the RCC, or taught by the RCC, or rejected by the RCC? --Stephen Simmons
wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (07/05/90)
I preface these remarks by saying that I do not approve of prayer
directed at or through saints or angels.
However, on the topic of angels as vehicles for prayer, the following
passage from Revelation is interesting:(Revelation 8:3,5)
"Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar.
He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all the saints, on
the golden altar before the throne. The smoke of the incense, together with
the prayers of the saints, went up before God from the angel's hand."
Now a few comments. The word 'saints' here refers to believers;
particularly those still in this world. In addition, I think we can safely
say that angels carry our prayers to God, or at least they carry them in the
heavenly worship. But I find no basis in Scripture for recommending that
someone ask an angel to carry his/her prayer to God. The angels are God's
to order about; I suppose we could ask God to send a particular angel to
carry our prayer, but that makes no sense to me.
Prayer to saints is chiefly defended as 'conversation'. One might accept
that; however in dealing with the unseen, the line between conversation and
worship can be very fine. Shouldn't we be more concerned about warning our
people against idolatry than in protecting a practice which is not commanded?
Doesn't it make sense that we use our time of grace to do that which God
commanded, rather than that which is not commanded?
BTW, where the Lutheran Confessions deal with this, they first of all
answer the complaint of the Roman Confutation that:
"They [the Lutheran princes] admit that the mamory of saints may be set before
us so that we may follow their faith and good works, but not that they be
invoked and called on for aid ... This error...has often been condemned in the
church, ever since on this field of battle Jerome conquered Vigilantius eleven
hundred years ago...Wherefore this article of the [Augsburg] Confession,
so frequently condemned, must be utterly rejected and, in harmony with the
whole universal church, be condemned, for in favor of the invocation of saints
we have not only the authority of the universal church but also the agreement
of the holy Fathers..." (Pt. I, Art. XXI)
To the quoted passage Melancthon responds in his 'Apology to the Augsburg
Confession':
"These asses do not see that in the controversy between Jerome and
Vigilantius there is not a syllable about invoking, but only honoring, the
saints. Nor do the rest of the ancient Fathers before Gregory mention
invocation."
Perhaps the strongest argument in the 'Apology' against prayer to the
saints is the following:
"Men suppose that Christ is more severe and the saints more approachable; so
they trust more in the mercy of the saints than in the mercy of Christ and they
flee from Christ and turn to the saints. Thus they actually make them
mediators of redemption."
David H. Wagner
A confessional Lutheran "Built on the Rock the Church doth stand,
Even when steeples are falling;
Crumbled have spires in ev'ry land,
Bells still are chiming and calling,
Calling the young and old to rest,
But above all the soul distrest,
Longing for rest everlasting."
My opinions and beliefs are probabalistically independent of any held by
The University of Houston.wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (07/08/90)
In article <Jul.5.00.56.05.1990.29702@athos.rutgers.edu> ssimmons@unix.cie.rpi.edu (Stephen Simmons) writes: >On the other hand, John received the revelation of Jesus Christ from >an angel, specifically, Jesus' angel (Rev. 1:1). Furthermore, there >are some Protestants that argue that the angel was not an angel per >se, but a saint! They base this upon the idea that the angels just >means "messenger" in Greek (don't quote me on this) and that the angel >of the Revelation said this: > >"See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren >the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book." Rev. 22:9 > >and: > >"See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that >have the testimony of Jesus; worship God: for the testimony of Jesus >is the spirit of prophecy." Rev. 19:10 > >Here the angel is called John's brother, fellowservant, and holds to >the testimony of Jesus. I don't see how these passages say that the angel is human, John's 'brother'. They say that the angel is a fellowservant, with John and other believers, of God. There is nothing in the passages that supports the conclusion that the angel is (a risen) human. More importantly, we cannot equate these angels with the being that appears to John at the beginning of his Revelation. That being clearly identifies himself as Christ; he says: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever!" To conclude that this speaker is not Christ himself we would have to reason, with Calvin, that since Christ is seated at the right hand of God, he cannot also be present on earth -- reasoning that actually contradicts scripture, for Christ promises that his body and blood are present in the Lord's supper, and also that 'I am with you always', and 'where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.' Perhaps I have misconstued Calvin here; perhaps he made a a distinction between Christ's spirit, which is 'with us', as the Holy Spirit is, and his 'body and blood'; but either way I think he was wrong. The angel in Rev. 19:10 is identified in Rev 17:1 : "One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits on many waters..." The angel in Rev. 19:10 is similarly identified. Rev 22:8 says: I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me." This angel is identified in Rev 21:9 : One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." I find it difficult to avoid making this identification, and impossible to identify this angel with the being who says: "I am the First and the Last"(or Alpha and Omega, whatever the greek says). David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran "Behold a host, arrayed in white, Like thousand snow-clad mountains bright, With palms they stand. Who is this band Before the throne of light? Lo these are they of glorious fame Who from the great affliction came And in the flood of Jesus blood Are cleansed from guilt and blame. Now gathered in the holy place, Their voices they in worship raise, Their anthems swell where God doth dwell Mid angel's songs of praise." --Norwegian hymn. My opinions and beliefs are not likely to coincide with any held by The University of Houston. [Yes, Calvin does believe that Christ can be spirtually present anywhere. --clh]
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (07/13/90)
David Wagner posted some things from Melancthon.
Here is a quote from Jerome's work against Vigilantius. It has to do
with the intercessory power of the Saints:
If the Apostles and Martyrs, while still in the body, can pray for
others, at a time when they must still be anxious for themselves, how
much more after their crowns, victories, and triumphs are won! One
man, Moses, obtains from God pardon for 600,000 men in arms; and
Stephen, the imitator of the Lord, and the first martyr in Christ, begs
forgiveness for his persecutors; and shall their power be less after
having begun to be with Christ? The Apostle Paul declares that two
hundred three score and sixteen souls, sailing with him, were freely
given him; and, after he is dissolved and has begun to be with Christ,
shall he close his lips, and not be able to utter a word in behalf of
those who throughout the whole world believed at his preaching of the
Gospel?
There are abundant quotes from the Fathers regarding invocation of
Saints. The Catholic Encyclopedia has quotes from St. Ephraem, St.
Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Ambrose, St. John
Chrysostom, St. Augustine in the article "Intercession." Of especial
interest is the Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, because
it is a description of the liturgy of the early Church. (These are all
4th century Fathers.)
David quoted Melancthon:
"Men suppose that Christ is more severe and the saints more
approachable; so they trust more in the mercy of the saints than in
the mercy of Christ and they flee from Christ and turn to the
saints. Thus they actually make them mediators of redemption."
Which, of course, is a weak argument against St. Paul:
I beseech you, therefore, brethren, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and
by the charity of the Holy Ghost, that you help me in your prayers for
me to God. (Romans 15:30)
Joe Buehlerlae@eddie.mit.edu (Larry Enos) (07/16/90)
As a former Catholic who attended parachiol school under the Jesuits
and the Sisters of Saint Joseph (the intellectual elite of the
Catholic clergy), I can state that what is described in this booklet
is essentially what we were taught. For example, we were frequently
encouraged to make special devotions to Mary and other saints (e.g.,
by attending masses or performing special prayer rituals) to obtain
specific blessings. Likewise, we were told that everytime the Lord
closes a door, Mary opens a window, which implies that she is more merciful
than Jesus.
Therefore, despite what some Catholics say to defend the so-called
`veneration' of saints, I can testify that, in actual practice, it is
nothing more than idolatry.
"And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding,
in order that we might know Him who is true, and we are in Him who is
true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
Little children, guard yourselves from idols."
First Epistle of John, 5:20-21cms@dragon.uucp (07/18/90)
In article <Jul.16.02.58.44.1990.14755@athos.rutgers.edu>, ileaf!io!enos!lae@eddie.mit.edu (Larry Enos) writes: > As a former Catholic who attended parachiol school under the Jesuits > and the Sisters of Saint Joseph (the intellectual elite of the > Catholic clergy), I can state that what is described in this booklet > is essentially what we were taught. For example, we were frequently > encouraged to make special devotions to Mary and other saints (e.g., > by attending masses or performing special prayer rituals) to obtain > specific blessings. Likewise, we were told that everytime the Lord > closes a door, Mary opens a window, which implies that she is more merciful > than Jesus. > > Therefore, despite what some Catholics say to defend the so-called > `veneration' of saints, I can testify that, in actual practice, it is > nothing more than idolatry. Like many beliefs and practices, anything can become superstitious, including the Holy Eucharist, Baptism, or any other Sacrament. There is an attitude that Mary's prayers stay the wrathful hand of Jesus, which is a wrongful attitude. David's prayers stayed the wrathful hand of God, so Mary's prayers stay the wrathful hand of God; Jesus's atoning sacrifice lifted the wrathful hand of God. Nonetheless, Jesus Christ is God, one with Father, and the Holy Spirit. I would say rather that Mary prays for the mercy of Jesus to be expressed. It isn't so much that God is wrathful than that he decides for or against the expression of mercy. In our prayers, we discover that God is a God of mercy and desires "mercy not sacrifice." So, he withheld mercy from his only Son, who became a perfect sacrifice for the whole world, so the whole world could be shown mercy through Him. Mary prayers, again, like the prayers of all saints, do not stay the wrathful hand of God so much as they encourage the mercy of God. To venerate a saint *without* doing so for the greater glory of God certainly is idolatry and condemned by all the Catholic Churches. After all, we only venerate saints who worshipped God. -- Sincerely, Cindy Smith _///_ // SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ // _///_ // <`)= _<< CARPENTER _///_ //<`)= _<< <`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ \\ _\\\_ <`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ <`)= _<< >IXOYE=('> \\\ \\ \\\ \\_///_ // // /// _///_ // _///_ // emory!dragon!cms <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<< \\\ \\<`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgia
math1h3@jetson.uh.edu (07/18/90)
In article <Jul.13.05.04.19.1990.12095@athos.rutgers.edu>, jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes: > David Wagner posted some things from Melancthon. > > Here is a quote from Jerome's work against Vigilantius. It has to do > with the intercessory power of the Saints: > > If the Apostles and Martyrs, while still in the body, can pray for > others, at a time when they must still be anxious for themselves, how > much more after their crowns, victories, and triumphs are won! One > man, Moses, obtains from God pardon for 600,000 men in arms; and > Stephen, the imitator of the Lord, and the first martyr in Christ, begs > forgiveness for his persecutors; and shall their power be less after > having begun to be with Christ? The Apostle Paul declares that two > hundred three score and sixteen souls, sailing with him, were freely > given him; and, after he is dissolved and has begun to be with Christ, > shall he close his lips, and not be able to utter a word in behalf of > those who throughout the whole world believed at his preaching of the > Gospel? This appears to vindicate Melancthon, more than refute him. What I quoted from the "Apology to the Augsburg Confession' said : "in the controversy between Jerome and Vigilantus there is not a syllable about invoking, but only about honoring, the saints." So far, I don't see a word about our invocation of the departed saints, i.e., praying to them, asking their aid, etc. 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?" 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. > > David quoted Melancthon: > > "Men suppose that Christ is more severe and the saints more > approachable; so they trust more in the mercy of the saints than in > the mercy of Christ and they flee from Christ and turn to the > saints. Thus they actually make them mediators of redemption." > > Which, of course, is a weak argument against St. Paul: > > I beseech you, therefore, brethren, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and > by the charity of the Holy Ghost, that you help me in your prayers for > me to God. (Romans 15:30) > Paul asks that the Roman Christians support his kingdom work with prayer. The NIV translates: "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." If more of us could learn to pray 'Thy kingdom come, thy will be done,' with sincerity and faith, as Paul does here, the whole church would be much healthier. I find it hard to construe Paul's words to mean that God is more severe than the departed saints, and so we should pray to the saints for intercession, rather than directly to God. His intention is clearly on asking the Romans to be a part of his struggle to advance the Kingdom of God. As the church sings: "If you cannot speak like angels, If you cannot preach like Paul, You can tell the love of Jesus, You can say He died for all. If you cannot rouse the wicked With the Judgement's dread alarms, You can lead the little children to the Savior's waiting arms. "If you cannot be a watchman, Standing high on Zion's wall, Pointing out the path to heaven, Off'ring life and peace to all, With your prayers and with your bounties You can do what God demands; You can be like faithful Aaron, Holding up the prophets's hands." David H. Wagner A confessional Lutheran My opinions and beliefs are not likely to coincide with any held by The University of Houston
ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (07/24/90)
In article <Jul.18.05.07.20.1990.16226@athos.rutgers.edu> math1h3@jetson.uh.edu writes: >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. A few weeks ago, I posted three questions to the net: 1) Is it proper for a Christian to pray for another Christian? 2) Is it proper for a Christian to ask another Christian to pray for them? 3) What, exactly, does a Christian *do* when he *prays for* another? Although there weren't very many public responses to these questions, the email responses I got were basiscally: "Of course it's ok, why not?" My first question to math1h3 (don't have your real name handy), then, is: do you think it is ok for Christians to pray for each other? Of course, God knows what we need even before we do. So why does *anyone* *ever* have to pray to God? He already knows what we need and is certainly capable of giving it to us. One answer is because one of the things God may know that we need is humility, and a conscious trust and love for Him and a love for our neigbor equivalent to the love we have for ourselves. Now, if you accept that God gave man a *real* free will (as Catholics do), that means (by definition) that God will not interfere in our use of our free wills. But God's purpose in giving us a *true* free will is that we might *freely* love God and love our neighbor as ourselves. (There's nothing like "coerced love." :) This is the sole purpose of having a free will. But as Fate would have it we are fallen creatures and to do what God wants us to do might actually require us to exert our wills in a manner which is opposed to our inborn pride and selfishness. So if God wants us to be humble and loving of Him and our bothers, we may actually have to do things which develop love and humility in our lives: like praying to God, like doing good works for God and our neighbors, and even (gulp) asking help from our neighbors when we are weak, and even (double gulp) asking our neighbors to pray to God for us, either because we feel our prays are not effective (our prayers certainly have no merit in themselves) or because praying for me is good for my neighbor, even as praying for my neighbor is good for me (not to mention my neighbor). So even though nobody needs to pray (God already knows what we need and can give it to us, right?) God gave us free will so we could use it to do things which glorify Him, like praying to Him for ourselves and for our neigbors, and even asking our neighbors to pray for us. About Saints: My next question to math1h3, then, is: is the problem that we are praying to our neighbor, or is the problem that our neighbor may now be departed from us? Regarding praying to departed saints, you say: "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." That's very properly protestant of you, math1h3, but why do you *really* think we shouldn't request the aid of saints in our daily struggles? Your first argument could be more compelling -- eating is also subject to much abuse, as are many other things in life (e.g. sexuality). This does not mean that misuse of a thing requires that we therefore never use it at all. We must always and only use a thing propery, and this includes praying to God, and asking for help from our Christian brothers (departed or not). Second, you say God hears are prayers. Quite true. But as I have already pointed out, why pray at all? Or why not pray for a Mercedes Benz? I would say that the humble requests for help that we make to our brother Christians is far more pleasing to God than either of these two acts -- and this doesn't matter if our brothers are departed or not. Of course, there remains the question of how much, if anything, our departed brothers and sisters can do for us. This, I think, is a far more interesting question. Any thoughts? yours in Christ, chris -- First comes the logo: C H E C K P O I N T T E C H N O L O G I E S / / \\ / / Then, the disclaimer: All expressed opinions are, indeed, opinions. \ / o Now for the witty part: I'm pink, therefore, I'm spam! \/
christm@loki4.math.stolaf.edu (Mark C. Christianson) (07/26/90)
Joe Buehler is wrong in his comment about the quotation from Melanchthon
(from Article XXI of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession) provided us
by David Wagner. The quote is:
"Men suppose that Christ is more severe and the saints
more approachable; so they trust more in the mercy of
the saints than in the mercy of Christ and they flee
from Christ and turn to the saints. Thus they actually
make them mediators of redemption."
Joe Buehler says that this is a week argument against St. Paul (Romans
15:30, here given from the NewRSV).
I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the Lord Jesus
Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in
earnest prayer to God on my behalf.
Paul was asking the Christians in Rome to pray for him, his safety, and
the success of his ministry in Jerusalem (where he was taking offerings
>From the Christians in Maccedonia and Achaia). This is nothing more
than what we might ask our friends to do for us when going on a long trip
or entering into some sort of environment or activity that has its
dangers or rewards. It has nothing to do with praying to the saints,
or praying with the saints, or venerating the saints, what ever language
you might wish to use. The quotes from Melanchthon and Romans are not
in conflict.
Melanchton is saying that the practice of invocation of the saints had
been corrupted and misused to the extent that people were no longer
trusting in Christ for salvation and redemption, but in the saints.
They feared the loving God and Christ so much that they turned to the
saints for mercy instead of to Christ, who, as Almighty God, can alone
save us.
Paul is asking other Christians who were living in Rome in a letter he
wrote to them for thier prayers. He is talking to the people in that
Roman chruch, not to the Chruch at all times. St. Paul, having died
and been commended to the eternal care of Christ, no longer needs our
prayers. And he was not asking us to pray to him but for his safety.
At the time he wrote this to the Christians in Rome, he was a living
human being, with needs and expectations. He wanted the support of the
Roman Christians to whom he wrote the Epistle to the Romans. Remember
what the word "epistle" means. He includes in almost all his letters
(Galatians being a notable exception) personal messages to people in
the communities he writes. This is one such message.
Mark C. Christianson
christm@stolaf.edugross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (08/06/90)
In article <Jul.24.04.50.09.1990.17549@athos.rutgers.edu> ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes: > >1) Is it proper for a Christian to pray for another Christian? >2) Is it proper for a Christian to ask another Christian to pray for > them? I think the above is quite proper. >3) What, exactly, does a Christian *do* when he *prays for* another? He or she is interceeding as we were told to do. The Christian goes boldly before the throne of grace and present petitions there. The Christian prays directly to God or Jesus, from his or her position in Christ. >My first question to math1h3 (don't have your real name handy), then, is: >do you think it is ok for Christians to pray for each other? More than okay, it is required of us. Be glad to provide Scripture for this if you want. > >Of course, God knows what we need even before we do. So why does >*anyone* *ever* have to pray to God? He already knows what we need and >is certainly capable of giving it to us. >One answer is because one of the things God may know that we need is >humility, and a conscious trust and love for Him and a love for our >neigbor equivalent to the love we have for ourselves. Another very good reason is obedience! ;-) But that does not take away from your reasons above. >About Saints: My next question to math1h3, then, is: is the problem >that we are praying to our neighbor, or is the problem that our neighbor >may now be departed from us? Regarding praying to departed saints, you >say: "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." > >That's very properly protestant of you, math1h3, but why do you *really* >think we shouldn't request the aid of saints in our daily struggles? >Your first argument could be more compelling -- eating is also subject to >much abuse, as are many other things in life (e.g. sexuality). This >does not mean that misuse of a thing requires that we therefore never >use it at all. We must always and only use a thing propery, and this >includes praying to God, and asking for help from our Christian brothers >(departed or not). Here, Chris, is the real crux of the matter for me. Praying for saints and asking saints to pray for you is one thing, while the saints are alive. But praying to saints, alive or dead, is not found in the Scripture by express command or permission. Nor is it even dreamt of. The problem I have with praying to saint who is still alive is that it puts that person in the fore of an act that belongs only to the living God. And while praying to a dead saints does the same thing, I have another problem with praying to a dead saint in addition. The saint is dead. The saint is not aware of what is happening here on Earth. Further, what can a saint, a human being like me, do that God cannot do? I see no other mediator spoken of in the Bible other than Jesus Christ. I have looked at the writings of many of the early Christian writers and don't find evidence that they believed in another mediator between God and man for several centuries. But the biggest stumbling block is still that praying to someone other than God is taking away worship that rightfully belongs to God and not the creature. > >Second, you say God hears are prayers. Quite true. But as I have >already pointed out, why pray at all? Or why not pray for a Mercedes >Benz? I would say that the humble requests for help that we make to our >brother Christians is far more pleasing to God than either of these two >acts -- and this doesn't matter if our brothers are departed or not. Pray because it teaches us humility. Pray because it teaches us about the sufficiency of Christ in our lives. Pray because it shows the love that indwells us. Pray because we are told to do so. Should I go on? For the glory of God and of the Lamb, Gene Gross