[soc.religion.christian] Why invoke the Saints?

ctdonath@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Carl T. Donath) (05/29/90)

In article <May.24.01.02.17.1990.21530@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@garage.att.com writes:
>> I am most eager to hear of verses that do instruct us
>> to pray to someone other than God. I've never seen them.
>> 
>> - Carl
>

Thanks to those who have answered my question. After asking a lot of 
Catholics this question for a long time, I was starting to wonder
if anyone had an answer.

To summarize, there were two kinds of answers:
1. A. You can ask other people to pray for you.
   B. Saints are people (alive, though not on Earth)
   C. Prayer is just talking to someone not on Earth (God, Jesus, saints)
   D. therefore, praying to Saints is just asking them to pray for you.
2. Some people interpret the Transfiguration, events in Job, etc. as
   equivalent to prayer to the saints.

These haven't yet convinced me to pray to saints (for reasons that I'll
only get into if someone asks). However, I can finally understand and
respect one of the Catholic activities and will stop "condemning" it.

(flame on: It just amazes me how many people go through the motions that
they have been taught without having any idea why they are doing it.
:flame off)

One thing that came up during this does bother me:

>Why does the practice have to be found in Sacred Scripture?  Isn't it
>enough that it is an ancient tradition of the Church?
>
>Joe Buehler

I feel that every practice followed by any religious organization (specifically
Christian churches) falls into one of three categories: mandated by God,
forbidden by God, and "God doesn't care as long as you do it for right 
reasons and don't go in a wrong direction". I want to know which of these
our assorted traditions fall into.

Some "traditions" are mandated by God: "faith in Christ", baptism, communion,
prayer, obedience to the commandments. 

Some are forbidden: human sacrifice, worship of anyone/thing other than
God, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, wasting your life.

Some don't matter: what songs you sing during a worship service, whether
or not there is a choir, and others.

What bothers me about traditions is that people tend to put them into the
wrong category, usually into the "mandated" one. 

(WARNING: what I say below may bother people with itchy flame-throwers.
I'm just using points as examples, not criticizing. We can discuss them
later.)

The reason I brought up the infamous Prayer-to-Saints question is that 
I see so many Catholics putting it into the "mandated" category (prayer
is mandated, so you must ask the saints to help you) when, from an
outsider's point of view I see it closer to the "forbidden" category
(it often looks an awful lot like worship of someone other than God).
BY LOOKING INTO SCRIPTURE with the aid of you folks, I saw that it was
not forbidden (some verses can be interpreted easily as promoting it),
but did not see any verses mandating it, I realized that it is in the
"doesn't matter" category: if it helps you, do it. If it doesn't (or
it bothers you), don't.

Some people, out of tradition or otherwise, state vigorously that thou
shalt not eat meat. They put eating meat into the "forbidden" category,
BY LOOKING INTO SCRIPTURE, I find (at least it's my own interpretation)
that it does not matter whether you do or not.

Some people, out of tradition or otherwise, state that baptisim is 
optional. BY (oh no, here I go again) LOOKING INTO SCRIPTURE, I find 
that it is mandated.

Am I getting my point across? (probably not - just got some flame-throwers
ready) My point: tradition is nice, but only by looking into God's word
can we find out how emphatically we should follow tradition, or whether
a tradition should be followed at all.

I have seen too many people faithfully follow tradition without having
the foggiest notion as to why they are doing it. Their only reason is
"its traditional". 

The long article describing the Rosary and it's purpose was wonderful.
Obviously it can have great, scriptural, significant meaning to someone
who makes use of it. It can (not is, but can) be a great tradition. 
Unfortunately few people seem to know its meaning and most say it as if they 
were holding onto a dead fish. 

By justifying a tradition with scripture (this must be done by every person
following the tradition), we learn its true meaning and can justify its
continuation. Without scriptural meaning, tradition is just "going thru
the motions".

{$Babble off}

- Carl

jrossi@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Joe Rossi) (06/05/90)

In article <May.29.02.43.15.1990.27411@athos.rutgers.edu> ctdonath@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Carl T. Donath) writes:
>
>Am I getting my point across? (probably not - just got some flame-throwers
>ready) My point: tradition is nice, but only by looking into God's word
>can we find out how emphatically we should follow tradition, or whether
>a tradition should be followed at all.
>
>I have seen too many people faithfully follow tradition without having
>the foggiest notion as to why they are doing it. Their only reason is
>"its traditional". 
>By justifying a tradition with scripture (this must be done by every person
>following the tradition), we learn its true meaning and can justify its
>continuation. Without scriptural meaning, tradition is just "going thru
>the motions".

interesting, but how about the point of view that regards the reading of
Scripture itself in the same light?  People believe John 3:17 because
its traditional.  People believe the Doctrine because it is traditional.
I suppose for some a canonized holy book is beyond tradition, set in
stone per se, but for the life of me, I can't give my reverence to 
what I can only percieve as man writ document, passed down through
the ages, when that reverence is for God alone.

You don't understand why they pray to saints.
I don't understand, often why, we pray to Jesus.
When we can pray directly to God.
I don't understand why we can see God in the Bible,
But not in the tree that became the Bible.

I guess I can't escape the perception that even accepting things as 
God-mandated because they appear so in Holy Writ, is quite possibly a tradition
without spiritual meaning in that the assertion of knowledge of Truth in
symbolized form is itself a tradition that we become slaves to, and
in fact, end up going through the motions of having faith, but without
the real awareness of God's Love.






-- 
"...it seldom turns out the way it does in the song." 
**********************STANDARD DISCLAIMER******************************  

jhpb@garage.att.com (06/05/90)

Carl wrote:

> By justifying a tradition with scripture (this must be done by every person
> following the tradition), we learn its true meaning and can justify its
> continuation. Without scriptural meaning, tradition is just "going thru
> the motions".

There are traditions, and then there's Tradition.  Using incense, and
church bells, and things of that sort are not quite the same as what is
meant by Tradition.

Tradition stems from the Catholic idea of the Church.  It's held to be a
visible organization guided by the Holy Ghost.  The Holy Ghost ensures
that the thought of the Church through the centuries reflects the
consequences of the original revelation faithfully.  That's why
Tradition is so important.  Tradition is the historical attitude of the
Church in things related to Divine Revelation.

So, when discussing theological matters, it is important to be aware of
the history that is involved.  On issues like invoking the saints, there
is a large amount of historical precedence involved.  It's been practiced
in the West for at least 1600-1700 years now.  The guidance of the Holy
Ghost makes it a capital T Tradition, because it's so old, widespread,
and fundamental an issue.

Tradition doesn't have to be based on Scripture; Scripture itself is
only a basic Tradition.  It has no value apart from being the Tradition
of the Church.

Joe Buehler

geoff@uunet.uu.net (Geoff Allen) (06/07/90)

jrossi@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Joe Rossi) writes:
>
>You don't understand why they pray to saints.
>I don't understand, often why, we pray to Jesus.
>When we can pray directly to God.

Because Jesus *is* God.  Praying to Jesus is praying to God.

>I don't understand why we can see God in the Bible,
>But not in the tree that became the Bible.

Because Christianity isn't pantheistic.  God isn't in the tree in the
pantheistic sense.  He's only there in the sense that you can see in the
tree the wonder of His creation.  In the Bible, we see His explanation
of life to us.  In both cases, we see His work, not Him directly. 

--
Geoff Allen         \  Since we live by the Spirit, 
uunet!pmafire!geoff  \  let us keep in step with the Spirit.
bigtex!pmafire!geoff  \                    --  Gal. 5:25 (NIV)

jrossi@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Joe Rossi) (06/09/90)

In article <Jun.6.22.51.22.1990.20564@athos.rutgers.edu> pmafire!geoff@uunet.uu.net (Geoff Allen) writes:

>>When we can pray directly to God.
>
>Because Jesus *is* God.  Praying to Jesus is praying to God.

thanks for the response.  for me this answer is too simple.  one might
argue that Jesus is only one of three people in the Trinity.  in this 
respect than, he is only a mental concept of mine [partly derivative
from cultural conditioning] a bearded semetic man in a white robe 
and sandals.  Jesus taught us to pray to the Father.  He didn't
say Pray to the Father while I am here, but when I die and go to
heaven, pray to me.  Also, heavily suggested is that we pray
to God, in Jesus's name. I surmise this is akin to invoking the
name of Jesus as some sort of calling card i.e. "Tell him Jesus
sent you." Otherwise the man behind the counter will be too busy.


>>I don't understand why we can see God in the Bible,
>>But not in the tree that became the Bible.
>
>Because Christianity isn't pantheistic.  God isn't in the tree in the
>pantheistic sense.  He's only there in the sense that you can see in the
>tree the wonder of His creation.  In the Bible, we see His explanation
>of life to us.  In both cases, we see His work, not Him directly. 

Well, this is a personal opinion, but in seeing God's creative wonder in
the tree of life, I "sense" [read:  feel in my heart] more of God, than
in the Bible.  His explanation [The Bible] works for me to a limited 
degree, but it falls short on some answers, and I'm left looking at the
tree.  In the tree I see Life.  I see God as Love, and Life as Love 
alive within its own creation.  The Bible only works for me in the
same way violence works for me in suspensful movies, or the way a 
Stephen King novel works for me.  I dislike violence, but in the
drama of life, there needs to be darkness to pitch the light against.
The Bible has lot of violence, genocide, hatred, promiscuity, hypocrisy,
etc. but in the end a little light shines through:  Christ.

I'm a here and now person.  The Bible is there and then.  I see how
the here and now, there and then, made the writings of the Bible,
but somehow I don't see God's Word as being imprisoned in the past.
God is a creative God, and his creativity is expressed continously
in the words and deeds of all his children.




-- 
"...it seldom turns out the way it does in the song." 
**********************STANDARD DISCLAIMER******************************