BWA6067@TAMAGEN (01/16/90)
I've watched the discussion of "sainthood" from the Catholic
perspective with some interest up to now, but there is one
thing that really perplexes me. Maybe some of you could
provide me with the missing Biblical pieces that I lack to
complete the puzzle.
For the RCC to proclaim someone a "saint," I've seen that the
RCC must come to a consensus of some kind that the person in
question, beyond a reasonable doubt, is heaven-bound. As a
result of such veneration, that person's soul is evidently
invoked as an intercessor before God for the one who
called on the saint. OK, so far, so good.
1. What function does the saint serve that Jesus cannot?
2. What function does the saint serve that Jesus does not?
3. If a mortal man depends upon that saint for services of
intercession, is assurance "beyond a reasonable doubt" really
sufficient? What criteria are used? What if the consensus
is in error?
4. Most importantly, if #3 is possible (that the church can
determine the eternal destiny of an individual), how is it
that mere men are able to pronounce what is essentially final
judgement upon other men?
It seems to me that the practical implications of the answers
to those questions are enormous. If error in the veneration
of an individual is possible, then men who invoke that
so-called "saint" as intercessors are potentially calling
upon unrighteous souls to help them to have their petitions
known before God. That is a most precious privilege that God
has given, and I would not want to entrust it to a
potentially ineffectual intercessor.
The answer to that problem, I would suspect, is that God, in
His infinite mercy, would recognize the erroneous yet sincere
nature of the call/prayer, and would choose to hear it
despite the absence of the invoked "saint" (which is really
not a saint at all). If that is the case, then the logical
result is that Jesus would be called upon to intercede. Now
I return to my first question, and couple it with the third
one; what is the practical necessity of the "saint" if Jesus
can and will intercede with NO possibility of error? How
does John 14:1-6 apply here?
The other main problem is the great presumption of judicial
power that is required for men to judge other men without
error, if indeed that is part of the doctrine. If men can
judge other men without error, then men have assumed the
judicial power that God has explicitly reserved for Himself.
The easiest answer I can foresee is that whenever a person is
considered for sainthood, God intervenes to assure that the
consensus is the correct one. Thus, the possibility of error
is zero, and God has retained His infinite discretion in
judging mankind. But we have allowed ourselves to travel
far, far, far beyond the Scriptures in order to validate this
doctrine, and that frightens me. In fact, we began far from
the Scriptures and worked our way further out in order to get
here.
Is my reasoning correct? Is the RCC so convinced that church
tradition is equally valid as a source of God's word as the
Scriptures themselves, to the extent that said tradition may
actually SUPPLANT that which has been revealed in the Bible?
queue ball