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