# prayer to saints



## Scott (Jul 26, 2007)

I have criticized Roman Catholic views on prayers to saints in the past largely becasue the teaching relies on a the saints drawing on a tresury of merits. Here is a description of prayer to the saints from an Eastern Orthodox catechism:


> 263. What means of communion has the Church on earth with the Church in heaven?
> 
> The prayer of faith and love. The faithful who belong to the Church militant upon earth, in offering their prayers to God, call at the same time to their aid the saints who belong to the Church in heaven; and these, standing on the highest steps of approach to God, by their prayers and intercessions purify, strengthen, and offer before God the prayers of the faithful living upon earth, and by the will of God work graciously and beneficently upon them, either by invisible virtue, or by distinct apparitions, and in divers other ways.


Any problems with this? I have some practical problems, such as there being no reason to believe that departed Christians hear us, prayer to the saints tends to overshadow prayers to God, prayers to saints become worship (adoration) of saints and the whole system seems polytheistic. As a matter of someone praying strictly in the sense that they are asking another Christian (who happens to be departed) to pray to God, is that any more sinful than asking a living Christian to similarly pray? That is the appoach Roman apologists often take, and they usually mute or ignore the Catholic doctrine of the treasury of merits in heaven. I have not seen this idea of treasury in Orthodoxy.

The Catehcism gives this defense, which I find wholly without merit:


> 264. On what is grounded the rule of the Church upon earth to invoke in prayer the saints of the Church in heaven?
> 
> On a holy tradition, the principle of which is to be seen also in holy Scripture. For instance, when the Prophet David cries out in prayer, O Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel our fathers, he makes mention of saints in aid of his prayer, exactly as now the Orthodox Church calls upon Christ our true God, by the 486prayers of his most pure Mother and all his saints. See 1 Chron. xxix. 18.


The 1 Chron. passage does not involve David praying to the deceased. He is praying to God and addressing God with the title of being the God of these men. It is one thing to say "I pray to the God of Peter and Paul such and such" in contrast to "I pray to you, Peter, to please ask God such and such." Those are two completely different things.

Scott


----------



## raderag (Jul 26, 2007)

Interesting...

I'd be interested in you addressing prayers *for* the dead also.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Jul 26, 2007)

Scott said:


> I have criticized Roman Catholic views on prayers to saints in the past largely becasue the teaching relies on a the saints drawing on a tresury of merits. Here is a description of prayer to the saints from an Eastern Orthodox catechism:
> 
> Any problems with this? I have some practical problems, such as there being no reason to believe that departed Christians hear us, prayer to the saints tends to overshadow prayers to God, prayers to saints become worship (adoration) of saints and the whole system seems polytheistic. As a matter of someone praying strictly in the sense that they are asking another Christian (who happens to be departed) to pray to God, is that any more sinful than asking a living Christian to similarly pray? That is the appoach Roman apologists often take, and they usually mute or ignore the Catholic doctrine of the treasury of merits in heaven. I have not seen this idea of treasury in Orthodoxy.
> 
> ...


Prayer to / for the dead raises all sorts of questions and the following points need to be remembered:

a. The practise has no New Testament precedent. 
b. All believers are saints (the NT epistles, of course, address 'earthly' saints). 
c. RC saints, supposedly, have been released from purgatory. I still fail to understand how and when it happens. To me it is blasphemous nonsense! 'Purgatory', of course, is a lucrative idea! Indulgences are still obtainable! 
d. Prayer and worship is to God alone (think of the opposite in the context of idolatry and superstition). 
e. Christ's intercession is absolutely central to our prayer life (cf., e.g., Hebr. 4:14-16), and anything that deflects from it betrays a lack of faith in the sufficiency of His office as an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent Mediator (cf. John 14:6; 1.Ti.2:5), to say no more. 

We pray, of course, to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of all the saints and more important still, to the God and Father of our LORD Jesus Christ.


----------



## DTK (Jul 26, 2007)

Chrysostom was of a different mind than today's Eastern Orthodox...

*Chrysostom (349-407): There is to thee no need of mediators in audience with God; nor of that much canvassing; nor of the fawning upon others; but even if thou be destitute, even if bereft of advocacy, alone, by thyself, having called on God for help, thou wilt in any case succeed. He is not so wont to assent when entreated by others on our behalf, as by ourselves who are in need; even if we be laden with ten thousand evil deeds.* For if in the case of men, even if we have come into countless collisions with them, when both at dawn and at mid-day and in the evening we show ourselves to those who are aggrieved against us, by the unbroken continuance and the persistent meeting and interview we easily demolish their enmity — far more in the case of God would this be effected. _NPNF1: Vol. IX, Concerning Lowliness of Mind and Commentary on Philippians_ 1:18, §11.

*Chrysostom (349-407) commenting on John 16:22, 23:* “And ye now therefore have sorrow — [but I will see you again, and your sorrow shall be turned into joy].” Then, to show that He shall die no more, He saith, “And no man taketh it from you. And in that day ye shall ask Me nothing.”
Again He proveth nothing else by these words, but that He is from God. “For then ye shall for the time to come know all things.” But what is, “Ye shall not ask Me”? *“Ye shall need no intercessor, but it is sufficient that ye call on My Name, and so gain all things.”* _NPNF1: Vol. XIV, Gospel of St John_, Homily 79, §1.

And then Augustine, though a Latin father, said it so well...

*Augustine (354-430): For prayer is not righteous except through Christ, whom he sold in his atrocious sin: but the prayer which is not made through Christ, not only cannot blot out sin, but is itself turned into sin.* _NPNF1: Vol. VIII, Exposition on the Book Psalms_, Psalm 109, §9.

DTK


----------



## Scott (Jul 27, 2007)

Pastor King: Chrysostom and Augustine would not have suggested that we not ask living people to pray for us. That is the equivalence the Orthodox (and many Catholic apologists) are making to asking deceased saints to pray for us. The living and the dead are part of the Church. We can ask either to pray for us. If it is ok to ask a living person to interced for you, it is ok to ask a deceased Christian to intercede. That is how their arguments go.

Also, are you saying that Chrysostom did not pray to saints?


----------



## JM (Jul 27, 2007)

I know there are prayers for the dead in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom...

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/death/prayer_dead.aspx


----------



## DTK (Jul 27, 2007)

Scott said:


> Pastor King: Chrysostom and Augustine would not have suggested that we not ask living people to pray for us. That is the equivalence the Orthodox (and many Catholic apologists) are making to asking deceased saints to pray for us. The living and the dead are part of the Church. We can ask either to pray for us. If it is ok to ask a living person to interced for you, it is ok to ask a deceased Christian to intercede. That is how their arguments go.
> 
> Also, are you saying that Chrysostom did not pray to saints?


I am indeed aware that the scenario you offered is precisely how non-Protestants argue. Yes, I am saying that Chrysostom does not advocate other intermediaries. Non-Protestants tell us that we are not to regard the saints in heaven as dead, but alive. Chrysostom had no qualms about referring to deceased saints as "dead," whereas non-Protestants do.

Notice Chrysostom's comments on how he understands the communion of saints as opposed to present day non-Protestants... 

*Chrysostom (349-407) on the communion of saints:* Praise the Lord, my soul. Let us sing this together with David: if he is not present in body, at least he is in spirit. For proof that the righteous are present with us, and sing along with us, listen to what Abraham says to the rich man: when he said, “Send Lazarus so that my brothers may learn what happens in Hades and put their affairs in order,” he replied to him, “They have Moses and the prophets.” *Actually, Moses and all the prophets were long dead in the body, but in their writings they had them. After all, if a person sets up a lifeless image of son or dear one and thinks that person, though dead, is present, and through the lifeless image he imagines him, much more do we enjoy the communion of the saints through the divine Scriptures, having in them images not of their bodies but of their souls, the words spoken by them being of their very souls.* Robert Charles Hill, trans., _St. John Chrysostom, Old Testament Homilies, Volume Three: Homilies on the Psalms_ (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2003), Homily on Psalm 146.1, p. 116.

Moreover, notice how Augustine counters the argument of Parmenian, who was a Donatist bishop...

*Augustine (354-430):* Here the very painful thought occurs to me that I should remind you that Parmenian, who was once a bishop of the Donatists, had the audacity to state in one of his letters that the bishop is the mediator between the people and God. You can see that they are putting themselves forward in the place of the bridegroom; they are corrupting the souls of those others with a sacrilegious adultery. This is no mean case of presumption, one that would strike me as totally incredible had I not read it. *You see, if the bishop is the mediator between the people and God, it follows that we must take it there are many mediators, since there are many bishops. So then, in order to read the letter of Parmenian, let us censor the letter of the apostle Paul where he says, For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tm 2:5). But between whom is he the mediator, if not between God and his people? So between God and his body, because the Church is his body. Truly monstrous, therefore, is that pride which has the audacity to set up the bishop as mediator, guilty of the adulterous fallacy of claiming for itself the marriage of Christ.* John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., _The Works of Saint Augustine, Newly Discovered Sermons_, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 198.52 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1997), p. 220.

And then as Augustine went on to say a little later in the same sermon: "And that is what these people are neither afraid nor ashamed to say, that the bishop is a mediator between God and men. Sure, that man is a mediator, but in the party of Donatus, to block the way, not to lead the way, as Donatus himself did; he introduced his own name, you see, to close off the road to Christ." John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., _The Works of Saint Augustine, Newly Discovered Sermons_, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 198.55 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1997), p. 222.

Augustine again...

*Augustine (354-430):* But many ask for what they ought not to ask, not knowing what is expedient for them. *Two things therefore must he that prays beware of; that he ask not what he ought not; and that he ask not from whom he ought not. From the devil, from idols, from evil spirits, must nothing be asked. From the Lord our God Jesus Christ, God the Father of Prophets, and Apostles, and Martyrs, from the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from God who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all things in them, from Him must we ask whatsoever we have to ask.* But we must beware that we ask not of Him that which we ought not to ask. If because we ought to ask for life, thou ask it of dumb and deaf idols, what doth it profit thee? So if from God the Father, who is in heaven, thou dost wish for the death of thine enemies, what doth it profit thee? Hast thou not heard or read in the Psalm, in which the damnable end of the traitor Judas is foretold, how the prophecy spake of him “Let his prayer be turned into sin?” If then thou risest up, and prayest for evil on thine enemies, thy “prayer will be turned into sin.” _NPNF1: Vol. VI, Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament_, Sermon 6, §2.

So yes, their denial of many mediators in contrast to Christ as the only mediator between God and man is what they affirmed.

DTK


----------



## DTK (Jul 27, 2007)

JM said:


> I know there are prayers for the dead in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom...
> 
> http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/death/prayer_dead.aspx


Scholars today readily admit that what has come down to us today as "the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom" had a much later origin than the time of Chrysostom. 

DTK


----------



## JM (Jul 27, 2007)

DTK said:


> Scholars today readily admit that what has come down to us today as "the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom" had a much later origin than the time of Chrysostom.
> 
> DTK




I readily admit that as well and I'm no scholar...but I wonder how much is from the pen of St. John? How much was added latter? 

j


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 27, 2007)

That's bound to be some Byzantine scholar's interest. I'm willing to bet there are literary-criticism studies out there that work through the liturgy, pointing to its various sources. I'd ask a librarian for some assitance. Or an EO priest.


----------



## Scott (Jul 27, 2007)

DTK said:


> I am indeed aware that the scenario you offered is precisely how non-Protestants argue. Yes, I am saying that Chrysostom does not advocate other intermediaries. Non-Protestants tell us that we are not to regard the saints in heaven as dead, but alive. Chrysostom had no qualms about referring to deceased saints as "dead," whereas non-Protestants do.
> 
> Notice Chrysostom's comments on how he understands the communion of saints as opposed to present day non-Protestants...
> 
> ...


I am not following. The narrow (and what to me seems protestantized) argument that some Orthodox and Catholics maintain holds that saints are not mediators like Christ. Those advocating prayer to saints say that the deceased saints are other people who pray for us, like say, when one of your congregation asks you to pray. What would you call a person who is asked to prayer for another? When a member of your congregation asks you to pray for him, and you do, you are not becoming a mediator in the sense that Christ is a mediator. Some Orthodox and Catholics take this principle (that it is ok to ask other people to pray for us) and extend it to deceased Christians. So, I don't see how the passages above are implicated on this specific issue (whether it is sinful to ask departed Christians to pray) unless one were to suggest that Chrysostom and Augustine would say it is wrong to ask anyone, living or dead, to pray for another person.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 27, 2007)

Scott,
How do any of the departed saints receive any such requests to pray? That appears to be an obvious difference between asking someone "alive in the body" to pray. "Prayer" to saints is indistinguishable from spiritism, or mediumism--attempts to communicate with "the beyond".

The first quote above shows Chrysostom explaining HOW we "commune" with departed saints. By reading the Bible.

Further, *why *are we asking others to pray for us? Will God be moved simply because MORE of us are praying than FEWER, because we achieved "critical mass" in the prayer closet? Am I asking you to pray because I'm TOO BUSY? When one asks his friend or pastor to pray on his behalf, is it because he thinks "this person is holier than me, or closer (spiritually/physically/temporally) to God than me; therefore I think Jesus or the Father will listen to _him_ better than he listens to me?"

In that case, if I knew that was why I was being asked to pray for someone's need, I would be very much inclined to NOT pray for that person as he requested, but that God would take away those horribly erroneous conceptions of access to God, my/other's holiness, etc. Yes, on the subject they requested, I would probably turn them down until they had been corrected in this area.


----------



## Scott (Jul 27, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Scott,
> How do any of the departed saints receive any such requests to pray? That appears to be an obvious difference between asking someone "alive in the body" to pray. "Prayer" to saints is indistinguishable from spiritism, or mediumism--attempts to communicate with "the beyond".
> 
> The first quote above shows Chrysostom explaining HOW we "commune" with departed saints. By reading the Bible.
> ...



Bruce: I understand that communication with the dead is a dead-end. I don't think that they hear our prayers. I also think that there are clear problems with the reasons ordinary people pray to saints. For many it is worship. Many pray only to saints and don't pray to God at all. There are ahost of other problems. 

But I am interested in the issue of whether it is per se sinful for someone to ask a dead person to pray to God. This assumes that the asking party believes (wrongly, in my view) that the dead can hear the living. That mistake itself is not sinful. But is the asking itself sinful, if one stays strictly to the idea that he is just asking someone to pray for him for the same reasons he asks his pastor to pray for him? So, for the sake of this issue, assume the reasons he would ask are as legitimate as asking one's pastor or friend to pray (ie. not critical mass, more holy or whatever).


----------



## DTK (Jul 27, 2007)

Scott said:


> I am not following. The narrow (and what to me seems protestantized) argument that some Orthodox and Catholics maintain holds that saints are not mediators like Christ. Those advocating prayer to saints say that the deceased saints are other people who pray for us, like say, when one of your congregation asks you to pray. What would you call a person who is asked to prayer for another? When a member of your congregation asks you to pray for him, and you do, you are not becoming a mediator in the sense that Christ is a mediator. Some Orthodox and Catholics take this principle (that it is ok to ask other people to pray for us) and extend it to deceased Christians. So, I don't see how the passages above are implicated on this specific issue (whether it is sinful to ask departed Christians to pray) unless one were to suggest that Chrysostom and Augustine would say it is wrong to ask anyone, living or dead, to pray for another person.


Again, I know precisely how they argue - they contend that praying to saints (and they do call it "prayer") is no more than asking another living Christian to pray for you. And, of course, they claim that these saints are not mediators like Christ. But non-Protestants do refer to such saints as mediators, which is where the Romanists get the term for Mary, "co-mediatrix." And yes, they extend it to deceased Christians, and they do call it "prayer." I think these passages do apply to prayer to saints, and I simply disagree with your perspective. I affirm that Augustine and Chrysostom would never have had a problem with asking another living Christian to pray for them, but 1) they would never have called that "prayer" as non-Protestants these days do; 2) They would never have petitioned deceased (dead in body) Christians to pray for them; and 3) Their prayers to such saints also presupposes to some degree the omnipresence of whatever saint to which they appeal. Romanists do, indeed must, presuppose this when praying to Mary they say, "Hail Mary, full of grace, pray for us sinners..." When we ask another Christian to pray for us, we do not have to presuppose their omnipresence in order to do so. On the other hand, Non-Protestants must, else how could they argue that their prayer to "such and such" a saint is heard?

Moreover, Calvin understood the drift of Augustine's thought here the same as I do...

*John Calvin (1509-1564):* This babbling of the Sophists is mere nonsense: that Christ is the Mediator of redemption, but believers are mediators of intercession. As if Christ had performed a mediation in time only to lay upon his servants the eternal and undying mediation! They who cut off so slight a portion of honor from him are, of course, treating him gently! Yet Scripture speaks far differently, disregarding these deceivers, and with a simplicity that ought to satisfy a godly man. For when John says, “If anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Christ Jesus” [1 John 2:1], does he mean that Christ was an advocate for us once for all, or does he not rather ascribe to him a constant intercession? Why does Paul affirm that he “sits at the right hand of the Father and also intercedes for us” [Romans 8:34 p.]? But when, in another passage, Paul calls him “the sole mediator between God and man” [1 Timothy 2:5], is he not referring to prayers, which were mentioned shortly before [1 Timothy 2:1-2]? For, after previously saying that intercession is to be made for all men, Paul, to prove this statement, soon adds that “there is one God, and... one mediator” [1 Timothy 2:5]. 
*Augustine* similarly explains it when he says: “Christian men mutually commend one another by their prayers. However, it is he for whom no one intercedes, while he intercedes for all, who is the one true Mediator.” The apostle Paul, although an eminent member under the Head, yet because he was a member of Christ’s body, and knew that the greatest and truest priest of the church had not figuratively entered the inner precincts of the veil to the Holy of Holies but through express and steadfast truth had entered the inner precincts of heaven to a holiness real and eternal, also commends himself to the prayers of believers [Romans 15:30; Ephesians 6:19; Colossians 4:3]. And he does not make himself mediator between the people and God, but he asks that all members of Christ’s body mutually pray for one another, “since the members are concerned for one another, and if one member suffers, the rest suffer with it” [1 Corinthians 12:25-26, Cf. Vg.]. And thus the mutual prayers for one another of all members yet laboring on earth rise to the Head, who has gone before them into heaven, in whom “is propitiation for our sins” [1 John 2:2, Vg.]. For if Paul were mediator, so also would the rest of the apostles be; and if there were many mediators, Paul’s own statement would not stand, in which he had said: “One God, one mediator between God and men, the man Christ” [I Tim. 2:5], “in whom we also are one” [Romans 12:5], “if we maintain unity of faith in the bond of peace” [Ephesians 4:3]. Likewise, in another passage *Augustine* says: “But if you seek a priest, he is above the heavens, where he is making intercession for you, who died for you on earth.” [Cf. Hebrews 7:26 ff.] 
But we do not imagine that he, kneeling before God, pleads as a suppliant for us; rather, with the apostle we understand he so appears before God’s presence that the power of his death avails as an everlasting intercession in our behalf [cf. Romans 8:34], yet in such a way that, having entered the heavenly sanctuary, even to the consummation of the ages [cf. Hebrews 9:24 ff.], he alone bears to God the petitions of the people, who stay far off in the outer court. _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book III.20.20, pp. 877-878.

*John Calvin (1509-1564):* Regarding the saints who, having died in the flesh, live in Christ, if we attribute any prayer to them, let us not even dream that they have any other way to petition God than through Christ, who alone is the way [John 14:6], or that their prayers are accepted by God in any other name. *Now Scripture recalls us from all to Christ alone, and our Heavenly Father wills that all things be gathered together in him [Colossians 1:20; Ephesians 1:10]. Therefore, it was the height of stupidity, not to say madness, to be so intention gaining access through the saints as to be led away from him, apart from whom no entry lies open to them. 
But who will deny that this was commonly done in some periods, and is done even today wherever popery flourishes? To obtain God’s benevolence they repeatedly thrust forward the merits of the saints, and for the most part overlooking Christ, entreat God in their names. Is this not, I ask you, to transfer to the saints that office of sole intercession which, as we affirmed above, belongs to Christ? 
Then who, whether angel or demon, ever revealed to any man even a syllable of the kind of saints’ intercession they invent? For there is nothing about it in Scripture. What reason, then, did they have to invent it? Surely, when human wit is always seeking after assistance for which we have no support in God’s Word, it clearly reveals its own faithlessness. But if we appeal to the consciences of all those who delight in the intercession of the saints, we shall find that this arises solely from the fact that they are burdened by anxiety, just as if Christ were insufficient or too severe.* First, by this perplexity they dishonor Christ and strip him of the title of sole Mediator, which, as it has been given to him by the Father as a unique privilege, ought not to be transferred to another. Also, by this very thing they obscure the glory of his birth, and make void the cross; in fine, they strip and deprive of its praise all that he has done or suffered! For all these things lead to the conclusion that he alone is, and is to be deemed, the Mediator. At the same time they cast out the kindness of God, who manifests himself to them as the Father. For he is not Father to them unless they recognize Christ to be their brother. This they plainly deny unless they reflect that he has brotherly affection toward themselves, than which nothing can be gentler or more tender. Therefore Scripture offers him alone to us, sends us to him, and establishes us in him. “He,” says Ambrose, “is our mouth, through which we speak to the Father; he is our eye, through which we see the Father; he is our right hand, through which we offer ourselves to the Father. Unless he intercedes, there is no intercourse with God either for us or for all saints.” If they object that the public prayers they offer in churches conclude with the appended phrase “through Christ our Lord,” this is a trivial evasion. *For Christ’s intercession is no less profaned when mingled with prayers and merits of the dead than if it were completely omitted and dead men alone were mentioned. Then, in all their litanies, hymns, and proses, where they leave no honor unapplied to dead saints, Christ goes unmentioned.* _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book III.20.21, pp. 878-880.

As usual, we just don't see eye to eye on an issue. But because you don't see it - doesn't mean I don't see it. But for my part, please find yourself at perfect liberty to disagree with me. But Calvin does agree with me that their appeal to human mediators (which they claim is not the same as Christ's) does "strip him (i.e., Christ) of the title of sole Mediator." And to the extent that their prayers do that, then to that same extent such prayers are sinful.

Moreover, Deuteronomy 18:10-11 prohibits the activity of necromancy explicitly, regardless of how non-Protestants argue to the contrary...

10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, 11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a *necromancer* (which is one who through a method of divination claims alleged communication with the dead). 

At any rate, these are my thoughts.

DTK


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 27, 2007)

Scott,
Now I'm confused. Is the question: "If it wasn't a SIN (it is) to pray to the departed, then would it be OK to ask them to pray for me?" I disagree that thinking one can communicate to the beyond is just a "mistake", an "error". It's more than that--just like making a mistake about how to approach God, or mistaking the nature of God, or mistaking prostitution for just a "low class" way to make a living--those "errors" of thought or behavior, along with praying to saints, are sinful errors.

Hence, it doesn't make any sense to me to ask a question about an "internal" component of the illicit activity. I can think of some fairly gross analogies, to the situation in question, but I hope you can do that for yourself as well. It's not simply that they are making a mistake at the outset, and the mistake then leads to a sin--or maybe not, depending on the definition or defense. Its the kind of mistake being made, an immoral assumption at the beginning.


----------



## Scott (Jul 27, 2007)

> Again, I know precisely how they argue - they contend that praying to saints (and they do call it "prayer") is no more than asking another living Christian to pray for you. And, of course, they claim that these saints are not mediators like Christ. But non-Protestants do refer to such saints as mediators, which is where the Romanists get the term for Mary, "co-mediatrix." And yes, they extend it to deceased Christians, and they do call it "prayer."


A couple of points here. As you would I believe agree, there is quite a bit of diversity with Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Within Catholicism, you have the very liberal, the very conservative, traditionalists, and all sorts of others. Not all Catholics see prayer to the saints in the same way. If someone views the prayers in a non-mediatorial way, then let's examine that view. I am just exploring whether that view in itself is wrong. 

Also, "prayer" can mean many things. It can simply mean a petition or request. In law, for example, a legal complaint has a "prayer for relief," which is not religious in nature or directed at God. It is simply asking the state for relief. It seems to me that is the usage (ie. request) that some people take when talking about prayers to saints. Many have other usages.

The quotes again don't seem directed at the person with the view that asking a deceased person for help is like asking a living person for help. Calvin said this, "To obtain God’s benevolence they repeatedly thrust forward the merits of the saints, and for the most part overlooking Christ, entreat God in their names." This is clearly wrong, but is a separate issue for the person holding the view in question. It may be what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, but most Catholics have views quite different to the CCC on many points.

Also, I doubt we agree in any substantive way. We both think that prayer to the saints is wrong and I think that we could both list several reasons why that is so. I am really just focusing on a discrete issue of a particular viewpoint and trying to evaluate that. There are several links in the chain that are broken, I am just focusing on this one link and trying to evaluate it.

Scott


----------



## JM (Jul 27, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> That's bound to be some Byzantine scholar's interest. I'm willing to bet there are literary-criticism studies out there that work through the liturgy, pointing to its various sources. I'd ask a librarian for some assitance. Or an EO priest.



I found this doing a simple google:



> ASK THE PRIEST
> 
> *Question*
> 
> ...



When I was attending the GOC it was my impression that only the rubrics, hymns and antiphons changed, but I could be wrong. I've been working in a library for 15 years now and this kind of question has never come up. 



I was also given the impression the Divine Liturgy used among the Greeks has, if anything, been shortened. I'll ask on the an Orthodox forum.

Peace,

jason


----------



## Scott (Jul 27, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Scott,
> Now I'm confused. Is the question: "If it wasn't a SIN (it is) to pray to the departed, then would it be OK to ask them to pray for me?" I disagree that thinking one can communicate to the beyond is just a "mistake", an "error". It's more than that--just like making a mistake about how to approach God, or mistaking the nature of God, or mistaking prostitution for just a "low class" way to make a living--those "errors" of thought or behavior, along with praying to saints, are sinful errors.
> 
> Hence, it doesn't make any sense to me to ask a question about an "internal" component of the illicit activity. I can think of some fairly gross analogies, to the situation in question, but I hope you can do that for yourself as well. It's not simply that they are making a mistake at the outset, and the mistake then leads to a sin--or maybe not, depending on the definition or defense. Its the kind of mistake being made, an immoral assumption at the beginning.


Bruce: Think of it this way. There is a chain with several links. We know that several of them are faulty. We have a new one. I want to examine that particular link to see if it is faulty. There are numerous issues with prayer to the dead:

[1] The dead can't hear the living (they are not omniscient, omnipresent, or don't even have Superman's powers)
[2] Humans do not proffer their merits to God in exchange for his blessing. 
[3] Prayer to the saints often supplants prayer to God.
[4] Saints are often viewed as essentially divine, resulting in a sort of polytheism.
[5] Asking a dead person for help is along the same lines as asking a living person for help.

Prayer to the saints can be wrong for reasons 1-4 and each reason itself may be sufficient reason to condemn the practice, irrespective of the others. If the chain breaks at one point, the chain is broken. Still, I want to evaluate claim [5] and see if that part of the chain is broken. They rely pretty heavily on it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 27, 2007)

JM said:


> I found this doing a simple google:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The original question was not "Have there been changes as the church has gone through transplanting East to West?" (which is what that particular question seems to be addressing), but "Has there ever been a change in the liturgical form (the worship) since John Chrysostom's day?"

But it's a ridiculous claim that the liturgy is a timeless, unchanged artifact, switching out "components" notwithstanding (which itself is a kind of change). That sounds exactly like an "article of faith" dogma, assuming someone asserts it.

Besides the internet being a questionable source, they surely cannot say that their liturgy dropped out of heaven, like the Muslim's Koran; nor that such was the Petrine, Pauline, "Jeruslalem of the Apostle's" liturgy. So, it certainly did develop, the question is "by when?" it came to this present day "final form."

I'll defer to your experience, etc. But I would at least try to find a published study in liturgics that evaluates the data. DTK can probably suggest a place to begin far better than my generic "check the library."


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 27, 2007)

Scott said:


> Bruce: Think of it this way. There is a chain with several links. We know that several of them are faulty. We have a new one. I want to examine that particular link to see if it is faulty. There are numerous issues with prayer to the dead:
> 
> [1] The dead can't hear the living (they are not omniscient, omnipresent, or don't even have Superman's powers)
> [2] Humans do not proffer their merits to God in exchange for his blessing.
> ...



I feel forced now to present an analogy in full. I can come up with a similar list of logical inferences regarding the supposed value of sexual release by means of a prostitute, and at the end, I can have:
[5] The feeling of attachment with a prostitute can be along the same lines as the feeling of attachment to a spouse.

Here it comes: "Objection: 1 Cor. 6:15-16? Answer: Paul is condemning "casual sex" there. My sex with a prostitute is *FAR* from casual, believe me. Its more like what a husband and wife experience. That text evidently does not apply to me."

Connection: The person arguing for prayers to "deceased" saints being "OK" is making a similar argument. He's arguing from a supposed equivalence between living saints embodied and living saints disembodied. Likewise, the proposed argument concerning the prostitute posits an equivalence of the "feelings of love" that he has in either that situation or a marriage situation. So, he thinks he sidesteps Paul's denunciation, and all other attacks on sex-outside-marriage, because "Love Trumps All" in his reckoning. And he "feels the love."

So, does this fellow concede to the demolition of the points 1-4 he built up to get to number 5? No, of course not. To refer back to the "prayers to saints" question again, sure, he places ALL KINDS of emphasis on point 5. That's his "clincher". He doesn't care, any more than the Romanist or EO folks, that the legs have been knocked out from under the argument. #5 has a ring of plausibility to it, especially in today's climate.

The problem is, he can't ever get to #5 by a successful string of inference, and neither can the "prayers to saints" people. The wish itself--to have sex when not married, or to offer prayers to saints--IS the error.


----------



## JM (Jul 27, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The original question was not "Have there been changes as the church has gone through transplanting East to West?" (which is what that particular question seems to be addressing), but "Has there ever been a change in the liturgical form (the worship) since John Chrysostom's day?"
> 
> But it's a ridiculous claim that the liturgy is a timeless, unchanged artifact, switching out "components" notwithstanding (which itself is a kind of change). That sounds exactly like an "article of faith" dogma, assuming someone asserts it.
> 
> ...



The question is being asked by a Byzantine Catholic, about 400 years ago some Eastern Orthodox areas in Europe came under the jurisdiction of the Pope for political reasons, etc. and they are now a rite called Byzantine/Ukrainian/etc. Catholic. They still use the Divine Liturgy of St. John, so I thought the question was, is it the same 'orthodox' Divine Liturgy? The answer being, yes, it's still the old Orthodox Liturgy and hasn't been affected by Rome. [But it has in at least one place.  ] 

One person wrote:


> There have been some subtractions in certain churches. I believe churches of the slavic tradition sing the beatitudes, which was removed from the liturgy of the Greek and Antiochian churches. I think there might be another subtraction or two. But for the most part it has remained unchanged.



Another commented on the antiphons, rubrics and hymns being changed. That's what I could find so far. 



> But it's a ridiculous claim...



I'm still looking into it.



> Besides the internet being a questionable source...



I understand but we have to start somewhere, would the statement above include the posts made on the Puritan board?  



> ...I would at least try to find a published study in liturgic...



Found one!  It's 288 pages and I can't get to it until tomorrow.

Peace brother, peace.

jason


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 27, 2007)

> > Besides the internet being a questionable source...
> 
> 
> I understand but we have to start somewhere, would the statement above include the posts made on the Puritan board?



Without a doubt!


----------



## Scott (Jul 27, 2007)

Bruce: In law, if your opponent is resting on a 5 element cause of action and you believe that each of the five elements is defective, you point out the defects for each element. Even though you are persuaded on element one, the judge or jury might be more persuaded on your case against element five. You be as comprehensive as you can. That is what I am trying to do. When we criticize Arminianism, we don't look at one defect and ignore all the rest. We catalog all of them.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 27, 2007)

Scott:
I won't question your right or your motive, trying to be thorough.

I do think that if someone is clinging to that point for all its worth, then that really is the _foundation_ of his belief, not his conclusion. He hasn't concluded (In other words,) that he should pray to saints; praying to saints is something he thinks is just a good idea. And no amount of reasoning will dissuade him from that--it's predicated on the premise (conclusion in search of justification) that a person can and therefore may speak to any "living" soul at any time. This premise is false even in an earthly context, but it appeals to him as vague theory. Its a spiritual problem at this point, and reason fails to move such minds.

peace.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 28, 2007)

Scott said:


> Bruce: Think of it this way. There is a chain with several links. We know that several of them are faulty. We have a new one. I want to examine that particular link to see if it is faulty. There are numerous issues with prayer to the dead:
> 
> [1] The dead can't hear the living (they are not omniscient, omnipresent, or don't even have Superman's powers)
> [2] Humans do not proffer their merits to God in exchange for his blessing.
> ...



As Bruce intimated, what you've presented here is just a list
of reasons, not a chain of inference (and I suspect you didn't 
really see this as a "chain of inference", i.e. "if this, then that, 
and if that, then this other thing", terminating in #5).

Ultimately what any Roman Catholic will say is #5 alone - either
presented as a sort of Pascal's wager ("if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but
if I'm right, I'm gaining access to help I'd otherwise miss") or as
something which is supposed to be patently obvious ("you ask your
friends to pray for you, don't you? So why not ask the saints?")

The essence of the "wrong-ness" and really the sinfulness associated
with this practice is that a) their incorrect doctrine of the dead - they
are still finite, and therefore Thomas can't hear 98,000 prayers 
simultaneously, even if he can hear them - and b) their view of the
insufficiency of the whole Trinity, and living, human intercessors,
all of whom Scripture presents as those through whom prayer is
operative. I would contend that the position of praying to the saints
IS sin, not due to the fact that it is rank ignorance about the facts
of dead human capabilities, but because of the fact that in committing
themselves to that kind of a plan of action, they are relying on a
false remedy rather than God Himself to solve their woes. They are
abandoning Scripture and finding something that makes them more
confident that a solution to their problems will be found. This is nothing
more or less than sin.


----------

