Discussion continued from CorpusChristi15's "My Journey to the Truth" video....

http://www.godtube.com/bpeters1/blog/view/3455

Posting comment, please wait...

Comment on this blog:

Cancel  Save comment

Steve, thanks for clarifying your purpose in bringing up the "dead" Christians. First of all, I have an issue with seeing these brothers and sisters in Christ as completely inactive (which you seem to imply by repeatedly calling them "dead" and "not awake"). It seems that in other places, especially the Book of Revelation, those who have died in Christ are very much active, and I daresay "alive." One of the most blatant references to this is Rev 6:9, which unequivocally refers to Christian martyrs. The verses that follow (vv. 10, 11) describe how these souls "cry out in a loud voice," are given clothing (white robes, apparently to put on), and are even instructed to "be patient." It seems that inactive people who are "dead" and "not awake" (that is, inactive) would hardly need to be told to "be patient"! Furthermore, Rev 5:8 even describes the "24 elders" (traditionally interpreted as the 12 sons/tribes of Israel and 12 Apostles) offering the prayers of the "holy ones" to God. This not only portrays the dead as *active*, but it seems frighteningly close to the Catholic idea that some of those in Heaven actually offer the prayers of others TO God (which is ultimately what intercession is about). I'm not trying to say that these verses in any way "prove" the Catholic position regarding intercessory prayer. However, if you're going to claim that Scripture (particularly the verses you cited about souls being "dead" and "not awake") clashes with Catholic Tradition on the issue, it seems that (according to these verses and by your same standard of "clashing") Scripture actually clashes with Scripture (that is, what I have quoted in Revelation)!! This hardly seems like an acceptable conclusion...So which do we have to do away with? The verses or your standard of "clashing"?

bpeters1 I am anxious to comment on the texts you cite in Revelation. I see that you did not comment at all on the texts in Deuteronomy and Isaiah that I cited which speak against consulting the dead. Could you comment on those?

Steve, sure thing; I figured I would address the texts/topics one at a time. You posted: --------------------------- "Deuteronomy 18: 10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you…The Word of God says that consulting the dead is a detestable practice…" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ You make a good point, but I think that "consulting the dead" here is something differs significantly from what Catholics are doing when they ask a brother/sister in Christ who has gone before them to pray for them to the Lord. "Consulting the dead", as described here in Deuteronomy, is discussed as part of a list of Canaanite superstitious rituals, which also includes child sacrifice, augury (fortune-telling, soothsaying, diving), magic (charming and casting of spells). Another word for this sort of "consultation of the dead" is "necromancy." This practice consists of calling upon, conjuring, or summoning spirits for purposes of divining information from them. This practice is a far cry from what Catholics do when they ask saints to pray for them. Rather, a good example of "consulting of the dead" mentioned in Deut 18:11 comes from 1Sam 28:3-25, when Saul (in violation of Deut 18:11) has the Witch of Endor conjure up the ghost of the prophet Samuel. These sort of acts are superstitious and magical, and Catholics thoroughly denounce them, just as they are denounced in Deut (which suggests the "prophet" as the legitimate source of divine revelation, 18:15-18). Catholics don’t seek information, fortunes, or any sort of private revelation from "conjured up" saints (so this passage hardly applies); rather, we ask them to pray for us. When Catholics, who are all part of the same Church (the Body of the Christ who is Risen) regardless of whether their earthly lives have ended, ask each other to pray to God on each other’s behalf, we are simply obeying the command, "Pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful" (James 5:16).

1 Samuel 28:15 Samuel said to Saul, Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?
I am in great distress, Saul said. The Philistines are fighting against me, and God has turned away from me. He no longer answers me, either by prophets or by dreams. So I have called on you to tell me what to do. . . . . . We can see that Saul was also praying for help from Samuel. This is condemned. This is frighteningly close to what you promote. I think in this your defense is it looks very similar yet technically we are different in our practice. Why not have a practice that looks like the practice in the New Testament?

Steve, I'm not really sure what your second-to-last sentence means, could you clarify? Regarding your last sentence, from my perspective what we are doing is modeled after an exhortation in the NT, namely the verse I quoted previously (James 5:16). Furthermore, Saul's actions and those of Catholics are far from being "frighteningly close." Firstly, Saul finds a witch to conjure up a dead spirit (this is NOT involved in intercessory prayer! "Conjuring" and/or "divining" are not involved at all). Nor is it clear to me that Saul is "praying" to Samuel at all; rather, he's trying to get some practical advice since his other "future-telling" practices have failed! In short, Saul is guilty of necromancy, which, as I stated before, is utterly different from intercessory prayer. I take it that you're perfectly comfortable asking your friends and relatives within the Christian community to pray for you (prayer on behalf of others occurs frequently in the NT epistles). When it comes to asking others to pray for us, I do not think that you and I differ on the *content* of the requests, since this remains the same for Catholics regardless of whether the person is living or dead (Either way, I ask, "Pray for me!"). It looks to me that where we differ is in defining *who* belongs to the active part of the Christian community (and thus who we can ask to pray for us). Does this sound like a fair observation to you?

bpeters1 . . . What is your position? That the saints are not dead as is stated in several passages of the New Testament? That in spite of warnings not to consult the dead in the Old Testament you think there is a right way to consult the dead? When you pray to dead people don't you also ask them for direction just as your example of Saul?

John 14:13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. . . . . . . Jesus tells us we are to pray in His name and that this brings glory to the Father. Praying in some other name would bring glory to the person in whose name you are praying. Jesus promises to do what ever we ask. Why would we need to add anything to this wonderful promise?

Steve, all requests to saints for prayers are not made in any other name than that of the Lord. You ask why there is a need for it, and whether it is pleasing to God. I think it is pleasing to God, and I think so because by doing so, Catholics follow the instruction in Scripture to "Pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful" (James 5:16). All requests for prayers are done for the greater glory of God (who prayed for our unity so fervently in John 17), and of no one else.

There have now been three of my posts on this blog deleted by someone (GT administrator?). I have refreshed the page and seen them posted, and then the posts disappear a short time later, so it is not a posting error. This is ridiculous because I have said nothing offensive, this is a blog on my own profile, and am just engaging in discussion with a fellow Christian. Whoever you are, please stop. If you do not agree with what I say here, leave a comment showing me why you think I'm wrong rather than hiding behind a computer screen and hitting a "delete" button. Have some respect for a brother in Christ. Thanks. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve, hopefully these answers will actually remain posted (they were up for less than an hour last time). I'll try to answer each one of your questions regarding, "What is your position?" individually. (1) Do I think... "that the saints are not dead as is stated in several passages of the New Testament?" I think that the saints have physically died -- that is, their souls have been separated from their bodies, and their earthly bodies have become lifeless (i.e., dead). I believe that they will be raised and given glorified bodies (1Cor 15) at the eschaton. I believe that the souls of the saints, in spite of their lack of union with bodies, are still active, as the citations from Revelation (5:8, 6:9) indicate, and I believe that this position is not in contradiction with other verses in Scripture (which certainly indicate that "dead Christians" have physically died and will one day be raised, but which do *not* ever unambiguously state that these souls are utterly inactive. I believe that they are part of the same Christian community that you and I are a part of and I believe that they can worship and pray to God. I believe that as fellow Christians they can pray for me to God (just as you can). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (2) Do I believe "that in spite of warnings not to consult the dead in the Old Testament you think there is a right way to consult the dead?" Since those passages in the OT refer to necromancy and I believe that necromancy is wrong, I do not think that there is a "right way" to consult the dead (given the context of necromancy in which the passages define "consult"). By forbidding necromancy, these passages forbid conjuring the dead. I believe this is wrong. They forbid asking information from the dead (fortune-telling). I believe this is wrong. They forbid the casting of spells and other weird magical garbage from those who are dead. I believe this is also wrong. They DO NOT say that souls in heaven are unaware of events in the world or that they are unable to pray to God on behalf of someone in the world. I do NOT believe it is wrong to ask a brother or sister in Christ to pray for me, even if his or her physical body is dead, and I believe this because these fellow Christians are alive in the Risen Christ. They are part of Christ's Body (1Cor 12:27), which is the Church and which is alive. Paul never said, "You are part of the Body of Christ, that is, until your body dies." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (3) "When you pray to dead people don't you also ask them for direction just as your example of Saul?" Short answer: No! Long answer: I'm not sure how this would even work. I don't see or observe souls, so I don't know how they could direct me, or how I would "summon them" to do so. (This said, I will not be closed to the possibility that God may want to proclaim his will in a vision using an image of a saint, such as an apparition a la Lourdes. If this is how God wants to operate and communicate, I am not going to second guess him. However, I am not going to count on it, or say a magic word to try to make it happen, or even expect it. If a vision happens, I'll deal with it then!). I've never had a saint speak to me. I have asked saints to pray for me that God will reveal his will to me, but that's about as close to "asking for direction" from a saint as I have ever come. I also believe that some very righteous saints (such as Mary) probably know a bit more about what is "good" in my situation, and so I'll ask them to pray that I will come to understand what is a "good" action (that is, what they *may* indeed know and what *is undoubtedly* God's will). So, in conclusion: I don't ask a saint for direction as Saul did. Occasionally, I will ask a saint to pray for me when I'm in the process of discernment, much as if a friend of mine was considering entering the priesthood and if he asked me to pray for him that God's will would be revealed on the matter, I would not hesitate to offer such a prayer to God.

bpeters1 . . . Thanks for your detailed answers. You state . . . do *not* ever unambiguously state that these souls are utterly inactive . .. What words would you like the scripture to use? Does the word dead mean anything to you? The word sleep? The word sleep was used to let us know that while right now they are not responsive to us they are not totally gone, but will wake up some day. . . . 1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. . . . Who are you to require your own special words from God and not accept the words dead and asleep? . . . .

bpeters1 . . . . John 11:11 After he had said this, he went on to tell them, Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up. 12 His disciples replied, Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better. 13 Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep. 14 So then he told them plainly, Lazarus is dead, . . . .

bpeters1 . . . While Budists, Hindus and other pagan religions pray to dead people, Jews definitly do not pray to dead people. For you to assume that the Jews who believed in Jesus Christ as their Messiah all of the sudden started praying to dead people and not a word of instruction or explanation was given about this in 27 books they wrote to promote and teach Christianity is a real stretch of facts.

bpeters1 . . . . The examples you give of your prayers to saints while very much against the teaching of the New Testament are tame examples as you know I am going to read what you wrote. Here are some Catholic prayers taken off the internet from official Catholic sites. Please tell me what you think of each. I am only quoting part of them. . . . Blessed be Saint Jude Thaddeus.In all the world and for all eternity. http://www.scborromeo.org/prayers/jude1.htm . . . . . O Glorius St. Joseph, model of all who are devoted to labor, obtain for me the grace to work in the spirit of penance in expiation of my many sins http://www.scborromeo.org/prayers/joseph2.htm . . . . . . dearly beloved Mother, grant, if it be possible, that I may have no other spirit but Thine http://www.scborromeo.org/prayers/montfort.htm

Steve, I do recognize that Scripture states unambiguously that people who have died are dead (and I do agree with your interpretation of "asleep" hinting at future resurrection). I define "person" as a united body and soul, so once the two are separated, the *person* is *dead*. What I do not see is an unambiguous statement in Scripture which says that the *soul* is inactive upon separation from the body. This is what I meant in my previous post. I totally agree that when people are dead, they are dead (nothing happening there until the resurrection). But the activity of *souls* of those people is what I'm getting at. Along with the passages from Revelation, Luke 16:19-31 seems to describe some sort of activity of the soul after it has been separated from the body (granted, this is stated within a parable and it was not meant as a metaphysical statement when it was written, so it is not a "proof"....but I don't see anything in Scripture which is close to saying or "proving" that souls are inactive after a person dies).

Saint Michael, Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil. http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pray0045.htm . . . . . . Virgin full of goodness, Mother of mercy,I entrust to you my body and my soul, my thoughts and my actions, my life and my death. My Queen, come to my aid http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/english/p00073b.htm . . . . . . . Virgin Mother, Salvation of the Roman People! Watch over, I pray you, the beloved Diocese of Rome: . . . .
http://www.ewtn.com/Devotionals/prayers/immaculate_conception.htm . . . . . . Let me know if these are true examples of Catholic prayers to dead people or not.

Steve, some Catholics have in the past gotten a bit carried away with devotion to the saints. I'm offering an account of my position on intercessory prayer and what I think is pretty mainstream among Catholics. Even so, I'll take a shot at the prayers you mention (remember, these are NOT "obligatory" prayers which all Catholics say or anything...these are the prayers of *some* Catholics, and they're pretty old prayers....) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Blessed be Saint Jude Thaddeus..." What's wrong with calling someone blessed? I have a wonderful wife, and I'm very blessed to be married to her! St. Jude led an amazing life devoted to Christ, and his union with Christ is quite a blessing indeed! I'd certainly say he's been blessed, and so I don't have a problem referring to him as blessed... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"St. Joseph...obtain for me the grace to work in the spirit of penance in expiation of my many sins." Catholics have in the past spoken of a "treasury of merit" from the saints which can be "tapped into" and given to the rest of us....this idea comes from a very complicated history, and to be honest, I think there are better ways of describing the function of grace and intercession. However, there's a way of interpreting this prayer that helps: "obtain" can mean "go after." The request to "go after" grace can mean to "go to God" (forgive the geographical imagery) and ask that grace be given to the penitent person. All grace comes from God through many things (prayers, sacraments....) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dearly beloved Mother, grant, if it be possible, that I may have no other spirit but Thine." Mary's spirit was one of humility and obedience to God, so first of all that's what this prayer is asking for. Second of all, "grant" is meant as "make happen." That is shorthand for "Go to your Son and ask him to make possible [fill in the blank]".

bpeters . . . . You are a very intelligent person. I would like to think you sincerely love God and not just your religion. I wonder when you stand before God in judgement, as we all will, He will buy into your redefinition of the words both in Scripture and in the prayers of catholics. Not being a catholic myself I can tell you that I see you calling a spade not a spade. If words as simple as grant and obtain no longer mean grant and obtain, then I have to wonder what motivates you to redefine words. Do you love truth more than tradition or tradition more than truth. Truth in this case being as simple as the normal everyday definition of words. . . . . The phrase: Blessed be Saint Jude Thaddeus.In all the world and for all eternity, is a rendering of praise and glory to Jude that belongs only to God himself! . . . . . I would like to read your comments on the remaining prayers.

Steve, I do indeed sincerely love God. Before I address the other prayers you've gathered up around the internet, let me answer your charge about me "standing before God." First of all, these prayers are not my words, so I'm confused as to why you think that I'd be held accountable for them on the Last Day. They are prayers of other Catholics. So, second of all, what I'm trying to do (which you asked me to do!) is give an explanation of them that fits in with the rest of Catholic teaching. Sure, at first glance they may look problematic (I'm assuming this is why you picked them). However, you can't just take your gut reaction from a non-Catholic perspective and judge them at face value. To preserve any intellectual integrity, you must recognize that since they were written by a Catholic within a Catholic community, they presuppose a Catholic understanding of theology and even terminology. A lot of them weren't even written in English but translated from Latin! So before accusing me of "redefining" words, consider the possibility that such words, which in many cases were written (i.) hundreds of years ago (ii.) in a different language (iii.) by a Catholic, may have been intended by their author to mean something *other than* what you, a contemporary English speaking non-Catholic may mean. I'm just trying to explain these prayers in a way that shows what they might mean from a Catholic perspective. But keep in mind: they are not my prayers, and I am limited in my own understanding of what they meant to the original author. That said, some clarifications on what I've already offered, since you seem to have misunderstood what I said... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) The prayer to St. Jude isn't rendering "praise and glory" to him, it's acknowledging that he has has been blessed by his unity with Jesus (thus he is called blessed) and that all it's going to be that way everywhere ("in all the world") and always ("all eternity"). Do oppose the use of "eternity" because you think his unity with Jesus, and thus his blessedness, will be taken away someday? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (2) I explained "obtain" as "go after". I don't really see what else it means: to obtain a thing, you have to go get it from somewhere/someone/something. That somewhere/one/thing is God, who Catholics believe is the only source of grace. Furthermore, grace is not a commodity or a quantifiable "stuff", so it's not as if Joseph could ship it via FedEx after he's "obtained" it or anything. Rather, grace is a ***free gift from God of his very self***. This can only come from God and be ultimately given by God. So how could Joseph "obtain" it for the person praying? Why, by asking God to freely give it to that person! This is intercession. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (3) I defined "grant" as "make happen." Would rather define it as "allow" or "give"? But this requires something like omnipotence, which is only proper to God. Catholics recognize this, so as it is used here, "grant" *cannot* mean allow or give (unless it's the case that God first gave Mary something to in turn give, in which case I won't question God's purposes in doing so). Therefore, I think "make happen" is the most helpful explanation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One more thing: you seem to argue that since Jews don't pray to dead people, there's no reason that as soon as they become Christian they would start. While I appreciate your turning to the Jewish roots of Christianity, the first Christians did a lot of things that Jews didn't/don't, so your reasoning doesn't hold up. Jews didn't call a man "God" (as Thomas does in John 20:28), Jews didn't eat pork (many of the first Christians did), Jews were all circumcised (many of the first Christians were not)....and I'm sure that you understand my point so I'll stop. Interestingly, although I'm not at the moment aware of any Jews who prayed to the dead for intercession (except in 2Macc 15:11-17 which is somewhat ambiguous), there is evidence that at least some Jews did pray FOR the dead (2Macc 12:42-25; even if *you* or *they* do not regard this book as canonical, 2Macc is still worthy as a source for a historical claim). If I am not mistaken, I believe some Jews still pray for the dead. However, prayer for the dead is another matter entirely, so I'll leave it at that. Back to my original point, you can't say that just because Jews didn't pray *to* the dead, early Christians didn't, because the first Christians were quite revolutionary, had a different understanding of "community" than Jews, and did many things that Jews didn't....

...back on the effort to explain Catholic prayers to non-Catholics, no mean task indeed.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You quoted, "Saint Michael, Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil." I'm taking it that you see this as a dead person being "conjured back up" to fight. However, Michael *is not* and *never was* a human being, and he never died; Michael is an angel (and always has been), and Scripture records him "fighting" in a number of places, most notably Rev 12:7. So since he's an angel and not a human, I don't see how this fits our discussion, other than the fact that we call him a "saint" (holy person). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. . . You quoted, "Virgin full of goodness, Mother of mercy,I entrust to you my body and my soul, my thoughts and my actions, my life and my death. My Queen, come to my aid." Let's break it down: "Full of goodness" refers to her life of obedience and, in a physical sense, the "goodness" that dwelt inside of her, Jesus!..... "Mother of Mercy": I ask you, who is Mercy? Jesus! Who is Jesus' Mother? Mary! ==> Mary = Mother of Mercy...... "I entrust to you...[etc]...my death." Why would Catholics "entrust" themselves (i.e. consider themselves cared for) to Mary? Perhaps because we see her as not only Christ's mother, but our mother as well. Why would we think such a thing? Jesus refers to her as the beloved disciple's mother in John 19:27a. Paul says "I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me" (Gal 2:20). Since Christ lives within us, our mothers are his, that is Mary! Paul also says that we are the body of Christ, and who is the mother of the body of Christ? You get the idea....... "My Queen": Reference to imagery in Rev 12:1. I know you don't think this image is of Mary, but you wanted a Catholic explanation....... "Come to my aid": How can Mary come to our aid? By asking her Son (intercession) to give it to us by whatever means he chooses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Virgin Mother, Salvation of the Roman People! Watch over, I pray you, the beloved Diocese of Rome." Again breaking it down... "Virgin Mother": Do you have a problem with this? If so, I'm not even going to try...."Salvation of the Roman People": I am myself a bit uncomfortable with calling Mary "Salvation", but I'll try to explain why some Catholics do this. First of all, I think we both agree that *Jesus* is "Salvation." That said, the entry of "Salvation" (Jesus) into the world is only possible because Mary accepted God's plan: "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word" (Luke 1:38). In doing this, she became the means by which "Salvation" (Jesus) from God came into the world. Referring to her as "Co-redemptrix" or "Salvation" is ultimately shorthand for this sort of idea, that God worked through her to bring about the salvation of all. However, this usually confuses people, so I don't tend to use these terms.......Watch over, I pray you, the beloved Diocese of Rome": A simple request for her to "pay attention" to our needs (this is a primary example of "pray" being used as "ask". Note, it does not say "I pray to you", but "I pray you"). There also is an implied request for aid, which as I explained before, comes in the form of intercession (asking her Son to help us). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve, this has taken up way too much time, and I hope I've explained this to you thoroughly and that you appreciate my efforts. We seem to have gotten way off topic, so now I think that I deserve the chance to ask you some questions. How again does our practice of asking brothers and sisters in Christ to pray for us to the Lord contradict Scripture? I'm asking this in a *general* sense, so please don't go around digging up prayers you find on the internet, since explaining them is very time consuming and you don't seem to take my efforts very seriously. What is wrong with the idea in general? Also, if you want to talk about "calling a spade a spade," explain to me how Rev 5:8 and Rev 6:9 refer to totally inactive ("dead", "asleep") souls. I also have some questions for you regarding authority (OT only?) for the first generation of Christians, questions which I have previously asked but have either been deleted by someone or remained unanswered since we've launched into examination of the specific prayers of other people. I'll save those questions for later.

Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. . . . . . . Nowhere in Scripture is it stated that the 24 elders were once human. Do you want to build a doctrine on a supposition? Likewise no basis to think that having bowls full of prayers is in any way a form of intercession. . . . . . . . . Acts 10:4 Cornelius stared at him in fear. What is it, Lord? he asked. The angel answered, Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God. . . . . . . . . We see here that God heard and answered Cornelius prayers without the need of any intercessor. Why complicate something that works so well?

Revelation 6:9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. 10 They called out in a loud voice, "How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?" 11 Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and brothers who were to be killed as they had been was completed. . . . This text is God's view and relationship to the Martyrs . . . 1 Thessalonians 4:13 Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. 14 We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. . . . This text is our view and relationship to departed believers, for us they are dead or asleep.

Matthew 6:6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. 9 "This, then, is how you should pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, . . . . . . Jesus taught his followers to pray to the Father, not to anyone else. Why would we want to go against this simple and clear teaching? Jesus promises that our Father will reward us. What else could we want? Why would we expect more if we go against this specific teaching?

Luke 11:1 One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples. 2 He said to them, When you pray, say: Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come. . . . . . . The Word of God in the New Testament is not silent on how to pray, there is no void that needs to be filled by extra Biblical teaching. We are to pray to the Father.

John 14:13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. . . . . . . Jesus tells us we are to pray in His name and that this brings glory to the Father. Praying in some other name would bring glory to the person in whose name you are praying. Jesus promises to do what ever we ask. Why would we need to add anything to this wonderful promise?

John 16:26 In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. 27 No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. . . . . . . . Here Jesus even minimizes his intercessory work, since the Father himself loves us. Why would we need additional mediation? If God the Father loves us then why would we need additional mediation?

Romans 8:26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will. . . . . . . Here we see that the Holy Spirit intercedes for us. Why would we need any other intercession? Can any other intercessor know God's will?

1 Timothy 2:1 I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time. 7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles. 8 I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. . . . . . . . Note from verse 1 and verse 5 that this passage is dealing with prayer and states that there is only one mediator, the man Christ Jesus.

Regarding the martyrs in Rev 6:9, I want to make sure that I understand what you're saying. From your statement, I've gathered that you're saying: souls are not completely inactive after the body dies, but they are only active in relation to God, and that they are "asleep" with respect to human beings on earth, to whom they are "dead" and have no relation (I still don't see how you get this second part from 1Thess 4:13, in which Paul addresses their *bodily* and *physical* status as "dead" or "asleep'; but bracket that concern for the moment...). This is an interesting distinction to draw, but one part of it confuses me. If the dead in heaven are totally ignorant/oblivious/asleep with respect to people on earth, why is it that the one spoken line they utter (Rev 6:10) has as its subject the "inhabitants of the earth," that is, those humans who are physically alive! It looks to me like they're very much concerned with the physically living people on the earth, and are by no means oblivious to them! Can these souls be preoccupied with physically living human beings and yet be utterly "dead" to them, as you seem to have claimed?

Thank you for your thorough list of biblical citations regarding prayer to the Father, Son, and Spirit. I completely agree with you that as Christians we need to pray to the Father as Jesus taught us. You should note that this is why the Lord's Prayer ("Our Father") is said at every Roman Catholic Mass, and encouraged to be prayed privately by Catholics on a daily basis as well. We Catholics indeed follow this teaching of Jesus. That said, Matthew 6:9 does not say, "This is the ONLY way you are to pray....", nor does Luke 11:2 say, "When you pray, ONLY say...." If this were the case, we wouldn't be even be able to address prayer to the Son and Spirit as well (and this certainly won't do...). There is certainly room for other types of prayer as well. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Before I answer some of your questions about prayer, I want to clarify an issue. You seem to be using "prayer" in a single sense, as if Catholics "pray to saints" just as they "pray to God." There is a distinction here, for we do not treat these categories in the same way (and as a Catholic, I am certainly qualified to say this!). Prayer to God is a much broader category than prayer to saints. Prayer to God not only includes asking or petitioning, but giving glory and honor due to God, offering praise, and seeking communion with the Divine. Prayer to saints in a narrower category which can basically be reduced to "asking" (I say "basically" since in the process of asking, we often recognize or meditate upon a saint's holy life as a reminder of how we too should live lives devoted to God). So, when I "pray" to Mary, Thomas, Maximilian Kolbe, etc, I am *asking* them as fellow Christians to pray for me. These two categories should not be conflated or else a lot of confusion will result. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You wrote, "We see here that God heard and answered Cornelius [sic] prayers without the need of any intercessor. Why complicate something that works so well?" God can certainly hear and answer any individual's prayers. This said, would you claim that there is there nothing good about asking other people to pray for you as well? Scripture even commands that we pray on behalf of one another (Jas 5:16, 1Tim 2:1). Even so, why do this if we have a "direct line" to the Father? Probably because God wants us to be a single body in loving communion with one another (a theme which is so prevalent in 1John and the Gospel of John). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I addressed your concern about praying to the Father above: What about praying to the Spirit and Son? Where does Jesus say, "Praying to the Father is the ONLY way to pray?" Even if Jesus meant "ONLY" (which I don't think he did), how do we know which category of "pray" Jesus would be referring to? It's clear that Jesus certainly asked many things of many people in the Gospels, so it appears he wouldn't be putting limitations on who one can *ask* something of.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You say "Praying in some other name would bring glory to the person in whose name you are praying. Jesus promises to do what ever [sic] we ask. Why would we need to add anything to this wonderful promise?" All prayer, including *asking* others to pray for us, is done in God's name and for the greater glory of God. Thus it does not bring glory to another person (any more than I would bring glory to you by asking you to pray for me) so much as it does saddle them with a request. Once again, praying for the rest of the Christian community is not an "addition" since it is commanded in Scripture. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If God the Father loves us then why would we need additional mediation?" If you want to go that route, I'd have to ask you what the point of the Incarnation is! Clearly the Father loves us, and clearly Jesus is the one mediator between God and humans (1Tim 2:5). However, this doesn't mean that we can't pray for each other!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You say, "Here we see that the Holy Spirit intercedes for us. Why would we need any other intercession? Can any other intercessor know God's will?" When my wife's father was having surgery, she asked friends of ours to pray for him. Should she have not have done this? Did it show a lack of confidence in the Holy Spirit? This is hardly the case! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You quote 1Tim 2:1-8, noting that it is about prayer and asserts that Jesus is the one mediator (by now you have claimed that (i.) the Father needs no mediation since he loves us (ii.) the Spirit is the only intercessor, and (iii.) the Son is the only mediator... I have to question your use of "only" in this collection of assertions). But Steve, you have to recognize that verse 1 of that same passage tells us to make prayers and intercessions for each other, and since it's only 4 verses later that Paul calls Jesus the only mediator, there is surely not a problem with making prayers and intercessions for other people and recognizing Jesus as the one mediator, unless Paul was schizophrenic or something. Here's what it looks like to me: you've claimed that asking saints to pray for us blatantly contradicts Scripture. It seems that you can argue two routes (1) that the request to pray for each other is unbiblical (but this seems ludicrous), (2) that some people "don't count" as active members of the Christian community (who you can ask to pray for you) since their bodies are dead. Just so I can get a handle on your objection, which of these routes are you arguing?

bpeters1 . . . At least two of the prayers I posted were prayed by Popes so I don't think you want to distance yourself from them or accuse the person praying of not knowing what they were praying! In the accepted Webster definition of the words used in the prayers the people praying are asking the dead people and angels to: defend us, I entrust to you, watch over, obtain for me the grace and grant. For one of these praise is given to one of these dead people as: blessed In all the world and for all eternity. So by the words used you are praying to these dead people and an angel as if they are gods in the sense that they grant and do. Denying the definition of words is no excuse. The millions of people who pray like this around the world are taking the words for what they mean and are praying to other gods. . . . . . . . For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned. Matthew 12:37

bpeters . . . We have so far established these points: 1) Praying to dead people is non-biblical in the sense that it is not taught in the Jewish Old Testament Scriptures nor in the Christian New Testament Scriptures. 2) By the normal Webster definition of words, these prayers are to gods other than the one God Jehova as they are asking other enteties to do what only God is to do. 3) These prayers go against the teaching of the New Testament Scriptures which clearly teach us to only pray to God.

Steve, you asked for an explanation, and I gave one to you...I can't say that I'm surprised that you disagree with it. I think I gave a pretty fair interpretation of the words in question, so if you want to restrict yourself to a closed-minded and singular definition of polyvalent words used in contexts which are alien to your common experience, it's your own choice to remain in willful ignorance. You say, "The millions of people who pray like this around the world are taking the words for what they mean and are praying to other gods." If this is so, how come these people (I assume you mean "Catholics", and by the way we are 1 billion strong, not just millions) would deny that they worship "gods"? I have never met a real Catholic who claims to be worshiping "gods": the only Catholics I know strongly assert (in full awareness of their requests to saints to pray for them) that they worship only ONE God, who is Triune. If these Catholics are in fact knowingly using your narrow definitions, why would this be the case? You're clearly taking your interpretation of terms and projecting it onto practices which you either (a) don't agree with, or (b) can't understand (despite my concerted efforts to explain them to you). If you want to remain invincibly ignorant, there's not much I can do.

Regarding the points that you (not "we"; don't give yourself too much credit because you have certainly not convinced me of anything) have established: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "1) Praying to dead people is non-biblical in the sense that it is not taught in the Jewish Old Testament Scriptures nor in the Christian New Testament Scriptures." Since I've explained how I'm using these terms multiple times, I'll assume that by "pray" you here mean "ask" and by "dead" you mean "physically/bodily dead". This said, I don't have a problem with this point of yours. Although asking others to pray for you IS explicitly taught in the NT (Jas 5:16, etc), the specific instance of asking deceased Christians to pray for you is not explicitly mentioned. But, I might add, neither is it explicitly forbidden. As I pointed out before, many things are not explicitly mentioned in the OT/NT which Christians believe/do, such as the Trinity, logging onto GodTube, etc....Plus, your original goal was to "prove" to me that the practice of asking saints to pray for me (which I consider part of Christian Tradition) is explicitly contradicted in Scripture. Your point here in (1) does nothing to accomplish this goal of yours (rather, it only claims that the practice is not mentioned in Scripture)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"2) By the normal Webster definition of words, these prayers are to gods other than the one God Jehova as they are asking other enteties [sic] to do what only God is to do." Let me examine the words with which you take issue....... (A) "Defend": Michael the Archangel fights (Rev 12:7), so this isn't something "only God is to do." Thus, it's not elevating Michael to "godhood." Rather, it is only recognizing him for what he does as an angel, and asking him (a fellow follower of God) to stand in solidarity by fighting with the one who is praying. People speak to angels throughout the OT/NT, so I'm confused by your objection here. (B) "Entrust": Webster has, "to commit to another with confidence", where I said, "consider oneself cared for". These two definitions seem to pair up quite nicely! (C) "Watch over": Webster has, "to be attentive" where I said, "a request...to pay attention to one's needs". Was I distorting something here? (D) "Obtain": Webster has, "to gain or attain" where I said, "go after" and "to go get it from somewhere/one/thing." Are these two definitions at odds? To say "gain" or "attain" implies a source, just as I recognized... (E) "Grant": Webster has, "to consent to carry out for a person" and "to permit as a favor", where I said, "make happen" after specifically ruling out "allow" or "give" (except in the extraordinary circumstance in which God would give something to someone to in turn pass on, in which case I won't question God's motives) since Catholics consider God as the only omnipotent Being. How might a saint "consent to carry out" (as Webster has) a request by a fellow Christian? Like I said, by asking God to do it. Sometimes you have to think about how a word is used in a situation by taking into account the other theological claims which characterize the context rather than blindly assuming a singular definition and valuing it over all other considerations in a given circumstance. I think I have been completely fair here in my treatment of words; certainly as fair as (I would say inordinately MORE fair than) you have been by restricting a soul's activity to the sphere of relation to God when that very soul explicitly voices concern about "inhabitants of the earth" (Rev 6:9). Such a claim looks to me suspiciously like an instance of another word contained in the venerable Webster dictionary: "eisegesis." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"3) These prayers go against the teaching of the New Testament Scriptures which clearly teach us to only pray to God." Let me reiterate one thing here first: (i.) you're using "pray" ambiguously again (recall my distinction about "pray" as "ask" when used with respect to saints). What Scriptural passage specifically includes the restriction of "only" in asking something of someone? I don't think you've established this yet...

(By the way, I find it interesting that you've reverted back to attacking the prayers of others rather than the points that I have made myself. Could you explicitly answer my question about which route you're taking in your argument? (#1 or #2, posted 3/24, 1pm)

bpeters1 . . . . . I have no answers of my own. The Word of God speaking about our relationship to believers that have died. They are dead or asleep. Scripture says we are not to consult the dead. We do not try to talk to people who are asleep unless we want to wake them and only the voice of Christ will wake the dead. The Word of God gives us much teaching in the New Testament about how to pray and we are only to pray to God. A very small sampling of Catholic prayers show that you pray to saints to ask them to grant, protect, etc. etc. . . . . . . . We can win the argument but do not loose your soul. I don't complete subjection to God's Word does not require you to redefine God's Words nor your words.

Steve, since you claim that the request for saints to pray for a believer is an instance of Tradition in direct conflict with Scripture, in order to prove your point, you are obligated to show a direct contradiction with the practice *as described by a practicing Catholic* with a reading from Scripture. All I have to do to defend myself is show that there is not a contradiction by offering a reasonable alternative interpretation of Scripture or by explaining how the practice in question is not necessarily at odds with the passage. I'll give a brief summary of how your points below fall short of your attempt to prove a contradiction... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Scripture says we are not to consult the dead." I looks like here you're referring back to Deut 18:10 and the text from Isaiah, which as I showed before, are explicitly referring to "necromancy", not intercessory prayer. Your argument is based on loosely throwing two disparate ideas together under the category of "consulting the dead." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Believers that have died. They are dead or asleep....We do not try to talk to people who are asleep unless we want to wake them and only the voice of Christ will wake the dead." "Asleep" is a biblical euphemism for "dead", as in, the body is no longer functioning. However, this says nothing about the activity of the soul after it is separated from the body. You've not shown me a verse about souls of the deceased being utterly inactive. Being physically dead (which is described by verses you have offered) does not require that one's soul be completely inactive or "asleep".... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The Word of God gives us much teaching in the New Testament about how to pray and we are only to pray to God." Again, you ignore the distinction about prayer to God and prayer to saints (which is restricted to "asking", see 3/24, 1pm). Also, you have not been able to provide me with a Scriptural passage which includes the all-important "ONLY" clause (pray ONLY like this) that you seem to be reading into it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "A very small sampling of Catholic prayers show that you pray to saints to ask them to grant, protect, etc. etc. . . . . . . .complete subjection to God's Word does not require you to redefine God's Words nor your words." I just showed you how my interpretation of those words is no real "stretch", even by your Webster standards. I respect that you're coming from a different background and so your interpretation of certain terms and Scriptural verses is going to differ from my own. All I ask is that you return the favor. However, by claiming that parts of Tradition are in direct conflict with Scripture, you've implied that there are parts of the Bible which directly and unambiguously contradict elements of Tradition. Until you've proven this (which you haven't yet), your claim about parts of Tradition in conflict with Scripture is unfounded.

bpeters . . . . . . . You will be judged by what you do and not what you 'describe' as what you do. You complained about having to give shuch long explanations for the prayers of catholics and popes. You were not happy with them at face value. Whenever you pray to a saint or an angel you are doing that instead of praying to God. . . . . . . My job is not to prove anything to you. . . . . . . I am just a servant of God that came along to point out how you have strayed from the Word of God. . . . . . If you are happy with your reinterpretation of God's Words and the words in the prayers of catholics then you can invest your life and soul in that. It is not my job to judge you. God is the judge.

My purpose in "describing" what I do is to help you understand it, for you clearly do not. And for the record, my complaint was that you dragged up a significant number of these prayers and then didn't seem to appreciate my lengthy explanations, for you completely disregarded much of what I said (as evident by your refusal to acknowledge a way in which a word is used which differs from your own use of it). It may not be your job to prove anything to me....but if you're going to go around making assertions like "elements of Catholic Tradition are in direct and irreconcilable conflict with Scripture" (or something along those lines), you'd best be ready to back yourself up. Making claims which you cannot adequately defend is a risky practice. The only way that you can prove your claim is to show a direct conflict between a Scriptural passage and the practice of intercessory prayer which I have described (for as an educated Catholic I am certainly an adequate source of information regarding this practice, which is, after all, part of my faith tradition and not yours). I'm not here to make accusations or to tell you "here's what's wrong with your faith"; in fact I hope your faith in Jesus leads you to everlasting life with the Triune God together with the rest of Christ's Body, the Church. I'm just here to defend the Catholic Church against false accusations made against her. If you want to level accusations at the Catholic Church, be my guest...but I would hope that you're ready to prove your point.

Throughout your posts you need to use words in definitions other than what a Webster's definition would define them as. If words have no standard definition then obviously Scripture cannot show you the error in tradition. This is about the equivalent of me trying to check mate you in chess when you get to make up the rules as we go along. I still think you are a very intelligent person, I'm am sure the emptiness of founding a belief on radical redefinition of words. I do understand what you are saying, I just have to point out that words don't mean what you redefine them to mean. We have only partially touched on how you pray to multiple minor gods. We could continue and show that you also encourage making idols and images of these minor gods to practice idolatry, but I can save us both the trouble of argument, because I suspect you would redefine the actions of making an image and bowing down in front of it, touching it, lighting candles to it and so on as actions that don't really mean what they look like and the Word of God strongly condemning idolatry does not refer to what you do. So it is not surprising that you wind up with something that you call Christianity but looks, tastes and feels like pagan idolatry to multiple little gods. I pray that you also will obtain forgiveness and eternal life before you die. Because I love you and desire this I have to point out the errors of a doctrine built on the redefinition of words.

Steve, as I explained before (3/25, 10:43pm), my definitions don't clash with those in the Webster dictionary. However, in my explanations, I use these terms in ways that you clearly wouldn't. This doesn't mean that I'm "redefining" rules of a chess game to escape defeat. Did you ever consider that my "game of chess" may, from the very beginning of the game, have different rules than yours? That is, might it be the case that our faith traditions are not the same "game", but rather two different games with different uses of terms ("rules")? I'm not *changing* definitions (I think I've actually used them pretty consistently!): on the contrary, I'm using terms and ideas in a way which consistently functions within my Catholic culture. Here's the thing: you came into MY game by attacking Catholicism! So, do you expect me to defend a Catholic practice by implementing non-Catholic use of terminology and ideas? Talk about unreasonable expectations! Can you imagine the confusion which would result if, for instance, a Catholic started talking with a Lutheran about "justification" or "sacrament" (terms which are used in very different ways by each tradition) and expected the Lutheran to automatically use "justification" and "sacrament" in the Catholic sense? It would be chaos! The only reasonable thing for each party to do is lay out what it means and how it uses terms, and THEN start a discussion from there. I've shown you what I mean. If calling my exhibition of what I mean "redefinition" makes you feel better about yourself and about implying that I'm bereft of "forgiveness" and in danger of missing out on "eternal life" unless I eschew my Catholic faith, then fine. But remember, you made a claim about Catholicism being internally inconsistent (i.e., that parts of Tradition contradict the Bible). That is, you stepped onto the Catholic chessboard when you claimed that Catholic Tradition is inconsistent with its own Scripture.... and by refusing to respect how Catholics use terms and ideas and by playing by your own rules, you disqualify yourself from the game.

Steve, I do want to let you know that I appreciate your concern about me and about proper worship being given only to God. And I do want to let you know that I think you have a point: anyone who prays to saints in a manner which offers them worship as to a deity is wrong; anyone who practices necromancy is unchristian; and anyone who uses the word "grant" in reference to Mary *as if she were* omnipotent or uses the word "obtain" *as if* anyone other than God is the ultimate source of divine grace is indeed engaging in a practice which contradicts Scripture.... However, genuine Catholics are not guilty of doing these things. Catholic teaching forbids these practices, and this is why I have interpreted the prayers you offered in the way that I did. If the prayers you mentioned are prayed by someone in a manner which replaces God with a saint, it is wrong...but it is also not Catholic. I do appreciate your warning about such practices, for they are dangerous to one's spiritual health and simply unorthodox. But, by asking fellow Christians who have gone before us to pray on our behalf to the Triune God, Catholics are not engaging in the practices I have just described. Rather, as a unified Body of Christ (1Cor 12), we're praying for each other (Jas 5:16) as we live in faith, hope, and love (1Cor 13) and await the day which we will all be one in Christ Jesus (John 17).

In view of your latest comment, what do you think of this statement then? 'suppliantly invoke them and have recourse to their prayers, their power'. Does 'their power' cross the line?

Steve, that's an interesting question. I guess I'd have to know more about the context surrounding that excerpt in order to pass any sort of final judgment, but here's my first reaction: if "power" is meant as "power apart from God", then it would be unacceptable (for such "power" is truly sin, which is in fact weakness). However, there are many cases in which God gives his servants power to exercise, or in which God exercises power through his servants (the distinction between these two can be hard to draw in cases where a servant is cooperating with God in accomplishing God's will). Examples of God (specifically, Christ) giving power to his servants include Luke 9:1, Matt 16:19, John 20:23, Mark 16:15-18. If it's this kind of power (given to saints by God) which the excerpt refers to, I don't think it crosses the line at all. I acknowledge that referring to the "power of a human" may seem unsettling, especially when we read Jesus declare, "ALL power in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matt 28:18). But I think it's important to remember what Jesus says next, addressing his followers: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit." Jesus has all power, and at the same time, his servants are in turn given power from him to do his will by bringing other people closer to God. Are you comfortable with this notion of "power" given by God to his servants? (I know that you consider souls to be inactive after separation from the body, but I ask this as a question in a general sense, that is, as a question applying to active servants of God, whomever they might be).

Upon further reflection, consider what kind of power the bodiless soul of a saint could have: he or she clearly couldn't exercise power through physical interaction (which would require a body). It would seem that these righteous saints could effectively exercise power by praying to God, for "the fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful" (Jas 5:16). In fact, the way in which the comma is used in the excerpt you quoted seems to imply that their power IS, in fact, prayer: "have recourse to their prayers, their power."

Again the words and phrases used in these prayers make it very clear they expect the dead people and angel(s) they pray to, to have power in and of themselves. The language is the language which one uses to pray to gods. You try and clean up the language pointing out that surely they cannot be praying what their words say as that would be incorrect Biblically. Why not be true to scripture and tell them to pray just like Jesus taught us to pray. The teaching goes agains the Bible because it teaches people to pray in a different way then how Jesus taught us to pray.

Once again, to continue my message ad nauseam, you're not respecting the Catholic distinction between prayer to God (larger category: worship, praise, ask...) and prayer to saints (smaller category: ask). I PRAY (ask) YOU, Steve, respect this distinction! Jesus never forbid us from ASKING fellow Christians for things, specifically, for them to pray for us.

By the standards you just imposed, I would not be able to PRAY (ask) you to electronically reply to this GodTube blog posting, because Jesus never taught his disciples to pray this way. However, I'm going to go out on a limb and do it anyway. Steve, I pray you, answer me this: Every genuine Catholic I know says that all power, life, and being comes from God, yet you claim that Catholics act as if saints "have power in and of themselves".....can you show me proof of this?

That is, I pray you, show me evidence of a genuine Catholic asserting that a saint has power which was not given by God. I know that you think the prayers obviously imply this, but it's not that clear to me: I can't see where those prayers ever say that saints have any power which doesn't come from God (most of them do not mention power at all!).

This may help you understand what I'm getting at: As a Catholic, I believe that a priest (or any other person, in an urgent situation) has the power to baptize, and I also believe that baptism is a sacrament which bestows grace. That is, the baptizer has the power to give grace. What does this mean? It does NOT mean that the baptizer has grace of his own which he gives. Rather, it means that he gives God's grace sacramentally, or to put it another way, God gives his grace (which I define as God's free self-gift) THROUGH the baptizer. All grace comes from God, just as all power, all life, all holiness, and all being come from God and only from God.

(Just to avoid misunderstanding or confusion, I understand "power" to be "the ability to act in a certain way", which seems to harmonize quite well with your source of authority secondary to the Bible, the venerable Book of Webster, which also defines power as the "ability to act".... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/power)

Do saints have any power? Perhaps, but *if and only if* God gave such power to them. Having such power would not make them a pantheon of gods, for power ("the ability to act in a certain way") is given by God to living humans as well, and we do not regard them as gods! But please remember: Catholics believe that ONLY God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and the Source of all (so such qualities could never be "power" given by God to another). Considering this along with the fact that the saints in heaven are lacking physical bodies, their exercise of any power given by God certainly has limitations. I believe that the most powerful thing a saint can do for me is to plead with God, as a holy and beloved follower of God, on my behalf. Accordingly, when I pray to (ask) saints, I ask them to pray for me to the one all-powerful Source of all that is, the Triune God.

bpeters1 - In order to widen this discussion in regards to the detestable non-biblical practice of praying to the dead I would like you to give me your definition of prayer. Please define this as how you would pray to God and how you would pray to a dead person or an angel. Point out any differences in the actual word as it applied to this action. Thanks. Please note that I only mention Webster in an attempt to get some objective definition of words. If words do not have an objective meaning then the Word of God is not going to communicate anything to us nor are we going to be able to hold a meaningful conversation.

bpeters1 - Am I correct in taking this as your definition of "necromancy"? This practice consists of calling upon, conjuring, or summoning spirits for purposes of divining information from them. This practice is a far cry from what Catholics do when they ask saints to pray for them. Clarifying or affirming this definition will enable us to examine whether this is in fact what catholics do when they pray to the dead.

Steve, I've described the distinction between prayer to God and prayer to saints at least three times in course of this blog conversation, so I'll let you go back and read them rather than redundantly wasting more space. I've also previously described necromancy (as you have noted by quoting me), and I think that description should suffice.

bpeters1 - "necromancy"? This practice consists of calling upon, conjuring, or summoning spirits for purposes of divining information from them. . . . . . . . . 1) we have determined that your asking or prayers are to people who are physically dead and have no human ability to hear. So do you accept that you are dealing with the spirits of the dead?

bpeters1 - "necromancy"? This practice consists of calling upon, conjuring, or summoning spirits for purposes of divining information from them. . . . . . . . . 2) Here is another snippet of an 'asking' as you would prefer to call it. . . . . . 'talk to us about him and tell us about the journey following him on the path of faith' . . . . . Is the purpose of this phrase to divine information from the spirit the phrase is directed to?.

Steve, let me address your concerns one at a time. (1) I agree about the "physically dead" part when referring to saints the souls of whom have been separated from their bodies. I disagree with your statement that such souls have no "ability to hear". They certainly cannot hear with physical ears, which are part of the body from which they have been separated. However, I do believe that they are "sensibly aware" of what's happening on earth, in some non-physical way which I don't yet understand (I've only ever existed bodily!), as is suggested by the martyrs' awareness of earth's inhabitants described in Rev 6:9.

(2) This time I hunted down the context of the excerpt you quoted: a prayer of Pope Benedict from Sep 1, 2007 at Loreto (those who heard this prayer were Italian youth). Here is a link to the prayer posted on the Vatican's website.

(http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070901_preghiera-loreto_en.html).

Since those around Benedict were Italian, the prayer was said in Italian (the English translations came later). Once again, I see that you ignored my request to discuss this issue generally and have regressed back to gathering prayers from the internet and somehow or another are holding me accountable for the content of prayers which I have never made. If you have an issue with a prayer, you should take it up with the person who prayed it! However, since Benedict isn't a regular on GodTube, I'll attempt to offer a defense for his words. That said, I'm quickly tiring of this game of yours; it seems to me very unfair of you to expect ME to be able to precisely explain what every other Catholic means when he or she makes a statement or prayer, especially when it's said in a foreign language. Ask me about a concept, and I will explain it to you. However, out of Christian charity (which is the greatest virtue, 1Cor 13), I'll entertain your game once again, for it offers me the opportunity to explain some Catholic concepts.

Regarding the excerpt you are questioning, here are the actual words which came out of his mouth.
"Stella del mattino, parlaci di Lui, e raccontaci il tuo cammino per seguirlo nella via della fede."

The English translation on the Vatican website reads,
"Morning Star, speak to us of him, and tell us about your journey of following him on the path of faith."

To answer your question, I do not consider this to be necromancy, and their are a number of reasons.
(i.) There is no "conjuring" involved here at all. Necromancy, as I explained above, typically involves some sort of medium which either calls upon the spirit to appear (as in the case of the Witch of Endor, which I cited before 1Sam 28), or channels the spirit to speak through the medium (this is similar to what Whoopi Goldberg's character does in the movie "Ghost," and the use of a medium is described explicitly in the text you cited against Catholics, Isa 8:19 (which mentions the medium "chirping and muttering"). None of this is present here in this prayer; Pope Benedict did not conjure up Mary,
call upon or summon her to appear and or speak through any medium.

(ii.) Second of all, there is no attempt to divine information. No fortune-telling or future-telling occurs. I'm taking it that you understand "speak to us of [Jesus]" as an attempt to somehow divine information. It seems obvious to me that this is not the case, but since I respect that you're coming from a different perspective, I'll try to explain Benedict's intent.

If you notice, each section of the prayer typically begins by addressing "Mary." This particuar section begins by addressing Mary as "Stella del mattino", or "Morning Star." This traditional title is significantly related to the petition which follows it. The morning star is that which comes before the morning (the dawn of light, the sun). Thus, it serves as a "herald of the morn", for it announces the impending coming of the light and the end of the darkness. Mary, who proclaimed God's greatness so beautifully in Luke 1, precedes the entry of the Light of the World. This is why the title of morning star is used, and it is also why Benedict says "speak to us of [Jesus]." Benedict is not divining information from her; he's referring to a proclamation that she's already made, which we already know, which she continues to make, and which is INEXHAUSTIBLE. If you seriously think that Benedict's prayer is a desire to conjure up Mary so that she can fortune-tell and provide him with a source from which he can divine information, you've egregiously misunderstood his intention. I don't claim to know EXACTLY where he's coming from, but I can certainly tell you that necromancy is NOT what he's up to. The prayer is actually quite beautiful, and I do consider it to be a form of "asking". It's actually a beautiful request. I'll provide you with another excerpt:

"Pray that Jesus, dead and Risen, is reborn in us, and transforms us into a night full of light, full of him...We want to see Jesus, to speak with him, to proclaim his love to all."

bpeters1 - "necromancy" . . . . . . . . 1) do you accept that you are talking to spirits or are you attempting to use the word 'souls' as something other than spirits as a way of getting past the definition of 'necromancy'?

bpeters1 - "necromancy" . . . . . . . . . 2) We are working with your definition of necromancy here. . . . . . Is the purpose of asking 'to divine information' from the spirit. Do you now need to narrow you definition to exclude certain types of information so that you avoid your own definition of 'necromancy'. . . . . . . . . Any decent catholic apology would certainly need to defend the current practices of the head of your chuch. If any neutral person looks at your long explanation they could see that 98% of the people hearing this prayer would understand it for what the words mean in normal Italian or translated to some other language.

bpeters1 - "necromancy" . . . . . . . . . 3) 'calls upon the spirit' or 'calls upon the spirit to appear'. In the example prayer given by the head of your church it is pretty clear that the introductory phrase is the call upon the spirit . . . . . . 'Mary, Mother who said Yes, you have listened to Jesus, know the tone of his voice and the beating of his heart.' . . . . . . . . .. . . . This particular statue in front of which the head of your church kneeled was not related to an 'apparition'. You know that many of the 'askings' are made to spirits that are said to have appeared.

Steve, I'm going to "call upon" you to answer some questions shortly....I hope I'm not guilty of conjuring your spirit into my midst by doing so......

If you'd rather use "spirits" than "souls," that's fine. As long as we're talking about that which was joined with the body in earthly life and was separated from the body in physical death, you can call it "geist" or even "Casper". I don't really care, but I tend to use "soul."

So now asking about Jesus is in the same group as divining information, consulting mediums about the future, and fortune telling? You're really stretching here, Steve....

Like I said in my original lengthy post earlier today, Benedict did not call upon Mary for purposes of divining information. Therefore, he is not guilty of necromancy. Furthermore, I didn't fathom that you would include *addressing someone* (how else are we to begin a request to a saint?) into my description of "calling upon spirits". But regardless: even with the limited "definition" which you lifted from my lengthier account of necromancy, Benedict's prayer still doesn't qualify since he is not divining information.

To me, it looks like our conversation (starting on CorpusChristi15's video) can be summarized as follows:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve: Scripture is the only authority.

Kyle & Kate: Oral parts of Tradition is authoritative as well.

Steve: But Catholic Tradition is non-biblical

Brandon: Yes, parts of Tradition aren't handed down in the Bible.

Steve: Well, parts of Catholic Tradition directly contradict the Bible.

Brandon: I'd like you to show me where.

Steve: Okay, [Passages about being dead or asleep], [citations from Deut, Isa]. Catholic prayer to dead people (saints) contradicts this.

Brandon: I think Scripture is talking about something else: [physical/bodily death], [necromancy]

Steve: Prayer should only be to God; Jesus taught us how to pray.

Brandon: Jesus never said, "ONLY pray like this". Also, the word "prayer" is used in two ways by Catholics. Prayer for God includes worship, praise, and petitions; prayer to saints is about asking.

Steve: I don't believe you. Look at this. [prayer found on internet]

Brandon: [explains what given prayer means in a Catholic context]

Steve: Here are other things I found on the internet from Catholics. It doesn't look like asking, it looks like you're worshipping a minor god. [multiple other prayers]

Brandon: [explains other prayers, argues that his description of intercessory prayer is reconcilable with given prayers.] Steve, can you give a general objection with intercessory prayer as I have described it?

Steve: I don't like how you described it. You're inventing words.

Brandon: As a Catholic, I use words differently than you.

....this continued for a while....

Steve: I found some more internet quotes. What you've described isn't what Catholics are doing. They're doing something else; I know what Catholics are doing, and it's polytheism and necromancy.....

[Note: I find it mildly amusing that you consider yourself a better authority on Catholic practice than the Catholics with whom you enter into dialogue...]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To me, it looks as if you stopped arguing against my account of intercessory prayer a long time ago and that in the meantime you've adopted a strategy of trying to show that my account of intercessory prayer doesn't adequately represent what Catholics do. To be honest, the "version" of intercessory prayer that I've described to you is what I do as a Catholic, what I was taught by other Catholics, and what I will teach other Catholics. I'm not trying to pull the wool over your eyes. I'm telling you what I, an educated Catholic, know about the practice of intercessory prayer.

However, you seem bent on describing an alternative "version" of intercessory prayer which renders it polytheistic and fraught with necromancy. Your form of argumentation is quite popular, but always identifiable and NEVER respected in the academic world: it's called the "straw-man" strategy, and here's how it works: if you're unable to show how your opponent's claim is wrong, you misrepresent his claim, and then tear it apart. Instead of attacking your opponent, you attack a straw-man caricature that you've constructed and which you ARE able to overcome. By refusing to argue against the account of intercessory prayer which I have offered and by systematically depicting a distorted version of Catholic practice (based on misconstrued quotations from members of a religious tradition of which you are certainly not a part and which you have demonstrated you either DO NOT or REFUSE to understand) which you subsequently point out as anti-Biblical, you've argued against a straw-man, and not my account of Catholic practice.

Since I've grown weary of watching you attack straw-men, I want to address your claim about biblical authority head-on. You've claimed (flying in the face of 2Thess 2:15) that oral tradition has no authority, only written Scripture. Furthermore, you implied that the (approximately) 20 year gap between the beginning of the Christian community and the existence of the first part of the NT (not to mention the extremely limited accessibility to NT for the first centuries) does not cause a problem for your Scripture-as-only-authority model since the OT served as a written authority.

First of all, am I representing your claim of only-written-authority (OT) during this pre-NT gap fairly? I want to make sure that I'm not attacking any straw men myself....

Here are my questions: on what authority did the early Church in Acts 15, which convened in Jerusalem during this "gap" before the written NT existed, decide to allow non-circumcised Gentiles to become Christians? Since you've that the written OT was the only source of authority during this gap, can you show me where in Acts 15 they turned to the OT as the only authority (if this was the ONLY authority, surely it would have been included in the decision-making process)? Furthermore, could you show what passage from the OT would have authorized them to make such a decision?

bpeters1 - I think we need to exhaust the analisis of communicating with the dead before we change the subject. Acts 15 is one of my favorite chapters of Acts so at an appropriate time I would love to expand upon it.