Three Things You're Probably Getting Wrong about Praying to the Saints

Shameless popery ^ | April 20, 2015

[NYer]

As Christianity Today acknowledges, prayers for and to the Saints date back to the early Church (in fact, these practices date back far earlier, even to Old Testament Judaism, but I'll talk more about that tomorrow). Nevertheless, these practices are controversial within Protestantism. Today, I want to look at just one of them -- prayer to the Saints -- and show why the opposition to it is grounded in a faulty view of life after death. Tomorrow, I'll look at the Biblical support for both prayer to the Saints and prayer for the Saints.

First, a word on why Protestants tend to object to prayer to the Saints. For some people, such prayers are sinful, since they think it gives glory to someone other than God, or that it's equivalent to “consulting the dead.” Others view it simply as impossible, since they think that the Saints can't hear us, or are unconcerned with what's going on here below. But almost all of these arguments are built upon the same three misconceptions about the souls of the Saints who have gone before us. Given this, let's present the Biblical view on each of these three major points:

Johann Michael Rottmayr, Intercession of Charles Borromeo supported by the Virgin Mary (1714)

1. The Saints in Heaven are Alive, not Dead.

The first mistake in opposing “prayers to the dead” is assuming that we're praying to “the dead.” One of the most frequently cited passages against prayer to the Saints in Heaven is Isaiah 8:19,

And when they say to you, “Consult the mediums and the wizards who chirp and mutter,” should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living?

Those who oppose prayer to the Saints present a straightforward argument: the faithful departed are dead, and it's sinful to “consult the dead.”

But the first premise -- that the faithful departed are dead -- is false, and directly contrary to Scripture. Jesus actually denounces this view as Biblically ignorant (Mk. 12:24). He reveals the truth about the Saints when He says, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die” (John 11:25-26). And in response to the Sadduccees, He says (Mark 12:26-27):

And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God said to him, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong.”

So the Protestant view that says that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are “dead” is “quite wrong.”

Read the literature written against prayers to the Saints, and see how frequently they're mischaracterized as “the dead.” This isn't a harmless mistake. The passages warning against “the dead” simply don't apply to the question of the Saints. Indeed, a great many popular assumptions about the afterlife are built on the idea that verses like Psalm 115:17 (“The dead do not praise the LORD, nor do any that go down into the silence”) apply to the Saints in Heaven. They don't, and Christ tells us that they don't.

The Ladder of Divine Ascent (12th c. icon)

2. The Saints in Heaven are Witnesses, not Sleeping or Ignorant.

Related to the first mistake is the idea that the departed Saints are cut off from us on Earth, and that it's therefore immoral (or at least futile) to communicate with them. This belief takes two general forms: first that the souls of the just are “asleep” until the Resurrection; second, that the souls are isolated in Heaven.

First, soul sleep. The United Church of God argues against praying to “dead” saints:

In addition to all this, praying to dead saints today assumes the doctrine of the immortal soul, which many people are surprised to find is not taught in the Bible. The Bible teaches that death is like sleep that lasts until the resurrection at Jesus Christ's second coming (1 Thessalonians:4:13-16 ).

Now, United Church of God aren't mainstream Protestants by any stretch: they are Sabbatarians (meaning that they reject Sunday worship) and they reject the Trinity. But this notion of soul sleep can be traced to Martin Luther, who wrote:

For the Christian sleeps in death and in that way enters into life, but the godless departs from life and experiences death forever [...] Hence death is also called in the Scriptures a sleep. For just as he who falls asleep does not know how it happens, and he greets the morning when he awakes, so shall we suddenly arise on the last day, and never know how we entered and passed through death.

Even Luther's most militant supporters concede that he held some sort of confused and often-contradictory notion of “soul sleep.” So, too, did many of the Radical Reformers. In this view, the souls of the Saints aren't “conscious,” and so it would be futile to ask them for prayers.

The second camp rejects soul sleep, but thinks that the souls in Heaven are isolated from us. For example, the website “Just for Catholics” acknowledges that the first half of the Hail Mary comes directly from Scripture, but says that these Scriptures aren't permitted to be used as prayer:

Even though the first two sentences are taken from the Bible, it does not mean that it is right to use them as a prayer. Mary could hear the salutations of the Gabriel and Elizabeth because they spoke in her immediate presence. Now Mary is dead and her soul is in heaven. She cannot hear the prayers of thousands and thousands who constantly call upon her name. Only the all-knowing God can hear the prayers of His people.

But Scripture doesn't present the Saints in Heaven as isolated or spiritually asleep. Rather, even in their “rest,” they're presented as alert and aware of the goings-on of Earth (Revelation 6:9-11):

I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne; they cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?” Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.

Perhaps the clearest description of the relationship between the Saints in Heaven and the saints on Earth is in the Book of Hebrews. Chapter 11 is a litany of Saints who lived by faith, leading immediately into this (Heb. 12:1-2):

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

The spiritual life is compared to competing in a race, an image that Paul uses elsewhere (1 Corinthians 9:24-27; 2 Timothy 4:6-7). Here, the imagery is fleshed out to show that the Saints in Heaven are a great crowd of witnesses in the stands. Obviously, this idea of the heavenly Saints as “a crowd of witnesses” is incompatible with the idea that they're either asleep or unavailable to see us.

Matthias Gerung, John's Vision, from the Ottheinrich Bible (1531)

3. The Saints in Heaven are Still Part of the Church.

The Biblical depiction of the Saints as the heavenly witnesses in the grandstands of our spiritual race rebuts a third view: namely, that the Saints are enjoying God's company so much that they've stopped caring about us. For example, a Christian Post column on the subject seems to suggest that the Saints don't do anything for us once they're in Heaven:

So yes, they are not really dead. But that doesn't mean they hear our prayers, or provide even the slightest bit of assistance in answer to our prayers, regardless of how noble their lives may have been while on earth. God doesn't use saints in heaven to bless saints on earth. Instead, God utilizes His holy angels to minister to His children on earth. 

Such a view gets things entirely backwards. Rather, their holiness and their enjoyment of God means that they love us and care for us all the more. That's why they're witnesses to our spiritual race; that's why the martyrs in Heaven are still concerned with justice on Earth. The more we love God, the more we love our neighbor. And the Saints love God with a perfection impossible to us here below.

One way to think about this is to remember the shocking fact that the Saints are still part of the Church. The Bible describeds the Church as both the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ. For example, St. Paul tells us that the Church is the Body of Christ (Colossians 1:18, 24), and the Body of Christ is the Church (Ephesians 5:23). The Saints aren't somehow cut off from Christ in Heaven, which is why we see the Holy Spirit presenting the Bride of Christ in Heaven (Revelation 21:9, 22:17). That membership in the Church helps to explain their heavenly intercession (1 Corinthians 12:24-26):

But God has so composed the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior part, that there may be no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member of suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.

So both perfect Christian charity and our union in the Body of Christ help to account for why the Saints intercede for us. 

Conclusion

Scripture repeatedly calls for us to pray for one another (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 5:25; 2 Thes. 3:1; Colossians 4:3; Hebrews 13:18), to make “supplications for all the saints” (Ephesians 6:18), and for “supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings” to be made “for all men” (1 Timothy 2:1). Neither in praying for one another nor in asking one another for prayers do we risk offending God in the slightest. Quite the contrary: “This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:3-4).

The Catholic position simply applies these Scriptural teaching to the entire Body of Christ, while the standard Protestant position says that these teachings don't apply to the parts of the Church that are already in Heaven. The view goes awry in calling for us to ignore an entire portion of the Body of Christ: urging us not to pray for the faithful departed, and not to ask the Saints in glory to pray for us. Scripture calls for us to “have the same care for one another,” to suffer and triumph with the other parts of the Body. The Saints' glory is ours; our struggles are theirs. 

As you can see from the above post, many of the most popular arguments against praying to the Saints are based on false ideas about what happens to the souls of the just after death: thinking that the Saints are dead, or asleep, or isolated, or apathetic, or outside the Church. In fact, they're alive and before God, yet still connected to us, witnessing our triumphs, failures and struggles, all the while rooting for us and praying for us. 

With a correct view of the state of the glorified Saints and their role in the Church, most of the arguments against seeking their intercession simply dissolve. There's simply no good reason to cut the heavenly Saints off from the rest of the Body. You're surrounded by Heavenly witnesses who are supporting you in your spiritual race. What's more, they're your brothers and sisters in Christ. Given this, by all means, ask for their spiritual help and encouragement!

[af_vet_1981]

It’s sad to watch you try to equate the god of Muslims to the god of scripture.

There is only one God of Abraham, and He is worshipped in error by both Jews and Moslems as they fall short of recognizing His Revelation yet both cling to their faith, knowing, at least, that there is only one God, the God of Abraham, who sent His prophets to the children of Israel. Both reject Jesus as the Son of God and God the Son, although this does not seem to be your stumbling block, or is it ?

[CynicalBear]

>>That was never Church doctrine.<<

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Your credibility as "certified" takes hit after hit.

[Resettozero]

Try saying “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” instead. It helps clarify.

[verga]

The angel told Mary how it was going to be. He never asked her permission, he made an announcement.

Beating this dead horse will never make it true

[FourtySeven]

I’m genuinely curious about something:

Since you all answered “no” to my question “The phrase ‘be it done to me according to thy word’ is not equivalent to saying ‘yes’?”,(Cynical Bear didn’t specifically but he anticipated the question apparently) do any/all of you believe she was the only human being in history to have no free will, or do you reject the dogma of free will entirely?

In other words, do you believe you have the ability to say “no” to God, resist His will personally, but reject that as a possibility in Mary’s case? Or do you believe no one has the ability to resist God’s will?

Thanks,

[af_vet_1981]

Try saying “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” instead. It helps clarify.

Does that make a difference to you ?

The Moslems also believe the one true God is "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," revering all three of the Jewish Patriarchs. Do you ?

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “This statement does not show much confidence in the average Christian having a good understanding of the Trinity.” <<

.
The “Trinity” is something from the mind of man. It is not found anywhere in scripture.

The phrase “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” was not in any of the original writings of the NT, but was added in centuries after the original writings.

Luke’s original Acts of the Apostles said only “in the name of Yeshua.”

All that we do must be done in the name of Yeshua, or we have no authority to do it. It was Yeshua that paid the price, and opened the door to the Father, and sent his Holy Spirit to us to comfort us.

If the Father wanted us to babble about a “Trinity” he would have told us to do so in his word. The fact that he didn’t says volumes about this feckless diversion from the word.

Springfield is correct, that the word “God” implies all of the essence of “Elohim.” The power of “God” is the power of the Father. The power to judge was given by the Father to the Son. The Son sent us his Holy Spirit. These are what we need to know, and thus are all we are given to know.

Paul indicates that someday we will know more, but we will have to wait until we “know as we are known.”
.

[rwa265]

That’s because, as this sub-par Christian can testify, most Christians do not nor can they ever admit to fully understanding the makeup of Almighty God. I question ANY person who says they do.

---

I agree that no one can fully understand the makeup of Almighty God. But Scripture reveals enough for us to understand that Jesus is God, whole and entire, and because of this, Mary as the mother of Jesus is the mother of God, whole and entire.

I realize that we can go round and round on this ad infinitum, so this will be my last word on it.

I believe that Mary as the mother of Jesus is the mother of God.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> Since you all answered “no” to my question “The phrase ‘be it done to me according to thy word’ is not equivalent to saying ‘yes’?” <<

.
Like most catholics you impute much power to mere men.

Mary could have said anything, but it would not have modified the events that were declared by Gabriel.

He did not ask that she agree, and had she objected, he likely would have silenced her as he did to Zecharias when Zecharias demurred the naming of his soon to be son “John.”

Mary was not a “Co-Planner” with the Father.
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “Scripture reveals enough for us to understand that Jesus is God, whole and entire, and because of this, Mary as the mother of Jesus is the mother of God, whole and entire.” <<

.
That statement is blasphemy!

The Father has no mother, nor does the eternal Logos have a mother. Only the human boy that died for his kinsmen has a mother.

God has no mother nor does one single word of scripture say that God has a mother.
.

[Resettozero]

The Moslems also believe the one true God is "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," revering all three of the Jewish Patriarchs. Do you ?

I believe in the God that my Lord Jesus Christ prayed to and taught us to address as our Father in Heaven. That One and Only God, and Him alone.

You are greatly mistaken about many things pertaining to Who Jesus Christ really is, about Christians, and about Islam in particular.

Why the defense of Mohammedism?

[editor-surveyor]

.
The plain word of God is not a horse, dead or otherwise.
.

[CynicalBear]

That's a nice looking rabbit trail but a rabbit trail non the less.

Luke 1: 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.” 34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” 35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.” 38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.

"be it to me according to the word of you" is the exact phrase. Mary was no different than any other true believe in saying "thy will be done".

[CynicalBear]

>>The Moslems also believe the one true God is "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,"<<

Would you please give you proof of that?

[RnMomof7]

Apparently we have found the source of the poor catechesis we constantly hear so much about!

YEP....Better they should read the bible ..

[Mark17]

"Individual true believers in Lord Jesus Christ alone are given to the Holy Spirit to guard against the nicolaitan power grab of organizations like the Catholic Church and other imposters."

Speaking of other imposters, have you ever dealt with the INC? (Iglesia ni Cristo) That has got to be one of the worst, and most pernicious cults on earth. If you think the RCC is hard to deal with, you haven't seen anything yet. I believe there are probably more Muzzies coming out of Islam and getting saved than there are INC members doing the same. I have only ever known of ONE. I am sure there might be others, but not many. There is no doubt in my mind who spawned the INC.

[ealgeone]

Somebody needs to go back to catechism 101. They should really quit as they are only embarrassing themselves.

Sorta reminds me of 6th graders thinking they can play in the NFL.

[RnMomof7]

“The question we must ask is how many verses of the Bible has the Roman Catholic Church infallibly interpreted? This is an important question, because logically speaking it means that whichever verses the Roman Catholic Church has not infallibly interpreted, means that it has interpreted them fallibly. Logically, there are only two options: infallibility and fallibility. There can be no third option. We must have either one or the other when it comes to interpretation of God’s word. If the Roman Catholic Church claims to be the infallible interpreter, then shouldn’t it infallibly interpret Scripture and declare to the world exactly what verses mean?

I have been unable to find a list of the verses the Roman Catholic Church has infallibly interpreted. My repeated questioning into this has resulted in a consistency of statements from Roman Catholics that the number of verses infallibly interpreted by the Roman Catholic Church is less than 10 . . . less than 10 in 2,000 years!

The Old Testament has 23,214 verses and the New Testament has 7,959 verses. That is a total of 31,173 verses. So, if the RCC has interpreted, let’s be generous and say 10 verses infallibly, that would mean that it has fallibly interpreted 31,163 verses. That is .003% infallibility and 99.097% fallibility. Those aren’t good odds for a church that has the absolute authority of God, true apostolic succession, sacred tradition, the Pope, and 2,000 years of existence. So, it appears, at best, the Roman Catholic Church can infallibly interpret one Bible verse every 200 years. At this rate it would take 6,232,600 years to infallibly interpret the entire Bible.

https://carm.org/fallibility-infallibility

Do you wonder why your church would hide the verses they have “infallibly”interpreted?? Doesn’t the world need them?

We can make a good guess at the handful,, can’t we??

[RnMomof7]

The phrase “be it done to me according to thy word” is not equivalent to saying “yes”? Ok! I guess if we can’t agree on that you’re right, we Catholics can believe as we wish, and you and other Christians can do the same, and we part amicably. Because there is no point in discussing further if we can’t even agree that Mary freely consented to God’s will.
If that isn’t even agreed, if she is some kind of robot created only to house God the Son, without any free will of her own then nothing I can say will make sense. So thanks for pointing that critical difference out it’ll save us all a lot of time.

The angel came to ANNOUNCE to Mary that she would be the mother of the Savior.. He never asked her if she would..

She was ordained by God to be the mother of His Son ..

It was essential that the mother have the proper genealogy to fulfill the OT prophecy , it was essential she be a virgin ...it was essential that she be engaged to a man with the proper genealogy ..

But here is the part that trips up the Romanists when they insists that Mary could have said no... their own "doctrine"...would God revoke her "immaculate conception"?? what would he do..dump sin on her?? And then who would He find to be the mother? Were there other choices of "immaculate conceptions " out there or would he have to start from scratch and wait another generation... OHHH WHAT A TANGLED WEB WE WEAVE...

[RnMomof7]

How many Gods do you think there are?

There are many gods.. ..read the bible ....God Himself said there are many gods... Jesus said there would be false Jesus's

How can you call yourself teacher if you do not know or understand this?

Remember the golden calf?