Where Does the Bible Say We Should Pray to Dead Saints?

catholic-convert ^ | July 11, 2012 | Steve Ray

[NYer]

Are saints who have physically died “dead saints” or are they alive with God?

A friend named Leonard Alt got tired of being hammered by anti-Catholic Fundamentalists on this issue so he decided to write this article. I thought you might enjoy it too, so here it goes…

Leonard writes: I wrote this note after several days of frustration with people, on Facebook, saying that saints can’t do anything, because they are dead. They seem to be leaving out the fact that the souls live on. ENJOY!

Dead and gone? Where is his soul-his person?

An antagonist named Warren Ritz asked, “Who are the “dead in Christ”, if not those who walked with our Lord, but who are now no longer among the living?” He is correct; the “dead in Christ” are those saints who have physically died. “For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess 4:16).

THE CONCEPT OF LIVING SAINTS CAN DO HARM TO THE “JESUS ALONE” DOCTRINE. From some people’s point of view, people who have died are classified as “dead saints,” who can do nothing. They are no longer a force to reckon with; they can no longer appear; they cannot talk nor do other things. These same people don’t want the saints who have died doing anything because this would be another reason why the Protestant doctrine, “JESUS ALONE” fails. If the so-called “dead saints” do anything then it is not “JESUS ALONE,” but Jesus and the saints cooperating. And it would also mean that the so-called “dead saints” are in fact not dead, but alive with God.

Dead or in paradise?

HIS PHYSICAL BODY DIED BUT HIS SOUL LIVED ON. But, are the Saints who have gone before us alive with God or are they truly “dead saints” who can do nothing as some would suggest? Yes, their bodies are dead, but their souls live on. For example Jesus said to one of the criminals on the cross next to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Lk 23:43). Yes, that day, this man became the dead in Christ because his physical body died on his cross; however, Jesus said that today, this man would be with Him in paradise. He was no “dead saint” because his soul was alive in Christ in Paradise.

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob alive and concerned for their descendants

HE IS THE GOD OF THE LIVING. One person alluded to Mark 12:26-27 saying “Jesus is the God of the living, not of the dead” in an attempt to show that Jesus cannot be the god of those who have died; after all he says “Jesus is the god of the living.” However, he left out three people who were no longer alive in verse 26; Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. God said that He was their God. And so does that mean that God is the God of the dead? No; “He is not God of the dead but of the living.”

• “God told him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, (the) God of Isaac, and (the) God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead but of the living. You are greatly misled” (Mk 12: 26-27).

Abraham Isaac and Jacob are physically dead and yet their souls are alive because their God is not God of the dead but of the living and thus do not qualify as “dead saints.”

Moses was dead and buried. How could he talk to Jesus about future events on earth?

WHEN MOSES AND ELIJAH APPEARED WERE THEY DEAD OR ALIVE? There are those who insist that saints who have died are nothing more than “dead saints” who can do nothing. I usually ask them this question. When Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration, were they dead or alive? “And behold, two men were conversing with him, Moses and Elijah” (Lk 9:30). Not bad for a couple of so-called “dead saints;” not only did they appear, but they were talking as well. The question that I asked usually goes unanswered.

SORRY LEONARD…YOU HAVE A BAD ARGUMENT. Bill says, “As Ecclesiastes says the dead have nothing more to do under the sun…sorry Leonard…you have a bad argument.” He is using this as definitive Biblical proof that people on the other side cannot do anything once they have died. After all, Ecclesiastes does say, “For them, love and hatred and rivalry have long since perished. They [the dead] will never again have part in anything that is done under the sun” (Eccles 9:6).

When a person dies their body is in the grave; it is dead. They can no longer work under the sun, in this world. However, Ecclesiastes 9:6 is not a prohibition against the activity of the person’s soul, which lives on. This of course begs the question; is there any indication of personal activity of a soul after death, in Scripture?

How did the bones of a dead guy bring another dead guy back to life?

Yes, there are a number of examples and here is one of them. Elisha after dying performed marvelous deeds. In life he [Elisha] performed wonders, and after death, marvelous deeds (Sir 48:14). “Elisha died and was buried. At the time, bands of Moabites used to raid the land each year. Once some people were burying a man, when suddenly they spied such a raiding band. So they cast the dead man into the grave of Elisha, and everyone went off. But when the man came in contact with the bones of Elisha, he came back to life and rose to his feet” (Kings 13:20-21).

Using, Ecclesiastes 9:6 as a prohibition against all soul activity after death is to use the verse out of context and at odds with other parts of the Bible. Ecclesiastes 9:6 is referring to the physical body that has died, not the soul that lives on. Elisha, after death performed marvelous deeds. It can’t be much clearer than that!

The saints are not dead but alive in the presence of their Lord Jesus and part of the praying Mystical Body of Christ

JESUS NEVER CLAIMED THAT THOSE WHO HAVE DIED ARE “DEAD SAINTS.” Jesus understood well that when someone dies, they will live and in fact those who live and believe in him WILL NEVER DIE.

“Jesus told her, “I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this” (Jn 11:23-26)?

This union, with the saints on this side and the saints on the other side is referred to as the communion of saints in the Apostles Creed. Those who insist that “dead saints” can’t do anything because their bodies have physically died seem not to understand that their souls live on and are very involved.

So, where does the Bible say we should pray to dead saints? I would ask, Where does the Bible say saints are dead?

[metmom]

You are of course, correct.

Hey, Catholics are constantly accusing non-Catholics as a whole of hate and anti- and I don’t see any of them chastise each other for mind reading.

Hypocrisy much?

[Revolting cat!]

Reading minds is against the rules.

You're really asking for it, ain't ya?! They'll soon drown you with cut and pasted volumes of text about rules from their Holy Babbles, one of the 30,000 versions of interpretations they've got.

[verga]

Hypocrisy much? Forget the courtesy ping again? This is the second time I have caught you doing this. You epitomize the word.

[BlueDragon]

"...why is Luther right and Jerome wrong..."

As to those OT books in contention, Luther in part, apparently relied upon Jerome's opinion of them, which most likely was influenced by those coming before himself.

That the Hebrew "canon" (the Hebrews had no such word as "canon" although they employed the concept) was limited to what is now found in "protestant" bibles, was not a new concept. Luther did not invent the point of view. His own view was similar to that which Jerome held. Don't let yourself be mistaken, for reason Jerome was directed to include what he himself referred to as Apocrypha.

Don't believe me? That would be ok, for I myself am no authority, and am reliant upon those whom can study the ancient languages.

I can however, provide link to those whom may, for one whom does seems to know a semi-ancient style of Latin. He provides link to the pages he is translating and excerpting from --- and is showing the source text itself as something of a "sidebar" footnote, with the work of the translated excerpt and commentary, thankfully provided in English. Otherwise I could not read much of any of it, at all.

Nicolas of Lyra on the Apocrypha: St. Jerome Revisited

For those reluctant to follow links, below is a portion of discussion, with excerpted translation apparently included, bracketed in quotation marks.

• First, “those books that are truly Scripture must be reverenced and adored” and should be distinguished from the non-canonical books “which the Hebrews include among the Apocrypha … Therefore here we have distinguished, and I have distinctly enumerated, first the canonical books, and afterwards the non-canonical ones: between which moreover stands as much distance as between certainty and doubt. For the canonical books were completed by the Holy Spirit who spoke them.”
• Second, “the non-canonical books, or the Apocrypha,” as Nicolas says, “are read for devotion and the information of our morals but nevertheless their authority for proving those things which come into doubt or contention and for the confirming of church doctrine is not reputed as proper … just as Jerome says in his prologue on Judith and upon the books of Solomon. But the canonical books have such great authority that whatever it contains is firmly true and cannot be shaken. For just as in philosophy truth is recognized through a reduction to first principles (principia) known per se: thus also the truth is recognized in the writings handed down by the holy doctors inasmuch as to those things that are held faithfully through a reduction to the canoncial scriptures which are held in divine revelation, which in no way can be considered false.”
• Third, a glowing reference to Jerome’s “helmeted prologue” (prologus galeatus) on the books of the Kings, at which point, Nicholas enumerates what is today the Protestant list of Old and New Testament books, then wearing Jerome’s helmet he goes to war against the canonicity of the Apocrypha enlisting Augustine, Rufinus, et al.

I don't know if it will be of any help, but here's a link to Jerome's Prologus Galeatus in Latin.

[Colofornian]

Only a Church Council, or the pope, had the authority to determine the canon of Scripture.

(Church leaders only confirmed what was already treated authoritatively due to its linkages to the apostles and Paul)

The early church fathers (97-180) quoted from 28 of the 29 New Testament books. In fact, EVERY New Testament book was referenced pre-150 except Philemon and 3 John. The 170 A.D. Muratorian Canon had only excluded Hebrews, James, and 3 John. [And if Catholics want to make that an issue, they should talk...given that their first canonization of the Apocrypha came in 1546...and they didn't canonize dead saints until 995]

The Holy Spirit canonized the Bible; the Church merely received it -- reaffirming what the early church Fathers had already recognized in their writings as authoritative [for example, Hippolytus recognized 22 books his writings...he lived 170-235]

Irenaeus cited 21 of these books...Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John, acknowledged 15 books.

[BlueDragon]

Hypocrisy much? Forget the courtesy ping again? This is the second time I have caught you doing this. You epitomize the word.

???

We have a volunteer? Upset for not being pinged to loose mention of hypocrisy? This is rich!

Thank you. And yes, I'll be sure to tip the waiters/waitresses. Perhaps some time later this week, I'll try the veal. <*^')

[Colofornian]

Upon what authority was Martin Luther suddenly qualifed to not include 2 Maccabees because it alludes to purgatory and praying for the dead because it didn’t fit in with his theology? Why does he get to do this - who says Luther is right and St. Jerome (et al.) are not?

Given that the first Catholic canonization of the Apocrypha came in 1546, upon what "authority" then did the Catholic church exclude the Apocrypha from the Bible for so long...IF, indeed, 'twas REALLY Scripture?

[boatbums]

That sounds a lot like an experience I had some years ago. I was having breakfast with a Catholic priest and some family members and we were talking about our favorite Bible verses. I said mine was Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”. The priest looked at me and said, “That sounds Protestant to me.”

[Colofornian]

One thing I will not do with it is go along with Luther just because he decided good works are useless for salvation when James says otherwise (Faith without works is dead). I’m surprised Luther didn’t try to toss James - maybe he thought about it. [Stonehouse01, post #1420]

How do you think you guys can discuss or critique the bible when you don't even know what the bible says??? Luther decided good works are useless for salvation??? Where did Luther get that idea??? Do you even have a clue??? [Iscool]

How ironic Iscool:

The apostle Paul also made it clear to the Galatians that they could nullify grace. Consider these three passages he wrote to them:

Galatians 2:21:
I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!

Galatians 3:1-3: 1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?

Galatians 5:4: You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. [Example of grace nullification]

The apostle Paul also told the Romans – 11:5-6: 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then IT CANNOT BE BASED ON WORKS; IF IT WERE, GRACE WOULD NO LONGER BE GRACE.

Simply put: Grace is an unearned, undeserved, unmerited gift!

#1 8 For it is BY GRACE you have been saved, THROUGH FAITH—and this is NOT FROM YOURSELVES, it is the GIFT God— 9 NOT by works, so that no one can boast. (Eph. 2:8-9)

#2 Works nullify grace! ...at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it CANNOT be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. (Romans 11:5-6; cf. Gal. 2:15-16 -- justified by faith in Christ; not works of the law)

#3 We didn't qualify for eternal life; No, He qualified us: ...giving joyful thanks to the Father, who HAS qualified you to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light. (Col. 1:12) [Do you see the PAST tense there -- "HAS qualified you" -- too many seem to neglect too much of God's past tense actions & lean too heavily ONLY on either a present or future tense focus].

#4 Even considering future tense...what does Paul say? ...being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. (Phil. 1:6)

[boatbums]

I don't blame that bored yawn...I feel the same whenever people ignore facts even when incontrovertible proof is given and they just blithely go on their merry way as if the truth is irrelevant. Like I said;

Are you really saying the explanation about Luther NOT removing ANY books from the Bible is "MY" own personal intrepretation of that fact? Or do you prefer blithe ignorance?

[boatbums]

just as the Epistles could be said to be held in lesser esteem than the Gospels, even though both are part of the canon of Scripture.

Just because your church, according to you, "esteems" some Scripture less than others doesn't mean it is a truthful or wise position to take. Jesus sure seemed to esteem the Old Testament Scriptures pretty highly as he often quoted passages verbatim and he established HIS authority from them. They had and have an intrinsic authority because ALL Scripture is God-breathed - HOLY SPIRIT revealed all the way from Genesis to Revelation. The fact that the Bible contains the very word of God qualifies it ALL as fully authoritative to the believer regardless of what any religion thinks about it.

The Deuterocanonicals/Apocryphal books have NEVER been considered as Divinely-revealed, God-breathed sacred Scripture regardless of whose canon they appeared in. That IS the difference.

Catholics like to accuse Luther of removing books he didn't think agreed with his theology - even though it is a solid FACT that he did not take out those books in his German translation - but do not seem to see the hypocrisy in the Council of Trent ADDING those books to the canon and esteeming them as inspired Scripture along side all the other books of the Bible because one of them alluded to a possibility of another place between earth and heaven/hell. Of the meager number of verses that they use to somehow prove a place called "Purgatory", they NEEDED one obscure sentance in a book - which never really comes close to the doctrine of Purgatory - to bolster their case against the Reformation. Didn't work then, STILL won't work now.

[daniel1212]

No one hates Martin Luther, he just didn’t have the authority to start a religion.

And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? " (Mark 11:27-28)

Rome is not the only one to presume all those without its sanction are renegades. Indeed, according to the Roman ethos of authority, those who followed a holy man in the desert who ate locusts and an Itinerant Preacher of Galilee were following schismatics, as these men did have the sanction of those who sat in the seat of Moses, and reproved them.

Luther is not Christ, but rather than a perpetual infallible magisterium, God often preserved truth by raising up men from without the magisterium to reprove them. And thus the church began and thus it continues as the body of Christ, the "household of faith" (Gal. 6:10) - which is the only one true church, being the "one body" into which souls are baptized into at conversion, by the one faith in the one Lord and one God and Father of all. (1Cor. 12:13)

What is the basis (Scripture, etc.?) for your full assurance that Rome is the one true church?

[boatbums]

Do you think Catholics would willingly add or drops books today if Bergoglio decided to adjust the canon?

Excellent question! If he got together a Council and persuaded a majority of the magesterium to agree with him and then made an "official" ex cathedra pronouncement, then "faithful" Catholics really have no choice in the matter - they HAVE TO accept it.

[narses]

[boatbums]

And it would matter not if it contradicted previous teachings or doctrine. By some mental gymnastics known only to someone deceived by a cult, they could rationalize it and then come to accept it as truth and continue to exclaim that Catholic teaching has never changed over the last 2,000 years.

The process of the development of doctrine in the Church - of the magesterium "growing" in her full understanding of the truth like an acorn growing into a mature oak tree would explain that whole switcheroo nicely! It's always worked in the past.

[Iscool]

just as the Epistles could be said to be held in lesser esteem than the Gospels, even though both are part of the canon of Scripture.

Who makes that idiotic claim???

[Iscool]

Only a Church Council, or the pope, had the authority to determine the canon of Scripture.

And just who decided THAT?

A Church Council and the popes...LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

[Iscool]

We can ALWAYS count on you for pithy commentary!

Maybe she's doing the best she can with what she's got to work with, God bless her soul... :)

[boatbums]

Thank you for your addition to the conversation concerning Luther's Bible as well as the historical view of what is sacred Scripture and what isn't. I would love to think that yours and other’s contributions in this thread would be sufficient to quell the repeated accusations against Luther and, by association, all Protestants, concerning the authority of the Bible, but I won't get my hopes up too much. I think some probably presume a reader might stumble upon their wormy rants and swallow it, thereby hooking another poor soul into the vapid pool of ignorance. May we always stand by at the ready with the net of the truth!

[daniel1212]

ALL information about him was transmitted orally

This is true at first, but it remains that Scripture was the supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced . Thus Lk. 24:44; Acts 17:3,11; 18:28; 24:23.

And the fact is that most of the writings of our Bible were established as Scripture by the time of Christ (though as today, it was not universal), and without an assuredly infallible magisterium. Your argument that we must have one to authoritatively determine what writings Scripture all consists of ignores the means by which they were established in the past (due to their qualities an attestation.

And rather than the reality RCs paint as being the result of not infallible magisterium determining the canon, the 66 book Prot canon has seen overall acceptance since early in the Reformation, and Catholicism does not see one identical canon.