It’s Biblical to Ask Saints to Pray for Us

Ignitum Today ^ | 15 September 2013 | Matthew Olson

[matthewrobertolson]

(This was originally shared here on AnsweringProtestants.com, as part of a longer post.)

There is nothing wrong with asking the heavenly saints to pray for us.

Many Protestants argue that asking the saints to pray for us is “unbiblical,” while throwing around verses like 1 Timothy 2:5. But they are incorrect.

1 Timothy 2:5 — the infamous “one mediator between God and men” verse — refers to salvation, not prayer. The verse reminds us that it is only because of the graces found through Christ (God Himself) that we are able to have any real relationship with God and reach Heaven. It does not, however, absolutely negate relations with angels or heavenly saints. After all, it was an angel (Gabriel) that spoke to Mary before Christ was conceived in her body, not God Himself.

I was raised in several Protestant denominations. They all placed a major emphasis on Christians praying for each other — which is encouraged in 1 Timothy 2:1-4 and other passages. I would contend that a saint, one who is holy and in Heaven with God, would have a lot more sway with God than a rebellious sinner on earth would.

To put that another way, if someone asked you to do something for them, would you not be more likely to help them if they were your best friend, as opposed to a complete stranger? Of course, you may very well be willing to do something for a complete stranger, but you would probably be more willing to do something for your best friend.

And there is evidence in the Bible of the saints praying to God.

“Another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a golden censer; and much incense was given to him, so that he might add it to the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, went up before God out of the angel’s hand.” – Revelation 8:3-4

The word for “saints” in that passage comes from the Greek word hagios. Thayer’s New Testament Greek-English Lexicon says that the best definition of hagios is “most holy thing, a saint”. This would seem to undermine the Protestant assertion that “saints” in this context can only refer to people on earth.

Now, what would the saints be praying for? Themselves? Doubtful. They are in Heaven, so they do not need anything, as eternal life with God is perfect. That really only leaves one option: they are praying for us. And because they are praying for us anyway, how could it be wrong to ask them to pray for us about something specific? It is like interacting with a DJ at an event. He’s playing music anyway, so what is the harm in asking him to play your favorite song?

Here’s my Scripture-based defense of the practice that should answer most Protestant objections:

Matthew 17:3-4 & Luke 9:28-31.
Moses and Elijah (who are clearly heavenly saints, not “saints” in the way Paul would sometimes use the word) are with Christ during the Transfiguration.

Revelation 6:9-11.
The martyrs can talk to God.

From those three passages, we can gather that the saints in Heaven interact with God.

Luke 15:10.
The angels and saints (who, in Luke 20:35-36, Christ says are equal to the angels) are aware of earthly events.

1 Timothy 2:1 & James 5:16.
It is good for Christians to pray for one another.

Now, if the saints interact with God and are aware of earthly events (and can therefore hear us), why wouldn’t they pray for us, considering that it is good for Christians (which the angels and saints definitely are) to pray for one another?

Revelation 21:27.
Nothing imperfect will enter into Heaven.

Psalm 66:18 & James 5:16.
God ignores the prayers of the wicked, and the prayers of the righteous are effective.

Because the saints have reached perfection (they are in Heaven), their prayers are more effective than the prayers of those that are less righteous, so that’s why one might ask them to pray instead of asking another Christian on earth or simply doing it themselves.

(All verses are from the NASB translation.)

Please “Follow” me on Twitter, “Like” Answering Protestants on Facebook, Add Answering Protestants to your Circles on Google+, and “Subscribe” to my YouTube apologetic videos.

[verga]

Aren’t you supposed to ASSUME that I don’t; and then TEACH me?

That would be mind reading is strictly forbidden on these threads.

[mlizzy]

Doesn't asking a saint to do something equate to a "prayer?"

Many Catholics phrase it as, "I'm praying a novena to St. Dymphna [series of prayers recited daily for a certain period of time] asking for her intercession regarding my unstable nephew."

We are not praying for HER power, to heal. We, as Catholic Christians, do not have a problem understanding this; it's people from other Christian denominations (or non-demons) that have difficulty with this. They remind me somewhat of a grammar nazi. Worrying about the comma they can't comprehend; thus missing the whole point of the story.

Is it not reasonable to think Our Lord can do (allow!) anything (for His own reasons)? He is the Master of the Universe. I feel non-Catholic Christians forget this from time to time, and they paint a wimpy Jesus, One who is on earth for 33 years, teaching, so much teaching, and then He splits, merely because He was murdered, not leaving us with His continued Presence. And yet He did leave us with His Body in the Eucharist; Catholics believe this to be so.

The saints were created by Christ (and they fed upon this Eucharist); He loves them completely, and He wants us to call upon their aid. There are so many miracles that surround the saints.

That they are written off by non-Catholic Christians .... well, I think they are foolish in this regard, and they miss out on meeting the very best friends a Christian can have here on earth, and then, of course, right into heaven.

[mlizzy]

Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31)

Catholics explain this thusly:

...Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: "Scripture alone"), will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31)... According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the "Bible only" theory).

Not so, reply Catholics. First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient.

Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.

[boatbums]

I thought Elsie's use of “brethren and sistern” was cute - and was plenty OBVIOUS that he was being humorous. I like to sometimes say, “Ladies and germs”, should I expect a correcting scowl from you teaching me how the word is “gentlemen” not “germs”? Like I said, a sense of humor seems to be sorely lacking in some here. If the shoe fits, wear it.

[boatbums]

Catholics explain this thusly: ...Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: "Scripture alone"), will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses.

I wasn't even talking about sola Scriptura, so I couldn't care less what Catholic Answers has to say about it. From what you posted, they don't get it, either. However, what I did say was:

What IS clear is that the ONLY authority we have to know what are or are not those major tenets of the Christian faith is Holy Scripture. That is why God gave it to us, why it has been preserved all these thousands of years and why ALL claims for truth must be measured BY it - not men - no matter what their claim to authority is. Like the Apostle John was inspired to write:

Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31)

If a denomination gets that part wrong, then who knows how far they might wander from all the rest of what makes up the faith?

My point remains, we were given Holy Scripture so that we would have an objective, authoritative and reliable resource to know what ARE the doctrines we must believe to have everlasting life. I still believe that.

[mlizzy]

Catholic Answers did answer you post, IMO. Aren't you sola Scriptura? Isn't that what you base your faith on, the Bible alone? CA goes on to address that very Bible verse you quoted.

[mlizzy]

P.S.: Anyone who refers to the Eucharistic Lord as a “wafer,” as you have done in the past, gets only about a thimblefull of respect from me.... you are highly insulting to Catholics (and Jesus!)...

[boatbums]

P.S.: I have NEVER said what you are accusing me of. I also think there is no need to insult anyone if ones message is right.

[boatbums]

Catholic Answers did answer you post, IMO. Aren't you sola Scriptura? Isn't that what you base your faith on, the Bible alone? CA goes on to address that very Bible verse you quoted.

The CA response addressed their interpretation of what sola Scriptura means and they happened to also cite the verse I referenced in John 20, but I was not talking about that point (SS) in my response to Metmom's comment regarding "denominationalism".

I do, as a matter of fact, ascribe to the actual doctrine of sola Scriptura, but my faith is based upon Jesus Christ and the good news (gospel) of His shed blood for the propitiation of our sins so that because of the grace of God, we have everlasting life through faith in Him. All the doctrines that make up the MAJOR tenets of the Christian faith ARE found in Holy Scripture and nothing that we MUST know for our salvation was omitted.

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[verga]

I laugh at things that are actually funny, not ridiculous or pathetic.

I thought Elsie's use of “brethren and sistern” was cute

Good for you

- and was plenty OBVIOUS that he was being making a feeble pathetic attempt at being humorous. Fixed it for you. I have laughed at several of his other attempts. This was not funny.

[verga]

And before the Bible was canonized and all the false writings were weeded out, what did they go by a warm fuzzy feeling, or the burning in the bosom as the LDS claims?

Oh that's right we had the magisterium.

[verga]

I do, as a matter of fact, ascribe to the actual doctrine of sola Scriptura,

Whose/ Which doctrine of SS do you subscribe to? I have read and heard variations from James White, Ron Rhodes, David Jeremiah, etc...

[mlizzy]

P.S.: I have NEVER said what you are accusing me of. I also think there is no need to insult anyone if ones message is right.

I didn't save your comment boatbums, but I remember you referring to the Eucharist as a wafer. Since Catholics believe the Eucharist is Jesus, it is highly insulting to say otherwise, especially if you're trying to make a point for your particular belief system. In other words, how can you garner respect from Catholics when you talk about their Jesus in that fashion? You say you didn't say it, which makes it all the worse, as you did. Your word against mine, but I'll drop it, and apologize.

That's not something I would ever forget, though. There is someone else on Free Republic who has called Christ in the Eucharist a cracker. Again, highly offensive (but even more so to Jesus, so I respond with [much] fervor). Most Catholics (including me) are not bothered by someone saying they don't believe in the Real Presence and then continue on with why they don't believe, without being insulting to Christ.

[mlizzy]

It was the 2nd portion of the Catholic Answers' answer that I thought addressed your original commentary:

Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.

[mlizzy]

Yes, yes, you are right. My apologies.

[mlizzy]

metmom, this is what I was trying to say regarding Jesus' love for the saints, and suffering... (Fr. Mark spends a great deal more time at Eucharistic Adoration, than almost anyone I know of. His words [his blog] are filled with the Holy Spirit IMO.)

There is no suffering that I cannot heal, and if I allow certain souls to suffer for a longer period of time, giving them no sign of My healing power, it is because out of their suffering I intend to bring a great good.

You must believe this and help others to believe it, for out of this truth there will come confidence and hope, even in the darkest hours...

[boatbums]

I didn't save your comment boatbums, but I remember you referring to the Eucharist as a wafer. Since Catholics believe the Eucharist is Jesus, it is highly insulting to say otherwise, especially if you're trying to make a point for your particular belief system. In other words, how can you garner respect from Catholics when you talk about their Jesus in that fashion? You say you didn't say it, which makes it all the worse, as you did. Your word against mine, but I'll drop it, and apologize. That's not something I would ever forget, though.

Are you seriously offended by the use of the word "wafer" to describe the Eucharistic host??? You declared, " Anyone who refers to the Eucharistic Lord as a “wafer,” as you have done in the past, gets only about a thimblefull of respect from me.... you are highly insulting to Catholics (and Jesus!)". I guess you should scold and condemn your OWN Catholic Church resources, then, because they refer to a Eucharistic "wafer":

Bread is one of the two elements absolutely necessary for the sacrifice of the Eucharist. It cannot be determined from the sacred text whether Christ used the ordinary table bread or some other bread specially prepared for the occasion. In the Western Church the altar-breads were probably round in form. Archaeological researches demonstrate this from pictures found in the catacombs, and Pope St. Zephyrinus (A.D. 201-219) calls the altar-bread "coronam sive oblatam sphericae figurae". In the Eastern churches they are round or square. Formerly the laity presented the flour from which the breads were formed. In the Eastern Church the breads were made by consecrated virgins; in the Western Church, by priests and clerics (Benedict XIV, De Sacrif. Missae, I, section 36). This custom is still in vogue in the Armenian Church. The earliest documentary evidence that the altar-breads were made in thin wafers is the answer which Cardinal Humbert, legate of St. Leo IX, made at the middle of the eleventh century to Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople. These wafers were sometimes very large, as from them small pieces were broken for the Communion of the laity, hence the word "particle" for the small host; but smaller ones were used when only the celebrant communicated. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01349d.htm

New Communion Wafer a Blessing for Catholics with Gluten-sensitivity http://www.celiac.com/articles/22314/1/New-Communion-Wafer-a-Blessing-for-Catholics-with-Gluten-sensitivity/Page1.html

A Hostia is a portion of bread used for Holy Communion in many Christian churches. In Western Christianity the host is often a thin, round unleavened wafer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_bread

So, even IF I had referred to the Eucharist as a "wafer" - though I cannot imagine why I would have done so as to be offensive to Catholics - it really isn't wrong to use that word. You accuse me of lying about using it because you are CERTAIN I have some time in the past used it. Even referring to the Lord's Supper observances done in non-Catholic Christian churches, the use of a matzo "cracker" is usual and is hardly offensive. I disagree with numerous doctrines within Catholicism but I back up my disagreement with Scripture that explains my view. I don't NEED to intentionally offend anyone. Apology accepted.

[boatbums]

It was the 2nd portion of the Catholic Answers' answer that I thought addressed your original commentary:Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ.

As I previously responded, CA uses a straw man definition for what they imagine sola Scriptura means. It does NOT mean the Bible is all we need for salvation, all we need for theology nor necessary to believe in Christ. What Sacred Scripture IS given for us to do is so that we can have an authoritative, objective, God-breathed form of a resource so that we can know what the truth is concerning our faith. We need not rely upon human memory, human-devised traditions or man-made philosophies to know what God did for us through Christ. Like John said, these were written so that we can know we have eternal life and so that we can believe on Jesus Christ.

People DID learn of the gospel through the spoken word and they still do today, but all the truths God revealed to man - past, present and future - is found within Holy Scripture. Jesus, himself, relied upon the written word to validate His ministry, defeat the temptations of satan and reach the hearts of those who seek to know THE truth. The Bible remains today because of the power of God. Heaven and earth will pass away, but His word will never pass away.

[mlizzy]

How do you feel about the saints? Their lives have affected countless millions of Catholics (and sometimes other denominations too). Here's a wonderful video of Padre Pio, but first some information regarding the stigmata he bore for fifty years:

Padre Pio bore the wounds of Jesus on his hands, feet, and side for 50 years.

Several days before he died in 1968, all evidence of the wounds disappeared.

On October 22, 1918, Padre Pio wrote to his spiritual advisor, Padre Benedetto, describing how he received the stigmata. "On the morning of the 20th of last month, in the choir, after I had celebrated Mass, I yielded to a drowsiness similar to a sweet sleep. All the internal and external senses and even the very faculties of my soul were immersed in indescribable stillness. Absolute silence surrounded and invaded me. I was suddenly filled with great peace and abandonment which effaced everything else and caused a lull in the turmoil. All this happened in a flash.

"While this was taking place, I saw before me a mysterious person similar to the one I had seen on the evening of 5 August. The only difference was that his hands and feet and side were dripping blood. The sight terrified me and what I felt at that moment is indescribable. I thought I should die and really should have died if the Lord had not intervened and strengthened my heart which was about to burst out of my chest.

"The vision disappeared and I became aware that my hands, feet and side were dripping blood. Imagine the agony I experienced and continue to experience almost every day. The heart wound bleeds continually, especially from Thursday evening until Saturday. Dear Father, I am dying of pain because of the wounds and the resulting embarrassment I feel in my soul. I am afraid I shall bleed to death if the Lord does not hear my heartfelt supplication to relieve me of this condition. Will Jesus, who is so good, grant me this grace? Will he at least free me from the embarrassment caused by these outward signs? I will raise my voice and will not stop imploring him until in his mercy he takes away, not the wound or the pain, which is impossible since I wish to be inebriated with pain, but these outward signs which cause me such embarrassment and unbearable humiliation" (Letters 1, No. 511).

Padre Pio, please pray for us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_PVEye27WM&feature=player_embedded