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]

So, no...your cliche is just that. (And may not match reality)

It does not.

[metmom]

I don’t have to call on the dead who are supposed to have special powers to bend God’s ear when I ask someone alive to pray for me.

The whole premise of PTDS that they have some special power that other mere mortals don’t.

Paul in his epistles asked for prayer for himself from others. That’s not a problem. The problem is going to those whose bodies have died because somehow someone thinks they have better access to God because they are REALLY righteous.

Asking someone to pray for you is not praying to them FOR things. The semantics that Catholics use to justify praying to those considered dead in Christ, are just word games.

[JCBreckenridge]

Yes, Scripture AND Tradition.

[JCBreckenridge]

You’ve not bothered citing them. You’ve cited everything else but Lumen Gentium. Why is this? Is it because Lumen Gentium shows that you are wrong?

Again, you are free to believe what you want, but you are not free to teach whatever you like about the Catholic church.

[ShadowAce]

So—your claim is that the Church is more powerful, and authoritative than God?

[JCBreckenridge]

“The whole premise of PTDS that they have some special power that other mere mortals don’t.”

Again, this is false. Communion of Saints teaches that prayers are equally valid whether they come from the saints in heaven or folks here on Earth.

All the Communion of saints teaches is that the saints in Heaven can pray for us just as the folks here on earth do.

[metmom]

The point is that the Church is his vehicle to share the Gospel to the world. The Apostles are who God has chosen to work through.

Wrong. Believers are the vehicle through whom God has chosen to share the gospel through.

2 Corinthians 5:17-21 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

[JCBreckenridge]

My claim is that the Church wrote the Bible. So arguing that the Bible has greater authority than the church makes no sense whatsoever.

God instituted the Church. He did not tell the apostles to “go and write the bible”. He told them to make disciples of all the nations. Yes, the Bible is an important part of this - but it is not the whole.

[Mrs. Frogjerk]

Praying for that poor little boy.

[ShadowAce]

My claim is that the Church wrote the Bible.

So--your claim is now that the Bible has no spiritual authority. It's just a bunch of words written by man.

[JCBreckenridge]

“Wrong. Believers are the vehicle through whom God has chosen to share the gospel through.”

Again - as Christ states, “Upon this Rock I will build my Church.”

The Church is the vehicle that Christ has founded to share and spread the Gospel.

[metmom]

Hey, GC, over here for yet another one. Seeing is believing.

The book has not always existed. The Church is older than the Bible. If one is not saved through the Church - than the Bible cannot save anyone. The bible derives it’s authority from the Church not the other way around.

Then why do Catholics quote Scripture to give the Church and Peter their authority? You can't have it both ways. That which is of lessor authority cannot impart greater authority to someone or something else.

If the Catholic church is what gives Scripture its authority, then it cannot legitimately use Scripture to validate its teachings.

The RCC should then, at that point, at least have the integrity to admit that their claims to authority as simply based on their say so.

[JCBreckenridge]

“So—your claim is now that the Bible has no spiritual authority.”

The Bible has spirtual authority insofar as it is an accurate witness of the Apostles and of Jesus Christ.

This is why chopping books because it teaches things you don’t like (as Luther did), is so corrosive.

Again, there is no either/or. Scripture AND Tradition.

[daniel1212]

The Supreme Authority for Catholics is Almighty God.

Which means nothing, as Rome claims to supremely infallibly and authoritatively determine what is from God, including what is Scripture and what He means, as according to her interpretation, or decree, only her interpretation can be correct in any conflict.

In other words, She has infallibly declared she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.Thus Rome is effectively and functionally the supreme and autocratic authority on truth. Do you disagree?

Thus Ligouri states, God Himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priest, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution… The sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it.” – Dignity and Duties of the Priest, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Vol. 12, p. 2. http://www.archive.org/stream/alphonsusworks12liguuoft/alphonsusworks12liguuoft_djvu.txt

An adherent of sola scriptura (SS) must establish his truth claims on Scriptural substantiation, which is what the Lord and His apostle did, and cannot claim assured infallibility as if he were a little pope. Only in Rome does can a individual claim to be infallible - the supreme example of elevation of an individual moral.

Jesus Christ began to build His Church before one word of the New Testament was written down, and that Church obviously did NOT have a New Testament to use as an authority at that time.... and the Holy Spirit has been guiding the Church in her teachings ever since, just like Jesus Christ solemnly promised.

So are you saying being the instrument and steward of Divine revelation and inheritor of the promises of God means this instrument must posses assured infallibility and authority. And that those who dissent from it are not to be followed?

That Catholic Church which Jesus Christ built is NOT based on the traditions of men -- that is utterly false, no matter how many times you choose to repeat it. The Catholic Church which Jesus Christ built is based on the Holy Teachings of God, given to men.

Again, the fact is that as Rome claims to indisputably determine and define the Holy Teachings of God, and what mere traditions are, and cannot be corrected by others based on Scripture, as the Lord and His apostles did to the Pharisees, (Lk. 7:2-16) who, like Rome, presumed a level of veracity above that which was written. (cf. 1Cor. 4:6) Thus Rome is the supreme and autocratic authority, no matter how many times you choose to deny it.

The Scriptures are very important, but they only contain a small smidgen of what God has done, and what God continues to do.

The marginalization of Scripture is consistent with the exaltation of Rome in sola ecclesia, yet in contrast, the Lord established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation, in text and in power, as did the apostles and early church. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

For in contrast to mere tradition, Scripture is abundantly evidenced to be the supreme transcendent standard for obedience and for establishing truth claims, as being the assured Word of God.(2Tim. 3:16)

Some of Scripture first existed in oral form, but part of its establishment was upon conformity to what was written, whereas Rome's amorphous tradition is oral, and remains oral, out of which she channels doctrines which are not found in Scripture, such as PTDS , as this thread has revealed.

John 21:25 explicitly states that Jesus did many other things that were NOT written down, and that all the books in the world would likely not be able to hold all of them.

Indeed, and we know this by Scripture, (2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) and SS does not claim all that can be know is written, but Scripture is the established assured word of God, by which all truth claims are tested, and provides, formally or materially, all that is needed for faith and its fruits.

You also said in an earlier post (#788) that Patrick Madrid tries to sound like an evangelical by quoting so much scripture. With all due respect, BALONEY! Rather, Patrick Madrid sounds like a Catholic.

Not baloney; he sounds like a Catholic trying to be like an evangelical. It was Rome which hindered literacy in Scripture among the laity for hundreds of years, until after the Reformation (and invention of the printing press which Rome could not control).

Having gone to many thousands of different Protestant services for many years, I can tell you without a doubt that Catholics typically hear many more readings from the Scriptures in their Masses than Protestants do in their typical services.

Your claim is suspect.

Until recently little of the Bible was read in Mass, and today this is still not much. “At mid-century study of Bible texts was not an integral part of the primary or secondary school curriculum. At best, the Bible was conveyed through summaries of the texts.” (The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG16) Even by 1951 just a little of the gospels and the epistles were read on Sundays, with just 0.39% of the Old Testament (aside from the Psalms) being read at Vigils and major feast days in 1951. (http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm) While that amount has increased since Vatican Two, only going to Mass will not give one a functional knowledge of Scripture. The average Catholic does not even get to Mass weekly, less alone daily as would be needed to get just 12.7% of the Bible over the two year reading cycle (based on stats from last source)

And you are talking to a former RC who served as a lector and CCD teacher, and knows how RCs get bits of the Bible in Mass, with its truncated readings.

The Daily Mass on EWTN

So how many RCs go to daily mass? Want some stats on what manner of fruit Rome overall produces, versus Evangelicals (even in the latter day apostasy of the church)

(Remember that dishonesty comes from Satan.)

Indeed. Your "proof" that using the Bible like Madrid is a Catholic pratice rests upon them going to daily masses, and which is a minute percentage of RCs, and ignores the fact that they come in almost last in Bible reading, versus evangelicals. Ask random RCs to even name their favorite Bible verse and you usually get a blank stare And very very RCs will attempt to use the Bible to prove doctrine, which is just as well when it comes to traditions Madrid attempts to support.

I have to sign off now, but I hope you get a chance tomorrow to start watching those Daily Masses

Why would i want to return to Babylon? I was manifestly born again while still an RC, and stayed as a weekly attendee for 6 years (in the Catholic NE, while being fed spiritually via evangelical preaching on radio) , and know the profound difference btwn institutionalized faith and that seen in the church of the living God.

[ShadowAce]

The Bible has spirtual authority insofar as it is an accurate witness of the Apostles and of Jesus Christ.

So--it's only an accurate witness. It's not actually the Word of God.

[daniel1212]

Yes, but Rome defines what is right and wrong, and what a contradiction is, thus she cannot be wrong and contradict herself.

[metmom]

So, let me get this right....

The CCC and the ex cathedra proclamations of the past popes to not really mean what they said?

IOW, when the pope was infallibly speaking on there being no salvation outside the Catholic church, then it wasn’t really infallible? Or what?

Tell me how two contradictory things can be true at the same time.

[metmom]

So—your claim is that the Church is more powerful, and authoritative than God?

That's it in a nutshell.

[metmom]

All the Communion of saints teaches is that the saints in Heaven can pray for us just as the folks here on earth do.

But the Bible doesn't.

[AliVeritas]

Prayers up.