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?

[Elsie]

Define CHUCKED.

[Elsie]

Martin Luther was an improperly formed failed Augustinian monk.

Then he was perfectly qualified to be a pope!

[Elsie]

Seems that all they want is to be above criticism themselves, while allowing themselves the privilege of slandering others even after repeatedly being shown that they are wrong.

Galatians 5:15

[verga]

You are talking in circles...

From my post 954: I do expect the theologically obtuse among you to misunderstand and / or say something completely stupid.

Nailed it!

[stonehouse01]

chucked is a colloquial term for thrown out i.e., “chucked into the garbage...”

Martin Luther had no authority to decide this on his own - he acted as his own pope - declaring himself to have the authority to “re”form (deform)sacred scripture.

[stonehouse01]

“... he was perfectly qualified to be Pope ...”

yes, exactly, he acted as if he were Pope, without being one.

[metmom]

Nah. He didn’t come anywhere near bad enough to qualify for the papacy.

[metmom]

Martin Luther had no authority to decide this on his own - he acted as his own pope - declaring himself to have the authority to “re”form (deform)sacred scripture.

So what's the big deal for Catholics anyway?

THEY don't recognize the absolute or ultimate authority of Scripture.

We've been told repeatedly by Catholics that Scripture is subject to the Catholic church, that it's merely oral tradition written down, and the Catholic church is what gives Scripture its authority.

The Catholic church throughout the ages has tried to keep Scripture out of the hands of the unwashed masses, even to the point of making it illegal to own it, and then they criticize Luther for not accepting some books that were never recognized as infallible Scripture in the first place?

Are you all that desperate to slander him that you all go to those kinds of lengths to do so?

Tell me, did the Catholic church take out all the parts about not bearing false witness? Cause it can be shown historically that Luther did not do what he keeps being accused of.

[stonehouse01]

“...Luther for not accepting some books that were never recognized as infallible Scripture in the first place...”

The books that Martin Luther purposely omitted because they did not support his erroneous theology were found among the Dead Sea scrolls - proving they WERE recognized as infallible scripture by the Jews.

Believing the myth of the supposed infallibilty of these books is where protestants headed down the wrong path, with Luther leading the way. Beware of false prophets etc...

[Elsie]

Martin Luther had no authority to decide this on his own - he acted as his own pope - declaring himself to have the authority to “re”form (deform)sacred scripture.

Such POWER!

But...

...did he ACTUALLY produce such a bible?

Yes or no will be acceptable answers.

[Elsie]

The books that Martin Luther purposely omitted...

Just HOW did he 'purposely omit' them?

[.45 Long Colt]

So Christians must recognize as canonical books that were in possession of the Jewish Essenes? Think about that for a bit and let the absurdity sink in.

I have a thousands of books in my home. I would hate to see what kind of “bible” a person would put together if he were basing it on the religious materials in my library. If someone discovers a cache of my books in the year 4,000 A.D. are they to think that I believed the Book of Mormon simply because I owned a copy?

[daniel1212]

To know history is to cease to be protestant.

Rather, it is Rome and her defenders which compel history to conform to supporting her desired version, with the idea that Luther was some maverick in rejecting books being one of them. A page to see on Luther and the canon is here .

As has been abundantly documented many times here, Luther was not, but doubts and disagreement about books of Trent's canon continued down thru the centuries and right into Trent, which provides the first indisputable canon for Catholics in the year Luther died (1546).

Read above links and (attempts to support the DC by the Vulgate or LXX) this before responding.

And rather than Luther having no scholarly reasons, he did, while Rome affirmed 2 Mac looking for support for purgatory, but which even that actually fails to directly provide. The text does not say prayers were for these soldiers to exit purgatory, rather it had to do with resurrection. The New Catholic Answer Bible, as well as my NAB on 12:42-46 states, “The statement is made here, however, only for the purpose of proving that Judas believed in the resurrection of the just (2 Mc 7,9. 14. 23. 36)....His belief was similar to, but not quite the same, as the Catholic doctrine of purgatory.

2 Mac 12 alone affirms offerings being made for the dead, but which were for them were slain due to idolatry, (2Mac. 12:40) a mortal sin according to Rome for which there is not hope for those who die in it, thus requiring RCAs to minimize the consecrated idols which caused their death, or postulating they may have repented at the last.

In addition, as French historian Jacques Le Goff states

“It then becomes clear that at the time of Judas Maccabeus - around 170 B.C., a surprisingly innovative period - prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews.” -Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

As for the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran,

these included not only the community's Bible (the Old Testament) but their library, with fragments of hundreds of books. Among these were some Old Testament Apocryphal books. The fact that no commentaries were found for an Apocryphal book, and only canonical books were found in the special parchment and script indicates that the Apocryphal books were not viewed as canonical by the Qumran community. — The Apocrypha - Part Two Dr. Norman Geisler http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD1W0602.pd

[bkaycee]

Luther did not see the apochrypha as scripture just like, Jerome, Gregory the Great, Cardinal Cajetan (Luther’s Catholic Opponent), Cardinal Ximenes and a myriad of other notable Catholic Scholars.

[SumProVita]

I really wish they could put aside their doctrinal differences to combat the real enemy, secular humanism.

_______________________

I agree...particularly because we are at a VERY important time of transition in our history.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3044475/posts

Please note posts 43 and 51.

[Absolutely Nobama]

I believe secular humanism is a form of satanism, perhaps one of the most insidious.

[Elsie]

That is an accurate assessment.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Where does the Bible say that the Bible says everything?”

“I am totally stealing this.

You should! It’s a perfect straw man argument simultaneously begs the question as a logical fallacy.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“The books that Martin Luther purposely omitted because they did not support his erroneous theology were found among the Dead Sea scrolls - proving they WERE recognized as infallible scripture by the Jews.”

Clearly! They were carefully placed inside clay pots marked, “Infallible Scripture Repository”.

Just kidding with you. This is a lame argument in your post. From Wiki:

“Due to the poor condition of some of the Scrolls, not all of them have been identified. Those that have been identified can be divided into three general groups: (1) some 40% of them are copies of texts from the Hebrew Bible, (2) approximately another 30% of them are texts from the Second Temple Period and which ultimately were not canonized in the Hebrew Bible, like the Book of Enoch, Jubilees, the Book of Tobit, the Wisdom of Sirach, Psalms 152–155, etc., and (3) the remaining roughly 30% of them are sectarian manuscripts of previously unknown documents that shed light on the rules and beliefs of a particular group or groups within greater Judaism, like the Community Rule, the War Scroll, the Pesher on Habakkuk and the The Rule of the Blessing.[7]”

Not everything there was recognized as “infallible scripture by the Jews” - then or now.

[count-your-change]

From a site called: www.cathtruth.com/catholicbible/‎ "As the author, the Catholic Church is the only proper authority to consult in matters pertaining to the Bible." (The Catholic Bible) i.e., It's ours, we wrote it, we'll explain while you interpret. History, archaeology, all scholarship, "matters pertaining to the Bible", all is meaningless unless in submission to the authority of the Catholic Church.