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?

[driftdiver]

So you’re disagreeing with the premise of the article?

[circlecity]

"Again, read up on Marcion. Marcion is substantial evidence that there did not exist a canon in Apostolic times."

I have, he was a heretic who didn't acknowledge any of it as scripture except a few letters of Paul and was roundly condemned for it. Why would the ravings of a heretic bear any evidence on the matter? Certainly, contrary to Marcion, the Gospels, Acts and the letters of Paul were considered scripture from the early second century.

[SumProVita]

That is all true, but it does not say that the Bible ALONE is the source of our Teaching. And you have not shown me anything about the Bible stating that it is the pillar of truth for us.

[womanvet]

I am still reading all the comments posted so far. Yet, somehow I am both amused and confused that man, with his limited understanding, can be so certain that only what he believes is correct, and that reading and citing a translated document can somehow “prove” that which he is incapable of understanding. Perhaps in some of the later posts this will become clear to me, but after reading about half the posts, I see no likelihood.

[Salvation]

Yes, Look at the end of John and the end of the last letters of John. He specifically says that everything is not written down.

John 21 ________________________________________ 24 This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

3 John 1 13 I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; 14 I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face. 15 Peace be to you. The friends greet you. Greet the friends, every one of them. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 John 1 ________________________________________ 12 Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete. 13 The children of your elect sister greet you. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ So John tells his people that he will talk to them face to face and tell them more!

Now, why don't non-Catholics believe this Scripture?

[JCBreckenridge]

“The first collection of the New Testament would have been published by the Apostles”

Thanks for reminding me. I’m selling a First-Edition bible signed by St. Peter and St. Paul.

I’m told there’s one out there signed by Jesus too.

“If what you said was true, ignoring all the actual early evidence, then the Bible wasn’t written at all until the 4th century.”

Not in the modern form. Individual books were published yes, but they weren’t collated with the list that we use today until Pope Damasus.

Again, read Marcion. If there existed a unified canon in Apostolic times, Marcion’s list would never have been published. Marcion took advantage that there wasn’t a unified canon.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“So who made the decision as to what would be included in the Bible and when did this decision take place?”

---

What lone authority even existed in the first few hundred years to make such a decision? Certainly it wasn’t anyone in Rome, since even in the 4th century, per Jerome, the Roman church denied the authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews, despite its widespread use and acceptance within Christianity from day one.

“This must be said to our people, that the epistle which is entitled “To the Hebrews” is accepted as the apostle Paul’s not only by the churches of the east but by all church writers in the Greek language of earlier times, although many judge it to be by Barnabas or by Clement. It is of no great moment who the author is, since it is the work of a churchman and receives recognition day by day in the public reading of the churches. If the custom of the Latins does not receive it among the canonical scriptures, neither, by the same liberty, do the churches of the Greeks accept John’s Apocalypse. Yet we accept them both, not following the custom of the present time but the precedent of early writers, who generally make free use of testimonies from both works. And this they do, not as they are wont on occasion to quote from apocryphal writings, as indeed they use examples from pagan literature, but treating them as canonical and churchly works.” (Letter to Dardanus, prefect of Gaul Ad Dardanum, no. 129 § 3. A.D. 414.)

If authority was needed to make the word of God the Word of God, we would never have had Hebrews, and perhaps might have lost Revelation, had we depended on the innovations of individual church groups.

So when the Ignatius, who perished between 95-115AD, quoted from the Gospels or any other work, he depended entirely upon the authority of the Apostles who wrote them. Same as Polycarp. Same as Irenaeus. Without any regard to what anyone else thought.

[SumProVita]

Hmmmm..are you being an “advocatus diaboli” now?

[circlecity]

"Then provide evidence for an earlier version."

Oh, so if there's no evidence that means it impossible? All you can say is the Vulagate is the first you know of. Certainly all the current canon was established as early as the 39th festal letter which preceded the vulgate - whether anybody at that time bothered to sew them between two pieces of parchment at that time is completely immaterial.

[Salvation]

St. Jerome.

[GeronL]

that is just ridiculous to me

[JCBreckenridge]

If there existed a canon in Apostolic times, why would Marcion publish his canon and argue that *THIS* was the correct list of books?

[driftdiver]

Good thing I can read Titus 3:10 so that I can follow Gods instruction and don’t have to worry about “legitimate episcopal oversight”.

[SumProVita]

It would seem that you are missing a big chunk of history...no?

[Paisan]

We only ask them to pray for us

You are correct, of course.

Pray for us, or, intercede, for us...

Grazie,...

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“It would seem that you are missing a big chunk of history...no?”

---

No, I haven’t missed any chunk of history at all. On the contrary, it’s you who wants me to ignore the history of the first few hundred years after the Apostles.

[JCBreckenridge]

“Oh, so if there’s no evidence that means it impossible?”

It means that there’s zero evidence for your position.

Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are evidence in favor of my position and contrary to yours because they do not contain the NT canon as is used today. Nor do they agree with each other, despite both predating the Vulgate.

This is evidence that, as of the early 4th century, there did not exist a common canon. Additional evidence for this fact can be found in the writings of the Church fathers prior to the publication of the Vulgate.

So - where’s the evidence for your position? There is none.

Your position is false and contrary to the historical evidence that we possess.

“whether anybody at that time bothered to sew them between two pieces of parchment at that time is completely immaterial.”

Marcion certainly didn’t think so.

[Tucker39]

If a perso, or persons are determined to cobble together a religion that includes praying to so-called saints; have at it, but there’s no clear cut support in the Word for it.

Furthermore, we are admonished in Matthew 23:9 to call no man “Father” because our true Father is in Heaven.

[Cousin Eddie]

“6. There is no record that any Apostle or 1st century Christian prayed to a departed saint.”

There was no New Testament (i.e. no Christian Bible) when the Apostles and the earliest Christians walked the earth. The Gospels were written sometime between 60 A.D. and 100 A.D. Therefore the earliest Chistians couldn’t have been practicing according to the precise dictates of the Gospels, letters of Paul, etc. Were they practicing incorrectly also?

Catholics believe that souls of the faithfully departed reside in heaven. We don’t worship saints or Mary, but we ask those souls to join us in prayer. The fact that it isn’t mentioned in the Bible is a doesn’t make it invalid.

[Iscool]

We mortals assign “virtue” to humans - Mother Teresa - for example.
I believe that these “virtues” are “recognized” in Heaven.
And THAT, is why, WE pray to the SAINTS...

Even tho God says not to...That makes your religion your god...