Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Where Does the Bible Say We Should Pray to Dead Saints?
catholic-convert ^ | July 11, 2012 | Steve Ray

Posted on 07/14/2013 3:02:43 PM PDT by 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.”

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?



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Ministry/Outreach
KEYWORDS: catholic; deadsaints; doctrine; prayer; scripture
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 701-720721-740741-760 ... 1,621-1,636 next last
To: JCBreckenridge

If obeying rules repulses you so much that you take pleasure in breaking them, you shouldn’t be on the FR?


721 posted on 07/15/2013 7:30:18 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 676 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

Nicely put. Effective and tactful.


722 posted on 07/15/2013 7:31:08 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (Making good people helpless doesn't make bad people harmless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 607 | View Replies]

Comment #723 Removed by Moderator

To: presently no screen name

How is asking,

“what church/congregation”

do you attend a personal attack?

I do not understand why this is such an issue. As a protestant I was only to happy to share my faith with Catholics. I used to invite them to come to church with me.

I am baffled why so many on here are reluctant to share this simple fact.


724 posted on 07/15/2013 7:34:28 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 721 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

You are mistaken completely, and appear to desire to be mistaken.

Hislop did painstaking research, all of which is noted in his book, and well beyond attack from the nicolaitans that desire not to be exposed.

Your embrace of nicolaitans and their corruption is getting to be a clear picture.


725 posted on 07/15/2013 7:36:14 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 723 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
Trullo concerned itself with clerical celibacy for priests and deacons. Not bishops. I just checked.

Quinisext Council (Fifth-Sixth)[sometimes called the "Trullon Synod"] Canon XII:Moreover, this also has come to our knowledge, that in Africa and Libya, and in other places the most God-beloved bishops in those parts do not refuse to live with their wives, even after consecration, thereby giving scandal and offence to the people. Since, therefore, it is our particular care that all things tend to the good of the flock placed in our hands and committed to us - it has seemed good that henceforth nothing of the kind shall in any way occur. And we say this, not to abolish and overthrow what things were established of old by Apostolic authority, but as caring for the health of the people and their advance to better things, and lest the ecclesiastical state should suffer any reproach...But if any shall have been observed to do such a thing, let him be deposed.

726 posted on 07/15/2013 7:36:19 PM PDT by newberger (Put not your trust in princes, in sons of men in whom there is no salvation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 713 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

No, frankly I don’t. Not like Ste Therese. :)

I do however know some excellent saints and I am thrilled to say that I have known and worked with them in the past.


727 posted on 07/15/2013 7:36:20 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 720 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

“Hislop did painstaking research”

Why then does no one else confirm that Semiaramis was a soprano?

Again - he’s as historically credible as Joseph Smith. Did he ever travel to Mesopotamia, or did he just dig out a few books and dabble?

Dan Brown is the exact same way, and he is popular for the exact same reason. Historical facts get in the way of a good conspiracy! What’s next, freemasons?


728 posted on 07/15/2013 7:38:39 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 725 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
I am baffled why so many on here are reluctant to share this simple fact.

Stay baffled.

729 posted on 07/15/2013 7:43:56 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

Comment #730 Removed by Moderator

To: newberger

Where are you getting that from?

Canon III

SINCE our pious and Christian Emperor has addressed this holy and ecumenical council, in order that it might provide for the purity of those who are in the list of the clergy, and who transmit divine things to others, and that they may be blameless ministrants, and worthy of the sacrifice of the great God, who is both Offering and High Priest, a sacrifice apprehended by the intelligence: and that it might cleanse away the pollutions wherewith these have been branded by unlawful marriages: now whereas they of the most holy Roman Church purpose to keep the rule of exact perfection, but those who are under the throne of this heaven-protected and royal city keep that of kindness and consideration, so blending both together as our fathers have done, and as the love of God requires, that neither gentleness fall into licence, nor severity into harshness; especially as the fault of ignorance has reached no small number of men, we decree, that those who are involved in a second marriage, and have been slaves to sin up to the fifteenth of the past month of January, in the past fourth Indiction, the 6109th year, and have not resolved to repent of it, be subjected to canonical deposition: but that they who are involved in this disorder of a second marriage, but before our decree have acknowledged what is fitting, and have cut off their sin, and have put far from them this strange and illegitimate connexion, or they whose wives by second marriage are already dead, or who have turned to repentance of their own accord, having learnt continence, and having quickly forgotten their former iniquities, whether they be presbyters or deacons, these we have determined should cease from all priestly ministrations or exercise, being under punishment for a certain time, but should retain the honour of their seat and station, being satisfied with their seat before the laity and begging with tears from the Lord that the transgression of their ignorance be pardoned them: for unfitting it were that he should bless another who has to tend his own wounds.

‘’’But those who have been married to one wife, if she was a widow, and likewise those who after their ordination have unlawfully entered into one marriage that is, presbyters, and deacons, and subdeacons being debarred for some short time from sacred ministration, and censured, shall be restored again to their proper rank, never advancing to any further rank, their unlawful marriage being openly dissolved.’’’ This we decree to hold good only in the case of those that are involved in the aforesaid

[[again, presbyteros, not episcopai]]

363

faults up to the fifteenth (as was said) of the month of January, of the fourth Indiction, decreeing from the present time, and renewing the Canon which declares, that he who has been joined in two marriages after his baptism, or has had a concubine, cannot be bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or at all on the sacerdotal list; in like manner, that he who has taken a widow, or a divorced person, or a harlot, or a servant, or an actress, cannot be bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or at all on the sacerdotal list.”

No mention is made of bishops being permitted to keep wives. Only priests + deacons.


731 posted on 07/15/2013 7:48:54 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 726 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

You didn’t have a problem when Hislop says that Catholics are followers of Satan? And you only have a problem when Catholics attack his lies?

Odd that!


732 posted on 07/15/2013 7:51:27 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 730 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

You can answer all of your triffling questions by looking in a mirror, and examining your own heart.

They reflect your resistance to throwing off the world, as Yeshua demanded. Others have the same resistance to the dismantling of their nicolaitan position of priviledge, Protestant as well as catholic.


733 posted on 07/15/2013 7:52:39 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 728 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

No, I’m not baffled, really. People who are quick to attack Catholics and the Catholic church are usually strangely silent when the Catholic queries their faith.

If one were honest, it’s a simple question to answer, but it was never about honesty.


734 posted on 07/15/2013 7:53:05 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 729 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Yeah, didn’t think you could back it up with scripture.


735 posted on 07/15/2013 7:53:14 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 715 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Elsie, Luke 9 tells us that Jesus initiated the communication.

It DOES???


28 About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. 29 As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. 30 Two men, Moses and Elijah, appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. 31 They spoke about his departure,[a] which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem. 32 Peter and his companions were very sleepy, but when they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. 33 As the men were leaving Jesus, Peter said to him, “Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” (He did not know what he was saying.)

34 While he was speaking, a cloud appeared and covered them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 35 A voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him.” 36 When the voice had spoken, they found that Jesus was alone. The disciples kept this to themselves and did not tell anyone at that time what they had seen.


Good ol' Pete!

We can always count on him to be so darn Popelike!

736 posted on 07/15/2013 7:53:57 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 603 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Using that language in a religion forum? How classy. I’ll consider you a cretin unworthy of serious consideration.


737 posted on 07/15/2013 7:56:33 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 723 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

I’m sorry. Nobody regards Hislop as authoritative on anything. His conclusion that Semiaramis was married to Nimrod has no corroborating evidence. His conclusion that Nimrod was black has no corroborating evidence. His conclusion that Semiaramis was white has no corroborating evidence. His conclusion that Semiaramis sang as a soprano!, is fanciful nonsense.

And yet, you would have others believe that we should trust the ramblings of a malicious fabricator when it concerns the Catholic church.

But go on. Tell us all how you’d rather believe a fraud than the truth.


738 posted on 07/15/2013 7:56:40 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 733 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

I don’t see much point in discussing scripture with a non-trinitarian.


739 posted on 07/15/2013 7:58:15 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 735 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
“you put on heavy planks on others that you yourself are unwilling to bear”....

I did not expect, and was actually surprised, that you would post that level of information on a public website for all to see. You were certainly free to turn me down, and well within rights to, had you elected to say "no". While I appreciate your willingness to do you from a religious perspective, IMO it was incredibly foolish given our current government's data-collecting activities.

That said, you still haven't told me what value my own information is to you.

740 posted on 07/15/2013 7:59:51 PM PDT by Alex Murphy ("...Someone handed the keys to the Forum to the OPC and its sympathizers...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 701-720721-740741-760 ... 1,621-1,636 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson