Praying to the Saints

[excubitor]

Hello, Excubitor.
Just breaking in here a moment. I was curious as to which of the Books of the protestant Bible you do not think should be included in an appropriate 'Bible', and which you might add, if any.

All of the Books in the protestant Bible are appropriate because they are also in the Catholic Bible. The Catholic Bible has an additional seven books which have been regarded as scripture by Christians throughout all generations and also the Jews before them, which were in the Septuagint which Christ and the apostles used. These seven books were removed by the protestants at the reformation. They need to be put back.

On what basis do you include some and exclude others? I don't mean what are the bases for others or 'tradition' to have done so. I mean, on what basis do YOU include and exclude?

If you are looking for a clever scholarly argument then I suppose I could provide one. But clever scholarly arguments can be constructed to justify practically anything. I have already told you on what basis the books are to be regarded by scripture. They were believed to be divine by the universal church the general assembly of the saints. By this Sacred Tradition we can know which books are divinely inspired. In addition the church has approved these books in a variety of councils. Approving a book as divine scripture is called canonisation. The authority of the church canonised the scriptures which we have today. That is also a powerful evidence of which scripture is divinely inspired.

On the other hand, how do the Protestants know that their selection of the canon is valid? They make vague statements like "The Holy Spirit leads us to the knowledge of which books are scripture". Yes but the Holy Spirit led people for 2000 years to believe that Maccabees, Wisdom and the other books were part of the scripture. How can the Holy Spirit say one thing for over a thousand years and then say something different in the last 400 years. Clearly one selection of the canon is by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the other is by a different spirit who wants to alter the canon for some infamous purpose.

Finally, in your view, which is more authoritative -- the Books of the 'Bible' you deem appropriate, the written statements of certain saints or the oral statements of saints passed down primarily via oral tradition?

I would like to understand your view as a precursor to a few other questions, more specific to praying to saints, if you please. [/QUOTE]

[Slug1]

By snipping out that section of text and placing it out of context you have given my words a meaning which I did not intend. Please refrain from this kind of misrepresentation.


Precisely, so follow what the church teaches then.


The whole point of a tradition is that it is passed on orally, therefore it cannot be verified by writings. This is because not all the documents of the first centuries still exist. But we have very early documents in the first few hundred years which describe the ancient tradition. One way we can know certainly that a tradition is Sacred is that we see no outrcry at its introduction. Can you imagine people suffering and even dieing for their faith suddenly all around the world adopting a new tradition which had never been taught them. It cannot happen. The fact that there are ancient writings recording early debates, but nothing AT ALL, throughout the world recording any kind of dispute with regards to the praying to Saints is proof that it was always a universal tradition.



What I mean by ignore is that you do not accept and act upon the scriptures.
You disregard them and evade them. I'm not saying you don't bother reading them.
No, you are ignoring the scripture and cloaking your disregard with a concocted accusation that I am twisting the scriptures.


If you wish to accuse me of twisting the scripture then you need to provide an alternative meaning to the scripture which is more plausible and which has the universal agreement of the great ecclesia.
Your alternative explanations of the scriptures I provided are quite (well I can't say because I have been warned to check my tone). They are contrary to the universal practice of the church and therefore cause disunity.

This is why Sacred Tradition is so important. Sacred Tradition tells us that we may not adopt a new and novel interpretation of the scripture that has not been passed to us via sacred tradition. The reason for this is that God's word does not change, it is the same yesterday today and forever. But in protestant circles there is a huge variation from one generaton to the next as to what the scriptures mean on a variety of subjects. For example, an alarming trend in protestantism is to deny the Doctrine of the Trinity.
Again, this doctrine is received via Sacred Tradition and are supported by a number of scriptures. But the heretics used scripture to great effect to deny the Trinity doctrine. So much so that the doctrine of the Trinity almost died out in many parts of the world because of the ravages of Arianism.

This is the terrible peril that we open ourselves to when we toss out Sacred Tradition. We become open to every whim of doctrine that false teachers bring as they twist the scriptures to their own devices.

The great apostle himself warns that we must be aware of unstable men who come in to twist the scriptures and give a different, new and novel interpretation that nobody ever heard of before.
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

This is why we must be very wary of the scriptures alone, because they are difficult. But every man thinks that he is learned, every man thinks he is stable, ever man thinks that he understands the scriptures, he may even think that the scriptures are simple and easy. So how do we know if we ourselves men such as this? Simple. By submitting to the superior authority of learned men, magisterium of a stable church. We know who is twisting the scripture by these two things.
1. The twisted scripture is contrary to the Sacred Tradition.
2. The twisted scripture is contrary to the teachings of the magisterium

Otherwise we have no criteria whatsoever to judge who is twisting scripture.

I say that I am not twisting the scripture. I have explained them as plaining as I can using the most direct and straightforward interpretation and explanation. My teaching is in alignment with the Sacred Tradition and in agreement with the magisterium of the church.

Show me in the Bible that praying to the dead is considered "Sacred Tradition" and what you said here will be edifying.

[Slug1]

If you wish to accuse me of twisting the scripture then you need to provide an alternative meaning to the scripture which is more plausible and which has the universal agreement of the great ecclesia.
Your alternative explanations of the scriptures I provided are quite (well I can't say because I have been warned to check my tone). They are contrary to the universal practice of the church and therefore cause disunity.

Here is the deal... what I post is based on the Bible and what the Bible says and NOT what the Roman Catholic ecclesia of scripture is.

So, I understand that you will never agree because Biblical understanding refutes Roman Catholic teachings.

[Eyelog]

All of the Books in the protestant Bible are appropriate because they are also in the Catholic Bible. The Catholic Bible has an additional seven books which have been regarded as scripture by Christians throughout all generations and also the Jews before them, which were in the Septuagint which Christ and the apostles used. These seven books were removed by the protestants at the reformation. They need to be put back.


If you are looking for a clever scholarly argument then I suppose I could provide one. But clever scholarly arguments can be constructed to justify practically anything. I have already told you on what basis the books are to be regarded by scripture. They were believed to be divine by the universal church the general assembly of the saints. By this Sacred Tradition we can know which books are divinely inspired. In addition the church has approved these books in a variety of councils. Approving a book as divine scripture is called canonisation. The authority of the church canonised the scriptures which we have today. That is also a powerful evidence of which scripture is divinely inspired.

On the other hand, how do the Protestants know that their selection of the canon is valid? They make vague statements like "The Holy Spirit leads us to the knowledge of which books are scripture". Yes but the Holy Spirit led people for 2000 years to believe that Maccabees, Wisdom and the other books were part of the scripture. How can the Holy Spirit say one thing for over a thousand years and then say something different in the last 400 years. Clearly one selection of the canon is by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the other is by a different spirit who wants to alter the canon for some infamous purpose.

Finally, in your view, which is more authoritative -- the Books of the 'Bible' you deem appropriate, the written statements of certain saints or the oral statements of saints passed down primarily via oral tradition?

I would like to understand your view as a precursor to a few other questions, more specific to praying to saints, if you please.

Excubitor,

Thank you for your opinions. I consider your request for my view before you proceed to be fair.

I have always taken by faith the Protestant Canon. I have done relatively few studies on that subject, but i do know enough to get my hands dirty. I have read only enough of the Apocrypha to conclude, based on my experience with the Protestent Bible, that those books tend to (a) violate my sensibilities that they are Scripture, and (b) in places contradict the Protestant Canon.

The first issue (a), regarding my sensibilities.

I know that there are certain standards set out for a work being worthy of the Canon. While I think the traditional criteria are helpful and essential, I doubt they are sufficient, which is to say I doubt there are not further criteria which should apply. For one thing, I must say I have my doubts about the Song of Solomon. i think it made it in only because someone is convinced it was really written by Solomon. Personally, I find all this would-be symbolism of Christ and the church in there to be very unlikely. I see it more as a record of Solomon's unholy lusts and treatment of foreign women, a sin which ruined him and all of Israel. The Book, if it is rightly part of the Canon, should be held up as evidence that Solomon single-handedly brought the kingdom down, after God gave him such wisdom and personal promises. The guy represents the worst in human, fallen nature, because he turned his back on God with knowledge, and proved that absolute power corrupts absolutely. So, anyone who venerates that book, which leudly refers to his love affair with a Shulamite wife or wife to be or whatever, is deceived.

However, I would be glad to be proved wrong about that.

Back to my point, though, what I look for most of all as signs of Canonicity, are marks of the Spirit's influence, which usually come in the form of consistency and support of the entire counsel of God. Parroted repetitions don't cut it, and there is something in the wording which shows the writer or his scribe was literate that is important. There is definitely a feel to Scripture that should be there in those ways, and it is really hard to describe in full, because ultimately i must sense the Spirit in and through the work.

So far as (b) contradictions, these may be straight forward differences, but usually the contradiction is more subtle: The text tries to pull the meaning of particular issues, or even a particular testament, in a direction other than what the rest of Scripture is clearly going. Often the text contradicts the spirit of the rest of the Bible.

That said, I take the protestant Bible as the most authoritative, except for Song of Songs. I find tradition interesting and potentially helpful, but I hold it at arm's length, and i test it in the same manner that I test identified apocrypha.

However, if something is documented as written contemporarily with a church father who purportedly said it, that holds considerably more wt. than something we only have via oral tradition many years after the events or speaker occurred or lived. But all may be considered and tested.

I suppose that one who has grown in the faith in the Catholic Church would have learned early to trust the written and oral tradition which has been accepted by the Ecclesia. When a person has lived by something and trusted it and suffered for it, it becomes pretty hard to detach from it. I would expect that for you this (a) sensibility thing is very strong, and if a text lacks that Catholic flavor you know so well, you immediately know it and distrust it.

So far as (b) contradictions, I am sure your Catechism explains things consistently, and you see none. Surely, the way our heart has been molded to attach to these things greatly influences how we read and experience the texts.

But I think I have caught much of the Protestant Spirit, and I see things that I would not in good conscience be able to tolerate in Catholic ways, traditions and some of its texts. Like Slug1, I am pretty adamant about these things, but there are some areas where I am not as adamant. I think Catholics can be born again believers, and I think they can have the HS, and i think their sincere faith in Jesus Christ goes a long way. But if we get into saint worship or prayer, that will have to be explained to me. If we get into veneration of Mary, making her ascend to heaven without dying, and making her Queen of Heaven, that will have to be explained to me. If we get into venerating saints in general, if that means worshipping them, I have a problem with that. If it means honoring them and taking stock of their example, that is another thing. I see a bright line between those things, and I see it routinely crossed by Catholics.

Hail Mary? Rosary? Relics with special powers, places with special powers, priests with special powers to forgive sins and bless and all that? Transubstantiation? Confession and penitance? Prayers for the dead? Gifts to the church for the dead? On and on. These sorts of things are very, very hard to take.

And, along the lines of (b) contradiction to Scripture, they are antithetical to the fundamental core of Christianity as demonstrated in the books of the Bible which our two traditions share.

And this is why I asked which books of the Protestant Bible you do accept. Forget our differences for a minute.

In those books we hold in common, we can show you principles and even clear statements which go against all the things I just listed, plus many other things which are integral to how some Catholics practice their faith. So, I see Catholocism as having a pure and wonderful root in Christianity, but it is built up with human artifacts, like barnacles on a ship. Sometimes, if unchecked, they become so much a part of the ship that removing them might sink the ship. As it is, they encumber it and make it move slowly, and the ship is not functioning as God intended it.

There are Protestants who have barnacles on their faith as well. So, don't we all.

The very goal of the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is to become like Him.

He did not venerate his mother, but honored her. He worshipped no one but the Father. He entrusted Himself to no man. He did only what the Father told Him to do and say. I could go on.

So, our goal is to accurately hear from the Father, obey Him in word and deed. This is why we seek to know the correct Canon of Scripture. But we must not get the text in front of hearing from the Father and worshipping God only. When we bring in statues of Mary or Jesus and pray before them, or do any of the other pagan-esque processes, we are not purely worshipping God only, and when we make what the church fathers say our authority, rather than what the Spirit of God says, confirming texts, then we run into myriad obstacles in hearing God.

The reactionary says, 'throw it all out and just walk by faith in Jesus Christ, doing Good as the Spirit leads you, not sinning, keeping short accounts with God, and leave it at that.'

The activist says, 'good, but add proactive transformation of your character into the likes of Jesus Christ.'

The traditionalists says, 'leave well enough alone. Follow the tranditions handed down from your fathers, and don't try to move ancient boundary stones.'

Excubitor, ... I am that reactionary activist in combination.

[Boo]

Well said, Eyelog.

We do have some strong similarities.