Devotion to Mary

[ptisme]

**An Angel can not redeem you **

as does Jacob’s Angel, which is manifestation of OT Jesus (as in Hagar and Abraham ,the 3 angels). Again, this does not deal with to whom the prayers were offered up to in the first place. Secondly, one can not assume God doesn’t hear the prayers first. Another words we can not say the Saints are intermediaries in presenting something that hasn’t been presented already. What we can say is that they “hold” these prayers before God. A bit like love letters to God which He has read, which afterwards are placed in the vials for the saints to “hold” as like incense. I would call that a type of interceding, but not the type as when folks “talk to” saints in heaven to pass on a “letter” to God.
Primary meaning here is not the hearing, knowing powers of angels. We are not sure angels read minds and thoughts. For sure there are many of them and communicate with each other and can hear and see while in our world.
Again, we are talking about whether they know your silent and audible prayers, and if so by what means. The answer then determines the value or vanity of praying to Saints in heaven.

1. The angel performed the intercession through God. Without God there is no power to do anything.
2. Regarding whether the prayers were offered up to God or the Saints: Regardless, the fact that the Saints are offering the prayers means they can hear the intentions or they’d have nothing to present.
3. Regarding the rest IE: are Saints holding our prayers etc… That’s all speculation… Plus it makes much more sense that the Saints are presenting our prayers before God. Doesn’t make any sense to me that God would take prayers offered to him and give it to the Saints to hold… Am I really debating this? . I still see nothing concrete in the bible that suggests invoking the Saints to aide us is frowned upon any more than if one of your family members became ill and asked you to pray for him/her. And if that’s the case then it certainly isn’t the deal breaker that many protestants seem to make it IMHO…

 

[ptisme]

Maybe I spend too much time here

We’re the people your parents warned you about

 

[JonNC]

Hi Kathleen,

=KathleenGee;12218374]The Book of Maccabees states it is good to pray for the dead.

And Luther and Lutherans did/do not dispute prayer for the dead.

Because this book did not agree with Martin Luther’s theology of Sola Scriptura, Luther took it out.

I assume you mean 2 Maccabees. Following is his preface, in which he states clearly why he did not consider it canon:

This book is called, and is supposed to be, the second book of Maccabees, as the title indicates. Yet this cannot be true, because it reports several incidents that happened before those reported in the first book, and it does not proceed any further than Judas Maccabaeus, that is, chapter 7 of the first book. It would be better to call this the first instead of the second book, unless one were to call it simply a second book and not the second book of Maccabees; another or different, certainly, but not second. But we include it anyway, for the sake of the good story of the seven Maccabean martyrs and their mother, and other things as well. It appears, however, that the book has no single author, but was pieced together out of many books. It also presents a knotty problem in chapter 14:41–46] where Razis commits suicide, something which also troubles St. Augustine and the ancient fathers. Such an example is good for nothing and should not be praised, even though it may be tolerated and perhaps explained. So also in chapter 1 this book describes the death of Antiochus quite differently than does First Maccabees [6:1–16]. To sum up: just as it is proper for the first book to be included among the sacred Scriptures, so it is proper that this second book should be thrown out, even though it contains some good things. However the whole thing is left and referred to the pious reader to judge and to decide.*[LW 35:352-353]

He had lots of concerns about 2 Macc. None of them had to do with sola scriptura, that I am aware of.

He wanted to also remove St. James’ letter that states faith without works is dead, and Revelations because it made no sense…when it is the Breaking of the Bread, the Mass, which is the key that brings understanding to Revelations.

I’ve seen the claim often that he wanted to “remove” them, but I have yet to see a source where he actually says this about any of the NT antilegomena.

People have to realize ‘church’ is a gathering of people and is administered by a gathering of people, and that the Lord in Judeo Christianity does not come to individuals alone, but those within a gathering of believers.

While I think He does come to individuals, I agree that the function of the Church, where we hear His word and receive the sacraments, is vital in the life of the believer.

Jon

 

[JRKH]

Thank you .Understand . Still an interpolation (reading between the lines but not direct meaning). Taken literally then do we pray to the four beasts or the twenty four elders ? they have the prayers. Do the saints in heaven pray or invoke them ? It is not specified whom the prayers are originally directed to . Certainly it is more possible that they are all prayers directed to the Godhead. Again, it is interpolation to say they are prayers from saints on this side of life given to saints on the other side of life to give to God and has no precedence.

Well Stated…

The questions - literal and/or interpolation - you pose above are exactly why our Lord instituted an Ekklesia (A Church) with authority to listen to such questions, prayerfully discuss and debate the matters and come to correct answers on them. This way each individual is not left wondering and having to figure it out for themselves.

I know the above is a bit off topic…but your post was such a perfect Segway that I felt the need to interject.

Peace
James

 

[ptisme]

Well Stated…

The questions - literal and/or interpolation - you pose above are exactly why our Lord instituted an Ekklesia (A Church) with authority to listen to such questions, prayerfully discuss and debate the matters and come to correct answers on them. This way each individual is not left wondering and having to figure it out for themselves.

I know the above is a bit off topic…but your post was such a perfect Segway that I felt the need to interject.

Peace
James

Outstanding point!

 

[gcnuss]

He wanted to also remove St. James’ letter that states faith without works is dead…

From Luther’s Smalcald Articles:

Part III, Article XIII. How One is Justified before God, and of Good Works.

1] What I have hitherto and constantly taught concerning this I know not how to change in the least, namely, that by faith, as St. Peter says, we acquire a new and clean heart, and God will and does account us entirely righteous and holy for the sake of Christ, our Mediator. And although sin in the flesh has not yet been altogether removed or become dead, yet He will not punish or remember it.

2] And such faith, renewal, and forgiveness of sins is followed by good works. And what there is still sinful or imperfect also in them shall not be accounted as sin or defect, even [and that, too] for Christ’s sake; but the entire man, both as to his person and his works, is to be called and to be righteous and holy from pure grace and mercy, shed upon us [unfolded] and spread over us in Christ. 3] Therefore we cannot boast of many merits and works, if they are viewed apart from grace and mercy, but as it is written, 1 Cor. 1:31: He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord, namely, that he has a gracious God. For thus all is well. 4] We say, besides, that if good works do not follow, faith is false and not true.

The final sentence (bolded) says that faith without works is false. I think Luther’s issue with James is that some interpreted it to mean that they were saved by their own works apart from Christ’s sacrifice. I think we both agree that we are not capable of saving ourselves.

 

[ptisme]

From Luther’s Smalcald Articles:

Part III, Article XIII. How One is Justified before God, and of Good Works.

The final sentence (bolded) says that faith without works is false. I think Luther’s issue with James is that some interpreted it to mean that they were saved by their own works apart from Christ’s sacrifice. I think we both agree that we are not capable of saving ourselves.

OK, I’m confused. I always thought there was a difference between Catholics (Grace by faith and works) and Protestants (Faith alone). Do Lutherans not believe that we are justified by faith alone (sola fide)? The bolded sounds like Faith alone is as baron as Works alone?

 

[rinnie]

I raised this question on another thread: Are Catholics required to invoke the saints?

No, we choose to do so.

Look at it this way, if you go to court and you have a choice, do you go with the best attorney there is, or do you decide to go alone.

That’s kinda of what its like.

We go to God and pray and ask him for our help, but we also ask the Saints to go to him also and pray for us.

But you can choose to go to God alone and not ask for prayers others. or as Christ taught us we pray for one another.

Christ prayed for Peter. Peter could have prayed to God by himself, and I am sure he did. But the prayer of Christ helped a lot would you not agree.

 

[rinnie]

I raised this question on another thread: Are Catholics required to invoke the saints?

Also the reason we asked the Saints for prayers is God always answers the prayers of the Righteous.

 

[benhur]

My thoughts on this topic:

If you ask a Saint to pray for you, and the prayer is answered it would seem to prove that the practice is efficacious. Documented miracles are required before a person is declared a (capital “S”) Saint. Since miracles are granted by God according to His will, either He knew of your need Himself, or He granted it in spite of your asking a Saint for their intercession. I can’t explain how the Saints in heaven can “hear” us anymore than I can explain how Jesus hears us. I am not comparing the Saints to Jesus! But only saying that rationalism can only take us so far.

Of course we are prohibited from invoking the dead, but if we believe those in Heaven are not alive, we need to rethink our beliefs.

Thank you for your thoughts. Efficaciousness may or may not prove anything. Even Pharoah’s magicians were efficacious, to a point. When the Sanhedrin and Pharisees accused Jesus doing works with the power of Beelzabub they did so because it was a possibility (that the devil does deceiving good works also. His number one game is deception and especailly with “light”). Again, answered prayers to saints in heaven may or may not prove anything… We can explain How Jesus hears us. He is God and as such is all knowing and ever and all present… Finally, good that we understand not to invoke the dead but what does that mean ? Generally it means invoking someone who has died to this life and entered the next, the “other” side. All dead people are still alive. Remember the rich man and Lazarus, both the righteous and unrighteous were “alive” after death.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I raised this question on another thread: Are Catholics required to invoke the saints?

Not in our individual private prayers, no.
However, in our communal prayer & worship (i.e., the Mass), the Saints are invoked, and we are required to join in.

Besides the priests’ prayers, we for instance sometimes say the Confiteor at Mass:

I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned,
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done and in what I have failed to do,
through my fault, through my fault,
through my most grievous fault;

therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin,
all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.

 

[JRKH]

OK, I’m confused. I always thought there was a difference between Catholics (Grace by faith and works) and Protestants (Faith alone). Do Lutherans not believe that we are justified by faith alone (sola fide)? The bolded sounds like Faith alone is as baron as Works alone?

I will not speak for Lutherans…but will say that there are a number of different takes on the issue of faith and works. The trick is to NOT try to divorce faith and works. They are inextricably linked. Many protestants agree with the Catholic Church on this.

Peace
James

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Jon and Pastor,

I will be reading your posts after my grandson leaves…will get back but I think my prior comment, if not correctly referenced…at its core had some real meat to it, especially as I have been attending morning services at a Lutheran church since last fall…

 

[benhur]

Because this book did not agree with Martin Luther’s theology of Sola Scriptura, Luther took it out. He wanted to also remove St. James’ letter that states faith without works is dead, and Revelations because it made no sense…when it is the Breaking of the Bread, the Mass, which is the key that brings understanding to Revelations.

If I may add to what Jon said on this, it must be remembered that the canon was not strictly set at Luthers time but for sure with Trent. Also as Jon’s Luther quote points out that some "ancients’’ had similar thoughts about certain books and canonicity, so did some of his Catholic clerical contemporaries. So as far I can tell his canon reasonings were quite “Catholic” at the time and nothing new.

People have to realize ‘church’ is a gathering of people and is administered by a gathering of people, and that the Lord in Judeo Christianity does not come to individuals alone, but those within a gathering of believers.

Absolutely but if we go to far with the dichotomizing we may abrogate the dignity and newness of those middle wall of partitions being torn down and the veil being torn in two. It does say neighbor will not need to teach his neighbor, that He,the Almighty, will write the law on the heart of the believer, and as Augustine says, He, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, will teach us, even illumine every member of the ecclesia, forbearing teachers and prophets and apostles and healers, etc… It is a new dispensation, where He will pour out His spirit upon all flesh , a new covenant.

If we come to new theologies without bringing them before the community of faithful consecrated by the Lord to assure such reflections are in accord with the history of faith, then we have division and enmnity, – not the communion in which we are called to in the Holy Trinity made real by our communion with each other – at the same table.

Absolutely again. Nobody thinks they have theologies unhistorical or unheld by consecrated forefathers. Our theologies have been before all communities for consideration and discernment, for approval or for rejection, even refinement. This forum is a microcosm of that .
PS-Enjoy the grandkids, mine just left and miss them already.

 

[JonNC]

OK, I’m confused. I always thought there was a difference between Catholics (Grace by faith and works) and Protestants (Faith alone). Do Lutherans not believe that we are justified by faith alone (sola fide)? The bolded sounds like Faith alone is as baron as Works alone?

Faith without works is dead. Yes? So, while works do not merit before God but faith only, which is itself a gift of grace, faith cannot be without works. You are to love the Lord your God, and your neighbor as yourself.
So, Luther, as quoted in the confessions:

.Thus faith is a divine work in us, that changefs us and regenerates us of God, and puts to death the old Adam, makes us entirely different men in heart, spirit, mind, and all powers, and brings with it [confers] the Holy Ghost. Oh, it is a living, busy, active, powerful thing that we have in faith, so that it is impossible for it not to do good without ceasing. 11] Nor does it ask whether good works are to be done; but before the question is asked, it has wrought them, and is always engaged in doing them. But he who does not do such works is void of faith, and gropes and looks about after faith and good works, and knows neither what faith nor what good works are, yet babbles and prates with many words concerning faith and good works. 12] [Justifying] faith is a living, bold [firm] trust in God’s grace, so certain that a man would die a thousand times for it [rather than suffer this trust to be wrested from him]. And this trust and knowledge of divine grace renders joyful, fearless, and cheerful towards God and all creatures, which [joy and cheerfulness] the Holy Ghost works through faith; and on account of this, man becomes ready and cheerful, without coercion, to do good to every one, to serve every one, and to suffer everything for love and praise to God, who has conferred this grace on him, so that it is impossible to separate works from faith, yea, just as impossible as it is for heat and light to be separated from fire.

Jon

 

[JRKH]

If I may add to what Jon said on this, it must be remembered that the canon was not strictly set at Luthers time but for sure with Trent. Also as Jon’s Luther quote points out that some "ancients’’ had similar thoughts about certain books and canonicity, so did some of his Catholic clerical contemporaries. So as far I can tell his canon reasonings were quite “Catholic” at the time and nothing new.

Ben,
Just speaking for myself…
I agree with your factual points i.e. that the Canon was “closed” at Trent, and that prior to that there were individuals who "had similar thoughts (to Luther) about the canonicity of certain books.
That said, there are other facts that make what occurred at the reformation both different and (at least to me) disturbing. These are not in any particular order…

• The people you refer to as questioning certain books nonetheless accepted the canon as established by the Church in council. In other words, they humbly submitted their will to that of Christ in His Church.
• The people who promoted the doctrine of Sola Scriptura based it on the knowledge that Scripture is God’s Holy word. Then immediately sought to change the canon of Scripture by taking away from God’s Holy word. When i was away from the Catholic Church - and looking into protestantism - this one had me scratching my head.
• The canon of Scripture used in the west for 1000 years before the reformation was established by Church council and affirmed by other councils - a most biblical method.
• The reduction of the Bible from 73 book to 66 was NOT done by council - which is a most unbiblical method for changing the “word of God”.

For myself, the matter of the canon is less about the books themselves and more about how the different canon came about and what that says about the movement(s) that created it. I cannot find the action of the Holy Spirit in it.

Peace
James

 

[KathleenGee]

Reading JRKH’s thought here, I tend to agree…and thanks, Jon and Rev for your (name removed by moderator)ut…reading your sources, it does indeed indicate a tremendous fracture within Christianity, the misperceptions…

In my class with a bishop who participated in Vatican II, and particularly so on Ecumenism, considered Luther’s scrupulosity…and likewise other Catholic saints who affirmed we are saved by God’s grace. Luther was ahead of his time…in regards to participation in liturgy.

Where we come from…is this experience of the Holy Trinity…this communion…I share some of it with the Lutherans in their services…they are so sweet and before the service begins, a number of them turn around to see if I am still there…we smile back to each other and I have a love for them…and witness their faith in Christ and His presence with Him…

But what is lacking is the depth of communion, the actuality of the Eucharist…the communion of saints…and this work of the Catholic Church – we share with you…to reconcile sinners back to the Lord…and also…to make present to the world today the redeeming and saving action of Our Lord on Calvary and the new life of the Resurrection…

The Mass is the continuation of the saving and atoning act of Our Lord…and we are together with all believers in Christ … you just miss out with this profound communion…

As a Catholic, I see us no better or different…but we have this grace of believing in the Eucharist and in our hierarchical authority.

Where Luther went wrong was to divorce himself from the Church…and true, there was blame on our side. I read about the liturgy 900 or 1000 up to Luther’s time and wonder why the Church didn’t reform itself sooner with the problem of clericalism…

But we need the institution of the priesthood to bring us the Eucharist…and it is the Breaking of the Bread…that provides us this living understanding and life giving action of the Word…where we experience it the same as people did thousands of years ago.

Getting back to Mary…our veneration to her comes from this profound experience of the living God on ordinary Resurrection Sunday.

One of Mary’s great gifts is that she makes us a family. I pray for an authentic unity…it takes alot of humility…and nobody is better than anyone else…before God we are all the same.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

My sense is that Lutheran pastors do not emphasize the blessed Virgin enough in sermons. When some Lutherans read what the Confessions profess about the Mother of God they attempt to dismiss or minimize Mary; this is a serious mistake that Lutheran clergy should correct ASAP.

How many Lutheran parishes have a statue, icon, image of the Madonna and Child?

 

[benhur]

But we need the institution of the priesthood to bring us the Eucharist.

That is my problem with both. I find it a conflict of interest during the development of both CC doctrines/practices-the CC priesthood and CC definition of RP

 

[benhur]

My sense is that Lutheran pastors do not emphasize the blessed Virgin enough in sermons. When some Lutherans read what the Confessions profess about the Mother of God they attempt to dismiss or minimize Mary; this is a serious mistake that Lutheran clergy should correct ASAP.

How many Lutheran parishes have a statue, icon, image of the Madonna and Child?

Read something the other day that the command is not to make any statue of anything in heaven per Exodus 20:4,5. I know we are not under the law, and folks don’t "worship’’ them, but it says just "bowing’’ to them is not right. Also am not knowledgeable of icon debate history. It seems to me that sometimes the more private something is kept the better and more sacred and even personal. A bit like the Jewish custom of not writing the complete name of God, leaving out vowels.