Do you find a problem with Mary as an Intercessor?

[R_C]

When is the first instance (ancient writing of church fathers or oral tradition) where Christians are told to pray to saints that have reposed?

Read my post above First instances are St. Paul and Revelation of St. John (so first century), and we find the teaching in the Church Fathers of the second, third, fourth century and so forth without the slightest contradiction.

 

[PRmerger]

I get the impression Jesus does not say no to Mary. So if not Mary, then who else?

Oh, Jesus is not subject to a human creature. You can be assured of that.

 

[EIF5A]

“Do you find a problem with Mary as an Intercessor?”

No. But I’m iffy with the flowery exaggerations (e.g., “our only hope”, “You are the beginning of our feast; you are its middle and end”). Why not just say and put things into proper contexts instead of saying, “Oh, we don’t really mean that. What we really mean is this and this”?

 

[PRmerger]

When is the first instance (ancient writing of church fathers or oral tradition) where Christians are told to pray to saints that have reposed?

Matthew 17:3 where Jesus speaks to saints that have reposed.

 

[R_C]

“Do you find a problem with Mary as an Intercessor?”

No. But I’m iffy with the flowery exaggerations (e.g., “our only hope”, “You are the beginning of our feast; you are its middle and end”).

Oh, well, I guess the Church Fathers Augustine and Methodius didn’t know what they were saying…but we know better, don’t we…

 

[marymary1975]

First of all, I don’t think that the concept of Jesus as intercessor is wrong as he, himself is God. Therefore as God and the final judge, he can’t be an intercessor.

One priest gave me a wonderful analogy of the role of Mary as intercessor which I am going to share. Imagine that you have an issue as a citizen of the US and need to talk to.the President to ask him to help you. Do you think.that you can simply show up at the white house and say, hey MR. president come and help me with this problem? The president has a million things to worry about, and about a million people who just like you want him to help the. Why should he give him priority over everything else? However, let’s say you know the President’s mother. Don’t you think that if you ask the President’s mother to go to the President and ask him the favor or helping you, you will get help quicker because the President is going to listen to what his mother asks him?

Works.very similar with Mary. People tend to forget that Jesus is God not their high.school buddy. We are nothing than simple humans and is very likely that God has a million of more important things to do. But Mary is his mother. Remember the first miracle in Cana, it happened just because Mary asked for it. In the same way if you ask for Mary’s intercesion, there is a better likelihood that God is going to do it just because is his mother asking him to do something.

 

[PRmerger]

“Do you find a problem with Mary as an Intercessor?”

No. But I’m iffy with the flowery exaggerations (e.g., “our only hope”, “You are the beginning of our feast; you are its middle and end”). Why not just say and put things into proper contexts instead of saying, “Oh, we don’t really mean that. What we really mean is this and this”?

Because we all understand the context.

If you object to our calling Mary “our only hope”, then do you object to Paul claiming that* he* can save some of us? (Yep…Paul does indeed say that he, Paul, saves.)

Of course, Catholics understand what St. Paul means and take no offense, as if Paul is saying that he, apart from Christ, can save anyone. Oddly enough, non-Catholic Christians seem to understand this, too, but for some reason have legalistic blinders on when we use the same lexicon with Mary.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Because we all understand the context.

If you object to our calling Mary “our only hope”, then do you object to Paul claiming that* he* can save some of us? (Yep…Paul does indeed say that he, Paul, saves.)

Of course, Catholics understand what St. Paul means and take no offense, as if Paul is saying that he, apart from Christ, can save anyone. Oddly enough, non-Catholic Christians seem to understand this, too, but for some reason have legalistic blinders on when we use the same lexicon with Mary.

 

[EIF5A]

Oh, well, I guess the Church Fathers Augustine and Methodius didn’t know what they were saying…but we know better, don’t we…

It was literary style. Mary is not literally our only hope. She is not literally the beginning, middle, and end. But it’s a way of venerating her — to use stylistic exaggerations. In the modern age, we’re not used to this, and many people do not see that those phrases are not to be taken literally, and from that, misunderstandings arise.

But I appreciate your sarcastic response.

 

[Boulder257]

First of all, I don’t think that the concept of Jesus as intercessor is wrong as he, himself is God. Therefore as God and the final judge, he can’t be an intercessor.

One priest gave me a wonderful analogy of the role of Mary as intercessor which I am going to share. Imagine that you have an issue as a citizen of the US and need to talk to.the President to ask him to help you. Do you think.that you can simply show up at the white house and say, hey MR. president come and help me with this problem? The president has a million things to worry about, and about a million people who just like you want him to help the. Why should he give him priority over everything else? However, let’s say you know the President’s mother. Don’t you think that if you ask the President’s mother to go to the President and ask him the favor or helping you, you will get help quicker because the President is going to listen to what his mother asks him?

Works.very similar with Mary. People tend to forget that Jesus is God not their high.school buddy. We are nothing than simple humans and is very likely that God has a million of more important things to do. But Mary is his mother. Remember the first miracle in Cana, it happened just because Mary asked for it. In the same way if you ask for Mary’s intercesion, there is a better likelihood that God is going to do it just because is his mother asking him to do something.

I like the analogy, but I think it limits God. It makes it sound as though God can only handle a specific number of petitions and if we don’t get on the list, somehow He won’t hear us.

 

[marymary1975]

I like the analogy, but I think it limits God. It makes it sound as though God can only handle a specific number of petitions and if we don’t get on the list, somehow He won’t hear us.

Well I guess that if you look at it in the human sense of being a President but I think the analogy is more on the sense that God is not our high school buddy. He is above US. Yes he does hear everything and can do everything but we are not equal to God. We can’t go to him hey give me this because is me. I am just a simple.human. we can pray to him yes, but there is a much better chance, just like in the Cana wedding, that Jesus will.act if its through its mother’s intercesion.

 

[R_C]

It was literary style. Mary is not literally our only hope. She is not literally the beginning, middle, and end. But it’s a way of venerating her — to use stylistic exaggerations. In the modern age, we’re not used to this, and many people do not see that those phrases are not to be taken literally, and from that, misunderstandings arise.

But I appreciate your sarcastic response.

A sense of humor is important if we don’t want to hurt our sensibilities on these delicate matters. It’s also a defensive thing for me, since I do get moody when others don’t quite appreciate the way in which God wants us to honor the Blessed Virgin. If King David danced before the Ark and spent 40 years to build the Temple of Jerusalem - all of this giving great glory to God and being very pleasant to Him - should Our Lady receive any less honor? And if we offer her a fraction of that honor, should we be criticized or worse for it?

That being said: yes, you are absolutely right. In this age we are not used to the terminology of the Church Fathers (I mean, we cannot turn around and speak of heretics and schismatics and anathema without even offending the Lord at this point) but nevertheless the issue is also with the fact that the people whom the Church Fathers addressed (1) knew or at least had a very solid grasp of the orthodox Christian faith and (2) understood that the Church had authority to teach and that the Tradition had as fundamental an importance as Scripture - the Bible itself did not quite exist as a volume until much later, and even then we speak of few rare handwritten Bibles which had to be kept like treasures.

Misunderstandings arise mostly when people can get download or hold on to an inexpensive edition of the Bible and they can skim through it and pick words since they can read the language, but of course most of us lack the necessary knowledge and perhaps have not received the necessary gifts to understand Scripture…so what happens? People fall into the old practice of “picking and choosing” (which led to the development of the term “heresy”) in which they focus on a word or passage without putting it in the context of the whole picture, the whole picture being the entirety of the Pauline teaching, or of the Apostolic teaching, or of Scripture, or of both Scripture and Tradition as a unity.

If on matters of faith we simply trust the apostolic Church as the Apostles and Church Fathers taught us to do, then of course no misunderstanding can occur, since if we don’t quite get something we simply realize or assume we are lacking necessary knowledge and (1) trust the Church while (2) learning more and more on the topic.

 

[JonNC]

All saints are intercessors. If one understands the communion of saints, then understanding how one saint is an intercessor is not a problem. This goes back to my thread about a Church being about Communion. If we understand our entire Church life as Communion, and understand our salvation as Communion with God and to one another, then intercessions are very, very, very easy to understand.

And Lutherans would say Amen to this. Do the Blessed Virgin and the saints in Heaven pray for us, the church Militant? Ever so much, and unceasingly, but that is not a reason to invoke their intercession.
The Lutheran position is that there is no command, example (except perhaps the dream in 2 Macc), or promise attached to it in scripture. So, the issue for the Lutheran reformers was not that one should or shouldn’t invoke the saints in Heaven, but that no one should be bound to believe that the saints hear our requests for intercession.

Jon

 

[EIF5A]

And Lutherans would say Amen to this. Do the Blessed Virgin and the saints in Heaven pray for us, the church Militant? Ever so much, and unceasingly, but that is not a reason to invoke their intercession.
The Lutheran position is that there is no command, example (except perhaps the dream in 2 Macc), or promise attached to it in scripture. So, the issue for the Lutheran reformers was not that one should or shouldn’t invoke the saints in Heaven, but that no one should be bound to believe that the saints hear our requests for intercession.

Jon

So Lutherans believe the saints and the BVM pray for us but more in a general sense and not for specific prayer requests asked to them for intercession?

 

[JonNC]

So Lutherans believe the saints and the BVM pray for us but more in a general sense and not for specific prayer requests asked to them for intercession?

That is the thrust of the Confessions, and some of the scriptural references on this thread support that view.

On a personal note, I was diagnosed with prostate cancer some 7 years ago. Through my treatment, and since, I have carried a likeness of St. Peregrine, as I know he prayers for cancer patients. I don’t pray directly to him, but instead pray to God, asking that He listen to the prayers of St. Peregrine, and others.

Jon

 

[ConstantineTG]

And Lutherans would say Amen to this. Do the Blessed Virgin and the saints in Heaven pray for us, the church Militant? Ever so much, and unceasingly, but that is not a reason to invoke their intercession.
The Lutheran position is that there is no command, example (except perhaps the dream in 2 Macc), or promise attached to it in scripture. So, the issue for the Lutheran reformers was not that one should or shouldn’t invoke the saints in Heaven, but that no one should be bound to believe that the saints hear our requests for intercession.

Jon

Why does there need to be a command? Do you know why we venerate relics? Because that relic of a saint connects us to Christ. A person is body and soul, the body is here with us while the soul is with Christ. Ultimately, all veneration given to a saint flows up to Christ because a saint is only a saint because the light of Christ is in them. That halo we place on their icons isn’t merely an indicator of sorts to say they are saints, that is a representation of the reality that Christ’s light shines through them. When we kiss their relics, when we kiss their icons, we ultimately kiss Christ who is in them.

When we pray to saints we know Christ hears our prayers because as Jesus said, He is in them and they in Him. This all is part of the great mystery of Communion which is the very essence of the Church.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I think Lutherans agree about the blessed Virgin Mary, as with all saints as intercessors. We name Mary and “all the company of Heaven” as praying with us and for us to God. But one should be careful not to replace Jesus with his Blessed Mother. Luther referred to Mary as the “Queen of Heaven” but urged that we not overly emphasize her role to avoid misunderstanding.

 

[JonNC]

=ConstantineTG;10760520]Why does there need to be a command?

That is a good question. The history of the issue, by reading the confessions, seems more about the requirement to believe it.

Again, the adversaries not only require invocation in the worship of the saints, but also apply the merits of the saints to others, and make of the saints not only intercessors, but also propitiators. This is in no way to be endured. For here the honor belonging only to Christ is altogether transferred to the saints. For they make them mediators and propitiators, and although they make a distinction between mediators of intercession and mediators [the Mediator] of redemption, yet they plainly make of the saints mediators of redemption. 15] But even that they are mediators of intercession they declare without the testimony of Scripture, which, be it said ever so reverently, nevertheless obscures Christ’s office, and transfers the confidence of mercy due Christ to the saints.

So the issue of command is more wrapped up in the requirement, and the side issues stated by Melanchthon here in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Do you know why we venerate relics? Because that relic of a saint connects us to Christ. A person is body and soul, the body is here with us while the soul is with Christ. Ultimately, all veneration given to a saint flows up to Christ because a saint is only a saint because the light of Christ is in them. That halo we place on their icons isn’t merely an indicator of sorts to say they are saints, that is a representation of the reality that Christ’s light shines through them. When we kiss their relics, when we kiss their icons, we ultimately kiss Christ who is in them.

Some may think this odd, but I really have no problem here. In Luke 15:7, Christ talks about the joy among the hosts of Heaven, which includes the saints there, when one who is in need of repentance does so. Honoring and imitating the saints, knowing that their example focuses on Christ, is not an issue for me.

When we pray to saints we know Christ hears our prayers because as Jesus said, He is in them and they in Him. This all is part of the great mystery of Communion which is the very essence of the Church.

And this is why I say that even if the saints do not hear our prayers, Christ does, and He knows the intent. I am not condemning invocation, as millions of Christians presently and in the past have gained comfort by it. I gain comfort knowing St. Peregrine prays for those of us who have had cancer.

So, the issue of command is that, without one, the conscience of the believer ought not be bound to the practice. Then again, without a contradiction of it in scripture, and indeed some mild inferences to the Heavenly saints knowing of the events on Earth, neither should believers be kept from it.

Jon

 

[R_C]

that is not a reason to invoke their intercession. The Lutheran position is that there is no command … no one should be bound to believe that the saints hear our requests for intercession.

And this is why I say that even if the saints do not hear our prayers…

Clement of Alexandria states that the Christian even when he prays alone “has the choir of the saints standing with him in prayer”.

Origen says that “not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep”.

Cyril of Jerusalem says that in the Eucharist we mention the saints “that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition”.

Jerome, the greatest Biblical scholar of the Early Church, responds to this specific claim as follows:

“You say in your book that while we live we are able to pray for each other, but afterwards when we have died, the prayer of no person for another can be heard. . . . But if the apostles and martyrs while still in the body can pray for others, at a time when they ought still be solicitous about themselves, how much more will they do so after their crowns, victories, and triumphs?”

I would take into consideration, as you seem to do, the possibility that the saints do not hear our prayers, if you can mention an equally reliable and authoritative voice presenting the argument in such a way as to actually move me to question what the Church Fathers assume as a fact: that saints pray for us and that we can and ought to ask for their intercession.

Regarding biblical evidence, I could mention Jas 5:16 (“the fervent prayer of a righteous man is very powerful”), Heb 12:1 (“we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses”), Rv 5:8 (“each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the saints”). I could mention 1 Tm 2:1-4 (“I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone …] This is good and pleasing to God our savior”). The only way one could consider that these do not apply to the saints of the Church Triumphant is to consider that either they are dead or cut off from us, or that we are cut off from them. But this is an abhorrent concept in the eyes even of Scripture alone. It follows that just as the saints of the Church Militant are called to pray for one another and - naturally - to ask one another for prayer on their behalf (as, f.ex., s. Paul does), the same applies between them and the saints of the Church Triumphant.

Unless, of course, we repudiate the belief in the Communion of Saints, which Luther did not do (though Calvin and Zwigli did by means of their personal re-definition of the term).

As for the Lutheran position, I am not acquainted with the current position or with all their positions, but I do know that in his “Commentary on the Magnificat” Martin Luther (to whom for some reason many pay more attention than to the company of the Church Fathers and of the Church Doctors) wrote:

Mary does not desire to be an idol; she does nothing, God does all. We **ought **to call upon her, that for her sake God may grant and do what we request. Thus also all other saints are to be invoked, so that the work may be every way God’s alone. …] May Christ grant us this through the intercession and for the sake of His dear Mother Mary.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Clement of Alexandria states that the Christian even when he prays alone “has the choir of the saints standing with him in prayer”.

Origen says that “not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep”.

Cyril of Jerusalem says that in the Eucharist we mention the saints “that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition”.

Jerome, the greatest Biblical scholar of the Early Church, responds to this specific claim as follows:

I would take into consideration, as you seem to do, the possibility that the saints do not hear our prayers, if you can mention an equally reliable and authoritative voice presenting the argument in such a way as to actually move me to question what the Church Fathers assume as a fact: that saints pray for us and that we can and ought to ask for their intercession.

Regarding biblical evidence, I could mention Jas 5:16 (“the fervent prayer of a righteous man is very powerful”), Heb 12:1 (“we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses”), Rv 5:8 (“each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the saints”). I could mention 1 Tm 2:1-4 (“I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone …] This is good and pleasing to God our savior”). The only way one could consider that these do not apply to the saints of the Church Triumphant is to consider that either they are dead or cut off from us, or that we are cut off from them. But this is an abhorrent concept in the eyes even of Scripture alone. It follows that just as the saints of the Church Militant are called to pray for one another and - naturally - to ask one another for prayer on their behalf (as, f.ex., s. Paul does), the same applies between them and the saints of the Church Triumphant.

Unless, of course, we repudiate the belief in the Communion of Saints, which Luther did not do (though Calvin and Zwigli did by means of their personal re-definition of the term).

As for the Lutheran position, I am not acquainted with the current position or with all their positions, but I do know that in his “Commentary on the Magnificat” Martin Luther (to whom for some reason many pay more attention than to the company of the Church Fathers and of the Church Doctors) wrote:

You present a thoughtful defense of historic Catholic belief that a Lutheran would not argue against.