Praying to Dead People

[Winged_Dreamer]

Dear rod of iron,

Thank you for taking such an interest in the Catholic Church. Even though asking questions is a good way to get answers, I personally find it easier to retain respect while obtaining answers by educating myself with (at least) the basics of the subject matter I intend to challenge before courageously marching into a blind inquisition. I do this so as to maximize the information I obtain without annoying my enlighteners with questions founded on a premise that does not exist. I recommend reading books about the subject written by a reputable person or even going out of your way to *read *any links provided as reputable answers. Also, I find avoiding negative, bias hearsay about the subject I’m investigating to be very advantageous; because, as it turns out, gossip is its nearest kin. And, lastly, being genuinely interested in the truthful answers to your own questions (as opposed to refusing to honestly consider reasonable answers, forming questions with absolutely no intention of *acknowledging *that a rational (if not agreeable) answer has been provided, and quite deliberately misconstruing others’ explanations presented with a slice of malice on the side) is the responsible, accepted, and truly Christian way to discuss apologetics.

Remember, the goal of these threads is to promote an understanding of the Truth through discussion. Oh, and one more tip: When firing off long lists of grievances-posing as questions, do take a moment to remember that others have a few simple questions of their own. Now, I know they may not always be as scintillatingly phrased as yours, surrounded with insinuations of foul play, cover-ups, and deception. I know that they may not always stand out in a challenging pose, but, in fact, reside patiently, perhaps nestled in amongst good will, open-minded comments, and, dare I suggest, polite suggestions.

(Continued…)

 

[Winged_Dreamer]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am going to assume you are an adult. Please, act like a civilized one and concede points when justly presented (as SPOKENWORD did so nicely earlier, concerning a list of erroneously-connected quotes from the Bible) and phrase and rebukes with a degree of respect for the issue being dealt with. Out right mockery of another’s faith is not Christian behavior, whether you agree with it or not, especially when there are *so many *intelligent and willing Catholics readily volunteering answers to even your tamest queries. Now, one might argue that a Catholic has responded in like to an ill-phrased question on this thread. We all know and see that, and are deeply saddened that one defending the Faith would let anger, disgust, or frustration temper their responses. So, please don’t mindlessly quote another with the tag “Well, he did it!” I babysit children who ascribe to the same argument technique. Hypocrisy should never negate the Truth.

With all that said, I have been praying for you the past few nights. In my talks with God (yes, as it turns out, Catholics can and do pray directly to God!) I have felt some despair about humanity in general. I feel as though you are not arguing to find truth for yourself, but to assert that you are true, that you are right…that you are better informed, better able to interpret, think, and reason than a church formed 2000 years ago (this style of thinking is really quite popular these days). I’m not suggesting that because the Church was started back then, it should be respected as the care-takers and heralds of the Truth of Christianity. I am merely adding emphasis that, if nothing else, an institution of such long-standing Traditions, faithful followers, and books upon books discussing the scientific validity and correlation of said Faith with true happiness and spiritual fulfillment should at least deserve respect (if not a willingness to believe).

(Continued…)

 

[Winged_Dreamer]

I do not know what religion you ascribe to (if you have a belief system that could fall under an existing religion’s title, some Christians do not, but opt for a sort of individually guided spiritual life, tempered exclusively by personal Bible interpretations), but I would like to understand it further. Perhaps you could answer some questions for us all, in order to better understand your position. We could then seek to explain things from a perspective you’d feel more comfortable considering (if such an accommodation is possible). I don’t know about everyone else, but I am eager to learn about your faith, so I might judiciously hold it up to mine in an attempt to either reaffirm that which I hold true or discover that my thinking (or perhaps an aspect of it) is flawed. I pray you will do the same with mine (Catholicism).

In Christ,

~Bridget~

 

[Winged_Dreamer]

ERROR! SORRY! (missed the 20 min. editing window, woops!)

What said:

Winged_Dreamer:

I’m not suggesting that because the Church was started back then, it should be respected as the care-takers and heralds of the Truth of Christianity. I am merely adding emphasis that, if nothing else, an institution of such long-standing Traditions, faithful followers, and books upon books discussing the scientific validity and correlation of said Faith with true happiness and spiritual fulfillment should at least deserve respect (if not a willingness to believe).

(Continued…)

Should be:
I’m not suggesting that because the Church was started back then, it should be believed to be as the care-takers and heralds of the Truth of Christianity. I am merely adding emphasis that, if nothing else, an institution of such long-standing Traditions, faithful followers, and books upon books discussing the scientific validity and correlation of said Faith with true happiness and spiritual fulfillment should at least deserve respect (if not a willingness to believe).

(Continued…)

Thanks!
PLEACE!
~Bridget~

 

[Katholikos]

rod of iron:

Most Catholic I know do not read the Bible. If they do, they sure are not as dedicated in reading it as are other denominations, such as those that are Evengelical.

First, all of God’s revelation is not contained in the Bible. The OT is Jewish oral tradition that was eventually written down. The NT is Sacred Apostolic Tradition that was written down and became Scripture, but it’s only part of God’s revelation.

Most Christians throughout history have not read the Bible. That does not mean that they were ignorant of the Bible. An estimated 90% of people were illiterate at the time Christ was born. Scribes were highly prized for their ability to read and write. A reduction in illiteracy began after the invention of the printing press (mid-fifteenth century). Prior to that, books were handwritten, laboriously produced, very rare, and extremely costly. It was not until the industrial revolution which began in 1760 in England that literacy became more common. My own grandfather could neither read nor write. Even today, 50% of the world’s population cannot read or write, and some 20% of Americans are functionally illiterate (Literacy Volunteers of America).

The Bible was read aloud (proclaimed) to the congregation in the early Church, and it is still proclaimed today.

The notion that early Christians read and studied the Bible is false. The Church was their teacher. The Church had to first write the NT before anyone could read it. It was written from about 52 to 100 A.D. Writing about the early Church, the RSV says, “At first a local church would have only a few a few apostolic letters and perhaps one or two gospels.” These writings were circulated and read aloud among the Churches.

The Catholic Church is the most biblical of all churches. There are four readings at every Sunday Mass – one from the OT, one from the Psalms, one from the Letters, and one from a Gospel.
If you attend Mass every Sunday for three years, you will have heard the entire Bible (all 73 books) proclaimed. If you attend daily Mass, you will hear the entire Bible proclaimed in two years.

The Bible is not the source of Christianity – the Catholic Church is. The Church didn’t come out of the Bible; rather, the Bible came out of the Church.

Jesus didn’t leave us a book; he left us a Church. The Church adopted the 46 books of the OT from Jesus, the Apostles, and the first-century synagogue; she wrote the NT, and she formed the Bible using both the OT and the NT when she was nearly 400 years old.

The entire Mass is a biblical prayer.

But Catholics do read the Bible – in addition to having heard it ringing in their ears down through the centuries.

We keep getting sidetracked on these threads. But once you learn what the Bible is, I think you’ll have a different view of Christianity.

JMJ Jay

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Katholikis If you attend Mass every Sunday for three years, you will have heard the entire Bible (all 73 books) proclaimed. If you attend daily Mass, you will hear the entire Bible proclaimed in two years. What you are saying is not true.If you attended mass every sunday for 30 years you would not have heard the entire bible. You might have heard a verse from every book, but thats about it.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Katholikos:

First, all of God’s revelation is not contained in the Bible.

Really? Where else is it contained?

Katholikos:

The Bible was read aloud (proclaimed) to the congregation in the early Church, and it is still proclaimed today.

Was there only one copy of each NT book available at the time, or were there many? Since there were not any Xerox machines or word processors available at the time, any copies of the original must have been written by hand by a scribe. But how careful and accurate were the scribes? I have found that even when I have tried to make a written copy of a document at a normal pace, I need to go back and correct that copy to make the new copy identical to the original. In fact, when I write a fairly lengthy post on this forum, I still have to check for errors. Most of the time I need to correct something before I submit my post. Now, how can we be so positive that when these copies were being sent around to various congregations, they were exactly the same as the original? I believe it takes a certain level of gullibility to believe that all those copies were made quickly and without error.

Katholikos:

The Catholic Church is the most biblical of all churches.

How so? I see Catholic doctrines that are not found in the Bible, nor are supported by it.

Katholikos:

The Bible is not the source of Christianity – the Catholic Church is. The Church didn’t come out of the Bible; rather, the Bible came out of the Church.

Really? Then why are there so many parts of Catholicism left out of the Bible? Your argument here is like the argument that the Mormons wrote the Book of Mormon, yet many of the Mormon doctrines are not found in the Book of Mormon. The Mormon church did not exist before the Book of Mormon, and I have not seen any definitive evidence to show me that the Catholic church existed before the Bible. It is clear that the Church of Jesus Christ did exist, but again, it has not been proven that this church was the same as the present day Roman Catholic church. You can claim that the Catholic church came forth from the 12 Apostles, but without any proof, your claim falls way short.

Katholikos:

The entire Mass is a biblical prayer.

I assert that the Mass is a man-made invention that has no origin in the Bible. When the multitudes gathered to listen to Jesus, He did not conduct a Catholic mass. Neither did His apostles conduct a Mass in the books of the Bible that speak of their actions.

Katholikos:

But Catholics do read the Bible – in addition to having heard it ringing in their ears down through the centuries.

Not the ones I have come into contact with.

 

[SwissGuard]

rod of iron:

How so? I see Catholic doctrines that are not found in the Bible, nor are supported by it…

This is according to your own private interpretation, is it not?
rod of iron:

Not the ones I have come into contact with…

You seem to be comparing the “worst” Catholics with the “best” Protestants. I know plenty of Catholics who are on fire with their faith, as well as plenty of Protestants who are hypocritical about theirs. It goes both ways.

 

[Katholikos]

SPOKENWORD:

Katholikis If you attend Mass every Sunday for three years, you will have heard the entire Bible (all 73 books) proclaimed. If you attend daily Mass, you will hear the entire Bible proclaimed in two years. What you are saying is not true.If you attended mass every sunday for 30 years you would not have heard the entire bible. You might have heard a verse from every book, but thats about it.

I feel great compassion for you. How sad that you don’t know. It’s easy to give up something you don’t love, and to love the Church you first have to know it and to experience the gifts Christ gave you through His Church. That happened to my mother, too. She knew little about her Faith, left it, raised her kids Protestant, and was out of the Church for more than 30 years. She learned the truth when I became a Catholic. She then returned to the Church, deo gratias, and died a happy Catholic.

The liturgy itself is almost entirely composed of Scripture, and using next Sunday as an example, the readings will be:

Deuteronomy 30:10-14

Psalm 68(69), 14, 17, 30-31, 33, 34, 36, 37. The Psalm is usually sung on Sunday with a refrain after each stanza. This Psalm reading has four stanzas, with the refrain “Turn to the Lord in your need, and you will live.” (Psalm means “song” – the Psalms were sung in the Jewish temple.)

Colossians 1:13-20

Luke 10:25-37

So please don’t write, “What you [meaning me] are saying is not true” – it is absolutely true. The readings for the Mass are published and anyone can know what they are years in advance for any given day. Many Catholics study them before attending Mass so as to understand and appreciate the Scriptures that will be proclaimed more deeply. Most Catholic Churches print the citations for the daily and Sunday readings for the following week in the Sunday bulletin just for this purpose.

Attend a Mass sometime and hear the Scriptures for yourself. You’d be very welcome. No one will ask if you’re Catholic.

Oremus pro invicem, Jay

 

[Jennifer123]

rod of iron:

Was there only one copy of each NT book available at the time, or were there many? Since there were not any Xerox machines or word processors available at the time, any copies of the original must have been written by hand by a scribe. But how careful and accurate were the scribes? I have found that even when I have tried to make a written copy of a document at a normal pace, I need to go back and correct that copy to make the new copy identical to the original.

ROI -
From the time of the Jews passing on the Torah, scribes have had a system of copying and passing down accurate biblical text. It involved counting letters and in double-checking if the amount of letters from one chapter to another didn’t match it was scrapped and started over to insure accuracy. That was just ONE system. This is one of the things that the monks, who sometimes devoted their ENTIRE adult lives to this task, employed. Yes, it was a long and arduous task, but love of the Word made this particular vocation their calling. It took years per book. You would know this if you’d extend yourself past the sound of your own thoughts!!

I believe it takes a certain level of gullibility to believe that all those copies were made quickly and without error.

They weren’t made quickly. God ensured that we can know His Word without error - He wouldn’t leave us orphans.

You can claim that the Catholic church came forth from the 12 Apostles, but without any proof, your claim falls way short.

Your assertion of proof is the bible alone. I again ask you - please provide proof that the bible is the sole authority.

 

[mr_bozo]

Anyway, I would suggest that you will have better luck with your prayers if you pray to God directly, through His Son.

Then why do so many people do it? If it doesn’t work then after 2000 years someone would have worked it out by now. Why don’t you ask people who are devoted to the rosary how much it hasn’t helped them?

 

[jimmy]

It would not be easy to be certain if they hear your prayers. But if they do then they would be very intersested in hearing them because if they are in heaven they are willing to do anything for God. God would probably want them to try to bring as many people as possible closer to him.

 

[mr_bozo]

I would think that praying to the saints would upset Him. He made it very clear to Moses that He is a jealous God. Why would you expect a jealous God to happily allow you to pray to one of His creations (i.e. a Catholic Saint)? God wants all the prayers directed to Him. Why would God be pleased if you prayed to anyone but Him, no matter how righteous that person may have been or may still be?

No one is saying that we should honour saints as we honour God. You would agree with me I’m sure that there is a certain honour that other people deserve—especially people who are great saints. I’m not robbing God of any honour by lauding Abraham—our father in faith.

Why bother asking for a saint’s prayers? Why seek the prayers of any one on earth? Or is there some fundamental differnce that I have missed there?

 

[mr_bozo]

rod of iron:

Really? Where else is [God’s revelation] contained [if not the Bible]?

First, can I apologise for my brothers who have allowed their emotions to colour their posts. It’s bad form where ever it is found. It seems to me that this discussion won’t really advance much until the issue of sola scriptura is cleared up. We do not claim that everything we believe is to be found in the Bible. When I understood this as Protestant looking in, I realised that it was simply a matter of seeing that no Catholic doctrines contradicted scripture. Having found that they don’t, it seemed quite reasonable to assume that they were to be found in Sacred Tradition.
rod of iron:

Then why are there so many parts of Catholicism left out of the Bible? [If the Catholic church is the souce of the Bible.]

I don’t think you quite understand. If the Catholic Church claimed the Bible as her souce then she would have problems. (Altho not nearly as many as some Protestants will tell you.) The Bible is not, nor does it claim to be an exhaustively systematic almanac of Christianity. The documents in it were written to different people at different times and from different circumstances. The Apostles went about preaching first and foremost. Why is it that only a couple of apostles actually wrote anything down at all? If I was an apostle, and I believed in sola scriptura then I would be writing stuff all the time. The only big writers we have are Paul and John—and even their writings are far from systematic.

Why bother mentioning every single devotional practice in detail when there were no problems there, and there were lots of other more pressing issues to deal with?

 

[mango_2003]

go Leafs go:

I am commonly told that praying to anyone other than God is putting them on the level of a Diety. I understand that protestants generally view “praying” as worship, which is part of the problem.

I don’t understand why they think Saints who have gone before us cannot hear our prayers? How can we be certain that they do?

I understand that we pray to saints as they are now righteous people and prayers from Righteous people availeth much, however Protestants in general view dead saints as being in Paradise and not concerned with earthly happenings given they no longer have pain, sorrow, etc.

Thanks.

Most Protestants don’t understand the idea that Catholics don’t believe that they are praying to the dead, rather, they are praying to someone who is more alive because he or she is in Christ.

However, as far as I understand it, the problem comes with Precedent. There is no Biblical precedent of praying to anyone who has passed. Therefore the argument again comes to Sola Scriptura.

~mango~

 

[mr_bozo]

Oh, and one more thing, “How early is belief in purgatory?” here’s something I borrowed off a Dave Armstrong website:

In the Catacombs, Christian burial caves which extend for hundreds of miles underneath Rome, and date from the beginning of Christianity, there are numerous examples of inscriptions representing prayers for the dead (which only make sense given some conception of purgatory, however vague), for blessings, peace, and refreshment upon these souls. Among these inscriptions are the following sayings: “Refresh, O God, the soul of . . .,” “Peace to thy soul,” “Thy spirit in peace,” “May you live in the Holy Spirit.” Examples found in Schaff, Philip,* History of the Christian Church*, vol. 2, “Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325,” 5th ed., NY: 1889; rep. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976, chapter 7, section 86, 303-304. See also The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Anglican), Cross, F.L., and E.A. Livingstone, eds., Oxford University Press, 2nd ed., 1983, 381.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

rod of iron:

But how careful and accurate were the scribes? …Now, how can we be so positive that when these copies were being sent around to various congregations, they were exactly the same as the original? I believe it takes a certain level of gullibility to believe that all those copies were made quickly and without error.

So, then, you believe the Bible contains errors.

How so? I see Catholic doctrines that are not found in the Bible, nor are supported by it.

Since the first Bible ever originated in the 4th century at the command of Pope Damasus, it’s easy to see that the Bible is a Catholic book.
Check out the Bible history thread.
Why do you trust a Catholic book?
Why do you look into the Catholic book, searching for Catholic doctrines?
All of our doctrines are rooted in principles found in the Scriptures.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Katholikos:

I feel great compassion for you. How sad that you don’t know. It’s easy to give up something you don’t love, and to love the Church you first have to know it and to experience the gifts Christ gave you through His Church. That happened to my mother, too. She knew little about her Faith, left it, raised her kids Protestant, and was out of the Church for more than 30 years. She learned the truth when I became a Catholic. She then returned to the Church, deo gratias, and died a happy Catholic.

The liturgy itself is almost entirely composed of Scripture, and using next Sunday as an example, the readings will be:

Deuteronomy 30:10-14

Psalm 68(69), 14, 17, 30-31, 33, 34, 36, 37. The Psalm is usually sung on Sunday with a refrain after each stanza. This Psalm reading has four stanzas, with the refrain “Turn to the Lord in your need, and you will live.” (Psalm means “song” – the Psalms were sung in the Jewish temple.)

Colossians 1:13-20

Luke 10:25-37

So please don’t write, “What you [meaning me] are saying is not true” – it is absolutely true. The readings for the Mass are published and anyone can know what they are years in advance for any given day. Many Catholics study them before attending Mass so as to understand and appreciate the Scriptures that will be proclaimed more deeply. Most Catholic Churches print the citations for the daily and Sunday readings for the following week in the Sunday bulletin just for this purpose.

Attend a Mass sometime and hear the Scriptures for yourself. You’d be very welcome. No one will ask if you’re Catholic.

Oremus pro invicem, Jay

Jay, Do you honestly believe that you hear the whole bible in two years of attending masses? Arent many of the readings repeated from year to year.I was a practicing catholic of over thirty years and Im going to have to disagree with you. Sorry.

 

[1962Missal]

SPOKENWORD:

Katholikis If you attend Mass every Sunday for three years, you will have heard the entire Bible (all 73 books) proclaimed. If you attend daily Mass, you will hear the entire Bible proclaimed in two years. What you are saying is not true.If you attended mass every sunday for 30 years you would not have heard the entire bible. You might have heard a verse from every book, but thats about it.

kencollins.com/Texts/AboutLectionary.htm

io.com/~kellywp/Calendar2004.html

If you take the time to explore these two links, you can see how widespread the use of the Roman Lectionary is. (These are to Episcopal websites, so you don’t have to take the Catholic Church’s word for it). If you take the time to explore the cycle of readings you can see that, really, in two years you get the whole Bible, with the exception of some of the lengthy geneologies and such.

Justh

 

[SPOKENWORD]

kencollins.com/Texts/AboutLectionary.htm

io.com/~kellywp/Calendar2004.html

If you take the time to explore these two links, you can see how widespread the use of the Roman Lectionary is. (These are to Episcopal websites, so you don’t have to take the Catholic Church’s word for it). If you take the time to explore the cycle of readings you can see that, really, in two years you get the whole Bible, with the exception of some of the lengthy geneologies and such.

Justh

To say the Bible is read in its entirety is not true. Im sorry what I see is only verses. To say every word is quoted from scripture in 3 years of sunday masses I believe is incorrect. End of argument. I will not dwell on it any more. Sorry,plus we can get back to praying to the dead.