Protestants DENY Tradition?

[crai7]

I said he TALKED with them , not prayed TO them. Jesus was a man, we are to imitate him. You can’t imply that just because Jesus did something we can’t do it. The fact is that Moses and Elijah knew of events on earth.

Why did you toss in that saints need to physically appear before us? And yes, Jesus is doing the praying, and saints were listening. Not a stretch at all.

Apologies, I see you said ‘talked’. If ‘talked with’ then instead of ‘prayed’, this then begs the question; how are these verses a template for praying to the saints? Talking with is bidirectional - while prayer is unidirectional (us humans talking to, not with, God the Father or Jesus)?

To clarify, I didn’t say they need to physically appear before us… I was saying it is highly unlikely that they would… another reason why I find this an unusual scripture to use to support the notion of prayer to saints.

Here are the actual verses - it says “talking with” not “talking to”:

Matt 17:2-3 “There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.”

 

[pablope]

Okay so there are no clear bible verses to support this in other words. Surely such a practice should have been frequently and clearly espoused by Jesus, or at the very least reflected in the Apostles letters?

They are there…you just need to look at it more…and look at them at a vastly different angle…away from the protestant angle.

The following articles give a view of early Church history and practices…and the Jewish roots of the communion of saints, for after all, Jesus and the apostles were Jews:

In this article below, you will find out that it was actually the pagans who abhorred the early Christians practice of the communion of saints:

calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/relics-saints-and-the-assumption-of-mary/

The first real blow to this interpretation came when I read Peter Brown’s book, The Cult of Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity.
Brown challenged my view that the place of saints and relics in the church was a mere holdover from paganism, and that the practice was somehow peripheral to true Christianity. Instead, Brown painted a picture of ancient Christianity and paganism in which relics were indispensable to the former, and repulsive to the latter. Far from a holdover from paganism, the place of relics in the Church appeared as something intensely Jewish, Hebraic, and Old Testament. Pagans, like Julian-the-Apostate, found the practice revolting and legislated against it. (Paganism, with its notions of ritual purity, had strictly delimited the realm of divine worship and neatly separated it from the realm of corpses and the dead.)

And the article below gives the Jewish practice, to this day of asking for intercession from those who have passed to the afterlife:

chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/562222/jewish/Is-it-okay-to-ask-a-deceased-tzaddik-to-pray-on-my-behalf.htm/mobile/false

Is it okay to ask a deceased tzaddik to pray on my behalf?

Question:
I was always under the impression that Judaism firmly believed that there are no intermediaries between man and G d, and to pray to the deceased is blasphemous and outlawed by the Bible. If so, why is it permissible to ask the Rebbe to intercede on one’s behalf at the Ohel?

Answer:
Yes, Jewish customs can be perplexing. Judaism is all about having a direct connection to G-d. An intermediary is a form of idolatry (see “Unidolatry” for more explanation of why this is forbidden.). Yet for as long as there are records, Jews have been in the habit of asking righteous men and women to have a chat with G-d on their behalf.

We see that the Jewish people asked Moses to intercede many times and he accepted their request. If he hadn’t, we wouldn’t be here–so G-d obviously figured it was okay. The Talmud (Baba Batra 116a) tells us that “If there is someone ill in your house, go to the wise man of the city and ask that he should pray for him.” Of course, this person also needs to pray for himself, as his family should as well–and any Jew who knows that another Jew is ill should pray for him. But you need to go to that wise man as well.

Just how ancient and popular is this custom? The Torah tells us that Caleb, one of the twelve spies that Moses sent to spy out the Land of Canaan, made a personal detour to Hebron. What was his interest in Hebron? The Talmud (Sotah 34b) tells that he wished to pray at the cave where Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebecca, Jacob and Leah are buried. He prayed there for mercy on his soul and he was saved from the fateful decision of the other spies.

 

[Jubilarian]

Apologies, I see you said ‘talked’. If ‘talked with’ then instead of ‘prayed’, this then begs the question; how are these verses a template for praying to the saints? Talking with is bidirectional - while prayer is unidirectional (us humans talking to, not with, God the Father or Jesus)?

To clarify, I didn’t say they need to physically appear before us… I was saying it is highly unlikely that they would… another reason why I find this an unusual scripture to use to support the notion of prayer to saints.

Here are the actual verses - it says “talking with” not “talking to”:

Matt 17:2-3 “There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.”

The only reason it is phrased as “talking with”, is because Jesus was physically in front of Moses and Elijah.

Jesus spoke with departed Saints and the Bible commands us to walk as Jesus did, there is no reason why we can’t speak with Saints who have overcome the world and have been perfected and glorified. So how is it that Catholics are violating some divine precept supposedly forbidden by Scripture? How is it that Catholics are disobeying the teachings of Jesus and the Scriptures when Jesus himself set the example? Some might argue and say, “Hey, Jesus was God and can speak to anyone he wants.” Never in the Scriptures do we see Jesus breaking any Commandment. Jesus was not free to violate any of the commandments because if he did his sacrifice at Calvary would have been nullified by sin.

When a Christian petitions in prayer for prayer and aid from a glorified heavenly saint he/she is communing with the saints which are still part of the body of Christ; this is no different then had they asked family and friends still here on earth to pray for them.

 

[benhur]

They are there…you just need to look at it more…and look at them at a vastly different angle…away from the protestant angle.

The following articles give a view of early Church history and practices…and the Jewish roots of the communion of saints, for after all, Jesus and the apostles were Jews:

In this article below, you will find out that it was actually the pagans who abhorred the early Christians practice of the communion of saints:

calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/relics-saints-and-the-assumption-of-mary/

The first real blow to this interpretation came when I read Peter Brown’s book, The Cult of Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity.
Brown challenged my view that the place of saints and relics in the church was a mere holdover from paganism, and that the practice was somehow peripheral to true Christianity. Instead, Brown painted a picture of ancient Christianity and paganism in which relics were indispensable to the former, and repulsive to the latter. Far from a holdover from paganism, the place of relics in the Church appeared as something intensely Jewish, Hebraic, and Old Testament. Pagans, like Julian-the-Apostate, found the practice revolting and legislated against it. (Paganism, with its notions of ritual purity, had strictly delimited the realm of divine worship and neatly separated it from the realm of corpses and the dead.)

And the article below gives the Jewish practice, to this day of asking for intercession from those who have passed to the afterlife:

chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/562222/jewish/Is-it-okay-to-ask-a-deceased-tzaddik-to-pray-on-my-behalf.htm/mobile/false

Is it okay to ask a deceased tzaddik to pray on my behalf?

Question:
I was always under the impression that Judaism firmly believed that there are no intermediaries between man and G d, and to pray to the deceased is blasphemous and outlawed by the Bible. If so, why is it permissible to ask the Rebbe to intercede on one’s behalf at the Ohel?

Answer:
Yes, Jewish customs can be perplexing. Judaism is all about having a direct connection to G-d. An intermediary is a form of idolatry (see “Unidolatry” for more explanation of why this is forbidden.). Yet for as long as there are records, Jews have been in the habit of asking righteous men and women to have a chat with G-d on their behalf.

We see that the Jewish people asked Moses to intercede many times and he accepted their request. If he hadn’t, we wouldn’t be here–so G-d obviously figured it was okay. The Talmud (Baba Batra 116a) tells us that “If there is someone ill in your house, go to the wise man of the city and ask that he should pray for him.” Of course, this person also needs to pray for himself, as his family should as well–and any Jew who knows that another Jew is ill should pray for him. But you need to go to that wise man as well.

Just how ancient and popular is this custom? The Torah tells us that Caleb, one of the twelve spies that Moses sent to spy out the Land of Canaan, made a personal detour to Hebron. What was his interest in Hebron? The Talmud (Sotah 34b) tells that he wished to pray at the cave where Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebecca, Jacob and Leah are buried. He prayed there for mercy on his soul and he was saved from the fateful decision of the other spies.

Thanks took alook at articles. As far as jewish tradtion apparently you have rabbis that would also disagree with some of the assertions. For instance bones were never to be touched and most would not use the incident in Kings to justify any further doctrine/command. To go to a grave sight to pray ok but it is still some assumptions as to the exact nature of prayer and the deceased.

But apparently some rabbis take your view . For sure we all are encouraged by those who went before us and I would get goosebumps even a boost in Spirit to be near anything in the Holy Land. Not sure i would make a doctrine however that their spirit and graces inhabit the land, gravesite, even bones. Maybe as a point of faith, however between the Lord and believer, which is different.

 

[JonNC]

Apologies, I see you said ‘talked’. If ‘talked with’ then instead of ‘prayed’, this then begs the question; how are these verses a template for praying to the saints? Talking with is bidirectional - while prayer is unidirectional (us humans talking to, not with, God the Father or Jesus)?

Hi Crai7,
This seems to me to be a rather narrow definition of “prayer”.

To pray: entreat, implore —often used as a function word in introducing a question, request, or plea

Prayer does not have to be directed to God. I think it perfectly reasonable for our Catholic friends to say they pray to the Blessed Virgin and the saints in Heaven, asking them to in turn pray to God for them. It is what we do with our friends on Earth as well, we ask them to pray for us.
Just my two cents.

Jon

 

[Jubilarian]

Hi Crai7,
This seems to me to be a rather narrow definition of “prayer”.

To pray: entreat, implore —often used as a function word in introducing a question, request, or plea

Prayer does not have to be directed to God. I think it perfectly reasonable for our Catholic friends to say they pray to the Blessed Virgin and the saints in Heaven, asking them to in turn pray to God for them. It is what we do with our friends on Earth as well, we ask them to pray for us.
Just my two cents.

Jon

The point is that Jesus as a man communed with the dead. We can do the same because Jesus did it, we just don’t typically get to have the departed in front of us. Communing is a large part of prayer.

 

[Izdaari]

Just a heads up. Your point is what I, as a (High Church) Lutheran priest, in the episcopally governed Church of Norway, has tried to tell Jubilarian, who started this thread. But instead of accepting my claim not to be a Protestant, at least not in the sense it now has,* Jubilarian said this: “Any Christian PROTESTING the Catholic Church is a PROTEST-TANT. Don’t run from it.”

I have no problem with the original meaning of the word ‘Protestant,’ i.e. those protesting the Holy Roman Empire’s restrictions on the religious activity of Evangelical* (Lutheran) Churches. (See JonNC’s post earlier in the thread.) But since the Holy Roman Empire no longer exists to restrict any religious activity, and since the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t enforce any such restrictions, I am NOT a Protestant.**

But that is NOT how Jubilarian uses it. First, he defined ‘Protestant’ as ‘protesting the [Roman] Catholic Church,’ which is NOT the historical usage of the word, and now he uses it to denote any Christian who is not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox (regardless, it seems, of their level of ‘protest’), which means that the word has become so broad it is totally useless.

• Today it is used mostly by modern Evangelicals, who should not be confused by the European Evangelicals. The latter are mostly (High Church) Lutherans, or ‘Evangelical Catholics,’ which is what they called, and still call, themselves.

** Interestingly the British Roman Catholics of the 16th and 17th century could be seen as ‘Protestants’ in this historical sense. They did protest the British government’s restrictions on their religious activity. ‘Protestant’ is just an alternative way to write ‘protester.’

Thanks. I fully expected there would be people here who hold to that other definition, since they’re common on any Catholic forum. Though I rarely ever take the time to protest the Roman church. I just choose not to join it because of doctrinal differences. But valuing tradition is not something we differ on.

 

[Jubilarian]

Thanks. I fully expected there would be people here who hold to that other definition, since they’re common on any Catholic forum. Though I rarely ever take the time to protest the Roman church. I just choose not to join it because of doctrinal differences. But valuing tradition is not something we differ on.

Not just commmon on Catholic forums, but on Protestant web sites that call themselves Protestant. This idea that the word is constantly used incorrectly, is a stretch.

 

[SteveVH]

Just a heads up. Your point is what I, as a (High Church) Lutheran priest, in the episcopally governed Church of Norway, has tried to tell Jubilarian, who started this thread. But instead of accepting my claim not to be a Protestant, at least not in the sense it now has,* Jubilarian said this: “Any Christian PROTESTING the Catholic Church is a PROTEST-TANT. Don’t run from it.”

I have no problem with the original meaning of the word ‘Protestant,’ i.e. those protesting the Holy Roman Empire’s restrictions on the religious activity of Evangelical* (Lutheran) Churches. (See JonNC’s post earlier in the thread.) But since the Holy Roman Empire no longer exists to restrict any religious activity, and since the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t enforce any such restrictions, I am NOT a Protestant.**

But that is NOT how Jubilarian uses it. First, he defined ‘Protestant’ as ‘protesting the [Roman] Catholic Church,’ which is NOT the historical usage of the word, and now he uses it to denote any Christian who is not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox (regardless, it seems, of their level of ‘protest’), which means that the word has become so broad it is totally useless.

• Today it is used mostly by modern Evangelicals, who should not be confused by the European Evangelicals. The latter are mostly (High Church) Lutherans, or ‘Evangelical Catholics,’ which is what they called, and still call, themselves.

** Interestingly the British Roman Catholics of the 16th and 17th century could be seen as ‘Protestants’ in this historical sense. They did protest the British government’s restrictions on their religious activity. ‘Protestant’ is just an alternative way to write ‘protester.’

Thanks. I fully expected there would be people here who hold to that other definition, since they’re common on any Catholic forum. Though I rarely ever take the time to protest the Roman church. I just choose not to join it because of doctrinal differences. But valuing tradition is not something we differ on.

While we are speaking of terms such as Protestant, for the sake of fairness, please take note that there is no such thing as the “Roman church” or the “Roman Catholic Church”. As far as the term “Protestant” is concerned, I agree that it is no longer applicable. Most non-Catholic Christians today, IMO, reject the Catholic Church out of ignorance rather than malice.

 

[dronald]

While we are speaking of terms such as Protestant, for the sake of fairness, please take note that there is no such thing as the “Roman church” or the “Roman Catholic Church”. As far as the term “Protestant” is concerned, I agree that it is no longer applicable. Most non-Catholic Christians today, IMO, reject the Catholic Church out of ignorance rather than malice.

I have two Church’s in my city that call themselves “Roman Catholic Church.” So I never quite know if this is a false label or what?

 

[SteveVH]

I have two Church’s in my city that call themselves “Roman Catholic Church.” So I never quite know if this is a false label or what?

Ignorance is not restricted to non-Catholic Christians.

 

[dronald]

Ignorance is not restricted to non-Catholic Christians.

But the actual signs say “Roman Catholic.” I think there must be a reason besides ignorance?

Is it just acceptance of the title?

 

[benjohnson]

While we are speaking of terms such as Protestant, for the sake of fairness, please take note that there is no such thing as the “Roman church” or the “Roman Catholic Church”.

I understand where you’re coming from, but the case isn’t as clear cut - your own communion uses the term to refer to itself in Papal bulls.

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

I avoid the term, except when we discussing the ‘four marks of the church’ and we need to contrast ‘catholic’ with ‘the catholic church in communion with the Bishop of Rome’ - that get’s shortened to “Roman Catholic” as per your own church documents.

 

[KjetilK]

While we are speaking of terms such as Protestant, for the sake of fairness, please take note that there is no such thing as the “Roman church” or the “Roman Catholic Church”. As far as the term “Protestant” is concerned, I agree that it is no longer applicable. Most non-Catholic Christians today, IMO, reject the Catholic Church out of ignorance rather than malice.

Well, it us used, IIRC, by Pope Pius X, as a reference to his entire Church, including the eastern rites.

But there is another, more important, reason: I am Catholic. ‘Catholic’ isn’t a confessional term.

 

[Jubilarian]

Protestants call themselves “Protestant”.

It’s possible that the usage of the word may have been curtailed if there weren’t thousands of denominations. I think many associate Protestantism with sola Scriptura , and its not entirely wrong.

 

[SteveVH]

But the actual signs say “Roman Catholic.” I think there must be a reason besides ignorance?

Is it just acceptance of the title?

Maybe. Personally it doesn’t bother me in the least. It is just inaccurate.

 

[SteveVH]

Well, it us used, IIRC, by Pope Pius X, as a reference to his entire Church, including the eastern rites.

But there is another, more important, reason: I am Catholic. ‘Catholic’ isn’t a confessional term.

It isn’t? If some one asks you where the Catholic Church is where do you point them? If someone inquires of your faith tradition do you tell them you are Catholic?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Maybe. Personally it doesn’t bother me in the least. It is just inaccurate.

Shouldn’t it say, Latin Catholic Church, or Catholic Church - Latin Rite?

 

[JonNC]

Maybe. Personally it doesn’t bother me in the least. It is just inaccurate.

Hi Steve,
But it bothers some, I think because, IIRC, its usage has its beginning as an attempt to marginalize the CC, much like the invention of the term “Lutheran”. For that reason, I, like Ben try to avoid it, simply out of respect for those who dislike it.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

It isn’t? If some one asks you where the Catholic Church is where do you point them? If someone inquires of your faith tradition do you tell them you are Catholic?

Lutherans profess the one holy catholic and apostolic church, so we won’t quite give you exclusive use of the word ‘catholic’ in all contexts.

So, sure, if some random guy asked for a Catholic church, I’ll point him to our local Catholic parish - because in the context in such a conversation the word is not ambiguous.

But if a Catholic theologian asks me if we Lutherans are ‘catholic’, I’ll vehemently answer in the affirmative.