Why are protestants afraid of the word "saint"?

[Harpazo]

From the New American Standard Bible:

From the American Standard Bible:

From the English Standard Bible:

From the NKJV Bible:

From the KJV:

From the Holman Standard Bible:

There are about a dozen other translations I’ll be happy to cite for you, but I’m sure you get the idea.

What’s your point quoting verses? I’m glad you know how to do that. Catholics can quote verses too. It’s not a hard thing to do…

We believe everything in those verses, just not your fallible interpretation of it. You have been nothing but rude and hateful since your arrival. If you really wanted to convert us, why wouldn’t you behave charitably? Seriously.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

 

[Hellisreal]

By the way, I missed a few posts. I need an update.

What credible charges are being made at the moment that have not been addressed yet?

 

[brosam]

What’s your point quoting verses?

Read the post I was responding to.

So, what did I get wrong?

You have been nothing but rude and hateful since your arrival.

And what have you all been to me? For people who claim to be the true Christians, while we’re not, you all seem to be a pretty nasty lot.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Hellisreal]

Cat got your tongue brosum?

 

[andzy]

He claims that the Bible doesn’t say that Jesus Christ is Lord of both the living and the dead.

No, that was not my claim at all.
Mercygate said:

Catholics do not believe that the Saints are “dead.” God is the God of the living, not of the dead.

Which you denied (or so it seemed to me) by saying:

Then why does the Bible say that God is the God of both the living and the dead?

I tried finding a translation where these verses (Matthew 22:32, Mark 12:27, Luke 20:38) said and instead of not, and didn’t succeed.
Hence my comment.

For people who claim to be the true Christians, while we’re not, you all seem to be a pretty nasty lot.

I agree that some Catholics here (maybe including me, which then hasn’t been intentional) have lost their charity at times. And humanly speaking, of course, it’s easy to do, when somebody comes and accuses you of things you don’t even believe.
Besides, unlike many Protestants who say that Catholics aren’t Christians, the Catholic Church doesn’t say that about Protestants. The Church doesn’t say that Protestant are idolaters, because they worship pieces of wood (by kneeling in front of crosses and saying prayers to it), or that Protestants don’t love Christ, because they believe they can spit in His face, and still will get to heaven (as long as they’ve said the formula of the salvation prayer), or that they have rejected Bible, because they have thrown whole books out of it, and have introduced man-made teachings (such as Sola Scriptura), etc., etc.

By the way (and off topic), I could never understood why Protestants take such an offense of Catholics saying that the Catholic Church is the True Church established by Christ Himself. After all, shouldn’t you think that what you believe is the Truth (otherwise, why believe at all); and actually most Protestants themselves think that they follow the fullness of truth.

 

[brosam]

No, that was not my claim at all.
Mercygate said:

OK. Let’s take a look, shall we?

That’s funny! I guess then you’re reading a different Bible from what all other Christians use - Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, because I’ve read the Bible, and it affirms my beliefs in Catholic teachings.
Seriously, you must be reading some interesting version of the Bible, because I looked up some 10 (Protestant) translations, and they all say that God is the God of the living, not of the dead (Matthew 22:32, Mark 12:27, Luke 20:38).

Here, we see that I must be “using a different Bible from what all other Christians use” because the Bible, in your opinion, does not say that God is the God of the living and the dead.

I provided you with numerous translations that say that Jesus Christ is, indeed, Lord of both the living and the dead.

I agree that some Catholics here (maybe including me, which then hasn’t been intentional) have lost their charity at times.

“Lost their charity” ain’t the word for it. You people have been absolutely vicious in going after me.

And humanly speaking, of course, it’s easy to do, when somebody comes and accuses you of things you don’t even believe.

OK. Tell me what things I’ve accused you of that you don’t believe.

Besides, if I had a nickle for every Roman Catholic here who has accused us of things we don’t believe, I’d have an awful lot of nickles.

Besides, unlike many Protestants who say that Catholics aren’t Christians, the Catholic Church doesn’t say that about Protestants.

Actually, your own pope came out in a statement on 9 July and declared that we’re not a part of the “valid church”.

In addition, your religion does teach ex ecclesia nulla salas.

The Church doesn’t say that Protestant are idolaters, because they worship pieces of wood (by kneeling in front of crosses and saying prayers to it)

What Protestant ever prayed to a cross?

or that Protestants don’t love Christ, because they believe they can spit in His face, and still will get to heaven (as long as they’ve said the formula of the salvation prayer)

What Protestant believes this?

or that they have rejected Bible, because they have thrown whole books out of it, and have introduced man-made teachings (such as Sola Scriptura), etc., etc.

Actually, that you believe sola scriptura is a “man made teaching” only goes to show your own ignorance of the scriptures.

By the way (and off topic), I could never understood why Protestants take such an offense of Catholics saying that the Catholic Church is the True Church established by Christ Himself.

First of all, it’s not true.

Second, the obvious implication is that, if Roman Catholics are the “true church established by Christ”, then we are not a part of the church.

How hypocritical of Roman Catholics that you all feel free to say those things about us, but the moment a Christian shows even the least little bit of disagreement, you try to play the victim.

 

[mercygate]

From the New American Standard Bible:

From the American Standard Bible:

From the English Standard Bible:

From the NKJV Bible:

From the KJV:

From the Holman Standard Bible:

There are about a dozen other translations I’ll be happy to cite for you, but I’m sure you get the idea.

:doh2ead in the flesh, alive in the Lord. You don’t even need to be Catholic to figure that out!

 

[brosam]

:doh2ead in the flesh, alive in the Lord. You don’t even need to be Catholic to figure that out!

Except that “dead” here is defined as being physically dead and gone from this world.

 

[mercygate]

Except that “dead” here is defined as being physically dead and gone from this world.

Exactly. But in the Communion of Saints (I don’t know whether you hold to the Apostle’s Creed, which affirms the Communion of Saints), the departed in Christ are IN Christ: perfected in charity and united to him in love and will. Since their will is His will, they love us as He loves us.

Catholics know all of the scriptures Protestants quote to deny intercession to the Saints, but – as is often the case – we see distinctions that Protestants do not. We point to Revelation where where "the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints . . . The elders in heaven (not angels, but elders) are presenting the prayers of the saints – the saints on earth. In chapter 8, an angel presents the prayers of *all *the saints as incense. Catholics believe that the “saints” do not cease to be “saints” when they die. And we believe that the Communion of Saints requires actual communion.

Moreover, beneath the altar, the souls of the martyrs cry out for vengeance upon their blood (which we believe is intimately joined to the Blood of the Lamb) – so they certainly are concerned with what is going on “downstairs.”

 

[brosam]

Exactly.

Then I’m glad we’re in agreement. I’m sure, though, that this won’t stop you from violating God’s command not to pray to the dead.

We point to Revelation where where "the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints . . . The elders in heaven (not angels, but elders) are presenting the prayers of the saints – the saints on earth.

Actually, this only says that the saints pray, not that we are to pray to dead “saints”.

In chapter 8, an angel presents the prayers of *all *the saints as incense. Catholics believe that the “saints” do not cease to be “saints” when they die.

So, if they were already saints on Earth, then why do they have t be canonized after their deaths to be recognized as saints?

 

[mercygate]

Then I’m glad we’re in agreement. I’m sure, though, that this won’t stop you from violating God’s command not to pray to the dead.

They are not dead in the Lord.
Actually, this only says that the saints pray, not that we are to pray to dead “saints”.They are not dead in the Lord.

So, if they were already saints on Earth, then why do they have t be canonized after their deaths to be recognized as saints?

See up-thread. A “saint” on earth is an unfinished project.Canonization does not “create” saints. It simply notes that this particular person IS without any doubt “finished” and among the eternally blessed.

As you are aware, the Catholic view of salvation/justification/sanctification, as distinct from what we consider to be the wholly unbiblical concept of eternal security, is an ongoing process, closed only at death (dozens of scriptural verses on perseverance to the end in support of this view). Thus, posthumous witness in the form of miraculous intercessions and such is required in the formal declaration of sainthood.

 

[BrewMax]

Actually, this only says that the saints pray, not that we are to pray to dead “saints”.

The saints whether alive in this life or the ones that have passed on are linked in common. This is what is refered to as the Communion of Saints. They are all alive in Christ. We ask the saints to pray with us to God. I do not pray to the saints for them to do something specific that I could not do for myself. I ask them to pray with me just as I ask someone in church to pray for me to get better from an illness etc.

 

[brosam]

They are all alive in Christ.

So, who are the people the Bible calls the “dead in Christ”?

 

[mercygate]

So, who are the people the Bible calls the “dead in Christ”?

Same people: people who upon their earthly death “in Christ” entered their eternal life – still “in Christ.”

 

[brosam]

They are not dead in the Lord.

The Bible says that they’re dead in Christ. Are you saying that Christ is not Lord?

project.Canonization does not “create” saints. It simply notes that this particular person IS without any doubt “finished” and among the eternally blessed.

The Bible tells us that when we get to Heaven, we will be like Christ. If we are like Christ, how can we not be “finished”?

As you are aware, the Catholic view of salvation/justification/sanctification, as distinct from what we consider to be the wholly unbiblical concept of eternal security, is an ongoing process

So then, why does the Bible describe those who are saved as being saved in the present tense?

closed only at death (dozens of scriptural verses on perseverance to the end in support of this view

And I see you didn’t bother to show us any of them.

Thus, posthumous witness in the form of miraculous intercessions and such is required in the formal declaration of sainthood.

And what is the objective standard that your church uses to determine whether or not these things are works of the dead “saints”?

 

[brosam]

Same people: people who upon their earthly death “in Christ” entered their eternal life – still “in Christ.”

So, the Bible says that they’re dead, but you insist that they’re not. Why should I take your word over the Bible?

 

[mercygate]

The Bible says that they’re dead in Christ. Are you saying that Christ is not Lord?

It is difficult to believe that you are not being deliberately obtuse, but to clarify: Christ is the Lord: the dead, die in the Lord to live in Him. AND YOU KNOW THAT.

The Bible tells us that when we get to Heaven, we will be like Christ. If we are like Christ, how can we not be “finished”?

We ARE finished when we get to heaven. Not everyone who dies, not everyone WE might believe to be a saint on earth actually is one. Christ is the judge of that.

So then, why does the Bible describe those who are saved as being saved in the present tense?

It also describes salvation as past and future. Every moment of our present life is an option either for or against God. God will never take our free will from us because with out our free well, we cannot love.

And I see you didn’t bother to show us any of them.

Do I need to? You know them as well as I do. After all, aren’t you a Bible Christian?

And what is the objective standard that your church uses to determine whether or not these things are works of the dead “saints”?

Again: Saints are not “dead” but alive in Christ. The objective criteria include an exhaustive examination of the person’s life, which can take many years.

The term “devil’s advocate” comes from this process: a person is assigned to the case, whose job it is to shoot holes in any claim that could be even the slightest bit questionable.

The canonization process requires three verified miracles for which no other explanation than divine intervention is possible. Usually these are healing miracles because we can so readily document medical conditions.

I personally know the doctor who was asked to review one of the miracles attributed to Blessed Faustina Kowalska before she was canonized. He is one of the best-known and most highly respected cardiologists in the world. He presented the echocardiographic record of the patient to 8 colleagues around the world, without identifying the reason, and asked whether they could propose ANY cause at all for the 8-month regression of findings from severely pathological to normal. They could not. So the healing was accepted as the work of God at the intercession of Blessed Faustina.

 

[SyCarl]

So, the Bible says that they’re dead, but you insist that they’re not. Why should I take your word over the Bible?

They are physically dead but are they spiritually dead? Paul says:

But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better; yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake.
Philippians 1:23-24

and Jesus Himself says when rebuking the Sadducees:

But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.
Matthew 22:31-32

One thing that I question is the ability to state with assurance that someone has gone to Heaven, which the Catholic Church claim to be able to do. For Paul says:

But to me it is a very small thing that I may be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself. For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this aquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord. Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motive’s of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God.
1 Corinthians 4:4-5

We should not judge whether anyone will go or has gone to Heaven. That will be revealed when Jesus comes again.

I guess I also have questions about the effectiveness of the intercession of saints. If we ask God for something, we know that He will do the right thing. Is it not somewhat insulting to suggest that a saint might persuade God to grant our prayers. That seems to presume either (a) That God would not do what is right without the saint persuading Him or (b) that God could be changed from doing what is right by a saint persuading Him.

 

[mercygate]

So, the Bible says that they’re dead, but you insist that they’re not. Why should I take your word over the Bible?

I ask you to take the whole word of the Bible: He is the God of the living, not of the dead. And since Jesus is referring to Abraham, that means people who have died on earth are “living” in God. AND YOU KNOW THAT. Unless your a JW or something like that.

 

[andzy]

:doh2: My last attempt to get it straight, as this is really off topic now.

Here, we see that I must be “using a different Bible from what all other Christians use” because the Bible, in your opinion, does not say that God is the God of the living and the dead.
I provided you with numerous translations that say that Jesus Christ is, indeed, Lord of both the living and the dead.

Don’t you see? Mercygate gave a quote either from Matthew 22:32 or Mark 12:27 or Luke 20:38, and you said the Bible didn’t say it. I checked several translations, and they didn’t support your statement. What else should I have concluded, other than that you’re using some weird translation?
Also, the “different Bible” part was regarding your bold comment that “Anybody who believes that these things are Biblical hasn’t read the Bible”. Here is the logic: a) I have read the Bible (both Catholic and Protestant “versions”), b) I believe those things, c) therefore I must conclude that you must be talking about some other Bible. How is this logic wrong?

“Lost their charity” ain’t the word for it. You people have been absolutely vicious in going after me.

You first post on this thread implies that the Catholic Church is stupid, and your following posts had even less charity. If you accuse us of idolatry, should you get away with it? I tried explaining your question, hoping you’d try to understand the Catholic point of you (even while disagreeing with it).

Tell me what things I’ve accused you of that you don’t believe.

Mary is the source of our salvation. Or, that we haven’t read the Bible. Or that we believe in non-biblical things.

Actually, your own pope came out in a statement on 9 July and declared that we’re not a part of the “valid church”.

Are you a Catholic? Are you a part of the Catholic Church? Wouldn’t you expect that Catholics say they’re the True Church? (Wouldn’t you expect any Protestant to believe it about their church?) But that doesn’t mean that Protestants aren’t Christians. Do you see the difference?

In addition, your religion does teach ex ecclesia nulla salas.

This is not a thread to talk about it, but if you read the Catechism, you’d understand what it means, and that it doesn’t mean that Protestants are not Christians (unlike so many Protestants I’ve met who believe that about Catholics).

What Protestant ever prayed to a cross?

What Catholic ever prayed to a statue?

or that Protestants don’t love Christ, because they believe they can spit in His face, and still will get to heaven (as long as they’ve said the formula of the salvation prayer)

A Sola Fide believing Protestant.

Actually, that you believe sola scriptura is a “man made teaching” only goes to show your own ignorance of the scriptures.

Does your Bible tells to follow the Scriptures alone? And aren’t you ignoring the history?

By the way (and off topic), I could never understood why Protestants take such an offense of Catholics saying that the Catholic Church is the True Church established by Christ Himself.

Really? Even your own statements don’t testify to that. Read on:

Second, the obvious implication is that, if Roman Catholics are the “true church established by Christ”, then we are not a part of the church.

Once again, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church for the implications, and how much Protestants are or aren’t part of the Church that Christ established.

How hypocritical of Roman Catholics that you all feel free to say those things about us, but the moment a Christian shows even the least little bit of disagreement, you try to play the victim.

What is hypocritical and playing the victim? Not letting people get away with falsely accusing the Church of what it is not, and what it doesn’t believe?
Haven’t you ever been condemned to hell by a Protestant, because you didn’t happen to agree with his interpretation of the Scripture? (Oh, wait, you’re not a Catholic, so maybe you haven’t.)