Why won't non-Catholic Christians recite the Holy Rosary?

[Non_Serviam]

If the recitation of the Rosary does not arise from the heart accompanied by a deep contemplation of the divine mysteries, then certainly it would be a vain devotional exercise. Said properly and sincerely, the Rosary is a great instrument of God’s grace next to the Sacraments. (snipped for the sake of space)

It’s nice to see a Catholic acknowledge there is a fashion in which reciting the Rosary can be vain repetition, just a sit would be nice to see a Protestant acknowledge that all repetition isn’t vain. Nothing to dispute in your points on the benefits of contemplation and unity.

James and John teach us in their letters that the prayers of a righteous person is of great benefit for the salvation of others. Jesus and Paul exhort us to pray for each other in an intercessory capacity. And Paul does reveal to us in his epistles that the mystical body of Christ consists of all the faithful in heaven and on earth. If we are to pray ‘for’ each other, then naturally we will ask other believers to pray for us and remember us in their intentions. Since the departed holy ones are still part of the one mystical body of Christ together with the living in this life and form a “cloud of witnesses”, interceding for us and encouraging us, there is no reason why we should refrain from supplicating them for God’s helping graces. In fact we are better off petitioning them, for they have earned their glorious heavenly crowns by having persevered in faith through love. Their holiness has victoriously been tested and refined by fire. Our Lord’s parable does indeed reveal that the faithful departed offer up intercessory prayers for all believers on earth. This revelation in itself should provide an incentive for us to pray to them and through them to our Lord.

Lots of circumstantial evidence and yet, no Apostle is quoted as calling on one who has died before, nor is such an appeal or teaching found in a sermon or Epistle. One would think of Paul, in particular, feeling a great kinship to Stephen, having assisted in his martyrdom, and yet, no mention was made of this by Paul.

I’m sure you would agree that not everything Jesus and the apostles did was recorded in the Scriptures. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that they didn’t do other things. What we do know is that the Son of Man was transfigured and conversed with the departed Moses and Elijah, which clearly shows that the living can communicate with the dead who are actually living in the kingdom of heaven that is in our midst. Indeed, they have capabilities that immeasurably exceed our physical limitations. Moreover, Jesus could have called upon twelve legions of angels at the time of his arrest. It’s presumptuous to think that we are communicatively severed from those who are alive in Christ in heaven. It’s wise for us to heed the words of Jesus, who said that he would send his Church the Paraclete to guide her in all truth until the end of this age, preserving her from teaching false doctrines.

I agree that not everything is recorded-John’s Gospel specifically spells this out if I were silly enough to think so. The Apostles did see Jesus speak with Moses and Elijah, just as the disciples of John saw the Holy Spirit in visible form descend on Him and the Apostles saw His resurrected form and some touched Him. Would you say then that visible manifestations of the Spirit and bodily resurrections should also be the norm for Christians? All three of these activities were special experiences, confirming aspects of Christ’s nature and identity, rather than proofs of other doctrines.

Since we are laying challenges on the table, I have one. If the Church is not, as you put it, “communicatively severed”, then why isn’t Peter still in charge?

If Jesus put Peter in charge, and the living and dead members of the church remain in communication, why elect a new Pope? Peter would still be able to perform his duties. The fact that Catholics elect a new Pope upon the death of the previous one is a tacit admission of the reality of a “transition in role” between living and dead Christians. It’s not presumption, but rather common sense.

(continued)

 

[Non_Serviam]

If the Apostles failed to perceive the divine truth of our connection with the Communion of Saints, it’s probably because God decided not to reveal it to them. Still, prayers to the departed saints and martyrs may have been offered, notwithstanding no record of this devotional practice. The Scriptures must sometimes be read in a plenary sense; a sole literal, historical approach may lead one to a deficient understanding of God’s word. In any event, the Church did not expire with the death of the last apostle. The Paraclete has been sent to the Church. The Spirit of truth was not specifcally sent to the Twelve. The same Spirit guides their valid successors, by “the laying on of hands” - the Episcopacy of the one universal Church.

We do have documented evidence that praying to the faithful departed had existed by the beginning of the third century. Appealing to the three companions of Daniel:

“Think of me, I beseech you, so that I may achieve with you the same fate of martyrdom.”
Hyppolytus of Rome, On Daniel, 11:30 (A.D. 204)

PAX :harp:

So now you are open to the possibility that the Apostles didn’t participate in this practice (you are at least hypothetically open) and that this practice was a later development. This doesn’t concern you because of the theory of “development of doctrine” and that’s fine. I’m hoping this discussion has be helpful in promoting understanding as to why someone might not readily accept the idea of praying to the dead if they also question the authority of the Catholic hierarchy.

As to the quote you offered, I took the time to go read the work in question. Hippolytus uses the literary device of speaking to individuals in the narrative throughout the text. In fact he speaks to Nebuchadnezzar in the work in question more frequently than to the three Hebrew children-hopefully not a sign that Hippolytus considered Nebuchadnezzar a saint.

Likewise in his text he identifies democracies as the ten toes of the image of the Antichrist-not an interpretation one is likely to hear in most US parishes. I would suggest that this might not be the best evidence to offer to support this doctrine.

 

[mcs7474]

I don’t understand questions like this? Protestants don’t do “Catholic” things, this is simple.

 

[Cinette]

I wasn’t debating whether or not the saints are engaged in prayer-Revelation clearly identifies the elders engaged in worship in heaven. The crux of my dispute is whether there is any evidence the Apostles engaged in or taught the practice of praying to dead saints.

I would like to comment on your above-referenced statement about “the practice of praying to dead saints”.

I am sure if you reflect on this you will see that you have made an error. If you believe in Eternal Life you will realise that saintly people are saved and if they are saved they will earn eternal life which means they are very much alive in the Kingdom of Heaven. The Body of Christ includes all of God’s children both living and dead (in this life). Just as you ask your friends to pray for your intentions we also ask those who have gone before us to do likewise.

Canonized saints are our mentors and we attribute tasks to each of them. We each also have our favourite Saints. This is not something against God’s wishes.

 

[ChristIsLord]

what is the point of a thread like this? don’t we all know why non-catholics won’t pray the rosary?

1. they think it’s rote recitation of prayer condemned in the new testament.
2. they believe it’s praying to mary which they are also against.

it’s no mystery, we all know the answer already. i’m marginally catholic but used to be a more devout catholic and i never got the rosary it always seemed pointless and mind numbing to me.

 

[SD_Catholic]

I don’t understand questions like this? Protestants don’t do “Catholic” things, this is simple.

Do you go to church on Sundays, did you celebrate Christmas on the 25th, did you decorate a Christmas tree, has Santa (St Nick)ever visted your house, do you read the Bible, and the list goes on… many do “Catholic things” and don’t even know it

SD

 

[KingAlfred]

“Why won’t non-Catholic Christians recite the Holy Rosary?”

I say it out of habit, as a Catholic. Theologically, however, I think our focus should be on Jesus, always.

 

[sharmin]

Hello bengal-fan,
The Rosary is a prayer of the Gospels.

How do you know if the Rosary “distracts some from Jesus”?

I have been a Roman Catholic my entire life and I come from a long line of Catholics and I have never seen what you describe. I fact, I have seen the opposite. People I know and have met who regularly pray the Rosary are very focused on Jesus and it is in part because they do practice this Catholic devotion. The Rosary is 100% Christian and 100% Biblical. You might want to go back and read might posts…The Rosary is based on the Gospels and the purpose of the Rosary is to stay focused on Jesus Christ.

Peace

I am a Catholic who is distracted from Jesus when reciting the rosary. So, I do understand what he is saying.

 

[SD_Catholic]

i’m marginally catholic but used to be moreso .

What does this mean… thanks

SD

 

[Good_Fella]

So now you are open to the possibility that the Apostles didn’t participate in this practice (you are at least hypothetically open) and that this practice was a later development. This doesn’t concern you because of the theory of “development of doctrine” and that’s fine.

As to the quote you offered, I took the time to go read the work in question. Hippolytus uses the literary device of speaking to individuals in the narrative throughout the text. In fact he speaks to Nebuchadnezzar in the work in question more frequently than to the three Hebrew children-hopefully not a sign that Hippolytus considered Nebuchadnezzar a saint.

Likewise in his text he identifies democracies as the ten toes of the image of the Antichrist-not an interpretation one is likely to hear in most US parishes.

The reason why the Catholic Church celebrates the Eucharist, believing in the Real Presence, and administers all seven Sacraments is because it has been a tradition since Apostolic time - not because we discovered this tradition by probing the written word in the New Testament after it was written. Still there is a record of the Church administering or celebrating the sacraments in the New Testament before it was written. The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is supported in principle in the scriptures, especially in the teachings of Jesus on marriage and divorce. The point is that we must appeal to Apostolic Tradition that has proceeded or developed from the time of the Apostles. We mustn’t refer to the scriptures as we do a catechism. The Catholic Church was born at Pentecost with the descent of the Paraclete. And there are doctrines and practices which have developed over time through the guidance of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 16:12-13). We mustn’t expect to find everything explicitly written down in stone in the scriptures. The literal-historical approach is deficient. The written word alone is formally insufficient. Scripture must often be interpreted in light of Apostolic Tradition through Apostolic Succession.

“We are not to credit these men, nor go out from the first and the ecclesiastical tradition; nor to believe otherwise than as the churches of God have by succession transmitted to us.”
Origen, ‘Commentary on Matthew’ (post A.D. 244)

“…Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plans of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.” [cf. Mt. 16:18-19]
Cyprian of Carthage, ‘To the Lapsed’ (A.D. 250)

It is true that Hyppolytus speaks to his characters as a literary device, but he does so in a very personal way. We have to consider what he says to the three young men and put it in context with the religious milieu of his time. The quote I provided assumes the quality of a prayer, something very deep and personal in the spiritual consciousness of the writer. Martyrdom was something Hyppolytus strongly desired, and the answer to his prayer must have been ecstatically received when he in fact was martyred. I believe he expected to be martyred when he prayed to the souls of the three young men as he wrote his narrative in the form of a prayer to them. What he had to say to the king of Babylon was probably more a personal literary expression based on his feelings and reflections. Whether Hyppolytus actually believed he could tell the wicked king something is irrelevant, for it would be a private affair, having nothing to do with the Church which scorns necromancy. So I doubt the saint actually believed he was communicating to the king while he was writing. He certainly wasn’t praying to him. Perhaps you’ll find the following two quotes more convincing. They reveal the common belief of the Catholic Church that had existed by the time of Hyppolytus.

“But 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.”
Origen ‘Prayer 11’ (A.D. 233)

“Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides of death always pray for one another…and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father’s mercy.”
Cyprian of Carthage, 'Letters 56[60]:5 (A.D. 253)

"Hail to you forever, Virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for to you do I turn again. You are the beginning of our feast; you are its middle and end; the pearl of great price that belongs to the kingdom…Therefore we pray ask you, the most excellent among women, who glories in the confidence of your maternal honours, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance.
Methodius, ‘Oration on Simeon and Anna 14’ (A.D. 305)

Privately interpreting the Book of Revelation and publicly believing in the Communion of Saints have as much in common with each other as an apple and an orange. Even today there are Catholic theologians who interpret the Apocalypse differently, but they all profess common belief in the Communion of Saints when reciting the Apostles Creed during Mass.

PAX :tiphat:

 

[hays1122]

(cf. Jas 5:16; Prov 15: 8, 29).

“But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father.”
Matthew 5, 44-45

First of all, then, I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone.This is good and pleasing to God our saviour who wills everyone to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.
1 Timothy 2, 1-4.

With regard to the authority to forgive sins:

“Give us today our daily bread;
and forgive us our debts,
as we forgive our debtors.”
Matthew 6, 11-12

“Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”
John 20, 23

When we pray for those who persecute us, not only are we asking God to grant them the grace of conversion, but we are asking God to forgive them, since we have forgiven our enemies from the heart. Jesus tells us that whatever we ask for in his name will be given us (cf. Mk 11:24), so I believe our Lord did not hold the sin of Stephen’s executioners against them. I personally believe that the martyr’s prayer brought about Paul’s conversion by God’s grace. And even if the others hadn’t repented of their offence, I still believe God would not hold this particular sin against them in answer to Stephen’s virtuous prayer in Jesus’ name. Those who may later have converted to Christianity would have repented along with Paul for their deadly persecutions. God is prepared to forgive anyone who willingly accepts his grace and repents for his tresspasses against Him and our neighbour - including the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

As they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Then he fell to his knees and cried out in a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them”; and when he said this, he fell asleep.
Acts 7, 59-60

When you substitute the petition “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners…” for “Lord, Jesus, forgive us our sins…” you are substituting Mary for yourself as a factual human mediator. Like Mary you are asking our Lord to give us the graces necessary for our salvation. Salvation can only be obtained through the forgiveness of sins, and we need all the graces we can get in order to persevere in faith until the end. I would appreciate your prayers for me with gratitude, but to be honest with you, I’d feel more secure knowing that it’s Mary who is praying for me on account of her merits and pre-eminent position with God. Now if you recite the Hail Mary the way faithful Catholics do, I’ll feel even more secure knowing that we are both praying together with Mary to her divine Son, not only me and the other hundreds of million people.

I’m sure you’d be interested to know that in her third apparition to the three shepherd children at the Cova da Ira our Blessed Mother asked us to add this prayer after each decade of the Rosary:

“O, my Jesus, forgive us our sins, and save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of your mercy.”

And she also said:

“Pray, pray a great deal and make sacrifices for sinners. So many souls go to hell because there is no one to pray and make sacrifices for them.”
Our Lady of Fatima, 13 July 1917

Now that 's very Pauline of Mary ! [Col 1:24]

I hope there are more things you like about Catholicism.

PAX :harp:

I understand we should pray for others. I pray for others all the time. Praying for others is not in question at all. What is being questioned is asking someone who is no longer in this world,to pray for us or to help someone.
I just don’t see where the apostles prayed asking Moses to help them in anyway. You’d think they would have prayed to Solomon,for his wisdom or any one of the many who have gone before. It never happened.
The only time someone asked a dead saint for help was when Saul asked a woman to bring Samuel from the dead. And Saul got in big trouble for that. I’m sure you know the story,but if you need to read it for yourself:
This is found in 1 Samuel Chapter 28.

 

[Good_Fella]

It’s nice to see a Catholic acknowledge there is a fashion in which reciting the Rosary can be vain repetition, just a sit would be nice to see a Protestant acknowledge that all repetition isn’t vain. Nothing to dispute in your points on the benefits of contemplation and unity.

I agree that not everything is recorded-John’s Gospel specifically spells this out if I were silly enough to think so. The Apostles did see Jesus speak with Moses and Elijah, just as the disciples of John saw the Holy Spirit in visible form descend on Him and the Apostles saw His resurrected form and some touched Him. Would you say then that visible manifestations of the Spirit and bodily resurrections should also be the norm for Christians? All three of these activities were special experiences, confirming aspects of Christ’s nature and identity, rather than proofs of other doctrines.

Since we are laying challenges on the table, I have one. If the Church is not, as you put it, “communicatively severed”, then why isn’t Peter still in charge?

If Jesus put Peter in charge, and the living and dead members of the church remain in communication, why elect a new Pope? Peter would still be able to perform his duties. The fact that Catholics elect a new Pope upon the death of the previous one is a tacit admission of the reality of a “transition in role” between living and dead Christians. It’s not presumption, but rather common sense.

(continued)

But the act of repeating certain prayers or formulas isn’t vain in itself. It’s a matter of being done properly. Since you don’t feel comfortable with repeating a formal prayer ten times, failing to see and appreciate the significance of the practice, repetition would become vain if you decided to say ten Hail Marys just to make me happy.

The epistles of St. Paul are occasional pastoral letters directed to specific communities with regard to certain issues pertaining to their faith. This is why we find no mention of the Virgin Birth in his writings, but I’m sure he believed in this miraculous event and preached about it. Not everything the Church believed or practiced necessarily had to be put down in writing in an occasional letter. Indeed, with doctrines in mind Paul exhorts us:

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
2 Thessalonians 2, 15

The Transfiguration event shows us that the faithul departed are more alive than we are and are not separated from us in the one family of God which consists of the holy ones in heaven and on earth. Keep in mind that the Son of Man had not yet resurrected from the dead in glory when he communicated with the two witnesses. Meanwhile I fail to see why visible manifestations of the faithful departed saints have to necessarily occur or become a norm. And since we are not divine persons, we cannot effect what Jesus did. Nor do we manifest ourselves in a form of a dove after we get to heaven. Let’s not imply that we become gods after we get there, although Moses and Elijah were more alive and human than we are here. The best we can do on earth is communicate with them through prayer unless a departed saint does manifest herself to the faithful. Marian apparitions, for instance, attest to the supernatural link between the saints in heaven and the faithful on earth who partake in the Eucharist. Finally, visible manifestations of bodily resurrections did occur immediately after Jesus had died on the cross where he appealed to Elijah for his intercession without having to be transfigured. (cf. Mt. 27: 47, 49; 52-53; Mk 15: 35-36).

Peter and the Apostles were given divine authority to make visible decisions on earth that would be ratified in heaven. Nothing more was expected of them. Our Lord was concerned with establishing a central teaching authority on earth so that a chaos of faith and morals would not ensue after his ascension and upon the birth of the Church at Pentecost. If the divine mandate expired on earth with the deaths of Peter and the Apostles and continued to proceed with them into heaven, there would have been no need for Jesus to send the promised Paraclete. Their earthly roles ended with their deaths. Thus the apostles appointed successors by the laying on of hands. The Divine Office was only for life just as marriage is according to God’s plan.

Should we reject our belief in the Communion of Saints just because a departed spouse doesn’t continuously govern or help manage household affairs. All we can do here is ask the faithful departed to support us by their prayers in heaven. A transition of roles does not negate or sever our communication with the departed in the mystical body of Christ. It simply means that a form of communication has been altered. Do you expect Peter to write encyclicals in heaven and send them down to us? And wouldn’t he then have to appoint someone to receive and circulate them to all the bishops around the world, perhaps having instead somehow first dictated his letters to an appointed head who would then carry out the task. Why bother when one can appoint a successor before he departs from this life trusting in Christ’s promise? This scenerio is somewhat fantastic as opposed to orthodox belief.

PAX :heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

I understand we should pray for others. I pray for others all the time. Praying for others is not in question at all. What is being questioned is asking someone who is no longer in this world,to pray for us or to help someone.
I just don’t see where the apostles prayed asking Moses to help them in anyway. You’d think they would have prayed to Solomon,for his wisdom or any one of the many who have gone before. It never happened.
The only time someone asked a dead saint for help was when Saul asked a woman to bring Samuel from the dead. And Saul got in big trouble for that. I’m sure you know the story,but if you need to read it for yourself:
This is found in 1 Samuel Chapter 28.

There is no record of any of the apostles having called on Moses or Solomon, but that doesn’t mean it certainly never happened. Perhaps they did petition them, since the Jews at that time believed Jesus was calling on Elijah. Praying with the departed was a practice observed in Judaism (cf. 2 Macc 15: 12-16). The Jews even asked God to hear the prayers of the dead (cf. Baruch 3:4). Don’t forget that the Apostles were Jews. We have no record of them either rejecting or espousing this practice in the Church. But in all probabilty they must have continued to observe it considering the implications we find in the New Testament pointing to it.

*And at three o’clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, ** “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” * which is translated, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.?” Some of the bystanders who heard it said, “Look, he is calling Elijah.”
Mark 15: 34-35

 

[Good_Fella]

But the act of repeating certain prayers or formulas isn’t vain in itself. It’s a matter of being done properly. Since you don’t feel comfortable with repeating a formal prayer ten times, failing to see and appreciate the significance of the practice, repetition would become vain if you decided to say ten Hail Marys just to make me happy.

The epistles of St. Paul are occasional pastoral letters directed to specific communities with regard to certain issues pertaining to their faith. This is why we find no mention of the Virgin Birth in his writings, but I’m sure he believed in this miraculous event and preached about it. Not everything the Church believed or practiced necessarily had to be put down in writing in an occasional letter. Indeed, with doctrines in mind Paul exhorts us:

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
2 Thessalonians 2, 15

The Transfiguration event shows us that the faithul departed are more alive than we are and are not separated from us in the one family of God which consists of the holy ones in heaven and on earth. Keep in mind that the Son of Man had not yet resurrected from the dead in glory when he communicated with the two witnesses. Meanwhile I fail to see why visible manifestations of the faithful departed saints have to necessarily occur or become a norm. And since we are not divine persons, we cannot effect what Jesus did. Nor do we manifest ourselves in a form of a dove after we get to heaven. Let’s not imply that we become gods after we get there, although Moses and Elijah were more alive and human than we are here. The best we can do on earth is communicate with them through prayer unless a departed saint does manifest herself to the faithful. Marian apparitions, for instance, attest to the supernatural link between the saints in heaven and the faithful on earth who partake in the Eucharist. Finally, visible manifestations of bodily resurrections did occur immediately after Jesus had died on the cross where he appealed to Elijah for his intercession without having to be transfigured. (cf. Mt. 27: 47, 49; 52-53; Mk 15: 35-36).

Peter and the Apostles were given divine authority to make visible decisions on earth that would be ratified in heaven. Nothing more was expected of them. Our Lord was concerned with establishing a central teaching authority on earth so that a chaos of faith and morals would not ensue after his ascension and upon the birth of the Church at Pentecost. If the divine mandate expired on earth with the deaths of Peter and the Apostles and continued to proceed with them into heaven, there would have been no need for Jesus to send the promised Paraclete. Their earthly roles ended with their deaths. Thus the apostles appointed successors by the laying on of hands. The Divine Office was only for life just as marriage is according to God’s plan.

Should we reject our belief in the Communion of Saints just because a departed spouse doesn’t continuously govern or help manage household affairs. All we can do here is ask the faithful departed to support us by their prayers in heaven. A transition of roles does not negate or sever our communication with the departed in the mystical body of Christ. It simply means that a form of communication has been altered. Do you expect Peter to write encyclicals in heaven and send them down to us? And wouldn’t he then have to appoint someone to receive and circulate them to all the bishops around the world, perhaps having instead somehow first dictated his letters to an appointed head who would then carry out the task. Why bother when one can appoint a successor before he departs from this life trusting in Christ’s promise? This scenerio is somewhat fantastic as opposed to orthodox belief.

PAX :heaven:

Just to be clear, Jesus hadn’t actually called Elijah, but God. The Jews presumed he did, and the apostles took note of their misunderstanding aware that Jesus could just as well have called Elijah without having to be transfigured. Petitioning the departed of Israel was a practice among the Jews in Palestine.

 

[Non_Serviam]

(please note that I snipped the quotes to met the character count, not because I don’t value your including them)

The reason why the Catholic Church celebrates the Eucharist, believing in the Real Presence, and administers all seven Sacraments is because it has been a tradition since Apostolic time - not because we discovered this tradition by probing the written word in the New Testament after it was written. (SNIP to meet length requirements) We mustn’t expect to find everything explicitly written down in stone in the scriptures. The literal-historical approach is deficient. The written word alone is formally insufficient. Scripture must often be interpreted in light of Apostolic Tradition through Apostolic Succession.

Actually, if we was to bring a degree of precision to the matter, the Catholic Church celebrates these things today because its current leadership tells it to do so. Practices that reach back into antiquity that appear to have Scriptural warrant such as the veiling of women have been set aside and, excepting a relatively small number of dissidents, this change has been accepted. Likewise there have been theological and liturgical changes with regard to all of these sacraments, which have been accepted on the authority of those who lead the church.

The reason given by the leadership for these beliefs and practices is Apostolic tradition or doctrinal development which is claimed to have sprung from that tradition. In rare cases, such as the Easter dispute, the Pope has claimed the authority to set aside Apostolic tradition in favour of his own preference.

I acknowledge that the quotes you presented speak of a church with episcopal (not papal) leadership that was in the opinion of the writers, holding fast to the Apostles’ teaching up to the date of their writings-obviously they can’t be claimed to certify anything that happened in or to the church after those dates. I’ll even hold my tongue on Origen and the Catholic habit of quoting him when useful and shunning him when he proves inconvenient.

Praying to the dead saints is a practice endorsed by the current Catholic hierarchy-as our discussion has shown, there is little to no concrete evidence of it having an Apostolic pedigree. For those in submission to the bishop of Rome, his seal of approval is proof enough-for those of us who don’t serve him, the lack of a concrete early record of the practice leads at the very least to a reluctance to embrace it.

You speak of Apostolic tradition through Apostolic Succession and yet, there seems to be no record of the “successors” of the Apostles claiming this to be an Apostolic practice, as they did with Baptism, Real Presence and many other practices.

There is evidence (cited in the old version of the Catholic Encyclopedia under “Communion of Saints” that some believers in Rome practiced this. IMHO it appears that this localized belief was transmitted to other churches once the doctrine of the primacy of Rome was accepted, much like the resolution of the Easter dispute.

It is true that Hyppolytus speaks to his characters as a literary device, but he does so in a very personal way. We have to consider what he says to the three young men and put it in context with the religious milieu of his time. The quote I provided assumes the quality of a prayer, something very deep and personal in the spiritual consciousness of the writer. Martyrdom was something Hyppolytus strongly desired, and the answer to his prayer must have been ecstatically received when he in fact was martyred. I believe he expected to be martyred when he prayed to the souls of the three young men as he wrote his narrative in the form of a prayer to them. What he had to say to the king of Babylon was probably more a personal literary expression based on his feelings and reflections. Whether Hyppolytus actually believed he could tell the wicked king something is irrelevant, for it would be a private affair, having nothing to do with the Church which scorns necromancy. So I doubt the saint actually believed he was communicating to the king while he was writing. He certainly wasn’t praying to him. Perhaps you’ll find the following two quotes more convincing. They reveal the common belief of the Catholic Church that had existed by the time of Hyppolytus.

I still find referring to Hippolytus’ quote as a prayer to be special pleading-the other quotes are rather more interesting.Still nothing directly linking the practice to the Apostles. Origen doesn’t specifically speak of praying to dead saints, but rather that dead saints pray, a point which has been stipulated to. Cyprian is more interesting-as it is suggested that the living ought to pray for the dead and vice versa, but nowhere is the suggestion made that the living should pray to the dead saints.

Methodius is a clear example of what we are discussing (although the Catholic Encyclopedia points out that many of the things written about him and attributed to him have an unclear pedigree) and it occurs roughly 200 yrs after the death of John. Looking at the differences in the Catholic church from 1808 until now, I’m sure you’ll agree with me that a great of change in belief and practice can occur in that length of time-even more so if you toss in persecution and a rapid turnover in leadership due to that persecution.

If we go back to what I wrote previously, this would be sufficient time for Roman beliefs to begin to have an impact on other regions, assuming the quotation to be from Methodius and not a later addition.

(continued)

 

[Non_Serviam]

Privately interpreting the Book of Revelation and publicly believing in the Communion of Saints have as much in common with each other as an apple and an orange. Even today there are Catholic theologians who interpret the Apocalypse differently, but they all profess common belief in the Communion of Saints when reciting the Apostles Creed during Mass.

PAX :tiphat:

I simply cited the passage in Revelation to point out that if taken literally, there is New Testament evidence for believing that departed saints are praying in God’s presence-I’m not sure why you seem to be opposed to that assertion.

 

[Non_Serviam]

The epistles of St. Paul are occasional pastoral letters directed to specific communities with regard to certain issues pertaining to their faith. This is why we find no mention of the Virgin Birth in his writings, but I’m sure he believed in this miraculous event and preached about it. Not everything the Church believed or practiced necessarily had to be put down in writing in an occasional letter. Indeed, with doctrines in mind Paul exhorts us:

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
2 Thessalonians 2, 15

I agree it would be hit or miss to find a theological description of praying to dead saints in the Epistles, but given the frequent problems for which prayer is “prescribed” it should be likely to find prayer to the saints mentioned if this was a common practice among the Apostles. We don’t find this and the subsequent ECF’s for the next 150 yrs don’t seem to mention this as an Apostolic practice either.

As for the quote from Paul it is a favourite of mine, showing quite clearly that he speaks of one body of teaching transmitted in two different ways (i.e. if you heard him teach or you read the Epistles, you got the exact same teaching)-a clear, unambiguous text which lays to rest the idea of “Apostolic Tradition” apart from Scripture and on par with it.

(continued)

 

[Non_Serviam]

The Transfiguration event shows us that the faithul departed are more alive than we are and are not separated from us in the one family of God which consists of the holy ones in heaven and on earth. Keep in mind that the Son of Man had not yet resurrected from the dead in glory when he communicated with the two witnesses. Meanwhile I fail to see why visible manifestations of the faithful departed saints have to necessarily occur or become a norm. And since we are not divine persons, we cannot effect what Jesus did. Nor do we manifest ourselves in a form of a dove after we get to heaven. Let’s not imply that we become gods after we get there, although Moses and Elijah were more alive and human than we are here. The best we can do on earth is communicate with them through prayer unless a departed saint does manifest herself to the faithful. Marian apparitions, for instance, attest to the supernatural link between the saints in heaven and the faithful on earth who partake in the Eucharist. Finally, visible manifestations of bodily resurrections did occur immediately after Jesus had died on the cross where he appealed to Elijah for his intercession without having to be transfigured. (cf. Mt. 27: 47, 49; 52-53; Mk 15: 35-36).

Peter and the Apostles were given divine authority to make visible decisions on earth that would be ratified in heaven. Nothing more was expected of them. Our Lord was concerned with establishing a central teaching authority on earth so that a chaos of faith and morals would not ensue after his ascension and upon the birth of the Church at Pentecost. If the divine mandate expired on earth with the deaths of Peter and the Apostles and continued to proceed with them into heaven, there would have been no need for Jesus to send the promised Paraclete. Their earthly roles ended with their deaths. Thus the apostles appointed successors by the laying on of hands. The Divine Office was only for life just as marriage is according to God’s plan.

Should we reject our belief in the Communion of Saints just because a departed spouse doesn’t continuously govern or help manage household affairs. All we can do here is ask the faithful departed to support us by their prayers in heaven. A transition of roles does not negate or sever our communication with the departed in the mystical body of Christ. It simply means that a form of communication has been altered. Do you expect Peter to write encyclicals in heaven and send them down to us? And wouldn’t he then have to appoint someone to receive and circulate them to all the bishops around the world, perhaps having instead somehow first dictated his letters to an appointed head who would then carry out the task. Why bother when one can appoint a successor before he departs from this life trusting in Christ’s promise? This scenerio is somewhat fantastic as opposed to orthodox belief.

PAX :heaven:

Once again, I’ve stipulated to the faithful still being faithful after death and that they pray after death-what I clearly pointed out here was that an experience unique to Jesus can’t be trotted out as “proof” for the average Catholic having a mandate to pray to dead saints any more than they have a mandate to expect a visible manifestation of the Holy Spirit as a dove at their baptism.

I also object strongly to your statement that the “best” we can do here is communicate with the saints-all of the New Testament points clearly to the reality that we have unfettered access to God almighty through the Redemption affected by Jesus. Prayer to God is the “best” we can do.

Your comments on Peter and the Apostles demonstrate my point-their roles did end on earth-Peter doesn’t issue bulls from Heaven, he isn’t consulted by the bishops, and the Gospel writers aren’t still writing. While agreeing to this you try to beg the question for the act praying to the saints and make it special pleading without showing Apostolic precedent or Scriptural warrant.

The evidence for this practice apart from submission to current Catholic ecclesiastical authority is non-existent.

Given your final point on altered communication and appointing successors-Paul did the latter as did other Apostles, but we find no hint in the Epistles of Paul or any of the other writers who knew their martyrdom was at hand telling their readers that while they would no longer be with them physically the readers would still be able to send their petitions to them and they would intercede for the readers.

Jesus does this in His promise of the Paraclete as you point out, but not one new Testament writers shares this idea of altered after death communication with their readers. We find no discussion of it by the church hierarchy until centuries later when it appears to have been dispersed by believers fleeing Rome.

I’m not sure if there’s a fresh take remaining on this part of the discussion-I think we’ve exhausted it, but I’m willing to continue if there’s new evidence to be considered (old evidence is my preference actually ) but otherwise, claiming something as part of Apostolic Tradition when no one in the first few centuries of the church appears to do so doesn’t seem to stand up to scrutiny.

 

[roanoker]

Some do. I do, and I’m a Presbyterian. I think its a lovely, meaningful, and ancient prayer. I always keep it in mind that we were all Catholics at one time. Why should the modern Catholics have all the good stuff? I pray the rosary every night…

 

[ufamtobie]

Luk 11:1 And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray

, as John ALSO taught his disciples

Luk 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

Believers, Please, in that case we can’t pray to Jesus Christ, either, because there is not room for him only the Father? Is this what you think Jesus Meant! Now since I put it this way don’t you see how WRONG you are!/COLOR]

The "WHEN ye pray,say, Our Father… " clause doesn’t leave room for Mary.