Sean611, there's a lot I should like to say to your post, but as I consider the replies circling in my head, I see that none of them are loving or helpful, but proud and spiteful. I will refrain from replying, and do now apologise for my bigotry against your opinion. Though I am not convinced of the necessity of personally communicating with the Christian dead, it has not been sufficiently proven to me that individual attempts to do so are inherently evil or wrong. I am uncomfortable doing it myself, but I cannot continue to fear for the salvation of honest Christians whose conscience does not forbid them the possibility of asking for prayers from those who have left for the Father's mansions. Apart from the mystery of the Incarnation uniting mortality and divinity forever, and the mystery of the Church, there is the simple fact that this is a private matter, not worth jeopardizing Christian charity over. I will henceforth cease and desist from telling you all to stop, for we may have every gift in the world, but without charity (re: love), the rest are rubbish.
Stalwart, Then using this reasoning, we should never ask for anyone's prayers on either side of heaven. Why ask your friends to pray for you or your Church to pray for you---when you can go straight to the "President"?
While this topic isn't and end-all-be-all subject matter it has me reflecting on things a bit in the past couple of days. 1) Most theologians & scholars say the (small "s") saints are with the Lord somehow. 2) My thoughts on this subject are VERY tainted by comments I heard such as: "When all else fails, pray to our Mother" "BVM will always answer our prayers" "I lost my car keys, so I prayed to St Anthony and I found them!" " All graces flow through BVM" And thus perhaps abuses on one side of the argument have caused me to over-react to the other side? 3) If we rely on the Early Church Fathers to help us decipher the bible and tradition, then... a) is there a point in history after which we stop looking to them for guidance b) do we follow them to a point where we must recognize that RC, EO, or OO have the correct theology and church structure and are in fact THE One True Church? Just some of my pondering... Have a great day!
Your concerns are important ones Dave, and two can be highlighted: 1. We can't actually know who is a saint. If we reverence Francis of Assisi for example, as does Gordon, must we conclude that Rome (which first declared him a saint) is able to announce these canonizations things truly? If so, why are we separate from so great and holy a church, etc.? 2. The danger of engaging in this simple practice, in my opinion, is that it can (and has) become this: http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=9708047&postcount=421 Though it is nominally Christ-centered, it uses language that is utterly out of proportion for a human being. What is the difference, in this prayer, between Jesus and the glorious, grace-obtaining, holy saints whose feet we cast ourselves upon, and who we beg for things from? Peter begs to differ in Acts 10:26. Also, notice how we now have not only "Jesus->Father" , but "Mary->Jesus->Father" and even "Ann->Mary->Jesus", upsetting the balance and focus of our prayers, which are supposed to be directed to the Father. In that quoted prayer, Jesus is part of a human trinity with His mother and grandmother! They are equally asked for help at the hour of death, which is odd since I thought that was the sole domain of our Lord Jesus.
Our Church says that we can know who is a saint, and we don't consider Rome to be a non-Church. We also don't consider their capacity to canonize to be the last word in reunification. A number of their Saints are on our Calendar, and we don't really canonize new ones in the same way. That carries interesting implications. Even Jesus->Father can quickly become a bad Christology.
As I have said numerous times on these threads about the saints, I have gone back and forth on the issue. I want to make sure I'm not engaging in abominable practices as forbidden in Deuteronomy and multiple other passages of Holy Scripture: Deuteronomy 18:9-14 (ESV): 9 “When you come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. 10 There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer 11 or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, 12 for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you. 13 You shall be blameless before the Lord your God, 14 for these nations, which you are about to dispossess, listen to fortune-tellers and to diviners. But as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you to do this. Also, see: Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 19:26-32; Leviticus 20:5-7; Leviticus 20:26-27; 1 Samuel 28:2-4; 1 Samuel 28:6-10;2 Kings 17:16-17;2 Kings 21:5-7; 2 Kings 23:23-25 ; 1 Chronicles 10:12-14; 2 Chronicles 33:1-7; Isaiah 8:18-20; Isaiah 19:2-4; Acts 16:16-19; Acts 19:18-20; So, the first question for me is, "Does asking the Saints to pray for us fall under any of these "abominable" practices, such as necromancy, defined by Dictionary.com as follows: 1. a method of divination through alleged communication with the dead; black art. 2. magic in general, especially that practiced by a witch or sorcerer; sorcery; witchcraft; conjuration. ____________________________ IOW, does asking the Saints to pray for us fall under the Communion of the Saints or is the practice an attempt to "conjure and communicate with the dead" as Samuel did through the medium/witch of En-dor (1 Samuel 28)? In the article posted by Sean (our invisible Anglican I'm feeling a bit invisible myself, lately) Either the Saints Are Alive or Jesus is Dead; Fr. Jonathan makes a distinction between invocation, which he says belongs to God alone, and advocation, which can be applied not only to the saints departed, but also to the living and the Angels. This is the first time I have read about the difference between invocation and advocation; and I think it is an important one. So, perhaps it is wrong to call asking the Saints to pray for us "invocation." Fr. Jonathan also said, "We cannot have it both ways. Either the saints and all the faithful departed are alive in Christ, in which case they are not so radically far away from us as it seems, or else they are dead because He is dead, cut off from us because He is cut off from us." I believe that Christ is alive and resurrected. I believe that Christ conquered death, and I believe the departed faithful are alive with Christ. Otherwise, there could be no Communion of the Saints or Christ for that matter. There could be no one Mystical Body of Christ, if we are all cut off from one another. I wrote about the Mystical Body of Christ earlier in the thread, but I don't think anyone responded to it. If you did respond, please give me the post number so I can properly consider your response. At this point, I think asking the Saints to pray for us falls under the Communion of the Saints, as we are all one in the Mystical Body of Christ. As Holy Scripture tells us, the prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working (James 5:16.) Surely, the departed Saints, alive with Christ, are greater in righteousness than those of us in this life--and we ask each other for prayers on a regular basis. This must be understood knowing that all power comes from the Holy Trinity, and answers to prayers ultimately demonstrate this power. No one has the right to boast in the answering of our prayers or those of the Saints. All honor and glory is given to God and God alone. I continue to consider both sides of the issue; and I certainly do not believe all must ask for the prayers of the Saints. I respect the beliefs of those who do not accept this practice. I don't think this is an issue that should divide us. Peace and blessings to all, Anna
How? When the Apostles prayed to Christ alone, what bad christology were they following? When Jesus taught that "no one can come to the Father but through me", what are the pitfalls there?
Yes so now it is, Penitent: pray to St. Ann. So that she can pray to Mary. So that she can pray to Jesus (who 'must listen to his mother'). So that he can intercede with the Father. It's Literally: Penitent -> Ann -> Mary -> Jesus -> Father. How does one stop this type of insanity? This is not a tenable form of Christianity, this 'telephone prayer'. Why not prefix it with: St. Barnabas, pray to St. Ann?? And yet this 'telephone prayer' is inherent in saint-worship, and Romanists haven't found a way to stop it in the last 1,000 years. In fact they've seemed to actually encourage it. This sort of Christianity resembles in nothing the Christianity of the Hebrews, of the Scriptures, and of the Early Church!
Anna, the moment you throw yourself at Stalwart's feet, beg him for help, and beseech him to obtain grace for you from God, then your comparison will be apt. Surely this isn't mere "pray for me" language? That's a huge difference. Of course, the person who prays to St. So-and-So does so because he believes that saint is closer to God, and more likely, than himself, to be heard by God. You don't believe Stalwart's holier than you, and closer to God, do you? The assumptions about saints and their merits are vastly different from just asking for prayers.
Praying to Christ is not bad Christology. Never meant to imply that it is. The danger comes from the mindset of "God=Father, Jesus=kinda-sorta God but is more of a demigod, Spirit=who knows." That's all I'll say here. PM if ya want clarification.
Consular, I deleted the post you quoted and revised it quite a bit. You were too quick to respond. lol. See my revision.
Remember those passages of Scripture I posted which have been ignored? See my post #229. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working; and the Lord's "ears" are open to their prayer. So, the righteousness of the person we ask does matter---according to Holy Scripture.
Lady Anna, If we are acting as individuals seeking to do our own thing, as it were, that is one thing and it my satisfy some. I did think on this board, that we were Anglicans, looking for an Anglican Solution. The question is whom do we pray to? It is to our Heavenly Father, through Christ, and if we use the rota as suggested by yourself above,"Anna, Stalwart,Hackney, Consular,Jesus, Father and spread the prayer by asking our brothers and sisters what is wrong with that? there is nothing to lose. The fact is we are not individuals as such, we are Church people, Members of Christ and Children of God, we are a Christian Community , a Communion in fact and the Church is the product of the workings of the Holy Trinity, through the apostles to the bishops and clergy, we've said it earlier and it is what the Anglican Church teaches. Years ago, in the reformation times, these who criticise were known as Latitudinarians, people with a low, mechanical view of the Church, over the last years they have produced a ,'come back,' as the term is, they seek to destroy not so much the fabric of the system, but its base.My personal opinion is that it is the attitude along with modern liberalism that has brought the Church to this crisis. What we have to do is to look at Church teaching from the past, this subject above has been worked on to several times in our history and There is nothing new . We, have to have confidence in Christ and in our selves and in Christ's Body the Church. That's the basis of our belief, if we do make mistakes, we have to remember that Christianity is summed up every day in the Liturgy, 'Love God and thy neighbour, as thyself.' Asking for prayers can't be wrong ! Many people including some on this board see the Christian Church as no more than a human institution. It isn't and whatever they think, it cannot be treated as such, our membership is not like a ticket to be purchased and then thrown away when we've gone far enough, or obtained what we want. It is indelible and will bring us to the New Jerusalem. But we have to have love & charity as well as faith. That's what our praying to the saints and for the lately dead is!
That is precisely my point. I was responding to Stalwart's post in which he criticized this kind of prayer in relation to the departed faithful, whom I believe are alive in Christ. I agree. As I said before: Interesting. There are those here who believe we, Anglo Catholics, have contributed to the Church's problems. I agree. However, some who look to the past only go to the point of the Reformation, and then vilify Anglo Catholics. Example from this thread: I agree wholeheartedly. Excellent post, highchurchman! Anna
This is an interesting point in that how far back do you go in history? I mean this in all sincerity. If a church accepts anything other than the bible, like say the first 6 ecumenical councils then isn't it necessarily accepting traditions of those times as well? And of course we could add a discussion on a canon of the scriptures as well which wasn't codified/chosen until some period later than 1st century. If we accept the first several ecumenical councils, then it would seem we must or at least should strongly consider the prevailing traditions at the time or perhaps understandings of the scriptures. The councils were called to stamp out a heresy... if praying or rather asking the saints to pray for us is wrong the surely(?) it would have been brought up in a council? It also seems to me that Protestants have to be able to determine at what point in history the Church went wrong.
I'm sure Stalwart will give his answer but I see a big difference here between your hypothetical example and the prayer to St Anne. When you ask Stalwart to pray for you, it's not so much a mediatoral role. You're still going to pray to God, but you have Stalwart directly praying too, sharing in your pain. You're praying together. It seems ridiculous that you would pray to St Anne to pray to Mary who would intercede before God. I mean if you believe the saints can hear you anyway then why not ask St Anne and then ask Mary too instead of going through Anne? lol. I think it's the idea of going through others rather than sharing with others and togther coming before God that is the difference Sorry I've taken long to answer but I've been busy. I really want to answer or acknowledge all your posts so bear with me, your posts have been noticed
I will half agree with you The Bible does confirm many who were saved. However outside of the Bible there is no sure way to tell. We may make an educated guess but there is really no way of being absolutely certain since only God sees the heart.
There's an important distinction here: if I ask you to pray to God, and you go on to ask somebody else to pray to God (for me), that goes against my wishes. I hadn't asked you to pray so that somebody else would pray to God for me. There is a built-in limitation here, which is crucial. I go directly to God. You go directly to God. EDIT: SK adds a helpful insight here: if I ask you to pray for me, I still don't make you a mediator for my graces. You're still not an intercessor for me, if that makes sense. After you pray to God, he (hypothetically) returns his grace directly to me. It is always a 1-to-1 relationship between the penitent and God.