Picking up on something alluded to earlier regarding the practice of the Roman (and Orthodox) uncatholic Church:
Whenever someone warns against or condemns the invocation of the saints, you’re sure to hear this response in one form or another: “Look, ‘praying’ to the saints is the same going to another believer and requesting them to pray for you in a time of need. It’s no different than asking one of your friends at church to pray for you. It’s not treating the saints as if they are God, it’s simply asking them to pray for you before God’s throne.”
Yeah. Right. Well, there are lots of problems with this whole business (can the departed saints really hear us and know our thoughts? how?; why is there a special class of “saints” when all believers are called “saints” in the Scriptures? etc., etc., etc.) but let’s set them aside in order to consider just this one: When you actually read some of the prayers that are offered to the saints, it is FAR MORE than merely asking Thomas a’Becket, or Anselm, or Mary, to pray for me the next time they have the opportunity. Here are a few of the approved prayers that the devout may offer:
To St. Augustine: “At the beginning of the new millennium marked by the cross of Christ, teach us to read history in the light of Divine Providence, which guides events toward the definitive encounter with the Father. Direct us toward peaceful ends, nourishing in our hearts your own longing for those values on which it is possible to build, with the strength that comes from God, the ‘city’ made to the measure of man. May the profound doctrine, that with loving and patient study you drew from the ever living sources of Scripture, enlighten all those tempted today by alienating illusions. Give them the courage to undertake the path toward that ‘interior man’ where the One awaits who alone can give peace to our restless hearts. Many of our contemporaries seem to have lost the hope of being able to reach — amid the numerous opposing ideologies — the truth, of which their innermost being still keeps a burning nostalgia. Teach them to never cease in their search, in the certainty that, in the end, their effort will be rewarded by the satisfying encounter with the supreme Truth who is source of all created truth. Finally, St. Augustine, transmit to us also a spark of that ardent love for the Church, the Catholic Mother of the Saints, which sustained and animated the toils of your long ministry.” (from Pope John Paul II, November, 2004)
Here Augustine is asked to “teach,” “direct,” and “nourish our hearts” in his longing for particular values; to give courage; and finally to “transmit to us a spark” of his own love for the Church.
Prayer to St. Alphonsus: “St. Alphonsus, afflicted with curvature of the spine and nailed to a wheelchair cross in your final years, teach us to unite all our pains with the dreadful sufferings of Jesus on the cross. We ask you to ease our pains but more so to enable us to be one with Jesus in his great act of dying and rising. Amen.”
Alphonsus is asked to “ease” pain and to “enable” us to be one with Jesus in His death and resurrection.
Prayer to St. Anthony: “Saint Anthony, perfect imitator of Jesus, who received from God the special power of restoring lost things, grant that I may find (mention your petition) which has been lost. As least restore to me peace and tranquility of mind, the loss of which has afflicted me even more than my material loss.”
Anthony is asked to help find something that was lost or “at least” to restore the “peace and tranquility of mind” which has been lost through the trauma of losing something.
Prayer to Mary: “Most Holy Virgin Mary, Help of Christian, how sweet it is to come to your feet imploring your perpetual help. If earthly mothers cease not to remember their children, how can you, the most loving of all mothers forget me? Grant then to me, I implore you, your perpetual help in all my necessities, in every sorrow, and especially in all my temptations. I ask for your unceasing help for all who are now suffering. Help the weak, cure the sick, convert sinners. Grant through your intercessions many vocations to the religious life.” (Prayer of St. John Bosco)
Mary is asked to “help the weak, cure the sick, and convert sinners.”
And again: “Most Holy Immaculate Virgin and my Mother Mary, to thee, who art the Mother of my Lord, the Queen of the world, the Advocate, the Hope, and the Refuge of sinners, I have recourse today, I , who am the most miserable of all. I render thee my most humble homage, O great Queen, and I thank thee for all the graces thou hast conferred on me until now; particularly for having delivered me from hell, which I have so often deserved. I love thee, O most amiable Lady; and for the love which I bear thee, I promise to serve thee always and to do all in my power to make others love thee also. I place in thee all my hopes, I confide my salvation to thy care.” (Prayer of St. Alphonsus Mary Ligouri)
Mary is thanked for conferring graces and for delivering from hell. The worshiper places “all my hopes” in her and confides his salvation to her care.
We could go on, but these few prayers are enough to illustrate the problem. Over and over again, invoking the saints morphs into prayers to the saints for blessings and gifts that God alone can give. It is easy to understand N. T. Wright’s carefully understated warning: “Explicit invocation of saints may in fact be – I don’t say always is, but may be – a step towards that semi-paganism of which the Reformers were rightly afraid.” (For All the Saints, p. 41)
The prayers above (and there are many more to which we could point) treat the saints as gods, more akin to those of the old pagan pantheons than to our departed brothers and sisters (including the “super-holy” ones). The saints are addressed as if they have the power to impart blessings, give protection, bestow wisdom and sanctification, grant deliverance from eternal punishment and salvation itself. They are like the various pagan gods who had their little domains and specialties (so we have the patron saints of lost items, lost causes, poisoning, healthy throats, eyes, ears, teeth, intestines, cancer victims, florists, travelers, soldiers, business men, teachers, invalids, missions, child birth, jobs, etc., etc.).
It is almost inevitable that those who pray these prayers end up despising the power, mercy, and love of the Lord Himself. [Remember the word “despise” means to ignore or thinking little of]. Even when it is insisted that these prayers are merely requests for the assistance of the saints to “exert their influence” with God, the implication is that the Lord is reluctant to give His gifts unless His special friends and His mother persuade Him. That alone is highly offensive and undermines the grace, mercy, and love of God.
We certainly should honor the great heroes of the faith who have come before us (it is one of the requirements of the fifth commandment), but, as the Church has repeatedly taught, we venerate them appropriately when we give thanks for them as gifts of God to the Church and examples of His mercy and when we follow their example of faithfulness and imitate their virtues in accord with our particular callings.
Making petitions to departed saints for those blessings and mercies that God alone can give is idolatrous and a serious departure from the catholic faith.
THE AVENUE 
It recently occurred to me that one proof text against bowing to saints is Jesus’ answer to Satan when he was invited to ask the devil for the kingdoms of the world. The heart of the temptation was to recognize that Satan had an intermediate authority, as ruler of this world, to grant kingdoms, so it would have been proper to petition him. Jesus could have acknowledged that state of affairs but instead quoted scripture, “worship God only.”
I don’t think Jesus was being tempted to throw over his love for the Father and make Satan his new God. But to put another person between him and God who had power to grant requests.
There’s a bit more on my blog link provided.
You may be onto something, but I think you are also missing something. When Jesus was yet too young to know His Father, he cried out to the Theotokos for food. And God alone grants food. “The eyes of all wait upon thee; and thou givest them their meat in due season. Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing.”
And lest we point to the infant Jesus as opposed to the adult Jesus, outside time the Word chooses to petition the Theotokos for his food. The Theotokos, and at that time, no other.
So I don’t think that the problem can be asking Satan for the kingdom per se, but in asking it from Satan who was in rebellion against God and as separate from God.
hey Keith, that’s a great point.
thanks.
Silly Rabbit. Prayers are for God.
“Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides [of death] always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father’s mercy” (Letters 56[60]:5 [A.D. 253]). Cyprian of Carthage
“…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” (Rev. 5:8)
“Prayers are for God.”
well, prayers are to be made to God, but yeah, I agree. Now let’s pray that everyone else can get that straight and quit praying to men.
“Quit praying to men.”
This language is a little sloppy. I don’t pray to a human person, but it is our only hope that we pray to a Man.
Pr. Wilkins,
A couple of thoughts:
First, though our hopes don’t all lie in any other saint, our hopes do all lie in the Theotokos. Her fruit is for the salvation of the nations. The waters which flow from her bring life. And any waters which do not flow from the Theotokos do not bring life.
I know that may sound strong, but I don’t think there is any way around it. Her fruit, as Elizabeth said, is the Lord of Hosts. The water which flows from her is Jesus, and there is no other name under heaven given unto men by which we must be saved.
Second, I think there’s a little confusion about human nature. Human nature doesn’t consist in this or that, but in conformity to Christ. And Christ does have power to give all those blessings. It may be that saints do not have power to confer all those blessings, but if so, it isn’t because they are only human, but because they aren’t fully human.
II Corinthians 1 relates to this. It says that St. Paul is able to send the Spirit (Comfort with that same Comfort wherewith He is Comforted by God) because of his sufferings, and therefore is able to save people. And lest we think “save” here is less than the full salvation, we must remember that salvation is that Comfort with which God Comforts Him, namely, the Comforter.
Finally, I think there is a little confusion about what is God’s alone. If God were to say to the Theotokos “you have the ability to X” she has that ability. His Word is never impotent. And surely we wouldn’t want to limit God by saying He cannot give this or that power. What is necessarily due God alone is that He came down from outside, and that He exists without change inspite of everything in creation.
“II Corinthians 1 relates to this. It says that St. Paul is able to send the Spirit (Comfort with that same Comfort wherewith He is Comforted by God) because of his sufferings, and therefore is able to save people.”
say what? God is the God of all comfort and Paul says that God comforts us so that we are enabled to comfort others who suffer with the same comfort we have received from God. Yes, we are instruments of the Spirit’s work to one another. But Paul is not talking about people making requests of him that he comfort them *after his departure from this life*. Indeed, no where are we given any encouragement to pray to the departed or any promise that the departed can hear and respond to our prayers. We are to honor their memory, follow their godly example, but never are we to view them as sub-mediators (or co-mediators) between us and God.
There’s a lot in there:
Let me say this. My point wasn’t that II Corinthians says that the dead are co-mediators, but that the living are. (Or perhaps sub-mediator or something like that.) Through our sufferings and comfort, we Comfort and Save others by giving them the Holy Spirit (that same Comfort wherewith we are Comforted by God).
We can certainly call her “blessed,” but to say that our hopes lie in her is a dramatic departure from what we actually have, biblically. The earliest apostolic tradition, i.e., the NT, gives her no role in distributing the blessings merited by Christ, no intermediary role in prayer, and certainly no unique status as claimant upon Jesus. He relativized her relationship with him during his ministry (Matt. 12:48-50–Mary has no more unique standing relative to Christ than any other believer), and upon his death he put her in the care of another, since his universal kingship was commencing, and the line of descent through her Hebrew blood had fulfilled its purpose.
I don’t think I agree with the point regarding her relativization. I comment on that in a second. But first, it is strictly true that all our hope lies in the Theotokos. Even if it were true that now she does nothing whatsoever, yet still, all our hope lies in her. There is no salvation outside her work. Her fruit heals the nations, and no other fruit is of any worth. I don’t mean that she shares in meriting the merits of Christ, but quite simply that Christ is her fruit. She may not have a role in distributing the blessings merited in Christ, but she surely has a role in distributing the blessing which is Christ. Her fruit is the Lord of Hosts.
Regarding Christ relativizing her relationship with him: We shouldn’t say “she doesn’t have glory any more” but “Look how glorious she is! Look how small she has made herself through fulfilling her office of mother. Look at how fully she has emptied herself.” Precisely the fact that she is relativized is her glory, and proves her eventual elevation from this cross.
Let me add one more thing.
I may not have a problem with prayers to the saints, but I do not pray to the saints. I just don’t think that if there is a problem with prayers to the saints the problem is idolatry. If there is a problem the problem is presumption.
well, I should say! Presuming that they are able to dispense healing and comfort; presuming that they can give gifts, protect, deliver, defend, and save us from our sins; in short presuming that they are like God.
Well, that’s not exactly what I meant. More “We aren’t guaranteed that the ability to hear etc. does not depend on the body, or that the sort of waiting state they have precludes them directly hearing.”
But I mean, surely there are like Christ. No?
Matthew writes: “But I mean, surely there are like Christ. No?”
well, yes and no. The departed are conformed to the image of Christ but they are not given divine attributes (omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, etc.).
But is the Man Jesus Christ able to hear our prayers and answer them, or is it only “God” who can?
Or maybe I could better phrase that, does the Incarnate Logos answer our prayers? If so, then though it may be that the saints in heaven are just in a waiting state, there isn’t anything inherently unhuman about answering prayers. And as He is like us, so we shall be like Him. Perhaps in heaven we won’t be like Him in that respect that yet (unlike Him we won’t have bodies) but the problem isn’t idolatry per se but presuming we know more about heaven than in fact we do.
Matthew, I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say at all, I’m saying that the creator-creature distinction is not removed in heaven. Men remain men, though sinless — they don’t receive divine attributes at death.
But Christ too remains a man at death, and at His Ascension. And you’re Reformed, and don’t deny the creator-creature distinction even there. As man, He is not omnipresent. And yet, as Man, He answers our prayers. (I hope!)
So it isn’t denying the humanity of the Theotokos to say she can hear us. Like mother like Son. Perhaps she indeed cannot hear us, but since humanity now consists in being conformed into the image of her Son, the Man Jesus Christ, and her Son can, as a man, hear our prayers; if she can’t it isn’t because she is only human, but because she is not fully human. Inasmuch as she cannot hear our prayers she is not like the Man Jesus Christ.
Now just to be clear, it is a point of dogma that the saints in heaven aren’t fully human yet. They won’t be till the Resurrection.
Or if you want to do it Socratically: Does the Man Jesus Christ hear our prayers as Man, or only as God?
If as God: Where then is our High Priest?
If as Man: Hearing and answering prayers is humanly possible.
Matthew, here’s the deal: Do you believe Mary can read thoughts? Do you believe Mary can change hearts? Save from sin? deliver from peril? heal all diseases? Protect from disaster and accident? Or, leave Mary to the side, do you believe Augustine, Ambrose, Patrick, Gregory, Thomas, or any other of the departed saints can do these things? Hearing prayer is the least of the problems with this view — though it’s pretty significant if you ask me — it’s having the power to grant the requests that are made of James and Leo and Alphonsus, and etc., etc. — that is the issue.
But from my perspective this is the issue: Can Jesus, as a Man, read thoughts? Can Jesus, as a Man, change hearts? Save from sin? Deliver from peril? Heal all diseases? Protect from disaster and accident?
If “yes” then prayers to the saints don’t assume the saint is divine. If “no” then are we really Christian? Do we worship Christ? Do we have a high priest?
So for me, the issue is the Incarnation. Does the Man Jesus Christ have the power to grant the requests that are made of Him — that is the issue.
So, I’m not sure if the saints can read thoughts etc. But if they can’t, it isn’t because they aren’t God, but because they aren’t resurrected.
Hello Guys.
The point of my first comment in this thread was that the prayers of Catholics, no matter to whom they are uttered, are all ultimately directed to God.
The Church has always, and without protest (until the Reformation) embraced the practice, and affirmed the propriety of, prayers to the Saints.
And it is obvious in Revelation 5:8 that the Heavenly Saints bring to the Lord the prayers of the living faithful. The Saints are “in the loop”, but the prayers they have received are ultimately brought to the Lord.
By the way, this is a difficult conversation to have when everybody involved doesn’t speak both “Catholic” and “Protestant”. Even when we hear each other, there is the likelihood that we really don’t.
For example:
If someone asks me if I am my family’s provider, I can answer “Yes, I am”, without first explaining that it is God who provides for me, my family, all of us. The truth is, God provides, but like the Saints in Revelation, I’m also “in the loop”. Nevertheless, I haven’t claimed something beyond my right by answering “Yes, I am” to the question asked of me. I know what I meant when I answered the way I did, and hopefully the other guy did to.
So much of Catholic “language”, be it in regards to salvation, or blessing, or intercession, etc, takes for granted an understanding that any “contribution” (cue the Reformed freakout) of the faithful, living or departed, be they the Blessed Virgin Mary or dear Aunt Mary from Omaha, is entirely because of and through the Lord Jesus Christ.
This is not the place to delve into the Catholic doctrine of Mary’s mediation, or the mediation of any of the other Saints, so I won’t. But just think in terms of the example I gave earlier as to who is my family’s provider.
James Akin in The Salvation Controversy refers to this language difficulty, which magnifies real theological differences, and even sometimes creates theological differences that don’t really exist (not that there aren’t real theological differences in this particular discussion).
Akin says: “I am convinced, having lived both as a Protestant and now as a Catholic, that the two sides often “talk past each other,” each failing to take into account the different ways the other group uses words and phrases…From my years of observing the theological scene, I am convinced that very often the two groups are led astray by terminology. They often perceive themselves to be in disagreement when actually they are not—or, at least, when the disagreement is not as sharp as the two groups believe it to be.”
This “do you understand the words coming out of my mouth” phenomenon was obviously a big part of the problem in the “Federal Vision” blowup. Some of us know how “smoothly” that went down…Not.
This “language” problem is also, almost without fail, a big part of every conversation (live, blog or otherwise) that occurs between Protestants and Catholics every single day.
Finally, for what it is worth, I believe the typical prayers of Catholics are not “too scandalous”. And even though I haven’t been one too long, I’ve not met any card carrying Catholic “pagans” yet, just regular Catholic Christians who love Christ and are for the most part wonderful examples of loving faithfulness and holy living.
Blessings and peace.
KB
Kevin,
The problem though with a lot of Catholic practice is that it seems to assume that God is remote and scary, but the saints are here and friendly to us. For instance, St. Louis de Montfort in True Devotion to Mary (or maybe it’s on an introduction to a consecration to the Virgin Mary), says that the Father is remote and so we honor Him by going through Christ. But Christ is no less deserving of honor than the Father, and so we should honor Him by going through Mary to get to him.
Likewise, the asymmetry between Christ and Mary in Sacred / Immaculate Heart devotion seems to communicate that Christ is perhaps a little remote, so we need Mary to pray for us. She is merely a means of getting to her Son, which thus means that Christ is remote but she has the inner council with Him, and she’ll present our case to Him.
Similarly in my mind, many Catholic apologists makes this mistake. Wouldn’t you ask someone who is really wise to help you? The saints don’t really help us themselves, but have the ear of Christ.
Far better is the Orthodox prayers “through the prayers of our Holy Fathers Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on us and save us” or “O God Through the Theotokos have mercy on us.” (Both of which I think could be acceptable to Protestants.) Which prayers make it clear that the saints are not intermediaries between us and a distant God, but are one of the means God uses to draw near to us.
I don’t think the problem is with prayers to the saints per se, for instance the prayer from Small Compline which begins “O undefiled, untainted, uncorrupted, most pure, chaste Virgin” seems to give greater weight to the fact that the Theotokos is part of God’s mercy to us.
(I don’t mean this as an Orthodox/Catholic point. I just first encountered the problem in Catholic prayers.)
[…] this from Jim Jordan and this from Peter Leithart and this and this from us here — and that’s just to take a few of the more recent examples. […]