Sunday, February 14, 2010

Invocation of Saints: Dialogue on Various Objections to the Biblical Arguments

By Dave Armstrong

This is an exchange with a person on the CHNI forum who has a Lutheran background. His words will be in blue. On a humorous note, he says he has heard of my name from listening to Bishop "Dr." [???] James White in the past.

* * * * *

I have a question about saints and whether they can hear our prayers. What is the logic that they can? The standard answers of "they're not dead, they are alive in heaven" and such don't really carry much weight.

The biblical evidence for communication with the saints is severely lacking. Most of the examples are either visions, dreams, or through mediums. And the Revelation verse that is often cited doesn't say anything about direct communication, only that the departed saints are offering incense in a priestly fashion the way we do on earth.

I have asked several quite knowledgeable converts and haven't gotten an answer that makes sense yet to me (and perhaps may have to take it on faith). The best answer I know of comes from Thomas Aquinas, but I wasn't really satisfied with his answers (although they were pretty dang good nonetheless).

If anyone has any advice on how they overcome this doctrinal hurdle, I'd appreciate it. Remember, I'm not denying that departed saints pray for us. I'm most certain that they do. I'm saying that I don't see much scriptural or speculative reasoning that supports saints
hearing our prayers. Also, the only proof I may end up accepting at the end of the day is "because the Church has always taught that they do." I may be cool with this answer at some point.

But it would be nice to hear consistent reasoning. Other proofs I would end up accepting are testimonies of people who have prayed to saints and something miraculous happened because of such prayers. If someone could recommend a good book relating such experiences, I'd appreciate it too (this would include Marian related events/experiences as well).

* * *

I got the "why" a departed saint would communicate or pray for us. It's perfected love. I get that. I would want to pray for all the suffering and fellow travelers as well if I could. But I can't. I can only pray for those that ask me to pray for them or for those I'm aware of. Both of which require some sort of knowledge, directly or indirectly, of particular persons.

That said, what is the logic in understanding what departed saints do and do not know? They might be in the fullness of God, but that doesn't mean that they have knowledge of my thoughts and prayers. What indication is there that they do? Again, keep in mind I am talking about departed saints not angels in this regard.
I think other than testimonies of people who have had prayer relationships with the departed and their full knowledge that they indeed hear us, I don't know if I can accept it. Unless I'm shown, scripturally or otherwise.

[I provided some basic arguments, from a few of my papers, including Hebrews 12:1 and Revelation 6:9-10]

Thanks for your thoughts and your resources. I'll check them out. I still don't have a consistent argument for how saints hear our prayers. As you pointed out, I do not doubt that saints are aware of things that are going on in our present reality. The spectators/witnesses word study reference spoke to this fact. And as discussed before, we know that these departed saints are praying for us.

And I might point out that they are probably praying for us regardless of us trying to communicate with them because they have perfected charity. But being a spectator does not give one knowledge of thoughts and prayers. This either requires mind reading or omniscience. I can possibly buy the former but not the latter.

No, not at all. It simply requires a higher level of knowledge than we have presently. One does not have to have all knowledge in order to have the particular knowledge of "hearing" a prayer.

You mentioned that saints are perfected in knowledge (this perhaps could imply the ability to read or hear thoughts). Can this be scripturally proven? If not, I still am not sold on scriptural evidence for departed saints hearing our prayers.

I couldn't explain all the mechanics of how it works but I know that Scripture says that we will be "like" God in the afterlife:

1 John 3:2 (RSV) Beloved, we are God's children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

This piece of scripture combined with the Thomas argument in the Summa [that someone else offered] seems to be the most consistent approach. Thank you for pointing out this piece of scripture. It was VERY helpful to understanding the validity of this practice.

* * *

Testimony of communication living saints and departed saints seems to be my only avenue. Along with "because it's what the Church teaches, so love it or leave it:)." If you have some further explanation though, I'm really interested.

[I then provided several much more in-depth arguments from several of my papers on the general topic]

Thanks for taking the time with me, Dave. And would love to hear any further thoughts you might have.

You're very welcome, and I hope this further elaboration of my arguments is helpful to you and others.

The other examples you gave from your papers aren't as convincing (hey, everyone can't be Thomas Aquinas! Don't feel bad:) And most importantly they weren't convincing to me, but I'm sure that they have been quite effective in apologetics with others. The main point has to do with the "who" and the "what" and the "how."

Whatever works! In apologetics, pragmatism has a place. Some stuff works in persuading some, other stuff in persuading others. The more arguments we can throw out, I figure, the better chance one will "stick." And with you, one did! Oftentimes, just one is enough to convince someone.

In all the examples from scripture that you provided (and to me honest others have pointed them out to me too), there is a retort to dispute what you are trying to point out.

And there is usually a counter-reply, too, which is what I'll attempt to do now. Some of my arguments you have misunderstood a bit, as to their exact nature. We want to be sure to reject the actual arguments that are made. That is why further dialogue or clarification is always a good thing, to make sure everyone is on the same wavelength.

Revelation has saints serving as priests with incense, not necessarily hearing prayers.

It's not just incense; it is incense as a metaphor for actual prayer (just as in the Mass). But you dichotomize one against the other. I submit that the biblical texts do not do that. In Revelation 5:8, the "twenty-four elders" (usually regarded by commentators as dead human beings) "fell down before the Lamb . . . with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." They appear to have other people's prayers, to present to God. So the obvious question is: what are they doing with them? Why does Revelation present dead saints presenting the prayers of other saints to God?

If they have them, it stands to reason as a rather straightforward deduction, that they heard the initial prayers as well, or at least were granted knowledge of them in some fashion, granted ultimately through the power of God. Revelation 8:3-4 is even more explicit. Rather than equate incense and prayers, it actually distinguishes between them, and presents the scenario that the prayers and incense are presented together:

    And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; [4] and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.

So the question, again, is: what is this angel doing with "prayers of the saints" -- presenting them to God? It seems clear to me that they have heard the prayers, and are involved as intercessors. Angels are extremely intelligent beings. We know that they rejoice when a sinner repents. They have knowledge in ways that we do not; above our comprehension.

Samuel utilizes a medium to create contact. He did not pray directly.

The argument is more indirect and nuanced than that. In many of these proofs, one element of the practice of intercession of the saints may be present, while another is missing. That is the case here. You asked about how dead saints can hear our prayers. In this instance, Saul went about trying to contact the dead the wrong way: through a medium. But the fact remains that somehow Samuel knew about this ("heard" it) and actually appeared to Saul. He communicated to him.

This shows that there is an awareness and ability to "hear" and to communicate back to a person on the earth. If, on the other hand, God desired no communication whatever between heaven and earth, then this and several other similar incidents (Transfiguration, etc,) simply would not have occurred, since they would have been out of God's will, and hence, not permitted by Him. So this incident serves as evidence that dead saints can hear petitions from people on earth, and that God permits two-way communication. Protestants often deny both those aspects.

Angels are not departed human beings; they are separate creations, so it isn't really the same thing.

They are relevant insofar as they, too, are creatures, and not God. Angels are involved in intercession just as dead human beings are. Protestants often oppose the very notion, but they do so against biblical evidence.

The Transfiguration involves Christ speaking with the others. He is God, so this makes sense. We are not.

If God wanted no contact of dead saints with the earth at all, why would he allow Moses and Elijah to appear within sight of men (Matthew 17:3)? It is true that the text doesn't show Peter or James or John (17:1) speaking to Moses or Elijah, but it doesn't say they did not do so, either. It is within the realm of possibility. But it demonstrates in any event, that God does not rule out such encounters.

The two witnesses in Revelation 11 (thought by many to be Moses and Elijah again, or Moses and Enoch) do certainly talk to many, since they "prophesy" (11:3) for three-and-a-half years, and give "testimony" (11:7). If they can talk to men, then by cross-referencing similar Scriptures, Moses and Elijah possibly talked to men on the Mount of Transfiguration. We compare the less-clear Scripture with the relatively more clear and explicit.

The same quite possible deduction applies to Matthew 27:52-53:

    the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, [53] and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

It doesn't say they talked to people, but "appeared" does not rule it out, and, I contend, implies communication, just as Jesus "appeared" after His Resurrection and talked to His disciples (cf. e.g., Mk 16:9, 12, 14; Lk 24:34; Acts 13:31; 1 Cor 15:5-8). Thus, it would be another instance of dead men communicating to those of us on earth, which is consistent with (not an absolute proof of, in all respects) the notion of asking dead saints to pray for us because it shows the possibility of communication between those on earth and dead saints.

Luke 16 has two dead people talking to each other. This is different than you or I speaking to a departed saint.

That's true, but I wasn't trying to deny the difference in the first place. It is still relevant to this discussion insofar as the rich man was praying to or petitioning Abraham. That is not supposed to happen, according to Protestant categories, since prayer is supposed to go straight to God. That would apply to dead men as well as ones on the earth. Why would they be doing this rather than going to God? He is specifically making a request of Abraham, not merely asking him to pray for him to God (much as Catholics ask the Blessed Virgin Mary to fulfill requests). As I wrote before: "Abraham refuses his requests twice, thus showing that dead men can play a part, in conjunction with God, even in turning down (or by implication, also fulfilling) prayer requests." That is Catholic thinking; not Protestant.

Note also the element in Luke 16:27-31, where the rich man asks that Lazarus be sent to his brothers, to warn them of his own dire fate. Abraham refuses, but he doesn't rule out the possibility of a dead man going back to earth. Thus, again, the supposed "wall" between heaven and earth is made a lot less impenetrable than Protestant thought would have it. These are the presuppositions behind the Catholic belief on the communion and intercession of the saints. You seem to be looking for exact correspondence of every aspect of the argument (which is often the Protestant mindset, since explicit biblical proofs are often unreasonably demanded), whereas I am proving different parts of the whole with each example: making a cumulative argument for Catholic practices.

In Acts 9:40 Peter is not praying to the dead woman. The scripture says he is praying AND THEN says Tabitha Arise. Two actions, not one.

Prayer is communication between two beings. If one says that we cannot: 1) talk to a dead person, or 2) that the dead person couldn't hear us anyway, even if we did, then this passage disproves both things (and both are premises of invocation of the saints). Peter talked to a dead person (Tabitha) and she heard because she followed his "command" and came back to life. Jesus does the same with Lazarus. The fact that Jesus said that His disciples could raise the dead opens up the possibility of many such cases.

Honestly, I don't think this can be proved Sola Scriptura consistently.

It's being proved with an inspired Scripture that provides all the necessary root assumptions. These are then reflected upon and fleshed out and developed by Tradition and the Church.

I think the only way this can be proved is through Thomas' logic and 1 John 3:2. In other words, teaching outside of scripture is necessary to fully grasp and promote the idea. And obviously. The BEST proof as far as I'm concerned is experiential proof provided by testimony.

As I said above, different things persuade different people. I happen to think that all the arguments I provide, taken together, provide pretty strong evidence that the practice is not only not against Scripture, but that it is supported by Scripture in all of its particulars, from the cumulative evidence. It won't convince everyone, but I still contend that it is a good argument, when all the different aspects of it are considered together.



Maroun said...

Hi for the person whose words are in blue.
The thing is as simply as i could explain it is this.
We are all different members in the same body,if one member suffers the whole body suffers.
So if one of your body members is suffering and you use your hand to cure it,or your foot to go somwhere or any other member,does this mean that these members are independent of the head of the church which is Christ?of course not.
Now the thing is this,the only reason why the saints are in heaven is because of their faith which manifests itself thrue love,and love is stronger than death.And because the saints love all men including their enemies,this is why the saints loves us and care for us and intercede for us and pray for us...
So the fact that we are all members of the same body should be more than enough to prove to you that we all need each other...
If i kick your foot,will the pain reach your head?of course.Does the pain jump to your head or does it go thrue the body and reach the head,of course it goes thrue the body.Now i am not telling you that this is the only way how Christ could now that the members of His mystical body the church do suffer,but we cannot separate the head from the body nor the members from the body.
And so because the church is triumphant,militant and in purgatory,but still we are not separated by death but united by love,which is God himself.
So yes we could ask the saints to intercede for us and they do,and as you yourself said,that the fact that miracles do take place thrue the intercessions of the saints is a big proof that they do hear our prayers and do intercede for us.

Maroun said...

Hi again,for the person whose words are in blue.
Also in Romans 8:35-39 , Saint Paul is asking,Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?and he tells us,neither death...
Now as saint Augustine said and many other church fathers also said,the whole Christ is not just the head,but the head and body form the one Christ...
And since we are all united whith the bond of love which is God has poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit Romans 5:5 , Now the same way i ask someone to pray for me and i also pray for the others,and the same as i also pray for those in need which i dont even know ,even if they dont ask me,and agian the same way i also pray for those which are still not in Christ and so on . This is also what the saints in glory do for us because they love us,otherwise they wouldnt even be in heaven.

Adomnan said...

When people say that there is no biblical proof that departed saints know what is going on here on earth or that they intercede for us, I think we Catholics should simply point out the examples of Jeremiah and Onias in II Maccabees.

If others don't accept that II Maccabees is in the biblical canon, well, so what? The book is in our Catholic canon and so for us Catholics the Bible, our Bible, does in fact teach the intercession of saints in as direct, clear and unmistakable a way as anyone could require. The doctrine does not have to be deduced from other passages by a line of argument, even if that deduction is valid. It is totally explicit in II Maccabees.

I don't understand the point of discussing biblical proof for the intercession of saints while ignoring the clearest biblical proof. II Maccabees is the locus classicus and settles the question.

Dave Armstrong said...

I follow your method here to some extent. I did indeed use 2 Maccabees 15:13-14 in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, on p. 108, and 2 Macc 12:39-45, on pp. 127-128, for purgatory. I use some duterocanonical passages in Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths and other books of mine, too.

Generally, I don't use them, though, so as not to have to go through the rabbit trail of the canonicity of those books. I meet the Protestant where they are at. And I think there is sufficient evidence for the practice even in the biblical books that they accept.

This knocks out their recourse to disparagement of the deuterocanon. It's all strategy of argumentation and persuasion. More than one way to skin a cat . . . If you use the duterocanon, then you automatically make it a necessity to now make two distinct arguments (having also to defend their canonicity). The Protestant can then use that to divert the initial discussion, so as to avoid the consequences of that . . .

I think that is not the best way to go, for those reasons. But I have no fundamental objection to it.

Adomnan said...

Dave: If you use the deuterocanon, then you automatically make it a necessity to now make two distinct arguments (having also to defend their canonicity). The Protestant can then use that to divert the initial discussion, so as to avoid the consequences of that . . .

Adomnan: I see your point, and I think it depends on the extent to which you want to engage them. In the end, they will simply say that they interpret the passages you cite differently than you do. It doesn't matter that your interpretation is more reasonable, because they don't go with the more reasonable interpretation; they go with the interpretation that suits them. I've seen that many times in discussions with Ken.

In any event, I wouldn't argue with them about canonicity. How can you convince a Protestant that any book in the Bible is inspiried or canonical? It's impossible to prove that a given text is inspired by God. I would simply tell them that II Maccabees is in my Bible, and so examples of saintly intercession are in my Bible. If they reject that, then there's nothing left to discuss. Obviously I'm going to follow my Bible, not theirs.

Protestant: There's no intercession of departed saints in the Bible.

Catholic: Yes, there is: Jeremiah and Onias in II Maccabees.

Protestant: I deny that II Maccabees is part of the Bible.

Catholic: I affirm that it is.

Protestant: Prove it!

Catholic: Prove that the Epistle to the Romans is part of the Bible.

Protestant: But you Catholics admit that Romans is in the Bible.

Catholic: We also admit that II Maccabees is in the Bible.

End of discussion.

Dave Armstrong said...

I would simply tell them that II Maccabees is in my Bible, and so examples of saintly intercession are in my Bible. If they reject that, then there's nothing left to discuss. Obviously I'm going to follow my Bible, not theirs.

Your method is perfectly consistent and legitimate. However, my aim as an apologist is to convince the Protestant, not just to win the argument. I know our arguments are far superior. They are one of the many reasons I am a Catholic. But I ain't gonna follow methods that quickly bring the discussion to an end. I'm gonna challenge them with their own sources that they accept, to adopt the Catholic position.

Many will resist it, but others will be persuaded (and the beauty of the Internet or printed books is that hundreds and thousands are reading, not just one). Lots of us converts were persuaded by such arguments. We never know what effect we have with the (primary) aid of the Holy Spirit.

Dave Armstrong said...

Great. Now, why don't you deal with some of MY arguments? Thanks!

Dave Armstrong said...

Since he refused, I deleted his comments.

kiki jared said...

Hahaha, by your deleting my comments. That proved that I am right.

Dave Armstrong said...

Hardly. It proves that you are an intellectual coward: afraid to take on opposing arguments; and a troll.

Dave Armstrong said...

Hahaha . . .