Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: invoking saints (Re: 'Veneration of the 'Saints'') Message-ID: Date: 29 Jul 90 19:07:25 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Grebyn Timesharing, Vienna, VA, USA Lines: 118 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu >[I am certainly happy to join you in prayer. However the issue in >question is not whether it's appropriate to ask people to pray for >you, but whether it's appropriate to make such a request of someone >who is dead, and who furthermore you didn't know even when he was >alive. Why is it OK for someone who is alive to be a mediator for you to God and not some one who is dead? And since when are we required to *know* the people (alive or dead) from whom we ask prayers. I'm sure that on many occasions we have asked strangers -- albeit christian strangers -- to pray for us. I'm not at all convinced that the "main" question is whether we know the people whom we ask to pray for us, or whether they are dead or alive. I thought the question was whether it is alright for a mere creature to mediate between another creature and God. And if it's OK for one group of creatures (living people who we know), why is it not alright for another group of creatures (dead people whom we may or may not have known). Paul's letter seems to indicate that it is, indeed, proper for a creature to mediate between another creature and God. Now, does the mediating creature have to be physically alive (I'm sure the saints in heaven are *far* more alive than we are -- if aliveness has anything to do with closeness to God!) for them to be an effective mediator between us and God?? >--clh] chris [There are two separate issues. You seem to be confusing them, and thus answering an attack that is not being made. The most serious Protestant concept about the role of the saints and Mary is that they are commonly invoked in ways that implicitly assign them roles conflicting with Christ's. Simply asking them to pray for you is not something that would conflict with Christ's role. It may be that we're dealing here with something that is part of "popular piety", i.e. not an official part of Catholic doctrine. However Protestants generally feel that putting statues to the saints in prominent places in churches, having processions of their relics, and other practices, are at the very least conducive to confusing the roles of saints with Christ's. The quotation from Liguori is very worrisome in this context, particularly the comment "Sinners receive pardon by ... Mary alone". The second concern is in my view somewhat less serious. Protestant tradition is that it is not appropriate to pray either to or for people who are dead. I'm not going to justify that concern here, partly because I think at least some of it is ill-founded. But it is certainly behind some of what you see in discussions here. Thus a typical attack on veneration of the saints would go: The saints are being venerated with a type of veneration that is only appropriate to God; and even if this were fixed and it was clear that you were simply asking the saints to pray for you, it would still be inappropriate to ask the dead to pray for you. Paul's letter is not relevant to either of these points. It is not relevant to the first one because the first concern is that the veneration being offered to saints has gone considerably beyond simply asking them to pray for you. There is no disagreement about the propriety of asking people to pray for you, so citing Scripture on that issue isn't going to solve anything. It is not relevant to the second issue, because Paul's letter is talking about people who are alive, so it doesn't speak to the question of whether it is appropriate to ask prayers of those who are dead. Now, as to your comment about whether it is alright for a mere creature to mediate between another and God. You are right that this is the issue. But there may be a problem with words here. Protestants normally reserve the term mediator to describe Christ's role. He is mediator between God and man because he is both God and man himself, and reconciled us to God. To me (and I think to most Protestants), the term "mediator" implies someone who stands between the two parties, as it were. When someone else prays for me, he does not stand between me and God. He stands beside me, and is in the same position I am in. It is improper for anyone other than Christ to play the role of mediator in this sense. This objection applies equally to live and dead people. It applies to anyone other than Christ. I'm trying here simply to clarify what is and isn't being said, not to assert these arguments on my own behalf. For myself, I accept Charles Williams' concept that there are several Ways, including a Way of Affirmation of Images and a Way of Rejection of Images. I believe, with Williams, that God allows us to in our own way emulate Christ, and bear each others' burdens. We may each represent Christ to each other. In this sense, in a temporary and limited fashion, I think people actually can act as mediators for each other. The danger, I think, is to institutionalize this practice in such a way that rather than each of us representing Christ to our fellow Christians, it is restricted to designated saints, and to priests. When what should be like a dance, with the roles constantly changing (you'll note the allusion to Lewis), is frozen into hierarchical form, people forget that representing Christ to each other is part of the calling of each Christian, and come to think of Christ as approachable only through the official mediators. This abuse may not be, properly speaking, anything that the Catholic Church teaches. However it is at the very least a common problem to which Catholic practice can succumb. There are dangers to the Protestant way of doing things as well. By refusing any mediation by our fellow Christians, we stand in danger of becoming isolated, refusing to engage in the kind of exchange that should constitute Christian life. It is probably not practical for every person to adopt the same absolutely perfect balance. Thus one can understand the development of two Ways, one of which emphasizes Christians representing Christ to each other, and the other of which emphasizes the direct relationship to Christ. Each of them will have its own peculiar form of degeneracy. The hope is that having both in the Church will allow mutual correction. Unfortunately, the two Ways have largely split into separate groups that are, if not mutually hostile, at least mutually wary. Thus I fear both have drifted from the center, and it may well be that the suspicions each has of the other are justified, at least in many cases. --clh]