Three Claims on Saints : XXI, XXXXVII, XXXXVIII

Here they are:

• XXI It is claimed that petitioning saints in heaven for prayers is un-Biblical.
• XXXXVII It is claimed that the idea of patron saints is connected to Paganism.
• XXXXVIII It is claimed that this connection proves it disconnected to Christianity in a way making it forbidden by true Christianity.

I will deal with these in a somewhat inverted order. I will deal with claim 47 first. I will also deal with them in such a cumulative order that it is superfluous to link to each claim separately.

• XXXXVII It is claimed that the idea of patron saints is connected to Paganism.
• XXI It is claimed that petitioning saints in heaven for prayers is un-Biblical.
• XXXXVIII It is claimed that this connection proves it disconnected to Christianity in a way making it forbidden by true Christianity.

"XXXXVII It is claimed that the idea of patron saints is connected to Paganism."

In a sense, this is perfectly correct.

In Greek and Roman paganism, we do find gods and goddesses, both having authority over specific domains and taking interest in specific persons.

For instance, Poseidon is wielding authority over the sea, loves Theseus and Polypheme and hates Ulysses.

Athena wields authority over wisdom and war stratagems, loves Jason and Ulysses.

Hera wields authority over domestic virtues and - under her husband - justice, she hates Hercules and loves Jason.

Now, patron saints don't wield authority over any fields as large as sea or wisdom or domestic virtues or justice.

All that is ultimately God's own prerogative. When there are patron saints for things, it is more related to specific needs. For instance, St Francis certainly is not wielding authority over the sea, but as certainly "over" free passengers (since he was a stowaway himself, when going to Holy Land), St Christopher wields no authority over rivers as such, but he does as certainly "wield authority over" ferrymen and over passengers overall (as to safe journey). Or would "take an interest" be a better term?

I kind of think it would.

This brings us to the next claim:

"XXI It is claimed that petitioning saints in heaven for prayers is un-Biblical."

Saints in heaven do take an interest in us. I saw one video by Watchtower society (in excerpts) where God the Father and their version of the Son are cheering with angels when a boy does something morally correct, like saying no thanks to cheating on a test.

This is correct.

However, in their version, there were no saints who had lived as men on earth involved.

Why? They are thnetopsychists, they believe, incorrectly, that as each man dies, his soul dies as well and is resurrected or recreated along with the body on the day of Resurrection.

Now, would souls who are in heaven (since it is correct at least some are already so) take a similar interest in us and cheer when we do sth right?

Most certainly yes.

Hebrews 11 (all of the chapter) along with 12 verse 1 says so.

Note, the chapter divisions were inserted much later than the books were written.

So, to St Paul and to his readers and their hearers, verse 1 of chapter 12 was not really separate from what came before.

Chapter 11 gives a very long list of Old Testament saints.

Abel, Henoch, Noah, Abraham start the list, each in a very detailed fashion, and so it goes on for a while. At a certain point, no more details but a list (32b):

For the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, Barac, Samson, Jephthe, David, Samuel, and the prophets

And after that generalities of types. Last type being martyrs, and it refers indirectly to martyrdom of Isaias, as known from tradition, and a contrast between OT saints and "us" (36 - 40):

And others had trial of mockeries and stripes, moreover also of bands and prisons. They were stoned, they were cut asunder, they were tempted, they were put to death by the sword, they wandered about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being in want, distressed, afflicted: Of whom the world was not worthy; wandering in deserts, in mountains, and in dens, and in caves of the earth. And all these being approved by the testimony of faith, received not the promise; God providing some better thing for us, that they should not be perfected without us.

And next verse is 12:1, adding also 2.

And therefore we also having so great a cloud of witnesses over our head, laying aside every weight and sin which surrounds us, let us run by patience to the fight proposed to us: Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, who having joy set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and now sitteth on the right hand of the throne of God.

Certainly, we must think more of Jesus than of the OT saints - but we must think of them. We must look on Jesus at the right hand of the throne of God - but it is also a consideration that we have "so great a cloud of witnesses over our head".

This clearly means, the saints in heaven do take an interest in our Christian walk on earth.

As the pagans falsely believed about Hera and Athena, we rightly believe about Joshua and Rahab.

Hera and Athena are false gods, they are not the real authors of Jason's success. Joshua and Rahab are also not the actual author of any success we may have, but they are close to Him who is, and they do as real persons really in heaven take an interest in us, otherwise St Paul (if it wasn't as some said St Barnabas) would not have called them a cloud of witnesses.

Do the saints who take an interest petition for us?

Well, yes.

Apocalypse 6 says in verses 9 to 11:

And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying: How long, O Lord (holy and true) dost thou not judge and revenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given to every one of them one; and it was said to them, that they should rest for a little time, till their fellow servants, and their brethren, who are to be slain, even as they, should be filled up.

Some have concluded I was convinced the last tribulations were at hand when I cited this, years ago on the road to Santiago, but while I might be closer to that conclusion now, this was not at all my intent back then. This is not about the last few years before the Second Coming, it is about all of the Church age, as some call it.

So, they do petition for the Church to get even with its persecutors.

Is their petition heard?

Here is another thing which is according to St Augustine about all of the Church age (=millennium, on his view), Apocalypse 20:4:

And I saw seats; and they sat upon them; and judgment was given unto them; and the souls of them that were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, and who had not adored the beast nor his image, nor received his character on their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Reigning with Christ means their petitions very clearly are heard.

And they certainly watch over our affairs, if they get to heaven soon, not just because of Hebrews 12:1, but also because of Apocalypse 14:4

These are they who were not defiled with women: for they are virgins. These follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased from among men, the firstfruits to God and to the Lamb:

Can Christ, the lamb, stand by me? Certainly - and the 144 000 walk along with him. This also means, if Christ even as man in heaven can have time each day to attend to each and every one of millions who adress prayers to Him, so can the saints. It is arguable, God being able to "create dimensions" - including time - that their perception of time is enriched, they live in a kind of "Narnian time" when however much time they spend "on earth" with each person, they are still back in Heaven on the same date.

This sets the scenario for saints:

• taking an interest in our affairs as a Church;
• taking an interest in our individual affairs;
• being heard by Him who can hear prayer.

On this ground, we might imagine, they might hear us on occasion, and even pretty regularly, if we ask them to pray for us?

This is not directly said, but also not directly denied. It is extra-Biblical, perhaps, but certainly not anti-Biblical.

We are forbidden to call on them to appear along with us, as in a seance, but we are not forbidden to adress petitions to them where they are.

The soul of Samuel was involved in disturbing a seance - and in punishing the one who had asked for it. Normally a seance involves no soul of any dead, but instead demons playing that role to fool people.

Now, petitioning saints in heaven while they remain there to pray for us, rather than come down here and talk to us, clearly is something other.

Next question, isn't there a gulf which cannot be bridged, see Luke 16:19 - 26?

There was a certain rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen; and feasted sumptuously every day. And there was a certain beggar, named Lazarus, who lay at his gate, full of sores,

Desiring to be filled with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table, and no one did give him; moreover the dogs came, and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell. And lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom: And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame. And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazareth evil things, but now he is comforted; and thou art tormented.

And besides all this, between us and you, there is fixed a great chaos: so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot, nor from thence come hither.

So, isn't there a great chaos, a great chasm, between us and the dead saints?

No, this was in Old Testament times, when the bosom of Abraham was still in a part of Sheol. And the chaos or chasm of which is here question was between Limbus Patrum and Hell properly speaking. It is the damned in Hell who are on the wrong side of a gulf.

But this chasm did not stop them from talking to each other.

The rich man who was damned was not heard, and partly this is because he was damned, but in the following another part is because those besides himself he was praying for were not going to go to Heaven (verses 27-31):

And he said: Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father's house, for I have five brethren, That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments. And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance.

And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.

So the rich man was not heard for himself because he was damned, he was not heard for the brothers who were going to be damned, but if we ask saints (Abraham or other) to pray for us, if we are not damned (since alive) and not going to be damned, this means the saints can in fact hear us.

The rich man was, and that accurately, so aware God would hear the prayers of Abraham, he was willing to attribute the action of God hearing to Abraham praying. His words "that thou wouldst send him".

Now, this completes the scenario, the saints in heaven are:

• taking an interest in our affairs as a Church;
• taking an interest in our individual affairs;
• able to take into account requests adressed to them;
• being heard by Him who can hear prayer.

Therefore, it is a pastoral question whether we should be encouraged to so demand their prayers, the Church has decided, presumably because lots of converted Greco-Roman pagans actually tried it and it worked, God heard the prayers of saints who had been adressed for their prayers.

"XXXXVIII It is claimed that this connection proves it disconnected to Christianity in a way making it forbidden by true Christianity."

On the contrary, next to Jews, and after these had rejected Christ, now even for some time in preference to Jews (but Jews will once again be in focus for conversion, when Henoch and Elijah come back), the word of the Word was adressed to Greco-Roman pagans, whose religion, while false, contained such kernels of truth as had prepared them to try this out.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Martyrs of Caesarea
28.III.2019

Caesareae, in Palaestina, natalis sanctorum Martyrum Prisci, Malchi et Alexandri. Hi tres, in persecutione Valeriani, cum in suburbano agello supradictae urbis habitarent, atque in ea caelestes martyrii proponerentur coronae, ultro Judicem, divino fidei calore succensi, adeunt, et cur tantum in sanguinem piorum desaeviret, objurgant; quos ille continuo, pro Christi nomine, bestiis tradidit devorandos.

Is There a Plain Reading of the Bible?

One standard argument from Evangelicals is, why have a Church Magisterium, all we need is the Bible.

If you read it plainly, you can't go wrong.

Now, there is an opposite tendency among Modernists. They say "you always interpret the Bible some way however you approach it" - which on a certain level is correct, even with the plainest of readings, since you interpret words as having meaning, for one. But they then go on to claim, you can't know for sure what the Bible means.

First of all, this is where being a Catholic is great. Having the Catholic tradition, stated and restated most often by past carriers of the Magisterium, sometimes crystallised in definitions of dogma by carriers of the Magisterium, that solves the problem. Certainly, on some items you might want to have an extra certainty which side of Ephesus*, which side of Chalcedon**, which side of 1054*** the real magisterium is, but those problems are not quite unsolvable and also, many items, like baptism of infants, confession of mortal sins after baptism to a priest and absolution by a priest, four last things being Death and Judgement, then Heaven or Hell, fasting being necessary (as Lent reminds me), and a few more, are the same whichever of the five confessions you go to.

Here is an example of how a Modernist has reasoned:

There Is No Such Thing as a Plain Reading of the Bible
March 25, 2019 by Matthew Distefano | on All Set Free
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/allsetfree/2019/03/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-plain-reading-of-the-bible/

The problem, of course, is that this statement and ones like it are meaningless. Why? Because there is no such thing as a “plain reading of the text.”

First off, no one approaches the Bible tabula rasa, that is, with a blank slate. Everyone, including myself of course, approaches the text with presuppositions. Everyone reads the text through the lens of their own culture, theology, philosophy, and phenomenological experiences. And while we can do our best to transport ourselves into the various cultures the Bible comes from—the Bronze Age, Second Temple Judaism, and so on—we can never fully grasp what it would have been like to actually live in these time periods.

Fine. I cannot exactly know what it was like living in the early Middle Ages either.

But I can therefore not know that Manlius Boethius meant what he said when stating things like 2 added to 2 being four?

I don't think men are so estranged to each other's comprehension across cultures.

If you wonder what he meant by saying (as I suppose he did) that all numbers are rational, that is easy. He meant things like π (which he knew) and things like logarithms (which he did not know) are not numbers but proportions. Simple as that. I don't feel I was better equipped for calculating with 3.14 or 3.1416 as a standin for π back when I was OK with calling it a number than I am now when I say it is not a number and the rational ratio 314:100 is a standin for the real ratio which as such I cannot calculate with.

I am not a Puritan claiming geometry must never disguise as arithmetic (as we do when π is shown in a calculation like 3.14) or arithmetic as geometry (which we do when multiplication of numbers is shown my addition of lengths on slide rules, which is the most basic use of logarithms). Therefore I don't feel I need to englobe all of maths into arithmetic in order to do what is not purely arithmetic on the view of Boethius.

What’s more, everyone I know is reading their Bibles in English. Why is this important? News flash: English isn’t a language spoken by any of the characters or writers of the Bible, nor any of the earliest Christian theologians. Torah was written in Hebrew. Jesus spoke Aramaic. Paul wrote in Koine Greek. Augustine’s Greek sucked so he wrote in Latin.

There are such things as translations. Concepts vary to a certain degree, but not so widely as to make translations impossible. Someone recently claimed that the fourth horse was green, not pale, and referred to Muslims. The problem with this is, while Greek χλωρος can mean green, pale, yellow (and there are other languages that don't do a full "Classic" version of basic colours, these being perhaps essentially those of Arabic° - but Latin Vulgate translates the horse in Apocalypse 6:8 as pallidus - pale. Not as viridus - green. I suppose Syriac and Coptic New Testaments, not sharing the Greek conflation of yellow and green, also uses something similar, but I am not sure. That is why Douay Rheims and King James have "pale". The other horses also do have colours that naturally occur on horses, which is the case for pale yellow, but not for green.

Here on this particulart item, original language does matter to some degree for meaning.

However, if I want to understand Matthew 5:15 correctly, I don't need to know exactly how many litres of grain one could measure in a bushel. The point is, God intended His Church to be visible, and He warned His disciples on letting their light so shine before men, so as to be able to make the Church visible. This doesn't mean all Catholics or all clergy have to be saints for the Church to be visible, but there always are those who are. Those who are not may be at risk of losing the position as faithful, or as clergy.

English wasn’t on the scene until 1066, and even that variety looks nothing like it does today (if you don’t believe me, just try reading Beowulf in its original form).

I think the Gospels are easier in Anglo-Saxon than Beowulf is. I also note, 1066 was not a time when English in this form came on the scene, but rather started receding from the scene. But yes, reading "ealc Þara Þa gehierð Þas min word and Þa gewyrcð bið gelic snotran monnu" does take more than just my reading capacity of modern English, and knowing Swedish and German very much helps.

Let me offer an example of what I mean.

Take the doctrine of hell, for instance. In a handful of places throughout the Gospels, the term “hell” is used. Jesus warns people that they will end up in “hell” if they don’t change their ways. But what did he really mean? Well, that is where we would have to do our best to transport ourselves back into the first century and attempt to discern his words through the eyes of a Second Temple Jew.

With this as our lens, upon hearing the term “hell,” we would automatically know that Jesus is, first and foremost, talking about a literal valley just to the south of Jerusalem. How do we know this? Because Jesus used the Aramaic term that translates to “Gehenna,” which, in Hebrew, best translates to “the valley of Hinnom.” This is the place where, in 586 BCE, the Babylonians burned the bodies of the dead Jews after they sacked the city of Jerusalem. And it is also the place where, only a few decades after the death of Jesus, the Romans would do the same thing.

At the same time, however, some Jews indeed believed that Gehenna represented a place of punishment in the afterlife for those who turned their backs on God and lived wicked lives. So, it theoretically could be the context from which Jesus was speaking to. Will we ever know for sure? I don’t know. I have my ideas and loose conclusions, but that isn’t really the point of this piece.

In Luke 16, while Douay Rheims and Nestle Aland differ on division between verses 22 and 23°°, it is clear that the rich man was in hell, ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ.

And the context indicates, the rich man was in a place of torture after death.

Now, would Jesus automatically first and foremost be talking of the place valley of Hinnom?

I think this would depend highly on the context. In English "do" first and foremost means "tun" in German, and also "göra" in Swedish when it does not translate to "make" or "machen". It means "agere" and not the most exact meaning of "facere" even if "facere" is sometimes used as a substitute for "agere."

However, I came to a context in which "do" (with object of person) means "frame", "put into a bad light" or "arrange an adverse verdict in court". Yes, such a context exists as I recently learned. In Our Lord's time on Earth, distinguishing between the two usages about Ge Hinnom would have been a case of reading the context.

And, from then on, we have tradition. If anyone were into apokastasis or thnetopsychism for evil persons, Tradition says no. Hell is real and eternal.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Audoux
St. John of Damascus
27.III.2019

* Orthodox Catholics or Nestorians. ** Orthodox Catholics or Monophysites of either Jacobite or Armenian confession. *** Are the Orthodox believers of the Catholic Church found among "Roman Catholics" or "Eastern Orthodox"? ° Abyad, ahmar, asfar, akhdar, azraq and aswad, from light to dark, with a difference of asfar (yellow) vs akhdar (green) where Greek has χλωρος for both, where Latin had more than one word for blue, more than one word for white, more than one word for black, more than one word for yellow. °° In Douay Rheims he was buried in hell, in Nestle Aland he is ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ when he suffers and lifts up his eyes.

The Gates of Hell have not, HAVE NOT prevailed against the Church

Here* is a Baptist who certainly gets the second part of Matthew 16:18 correctly.

Whether St Peter is or isn't involved as rock in the first part, let's leave that aside. For this occasion, not for ever and always. Second part promises perpetuity of the Church.

Here is an explanation:

“…Upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” the Lord says here. What He was actually promising was first of all that death will never put an end to the church. Sometimes the enemies of Christ may think that the church will pass away as soon as the fanatics who now lead it die, but the Lord promises here that death cannot stop the Lord’s church. The gates of death will never swallow up the church. The church will always live and defy the power of death.

Secondly what the Lord is promising here is that the powers of Satan will not be able to terminate the church. The principalities and powers of hell will never be able to stamp out the churches of Jesus Christ .

The main point of this promise is clear. The ekklesia will not cease. The powers of death shall not close it down and the power of Satan and his workers shall not defeat it. Neither death nor Satan and his hosts will be able to stop churches from holding, preaching and maintaining the doctrines of Christ in His Word. Neither the grave nor Satan shall finally and totally gain victory over the church in this world.

Perfect. No Roman Catholic (or Greek Orthodox) could have said it better.

Next part:

The gates of hell shall not, shall not, SHALL NOT prevail against the church!

Look here, what tense are you using?

Future? Did the conversation at Caesarea Philippi take place this morning?

Sure, a future is implied in the words as given, and there is still certainly future left of it (Doomsday hasn't crowned Church Militant yet). But a bit less than two millennia of the promised future are already past.

For the promise to be true, we don't need to look only at "will Chuck Missler and Kim Clement have successors? are Trey Smith and Sid Roth still Christians?" but also back in time.

I saw someone claim "the great apostasy was universal, God restored His Church from that" and when I challenged him, "you cannot limit God".

I can hold God to His promise. And in context of when this was said, it doesn't mean something only for our future, but very clearly also for our past. God restoring His Church would be an oathbreaker belatedly summoned to keep a promise already previously broken. God is not like that.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Annunciation of Our Lady
25.III.2019

* Bethel Baptist Church : The Perpetuity of the Church
https://bbc-lawton.org/the-perpetuity-of-the-church/