Praying to the dead - should Christians do it?

[Thomas Helwys]

You make a good point about the absence of Apostles and I might be inclined to agree with you except for two things. When the Apostle taught they made disciples such as Timothy who understood the context in the age which the New Testament and would be able and knowledgeable enough to say "you are mistaking Paul". And these out of these disciples they chose certain leaders like Timothy again to perpetuate the faith faithfully passing on the teachings Jesus gave to the Apostles who in turned faithfully passed it on to the elders of the Churches. To explain my meaning let me refer to Acts So entrusting the teaching of the Faith (Traditions) to the elders Paul envisions that the perpetuity of the faith is reliant not on a book as much as Holy Spirit filled men whom he passed on the faith to. And so these men passed on to the next generation all the way to this day and there is a clear record of it. I also want to point out the issue which Paul brings up and I'm certain is on your mind. Which is . Your contention may be that then these wolves and men twisting the faith may have rose up against the Church and over whelmed the faith entrusted by Paul to his followers leaving no real trace of Apostolic Tradition save in its written form. Which would mean that Jesus' promise to Peter and the Apostles when he said would be false. Also it would assume that the Holy Spirit was incapable of keeping the Church in the faith through out its history. Yet, Jesus said and again in Acts But the perpetuity of the Church and the Faith is reliant on the Holy Spirit to keep it. Which is my second point with regard to keeping the Apostolic Deposit of Faith.



Did you ever ask yourself what the Fathers agree on and held consistently to? They had their disagreements but they also had their agreements. What were they? What were they consistent about? I believe that is an important question and give evidence to what was generally accepted.

I personally think you are looking at that backwards. I believe he established the Church so that you might have the scriptures and the means to fellowship with God fully. Not to step in between you and him. Though I understand your perspective.

I understand where you are coming from, and your reasoning is consistent in that it follows logically from your belief system.

But there are a couple of things wrong with it: Apostolic Succession, or an unbroken line of monarchial bishops traced back to the apostles is, as Wesley discovered, a fable, reason being that in apostolic times there were no monarchial bishops and in the NT there were only two orders. We have gone into this before. However, this is not what is most important to the central issue of our discussion. What is central is that ordained bishops in apostolic succession has not and does not assure adherence to Biblical doctrine, as has been proven in all those denominations that claim such succession, the RCC included.

The reason for the Protestant Reformation was because Luther discovered that the RC hierarchy with its apostolic succession had not maintained the Biblical faith.

And today in such movements as Continuing Anglicanism groups have risen up to protest the departure from Biblical Christianity of apostate Anglican bishops ordained in apostolic succession.

So, the so-called apostolic succession is no guarantee that the Biblical faith, the faith and teachings of the apostles, has been maintained and carried forward.

No, adherence to scripture as the final authority, it being the sole record of the apostles' teaching, is the only true guarantor of authentic Biblical faith. Liberal Protestantism has departed from that, and so has the RCC by its centuries of added "traditions" which are not only not found in scripture but are contrary to it. In this respect, liberal Protestantism and the RCC are guilty of the same thing: they both set their non-Biblical traditions and additions above scripture.

However, unlike some, I am very glad and thankful to have the RCC as an ally on moral issues, on which the RCC has stood firm.

 

[BobRyan]

When Catholics speak of Mary's assumption they speak it as being translated to heaven. So the concept is the same. Note in the Catholic view Mary may have either died, was raised from the dead and assumed into heaven.

I agree - they have a story that is not from the first century about the apostles flying to Mary at her death bed.

statement by Saint Epiphanius of Salamis in AD 377 that no one knew whether Mary had died or not,[7] apocryphal accounts of the assumption of Mary into heaven have circulated since at least the 4th century. The Catholic Church itself interprets chapter 12 of the Book of Revelation as referring to it.[8] The earliest known narrative is the so-called Liber Requiei Mariae (The Book of Mary's Repose), which survives intact only in an Ethiopic translation.[9] Probably composed by the 4th century, this Christian apocryphal narrative may be as early as the 3rd century. Also quite early are the very different traditions of the "Six Books" Dormition narratives. The earliest versions of this apocryphon are preserved by several Syriac manuscripts of the 5th and 6th centuries, although the text itself probably belongs to the 4th century.[10]
Assumption statue, 1808 by Mariano Gerada, Ghaxaq, Malta


Later apocrypha based on these earlier texts include the De Obitu S. Dominae, attributed to St. John, a work probably from around the turn of the 6th century that is a summary of the "Six Books" narrative. The story also appears in De Transitu Virginis, a late 5th century work ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis that presents a theologically redacted summary of the traditions in the Liber Requiei Mariae. The Transitus Mariae tells the story of the apostles being transported by white clouds to the deathbed of Mary, each from the town where he was preaching at the hour. The Decretum Gelasianum in the 490s declared some transitus Mariae literature apocryphal.
An Armenian letter attributed to Dionysus the Areopagite also mentions the event, although this is a much later work, written sometime after the 6th century. John of Damascus, from this period, is the first church authority to advocate the doctrine under his own name. His contemporaries, Gregory of Tours and Modestus of Jerusalem, helped promote the concept to the wider church.
In some versions of the story the event is said to have taken place in Ephesus, in the House of the Virgin Mary, although this is a much more recent and localized tradition. The earliest traditions all locate the end of Mary's life in Jerusalem (see "Mary's Tomb"). By the 7th century a variation emerged, according to which one of the apostles, often identified as St Thomas, was not present at the death of Mary, but his late arrival precipitates a reopening of Mary's tomb, which is found to be empty except for her grave clothes. In a later tradition, Mary drops her girdle down to the apostle from heaven as testament to the event.[11] This incident is depicted in many later paintings of the Assumption.
Teaching of the Assumption of Mary became widespread across the Christian world, having been celebrated as early as the 5th century and having been established in the East by Emperor Maurice around AD 600.[12]

-- from wikipedia

I mention this because considering Moses at the Mt. of Transfiguration someone mentioned the assumption of Moses which the NT writer Jude refers to. The assumption of Moses isn't canon but the part that is inspired Jude refers to Michael fighting over the body of Moses. Though nowhere in canon is this related.

It is a reference to the book "The assumption of Moses" and the text in Jude presumes that the reader has access to the story since almost none of it appears in Jude as if he had to inform the reader of the details.

The bible is clear on the point that Moses died. So the only issue is about his resurrection and bodily assumption into heaven.

But it seems generally accepted by at least Jude. Therefore there is precedent that this kind of thing has happened before and is not unique to the Catholic view regarding Mary. Your major issue is that scriptures do not mention Mary's assumption.

Yes that is it. Given that the NT does mention God taking Enoch up to heaven - and given that the stories about Mary going to heaven do not surface for centuries after the event - it looks for all the world like an added - made up story.

However, you ignore an important aspect about the bible. Its primary concern is salvation history. Anything that doesn't pertain to it or it beyond the regional scope of the scriptures isn't mentioned.

So then Enoch being taken to heaven in Heb 11 is salvific - but Mary assumed into Heaven, Co-redemptrix, Queen of heaven - is not as much related to salvation as the case for Enoch?

. But it is not incongruent with scriptures to believe Mary was assumed into heaven as two prophets before her were translated into heaven as well which were recorded in scriptures. Do you believe people after the writing of the NT were raised from the dead? Brought back to life? If you do why don't you say well it doesn't say it in the bible?

Again - my point is that there is a huge to-do in the Catholic church over Mary going to heaven, co-redemptrix etc - but nothing at all about that in the Bible and yet during the first century we have lots of writings from NT saints about the things they considered to be important.

How is it - this Mariology (Mariolotry) is so important now -but did not even make honorable mention among the Bible writers who were writing about stopping off to observe the days of unleavened bread in Acts 20:4-6 and where they were sailing, and whether to bring a coat or some books, or asking that one of the slaves be returned to their master - and then hopefully set free - etc.

Well, because as you and I both know the bible attests to people being raised from the dead on several occasions. Therefore precedent has been set

Precedent has set for a great many things - like the sun standing still, Giants before the flood, Jesus walking on the water - but that does not lend any legitimacy to claiming that Mary was a giant or Mary walked on water, or Mary caused the sun to stand still.

In the context where the Bible writing is being done IN the first century itself we would expect supernatural events to show up as "worthy of mention" by the NT authors - and not some story that creeps in centuries later.

Recall that in 2Thess 2:1-2 is worried about fake stories, fake letters - people making stuff up and trying to make it appear worthy of attention.

If that was a problem in the first century - how much more so in later centuries where we have people writing letters as if they were in the first century - or making up stories about supernatural amazing fantastic events in the first century - that nobody talked about before.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Yeshua1]

Here is another common practice among some Christian groups.

(At least one very prominent group for sure.)

So what about it folks?

Is it a good idea according to the Bible - or is it condemned?

If condemned - then why?

in Christ,

Bob

not ONE verse supports that in entire bible!

 

[Walter]

not ONE verse supports that in entire bible!

Of course there are, but you just say we read too much into those verses. You and people like you who do not share the Catholic Christian faith life have difficulty with the appearance that in their prayers (petitions), Catholics appear to pray to the Saints, to Mary, as one prays to God. This "praying to" appears to you to indicate a worship of the Saint as if giving to the Saint or Mary what is due to God alone. I know, I used to be just like you!

Through Baptism we pass "from death to life; death no longer has dominion over us." Christians must believe that there is no real distinction between the believer in human life and after human life. Saints, living or dead, are indistinguishable before God.

If we can pray for and with saints in this life, we can pray for and with those saints after human life.

And as Paul asked saints to imitate him as he imitates Christ, the Church encourages Christians to imitate the holiness of the saints as they imitated the holiness of Christ and the Father.

 

[Revmitchell]

If we can pray for and with saints in this life, we can pray for and with those saints after human life.

This is called "begging the question" fallacy.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Walter may as well pray to a tree. He'll get the same reply from the tree as he will praying to Mary... absolute silence and no results.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Here is another common practice among some Christian groups.

(At least one very prominent group for sure.)

So what about it folks?

Is it a good idea according to the Bible - or is it condemned?

If condemned - then why?

in Christ,

Bob

I see no harm in praying for the dead. Having said that, I do not believe it does the dead any good nor ill. The primary positive aspect I can see is that is probably is psychologically good for the person praying for one they loved in life.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

The only instances we find in the Word of God of one praying for the dead is when one is praying for God to restore life into a dead body.

I think it would be foolish for one to pray a prayer such as that once the dead are in the coffin and buried. Reminds me of the old joke, "What would Colonel Sanders be doing if he were alive today? ...Scratching on the lid of his coffin trying to get out."

Seriously, praying for the one that is dead and buried is as useless as a Funk & Wagnall Encyclopedia is to a starfish.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

The only instances we find in the Word of God of one praying for the dead is when one is praying for God to restore life into a dead body.

I think it would be foolish for one to pray a prayer such as that once the dead are in the coffin and buried. Reminds me of the old joke, "What would Colonel Sanders be doing if he were alive today? ...Scratching on the lid of his coffin trying to get out."

Seriously, praying for the one that is dead and buried is as useless as a Funk & Wagnall Encyclopedia is to a starfish.

Are you omniscient?

I don't think we can know if it would do any good or not, but I don't see that it would be harmful. So, if someone wants to do it, what's the problem with that? And I'm talking about praying for the dead, not to the dead.

 

[BobRyan]

I see no harm in praying for the dead. Having said that, I do not believe it does the dead any good nor ill. The primary positive aspect I can see is that is probably is psychologically good for the person praying for one they loved in life.

What about praying to the dead?

If one is praying to God for the dead - what would he/she be praying? "I hope my friend so-and-so had accepted Christ while he was alive - before he died"?

"For it is appointed unto man once to die and then comes the judgment" Hebrew 9.

If so -- then I agree.:applause:

in Christ,

Bob

 

[mactx]

OK so I do not find any Bible verses on praying TO the dead.
How about this one? This is one that has always boggled me.

1Co 15:28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.
1Co 15:29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?
1Co 15:30 Why are we in danger every hour?

 

[BobRyan]

"why are people baptized on their behalf?"

Some translators argue that "on their behalf" is a bad translation of a word that means "in view of the dead" or "in view of that case" - in other words why is anyone baptized if the situation regarding the dead - is that there is no resurrection.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Steadfast Fred]

1Co 15:28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.
1Co 15:29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?
1Co 15:30 Why are we in danger every hour?

I believe that this is not in reference to just any dead person, but only One... the Lord Jesus Christ.

Many did not believe in the Resurrection. Paul was basically saying, "if the dead are not raised, why are you getting baptized in the name of one who you don't believe that One was resurrected?

 

[BobRyan]

In either case - "on behalf of" is not the right translation. It has to be "in view of" or "because of the situation of" the dead not having any future resurrection (Be it of Christ or of the saints)- or something of that sort.

 

[BobRyan]

If the resurrection is the great hope of 1Thess 4 for the saints, and if 1Cor 15 places the issue of the resurrection as the one impacting both Christ's resurrection and the resurrection of the saints future - then as Peter said in 1 Peter 1:13 "Fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the Revelation of Jesus Christ" (2nd Coming) - which is the point where Paul said in Phil 3 he hoped to "attain to the resurrection".

As 1Thess 4 points out - "comfort one another with these words" - it is the hope of the future resurrection - at the Revelation of Jesus Christ - at the 2nd coming - that is the hope upon which the Church is completely focused.

Which is why it makes no sense to the dead.

in Christ,

Bob