Interecessory Prayer/Communion of Saints: Biblical Support

[chestertonrules]

I would like to point out something here. When you say - "The Catholic Church teaches" etc. Why do you seperate what the rcc teaches, from what the scriptures teach ?

Because the Catholic Church has a unique interpretation of scripture just like you do. I can choose to follow my own understanding, as you do, or submit to those sent by Jesus. As you know, bible alone believers don't have a unified doctrine, they don't agree about what scripture means, and they are divided into thousands of denominations.

The next thing I would like to point out. In your comment above, You are suggesting (common pratice amongst Catholics) that there is an easy way and a hard way to get to heaven. That the easy way is to fully accept what the rcc teachers. And the hard way, is to walk in his grace.

[/quote]


The purpose of Catholic teaching is to help us walk in his grace. Following the Truth is the easiest way to get to heaven.

 

[francisdesales]

Catholics are encouraged to read the Scriptures before they come to Mass, and then LISTEN to them being proclaimed (NOT read them along with the reader). Hearing the Word proclaimed has much greater value. I urge you to give it a try - the next time you go to a Catholic Mass. It makes a difference.

Never, not once! Not one time did I EVER hear a priest encourage the congregation to prepare for the message. Not in 25 years of being in the Catholic church did I ever hear a priest encourage his congregation to be in the Word, let alone prepare for the service.

Well, golly, I must be the sole acception!!!

A question for you: Did the Bulletin where you went to Mass have the weekly reading citations listed? Like "Monday, Ex 24: 1-10; 1 Cor 10:1-12; John 17:1-10" ??? Every bulletin I have ever seen has them.

Now, why would you think THAT would be in there???????????????

Perhaps you may be exaggerating?

I don't know, but I do know that Vatican 2 and subsequent documents written at Rome DO ENCOURAGE such preparation. It is incumbent upon CATHOLICS IN THE PEWS to take their faith seriously, and not just do the "once a week" thing. They should become more knowledgeable in their faith, to include knowing Jesus through the Scriptures, as ignornace of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ (St. Jerome, c. 400 AD) Over and over, the Church's documents speak about such preparation. If people do not prepare, or have never heard that, one must presume two possibilities:

Either the priests are not being heard or are not getting out the message.
People are not taking their faith seriously and they overlook the bulletin that has the daily readings in them...

As I've said, I've been a member of 3 different Catholic churches and visited many others. Never was the Word emphasized with the power that it has than with my protestant church. We have Bible in the pews Most bring them. As the pastor reads scripture, we read it out loud with him. If he makes reference to another verse, we turn to it with him. I have a pen in hand and have notes all over my Bible.

That's Bible study, not proclaiming the Word. There is a time and a place for that. That is what Liturgy is - proclaiming God's Word.

Besides significant doctrinal, but not salvational, issues that I have, there is much the Catholic Church could do to encourage, and even hold their congregation accountable to, in God's Word.

Vatican 2 with Lumen Gentium notes the significant doctrinal issues and also notes that people such as you are ALREADY PART OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. There is only one Church, and by your baptism in name of the Trinity, you have entered the Catholic Church. Perhaps someday, you will fully join us at the Table. But now, you are indeed part of the Church of Christ, unless you formally remove yourself from her protection, since there is no salvation outside of her - there is only one name by Whom we are saved, and the Church is the Body of that One Name, Jesus Christ.

 

[JamesG]

.

Francisdesales

Catholics and most Protestants agree that when we die in Christ we go to be with God or to heaven. There are Protestants who believe in soul-sleep, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. But they are in the minority. Not that they don’t present a compelling case. I am leaving aside the soul-sleep idea and the Catholic idea of purgatory because I feel that this will just make the matter that this thread is concerned with unnecessarily more complicated.

Where the Catholics and the majority of Protestants do not agree is regarding a form of communication between those who die and those who still live on the earth. I would like to know the source of the teaching from a Catholic perspective. No doubt, from the Catholic perspective, there is plenty to say from the aspect of Catholic interpretive Tradition. But how is this matter related to the Bible from the Catholic perspective?

JamesG

 

[chestertonrules]

.



Where the Catholics and the majority of Protestants do not agree is regarding a form of communication between those who die and those who still live on the earth. I would like to know the source of the teaching from a Catholic perspective. No doubt, from the Catholic perspective, there is plenty to say from the aspect of Catholic interpretive Tradition. But how is this matter related to the Bible from the Catholic perspective?

JamesG

If I may jump in, that's a very good question.

Hebrews tells us that the Old Testament saints are watching us as a cloud of witnesses. Also, Jesus tells us that there will be rejoicing in heaven when a sinner repents.

These passages tell us that those with God are aware of what is happening on earth and that they care about what happens on earth. We also read in Rev. about angels carrying the prayers of the saints to God, ie. interceding.

Here's a more detailed collection of scripture:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/saints.html

 

[jasoncran]

the jehovah's witness are accknowledged brethen by the rcc?

these guys call the very trinity pushed by the rcc and us protestants that accept that idea of God the lie of the devil. they claim to the triunes nature was borrowed from the egyptian god isis./horus/ra

odd. please clarify

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"Hebrews tells us that the Old Testament saints are watching us as a cloud of witnesses."

NO - it doesn't.

Heb 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,

There's NOTHING in the verse that would lead one to believe that the "Witnesses" themselves have ANY IDEA what's going on. Only that Paul has just given their TESTIMONIES as EXAMPLES of what their FAITH in God had accomplished.

That they're "Watching us", or even aware of ANYTHING that's going on here is nothing but a totally un-based assumption dictated by Catholic "Tradition".

 

[chestertonrules]

"Hebrews tells us that the Old Testament saints are watching us as a cloud of witnesses."

NO - it doesn't.

Heb 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,

There's NOTHING in the verse that would lead one to believe that the "Witnesses" themselves have ANY IDEA what's going on. Only that Paul has just given their TESTIMONIES as EXAMPLES of what their FAITH in God had accomplished.

That they're "Watching us", or even aware of ANYTHING that's going on here is nothing but a totally un-based assumption dictated by Catholic "Tradition".

(I recommend that you look up the word witness in the dictionary)



Heb 11
39These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. 40God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

Heb 12:1Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.

 

[JamesG]

.
Chestertonrules

Thanks for the link. I copied it and scanned its content. It is quite comprehensive as far as Scripture references go. It will take a while to go through it. The quotes from the early Church I will peruse, but will not comment on. I emphasize the Bible and in that way I am like the Protestants, as I mentioned to Francisdesales.

However, I do want to make a few comments.

Hebrews 12:1 only refers to the witness of saints of the past (Hebrews 11) of which there are many, rather than they being alive or accessible today. Though I realize that the wording is such that it could easily be interpreted otherwise. And in regards to looking up the term “witnessâ€, it is used in two ways in both the Greek and in English, as an observer and as a testimony. The latter meaning is what is used in Hebrews 12:1 and in Acts 22:20. The interpretation claims that the former meaning is what is used. And in favor of the interpretation, it is so used the majority of the time. Which means nothing at all.

The verses that claim that God is a God of the living could be interpreted to refer to the dead actually being alive in the sense of the timeless supernatural aspect of reality. Now that is something that could imply that those who went before could know what is going on here on earth without any kind of special powers because of where they are. 1John 3:2 says that we will eventually be like Christ because we will see him as he is. This and 1Corinthians 13:12 are mentioned in the link. But they speak together of something that is future after the coming of the Lord. Also, in Matthew 22:32, and the other two like verses, Jesus only remarks that they prove the fact of the resurrection, something of the future. In Exodus 3:6, the reference is to the past.

I do want to suggest that if there is communication between those alive on the earth and those who went before, it seems to me that some sort of ancestor worship would be the one thing that we would have to be careful of. And there are misguided Catholics that I know personally who have fallen into that trap. But I have never had reason to believe that the Catholic understanding itself is anything like that.

There is another Biblical passage that in the past allowed me to at least consider the possibility of such communication. That is Paul’s reference to the man he met that he wasn’t sure whether he met him by vision or in the flesh (2Corinthians 12:1-5). I didn’t see this mentioned in the list of verses in your link. So maybe this is not considered applicable to this matter by Catholics.

2Maccabees 12:44-45 was not in the list either. That surprises me, since it is usually a reference given. Doesn’t matter because it is not very convincing to me anyway since a lot of things happened in the Israel culture that was not according to God’s thinking. Being married to more than one woman, for example. And according to what Jesus said, God was tolerant for centuries about that and probably a lot of other things as well.

I saw Revelation 8:3-4 mentioned in the list. But it isn’t really specific about where the saints are. It is usually assumed by Protestants that the saints being referred to are on the earth. But the phrasing leads me to the opinion that it could refer to prayers from the saints in heaven as well as on the earth. But there is no indication that there is any kind of communication between the two.

JamesG

 

[chestertonrules]

.
Chestertonrules

------

JamesG

That's a fair take on the scriptures given your current beliefs. I agree that the scriptural case for the communion of saints is not indisputable.

However, I also think that Catholics can accurately state that their belief in intercessory prayer is definitely not contradicted by scripture and that it can be supported by scripture depending on the interpretation.

This is where Catholics and other traditional Christian believers look to the traditions of the early Church for clarification. I think the case from tradition is quite clear.

I think using Christian tradition to clarify less than explicit concepts in scripture makes sense.

What's your take?

 

[francisdesales]

.

Francisdesales

Where the Catholics and the majority of Protestants do not agree is regarding a form of communication between those who die and those who still live on the earth. I would like to know the source of the teaching from a Catholic perspective. No doubt, from the Catholic perspective, there is plenty to say from the aspect of Catholic interpretive Tradition. But how is this matter related to the Bible from the Catholic perspective?

JamesG

Hello James,

Is there some Biblical notion that tells us that the saints in heaven CANNOT hear the prayers of those still on earth?

Regards

 

[Mike]

Hello James,

Is there some Biblical notion that tells us that the saints in heaven CANNOT hear the prayers of those still on earth?

So, the nonexistence of refuting scripture is evidence for it? I'm still stuck on the fact that there is absolutely no modeled pray to anyone but God by Jesus or anyone else in the entire NT. I don't see how this can be assumed to be acceptable or possible if we were never told to do it, or had it depicted by anyone, in the Bible.

I understand the Catholic Church's value of tradition, but if you're going to convince believers to use the Bible exclusively, this will not likely be persuasive. You know I have deep respect and love for you, but I can't reconcile what I don't see in scripture.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"(I recommend that you look up the word witness in the dictionary)"

I suggest YOU take a look at the immediate CONTEXT in which the word is used.

 

[chestertonrules]

"(I recommend that you look up the word witness in the dictionary)"

I suggest YOU take a look at the immediate CONTEXT in which the word is used.

Surrounded by a cloud of witnesses. Got it.

Next question.

 

[JamesG]

.

Chestertonrules

““However, I also think that Catholics can accurately state that their belief in intercessory prayer is definitely not contradicted by scripture and that it can be supported by scripture depending on the interpretation.â€â€

I have heard Protestants bring up a couple of things from the Old Testament against the Catholic position. But they would only be valid if one also believes in soul-sleep, which most Protestants do not believe in. I would say that from my own perspective as it is currently, I would agree with that statement as stated.

““This is where Catholics and other traditional Christian believers look to the traditions of the early Church for clarification. I think the case from tradition is quite clear.â€â€

The evidence for the Theory of Evolution has been accruing for almost a century and a half. The evidence has been accrued by Evolutionists for Evolutionists. So naturally the evidence is in favor of Evolutionism. That doesn’t mean that Evolutionism is true. The same is true as far as Tradition. The content of Tradition will favor those for whom the Tradition has been developed. Means nothing about the validity of the Tradition in relation to reality. If one already is already predisposed to believe in the Tradition and in the concept that it presumes to prove, then naturally from that perspective, Tradition will be quite clear. But to someone who believes in a different Tradition, or who does not believe in Tradition as a valid authority, then the Tradition will not be quite so clear.

The United States of America has a Constitution. The founders of that nation were wise enough to know that the Constitution, being a written document, would be susceptible to interpretation. So they included the Judicial aspect of American government that would be responsible for authoritatively interpreting the Constitution. What the founders did not foresee, is that the authoritative interpreters would be susceptible of building a Tradition of interpretations that would allow a shift in the interpretive understanding of the Constitution. The founders did not foresee that the Tradition itself would be susceptible to interpretation. Thus modern interpretations of the Constitution and the Tradition of interpretations of the Constitution has allowed the Supreme Court to authoritatively validate that Abortion is legal. Something that conservative Christians generally do not agree with. And an interpretation that would have been impossible 200 years ago because of a difference in cultural understandings.

You can no doubt see the similarities between the Catholic situation and the situations recounted above. And the claim of the overseeing of the Spirit in the Traditions of the Catholic Church means nothing except to those (the Catholics) who are already predisposed to believe in the validity of the Catholic perspective. Perhaps you can see the extent of the problem for those who are not Catholics and who do not agree with the interpretations of the Bible and even of the Traditions that are valid from the perspective of the Catholic Church. Yes, “the case from tradition is quite clear†to anyone already predisposed to adhere to that Tradition and who is already predisposed to adhere to specific interpretations in relation to that Tradition.

““I think using Christian tradition to clarify less than explicit concepts in scripture makes sense.â€â€

If I were to agree that “the Christian Tradition†is a valid authority, and if that authority was agreed upon by all, then yes I would agree with this statement. But that is not the case in reality. “The Christian Tradition†that you speak of is actually “the Catholic Traditionâ€, something that non-Catholics do not agree with as an authority. If you are referring to the extant writings of the “early Church†even the extent of which is in question, then you are really referring to an interpretation of those writings by Catholics for Catholics. Again, perhaps you can see the problem. What is a clarification from a Catholic perspective may not be so clear from a non-Catholic perspective. It is clearer from the perspective of the Orthodox Church wherein there is some common ground historically and interpretively in relation to the writings of the “early Churchâ€. But even then there is some disagreement as to the extent of those writings and in the interpretation of those writings. And of course, there is even some disagreement as to the extent of the authority of the authoritative interpreter of the Catholic Church. So you can see the extent of the problem for the Protestants who have a history that is not only less agreeable to the interpretations of the Catholic Church than the Orthodox, but also has a history of interpretive diversity within itself.

I am neither a Catholic nor a Protestant. Nor am I an adherent of any of the Eastern Christian Churches. If you have been following the discussion between Francisdesales and myself, then you know that the only thing that I have in common with the Protestants is my belief that the Bible is more authoritative to me than any other writings, Christian or non-Christian. And certainly more authoritative to me than any of the distinctive interpretations of the Bible, and/or Traditions, that divide Christianity into its various denominations. And you also know that I do not see the Biblical writers as NOT being explicit in their view of reality.

The first two chapters of Genesis are interpreted to mean various things in Christianity, including the common concept among Catholic, and many Protestant, apologists that these two chapters are merely a literary device that is not intended to be understood literally. Yet to me, the writer of Genesis is very explicit in the first two chapters of Genesis. Just as explicit as he is when he recounts what is considered necessary by God for us to know about the early history of humanity and the giving of the Law to the Hebrews and the giving of the specifics of the Tabernacle. To me, the writer of Genesis is explicit enough for me to believe that the concept of the Evolutionists is questionable at best. Most Christians today are either Theistic Evolutionists or Progressive Creationists. The minority believes in one of the interpretations related to a more literal understanding of the first two chapters of Genesis. And the Progressive Creationists claim that their view is a literal understanding of the Genesis account, by the way. And though I would be pigeon-holed among those who understand the Genesis account in a literal way, I have an understanding in relation to these two chapters that is different from them. And of course I do not consider what I see there to be merely a private interpretation. Because to me, if it is merely an interpretation, it is already invalid as having any real meaning that relates to real reality.

I don’t know if any of my comments help you to see my “take†any clearer. But there they are, such as they are.

JamesG

 

[JamesG]

.
Francisdesales

““Is there some Biblical notion that tells us that the saints in heaven CANNOT hear the prayers of those still on earth?â€â€

That is an excellent question. So far as I now know, there is not such a notion. There is only the fact that such communication as it is today understood is not recounted by the Biblical writers. And that would imply that the understanding as it is presently understood is a matter of historical development more than something that is Biblical. And if historical development is the primary source of such an understanding, then it may be a bit more difficult to relate that understanding to the Bible.

JamesG

 

[JamesG]

.

Mike

““So, the nonexistence of refuting scripture is evidence for it? I'm still stuck on the fact that there is absolutely no modeled pray to anyone but God by Jesus or anyone else in the entire NT. I don't see how this can be assumed to be acceptable or possible if we were never told to do it, or had it depicted by anyone, in the Bible.â€â€

Your argument is sound in relation to the Protestant Bible. But you are not taking into account that the Bible of the Catholics has a few more Old Testament books than yours. And in those added books there is a model for prayer for or to the dead. Doesn’t make the Catholic idea any more legitimate, but this must be considered. But I agree with you that an argument from nothing really leaves nothing to argue about. Let us wait and see how Francisdesales will respond to both of our comments.

JamesG

 

[chestertonrules]

.


I don’t know if any of my comments help you to see my “take†any clearer. But there they are, such as they are.

JamesG

You seem to be saying that Christian tradition is irrelevant as an aid for interpreting scripture.

Is this your position?

 

[dadof10]

And in those added books there is a model for prayer for or to the dead.

"Those" books weren't added, they were subtracted by the reformers. The Septuagint was accepted from the beginning of the Church, and it contained the removed books which you call the "apocrypha".

I wonder why they were removed...??? Hummm.....

 

[jasoncran]

And in those added books there is a model for prayer for or to the dead.

"Those" books weren't added, they were subtracted by the reformers. The Septuagint was accepted from the beginning of the Church, and it contained the removed books which you call the "apocrypha".

I wonder why they were removed...??? Hummm.....

i will google what the nicean counsel actually let in.

 

[jasoncran]

found it under the guidance of st.augustine. they list no books outside the canon that we protestants have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage