Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Interecessory Prayer/Communion of Saints: Biblical Support

JamesG said:
.
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

It appears that Jesus (and most certainly, His listeners) thought otherwise in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. It seems that it is accepted by his Pharisaical audience (who believe, unlike the Sadducees, that the dead continue to be alert and aware of what is happening here) that the concept of the rich man praying/interceding for his still-living family. The point Abraham makes is not that the prayers are useless and unheard, but that evil men have free will and those on earth may turn aside from the graces that the dead pray to God for in the first place...

Now, if the Jews of the first century understand and recognize this idea as a truth, and Jesus uses the concept in a parable, it would seem that the dead CAN INDEED intercede for men on earth - and this belief was a Jewish belief preceding the Word becoming flesh. There is no nullification of this idea in the later NT Scriptures that would overturn this Jewish belief (backed by the Christ).

As I said before, your vision of the truth is blocked by sola scriptura - when the first Christians were ANYTHING but sola scriptura. If they were, they NEVER would have accepted the Jerusalem Council's decision on circumcision.

Regards
 
.
Francisdesales et al

Your answers are interesting, but you did not answer my question. In this paragraph, am I understanding you correctly or not:

““All, including the WRITING of Scriptures, is according to human understanding.â€â€

What I see in this statement is that the Biblical writers themselves wrote according to a human understanding of reality. And the quote says “all, includingâ€, which implies that the Biblical writings are included in the all human writings, so that all are simply human writings from a human perspective including the writings compiled in the Bible. In other words, the Biblical writers wrote from a human perspective. Now because this is so, then we who are humans trying to understand what the Biblical writers are saying must interpret these writings, just as we would interpret the writings of the Greek writers that we have copies of, such as Cicero or Homer. Am I understanding this correctly?

JamesG
 
JamesG said:
.
Francisdesales et al

Your answers are interesting, but you did not answer my question. In this paragraph, am I understanding you correctly or not:

““All, including the WRITING of Scriptures, is according to human understanding.â€â€

What I see in this statement is that the Biblical writers themselves wrote according to a human understanding of reality. And the quote says “all, includingâ€, which implies that the Biblical writings are included in the all human writings, so that all are simply human writings from a human perspective including the writings compiled in the Bible. In other words, the Biblical writers wrote from a human perspective. Now because this is so, then we who are humans trying to understand what the Biblical writers are saying must interpret these writings, just as we would interpret the writings of the Greek writers that we have copies of, such as Cicero or Homer. Am I understanding this correctly?

JamesG

I really don't see where you are trying to go with this. Both Catholics and Protestants hold the same view on the inspiration of Sacred Scripture. There is no controversy here, that I know of. Maybe you could elaborate on why you think this sentence is controversial, and what exactly your view is on inspiration.
 
chestertonrules said:
JamesG said:
.
Chestertonrules

So do you agree with the statement?




JamesG


Yes.

The words on paper must be written, read and understood. This is human interpretation. The writing is performed by fallible humans intepreting the will of God.
uh what if the persons who wrote the bible just dicated what lord spoke?
 
jasoncran said:
[

The words on paper must be written, read and understood. This is human interpretation. The writing is performed by fallible humans intepreting the will of God.
uh what if the persons who wrote the bible just dicated what lord spoke?[/quote]


That is a rare event, but I agree that it does happen.
 
.
Quote from Dadof10

““I really don't see where you are trying to go with this. Both Catholics and Protestants hold the same view on the inspiration of Sacred Scripture. There is no controversy here, that I know of. Maybe you could elaborate on why you think this sentence is controversial, and what exactly your view is on inspiration.â€â€

I thought I was clear in what I said. Apparently, that is not the case. Looks to me like we’re talking past one another here. Let’s try a different approach.

What is the difference between the writings of the Biblical writers and the Christian writers that Catholics approve as being a part of Tradition? What is the difference between the writings of the Biblical writers and the Christian writers that Catholics approve as being a part of Tradition and all other human writers like you and me? The matter of inspiration has been brought up. If this has something to do with inspiration, then what does inspiration mean to the Catholic?

JamesG
 
JamesG said:
.
Francisdesales et al

Your answers are interesting, but you did not answer my question. In this paragraph, am I understanding you correctly or not:

““All, including the WRITING of Scriptures, is according to human understanding.â€â€

What I see in this statement is that the Biblical writers themselves wrote according to a human understanding of reality. And the quote says “all, includingâ€, which implies that the Biblical writings are included in the all human writings, so that all are simply human writings from a human perspective including the writings compiled in the Bible. In other words, the Biblical writers wrote from a human perspective. Now because this is so, then we who are humans trying to understand what the Biblical writers are saying must interpret these writings, just as we would interpret the writings of the Greek writers that we have copies of, such as Cicero or Homer. Am I understanding this correctly?

JamesG

Perhaps you need to explain the process, in your mind, of what it means for something to be "inspired". Does a person write/preach in a trance while a different voice takes over, the Voice of God, so to speak? Did people at Corinth hear a "different" voice (like a James Earl Jones voice ) when Paul taught then when he merely spoke to people on daily matters? Does the author sleep while God moves the man's hand to write what needs to be written? We don't see it like that - God moves man to write what needs to be said, but He uses human language and understanding. OTHERS in the community RECOGNIZE this inspired writing - that is crucial in the process.

The Bible does not really detail "how" inspiration works, but clearly, the Bible has been edited, esp. the OT, to be more pertinent to the hearers of the day. Even the understanding of how God works changes in the Scriptures themselves. Most commentaries recognize these different editors and views within the Scriptures.

Regards
 
jasoncran said:
uh what if the persons who wrote the bible just dicated what lord spoke?

Where does this happen? It is widely agreed that the Gospels were not dictations, but narratives. They were written long after the subject time frame. We know they are not "dictations" because the Synoptics are not identical when describing the same event.

"Blessed are the poor in spirit" Matthew

"Blessed are the poor" Luke

Or "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew
vs "Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful" Luke

Since there is a difference, there is not a "dictation", but a theological process going on here. Each writer is emphasizing a different aspect of God's revelation given to mankind. It is not an "either/or" but a BOTH.

Regards
 
JamesG said:
.
Quote from Dadof10

““I really don't see where you are trying to go with this. Both Catholics and Protestants hold the same view on the inspiration of Sacred Scripture. There is no controversy here, that I know of. Maybe you could elaborate on why you think this sentence is controversial, and what exactly your view is on inspiration.â€â€

I thought I was clear in what I said. Apparently, that is not the case. Looks to me like we’re talking past one another here. Let’s try a different approach.

What is the difference between the writings of the Biblical writers and the Christian writers that Catholics approve as being a part of Tradition? What is the difference between the writings of the Biblical writers and the Christian writers that Catholics approve as being a part of Tradition and all other human writers like you and me? The matter of inspiration has been brought up. If this has something to do with inspiration, then what does inspiration mean to the Catholic?

JamesG

Only Sacred Writ is considered inspired by God. Church Father writings are authoritative when taken as a whole Tradition, but they do not measure to the Scriptures. It is far easier to identify the teachings of Scriptures then in looking at and determining what is an "Apostolic Tradition", since it requires deeper analysis of the mind of the Church for centuries, looking at common practice, liturgy, writings, and so forth. John 6 is John 6. It is subject to analysis and interpretation, but it IS the Word of God. Traditions that were orally given and not related directly in the Scriptures are more difficult to identify because of the very fact that they were not written by Apostles directly (that we have, anyways).

Only Sacred Scriptures are inspired and inerrant. Thus, they hold a primacy of position within the Catholic Church's deposit of revelation by God to her.

Regards
 
JamesG said:
.
Quote from Dadof10

““I really don't see where you are trying to go with this. Both Catholics and Protestants hold the same view on the inspiration of Sacred Scripture. There is no controversy here, that I know of. Maybe you could elaborate on why you think this sentence is controversial, and what exactly your view is on inspiration.â€â€

I thought I was clear in what I said. Apparently, that is not the case. Looks to me like we’re talking past one another here. Let’s try a different approach.

What is the difference between the writings of the Biblical writers and the Christian writers that Catholics approve as being a part of Tradition? What is the difference between the writings of the Biblical writers and the Christian writers that Catholics approve as being a part of Tradition and all other human writers like you and me? The matter of inspiration has been brought up. If this has something to do with inspiration, then what does inspiration mean to the Catholic?

JamesG



This might help:

III. CHRIST JESUS -- "MEDIATOR AND FULLNESS OF ALL REVELATION"25

God has said everything in his Word

65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father's one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:


In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.
27
There will be no further Revelation

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.


http://www.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/c ... s1c2a1.htm
Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".
 
.
Francisdesales

““Perhaps you need to explain the process, in your mind, of what it means for something to be "inspired". Does a person write/preach in a trance while a different voice takes over, the Voice of God, so to speak? Did people at Corinth hear a "different" voice (like a James Earl Jones voice ) when Paul taught then when he merely spoke to people on daily matters? Does the author sleep while God moves the man's hand to write what needs to be written? We don't see it like that - God moves man to write what needs to be said, but He uses human language and understanding. OTHERS in the community RECOGNIZE this inspired writing - that is crucial in the process.â€â€

Being facetious is not necessary. Confusing my understanding of the Bible with secular ideas of the Bible will not intimidate me into a hasty or emotional response.

““Only Sacred Scriptures are inspired and inerrant. Thus, they hold a primacy of position within the Catholic Church's deposit of revelation by God to her. And from the Catechism, 27 There will be no further Revelation â€â€

We seem to agree in a basic sense. We are agreed that the extra-Biblical writers that are approved by the Catholic Church is not further revelation. And we are agreed that the Bible is not just man speaking, but God speaking through certain chosen men, through the Spirit of God.

You see, the way this statement is stated, “All, including the WRITING of Scriptures, is according to human understanding.â€, something else entirely was implied to me. It implied a very liberal understanding of the Bible. This is why I wanted to be sure that I was not misunderstanding what you intended to say. I still do not understand the meaning that this phrase was intended to convey. But at least we seem to have cleared up a possible misunderstanding.

Now, we need to clear up one more matter.

““As I said before, your vision of the truth is blocked by sola scriptura - when the first Christians were ANYTHING but sola scriptura. If they were, they NEVER would have accepted the Jerusalem Council's decision on circumcision.â€â€

This is the second time that you have made this kind of blanket statement. As if my belief in the Bible, and only the Bible, as having its source in God rather than man is blinding me to the truth. At the very least, I agree with the Prima Scriptura understanding of the Bible. I just don’t hold as much importance to certain extra-Biblical writers as you do. Is it really true that to you it all comes down to the Bible vs. the Bible and how certain extra-Biblical writers who are approved by the Catholic Church understand the Bible?

JamesG
 
chestertonrules said:
jasoncran said:
[

The words on paper must be written, read and understood. This is human interpretation. The writing is performed by fallible humans intepreting the will of God.
uh what if the persons who wrote the bible just dicated what lord spoke?


That is a rare event, but I agree that it does happen.[/quote]
curious then the bible and what it say cant be relied upon if the lord didnt dictate to the writers nor used (or manipulated their lives to be a good or bad example)

for instance pharoah ramses,
saul, and others heroes and villians.

god never overides freewill but that doenst mean that he cant forsee the future and decides to use that for his glory.
 
JamesG said:
Being facetious is not necessary. Confusing my understanding of the Bible with secular ideas of the Bible will not intimidate me into a hasty or emotional response.

I am not being facetious, I am at a loss with what you meant - after you told me and others we are not answering your question. Without some better explanation, it is difficult to ascertain what you meant. There are some who believe as I suggested - that God speaks or dictates the Word to humans directly by some supernatural means.

JamesG said:
francisdesales said:
““Only Sacred Scriptures are inspired and inerrant. Thus, they hold a primacy of position within the Catholic Church's deposit of revelation by God to her. And from the Catechism, 27 There will be no further Revelation â€â€

We seem to agree in a basic sense. We are agreed that the extra-Biblical writers that are approved by the Catholic Church is not further revelation. And we are agreed that the Bible is not just man speaking, but God speaking through certain chosen men, through the Spirit of God.

Extra-biblical writing is as authoritative to us as it was to the Jews, who consider the Mishna oral traditions and are seen as given by God to Moses at Sinai. Commentary on the Scriptures, such as midrash, helps to draw out the sense of the mind of the Church. That is the purpose of bishops before the age of the printing press. It is not "further revelation", but it is a valid reflection on the deposit of the faith once given, quite legitimate and authoritative.

JamesG said:
You see, the way this statement is stated, “All, including the WRITING of Scriptures, is according to human understanding.â€, something else entirely was implied to me. It implied a very liberal understanding of the Bible. This is why I wanted to be sure that I was not misunderstanding what you intended to say. I still do not understand the meaning that this phrase was intended to convey. But at least we seem to have cleared up a possible misunderstanding.

What do you mean by "liberal understanding"?

JamesG said:
Now, we need to clear up one more matter.

““As I said before, your vision of the truth is blocked by sola scriptura - when the first Christians were ANYTHING but sola scriptura. If they were, they NEVER would have accepted the Jerusalem Council's decision on circumcision.â€â€

This is the second time that you have made this kind of blanket statement. As if my belief in the Bible, and only the Bible, as having its source in God rather than man is blinding me to the truth. At the very least, I agree with the Prima Scriptura understanding of the Bible. I just don’t hold as much importance to certain extra-Biblical writers as you do. Is it really true that to you it all comes down to the Bible vs. the Bible and how certain extra-Biblical writers who are approved by the Catholic Church understand the Bible?

I fail to see how the Bible alone can be a rule of faith without an authoritative interpretion of it. This is one of the reasons why Christ left an authoritative Church, a community of believers, with this mission. An understanding of ancient history of the Church and the development of dogma will bear this out. The idea of "sola scriptura" is self-defeating. You speak of the Bible "being your only source of truth", but honestly, can you present such an discussion WITHOUT using a circular argument?

It takes men to identify the Bible contents in the first place, and it takes men to interpret the passages of that same recognized by men book. No Christian believes that the Bible just fell out of the sky, a la Joseph Smith. Thus, it seems quite obvious that God inspired men to write - and can just as easily lead men to reflect on what is written or practiced by the Church to formulate valid explanations of the Apostolic faith. Remember, the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, according to Scriptures.

Those who question Catholicism must come to understand how the ancient Church actually practiced and believed on this matter. Acts 15 clearly points to the idea of an authoritative church, rather than a "sole source of truth found in a book". A truncated view of the what is the rule of faith usually leads to a truncated faith that is often based upon personal interpretation.

Regards
 
.

Francisdesales

““I am not being facetiousâ€â€

If being facetious was not your intent, then I apologize for the remark.

““What do you mean by "liberal understanding"?â€â€

The Liberals understand the Bible to be human writings that have their source in the human writers. The only relationship to God that these writers have from this perspective is that the Biblical writers wrote concerning their speculations about the supernatural and God. They received nothing at all from God in a personal way. The Biblical writings to them is merely a book of metaphysics. It is a primary text to them only in that sense. Now, I am speaking with reference to Protestant liberals. Liberals in the Catholic Church no doubt would have a different slant on that. Perhaps the Modernists would be the Catholic version of liberalism. It is now clear that liberalism is not your perspective. But the questioned sentence implied that position.

““I fail to see how the Bible alone can be a rule of faith without an authoritative interpretion of it.â€â€

And this statement reveals YOUR bias. You point out what you believe to be my bias, and yet you have a bias of your own. A bias that is holding you back from understanding me and my understanding of reality. And that is not really a concern to me since it is the Catholic understanding of reality that I am interested in. But I was considering writing a post on my understanding of the Bible and its relationship to extra-Biblical writings and posting on the 1 on 1. But if you are already biased against it because you have already predetermined that my position is the same as the Protestant position, then it would be a waste of time. No matter what I say, you will only understand it according to how you dogmatically perceive your biased predeterminations. And that is fine. That saves me a lot of unnecessary work. Unless your bias also leads you also think that I am incapable of understanding the Catholic perspective because I hold the Bible in more esteem than the extra-Biblical writers that the Catholic Church approves. Then to you, whatever you tell me will be a waste of time.

I have to say that I don’t see things in that light. I believe that it is possible to understand any interpretation of reality, Christian or non-Christian, so long as we do not close our minds through a dogmatic understanding in relation to their interpretation. And if the one describing the perspective prefers that I not bring how I understand the Biblical writers into the matter, then I will not comment in that fashion. You have never said that you prefer that I leave my Biblical comments to myself. But I will do so if you so desire. That will only be a one-sided help to others, however. And I’m not sure that it could be considered a true discussion under such circumstances.

It is true that I esteem the Biblical writers much more than I do any extra-Biblical writer. And so when dealing with the understanding of any Christian doctrine, I will always go to the Bible first. And when it is revealed that a doctrine is based on extra-Biblical writings more than on Biblical writings, and that is often true even in Protestantism, then that is where the matter will take us. Not because I believe or disbelieve in their authority, but because that is the basis of the doctrine. But I certainly believe that I am capable of understanding any understanding of reality that is under consideration. If I am endeavoring to understand Buddhism, I will neither go to the Bible writers nor to Christian extra-Biblical writers to understand that religion. I will go to the texts deemed important to the adherents of that religion. And in spite of what many people believe, all of the major religions have their own written texts.

JamesG
 
JamesG said:
The Liberals understand the Bible to be human writings that have their source in the human writers. The only relationship to God that these writers have from this perspective is that the Biblical writers wrote concerning their speculations about the supernatural and God. They received nothing at all from God in a personal way. The Biblical writings to them is merely a book of metaphysics. It is a primary text to them only in that sense. Now, I am speaking with reference to Protestant liberals. Liberals in the Catholic Church no doubt would have a different slant on that. Perhaps the Modernists would be the Catholic version of liberalism. It is now clear that liberalism is not your perspective. But the questioned sentence implied that position.

thanks for your explanation. Liberal interpretation of Scriptures depends upon the results of the Age of Enlightenment, where everything must first pass through the seive of rationalism. Catholicism spoke strongly against it at Vatican 1 and subsequent papal encyclicals. Part of this liberalism also is based upon a particular understanding of history that separates the Jesus of the Gospels from the Jesus of history. In other words, the "Church" built up Jesus into a divine figure, rather than the Christ (and OT Scriptures) subtly pointing to it. Perhaps Modernists would be a parallel view held by some Catholics similar to Liberal Protestantism, but I would say that Modernists do not go as far as liberals. In the example I give, few Modernist Catholics would deny the divinity of Christ.

With that said, I do not necessarily see a connection between "liberalism" as identified by us and that idea that the Bible is indeed written by men, inspired by God, however you want to define "inspire". I will continue to bring up the example of the science of Genesis 1-2. Clearly, little thought is given to the scientific process - but rather, to theological subjects of creation, God, and the relationship of the two to mankind. Noting that God works through man's limited knowledge of the science of creation does NOT mean we are reverting to a "liberal" point of view, but merely identifying reality - that the Jews were clueless on the science of astronomy and quantum physics and micorbiology. Nor do we find God giving them a science lesson.

JamesG said:
francisdesales said:
““I fail to see how the Bible alone can be a rule of faith without an authoritative interpretion of it.â€â€

And this statement reveals YOUR bias. You point out what you believe to be my bias, and yet you have a bias of your own. A bias that is holding you back from understanding me and my understanding of reality.

That is unfair, James. It is a style of thinking that goes back to the 16th-19th century that was strictly polemic in nature. "Dogmatic"? "Preconceived presumptions"?

Of course I have an opinion, and as such, I have a "bias". It doesn't follow that I am unable or unwilling to hear you attempt to logically argue your point of view - which you are not. You appear to focus on some loaded words, like "dogma" and ""Catholic understanding" as if I checked my brain at the door of the Church berfore entering in. I am quite capable of listening to a point of view, even if I disagree with it. Just because I happen to agree with the Catholic point on this does not mean I am some blind follower of the "Catholic way of thinking". I have come to logically conclude that it is correct - and am challenging you to provide an answer to MY question, rather than simply sidestepping it by brining up my "bias" that disables my ability to think and hear others - and so you shouldn't "waste your time on me"...

Now, as I explained, I will await your explanation on how a book can be authoritatively complete without an authoritative interpreter or men to even recognize what IS from God. Practically speaking, the experiement called Protestantism isn't working - in finding out the fundamental beliefs of Christianity from "bible alone".

JamesG said:
You have never said that you prefer that I leave my Biblical comments to myself. But I will do so if you so desire. That will only be a one-sided help to others, however. And I’m not sure that it could be considered a true discussion under such circumstances.

Where is this coming from ? I do not find the need for such drama, as I have not even implied that you should keep your interpretations to yourself.

Do you really think I am unable to think or consider other opinions just because I am Catholic??? Was it Aristotle who said that an intelligent person is able to consider other opinions in their minds, even if they don't agree with them? Yes, I am able to do so, and if I shoot down something you say, don't think that I am merely brushing it aside without consideration - I attempt to give careful reasonings on why I reject something.

JamesG said:
It is true that I esteem the Biblical writers much more than I do any extra-Biblical writer.

Did I not say Catholics were prima Scriptura?

I never said Catholics hold the extra-Biblical writings on equal par to the Bible. We do consider ALL Apostolic Traditions as from God, though, just as our Jewish forefathers considered the oral traditions given to Moses by God at Sinai had an authoritative force...

JamesG said:
If I am endeavoring to understand Buddhism, I will neither go to the Bible writers nor to Christian extra-Biblical writers to understand that religion. I will go to the texts deemed important to the adherents of that religion. And in spite of what many people believe, all of the major religions have their own written texts.

And again, I believe you would be in error by not consulting an authoritative guide of Buddhist Scriptures. Not because I am biased, but because it is normal and quite logical to consult experts in such matters, especially when we are dealing with REVELATION (rather than empirical concepts). This is the pitfall called "rationalism", which appears to discount that we are dealing with mystery and instead relies on one's own rationale thought to ascertain what God revealed.

"What is God revealing to us through this passage"? That is not always clear to the unguided reader. Acts 8...

Regards
 
.

Francisdesales

I have posted something on the “Some Catholic Concepts†thread. It concerns the matter of Authority, the Bible, and the Church. Anyone who desires to follow along can do so on the subforum 1 on 1 Debates under Apologetics and Theology, even though no one other than us can actually post on that thread. I have an answer to some of what you said on your last thread here that will eventually be posted on the subforum thread.

Communion of the Saints

I think that we can both agree that by the fourth century, the belief that we can communicate with those who have gone on before is already a common belief in Christianity. We can conclude that because it is a mutually accepted idea in the East and in the West by that time. And it continues to be the accepted idea of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western Roman Catholic Church to the present day. But from what I see so far, the Biblical writers did not allude to this idea in any way that corresponds to how it has been historically understood since the fourth century.

So far what I see is that the Biblical writers point to the fact that the dead are only dead physically. That they are aware in some kind of state that apparently corresponds to something like our bodied state. This is evident in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus wherein the rich man refers to water for his tongue. I have never had a satisfactory answer from the Seventh Day Adventists or the Jehovah’s Witnesses (both believe in the idea of Soul-sleep) on the parable about the rich man and Lazarus. They basically claim that it is just a literary device, a fabricated story to illustrate a particular point. Similar to your understanding of the first two chapters of Genesis, except that you say that the Genesis account uses a currently popular understanding to illustrate a particular point. But then, if the popular understanding does not correspond to reality, whether from the perspective of God or from the perspective of modern scientists, it must be considered a fabricated story, even if inadvertently.

And as you say, there are no Scriptures that specifically deny the practice of communication with those who have gone before. And that would be natural if there wasn’t such a practice in the first century. There are only the matters of witchcraft and Saul that the Protestants like to bring up from the Old Testament. But those are obviously incidents of misuse rather than a specific denial of the subject at hand. Nevertheless, an argument from silence only leads us to silence.

Now, I think that what I would like to know at this point is when did this idea of intercession by those who have gone before take hold in the way that it is understood today. Obviously sometime after the first century and sometime before the fourth century.

This quote among the references given me by Chestertonrules definitely shows that by the fourth century the idea had already taken root:
““ “Then we commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that at their prayers and intercessions God would receive our petition. Then on behalf also of the Holy Fathers and Bishops who have fallen asleep before us, and in a word of all who in past years have fallen asleep among us, believing that it will be a very great benefit to the souls, for whom the supplication is put up, while that holy and most awful sacrifice is set forth.†Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 23:9 (A.D. 350).â€â€
But the references he gave that are from prior to A.D. 350 only refer to commemoration of the dead, especially the martyrs, not of petition. Such a commemoration would be natural given the state of extreme persecution at that time. And it is this idea of the dead being living in another state, apart from a petition connection, that all of the Scripture references that Chestertonrules gave me agrees with. But obviously, somewhere before A.D. 350, this matter came to be a practice of at least some element within Christianity and spread to the rest of Christianity from there. And it might be beneficial to our understanding of this matter to see the thinking of those in the earlier era. Many things related to Catholic practice, and apparently even some doctrines, began in historical development.

So far, it seems to me that this matter began to be practiced after the era of the Biblical writers and is a matter of historical development. It appears to be, from what I read of the quotes offered by Chestertonrules, a development related to an earlier practice of commemorating the death of the martyrs. This would be like the history of the Rosary. One idea is that the Rosary is a development that had its ultimate origins in relation to the early Monastic practice of the Divine Office. And there is the other idea that came through the Dominicans that Dominic was given the Rosary by Mary. The two understandings could be seen as complimentary. It is conceivable that Mary could have given something to Dominic that was related to a practice already in evidence. We do know that its continued development was through the Dominicans. But it would still imply a strictly historical development even though many of the elements of the Rosary are from specific portions of the Bible.

And I would like to know the significance of candles in the Catholic Church relating to this matter. My wife lights a candle in her church every year in relation to her dead father and intercedes on his behalf through prayer. And I hear the phrase, “I’ll light a candle for youâ€, that seems to be a reference to prayer of some kind. It seems strange even to me that I haven’t before the present related this practice to prayer. Light is an important aspect of the Orthodox Liturgy, but I was told that it is related to Christ as Light. No reference to prayer was ever offered in regard to candles. Rather, in the Orthodox Liturgy, incense is related to prayer, to the corporate prayer of the Church. Of all of the Catholic Masses that I have attended through the years, I only remember a couple of times when incense was used. A loss IMHO. Incense contributes a great deal to the atmosphere of the Orthodox Liturgy.

JamesG
 
JamesG said:
.

Francisdesales

I have posted something on the “Some Catholic Concepts†thread. It concerns the matter of Authority, the Bible, and the Church. Anyone who desires to follow along can do so on the subforum 1 on 1 Debates under Apologetics and Theology, even though no one other than us can actually post on that thread. I have an answer to some of what you said on your last thread here that will eventually be posted on the subforum thread.

Communion of the Saints

I think that we can both agree that by the fourth century, the belief that we can communicate with those who have gone on before is already a common belief in Christianity. We can conclude that because it is a mutually accepted idea in the East and in the West by that time. And it continues to be the accepted idea of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western Roman Catholic Church to the present day. But from what I see so far, the Biblical writers did not allude to this idea in any way that corresponds to how it has been historically understood since the fourth century.

So far what I see is that the Biblical writers point to the fact that the dead are only dead physically. That they are aware in some kind of state that apparently corresponds to something like our bodied state. This is evident in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus wherein the rich man refers to water for his tongue. I have never had a satisfactory answer from the Seventh Day Adventists or the Jehovah’s Witnesses (both believe in the idea of Soul-sleep) on the parable about the rich man and Lazarus. They basically claim that it is just a literary device, a fabricated story to illustrate a particular point. Similar to your understanding of the first two chapters of Genesis, except that you say that the Genesis account uses a currently popular understanding to illustrate a particular point. But then, if the popular understanding does not correspond to reality, whether from the perspective of God or from the perspective of modern scientists, it must be considered a fabricated story, even if inadvertently.

And as you say, there are no Scriptures that specifically deny the practice of communication with those who have gone before. And that would be natural if there wasn’t such a practice in the first century. There are only the matters of witchcraft and Saul that the Protestants like to bring up from the Old Testament. But those are obviously incidents of misuse rather than a specific denial of the subject at hand. Nevertheless, an argument from silence only leads us to silence.

Now, I think that what I would like to know at this point is when did this idea of intercession by those who have gone before take hold in the way that it is understood today. Obviously sometime after the first century and sometime before the fourth century.

This quote among the references given me by Chestertonrules definitely shows that by the fourth century the idea had already taken root:
““ “Then we commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that at their prayers and intercessions God would receive our petition. Then on behalf also of the Holy Fathers and Bishops who have fallen asleep before us, and in a word of all who in past years have fallen asleep among us, believing that it will be a very great benefit to the souls, for whom the supplication is put up, while that holy and most awful sacrifice is set forth.†Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 23:9 (A.D. 350).â€â€
But the references he gave that are from prior to A.D. 350 only refer to commemoration of the dead, especially the martyrs, not of petition. Such a commemoration would be natural given the state of extreme persecution at that time. And it is this idea of the dead being living in another state, apart from a petition connection, that all of the Scripture references that Chestertonrules gave me agrees with. But obviously, somewhere before A.D. 350, this matter came to be a practice of at least some element within Christianity and spread to the rest of Christianity from there. And it might be beneficial to our understanding of this matter to see the thinking of those in the earlier era. Many things related to Catholic practice, and apparently even some doctrines, began in historical development.

So far, it seems to me that this matter began to be practiced after the era of the Biblical writers and is a matter of historical development. It appears to be, from what I read of the quotes offered by Chestertonrules, a development related to an earlier practice of commemorating the death of the martyrs. This would be like the history of the Rosary. One idea is that the Rosary is a development that had its ultimate origins in relation to the early Monastic practice of the Divine Office. And there is the other idea that came through the Dominicans that Dominic was given the Rosary by Mary. The two understandings could be seen as complimentary. It is conceivable that Mary could have given something to Dominic that was related to a practice already in evidence. We do know that its continued development was through the Dominicans. But it would still imply a strictly historical development even though many of the elements of the Rosary are from specific portions of the Bible.

And I would like to know the significance of candles in the Catholic Church relating to this matter. My wife lights a candle in her church every year in relation to her dead father and intercedes on his behalf through prayer. And I hear the phrase, “I’ll light a candle for youâ€, that seems to be a reference to prayer of some kind. It seems strange even to me that I haven’t before the present related this practice to prayer. Light is an important aspect of the Orthodox Liturgy, but I was told that it is related to Christ as Light. No reference to prayer was ever offered in regard to candles. Rather, in the Orthodox Liturgy, incense is related to prayer, to the corporate prayer of the Church. Of all of the Catholic Masses that I have attended through the years, I only remember a couple of times when incense was used. A loss IMHO. Incense contributes a great deal to the atmosphere of the Orthodox Liturgy.

JamesG

Please give me a bit of time to chew on this,

Thanks
 
JamesG said:
Communion of the Saints

…But from what I see so far, the Biblical writers did not allude to this idea in any way that corresponds to how it has been historically understood since the fourth century.

Again, James, when discussing the development of doctrine, one must explore within the paradigm of the Church, and clearly, that paradigm was not restricted to “Scriptures aloneâ€. Thus, one misses the mark by looking at the Bible alone to locate a full exposition for a particular doctrine and proclaiming it a “tradition of men†because it is not fully and explicitly stated. That is being anachronistic.

Before I continue, I would like to remind you that the first Christians were Jews. Men like Paul had a high regard for oral tradition – otherwise, Paul never would have told the Thessalonians, for example, to maintain it. KEEP it. And where did this mindset arise from? Oral tradition, to the Jew, came from Moses, given at Mt. Sinai, and passed down, eventually, to the zugot and onto the people by oral transmission. This transmission was FORBIDDEN to be written down until the third century AD. Thus, during the time of the NT and Jesus, the background was that oral tradition was ENTIRELY PART of the revelation God has given to mankind. Does this sound familiar? Should it surprise you that Catholicism has the same viewpoint towards Apostolic Tradition – that it comes from God and carries a certain authority?

Now, with that diversion and background, we can continue to more evenly explore HOW the Church came to accept the idea of intercessory prayers to “dead†saints. Indeed, the background is drawn from Scriptures, implicitly and through a particular interpretation of the Scriptures and teachings given by the Apostles. If you desire, I could cite specific Scriptures.

JamesG said:
Nevertheless, an argument from silence only leads us to silence.

Again, your paradigm, Scriptures alone, will provide a stumbling block. However, we can see some building blocks that helped to erect this belief in the first Christians (which we know was part of Church belief as early as the first century, judging by non-canonical writings and architectural evidence.

I would like to first begin by laying out some basic principles that lead to the concept, then, I would like to attempt to lay out the doctrinal development preceding the 4th century. If you have disagreements with any of the basic Scriptural principles that lead us to see the concept, let me know.

1. God is really and truly in His works, all of them, but most especially, in His saints. God is to be worshiped wherever we find Him. The only point here is to remember that God is found in the work, not the work abstracted.
2. The saints’ free cooperation with God’s Will merits OUR honor. If we lose sight of the ability of the creature to act and to merit, we fall into pantheism… Nor should we make the Protestant error of denying secondary causes, prevalent among those who think man has no free will.
3. The saints are perfectly united with God – here, and most especially, in heaven. Regeneration is completed in heaven, and thus, our unity with the Blessed Trinity is at its greatest there.
4. This leads us to recalling that the will of God is that all men become transformed according to the image of His Son, since humanity is destined, in germ form, to the deification mentioned by Peter.
5. The honor given to saints naturally rebounds to God, since without God’s graces, no one can do good. Thus, Mary’s personal merit is solely found in her voluntary “yesâ€, by the aid of divine grace, with divine grace. We know that God crowns His own gifts, and in rewarding them, He Himself honors Mary. Thus, if God honors the saints, we should also.
6. The question “why not pray to God directly†begs the question “why pray to God at allâ€, since He knows what we need and desire before we even ask, knowing BETTER what we need and desire… Thus, the same principle that justifies prayers to God justifies prayers to the saints (living or dead) to intercede for us.
7. This saintly intercession is part of God’s plan, His desire. Intercessionary prayers rests on the principle that God uses, in completing or perfecting His works, the ministry of a second, created cause. This is quite clear throughout the Bible via prophets, apostles, and priests through whom God works through for the purpose of sanctification.
8. Continuing on, this leads to the principle that the saints are concerned about us and can hear us. God sends secondary agents, angels, men, etc., because He is good and delights in communicating Himself as far as He is communicable to His creatures, to make them as nearly like Himself as creatures can be like their Creator. As God delights to honor His creatures by employing them in His service, it follows that He must also delight to hear and respond to THEIR intercessions for their brethren. This associates them with Him in His work of grace. And naturally, the more one loves God, the more one loves His brothers.
9. Time and space are only relations, and the saints in glory are not subject to them. They are united with God and, in their union with God, are near unto every one of us by a mystical union.

Taken from a re-visitation of a book called “Saint Worshipâ€, by Orestes Brownson, written in the 19th century (he explains what “worship†he is talking about in the book, so don’t be offended by the title!)

These are biblical principles that all lead to the idea of intercessory prayers from saints. This list is not all inclusive, but certainly, you can see that the Scriptures support the preceding principles individually.

My next post will be on historical development...

Regards
 
part 2

JamesG said:
Now, I think that what I would like to know at this point is when did this idea of intercession by those who have gone before take hold in the way that it is understood today. Obviously sometime after the first century and sometime before the fourth century.

Is there some sort of “cut-off†date where reflection on the Scriptures are no longer valid by the pillar and foundation of the truth?? It is quite difficult to attempt to trace the beginning of oral traditions, since their by their very nature, are not written down immediately. There is no Christian Mishnah that actually records who taught a saying that solidifies its position within the Tradition. The best we can do is look at liturgical practices and worship, along with any writings, slim as they may be, and try to figure out the history behind the development…

First, the words of the Apostles’ Creed – “I believe in the Communion of Saintsâ€. This creedal formula was adopted approximately the middle of the 2nd century, and it presumes, with Scriptures, that all members of the Body of Christ are joined, even after death. From this, one can see the following practice as fitting, not only to bury the dead, but in some way, to emulate and prepare to walk the same path in Christ with the said saint.

For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions and fellow-disciples! The centurion then, seeing the strife excited by the Jews, placed the body in the midst of the fire, and consumed it. Accordingly, we afterwards took up his bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, whither, being gathered together, as opportunity is allowed us, with joy and rejoicing, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already finished their course, and for the exercising and preparation of those yet to walk in their steps. From the Martyrdom of Polycarp, written about 155 AD…[ch 16-17]

From this veneration of the dead saints, no doubt a first century practice (along with the parallel Jewish practice), it is a short step (since they were presumed to be with Christ in glory, according to Scriptures) to seek their help and prayers. In the third century, we see written evidence of intercessory prayers, such as Origen, Cyprian, and from funeral inscriptions. In arguing for it, Origen appealed to the Communion of Saints mentioned above, advancing the view (esp. in Iesu nave homily 16, 5) that the Church in heaven assists the Church on earth with their prayers. With the cessation of persecution in the 4the century, the cult was extended to include other Christians (besides martyrs), such as confessors and virgins, who had been heroes of sanctity, which takes us to Cyril of Jerusalem. This practice was defended, in writing, by Jerome, just as Origen, that if the Apostles and martyrs prayed for their fellow Christians when alive, it was natural to believe that they would continue to pray for them while crowned with heavenly glory (C. Vigil. 6). (summarized from J.N.D. Kelly “Early Christian Doctrines", pg 490-491)

JamesG said:
But obviously, somewhere before A.D. 350, this matter came to be a practice of at least some element within Christianity and spread to the rest of Christianity from there. And it might be beneficial to our understanding of this matter to see the thinking of those in the earlier era. Many things related to Catholic practice, and apparently even some doctrines, began in historical development.

I would agree that this is a legitimate development of doctrine based upon Scriptural reflections and liturgical practice.

JamesG said:
So far, it seems to me that this matter began to be practiced after the era of the Biblical writers and is a matter of historical development. It appears to be, from what I read of the quotes offered by Chestertonrules, a development related to an earlier practice of commemorating the death of the martyrs. This would be like the history of the Rosary. One idea is that the Rosary is a development that had its ultimate origins in relation to the early Monastic practice of the Divine Office. And there is the other idea that came through the Dominicans that Dominic was given the Rosary by Mary. The two understandings could be seen as complimentary. It is conceivable that Mary could have given something to Dominic that was related to a practice already in evidence. We do know that its continued development was through the Dominicans. But it would still imply a strictly historical development even though many of the elements of the Rosary are from specific portions of the Bible.

If Mary gave the Dominicans a rosary, it would have to have been a private revelation in some sort of supernatural visitation. Private revelations are not a matter of dogmatic faith, so the idea of the Communion of the Saints and the Rosary are not quite the same things. The former is a dogmatic belief of the earliest church, the rosary is a pious devotional prayer that appears to have its beginning centuries after the Incarnation – one is not bound to even practice this devotion

JamesG said:
And I would like to know the significance of candles in the Catholic Church relating to this matter. My wife lights a candle in her church every year in relation to her dead father and intercedes on his behalf through prayer. And I hear the phrase, “I’ll light a candle for youâ€, that seems to be a reference to prayer of some kind. It seems strange even to me that I haven’t before the present related this practice to prayer. Light is an important aspect of the Orthodox Liturgy, but I was told that it is related to Christ as Light. No reference to prayer was ever offered in regard to candles. Rather, in the Orthodox Liturgy, incense is related to prayer, to the corporate prayer of the Church. Of all of the Catholic Masses that I have attended through the years, I only remember a couple of times when incense was used. A loss IMHO. Incense contributes a great deal to the atmosphere of the Orthodox Liturgy.

I would say this is the current form of the ancient practice of coming to the tomb and offer prayers for the sake of the beloved dead on the anniversary of their birth into eternal life. The significance of the candle stems from Judaism and their usage in liturgical services. The candle is symbolic of what we are to become as transformed Christians as we give of our lives in the service for the sake of others, just as the candle slowly dies as it gives light to others. The flame also can move us to meditative prayer. And of course, the candle’s smoke continues to rise after we have left, indicative of our prayers continuing to go up to God.

Regards
 
.
Francisdesales

I read the first couple of paragraphs of your your post and couldn't go any farther. Do you really believe that I am unable to understand these Catholic matters because of my belief?

JamesG
 
Back
Top