Praying to Dead People

[Panis_Angelicas]

rod of iron:

Well, you said that this activity was done back in 33 AD.

It is recorded in Maccabees, one of the books Luther edited out of the Bible, that it is noble to pray for the dead.

Of course, another question does come to mind. How many declared saints would have existed in 33 AD?

Perhaps none. I would imagine Dismas might have been the first. (He was the “good thief.”)

Doesn’t the pope alone declare someone as being a saint?

There is an entire process whereby a Saint is canonized.

I still cannot find the evidence within the Bible to make a definite and logical connection between the church that Jesus established and the church that has been known as the Roman Catholic church.

Try a history book. Plenty of unbiased historians have been able to make a definite and logical conection. Perhaps you’re just too biased to see past your bigotry. Peter was the first pope, and he brought the Church to Rome, where he died for It.

There is no evidence that I can find in the Bible that the Bible was written by Catholics.

The first Christians were the first Catholic bishops. Have you ever read the Early Church Fathers? Do you know anything of history???

Sacred Apostolic Tradition? I do not see any evidence to support this idea of a Sacred Tradition either. It appears that this idea of sacred tradition was conceived by men, not God.

Men who were instructed by God.
St. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians and said, “Stand fast and hold the traditions,” (2 Thess. 2:15). Here, traditions are those ordinances, precepts and teachings transmitted through the apostles of Christ, and intended for all future generations.
Jesus, after His resurrection “… teach them to observe all things that I have commanded you,” (Matt. 28:20). As an apostle of Christ, St. Paul taught what Christ commanded.
Later, St. Paul adds this: “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received from us.” (2 Thess. 3:6)

I see that there is much you do not see. I shall pray that the scales fall from your eyes.

Pax Christi.<><

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

rod of iron:

If these books were so inspired, why are they not found in the Bible?

2Maccabees* is* in the Bible, the Catholic Bible. Luther edited out that and others in the 16th century.

Which of these Church Fathers were alive in Christ’s day to witness “prugatory” being taught in Christ’s day?

St. Ignatius of Antioch was a student of St. John the Evangelist.

The Eastern Orthodox church and the Roman Catholic church were one before the Great Schism. But this schism did not occur before or while Jesus and His apostles were on the Earth. So, this would hardly prove that the idea of “purgatory” was taught by Christ.

No, it just proves that they are the two oldest Christian faiths, who can trace their roots directly back to the Apostles, and both believe in purgatory, but…let me guess…you still cannot see the connection.

How can you be sure that God taught the Jews to pray this prayer?

Who else taught prayers to the Jews? They are His chosen people!

But you have failed to show me where Christ taught this doctrine. In Hebrews 6:1-2, the principles of the doctrine of Christ are listed. Purgatory is not listed among them.

Jesus didn’t need to teach the Jewish Truths that the Apostles already knew and practiced. He taught them about the fulfillment of the Law, and about the New Covenant in His Blood. This did not change the old law, but rather, fulfilled it.

Pax Christi. <><

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

SPOKENWORD:

Jay, it says Gods Holy people. You say its the saints in heaven. I say its our prayers whom God calls us His holy people.]

It is not Katholikos, but the 2000 year old Church, the writers and the preservers of the complete New Testament who say that its the “communion of saints,” meaning God’s holy people both in heaven and on earth, as well as the poor souls in purgatory.

Try these:

*Hebrews 12:*1 Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us and persevere in running the race that lies before us
Hebrews 11: 1 Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen.
2 Because of it the ancients were well attested…4 By faith Abel offered to God a sacrifice greater than Cain’s. Through this he was attested to be righteous, God bearing witness to his gifts, and through this, though dead, he still speaks. 5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and “he was found no more because God had taken him.” Before he was taken up, he was attested to have pleased God. 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him, for anyone who approaches God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him…32 What more shall I say? I have not time to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets, 33 who by faith conquered kingdoms, did what was righteous, obtained the promises; they closed the mouths of lions, 34 put out raging fires, escaped the devouring sword; out of weakness they were made powerful, became strong in battle, and turned back foreign invaders. 35 Women received back their dead through resurrection. Some were tortured and would not accept deliverance, in order to obtain a better resurrection. 36 Others endured mockery, scourging, even chains and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned, sawed in two, put to death at sword’s point; they went about in skins of sheep or goats, needy, afflicted, tormented. 38 The world was not worthy of them. They wandered about in deserts and on mountains, in caves and in crevices in the earth.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Panis Angelicas:

Perhaps none. I would imagine Dismas might have been the first. (He was the “good thief.”)

Dismas? Strange. That name is not found in the Bible. Obviously something that the Catholic church made up. Good thief? That is a contradiction in terms. A thief steals. That is not good. Stealing is condemned in the 10 commandments. When Jesus said to the one thief on the cross that he would be with Jesus in paradise, this does not mean the thief became a saint. Otherwise, Jesus would have told him that he would now be a saint.
Panis Angelicas:

There is an entire process whereby a Saint is canonized.

And what would that process be?
Panis Angelicas:

Try a history book. Plenty of unbiased historians have been able to make a definite and logical conection.

But these historians can only give their opinions of what happened, because they were not there when these events happened. Could you name a few of these unbiased historians?
Panis Angelicas:

Perhaps you’re just too biased to see past your bigotry.

Ah! So, I am a bigot, huh? Your unrighteous judgment of me does nothing to prove your point.
Panis Angelicas:

Peter was the first pope, and he brought the Church to Rome, where he died for It.

That’s what all you Catholics keep telling me, but the problem is, none of you can prove it.
Panis Angelicas:

The first Christians were the first Catholic bishops.

The Catholic bishops? The Bible mentions nothing about “Catholic bishops”. In fact, the Bible only mentions the word “bishop” a total of 4 times. It is never used by Jesus. Now, if Jesus never instituted bishops, why would I expect to find them in His church? It has already been claimed on this forum that bishops and apostles are one and the same. But “bishop” is derived from a different Greek word than “apostle”. The two Greek words do not mean the same thing. If the apostles were replaced by bishops, it would appear that the apostasy had already begun.
Panis Angelicas:

Have you ever read the Early Church Fathers? Do you know anything of history???

Which Early Church Fathers? If these church fathers are not mentioned in the Bible, why would I trust them?

 

[rod_of_iron]

Panis Angelicas:

2Maccabees* is* in the Bible, the Catholic Bible. Luther edited out that and others in the 16th century.

Well, since that book is not in my Bible and I do not believe that book is inspired, you really can’t prove anything to me with that book. It is the same as if I tried to prove something to you with the Book of Mormon. You would no doubt reject it, because you probably do not believe that the Book of Mormon is a volume of sacred scripture. Try using those scripture that both of us believe are sacred.
Panis Angelicas:

St. Ignatius of Antioch was a student of St. John the Evangelist.

Really? Yet, John the Evangelist never mentions Ignatius in his writings found in the Bible. In fact, nowhere is that name mentioned in the Bible. Ignatius may have existed, but the Bible does not support you in your claim of who he was.
Panis Angelicas:

No, it just proves that they are the two oldest Christian faiths, who can trace their roots directly back to the Apostles, and both believe in purgatory, but…let me guess…you still cannot see the connection.

Any church that has broken away from the Catholic church can likewise trace its roots through the Catholic church as far back as the Catholic church can. But the Bible never mentions that a Catholic church would be developed from the Apostles onward. Purgatory may have been believed by both churches prior to the Great Schism, but this does not prove that purgatory was believed or taught by Jesus and His apostles.
Panis Angelicas:

Who else taught prayers to the Jews? They are His chosen people!

Answering my question with a question did not actually answer my question. Jews could have conceived this idea of a prayer from their imaginations, against the will of God. If that prayer is not found in the Law of Moses, we can be sure that it was not taught by God.
Panis Angelicas:

Jesus didn’t need to teach the Jewish Truths that the Apostles already knew and practiced. He taught them about the fulfillment of the Law, and about the New Covenant in His Blood. This did not change the old law, but rather, fulfilled it.

Yet in all this, Jesus still did not teach them of purgatory. Nor did His apostles.

 

[Jennifer123]

ROI -

Blessings to you, you are obviously seeking truth and I hope you find it. I wish your postings weren’t on the level of trolling, personally I’d ask that they be less combative and more receptive to listening to our POV since you are here on a Catholic forum asking (rather demandingly) for the CC’s interpretation. You may not know or understand, but the nature of this kind of conversation tends to make everything a bit more harsh, so I hope you can learn to soften up a bit.

I do have just a simple question though - where does it say in the bible that it’s the only authority?

Thanks-

 

[Seeking_Wisdom]

We ask for those on earth to intercede for us through prayer. Why not ask those who are more alive in Christ which are those who are already in heaven?

 

[PaulAckermann]

But these historians can only give their opinions of what happened, because they were not there when these events happened. Could you name a few of these unbiased historians?

There is no such thing of any unbiased historian. The assasination of Abe Lincoln was recorded by Northerners and Southerners. Neither of them were unbiased. Does that mean we should not believe that Lincoln was ever assasinated? Biasness is part of our sinful nature. No one is totally biased. If we need to wait until we hear from an unbiased historian, we will never determine what happened in history.

The historical resurection of Christ was only reported by believers. Believers are oblvious biased towards towards Christianity. Since no unbiased unbeliever ever testified to seeing the Risen Christ, does that mean we should not believe in the Resurrection of Christ?

The Catholic bishops? The Bible mentions nothing about “Catholic bishops”. In fact, the Bible only mentions the word “bishop” a total of 4 times.

The Bible never mentioned the Trinity neither. So, using your logic, we should not believe in the Trinty because the Bible never even uses the word “Trinity”

Which Early Church Fathers? If these church fathers are not mentioned in the Bible, why would I trust them?

This is taking sola scriptura to an extreme. Not only we not believe in any doctrine unless it is in scripture, we should not believe any historical event unless it is in scripture.

Did Aristotle exist? We should not presume so, since the Bible never mentrioned Aristotle. Did Nero exist? We should not presume so, since the Bible never mentioned Nero. Should we believe that the Romans destroyed the Jewish Temple and dispersed the Jews out of Jerusalem in AD 70? After all, the Bible never mentioned this happening.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

rod of iron:

Dismas? Strange. That name is not found in the Bible. Obviously something that the Catholic church made up. Good thief? That is a contradiction in terms. A thief steals. That is not good. Stealing is condemned in the 10 commandments. When Jesus said to the one thief on the cross that he would be with Jesus in paradise, this does not mean the thief became a saint. Otherwise, Jesus would have told him that he would now be a saint.

Are you arguing just for argument’s sake? The thief had a name, obviously. And I’m sorry if your church wasn’t around back then to record it. Mine was. His name is Dismas, and he is a canonized Saint. His sins were covered by the blood of Christ, and Christ Himself, while dying on the Cross, promised his eternal happiness as a reward for his repentence and belief.

But these historians can only give their opinions of what happened, because they were not there when these events happened.

These historians, some of them even atheists, study artifacts and documents and geography. They use evidence upon which to found their claims. And even they can see that the Catholic Church, and no other, emerged at the time of Jesus Christ.

Which Early Church Fathers? If these church fathers are not mentioned in the Bible, why would I trust them?

Your church father, Martin Luther, isn’t mentioned in the Bible either, yet you trust his flawed, man-made doctrine Sola Scriptura, which was never believed nor heard of until the 16th century.
Any doctrines he didn’t accept, you won’t accept.
You follow a man-made religion, and you read an edited version of the Sacred Scriptures.
Check out the Bible History thread for the facts.
I’m sorry if I sound argumentative. I’m off to Mass and haven’t time to sugar coat the Truth for you this morning. And even that, I mean sincerely. If I had an hour to try to phrase everything delicately and politely for you, I would certainly try. But Jesus is waiting for me! Gotta run!
God Bless.

 

[rod_of_iron]

PaulAckermann:

There is no such thing of any unbiased historian. The assasination of Abe Lincoln was recorded by Northerners and Southerners. Neither of them were unbiased. Does that mean we should not believe that Lincoln was ever assasinated?

Did both the Northerners and the Southerners declare that Lincoln had been assassinated? If both sides did, then it is more likely that it is true. But what you seem to be telling me is that I should believe only what the Church Fathers said. What about what the non-Catholics said? Shouldn’t I weigh what the Catholic Church Fathers said against what the Gnostics and other non-Catholics said at that time? I believe that this is the best way to assure as much of an unbiased conclusion as possible.

PaulAckermann:

Biasness is part of our sinful nature. No one is totally biased.

Where is it written that being biased is sinful?

PaulAckermann:

The historical resurection of Christ was only reported by believers. Believers are obviously biased towards Christianity. Since no unbiased unbeliever ever testified to seeing the Risen Christ, does that mean we should not believe in the Resurrection of Christ?

Do you know for certain that no non-believers testified of the resurrection of Christ? Of course, if no one can find a grave that has the body of Jesus in it, they would obviously not be able to accurately declare that Jesus did not rise from the dead. With the resurrection of Christ, we have to go on faith, unless Jesus has come to us personally and shown us that He is risen.

PaulAckermann:

The Bible never mentioned the Trinity neither. So, using your logic, we should not believe in the Trinty because the Bible never even uses the word “Trinity”

Who said that the Trinity is biblical? Not me. You are barking up the wrong tree with that example.

(continued …)

 

[rod_of_iron]

PaulAckermann:

This is taking sola scriptura to an extreme. Not only we not believe in any doctrine unless it is in scripture, we should not believe any historical event unless it is in scripture.

Did Aristotle exist? We should not presume so, since the Bible never mentrioned Aristotle. Did Nero exist? We should not presume so, since the Bible never mentioned Nero. Should we believe that the Romans destroyed the Jewish Temple and dispersed the Jews out of Jerusalem in AD 70? After all, the Bible never mentioned this happening.

As for Aristotle and Nero, the Bible does not claim to cover the time periods that these men were said to have lived in. This is just like saying that Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and JFK are not mentioned in the Bible. But the Bible does not claim to cover those time periods either historically.

It was stated to me that purgatory was taught by Jesus and His apostles in 33 AD. Therefore, I would expect to see the Bible mention that purgatory was taught by Jesus and His apostles, because that time period is covered in the Bible. If it was claimed that purgatory was taught by Aristotle or Nero, I would not ask for it to be mentioned in the Bible, because, as I have said, the Bible does not cover the time periods in which they lived.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Panis Angelicas:

Are you arguing just for argument’s sake? The thief had a name, obviously. And I’m sorry if your church wasn’t around back then to record it. Mine was. His name is Dismas, and he is a canonized Saint. His sins were covered by the blood of Christ, and Christ Himself, while dying on the Cross, promised his eternal happiness as a reward for his repentence and belief.

And what ancient document is the thief named in? The writers of the New Testament were obviously around at the time that the thief lived, but they did not mention the thief by name. Since the Apostles did not mention him by name, how long did it take for someone in the Catholic church to record the name of that thief (or make it up)?
Panis Angelicas:

These historians, some of them even atheists, study artifacts and documents and geography. They use evidence upon which to found their claims. And even they can see that the Catholic Church, and no other, emerged at the time of Jesus Christ.

You make some very big claims, but can you prove them? But I still assert that when all is said and done, the historians’ conclusions are just their opinions.
Panis Angelicas:

Your church father, Martin Luther, isn’t mentioned in the Bible either, yet you trust his flawed, man-made doctrine Sola Scriptura, which was never believed nor heard of until the 16th century.
Any doctrines he didn’t accept, you won’t accept.
You follow a man-made religion, and you read an edited version of the Sacred Scriptures.

My church father Martin Luther? How is he my church father? I am not Lutheran? I never have had any affiliation with the Catholic church or any of the churches that have broken away from it. You again are barking up the wrong tree in your defense of what you believe to be true.

 

[PaulDupre]

SPOKENWORD:

Jay ,you notice its angels that bring our earthly prayers before the throne,not the saints that present them…

Really? Apparently you have missed Rev. 5:8 which says:

“the twenty-four elders [not angels] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” (Rev. 5:8).

 

[Peace-bwu]

rod of iron:

But how would this be the same as praying to a saint? Do you ask your neighbor to pray for you the same way you ask Mary to pray for you? If your neighbor’s name is Sue, would you start your request to them with, “Hail Sue, full of grace, the Lord is with thee”?

When we say “Hail Mary” we are directly quoting Scripture. Read Luke 1:26–56 please read all of it to get the full meaning. Notice Luke 1:28 says “Hail Mary, Full of Grace! The Lord is with you.” Some translations i.e my Catholic convert husband’s dusty Scoffield King J.V,which you might read, says : “Hail, thou who art highly favored, the lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” Luke 1:28 KJV If God wanted the Angel Gabriel, his messanger, to greet Mary that way there should be nothing wrong with us greeting her the same way!
The next part of our “Hail Mary prayer” is quoting Mary’s cousin Elisabeth **" And it came to pass that when Elisabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb: and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. And she spoke out with a loud voice, and said . Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of they womb" **** Luke 1:42 KJV Now if Elisabeth so was filled with the Holy Spirit that she spoke this with a loud voice, it would be quite Biblical for us to proclaim the same.
The next line of the prayer comes from Elisabeth saying “And why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Luke 1:43.KJV And so we take from this scripture the line Holy Mary, Mother of God (Lord is used to mean God) Next please read Mary’s “Magnificat” a beautiful prayer. I want to point out two lines here: “My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior” Luke 46 KJV and the line:"For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Luke 1:48KJV
** Now, you might ask why we would ask Mary to pray for us? Jesus’ first public miracle took place at the Wedding of Cana. Mary asked him to perform his first miracle! ** And when they lacked wine the mother of Jesus saith unto him "They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her "Woman what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants Whatever he saith unto you do it. **and so Jesus proceded to turn the water into wine. She urged *her *Saviour and Son to have mercy on the bride and groom at the wedding of Cana and perform a miracle even though “his hour had not yet come” Please read my next post for an answer to the second half of your question, since my answer is too long.

 

[Katholikos]

Whoa, Malachi. I know the words of CCC 460. I’ve read Athanasius and Aquinas. Anyone who can read knows the words. But what do they mean?

I’m not trying to pick a fight with you. But there are people on the CA forum who believe that the Catholic Church teaches that men become gods – based on CCC 460 and similar comments by CFs and JPII – in the same sense that the LDS church teaches Mormon men that they will (if they meet the requirements) become gods and rule over their own planets after they die. Some claim that CCC 460 proves that the Catholic Church teaches the same thing (that men become gods). I know what “deification” means to a Catholic, and it’s not that we become God (or gods). But I need someone with academic and ecclesiastical credentials to explain “deification” so I will have a credible source to quote rather than explaining it in my own words.

I’m suggesting that we not leave your statement hanging out there to add fuel to this burning fire. And that we take care not to say things that the Church doesn’t teach or that could be misinterpreted – things like “we become part of God.” If true, in what sense is that true? We need a definitive answer from an authoritative source as to what "“The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods” actually means in Catholic teaching. One thing I’m absolutely certain of – our Nature doesn’t change. We have Human Nature. God has Divine Nature. And our nature does not become divine. If we receive Holy Communion 100 times a day for 100 years, we will not become God in this life or the next.

The priest prays: “By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity.” This is a marvelous symbol of our sharing in the life of God, through the humanity of Jesus who gives us his Himself in the Holy Eucharist.

“Deification” means that we become adopted sons and daughters of God, and partakers of His Divine Nature through the Sacraments. Through the assimilation of Christ’s Body and blood, Soul and Divinity into our bodies, we share in His divinity. In eating the substance of His flesh and blood, we partake of His Divinity and we are changed to become what we eat. We become more Christ-like. But if we received Holy Communion 100 times a day for 100 years, we would not become God.

We’re really off topic here. Sorry.

Peace be to you and to all who post at Catholic Answers,

JMJ Jay

 

[Malachi4U]

SPOKENWORD:

…Personally I have a problem calling myself God.

So do I, you are not God.

I have no idea where the RCC comes up with this thought.

Then do as I suggested and go to the thread and study the sources I gave.

Yes we take on Christs nature,we become Christlike. Yes Christ dwells in us.

I see you already have a strong Catholic groundwork in you beliefs and faith. A little more research and you’ll be there with greater understanding on this topic.!

There is only one who is called the Christ and it sure isnt me.

Your right, its not.

You made good points. Let us know on the other thread if you research and find an answer from the sources I listed.

 

[rod_of_iron]

PaulDupre:

Really? Apparently you have missed Rev. 5:8 which says:

“the twenty-four elders [not angels] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” (Rev. 5:8).

Paul,

Where is the office of elder found in the Roman Catholic church?

 

[Jennifer123]

rod of iron:

Paul,

Where is the office of elder found in the Roman Catholic church?

This obviously isn’t Paul, , but the office of elder is held by our bishops.
As you may know, this “simple” question isn’t so simple , but yes, in modern times the elders are the bishops.
The link below has a conversation about this subject that you might find interesting:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=57324#post57324

 

[Peace-bwu]

rod of iron:

Most Catholic I know do not read the Bible. If they do, they sure are not as dedicated in reading it as are other denominations, such as those that are Evengelical.

Poor Rod,
I am sure you are enjoying insulting the Catholic faith, but I dare say you don’t know many devout Catholics! I am guessing that you have “Met” more Catholics who actually practice their religion on this website than in person, Do WE sound like we don’t read the Bible?

I was just at the swimming pool with my husband and three children and guess what I had handy in my bag… MY worn out, highlighted underlined Bible! I have used it so much that the cover is torn off ! I have an extensive library of religious books, including Bible studies, theology, Biblical history, I try to read Scripture EVERY DAY! I also read a devotional/ Bible Study called “Word Among Us” which lists all the liturgical readings so that I can look them up in my BIBLE and read them. I teach CCD. A person doesn’t have to have be “Evangelical” to evangelize… what do you think we are all doing on this website? If you have a question, by all means ask it, I know I am happy to answer because it always makes my faith stronger, but you seem to have this prejudicial list of “flaws” and really dont’ want to hear the truth Catholics are patiently trying to give you. I know of an Egyptian Pharoah who had a hard heart too, and we all know how that story went!

I thought I would check this forum for a few minutes while my kids are napping before I settle down to read my Scripture for the day.

Peace Be With You!

 

[Katholikos]

rod of iron:

Purgatory is unbiblical. There is no support for it in the Bible.

The Bible is unbiblical. There is no support for it in the Bible.