Question on old testament

[redrosetea]

WE are still bound by the 10 commandments and they are in the OT…

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

WE are still bound by the 10 commandments and they are in the OT…

See post #9.

 

[ckempston]

Can you explain what you find unbiblical about the intercession of saints? I’d really like to know.

Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

I have direct access to the Father through Jesus Christ. Why would I pray to a saint? To me, it smacks of pagan polytheism. You’re going to war? Pray to Mars. Going sailing? Pray to Neptune.

 

[redrosetea]

I often ask people to pray for me…Saints are in heaven, they are without sin, so they can make a good job of it…all prayers are wonderful, but saints prayers are special

 

[japhy]

Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

Then why does Paul ask for others to pray and make intercessions, just a couple verses before that? 1 Tim 2:1-2 read “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.” If we can intercede for one another, that makes us co-mediators with Christ (even though our intercessions are ultimately directed through Christ to the Father). “Co-” here does not mean “equal”, but “with”, as in “communion”: “co-union”, union with.

It is in fact this co-mediation, this intercession, that is the primary ministry of the baptismal priesthood! Once we are baptized into the Body of Christ, we have that access to the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit, and we can offer our sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, as well as our prayers and petitions.

I have direct access to the Father through Jesus Christ. Why would I pray to a saint?

Have you never asked anyone else (I mean living here on earth) to pray for you? If you have, why did you do it? You have direct access to the Father through Jesus Christ, you don’t need some sinner praying for you, do you?

So, if you have asked another person to pray for you, please explain why you did so. If you have not, well then, I don’t have much else to say on the matter, since you and Jesus have this thing pretty well wrapped up.

 

[ckempston]

Then why does Paul ask for others to pray and make intercessions, just a couple verses before that? 1 Tim 2:1-2 read “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.” If we can intercede for one another, that makes us co-mediators with Christ (even though our intercessions are ultimately directed through Christ to the Father). “Co-” here does not mean “equal”, but “with”, as in “communion”: “co-union”, union with.

It is in fact this co-mediation, this intercession, that is the primary ministry of the baptismal priesthood! Once we are baptized into the Body of Christ, we have that access to the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit, and we can offer our sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, as well as our prayers and petitions.

Have you never asked anyone else (I mean living here on earth) to pray for you? If you have, why did you do it? You have direct access to the Father through Jesus Christ, you don’t need some sinner praying for you, do you?

So, if you have asked another person to pray for you, please explain why you did so. If you have not, well then, I don’t have much else to say on the matter, since you and Jesus have this thing pretty well wrapped up.

All good points. I can’t really argue against much of that. I was hesitant to actually use that first scripture, because there is a difference between mediating the covenant and interceding with prayer, so I was stretching a bit there.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

All good points. I can’t really argue against much of that. I was hesitant to actually use that first scripture, because there is a difference between mediating the covenant and interceding with prayer, so I was stretching a bit there.

Keep in mind that “praying to a saint” actually means asking the saint to pray for us. The saint is kind of like a means to an end. Jesus is the sole mediator between God and man, but those of us on earth, and those in heaven, can intercede for each other to that one mediator.

Also keep in mind another principle: That those who have been born again are now members of the mystical body of Christ. Christ is the head, and the Church is His mystical body. Therefore, when a member of the body of Christ prays for another person, it is, in a sense, Christ Himself praying, since the prayers of the body go through the head. They are not going around the one mediator, but through Him.

Here’s a verse to consider:

Apocalyplse (Revelation) 5:8 “And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints”

Here we see those in heaven presenting the prayers of the saints to the Lamb.

 

[japhy]

All good points. I can’t really argue against much of that. I was hesitant to actually use that first scripture, because there is a difference between mediating the covenant and interceding with prayer, so I was stretching a bit there.

Ok, so we can move on to the question of how asking Christian on earth to pray for us is different from asking a Christian in heaven to pray for us.

Now, we must first ask, is there currently anyone in heaven? Surely there has to be the judgment first! But the Catholic understanding is that, at death, the soul goes where it shall remain for eternity (except for that moment when it is reunited with the resurrected body). Thus (purgatory aside) after death, and before the resurrection, there are souls in Heaven and souls in Hell.

Furthermore, if we are united to the Body of Christ (in baptism), and death cannot separate us from the love of God (cf. Rom. 8:35-39), then our membership in his Body does not diminish or cease when we die (so long as we die in his Body).

The Apostle tells us in 2 Cor. 5:8 that he “would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord”. And again in Phil. 1:23, he writes that his “desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.” Now, generally speaking, this would imply that after death, although we are poetically “asleep”, we – that is, our souls – are present with the Lord Jesus Christ in Heaven (hopefully!). This is attested to by 1 Thess. 4:14, where Paul writes that, when Jesus returns (from heaven to earth), he will bring with him (from where else but heaven?) those who have fallen asleep!

This is supported by Hebrews 11-12 as well as the book of Revelation. In Hebrews 12:1, we are told that we are “surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses”. Now, it is true that “witness” (the Greek word μαρτύρων also means “martyr”!) here is understood as referring to their individual “witness” to the faithfulness of the Lord, but at the same – given the example of a race and a prize, thus calling to mind the image of a stadium with spectators watching athletes compete – it is referring to their present witness (that is, “spectating”) of us. John describes seeing the prayers of the saints rising like incense before the altar in heaven (cf. Rev. 5:8, 8:3-4) and he reports hearing the souls of martyrs cry out from beneath the altar (cf. Rev. 6:9-11).

All this together – only dealing with Scripture – leads to the conclusion that there are souls in heaven who are not oblivious to what goes on here on earth… not because they are demigods (like the pagan pantheons) or by any power of their own, but simply by the grace and will of God.

Now, there is a customary rebuttal to this conclusion from Scripture, in Ecclesiastes 9:5: “For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward; but the memory of them is lost.” But that cannot possibly be taken literally, because it would contradict so much other Scripture: Samuel’s spirit conversing with Saul, the presence of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration of Jesus, and the parable Jesus told about the rich man and Lazarus. If taken literally, it denies that there is any reward after death (which we know is entirely untrue). It also denies that there is any memory of them. This verse cannot be taken at its literal face value, out of its context.

The final stumbling block is the misunderstanding of the verb “to pray”. When a non-Catholic hears that Catholics pray to Mary (or saints, or angels, etc.) they immediately assume two things a) they are not praying (or even acknowledging) Jesus Christ, and b) they are worshiping the saint or angel. Neither of these things is true.

First, the verb “to pray” means “to ask, beseech, entreat”. To pray [to] anyone means to ask something of them; it has nothing to do with worship. Catholics worship God alone!

Second, every Catholic knows to begin and end his prayers “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. We know that we only have access to God – and to those who are close to Him in Heaven – through His only-begotten Son, our Lord. And so to pray to a saint is never to ask them anything and attempt to circumvent Jesus (or any Person of the Holy Trinity), but to ask them to assist us in our prayers by praying for us as well. Nothing a saint in heaven does is by his own power, only by the grace of God.

So, that’s a Scriptural argument in support of the Catholic practice of praying to those whom the Church has acknowledged, through revelation from God, as saints. It’s part of what the Church means when it professes belief in “the communion of saints”.

 

[ckempston]

Ok, so we can move on to the question of how asking Christian on earth to pray for us is different from asking a Christian in heaven to pray for us.

I cannot point to a Biblical difference. Other than the fact that necromancy is considered pretty bad in the Old Testament. Except, that was using magic and divination to communicate with the dead, not prayer, so I guess even that objection doesn’t hold much water.

Now, we must first ask, is there currently anyone in heaven? Surely there has to be the judgment first! But the Catholic understanding is that, at death, the soul goes where it shall remain for eternity (except for that moment when it is reunited with the resurrected body). Thus (purgatory aside) after death, and before the resurrection, there are souls in Heaven and souls in Hell.

I’m with you here.

Furthermore, if we are united to the Body of Christ (in baptism), and death cannot separate us from the love of God (cf. Rom. 8:35-39), then our membership in his Body does not diminish or cease when we die (so long as we die in his Body).

The Apostle tells us in 2 Cor. 5:8 that he “would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord”. And again in Phil. 1:23, he writes that his “desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.” Now, generally speaking, this would imply that after death, although we are poetically “asleep”, we – that is, our souls – are present with the Lord Jesus Christ in Heaven (hopefully!). This is attested to by 1 Thess. 4:14, where Paul writes that, when Jesus returns (from heaven to earth), he will bring with him (from where else but heaven?) those who have fallen asleep!

The only problem I have here is with the rest of that passage. Paul said it was more beneficial to them for him to remain. Don’t you think that if he had “better” access to Jesus from heaven that he would have said something different?

This is supported by Hebrews 11-12 as well as the book of Revelation. In Hebrews 12:1, we are told that we are “surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses”. Now, it is true that “witness” (the Greek word μαρτύρων also means “martyr”!) here is understood as referring to their individual “witness” to the faithfulness of the Lord, but at the same – given the example of a race and a prize, thus calling to mind the image of a stadium with spectators watching athletes compete – it is referring to their present witness (that is, “spectating”) of us. John describes seeing the prayers of the saints rising like incense before the altar in heaven (cf. Rev. 5:8, 8:3-4) and he reports hearing the souls of martyrs cry out from beneath the altar (cf. Rev. 6:9-11).

I see what you’re saying, but find it questionable whether this actually supports intercession on the part of dead saints.

All this together – only dealing with Scripture – leads to the conclusion that there are souls in heaven who are not oblivious to what goes on here on earth… not because they are demigods (like the pagan pantheons) or by any power of their own, but simply by the grace and will of God.

Ok, that’s a good point. That was actually one of my objections: that souls in heaven are not omnipresent or aware of what goes on on earth.

Now, there is a customary rebuttal to this conclusion from Scripture, in Ecclesiastes 9:5: “For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward; but the memory of them is lost.” But that cannot possibly be taken literally, because it would contradict so much other Scripture: Samuel’s spirit conversing with Saul, the presence of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration of Jesus, and the parable Jesus told about the rich man and Lazarus. If taken literally, it denies that there is any reward after death (which we know is entirely untrue). It also denies that there is any memory of them. This verse cannot be taken at its literal face value, out of its context.

I agree with you here. The dead in Christ are aware, as far as I can tell from the scriptures.

The final stumbling block is the misunderstanding of the verb “to pray”. When a non-Catholic hears that Catholics pray to Mary (or saints, or angels, etc.) they immediately assume two things a) they are not praying (or even acknowledging) Jesus Christ, and b) they are worshiping the saint or angel. Neither of these things is true.

First, the verb “to pray” means “to ask, beseech, entreat”. To pray [to] anyone means to ask something of them; it has nothing to do with worship. Catholics worship God alone!

I’ll agree with you that prayer, or asking for prayer rather, does not equal worship.

Second, every Catholic knows to begin and end his prayers “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. We know that we only have access to God – and to those who are close to Him in Heaven – through His only-begotten Son, our Lord. And so to pray to a saint is never to ask them anything and attempt to circumvent Jesus (or any Person of the Holy Trinity), but to ask them to assist us in our prayers by praying for us as well. Nothing a saint in heaven does is by his own power, only by the grace of God.

“The prayer of the righteous man is powerful and effective.” Saints = righteous. Got it.

So, that’s a Scriptural argument in support of the Catholic practice of praying to those whom the Church has acknowledged, through revelation from God, as saints. It’s part of what the Church means when it professes belief in “the communion of saints”.

Fairly convincing argument.

 

[japhy]

Other than the fact that necromancy is considered pretty bad in the Old Testament. Except, that was using magic and divination to communicate with the dead, not prayer, so I guess even that objection doesn’t hold much water.

The only problem I have here is with the rest of that passage. Paul said it was more beneficial to them for him to remain. Don’t you think that if he had “better” access to Jesus from heaven that he would have said something different?

I think it is safe to say that Paul’s physical presence was more important to the Church (and the individual churches) at that time than his spiritual intercession. For Paul, being home with the Lord was best, but for the Church at that time, being alive and ministering to them physically was best.

I see what you’re saying, but find it questionable whether this actually supports intercession on the part of dead saints.

That passage was simply to further support belief in “conscious” saints in heaven who are actively interested in our spiritual struggle.

“The prayer of the righteous man is powerful and effective.” Saints = righteous. Got it.

James 5, right?

Fairly convincing argument.

Heh, thanks. It doesn’t belong to me.

I guess my point is that you needn’t feel beholden to pray to saints and ask for their intercession, but in avoiding communion with them, you’re avoiding the perfected members of the Body of Christ. I know Catholics who don’t regularly (if at all) pray to the Saints (apart from saying the Confiteor during Mass), even though Eucharistic Prayer III affirms that “we rely for help” on the “constant intercession” of the saints. This doesn’t make them bad Catholics – perhaps ignorant, but not malicious – it just means they’re missing out on part of the benefits of belonging to the Body of Christ.

 

[ckempston]

I think it is safe to say that Paul’s physical presence was more important to the Church (and the individual churches) at that time than his spiritual intercession. For Paul, being home with the Lord was best, but for the Church at that time, being alive and ministering to them physically was best.

That passage was simply to further support belief in “conscious” saints in heaven who are actively interested in our spiritual struggle.

James 5, right?

Heh, thanks. It doesn’t belong to me.

I guess my point is that you needn’t feel beholden to pray to saints and ask for their intercession, but in avoiding communion with them, you’re avoiding the perfected members of the Body of Christ. I know Catholics who don’t regularly (if at all) pray to the Saints (apart from saying the Confiteor during Mass), even though Eucharistic Prayer III affirms that “we rely for help” on the “constant intercession” of the saints. This doesn’t make them bad Catholics – perhaps ignorant, but not malicious – it just means they’re missing out on part of the benefits of belonging to the Body of Christ.

Ok, I’ll officially remove “Intercession of the Saints” from my list of gripes against the Catholic church.

 

[japhy]

Ok, I’ll officially remove “Intercession of the Saints” from my list of gripes against the Catholic church.

Not to make an example of this or you, but what just happened here – this questioning of a Catholic belief or practice, followed by the civil discussion and defense of it, and your resulting change of mind concerning the practice – is what the Catholic Church means to do when it speaks of ecumenism. Not to sound arrogant, but the Catholic Church is quite convinced that what it believes about the Mary, sin, Holy Communion, the intercession of saints, and the Pope (to name a few) is actually God’s revealed truth to His Church, and the ecumenical movement is about proposing and explaining the Catholic faith in a way that – without diminishing it, denying it, or ignoring it – is acceptable to non-Catholic Christians.

I’m glad you have reconsidered the validity of the intercession of saints. I’m not going to press you any further now, but I do encourage you to reappraise your other “gripes against the Catholic Church”. Have a good day, and may God bless you with His many graces.

 

[ckempston]

Not to make an example of this or you, but what just happened here – this questioning of a Catholic belief or practice, followed by the civil discussion and defense of it, and your resulting change of mind concerning the practice – is what the Catholic Church means to do when it speaks of ecumenism. Not to sound arrogant, but the Catholic Church is quite convinced that what it believes about the Mary, sin, Holy Communion, the intercession of saints, and the Pope (to name a few) is actually God’s revealed truth to His Church, and the ecumenical movement is about proposing and explaining the Catholic faith in a way that – without diminishing it, denying it, or ignoring it – is acceptable to non-Catholic Christians.

I’m glad you have reconsidered the validity of the intercession of saints. I’m not going to press you any further now, but I do encourage you to reappraise your other “gripes against the Catholic Church”. Have a good day, and may God bless you with His many graces.

Well, that’s part of the reason I’m here. I am interested in the Truth, whatever it may be.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Well, that’s part of the reason I’m here. I am interested in the Truth, whatever it may be.

I can tell that. You seem very sincere.

 

[GailMac]

I think in all honesty that if one tries to find out what it means to fulfill rather than abolish the Law, and takes a look into what we practice as Catholics, it isn’t hard to see the Jewish roots of what we do. Many things are fulfilled in the way we practice. One that has already been mentioned is Baptism which fulfills all the old ceremonial washings that were required to go from a unclean to a clean state. Much of what was done under the Old Law was a prefigurement of the New. Pius XII’s Encyclical, Mystici Corporis Christi is an excellent read and is available at the EWTN site: ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P12MYSTI.HTM

I’ve heard a few good talks given on the New Covenant in Jesus’ Blood fulfilling the Old given by among others, Scott Hahn. It would behoove those interested to look him up and read about it for yourself.

Peace,

Gail

 

[KingAlfred]

The wisdom offered by the OT is spell-binding. Much of the law is brilliant, rational and rightfully binding. Its history, however, is mythological. I am prepared to de-mytholigize the Bible, *safely, *that is.

 

[GailMac]

Dear King Alfred -
ooooooo…A good topic for perhaps a new thread? The historical vs. mythological depictions in the Old Testament? Go for it! Been lots of ink splilt over that one!

Peace,

Gail

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

The wisdom offered by the OT is spell-binding. Much of the law is brilliant, rational and rightfully binding.** Its history, however, is mythological.** I am prepared to de-mytholigize the Bible, *safely, *that is.

Careful. All of the Bible is true. The Church has condemned the idea that the history presented in the Bible is a myth. I’m sure you don’t want to inadvertenty promote a heresy.

Before attempting to de-mytholigize the Bible, you should read this document: papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13provi.htm

 

[GailMac]

Dear Pax et Caritas - GREAT website! Thanks for sharing!

Peace,

Gail

 

[KingAlfred]

Dear King Alfred -
ooooooo…A good topic for perhaps a new thread? The historical vs. mythological depictions in the Old Testament? Go for it! Been lots of ink splilt over that one!

Peace,

Gail

Love to, Gail. It might get me into trouble, however. I’m opposed to the literal interpretation of the Bible. I love the Good Book, study it daily, know a lot about it, but treat its mythology with caution. I feel that in no way diminishes my standing as a Catholic, or the quality of my devotion.