To protestant converts:

[Della]

No, there was no communication between the living and the dead in that text. The rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers to warn them so they wouldn’t end up in hell, but Abraham refused to do so. The only other time that the Bible speaks about the living talking to the dead is when it prohibits it, as far as I know.

I would draw your attention to Mt. 17: quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=4634531.

How could Moses and Elijah talk to Jesus on the Mount if the dead have no communication with the living? Wouldn’t Jesus have been guilty of necromancy if it were not allowed/not possible? Clearly not.

Jesus told the Sadducees in the Snoptic Gospels that the dead are not dead but alive with God: Mt. 22:32 “`I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” Mk. 12:27 He is not God of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong." Lk. 20:38 Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to him."

How the saints are able to hear us is easily explained by the fact that they no longer exist within time and space (as we do) but in eternity. It is by the power of the Holy Spirit that they are able to hear us and make intercession for us, and not their own power. God has made us one body, not two or three. Death can no longer separate us, witnessed by Moses and Elijah coming to the Mount in anticipation of the redemption Christ was to gain for us all within time and space. The instant Jesus was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary the redemption was assured (not that it wasn’t before that, but it had come to fulfillment), which is why Zechariah could proclaim: “He has come to his people and set them free” while Jesus was still in Mary’s womb.

There is a depth and a richness to the faith that you are missing and cannot see because you have a truncated version of Christianity. It is not the Church that went wrong, but men who wanted to make the Church fit into their own ideas about what God should do and not do.

The Church never added onto the Apostles any foreign ideas, rather it explored their teachings and came to understand, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, more of the depth and meaning of their teachings. It is what Jesus wanted it to do which is why he gave it the authority to do so and the charism of infallibility. The Church has explored many, many theological constructs and ideas down through the centuries, but has never accepted anything that is contrary to the apostolic tradition passed on to them. It has clarified issues that needed it and proclaimed those things which defend who Christ is and what he came to do, for that is its responsibility before God and man.

 

[pablope]

No, there was no communication between the living and the dead in that text. The rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers to warn them so they wouldn’t end up in hell, but Abraham refused to do so. The only other time that the Bible speaks about the living talking to the dead is when it prohibits it, as far as I know.

Matt 22:30…At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

When in heaven, we will have the attributes of angels…which, I presume, you believe can hear us? Well, there are also passages of angels talking to us in the Bible.

From Revelations also:

REv 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:

Rev 8…3 And another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God.

4 And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel.

 

[Koineman]

Matt 22:30…At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

When in heaven, we will have the attributes of angels…which, I presume, you believe can hear us?

There are certainly accounts of angels who interacted with people on earth and heard them, but that was only during special earthly manifestations. There is no indication that people prayed to angels or that angels hear people from heaven.

The passage about the transfiguration of Christ, when he spoke with Moses and Elijah, is a good one and warrants further thought.

From Revelations also:

REv 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:

Rev 8…3 And another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God.

4 And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel.

These might support prayers to deceased saints. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Koineman]

I would draw your attention to Mt. 17: quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=4634531.

How could Moses and Elijah talk to Jesus on the Mount if the dead have no communication with the living? Wouldn’t Jesus have been guilty of necromancy if it were not allowed/not possible? Clearly not.

Jesus told the Sadducees in the Snoptic Gospels that the dead are not dead but alive with God: Mt. 22:32 “`I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” Mk. 12:27 He is not God of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong." Lk. 20:38 Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to him."

How the saints are able to hear us is easily explained by the fact that they no longer exist within time and space (as we do) but in eternity. It is by the power of the Holy Spirit that they are able to hear us and make intercession for us, and not their own power. God has made us one body, not two or three. Death can no longer separate us, witnessed by Moses and Elijah coming to the Mount in anticipation of the redemption Christ was to gain for us all within time and space. The instant Jesus was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary the redemption was assured (not that it wasn’t before that, but it had come to fulfillment), which is why Zechariah could proclaim: “He has come to his people and set them free” while Jesus was still in Mary’s womb.

There is a depth and a richness to the faith that you are missing and cannot see because you have a truncated version of Christianity. It is not the Church that went wrong, but men who wanted to make the Church fit into their own ideas about what God should do and not do.

The Church never added onto the Apostles any foreign ideas, rather it explored their teachings and came to understand, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, more of the depth and meaning of their teachings. It is what Jesus wanted it to do which is why he gave it the authority to do so and the charism of infallibility. The Church has explored many, many theological constructs and ideas down through the centuries, but has never accepted anything that is contrary to the apostolic tradition passed on to them. It has clarified issues that needed it and proclaimed those things which defend who Christ is and what he came to do, for that is its responsibility before God and man.

Some good points in there. Thanks for sharing them.

 

[Della]

Some good points in there. Thanks for sharing them.

You’re welcome. :tiphat:

As I see it, it’s a matter of seeing these things as a whole rather than as bits and pieces that one can reject or accept at will, if you see what I mean.

My journey into the Church was long and difficult. I had all the same questions you do. It’s not so much that I found answers to them all to my satisfaction before being reconciled to the Church, but rather that I was given faith to see the Church as it stands before God and within history–the one solid beacon in a world gone mad.

Instead of asking for the Church to prove itself, perhaps you should ask why Protestants reject it when they have no proof the Church has ever taught anything contrary to Scripture or Sacred Tradition? For Scripture does not stand alone–it is part of Sacred Tradition that is a continuation of the OT and its fulfillment not its antithesis. Christ came to fulfill not to abolish, thus the priesthood of the NT offers the one sacrifice of Christ through our High Priest, who is both priest and victim. The OT has been fulfilled not abrogated, you see. St. Paul writes quite beautifully about this.

The Body of Christ is one, composed of the OT saints as well as the NT saints and onward. It is one–not divided, not dead, not powerless and weak, but filled with all the graces of salvation and rich in spirituality and truth.

 

[Koineman]

Try this book and blog…thefathersknowbest.com/

Thanks for that recommendation. I might get that book after I finish Madrid’s book on tradition.

 

[Koineman]

You’re welcome. :tiphat:

As I see it, it’s a matter of seeing these things as a whole rather than as bits and pieces that one can reject or accept at will, if you see what I mean.

Yes, and seeing them as a whole takes study and work, which I am currently doing. It just takes time.

For Scripture does not stand alone–it is part of Sacred Tradition

That’s an interesting point that Patrick Madrid makes in the introduction to the book on tradition I’m reading. His point is essentially that Sacred Scripture itself is a tradition. I had never looked at it that way. It’s interesting to read these Catholic books and gain insights I haven’t had before. I’m still not sure whether I will join the Tiber swim team, but if I don’t at least I can tell Catholics that I honestly and openly studied these things.

 

[Della]

Yes, and seeing them as a whole takes study and work, which I am currently doing. It just takes time.

It sure does! Having gone through the process I can certainly understand. It’s just that since I’ve been Catholic for nearly 25 years, the time I spent wondering and seeking was some time ago. Now being Catholic is my life, so it can be hard to “go back” in my mind to where I once was.

That’s an interesting point that Patrick Madrid makes in the introduction to the book on tradition I’m reading. His point is essentially that Sacred Scripture itself is a tradition. I had never looked at it that way. It’s interesting to read these Catholic books and gain insights I haven’t had before. I’m still not sure whether I will join the Tiber swim team, but if I don’t at least I can tell Catholics that I honestly and openly studied these things.

As long as you are open and honest God will direct your heart and mind to the truth–that’s all he asks of us. You have my prayers, please pray for me.

 

[pablope]

There are certainly accounts of angels who interacted with people on earth and heard them, but that was only during special earthly manifestations. There is no indication that people prayed to angels or that angels hear people from heaven.

Thanks for sharing.

Well, if angels can hear…why can’t they hear anywhere else where they are? They are in the presence of God…and God can pretty much do what He wants…even granting the power to hear whenever and wherever they are, right?

 

[pablope]

Yes, and seeing them as a whole takes study and work, which I am currently doing. It just takes time.

That’s an interesting point that Patrick Madrid makes in the introduction to the book on tradition I’m reading. His point is essentially that Sacred Scripture itself is a tradition. I had never looked at it that way. It’s interesting to read these Catholic books and gain insights I haven’t had before. I’m still not sure whether I will join the Tiber swim team, but if I don’t at least I can tell Catholics that I honestly and openly studied these things.

Yes…the Bible is the written part of Sacred Tradition.

Let me see if I can get a point across to you: The Gospel of Mark…why do you believe Mark wrote the gospel of Mark? Where is the chapter and verse where Mark states he wrote the Gospel of Mark?

And when you find this chapter and verse, why do you now believe the gospel should be part of the Bible? Why would you believe Mark actually wrote the gospel of Mark? And why Mark, and not any person named Mark?

A short article on Sacred Tradition…the author has also a book about Sacred Tradition…mark-shea.com/tradition.html

 

[Rhuarc]

It was nothing intellectual, I would have never converted because of anything intellectual. Before I converted I was diametrically opposed to the Church (I was a Muslim who had converted from being a protestant baptist, I never went to church though). Long story short my grandmother died and I realized I couldn’t live without Jesus in my life. So I was guided to the Church by PURE Divine Providence. Everything fell into place after that.

 

[pablope]

There are certainly accounts of angels who interacted with people on earth and heard them, but that was only during special earthly manifestations. There is no indication that people prayed to angels or that angels hear people from heaven.

The passage about the transfiguration of Christ, when he spoke with Moses and Elijah, is a good one and warrants further thought.

.

Luke 15…7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent…10 In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

How can the angels in heaven rejoice if they do not know what is happening on earth?

 

[Koineman]

Luke 15…7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent…10 In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

How can the angels in heaven rejoice if they do not know what is happening on earth?

Well said. Another text to think on.

 

[Della]

Well said. Another text to think on.

This is the thing with verses–if you don’t take all the verses into account within the whole context of Sacred Tradition, you (generic you) can never fully understand and may seriously misunderstand its meaning.

When I was a Protestant I learned a good many verses–those that supported or seemed to support (with a bit of shoehorned explanations) what we wanted to believe. I found it over and over again in every Protestant body I tried/was involved with, and I went to quite a few.

The Bible is the Church’s book, not the Church has to “answer” to the Bible. Men were commissioned down through the ages, from Adam to Abraham to Moses to David and so on to do God’s work and spread his message. They were given authority to do so by God. None of them ever consulted a book for that authority, no matter how sacred or good such writings might be, for that’s not how it works. Jesus founded a Church not a book–I cannot say it enough.

Again, it’s authority, authority again and again authority.

 

[BListon]

Well… my middle school history teacher was giving a lesson on the Protestant reformation, and how it took place in the 1500s, I asked her what everyone was before then, she said Catholic, ergo, I became Catholic.

 

[Koineman]

Again, it’s authority, authority again and again authority.

Yes, I agree. Everyone has some kind of ultimate authority that they heed. But again, apostolic authority is validated by fidelity to what the apostles originally taught. This is not simply a matter of saying, “The Catholic Church has authority.” If the CC claims to have descended in direct succession from Peter, the first pope, and to have handed on the Traditions of the apostles faithfully from one pope to the next, then the teachings of the CC today should mirror those of the apostles. We should be able to see the CC’s teachings in the apostolic teaching, whether explicitly or implicitly. If we cannot, then the authority is suspect. It is not just a succession of men, but also a succession of doctrine.

 

[Della]

Yes, I agree. Everyone has some kind of ultimate authority that they heed. But again, apostolic authority is validated by fidelity to what the apostles originally taught. This is not simply a matter of saying, “The Catholic Church has authority.” If the CC claims to have descended in direct succession from Peter, the first pope, and to have handed on the Traditions of the apostles faithfully from one pope to the next, then the teachings of the CC today should mirror those of the apostles. We should be able to see the CC’s teachings in the apostolic teaching, whether explicitly or implicitly. If we cannot, then the authority is suspect. It is not just a succession of men, but also a succession of doctrine.

You need to read the Early Church Fathers, but I can tell you from the experience of others who did so that the ECFs reflected current teaching in all respects.

Also, it helps if you know why the Church teaches what it does, and how it decides matters of faith (doctrine and dogma) and the origins of that. I would only say that researching those questions will be a lot of work. I recommend reading articles on Catholic Answers as well as others who have explored the ECFs.

It is not easy to turn one’s mind inside out and see things from a completely different set of criteria. I know how hard it is since I’ve “been there, done that, got the t-shirt.” Pray for faith, and trust in God and it will all fall into place in God’s good time. For at some point we simply have to say, “I believe” and let our hearts be at peace. Jesus would never have let the Church do off the rails. He promised the Apostles and their successors that they would be led into “all truth”. The Catholic Church is that Church. That’s an historical fact. Everything it teaches is right and proper. We may not always understand everything (most of us are not theologians) but we can trust Jesus’ promise and the Holy Spirit. That’s all God expects of us.

 

[Koineman]

You need to read the Early Church Fathers, but I can tell you from the experience of others who did so that the ECFs reflected current teaching in all respects.

Also, it helps if you know why the Church teaches what it does, and how it decides matters of faith (doctrine and dogma) and the origins of that. I would only say that researching those questions will be a lot of work. I recommend reading articles on Catholic Answers as well as others who have explored the ECFs.

It is not easy to turn one’s mind inside out and see things from a completely different set of criteria. I know how hard it is since I’ve “been there, done that, got the t-shirt.” Pray for faith, and trust in God and it will all fall into place in God’s good time. For at some point we simply have to say, “I believe” and let our hearts be at peace. Jesus would never have let the Church do off the rails. He promised the Apostles and their successors that they would be led into “all truth”. The Catholic Church is that Church. That’s an historical fact. Everything it teaches is right and proper. We may not always understand everything (most of us are not theologians) but we can trust Jesus’ promise and the Holy Spirit. That’s all God expects of us.

Thanks for your gracious attitude, Della. You’re right: It’s not easy to turn the mind inside out and see things from different criteria. In all honesty, as I was telling someone recently, at this point I actually want my research to turn out in favor of the Catholic Church. When I read a defense of a particular Catholic teaching that seems to ring true, I feel thrilled inside. So I am actually biased toward the CC instead of against it.

 

[Della]

Thanks for your gracious attitude, Della. You’re right: It’s not easy to turn the mind inside out and see things from different criteria. In all honesty, as I was telling someone recently, at this point I actually want my research to turn out in favor of the Catholic Church. When I read a defense of a particular Catholic teaching that seems to ring true, I feel thrilled inside. So I am actually biased toward the CC instead of against it.

G. K. Chesterton (whose writing I highly recommend: Orthodoxy, The Everlasting Man, The Catholic Faith and Conversion) famously wrote that when a man stops resisting the Church he begins to be attracted to it.

You’ll find that every teaching of the Church exalts Christ and shows us God’s love and mercy. It’s mission is to bring Christ to men–in all his fullness, beauty and truth.

 

[KansasGirl]

The Holy Spirit brought me to the Church. Even as a child (I was not raised in any church or denomination), if I needed to pray, I would go to the Catholic Church in my hometown, go inside, kneel down, and pray. I always felt compelled to go there. The door were always open too, whereas, the protestant churches in town always had locked doors.

Throughout my life, I’ve always had little things or “coincidences” happen that pointed to the Church. One of the very last things that “sealed the deal” for me was this: I was trying to decide whether or not to join the Church (I like how I was trying to decide. God had all ready decided I should join. ). As we drove down the highway, I had my eyes closed and I was praying with all my heart for God to show me which path I should take. When I opened my eyes, a huge semi passed on my side of the truck. The words on the side of the truck said, “POPE.”

God has a sense of humor.