Catholic Discussion
- Thread starter sanctus
- Start date
I've always taken it on faith, but how can we be assured that Mary and the saints in heaven can hear our prayers?
Well, aside from the fact that the Magisterium has ruled on the issue and that Apostolic Tradition teaches it (both of which are sufficient to prove the matter), the Bible also teaches it. In the book of Psalms, which was the hymn book for the Temple in Jerusalem, we sing to those in the heavenly court and exhort them:
"Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Psalm 103:20-21, RSV, as below)
The fact that those in the heavenly court can hear our prayers is also indicated in the book of Revelation, where we read:
"And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God." (Revelation 8:3-4)
Thus those saints who are angels have a role in presenting our prayers to God in an intercessory manner. (Angels are also saints, as indicated by the fact that the Bible applies the Hebrew word for saint/holy one -- qaddiysh -- to them, cf. Daniel 4:13, 23, 8:13. Thus we speak of St. Michael the Archangel, St. Gabriel, St. Raphael, etc.).
Since the Ascension of Christ, when Jesus took the Old Testament saints from sheol to heaven, large numbers of humans saints have also been in heaven, and Revelation indicates they also present our prayers to God:
"And when he [the Lamb] had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Revelation 5:8).
The twenty-four elders represent the hierarchy of the people of God in heaven (just as the four living creatures represent the hierarchy of the angels of God in heaven), and here they are shown presenting our prayers to God under the symbol of incense (which is, in fact, what incense symbolizes in church, since it is a pleasing smell which rises upward).
One might object, saying, "But maybe those weren't prayers to the saints but prayers to God!" This may well be true. However, a person who says this only digs the hole deeper for himself since this would mean that those in heaven are aware of prayers which weren't even directed to them!
In any event, we know that the saints in heaven (whether human saints or angel saints) are aware of our prayers and, based on them, intercede with God on our behalf. Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium all agree.
How are we to respond when non-Catholics object to the sacrifice of the Mass on the grounds that Hebews says Christ was sacrificed "once for all"?
By pointing out five things: First, it is not non-Catholics who make this objection, it is Protestants. All other Christians, whether they are Eastern Orthodox, Armenian, Assyrian, Coptic, Abyssinian, or what have you, honour the idea that the Mass is a sacrifice. Protestants are out on a limb here in their interpretation of Hebrews. In fact, the sacrifice of the Mass was well understood and universally at the time the book of Hebrews was canonized in the fourth century.
Second, the early Church Fathers and other early Christian documents, including some within the first century (!) describe the Mass as a sacrifice.
Third, the New Testament indicates that the Mass is a sacrifice.
Fourth, it is absolutely true that Christ offered his sacrifice once for all -- in the sense that Hebrews is using the term "sacirifice" and "offering" in those passages. You see, you can't just rush in and impose any meaning you want on words. One must examine the text to see how the terms are being in Scripture, and when one examines Hebrews 9:25-26, as the author is discussing the uniqueness of Christ's sacrifice, he indicates quite clearly the way in which he is conceiving of sacrifice in these passages. He writes:
"Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own; for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Heb. 9:25-26).
The italicized phrase -- "for then he would have had to suffer" -- indicates what kind of sacrifice is being talked about here.
In the Bible, there are many different kinds of sacrifice. One category is the bloody sacrifice, in which the victim is slain. This is by no means the only kind of sacrifice, however. There are numerous unbloody ones, perhaps best typified in Paul's command to us to offer ourselves as "living sacrifices" to God (Rom. 12:1).
The author of Hebrews's statement that if Christ had come to offer himself repeatedly he would have had to repeatedly suffer indicates that here he is using the word "offer" in its bloody sense--the performance of a bloody sacrifice in which the victim is slain and, consequently (since victims were not anesthetized) suffers.
Thus when he uses the terms "sacrifice" and "offering" in these passages, he is using them to refer to bloody rather than unbloody sacrifices. This means that, since some want to generate controversy about these passages, we need to mentally splice in the term "bloody" in order to keep track of what kind he is talking about.
The resulting readings go like this:
- He has no need, like those high priests, to offer [bloody] sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself [in a bloody manner on the cross]. (7:27)
- Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly [in a bloody manner], as the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own; for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the [bloody] sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered [in a bloody manner] once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same [bloody] sacrifices which are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they [the bloody sacrifices] not have ceased to be offered? If the worshipers had once been cleansed, they would no longer have any consciousness of sin [which blood atonement had not beem made]. But in these [bloody] sacrifices there is a reminder of sin year after year. For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. (9:25-10:4)
- [T]hen he added, "Lo, I have come to do thy will." He abolishes the first [covenant] in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the [bloody] offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (10:9-10)
There is thus nothing at all preventing Christ, in an unbloody manner, from continually offering himself to God in an unbloody manner -- as a living sacrifice, as his spiritual service (Rom. 12:1), appealing to God on our behalf (Heb. 7:25, 9:24), in his unbloody, glorified flesh (cf. Paul VI, Credo of the People of God).
Fifth, and finally, one should point out that the book of Hebrews also uses the term "sacrifice" in a unbloody manner and indicates that Christ is sacrifices multiple times in that sense.
"Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf" (Heb. 9:22-24).
Note the plural there: The things of the heavenly temple are purified with better sacrifices than those offered in the earthly sanctuary. But today the only ultimate sacrifice for sin is the sacrifice of Christ, and so it is by the multiple offerings (re-presentations) of Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross that cleanse the heavenly temple.
The metaphor in this text is the idea of our sins coming before God in his heavenly temple and offending his presence--metaphorically, defiling the heavenly temple. This is then taken away by the heavenly high priest, Jesus, by the unbloody offering of himself to the Father, appealing on our behalf based on his bloody offering of himself on the cross.
The fact of the ongoing nature of the heavenly sacrifices is admitted by the Protestant commentator George W. Buchanan. In his commentary on Hebrews, he writes:
d. Sacrifices in heaven.—Since the heavenly archetype functions just as its earthly imitation, it seemed reasonable for the heavenly high priest to offer sacrifices in heaven (Heb 8:3-4). These sacrifices, of course, must be better than their earthly counterparts, but their function is to cleanse "the heavenly things" (Heb 9:23). [Protestant] Scholars have had trouble with these passages, because Christ's "once for all" sacrifice on earth was thought to make all other sacrifices unnecessary. It also seems a little surprising to think of heaven as a place where there would be sin and defilement that needed cleansing. The author of Hebrews found no difficulty with this, however. For him, heaven and the holy of holies were very close together. God's presence and his angels were in both. From the holy of holies the smoke carried the incense from the sacrifices directly to heaven, where there were also a holy of holies, sacrifices, and angels. When Jesus, as the heavenly high priest, passed through the curtain into the holy of holies, which was like heaven, he not only offered a sacrifice, but he was himself the sacrifice (Heb 9:12). Just as other sacrifices were taken to heaven through the pillar of fire and smoke, and just as the man of God went up through the column of smoke to heaven before the eyes of Manoah and his wife (Judg 13:20), so also Jesus was the sacrifice that "went through the heavens" (Heb 4:14) with the column of smoke in the holy of holiest Such imagery is consistent with the Near Eastern concept of the relationship of heaven to earth, columns of smoke and fire, temples and high places, heavenly archetypes and earthly counterparts, and the specially holy places that link heaven to earth.
A better understanding of the Near Easterner's concept of heaven in relationship to the temple is important for understanding the imagery related to the temple, the priesthood, and heaven, particularly in Hebrews and the Book of Revelation. (To the Hebrews, 162).
The book of Hebrews also refers to the Eucharistic sacrifice when it says:A better understanding of the Near Easterner's concept of heaven in relationship to the temple is important for understanding the imagery related to the temple, the priesthood, and heaven, particularly in Hebrews and the Book of Revelation. (To the Hebrews, 162).
"We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat" (Heb. 13:10).
Those priests serving in the Jewish temple, of course, having no right to eat the Christian Eucharist.
Thank you for the help. My biggest issue is my impatience with protestant heretics and their evil theologies. I try hard to listen to their blasphemies, but just get myself frustrated. what is it that makes them think they are in Christ when they don't even belong to the Church?
Proof? Easy, the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Christ. It has existed since the beginning. there is no salvation, no connection to god, outside the Holy Catholic Church.
Well it is true that the Church is the fullness of the faith, let us be careful not to exclude the mercy of God from the factor. God sees into all hearts, and through His mercy will call those who believe, even though they do not realize it. Salvation is up to God, not us.
Last edited:
Luk 23:28 But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.
Different applications may be taken of any verse in the bible.
The application I wish to express is this: Jesus understood the situation where's the woman didn't, so the woman should think about what they believe before they try to weep for someone else.
Likewise, condemning someone and then wanting to pray for them is, well, something wrong with that picture.
Peace>>>AJ:love9:
Different applications may be taken of any verse in the bible.
The application I wish to express is this: Jesus understood the situation where's the woman didn't, so the woman should think about what they believe before they try to weep for someone else.
Likewise, condemning someone and then wanting to pray for them is, well, something wrong with that picture.
Peace>>>AJ:love9:
Funny...you answered that one, but failed to address where I commented on how the bible is NOT the direct word of god, but an interpretation of the word of god, if it is even that, which then is reinterpretited by you, through your biases, and your beliefs.
The church or Christ. Which is the head? If the church is the tail, then it must follow the head.
Christ being the head of the body, of which body we are, then we are all the church!
The "Church" as perceived to be is as an organization and is just that, an organization.
It is physical, while the Church of Christ is spiritual, and rests in the hearts of mankind.
Peace>>>AJ:love9:
In response to such a strange view of the Church, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued in 1973 the Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, which said in part:
… Catholics are bound to profess that through the gift of God's mercy they belong to that Church which Christ founded and which is governed by the successors of Peter and the other Apostles, who are the depositories of the original apostolic tradition, living and intact, which is the permanent heritage of doctrine and holiness of that same Church.
The followers of Christ are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection--divided, but still possessing a certain unity — of Churches and ecclesial Communities. Nor are they free to hold that Christ's Church does not really exist anywhere today and that it is to be considered only as an end which all Churches and ecclesial Communities must strive to reach.
These conclusions of Mysterium Ecclesiae were not new. In an article published after the Council and before the Declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Karl Rahner had anticipated much of the thought and even the verbal expression of the Congregation's statement. He wrote:
The Catholic Church cannot think of herself as one among many historical manifestations in which the same God-man Jesus Christ is made present, which are offered by God to man for him to choose whichever he likes. On the contrary she must necessarily think of herself as the one and total presence in history of the one God-man in his truth and grace, and as such as having a fundamental relationship to all men… For this reason the Catholic Church cannot simply think of herself as one among many Christian Churches and communities on an equal footing with her…And the Church cannot accept that this unity is something which must be achieved only in the future and through a process of unification between Christian Churches, so that until this point is reached it simply would not exist.
It is not condemnation when one sees the evil of Satan and sin all around, and sometimes in our fellow men. We recognize same, and thus must pray for them and ourselves as we relate to them.
id love to reply, but have to respect the request we were given by "a priest" to not reply to non-catholics on this forum..it sucks..
That is all well and good if that is what one chooses to place one’s faith in. But remember that one is under bondage to the dictates of that organization’s leaders and not necessarily Christ.
Therefore: making the organizational church the head of one’s faith instead of freedom in making Jesus the head of one’s faith.
If one is feels secure in that church organization, than that’s fine, but to demand that all others are less than able to secure Christ as their own is condemnation.
Where as I don’t condemn anybody for being what they choose to belong to, the only thing that I can condemn is a lack of love.
If there is no love demonstrated to this lost world, who then can do it? Surely God has already done it for us (In Jesus), now we need to go do it ourselves.
Look at the verse below and let’s apply it to religion instead of tongues. We will see the point I am trying to make.
1Co 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
The object of the of our existence, is to demonstrate Godly attributes in the midst of a hellish environment.
Can we do it? You darn right we can, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ via His Holy Spirit in us, making us aliens to this world and members of the heavenly Church.
If love than is the measure of our faith, by what organization can we demonstrate it without being found guilty of miss use.
1Pe 3:17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.
Love than is suffering because in suffering there is giving, and in giving forgiveness.
So, if one is going to remain a Catholic, than be a good Catholic. But deny not anyone else access to the Christ on their own.
Peace>>>AJ:love9:
never mind the word catholic, stick to what we know. wasnt it jesus that started the church, and appointed the bishops and priests to oversee it? so isnt it like a matter
of doing what he taught us to do, that is be in the church?