Purgatory And Prayers For The Dead.

[Jipsah]

Why not pray to God through Jesus Christ?

I know of no Christian who doesn't. But we also ask others to pray for us. Don't you?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I know of no Christian who doesn't. But we also ask others to pray for us. Don't you?

Don't you think it's a little bit strange that people will ask, why don't you pray to Jesus directly as if praying to or through the Saints excludes Jesus from the transaction. Yet we don't have trouble understanding that asking a friend to pray for us doesn't exclude Jesus. Paul wrote to the Christians in the different churches to pray for him in his trials and he offered to pray for them in their trials. Why should we behave differently? Why should we not be asking for the prayers of those who have gone before us and who are now in heaven in the presence of God, able to intercede very directly for us, and knowing very clearly the difficulties that we face? I can't help but think that the reformers in their zeal to jettison everything to do with the Catholic Church jettisoned a great many things that are absolutely important and Central to being a Christian. So I for one will continue to pray for the deceased and to the Saints, asking for their intercession with the Lord our God on my behalf and on behalf of those whom I love. May God have mercy on our souls.

 

[Jipsah]

Don't you think it's a little bit strange that people will ask, why don't you pray to Jesus directly as if praying to or through the Saints excludes Jesus from the transaction.

Not strange, just dumb. "Them Catholics don't pray to God, they just pray to them statues of saints. " Simple ignorance.

Yet we don't have trouble understanding that asking a friend to pray for us doesn't exclude Jesus.

Yeah, and it's weird. They say they believe that the blessed dead are alive in Heaven, but if you talk about asking them to pray for you then those same departed saints are dead-dead. Kinda schizophrenic, innit?

Paul wrote to the Christians in the different churches to pray for him in his trials and he offered to pray for them in their trials. Why should we behave differently?

All the Prots do that too, but in their reckoning "that's different".

Why should we not be asking for the prayers of those who have gone before us and who are now in heaven in the presence of God, able to intercede very directly for us, and knowing very clearly the difficulties that we face?

Agreed.

I can't help but think that the reformers in their zeal to jettison everything to do with the Catholic Church jettisoned a great many things that are absolutely important and Central to being a Christian. So I for one will continue to pray for the deceased and to the Saints, asking for their intercession with the Lord our God on my behalf and on behalf of those whom I love. May God have mercy on our souls.

Amen.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

A quote from The Faith of our Fathers by Cardinal Gibbons

That the practice of praying for the dead has descended from Apostolic times is evident also from the Liturgies of the Church. A Liturgy is the established formulary of public worship, containing the authorised prayers of the Church. The Missal, or Mass-book, for instance, which you see on our altars, contains a portion of the Liturgy of the Catholic Church. The principal Liturgies are the Liturgy of St. James the Apostle, who founded the Church of Jerusalem; the Liturgy of St. Mark the Evangelist, founder of the Church of Alexandria, and the Liturgy of St. Peter, who established the Church in Rome. These Liturgies are called after the Apostles who compiled them. There are, besides, the Liturgies of St. Chrysostom and St. Basil, which are chiefly based on the model of that of St. James.​

​

​

Now, all these Liturgies, without exception, have prayers for the dead, and their providential preservation serves as another triumphant vindication of the venerable antiquity of this Catholic doctrine.​

​

​

The Eastern and the Western churches were happily united until the fourth and fifth centuries, when the heresiarchs Arius, Nestorius and Eutyches withdrew millions of souls from the centre of unity. The followers of these sects were called, after their founders, Arians, Nestorians and Eutychians, and from that day to the present the two latter bodies have formed distinct communions, being separated from the Catholic Church in the East, just as the Protestant churches are separated from her in the West.​

​

​

The Greek schismatic church, of which the present Russo-Greek church is the offspring, severed her connection with the See of Rome in the ninth century.​

​

​

But in leaving the Catholic Church these Eastern sects retained the old Liturgies, which they use to this day, as I shall presently demonstrate.​

​

​

During my sojourn in Rome at the Ecumenical Council I devoted a great deal of my leisure time to the examination of the various Liturgies of the schismatic churches of the East. I found in all of them formulas of prayers for the dead almost identical with that of the Roman Missal: “Remember, O Lord, Thy servants who are gone before us with the sign of faith, and sleep in peace. To these, O Lord, and to all who rest in Christ grant, we beseech Thee, a place of refreshment, light and peace, through the same Jesus Christ our Lord.”​

​

​

Not content with studying their books, I called upon the Oriental Patriarchs and Bishops in communion with the See of Rome, who belong to the Armenian, the Chaldean, the Coptic, the Maronite and Syriac rites. They all assured me that the schismatic Christians of the East among whom they live have, without exception, prayers and sacrifices for the dead.​

​

​

Now, I ask, when could those Eastern sects have commenced to adopt the Catholic practice of praying for the dead? They could not have received it from us since the ninth century, because the Greek church separated from us then and has had no communion with us since that time, except at intervals, up to the twelfth century. Nor could they have adopted the practice since the fourth or fifth century, inasmuch as the Arians, Nestorians and Eutychians have had no religious communication with us since that period. Therefore, in common with us, they received this doctrine from the Apostles. If men living in different countries drink wine having the same flavour and taste and colour, the inference is that the wine was made from the same species of grape. So must we conclude that this refreshing doctrine of intercession for the dead has its root in the Apostolic tree of knowledge planted by our Saviour.​

 

[Dan Perez]

Not strange, just dumb. "Them Catholics don't pray to God, they just pray to them statues of saints. " Simple ignorance.

Yeah, and it's weird. They say they believe that the blessed dead are alive in Heaven, but if you talk about asking them to pray for you then those same departed saints are dead-dead. Kinda schizophrenic, innit?

All the Prots do that too, but in their reckoning "that's different".

Agreed.

Amen.

And in Rom 8:34it is Christ who makes INTERCESSION for us .

dan p

 

[Jipsah]

And in Rom 8:34it is Christ who makes INTERCESSION for us .

dan p

And you never, ever, EVER ask anyone else to pray for for you, right? Right?

 

[prodromos]

And in Rom 8:34it is Christ who makes INTERCESSION for us .

dan p

I can't find the word "exclusively" in the verse you quoted. Perhaps you have a different translation?

 

[RileyG]

And in Rom 8:34it is Christ who makes INTERCESSION for us .

dan p

Do you intercede for others?

 

[chevyontheriver]

And you never, ever, EVER ask anyone else to pray for for you, right? Right?

Just not possible based on Romans 8:24. Never mind Paul asks for people to pray for him with intercessory prayer.

 

[FredVB]

Why pray at all then if we do not know the outcome of certain situations that will happen in this life?

Not knowing outcome of prayer is a different thing, one that does not preclude praying still, from not knowing anything about what is needing prayer. So it can be asked, why pray at all when not knowing anything about what is needing prayer.

 

[RileyG]

Not knowing outcome of prayer is a different thing, one that does not preclude praying still, from not knowing anything about what is needing prayer. So it can be asked, why pray at all when not knowing anything about what is needing prayer.

We are supposed to make intercession for others and pray for people. It’s all in God’s hands.

 

[bbbbbbb]

However, if we are certain about the outcome of various things in life, is there any reason to pray about it? For example, if l am certain that tomorrow morning I will eat a bowl of cereal for breakfast, should I pray about it, other than to give thanks?

 

[RileyG]

However, if we are certain about the outcome of various things in life, is there any reason to pray about it? For example, if l am certain that tomorrow morning I will eat a bowl of cereal for breakfast, should I pray about it, other than to give thanks?

If you really want to, go right ahead.

 

[Rose_bud]

Out of curiosity is 2 Maccabees the only passage or verse used to support the prayers for the dead. And also the tradition of the early church. Was the tradition also based on this text or were there others? Even if it is Deuterocanonical.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Out of curiosity is 2 Maccabees the only passage or verse used to support the prayers for the dead. And also the tradition of the early church. Was the tradition also based on this text or were there others? Even if it is Deuterocanonical.

The New Testament hints at the existence of a realm beyond heaven and hell. Jesus is said to have preached to the spirits in prison who were disobedient during Noah's time (1 Pt 3:19-20; also see 1 Pt 4:6). This could indicate a place after death that is neither heaven nor hell, though its current existence is uncertain. Paul's reference to the Corinthians baptizing on behalf of the dead (1 Cor 15:29) might suggest a similar concept. Additionally, Jesus' statement that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this age or the next (Mt 12:32) raises the question of whether some sins may be forgiven post-mortem, implying a place after death other than heaven or hell. [see The Bible on Praying for the Dead : A Catholic Reflection]

 

[Fervent]

Out of curiosity is 2 Maccabees the only passage or verse used to support the prayers for the dead. And also the tradition of the early church. Was the tradition also based on this text or were there others? Even if it is Deuterocanonical.

It's a bit anachronistic to speak of the tradition being based on a text or a collection of texts. The tradition of the early church was the complete body of Christian worship not just doctrinal. Practices weren't created from pouring over the texts and re-creating a former pattern of worship, but were the practices handed down from the apostles and from Jesus Himself. Today we're stuck arguing over what practices the text recommends, but the early church had the luxury of a clear heritage for their practices. The doctrinal questions developed from a combination of interpreting the traditional practices in light of the text, not from developing original or recreating practices based on doctrinal readings of the text.

 

[Rose_bud]

The New Testament hints at the existence of a realm beyond heaven and hell. Jesus is said to have preached to the spirits in prison who were disobedient during Noah's time (1 Pt 3:19-20; also see 1 Pt 4:6). This could indicate a place after death that is neither heaven nor hell, though its current existence is uncertain. Paul's reference to the Corinthians baptizing on behalf of the dead (1 Cor 15:29) might suggest a similar concept. Additionally, Jesus' statement that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this age or the next (Mt 12:32) raises the question of whether some sins may be forgiven post-mortem, implying a place after death other than heaven or hell. [see The Bible on Praying for the Dead : A Catholic Reflection]

Thank you for the response Xeno, much appreciated.

 

[RileyG]

Out of curiosity is 2 Maccabees the only passage or verse used to support the prayers for the dead. And also the tradition of the early church. Was the tradition also based on this text or were there others? Even if it is Deuterocanonical.

There is more, even in the NT. See post #715.

 

[Rose_bud]

It's a bit anachronistic to speak of the tradition being based on a text or a collection of texts. The tradition of the early church was the complete body of Christian worship not just doctrinal. Practices weren't created from pouring over the texts and re-creating a former pattern of worship, but were the practices handed down from the apostles and from Jesus Himself. Today we're stuck arguing over what practices the text recommends, but the early church had the luxury of a clear heritage for their practices. The doctrinal questions developed from a combination of interpreting the traditional practices in light of the text, not from developing original or recreating practices based on doctrinal readings of the text.

Hi Fervent

Thanks, I think we may have a differing views of what early means.

Was Jesus and Paul being anachronistic when they referred to the OT Scriptures?.

They used Scripture to show who Christ is and what He came to do. Scripture (OT and some of Paul's writings at the time) were authorative in the Jewish/Gentile context and the traditions that the church were told to hold on to was reinterpreted to reveal the Christ and all He promised.

A different dynamic had arisen. The Jewish way was to attend synagogue, to offer sacrifices, acknowledge certain feasts, abstain from certain foods, circumcision etc. But as the Spirit revealed Christ and His teaching, traditions changed in light of Him. Paul presented this as the "new" traditions.

 

[Fervent]

Hi Fervent

Thanks, I think we may have a differing views of what early means.

Was Jesus and Paul being anachronistic when they referred to the OT Scriptures?.

They used Scripture to show who Christ is and what He came to do. Scripture (OT and some of Paul's writings at the time) were authorative in the Jewish/Gentile context and the traditions that the church were told to hold on to was reinterpreted to reveal the Christ and all He promised.

A different dynamic had arisen. The Jewish way was to attend synagogue, to offer sacrifices, acknowledge certain feasts, abstain from certain foods, circumcision etc. But as the Spirit revealed Christ and His teaching, traditions changed in light of Him. Paul presented this as the "new" traditions.

When we think of Scripture as a unified body of documents like the Bible, we're being anachronistic. Paul and Jesus' understanding of Scripture wouldn't have been "the OT" because the OT wasn't compiled and canonized until sometime after the fall of the temple in 70 AD, in fact there was a major debate whether Scripture was just the 5 books of Moses or if it included the Prophets(books like Judges, Kings, and such) and the Writings(what we think of as prophetic books and wisdom books)...instead they were a part of an active tradition that included both written and unwritten material. Both of them referenced both Scripture and the wider Pharisaical tradition in their establishment of Christ, but the majority of what they referred to got codified into our Scriptures because they were used in such a manner not the other way around. So while there certainly was a new dynamic that developed, it was embedded within an ongoing tradition and what we now think of distinctly "Jewish" traditions are only thought of as such because our traditions have veered in another direction. It's ahistorical to think of Scripture outside of tradition, because it is within the flow of tradition that Scripture came to be defined not the other way around. The Bible didn't descend from heaven one day fully intact, but was formed as an ongoing conversation within the people of God that stretches back to Adam and the incarnation serves as the central defining moment.