"Our earthly liturgies must be celebrations full of beauty and power: Feasts of the Father who created us—that is why the gifts of the earth play such a great part: the bread, the wine, oil and light, incense, sacred music, and splendid colors. Feasts of the Son who redeemed us—that is why we rejoice in our liberation, breathe deeply in listening to the Word, and are strengthened in eating the Eucharistic Gifts. Feasts of the Holy Spirit who lives in us—that is why there is a wealth of consolation, knowledge, courage, strength, and blessing that flows from these sacred assemblies." unknown source possibly YOUCAT Mal.1.11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith theLord of hosts.

Thursday, March 6, 2014

communion of the saints




also this article herehttp://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/02/do-the-saints-pray-for-us-a-response-to-perry-sukstorf-and-marcia-fleischman/   discusses Do the saints pray for us? from comment 71

You wrote:
“I would adopt that thesis IF I had some objective basis to support the proposition that the departed saints could hear our requests.”
One basis for this proposition is the image of departed saints reflected in Revelation 5:8 – They are depicted as actively offering up the prayers of those on earth. The act of offering anything requires the conscious intention to do so. Thus, the Biblical data demands that the saints in heaven are conscious of our prayers, at least in a general way, and associate themselves with them by intention.
The biblical data also support the idea that a saint’s mediation may be possible whether or not the saint is directly conscious of our petition. In the 2 Kings passage referenced above, we find an instance of a miraculous relic. Originally, this was the principle way in which the Church sought the mediation of saints – through contact with their relics. The Blessed Virgin Mary is an exception, obviously, since she left no first class relics. The “sub tuum” prayer (from 2nd or 3rd century Alexandria) is thus an important witness that these two kinds of petition existed side by side in antiquity.
Finally, the question of devotion to the saints cannot be separated from the liturgical and devotional history of the Church. To say, “I will only practice devotions that I find completely and overtly represented in Scripture” is to adopt an attitude towards Christian worship that would have made Christian worship impossible prior to the formation of the canon. This is why the fathers of the 2nd century took the belief and practice of apostolic churches to be the norm – rather than appeal to an inchoate and yet unfinalized New Testament. So, as a Catholic, I would also add that we know the saints hear our prayers because the practice of the earliest Christians (which is normative) presumes it, and because the Church teaches that they hear our prayers.
On a related note, have you considered how the Protestant “regulative principle of worship,” if strictly applied, would in fact destroy certain mainstays of Protestant worship? For instance, Scripture nowhere represents baptism performed during a Eucharistic assembly or Sunday liturgy. Should we therefore not baptize on Sundays or in Church? Likewise, Scripture nowhere shows us explicitly that communion was ever administered to women. Should we therefore withhold communion from women?
Inevitably, therefore, the question of devotion to the saints is connected to another question: How do we know what is or is not a binding norm for Christian worship?

from comment 72:


From antiquity to the Reformation, such devotion was the universal practice of the Church. It remains the practice of those Christian groups that can actually trace their history to antiquity.
The only systematic opposition to such devotion arose in only one corner of the Christian world (western europe), and very late (16th century). To reject such devotion is to take a stance at odds with what was, prior to that rejection, the universal witness of the Christian faithful.
from the same link comment 74
I don’t know if it’ll be a helpful observation or not, but my own reasoning (as I was in the process of “reading my way into the Church”) went as follows:
1. The early Christians asked the saints in heaven for their intercession;
2. They did this prior to the finalization of the New Testament canon, and in a widespread way;
3. The Jews did this in a less-formalized way prior to the time of Christ (and still do today; e.g. prayers at Rachel’s tomb, which is indirectly referenced in the New Testament itself: “a voice heard in Ramah”), so that it seems to be a continuation of the ongoing practice of the People of God, rather than a reversal or interruption;
4. The persons involved in the finalization of the New Testament canon (Athanasius and Damasus and Augustine and other bishops of the late 4th century) clearly practiced asking the intercession of the saints;
5. The persons involved in the finalization of the New Testament canon relied on their understanding of the Apostolic Tradition and the history and practices of the Church from the apostolic age onward in doing so;
6. IF their understanding of the Apostolic Tradition and the history and practices of the Church was wrong to hold that saints’ intercession as an orthodox and ancient practice, THEN this suggests significant error in their understanding of the Apostolic Tradition and the history and practices of the Church.
7. BUT, if their understanding of the Apostolic Tradition and the history and practices of the Church was badly mistaken, then that undermines our ability to trust the New Testament canon they’ve handed on to us, which we accept at least partly on their testimony.
8. IN WHICH CASE, it would be hard to argue that, either from Apostolic Tradition OR from the Bible, it is possible to know what orthodox Christian doctrine and practice actually IS. This view leads to theological “liberalism” and makes Christian orthodoxy an unknown thing, lost in the mists of time.
9. ON THE OTHER HAND, if the understanding of Church practice and of Apostolic Tradition of the canonizers of the New Testament is solid and reliable (even if it isn’t infallible), then we can have great confidence that we have the “right” New Testament.
10. BUT IN THAT CASE, any suggestion that asking the saints’ intercession is forbidden by New Testament Christianity is dubious, for these men, whose understanding of Church practice and Apostolic Tradition is sufficiently reliable to give us the canon, also asked the saints’ intercession. (And saw no contradiction between that practice and the New Testament canon.)
11. IN EITHER CASE, in proportion to the degree we mistrust the orthodoxy of those through whom we receive the New Testament canon, the reliability of that canon is reduced.
In the above, I’m not making an argument from absolutes, like a geometric proof.
But I’m asking whether something passes the “smell test,” in an abstract kind of way.
I don’t think it passes the “smell test” to say: “Yeah, without the testimony of the ancient Christians, we’d have no certain and uniform New Testament; but we’re going to use the New Testament and our own 21st-century, culturally-post-Christian interpretation of it, to disregard their testimony.”
Having reasoned that far, I ask myself: What does it *mean* if asking saints for their intercession is orthodox Christian practice?
Well, it means I grew up in a branch of Christianity which had lost some of the ancient practice (Southern Baptists). But that’s neither a big deal, nor much surprise: As many variations as there are, it stands to reason that most of them have messed up something; if I assume from the outset that my own hasn’t, it’s more likely because of inertia and bias on my own part, than because I’ve exhaustively analyzed every issue.
But what does it mean, if it’s NOT orthodox?
Well, my argument pretty much suggests the answer to that question. If the early Christian witness is in error here or there but not in the main; we can still get by. But if everybody everywhere is messing up something badly, while being oblivious to it? It makes it hard to argue that anyone then could be sure what “Christianity” really was supposed to be. (Let alone now.) It pushes me towards a “Christianity” which is anything I want it to be, probably influenced largely by tropes from Hollywood movies (like the “Druidism” of those poor folk who gather around Stonehenge once a year with fantasy-movie daggers and vaguely Greek-looking robes). It means any modern version of Christianity is more of a “reconstruction” than a “continuation.”
And if THAT is our modern situation, then I must ask about the Holy Spirit what Elijah asked about Baal atop Mount Carmel: What has He been *doing* all this time? Was He taking a nap for several hundred years? Was He away on a journey? What about this “leading us into all truth” promise?
I wonder sometimes, if the reason that the Jesus Seminar liberals and folks like Shelby Spong lost their faith wasn’t by this kind of process: They didn’t want to accept that the Early Church was *right*; but barring that, there was no way to know what “right” was. So they drifted into sentimentalism and skepticism and apostasy.
I don’t want to go that way.
So — even though it’s foreign to my upbringing and initially felt weird — I now ask my brothers and sisters in glory for their prayers on behalf of me and my family and others.
My doing so is wrapped up in my trust of Christ and the Holy Spirit not to abandon us for many centuries.
This line of reasoning helps me. If it does not help you, disregard it of course! And I do not argue that it is mathematically certain. But I can’t bring myself to bet against it.
from comment 88

But, speaking purely speculatively, how do you know that the saints have to hear our prayers in order to consciously associate themselves with them? The passage in Revelation depicts saints consciously and intentionally offering the prayers of Christians on earth. It leaves unstated whether this intentional offering involves a conscious knowledge of each petition, or only a general knowledge. The passage in 2 Kings also suggests that saints don’t need conscious awareness in order for their mediation to be efficacious. What Holy Scripture does teach, without question, is that the relics of saints (Elisha, Peter) have been used by God to effect miracles in the lives of the faithful and that the saints in heaven intentionally associate themselves with our prayers. How do you know that detailed knowledge of our petitions would be necessary for their intercession? Why couldn’t the saints say, “God, please hear the prayers of all who seek my intercession.”

from comment 89


Your Q: Where does it say that departed Saints have full knowledge….?
My Answer: I don’t know of any verse that says specifically that the Saints have full knowledge of what happens here (maybe because there was no cause to), but I know of places where the bible implies this. We may not have full knowledge now, but we will not remain like this but be transformed when we meet the Lord. 1 John 3:2 says that when the Lord appears, we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is. This to me shows that there is a transforming experience when we go to heaven. We shall be heavenly beings.
As to whether they are like Angels in other regards apart from not marrying, I believe so. Luke 20:36 says that “they cannot die because they are like Angels”. So this is a second characteristics in which we are like Angels when in heaven, and don’t you think there could be others? Lets for a minute consider the Angels. They do most of the things that we would ordinarily attribute to God alone, but only THROUGH God. Perhaps our Lord didn’t talk about the resurrected brethren being able to hear us because that was not the issue at hand, and not because they cannot.
I will like you to consider Rev 5:8 where those in heaven are offering the prayers of the holy ones to God. How else will they offer these prayers if they they don’t have knowledge of them. Now, if you like lets not say hear, but sense or know, or anything that means they, through the power of God just like the Angels, have knowledge of our prayers. Our Lord makes one strong point. In Mark 12:24 he chides the Jewish leaders for knowing neither the scriptures nor the power of God. The power of God can make those who are born of the resurrection hear us in a way different from that of any saint here on earth. The Psalmist in Psalm 148 seems to agree, for he addresses the Hosts of heaven to praise God.
There is this anti catholic preacher, Matt Slick who has an interesting take on Rev 5:8 that you might want to consider. He believes that the Saints in heaven can hear us, but that praying to them is a sin.http://carm.org/praying-saints-biblical. Very interesting, but am not saying you should believe they can hear us because this man does though. But it points to the confusion that can arise when we o against an established christian tradition.
Lets now look at christian tradition:
Clement of Alexandria
“In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]” (Miscellanies 7:12 [A.D. 208]).
Origen
“But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep” (Prayer 11 [A.D. 233]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides [of death] always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father’s mercy” (Letters 56[60]:5 [A.D. 253]).
Anonymous
“Atticus, sleep in peace, secure in your safety, and pray anxiously for our sins” (funerary inscription near St. Sabina’s in Rome [A.D. 300]).
“Pray for your parents, Matronata Matrona. She lived one year, fifty-two days” (ibid.).
“Mother of God, [listen to] my petitions; do not disregard us in adversity, but rescue us from danger” (Rylands Papyrus 3 [A.D. 350]).
“Therefore, we pray [ask] you, the most excellent among women, who glories in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate the memory, which will ever live, and never fade away” (ibid.).
“And you also, O honored and venerable Simeon, you earliest host of our holy religion, and teacher of the resurrection of the faithful, do be our patron and advocate with that Savior God, whom you were deemed worthy to receive into your arms. We, together with you, sing our praises to Christ, who has the power of life and death, saying, ‘You are the true Light, proceeding from the true Light; the true God, begotten of the true God’” (ibid.).
Cyril of Jerusalem
“Then [during the Eucharistic prayer] we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition . . . ” (Catechetical Lectures 23:9 [A.D. 350]).

Hilary of Poitiers
“To those who wish to stand [in God’s grace], neither the guardianship of saints nor the defenses of angels are wanting” (Commentary on the Psalms 124:5:6 [A.D. 365]).

from comment 101

But what about praying for their intercession before they’re canonized? If we don’t know they’re in heaven, why would we be justified in praying to them? (Perhaps they’re in purgatory, or even in hell if they committed a mortal sin prior to death). I don’t see how it’s okay to pray to saints before they’re canonized.
I think you are right to show hesitance in praying to those who might not be in heaven or on their way to heaven. Church tradition has been divided on the question, and to my knowledge there has been no definitive Church teaching on the subject. In favor of souls in purgatory praying for us include St. Alphonsus Liguori:
They are unable to pray or merit anything for themselves, yet, when they pray for others, they are heard by God.
and St. John Vianney:
If one knew what we may obtain from God by the intercession of the Poor Souls, they would not be so much abandoned. Let us pray a great deal for them; they will pray for us.
Alternatively, St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa writes,
Those who are in Purgatory though they are above us on account of their impeccability, yet they are below us as to the pains which they suffer: and in this respect they are not in a condition to pray, but rather in a condition that requires us to pray for them.
However, St. Robert Bellarmine did not find St. Thomas persuasive on the subject, and argues that in virtue of their greater love of God and their union with Him, their prayers may have great intercessory power, for they are really superior to us in love of God, and in intimacy of union with Him (De Purgatorio, lib. II, xv). I tend to agree with Bellarmine, as I don’t understand why their pain would create a condition where they are unable to pray for us. I would add that those in purgatory are closer to God than we are, since they are already on their way to Beatific Vision, and as they are in the process of being cleansed, would seem to qualify as the “righteous men” described in James 5:16 as being able to offer prayers “powerful and effective.” Furthermore, to ask for their prayers would be to exercise the virtue of hope that those who died exhibiting faith are on their way to God. Not to say that we have access to the mind of God regarding whether any specific person is in heaven – but we can certainly exercise the virtue of hope, especially when we have good evidence and reason for such hope. in 
comment 160 from http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/02/do-the-saints-pray-for-us-a-response-to-perry-sukstorf-and-marcia-fleischman/http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/02/do-the-saints-pray-for-us-a-response-to-perry-sukstorf-and-marcia-fleischman/


 1. We know from Scripture (even limited to the reduced Protestant canon) that because of “the power of God” those in Christ who have “fallen asleep” are to be understood as “the living” not “the dead”;

 2. We know from Scripture (even limited to the reduced Protestant canon) that we are surrounded by a “great cloud of witnesses” (and it follows that they could not be “witnesses,” nor could they cheer for us as we “run the race,” if they were clueless about events in our lives;

 3. We know from Scripture (even limited to the reduced Protestant canon) that there is much rejoicing in Heaven when a sinner repents…and it is reasonable to assume that this rejoicing is not merely from the angels, inasmuch as it would be strange for the angels to suddenly start rejoicing only for the oblivious saints to ask, “Hey, what’s going on? What’s the celebration for?” and the angels to refuse to answer;

 4. We know from Scripture (even limited to the reduced Protestant canon) that Christians are bidden to pray for one another;

 5. We know from Scripture (even limited to the reduced Protestant canon) that Christians are allowed to request prayer from each other;

 6. We know from Scripture (even limited to the reduced Protestant canon) that “the prayer of a righteous man availeth much”; 

 7. We know from Scripture (even limited to the reduced Protestant canon) no imperfect or sinful thing is in Heaven, and consequently that all Heaven’s inhabitants are very, very righteous indeed; 

 8. We know therefore that the saints in Heaven are already interceding for us to some degree, inasmuch as they are alive and righteous and aware of our difficulties, and are therefore not disobeying the injunction to pray for their brothers and sisters, but praying for us and “availing much” by doing so.

 9. The only Scripturally-sound objection to asking saints to intercede for us, therefore, is not over whether we are allowed to ask the saints to pray for us, or whether they hear us, but rather, whether they’re already praying for us as much as they’re ever going to, whether we ask them to do so, or not! (But the same could be said about prayers to God, so this objection really doesn’t get far.) 

 10. More broadly, this whole topic cannot be properly understood without pointing out that the almost the whole theology of Paul revolves around Christ’s revelation to Paul on the Damascus road that Christians are parts of Christ’s body and that when Paul persecuted Christians, he was persecuting Christ. Paul hammers this theme again and again.

 For this reason, it is simply false (if one holds a Scriptural, Pauline ecclesiology) to assert that people who ask the saints for their intercession are neglecting to pray to Christ. The saints are in Christ, like my muscle cells and bones are in me. When the saints on earth did works of grace led by the Holy Spirit, it was Christ working through them. It was no longer they who lived, but Christ who lived in them. When they suffered for His sake, He suffered and thus their suffering, united to His, had real merit. And when the saints ask Our Father to help us, Christ is asking Our Father to help us.
=
 The old joke is that, when someone is not listening to what you are saying to them, they turn their heads away from you, put their palm out in your direction, and say, “Talk to the hand.” Well, those who are in Christ are (in a real-if-mysterious way, not a merely symbolical or analogical way) His hands, and His feet. They are in Christ. When you talk to the saints, you are “talking to the hand” (or the foot, or the eye). But “the hand” is part of Christ. (We are not Gnostics; we do not believe that the body is extraneous or dismissible; we believe rather that the body and soul together are the person.) So when you “talk to the hand” (or the foot, or the eye) you are talking to Christ. When He tells us “talk to the hand” He isn’t ignoring us; He is rather glorifying those whom He loves, for whom He died, by allowing them to have a participation in His own intercessory work. 

 And isn’t that just like Our Father, to set things up that way? He is always doing that: He is always allowing us to participate in our lesser ways in doing things which He could “do better for Himself,” so to speak. Does Jesus need saints praying for His disciples who remain on earth? Of course not. But Our Father’s heart is gladdened not only when His Firstborn Son does His will, but also when Jesus’ adopted little brothers and sisters also join in. Given all of this, one must wonder: What went so badly wrong with the Scriptural exegesis and ecclesiology and Christology of some denominations, that they don’t preach the intercession of the saints?

from comment  173 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/02/do-the-saints-pray-for-us-a-response-to-perry-sukstorf-and-marcia-fleischman/#comments    :

You quote from a footnote and say, "Notice they say nothing about these cloud of witnesses being aware of us." This is like me quoting the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States and noting, "Notice they say nothing about The United States having won independence from the British." One doesn't, in a footnote, have to spell out every obvious implication of a particular passage; nor does a failure to do so prevent that implication from being true.

You then say, "It is true that Scripture tells us to pray for one another. It never tells us to pray to the dead...," but, Pat, John the Baptist and Peter and Paul and Timothy and Silas and Mary are significantly more alive than any earthly person you've ever asked to pray for you...people walking around with bodies that decay with time? With habits that still lead them into sin? Shouldn't I admonish you, Pat, for how you have sometimes asked these near-corpses whom you happen to know to pray for you?

You catch me asking the liveliest folk I know -- people currently enraptured in the Everlasting Divine Life of the Trinity -- for their prayers and accuse me of "praying to the dead!" By that standard, why shouldn't I accuse you of "praying to the dead" catch you asking favors of people who won't even last another two hundred years?

Then you quote Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 and 10; these tell us of the status of those in Sheol; not those in Heaven. (But there is a difference!)

You then draw a conclusion: "This tells us that the dead have nothing more to do with this world." But have you not read Luke 16:19-31? Do you not notice the irony that Jesus named the character in this particular story as "Lazarus?" Do you think Lazarus, having died, had nothing more to do with this world? And doesn't the rich man who died plead -- fruitlessly in this case, but the rich man was not a saint -- for his brothers? If even a sinner in fire pleads for mercy for those on earth, how much more a saint in Heaven? Are the saints in Heaven less compassionate than sinners?

Or consider Matthew 27:51-53: Did the "holy people who had died" make any impression on the people of Jerusalem? And I have already alluded to Luke 15; are the angels the sole occupants of Heaven, the only ones who celebrate when a sinner repents? And what about at the general resurrection? Will those who have died say, "Nope, sorry; we've died; we can't get involved in any events on earth ever again?" What about the souls of the martyrs in Revelation 6? Don't they plead with God to avenge the blood of the martyrs? (Not, I think, an uninvolved attitude.)

Or, to return to the passage in Hebrews: The "cloud of witnesses": Are they not the saints in glory? (I say, "in glory" because, standing in the divine presence, that is precisely where they are, in the shekinah; hence, a "cloud" of witnesses.) And are they not in this passage depicted as spectators in a stadium, observing an athletic competition? What do such spectators do? Do they not cheer for the competitors, and thereby encourage them? They are not on the field, but one would never say that they were uninvolved.

You add, "The temporary exceptions were Samuel, Moses and Elijah. After these incidents we don’t find anyone praying to them." But Jews from time immemorial prayed at Rachel's tomb asking her to intercede with God on their behalf (often in maternal matters). And Christians continued this tradition from the start, that Moses is "Saint Moses" and Elijah is "Saint Elijah" in ancient tradition. That it doesn't immediately occur to you or me to murmur, "Hey, Moses, join me in praying that God would help me resist uncontrolled outbursts of anger when I see injustice" means that you and I were not raised as first-century Jews who then became Christians. But the Apostles were.

You state, "There is no reason to pray to the dead for the mere fact that Christ alone is our High Priest Who intercedes for us..." ...which doesn't follow. Christ (not "Christ alone," mind you; how can a person whose very body contains millions of other persons ever be called "alone?!") is certainly our High Priest; but how is that pertinent to the question? Aaron was the High Priest at the time of the Exodus; but that didn't prevent an Israelite from asking another Israelite to pray for them...or even, to take a lamb or some grain to Aaron to ask Aaron to offer a sacrifice on their behalf. Now we have a far better High Priest than Aaron or his sons; but our fellow Israelites can still pray for us.

I think what you're missing here, Pat, is the ecclesiology of the Apostle Paul. Paul/Saul learned it from Jesus when Jesus blinded Saul en route to Damascus saying, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?" And you know the story: Saul answered, "Not so, Lord; I was just persecuting your followers, which isn't the same thing," and Jesus answered, "Oh, nevermind then."

Kidding!

No, it didn't go quite that way, did it? Jesus revealed to Saul that when you persecute a Christian, you are persecuting an organ in the body of Christ -- His hands, or His feet, or His eye. They are "in Christ": Notice that, despite the doctrine of the Eucharist, the Pauline Epistles say that we are "in Christ" about ten times more often than they say Christ is "in us." Jesus' words to Saul on the Damascus road were an epiphany; Paul constantly reiterates our membership -- not like people signing up for an organization, but like cells in an organism -- in the body of Christ. It's not mere analogy; it's metaphysical and miraculous reality.

And that's why the priestly ministry of Christ's ordained clergy is just a sharing in the priestly ministry of Jesus Christ. The mission of forgiving men's sins is shared by Jesus with His Apostles and their successors: "Whosoever's sins you forgive...." When the Apostles preached, they also commended those who heeded them for receiving their words not as mere words from men, but "the word of God.": They had a share in the preaching ministry of the Divine Logos Himself.

Thus, when a saint (whether he is in Heaven already, or on earth) intercedes for a fellow Christian, is he praying "apart from Christ?" Of course not! (How is that even possible? "It is God Himself who works within you....")

No, the saint who intercedes is "in Christ" and thus participates in Christ's intercessory ministry. Does Christ need any help? Of course not! But love is not like that; love does not say, "I can do this myself, so go away and don't join in with me." Love says, "I am doing this; how happy it makes me that you also want to do it with me!" God starts beaming with pride when the saints intercede.

Or, to put it another way: God is a good Father. He is pleased by the obedience of His firstborn Son, naturally. But He has also adopted many other sons and daughters, and is pleased when these adopted children join His Only Begotten in conducting the family business...which includes intercession for those who need it.

found here below http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4620#114--Note--you have to scroll to the part above angels

VENERATION OF THE SAINTS AND BEATI
Principles
208. The cult of the Saints, especially of the martyrs, is an ancient ecclesial phenomenon, that is rooted in the Scriptures (cf. Act 7, 54-60; Acts 6, 9-11; 7, 9-17) and the practise of the Church of the first half of the second century265. Both Eastern and Western Churches have always venerated the Saints. The Church has strenuously defended and explicitated the theological basis of this cult, especially since the rise of protestantism and its objections to certain aspects of the traditional veneration of the Saints. The connection between the cult of the Saints and the doctrine of the Church has also been clearly illustrated. The cultic expressions, both liturgical and devotional, of the veneration have always been carefully disciplined by the Church, which has always stressed the exemplary testimony to genuine Christian life given by these illustrious disciples of the Lord.
209. When treating of the Liturgical Year, Sacrosanctum Concilium effectively illustrates this ecclesial reality and the significance of the veneration of the Saints and Beati: "The Church has always included in the annual cycle memorial days of the martyrs and other saints. Raised up to perfection by the manifold grace of God and already in possession of eternal salvation, they sing God's perfect praise in heaven and pray for us. By celebrating their anniversaries, the Church proclaims the achievement of the paschal mystery in the saints who have suffered and who have been glorified with Christ. She proposes them to the faithful as examples who draw all men to the Father through Christ, and through their merits she begs God's favours"266.
210. A correct understanding of the Church's doctrine on the Saints is only possible in the wider context of the articles of faith concerning:
  • the "One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"267, Holy because of the presence in the Church of "Jesus Christ who, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is proclaimed as the "sole Holy One"268; because of the incessant action of the Spirit of holiness269; and because the Church has been given the necessary means of sanctification. While the Church does have sinners in her midst, she "is endowed already with a sanctity which is real though imperfect"270; she is "the Holy People of God"271, whose members, according to Scripture, are called "Saints" (cf. Acts 9, 13; 1 Cor 6, 1; 16,1).
  • the "communion of Saints"272 through which the Church in heaven, the Church awaiting purification "in the state of Purgatory"273, and the pilgrim Church on earth share "in the same love of God and neighbour"274. Indeed, all who are in Christ and posses his Spirit make up a single Church and are united in him.
  • the doctrine of the sole mediation of Christ (cf. 1 Tim 2, 3), which does not, however, exclude subordinate mediations, which must always be understood in relation to the all embracing mediation of Christ275.
211. The doctrine of the Church and her Liturgy, propose the Saints and Beati who already contemplate in the "clarity of His unity and trinity"276 to the faithful because they are:
  • historical witnesses to the universal vocation to holiness; as eminent fruit of the redemption of Christ, they are a poof and record that God calls his children to the perfection of Christ (cf. Ef 4, 13; Col 1, 28), in all times and among all nations, and from the most varied socio-cultural conditions and states of life;
  • illustrious disciples of Christ and therefore models of evangelical life277; the church recognises the heroicness of their virtues in the canonization process and recommends them as models for the faithful;
  • citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem who ceaselessly sing the glory and mercy of God; the Paschal passage from this world to the Father has already been accomplished in them;
  • intercessors and friends of the faithful who are still on the earthly pilgrimage, because the Saints, already enraptured by the happiness of God, know the needs of their brothers and sisters and accompany them on their pilgrim journey with their prayers and protection;
  • patrons of the Local Churches, of which they were founders (St. Eusebius of Vercelli) or illustrious Pastors (St. Ambrose of Milan); patrons of nations: apostles of their conversion to the Christian faith (St Thomas and St. Bartholomew in India) or expressions of national identity ( St. Patrick in the case of Ireland); of corporations and professions (St. Omobono for tailors); in particular circumstances — in childbirth (St. Anne, St. Raimondo Nonato), in death (St. Joseph) — or to obtain specific graces (St. Lucy for the recovery of eyesight) etc..
In thanksgiving to God the Father, the Church professes all this when she proclaims "You give us an example to follow in the lives of your Saints, assistance by their intercession, and a bond of fraternal love in the communion of grace"278.
212. The ultimate object of veneration of the Saints is the glory of God and the sanctification of man by conforming one's life fully to the divine will and by imitating the virtue of those who were preeminent disciples of the Lord.
Catechesis and other forms of doctrinal instruction should therefore make known to the faithful that: our relationship with the Saints must be seen in the light of the faith and should not obscure the "cultus latriae due to God the Father through Christ in the Holy Spirit, but intensify it"; "true cult of the Saints consists not so much in the multiplication of external acts but in intensification of active charity", which translates into commitment to the Christian life279.

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

lent


There is much to say regarding the early Church practice of Lent, so much so that I cannot include it all in a combox comment. Here are just a few pieces of evidence concerning Lent and the early Church.
The Nicene Creed was formulated at the first ecumenical council at Nicea in AD 325. Among thecanons from that council can be found the following words within the fifth canon:
And let these synods be held, the one before Lent, (that the pure Gift may be offered to God after all bitterness has been put away), and let the second be held about autumn.
According to St. Athanasius who attended the council there were 318 bishops from all over the world present at this council. And they do not say anything about establishing Lent; rather they speak of Lent as a given, as a liturgical reference point in relation to which they plan the time of other events. So the whole Church throughout the world takes Lent as a given, at the time of the first ecumenical council, before even the canon of Scripture had been determined, before the divinity of the Holy Spirit had been defined in the second council, and before one-Person-in-two-natures Christology had been defined in the third and fourth ecumenical councils in the fourth and fifth centuries.
Eusebius, for example, reports that in the late second century there was a difference in practice regarding when to end “the fast.” He writes:
A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, ofterminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour.
Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day, and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. There is still extant a writing of those who were then assembled in Palestine, over whom Theophilus, bishop of Cæsarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, presided. And there is also another writing extant of those who were assembled at Rome to consider the same question, which bears the name of Bishop Victor; also of the bishops in Pontus over whom Palmas, as the oldest, presided; and of the parishes in Gaul of which Irenæus was bishop, and of those in Osrhoëne and the cities there; and a personal letter of Bacchylus, bishop of the church at Corinth, and of a great many others, who uttered the same opinion and judgment, and cast the same vote.
And that which has been given above was their unanimous decision. (Church History 5.23, my emphases)
This second century dispute was over which day to end the fast and celebrate Christ’s resurrection. There was also dispute regarding what form the fast should take during the Triduum. What was not under dispute was the practice of fasting prior to celebrating Christ’s resurrection. Rather, as Eusebius implies, in the second half of the century, the practice of fasting prior to Easter was already celebrated in all the churches around the world. And according to Eusebius, St. Irenaeus wrote that even these variations in the form of fasting extended back to his ancestors: “And this variety in its observance has not originated in our time; but long before in that of our ancestors.” (Church History, 5.24) But because St. Irenaeus’s was an auditor (a hearer) and student of St. Polycarp, who was himself an auditor of the Apostle John, the only “ancestors” to which St. Irenaeus can be referring were either “apostolic fathers” or the Apostles themselves.
St. Athanasius, bishop of the Church at Alexandria, wrote the following to his Church in AD 330, just five years after the first ecumenical council:
We begin the fast of forty days on the 13th of the month Phamenoth Mark 9. After we have given ourselves to fasting in continued succession, let us begin the holy Paschal week on the 18th of the month Pharmuthi (April 13). Then resting on the 23rd of the same month Pharmuthi (April 18), and keeping the feast afterwards on the first of the week, on the 24th (April 19), let us add to these the seven weeks of the great Pentecost, wholly rejoicing and exulting in Christ Jesus our Lord, through Whom to the Father be glory and dominion in the Holy Ghost, for ever and ever. Amen. (Letter 2)
In AD 340, in his letter from Rome to Serapion, St. Athanasius wrote:
But I have further deemed it highly necessary and very urgent, to make known to your modesty— for I have written this to each one— that you should proclaim the fast of forty days to the brethren, and persuade them to fast, lest, while all the world is fasting, we who are in Egypt should be derided, as the only people who do not fast, but take our pleasure in these days. For if, on account of the Letter [not] being yet read, we do not fast, we should take away this pretext, and it should be read before the fast of forty days, so that they may not make this an excuse for neglect or fasting. Also, when it is read, they may be able to learn about the fast. But O, my beloved, whether in this way or any other, persuade and teach them to fast the forty days. For it is a disgrace that when all the world does this, those alone who are in Egypt, instead of fasting, should find their pleasure. For even I being grieved because men deride us for this, have been constrained to write to you.
Note that concerning Lent he explains that “all the world does this,” and exhorts the presbyter Serapion to make sure the people fast, and read the letter from him (as bishop) to his parishioners so that they have no excuse for not fasting.
St. Jerome likewise writes:
We, according to the apostolic tradition (in which the whole world is at one with us), fast through one Lent yearly … I do not mean, of course, that it is unlawful to fast at other times through the year — always excepting Pentecost — only that while in Lent it is a duty of obligation, at other seasons it is a matter of choice.” (Letter 41, To Marcella)
Notice both that Lent is observed by “the whole [Christian] world,” according to St. Jerome, and that it is an “apostolic” tradition.
In the fifth century, St. Leo the Great refers to Lent as an apostolic institution, writing, “That the Apostolic institution of forty days might be fulfilled by fasting.” (Serm. ii. v. ix. de Quadragesima) So do St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Isidore of Seville.
My point
My point here is not at all to lay out all the patristic evidence for the universal observance of Lent. Nor is my point to challenge Duncan’s claims regarding the allegedly bad theology inherent in the observance of Lent with the following dilemma: either the widespread early observance of Lent indicates that the whole Church from a very early time fell into false theology, which thus presupposesecclesial deism, or the whole entire Church at some later point prior to the fifth or sixth century abandoned its original theological basis for observing Lent and adopted another theological basis for observing Lent. The problem with that thesis is that there is no evidence for it. Hence if according to Duncan Lent arose out of a theology of merit that does not fit with Reformed theology, then so much the worse for Reformed theology’s claim to apostolicity and catholicity. But that dilemma is not the point I wish to make.
My point concerns a different dilemma. If there are any practices that can justifiably be said to belong to Tradition, Lent is surely one of them, as even the bit of patristic evidence I’ve provided already makes clear. Hence if even the observance of Lent has no authority, then there is no authoritative Tradition. But in the Protestant/Reformed debate sketched out above regarding whether or not to observe Lent the fundamental question is not whether Lent is authoritative, but whether Lent is biblical and, if ‘biblical,’ then useful. Hence if Lent is part of authoritative Tradition, the nature of the Protestant/Reformed debate regarding whether or not to observe Lent demonstrates precisely the thesis of my post at the top of this page, namely, that sola scriptura entails the non-authoritative character of Tradition, and thus reduces sola scriptura to “solo scriptura” in essence, even when and where some adherents of sola scriptura retain the practice of Lent and practices like Lent. So the dilemma I wish to set forward here is the following: either there is no Tradition, in which case sola scriptura reduces to “solo scriptura,” or Lent is part of that Tradition, in which case the Protestant debate concerning whether to observe Lent demonstrates that sola scriptura nullifies the authority of Tradition, in which case sola scriptura reduces to “solo scriptura.” Either way, sola scriptura reduces to “solo scriptura.”

end quote


and below Scott explains some of the symbolism of the 40 days in OT and Lent http://www.ewtn.com/faith/lent/fast.htm   

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/lent/fast.htm

see also:http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2015/02/trueman-lent-and-reformed-catholicity/

This link above also traces the history of Lent and does some contrasting to the Reformed views.

also the following link explains the ashes on Ashe Wed http://lifeteen.com/why-do-catholics-put-ashes-on-our-heads-on-ash-wednesday/   and http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/9-things-to-know-and-share-about-ash-wednesday1

Thursday, February 27, 2014

man and woman relationship

Woman, because she was created by being drawn from man’s side, is constantly trying to return to him. She desires the original unity of one flesh and one bone. The desire for unity between man and woman is a mirror of the relationship between Christ and the soul. As woman longs for union with man in human relationships, she is also drawn to unity with God. He calls her to become one with Him: to come under His side and become flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone. This occurs during reception of Eucharist. The covering of the head with a veil symbolizes the reality of woman sheltered in the side of her Source and becoming one with Him. She becomes covered and hidden in her Divine Spouse.
— St. John Chrysostom

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

contradictions?

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/10/on-religious-liberty-an-objection-considered/http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/10/on-religious-liberty-an-objection-considered/

also

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8779

The above link deals with [quote]--

To be specific, the Lefebvrites insist that theDeclaration on Religious Liberty contradicts what they call infallible teachings of Pius IX found inQuanta cura and the Syllabus of Errors. They often point also to Gregory XVI's Mirari vos.These claims can be answered, but a preliminary point should first be made.

The article above gives very good discussion and details on the subject.  Then this one is particularly good:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/07/conscience-and-coercion

"The declaration is not a statement about religious liberty in general but about a specifically civil liberty: religious liberty in relation to the state and other civil institutions. It does not oppose religious coercion in general, but coercion by the state. The state is forbidden to coerce in matters of religion, not because such coercion is illicit for any authority whatsoever, but because such coercion lies beyond the state’s particular competence. "

also Brian Harrison’s work on reconciling pre-Vat2 and Vat2 on the issue of religious liberty? Many of his articles are online at http://www.rtforum.org/lt/ – you may be interested in
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt44.html
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt9.html#II
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt151.html

Also in comment 85 here:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/10/on-religious-liberty-an-objection-considered/#comment-78258
 In the same speech, Benedict XVI applied the «hermeneutic of reform in the continuity» precisely to the controversial question of religious liberty. The Pope admitted that there is «some kind of discontinuity» in the Catholic teaching about this issue from Pius IX to the Council. Once the correct hermeneutic is applied, however, we may conclude that there is no rupture. The general principles taught by the Church have not changed. Their applications have changed, also as a consequence of new and different historical situations. The liberalism of the French Revolution considered religious freedom as a philosophical doctrine, implying that all religions are equal and that religious truth is merely subjective. This notion of religious freedom was rightly condemned by Pius IX, the Pope said, and the Church cannot accept it even today. «If religious freedom, the Pope explained, were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge».
However, the meaning of religious liberty derived from the French Revolution is not the only possible meaning. «The American Revolution, the Pope argued, was offering a model of a modern State that differed from the theoretical model with radical tendencies that had emerged during the second phase of the French Revolution». Thus, the Second Vatican Council proclaimed the right to religious liberty not at a «metaphysical level», but «as a need that derives from human coexistence» within the context of the modern secular State. The Pope did not claim that there is a literal continuity between Pius IX and Dignitatis Humanae. Obviously, there is not. But he did argue that the discontinuity concerned the application of the principles, «the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change», while there was continuity at the more crucial level of «the principles that express the permanent aspect». This «combination of continuity and discontinuity» is precisely a clear example of a «reform in the continuity», as opposed to a rupture.
http://www.cesnur.org/2011/dan-mi.html

see also: https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FR89103.HTM

and http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1883/vatican_ii_and_religious_liberty.aspx#.Uxdiu_mYLw9  
 To this, the Council Fathers say that while the State must “take account of religious life,” it would “clearly transgress the limits set to its power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious.”


This language in article three of Dignitatis Humanae was changed in nearly every draft of the document. The 19th-century popes taught that the State could inhibit public acts of religion. To avoid a direct contradiction, the Council Fathers argued that the State could not presume to inhibit such acts as if it were the arbiter of the true religion. The State could only inhibit religious acts if those acts violated public order and thus the common good.

.......................
Dignitatis Humanae’s definition of religious liberty at the start has it that “all men are to be immune from coercion…, within due limits.” That last phrase is most important, for here the Council Fathers had to walk a very narrow line. Article seven of the document starts to unpack the meaning.
Pope Leo XIII criticized the notion that citizens could worship whatever and however they wanted just so long as “public peace” wasn’t disturbed. In other words, condemned is the notion that you’re free to say and do and believe whatever you want so long as you don’t prohibit another from saying and doing and believing what they want. That was too low a bar for Pope Leo.
He taught that the common good should be the standard for State intervention. Practically, this meant that even if no public peace has been violated, the State may at times repress error to maintain the common good. 

Some argue that because the phrase “common good” is replaced with “public order” there is a contradiction. But the drafters had a good reason to avoid using “common good.” Bishop Emile de Smedt, the official spokesperson for the drafters, argued that the term was not used by modern governments. So the drafters chose “public order” as “the more basic component of the common good” but were careful to define “public order” to include not just “public peace” but “public morality.”
This was still not satisfactory to some. Archbishop Karol WojtyÅ‚a—later Pope John Paul II—noted that the Communists appealed to the “public order” all the time as they suppressed and persecuted the Church. He insisted that a reference be made to an objective moral standard. As a result, the drafters decided to define “public order” as the “objective moral order.”

Therefore, according to the declaration and in line with Pope Leo XIII, a right to religious liberty is necessary for the common good, but if one were going to limit religious liberty one would have to demonstrate that the religion was violating the objective moral order.



 Jimmy Aiken's article  here: http://web.archive.org/web/20110911193031/http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp

Monday, February 17, 2014

praying to saints? some questions/answers

Evidence in the Early Church: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-intercession-of-the-saints

Also a prayer to Mary in the early days of the church: http://frederica.com/gallery/places-and-things/1067611

Good article here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/02/do-the-saints-pray-for-us-a-response-to-perry-sukstorf-and-marcia-fleischman/

from comment  7 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/08/a-catholic-reflection-on-the-meaning-of-suffering/comment-page-1/#comment-7404

How can a saint in heaven hear our prayers? Saints are not omniscient or omnipresent; only God is omniscient and omnipresent. So how can they seemingly have such abilities?
The saints in heaven can hear/see our requests to them, though not with physical ears/physical eyes (since they are not embodied, Mary excepted). In three places in the gospels, Jesus tells us that in the resurrection we will be like the angels. One of the ways in which we will be like the angels is that we will not marry. But another way is that we will know, not only by our physical senses, but in a supernatural way, i.e. a way that exceeds the capacity of our epistemic faculties. All the angels and saints presently enjoy the Beatific Vision. (See Benedictus Deus.)
When a person has the Beatific Vision, he not only knows God; he also knows what pertains to himself, through God. St. Thomas Aquinas explains:
The Divine essence is a sufficient medium for knowing all things, and this is evident from the fact that God, by seeing His essence, sees all things. But it does not follow that whoever sees God’s essence knows all things, but only those who comprehend the essence of God [Cf. I, 12, 7,8]: even as the knowledge of a principle does not involve the knowledge of all that follows from that principle unless the whole virtue of the principle be comprehended. Wherefore, since the souls of the saints do not comprehend the Divine essence, it does not follow that they know all that can be known by the Divine essence–for which reason the lower angels are taught concerning certain matters by the higher angels, though they all see the essence of God; but each of the blessed must needs see in the Divine essence as many other things as the perfection of his happiness requires. For the perfection of a man’s happiness requires him to have whatever he will, and to will nothing amiss: and each one wills with a right will, to know what concerns himself. Hence since no rectitude is lacking to the saints, they wish to know what concerns themselves, and consequently it follows that they know it in the Word. Now it pertains to their glory that they assist the needy for their salvation: for thus they become God’s co-operators, “than which nothing is more Godlike,” as Dionysius declares (Coel. Hier. iii). Wherefore it is evident that the saints are cognizant of such things as are required for this purpose; and so it is manifest that they know in the Word the vows, devotions, and prayers of those who have recourse to their assistance. (Summa Theologica Supp. Q.72 a.1)
As St. Thomas explains, anyone who sees the face of God sees also in God all things pertaining to himself, through God. The petitions of the members of the Church militant, pertain to the saints in heaven. And for this reason they see these petitions supernaturally, through the Beatific Vision. Notice also in the selection from St. Thomas that he points out that “it pertains to their glory that they assist the needy for their salvation.” God doesn’t need the saints to intercede for us. He has given them a great gift, in allowing them to participate in this glorious way, in His work of redemption.
Because God is love, He does not do everything Himself. He created us, and gave us real causal powers. So, He doesn’t operate by the principle, “If I can do it, then there is no point in having anyone else do it.” He works by love, which is the very opposite of such egoism, because by love He gives to us the dignity of participation in His glorious activity. This is what we mean in speaking of His love as self-effusive. Strictly speaking, God did not need to give us causal powers of any sort. God could have done everything, entirely, Himself. He loves to give to us the opportunity to participate as real [secondary] causes in His work. That’s one of the gifts He has given to the saints in heaven, by allowing them to be genuine intercessors on our behalf.
For an explanation of the notion of “Patron Saints,” let me refer you to this article. (Feel free to ask follow-up questions on that, if that is unclear to you in any place.) As for the practice of praying to a particular saint for a particular type of need, we just discussed this in this comments of this thread, see especially comment #64.

Why travel to see the relics of saints or their shrines? Is this to pay respect, to offer penance, or to just to be close to those Giants who have gone before us?
The denial of the practice of venerating the relics of the saints, and denying their ability to hear our prayers was part of the heresy introduced by Eunomius and followed by Vigilantius in the fourth century, as St. Jerome tells us in his work against Vigilantius:
Does the bishop of Rome do wrong when he offers sacrifices to the Lord over the venerable bones of the dead men Peter and Paul, as we should say, but according to you, over a worthless bit of dust, and judges their tombs worthy to be Christ’s altars? And not only is the bishop of one city in error, but the bishops of the whole world, who, despite the tavern-keeper Vigilantius, enter the basilicas of the dead, in which “a worthless bit of dust and ashes lies wrapped up in a cloth,” defiled and defiling all else. Thus, according to you, the sacred buildings are like the sepulchres of the Pharisees, whitened without, while within they have filthy remains, and are full of foul smells and uncleanliness. And then he dares to expectorate his filth upon the subject and to say: “Is it the case that the souls of the martyrs love their ashes, and hover round them, and are always present, lest haply if any one come to pray and they were absent, they could not hear?” Oh, monster, who ought to be banished to the ends of the earth! Do you laugh at the relics of the martyrs, and in company with Eunomius, the father of this heresy, slander the Churches of Christ? Are you not afraid of being in such company, and of speaking against us the same things which he utters against the Church? For all his followers refuse to enter the basilicas of Apostles and martyrs, so that, forsooth, they may worship the dead Eunomius, whose books they consider are of more authority than the Gospels; and they believe that the light of truth was in him, just as other heretics maintain that the Paraclete came into Montanus, and say that Manichaeus himself was the Paraclete. You cannot find an occasion of boasting even in supposing that you are the inventor of a new kind of wickedness, for your heresy long ago broke out against the Church. It found, however, an opponent in Tertullian, a very learned man, who wrote a famous treatise which he called most correctly Scorpiacum, because, as the scorpion bends itself like a bow to inflict its wound, so what was formerly called the heresy of Cain pours poison into the body of the Church; it has slept or rather been buried for a long there, but has been now awakened by Dormitantius. I am surprised you do not tell us that there must upon no account be martyrdoms, inasmuch as God, who does not ask for the blood of goats and bulls, much less requires the blood of men. This is what you say, or rather, even if you do not say it, you are taken as meaning to assert it. For in maintaining that the relics of the martyrs are to be trodden under foot, you forbid the shedding of their blood as being worthy of no honour. (Against Vigilantius, 8)
Not only do the saints in heaven see God (as I explained above), but they retain a relation to their body. It is an ontological relation (i.e. a relation of being — this body does not merely belong to that saint, as he might have possessed a book or a cloak; this body is that saint, not the entirety of the saint, of course, but nonetheless his bodily component). The relation of the saints in heaven to their bodies is also an eschatological relation. They wait patiently to be reunited to their bodies, at the resurrection. To stand before the body of a saint is to stand before a part of someone who is presently enjoying the Beatific Vision, and is presently related (by an ontological relation of identity and an eschatological relation) to this body; it is to stand before something that we know (by the authority of the Church) will be in heaven forever. (We do not know that, with the same certainty, about any other material object, including our own bodies, because “that I [insert your own name] will persevere in faith until death” is not part of the deposit of faith.)
To ask for the intercession of a saint, in the presence of his or her body, is to do two things: (1) to honor that saint, by implicitly recognizing his heroic virtue and present glory, and (2) to draw near to that saint. If that saint’s body had no relation to the saint’s soul, then drawing near to his body would not in any way draw us near to the saint. But because of the body-soul relation, both ontological and eschatological, to draw near to his body is to draw near to the saint. We are not gnostics, who believe that we are all spirits trapped in bodies. A human soul is the form of a body — this particular body. (This is why reincarnation is metaphysically impossible.) The soul is incomplete in itself, as is the body. They are complete only when united as one substance, i.e. the body-soul composite. That is why human death is not natural, but contrary to nature, because the soul is made to remain the animating principle of this body. All this is why coming into the physical presence of the body of a saint, is to come into the presence of that saint who, at that very moment, is in heaven beholding the face of God. So, that is why the early Christians honored the relics of the saints, because they understood Christian anthropology, the communion of the saints, and the implications of the doctrine of the resurrection. (Update: I have discussed this in more detail in “Heroes of the New Covenant.”)
Lastly,
Are their prayers more effective than the living?
Yes. St. James tells us that the prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:16) But the saints in heaven are perfectly righteous, while even the most holy saint on earth still sins venially. Hence the prayers of the saints in heaven are more effective than the prayers of those on earth.



.............in Catholic theology and practice the term ‘saint’ is used in two different senses. In one sense, it refers to all those in a state of grace. In other sense it refers to those who by the grace of God have lived lives of heroic virtue and died in a state of grace. To move from Protestant to Catholic does not mean that one ceases to be a saint in the first sense (i.e. being in a state of grace). But merely being in a state of grace does not entail being a saint in the second sense (i.e. living a life of heroic virtue and dying in a state of grace).


More than that, we don’t need a 5 year old to intercede for us when we have the ladies husband himself interceding for us (Romans 8 – “Christ Jesus … is also interceding for us”).
Presupposed in this objection is the notion that sacred theology is determined by pragmatism and the principle of parsimony. But that’s not a safe presupposition. Rather, it is a human philosophical assumption. God is not necessarily limited by what is most efficient, or merely by what is “needed.” God could have forgiven us without the cross. That alone ought to give us pause when attempting to deduce or determine a priori the content of sacred theology by way of the principle of parsimony.
But the Jews never prayed to Eve, and there are no examples of prayers to Moses or Abraham or any other person in heaven in scripture that I’m aware of.
Keep in mind that until Christ ascended, the door of heaven was closed. See “The Harrowing of Hell.”
Even after the “rebuttals” given here, I have to agree with Presbyterian’s first comment – “praying” to Mary is wasting time that could be spent praying to God, …
That would entail that asking your [presently embodied] friends to pray for you is always also “wasting time that could be spent praying to God.” Again, implicit in this objection is the supreme elevation of the [very American / modern] value of maximizing efficiency, to the point of doing theological work, even though sacred theology is entirely based on supernatural divine revelation, not what is entailed by principles of human reason.
Regarding how the saints in heaven can hear our prayers, I’ve written about that in comment #7of “A Catholic Reflection on the Meaning of Suffering.” Also, I wrote a short post explaining why the prayers of the saints are efficacious, titled “Heroes of the New Covenant.”


Christ allows us, as the Body of Christ, to share in His Intercessory ministry. The key here is participation. The Blessed Virgin Mary has a special place in the Body, and as such, a special way that she participates in His Intercessory ministry. So, yes, we only have one Mediator, but He like to share. It all started when he created us.

see also http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/08/the-heroes-of-the-new-covenant/

From a comment 22 here      http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/12/ctc-radio-update/  :

Regarding prayer to the saints,there is plenty of scriptural evidence for the intercession of saints and angels.
Please see the following links:
Consider also the vision of Judas Maccabeaus, in which Onias and Jeremiah (both deceased) are seen interceding for the Jews: (2 Maccabees 15):
He told them that he had seen a vision of Onias, the former High Priest, that great and wonderful man of humble and gentle disposition, who was an outstanding orator and who had been taught from childhood how to live a virtuous life. With outstretched arms Onias was praying for the entire Jewish nation. 13 Judas then saw an impressive white-haired man of great dignity and authority. 14 Onias said:
This is God’s prophet Jeremiah, who loves the Jewish people and offers many prayers for us and for Jerusalem, the holy city.
15 Then Jeremiah stretched out his right hand and gave Judas a gold sword, saying as he did so,
16 This holy sword is a gift from God. Take it and destroy your enemies.
And Tobit 12: 15: “I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One.”
Compare this to Revelation 5:8:
“And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people.”
That the saints in heaven intercede for the Church on earth is a most biblical doctrine.
That we are to ask their intercession is confirmed by the teaching and practice of the same Church that gathered the sacred scriptures together in the present canon.