In the Catholic Church dogma, what is the biblical basis for the intercession of the saints, who are long dead?

>What I heard from lecture
>Basically the saints are in the same position as jesus who got lots of favors after he died. This probably made a lot more sense when Jesus wasn't god himself in the theology.

Oh, wow. The absolute state of education.

I don't mean to be rude user, but I have searched a lot and asked a lot of people, so I have read all that.

>1
Yes. That righteous person could be considered a saint, but it does not say dead.

>2
Same as above

>3
Does not say dead. Everyone is surrounded by a cloud of witnesses, our friends, relatives, colleagues.

>4
I've read that recently, used in a way that implied that those who are dead are not unconscious, as if asleep - but awake and alert. Which goes against what is taught before, about the land of the dead. It's not a contradiction. If interpreted in that way [that saints are in fact alive] then it is a wrong interpretation, for it contradicts what was previously taught. The correct interpretation could be that they are alive in Christ - awaiting judgment, yet unconscious.

It is similar to the purgatory idea. Completely devoid of biblical basis, except for a single commentary made by Jesus, interpreted in a way that contradicts previous and posthumous teachings, which means it was a wrong interpretation.

What kind of half baked new age interpretation of some derivative sect of Christianity is that from!?

As far as this topic is concerned, you also have to be conscious of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in all believers. We are temples of God. God himself dwells in all who are born again.
So in venerating saints and in asking for them to pray for you, you always have to remember that you're venerating and asking for the intercession of someone in whom God's Spirit dwells. All of their holiness, their power, comes from God's Spirit.
So, it in no way diminishes God's honor or robs him of any glory when someone asks for the intercession of this or that saint. The Holy Spirit is glorified.

You misunderstood what I was doing with those verses. I wasn't saying that they proved on their own the biblical basis for the intercession of the saints. They were working like premises, leading up to a conclusion.

Premise 1: prayers of the righteous are powerful.
Premise 2: we are told it is okay to ask people to pray for us
Premise 3: We are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, not corpses. This verse comes after chapter 11, where the writer was naming various figures -- ALL OF WHOM ARE DEAD -- Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc. He says:
> And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets— 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions
Then this leads up to:
>Since we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses
etc.
The point the writer is making is very clear. Look at all of these great heroes of the faith! Look what they endured! Since we are surrounded by this great cloud of witnesses, let us pursue righteousness.

Conclusion: therefore it makes sense to ask them to pray for you.

The anaylsis of the historical and authentic early Christianity has very little to do with what is considered 'cannon'. Let me guess you're the type of person that thinks the Gospels were actually written by the origenal followers of Jesus and that all of Paul's letters are authentic.

Yale, from a respected scholar on early biblical history. Like I said to the other guy biblical history isn't "everything this particular sect teaches in theology is what was always beleived by the 'true followers of our religion".

Why would god need an intermediary?
Why can't I speak directly to God?

It just seems like the church created a heirarchy for control.

I don't mean to be rude or dismissive, but if you're not even familiar with the word "canon," I'm not sure how seriously I should take your opinion on this subject.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though, and just assume you misunderstood what the Yale scholar was saying.

Without skilled and educated guidance, how do you know you’re really talking to and having a personal relationship with God?

The Church never says you can't speak directly to God. It encourages everyone to do so.
God, in his wisdom and love, gave us many examples for the Christian life.
So, Paul for example says:
>1 Corinthians 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
well, gee, Paul, why not just imitate Jesus directly? Who cares about you?
Because God is glorified in the lives of his saints.

>prays to saints
I don't see how this is any different to when Asians pray to thier ancestors.

Isn't this polytheism and contradicts god omnipresence?

You don't, I just address God and he should be aware I'm speaking to him. He is omnipresent. Every human has a relationship with God, it isn't some sort of thing you develop.

>His saints
Aren't saints created after the death of Jesus? By the church?

Not him but if someone has mystical experience and communicates with God it would be downright laughable to think that you'd need some priest or theologian who might have never even had such an experience. You're already talking with God!

So it’s all just one way, you tell god what’s up?

>Aren't saints created after the death of Jesus? By the church?
Saints are created by the Holy Spirit's work in their lives.
Many saints are confirmed by the Church, which just means that the Church, under the guidance of the Spirit, has confirmed that this or that saint is in heaven, and can intercede with God. But there are many saints who aren't confirmed or even known about.

Precisely, the god I pray to is all powerful, all knowing.

Do you have a conversation with God?

A conversation is two ways. One person speaking is not a conversation.

That... Is actually a very good argument. Yet, I don't feel comfortable with that. Why not make it more clear? Why make such an important point of the faith so hidden, dependent on interpretation?

I must agree with your interpretation. Let us laid out what we know: humans can be saints (revelations). Dead men are not unconscious, but instead they witness us. Righteous people can intercede for us. So, can dead people, considering they are awake, intercede for us?

Tell me how you do it, I mean sincerely. I'm not mocking you.

Not him but what are you saying? The priests and theologians did not have conversations either. The conclusion I am reaching is only a mystic knows what God really thinks.

>Why not make it more clear? Why make such an important point of the faith so hidden, dependent on interpretation?
Those questions, I would say, are directed more at sola scriptura than the doctrine of the intercession of the saints. I don't believe this point is hidden, but I believe it is plainly and clearly taught by the Church, which is the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

A conversation with God is flat out blasphemy. I’ll. Pray to show gratitude or ask for intercession, but it’s not a conversation. If a herald shows up, that’s different. Anything else is just fooling yourself or possibly occult.

Well, thank you. You have convinced me.

Mystics and clergy do seem to have a monopoly on interactions with God it seems.

Clergy does not claim to “interact” with God. Trying reading on the subject before jumping to conclusions.

...

>A conversation with God is flat out blasphemy.

Why not just declare spirituality itself blasphemy and put on your fedora than.

Saints are good ways to understand Church teaching but most aren't necessary for salvation unless we're talking about a Church doctor but even then it's his teachings that are of more consequence. From that perspective laying out the hierarchy of saints would not have been Jesus' top objective, just getting mankind to understand his path to salvation for us was task enough.

No saint is necessary for salvation. There is no hierarchy of saints, either, except that Mary is above them all.

Read The Cult of the Saints by Peter Brown. An excellent book, recommended to me by my professor, that would absolutely help you with your question. It's from an historical perspective, though.

The righteous ascend to Heaven after physical death. They do not truly die. They enter into greater communion with God in Heaven. We ask our fellow Christians on this Earth to pray for us. We also ask Christians in Heaven to pray for us. The only fundamental difference between the two is proximity to God. Our God is the God of the living. There is nothing wrong with asking those who have left this carnal life to pray for us.

>A conversation with God is flat out blasphemy.
What do you mean? God spoke to thousands. He had direct conversations with dozens (if not more).

>ALL OF WHOM ARE DEAD -- Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses,

(Mark 12:26-27) And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

here we see the perils of responding without reading previous posts for contexts

link your prior posts instead of doing a reddit response. who is the audience that's going to look at your post and laugh? "here we see the perils" Did you write that for actual people to read and think "wow, that was witty", or did it satisfy the voices in your head, your imagined audience, that fragment you've detached from yourself to observe and comfort you?

Are you retarded, or what?

You posted in the style of late night talk-show soundbite. Detached, ironic. You don't directly reference your experience or my post.
>here we see
It's not "we". It's you posting. Tell us your experience. Don't speak for others. The audience in your head doesn't exist. You're sitting in front of your computer alone. You could easily have pointed out that your other posts show that you're in agreement with me. Instead, you took it as an opportunity to look cool to the audience in your head. Why?

First off, that poster calling you retarded wasn't me. Second, I find it absurd that you didn't have the courtesy to read the context of the post you were responding to but then get all upset that I responded to your post in an equally lazy way.
Could you be more self righteous and pretentious? Sheesh
>attached is a picture of your waifu
>she's sad that you've acted so

Jesus Christ is the only mediator. God doesn't need an intermediary either; we do.
But that doesn't mean perfect men and women in Heaven cant pray for us or receive our prayers for their intercession.

And what's the big deal? Is not God capable of allowing saints in Heaven to pray for us? After all, they are in Heaven, in union with God, closer to God.

All the church fathers of the early Church taught of the intercession of saints too.

Too, the body of Christ, the Church is made up of the Church Militant (people on earth fighting spiritual battle against Satan), Church Suffering (those in purgatory), and the Church Triumphant (Saints in Heaven). We are all the body of Christ, members of the Church. In the same way humans on earth pray for us, those with eternal life in Heaven pray for us too.

you're awesome dude

This is the first time I've witnessed this on this board. It truly is miraculous.

>perfect men and women

What heresy is this? The only perfect man was Jesus Christ

Christianity & Christian doctrine is broader than the bible. The bible is a pillar, not the foundation.

find it very difficult to take some of the Protestant propositions even seriously. What is any man who has been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the Bible? It indicates a jumble of topsy-turvy tests and tail-foremost arguments, of which I never could at any time see the sense.

The ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or cases, and so on.

I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all hocus-pocus”; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation, breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might express that general view. I can understand his saying, “Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.”

But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of that particular creed?

To say to the priests, “Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense,” is sensible. To say, “Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.

You clearly have no understanding of Protestantism and you think every protestant is a puritan ready to break stained glass windows and throw away crosses. Oliver Cromwell died centuries ago.

Protestant Churches/sects have their own icons, symbols, sacred traditions and so on. Lutherans and Anglicans even have the rosary and hold Mary almost as high as the Roman church. Even the liturgical calendar of most protestant sects is extremely close to that of the Roman church.

The Reformation did not start because some Christians just decided to hate on Rome and make their own sect, they reformed the church because they felt the Roman Church had corrupted Christianity with flawed theology and covered it up with the "sacred tradition" meme. The Reformation was about going back to the early church, back to FAITH, back to scripture, back to the true traditions and reverence for Christ...

C.S. Lewis said it best on why Protestants and Anglicans will never join in communion with rome:

[In reply to a Catholic inquiring as to why he remains an Anglican]

"the real reason why I cannot be in communion with you is not my disagreement with this or that Roman doctrine, but that to accept your Church means, not to accept a given body of doctrine, but to accept in advance any doctrine your Church hereafter produces. It is like being asked to agree not only to what a man has said but to what he’s going to say…To us the terrible thing about Rome is the recklessness (as we hold) with which she has added to the depositum fidei [deposit of faith]…the proliferation of credenda [what must be believed]."

That's a comfy looking jacket

>"the real reason why I cannot be in communion with you is not my disagreement with this or that Roman doctrine, but that to accept your Church means, not to accept a given body of doctrine, but to accept in advance any doctrine your Church hereafter produces. It is like being asked to agree not only to what a man has said but to what he’s going to say…To us the terrible thing about Rome is the recklessness (as we hold) with which she has added to the depositum fidei [deposit of faith]…the proliferation of credenda [what must be believed]."

That's funny, because protestants don't have a body of doctrine or a deposit of faith, and they change their "credenda" every other day, and usually to accommodate them to the spirit of the times.

>they change their "credenda" every other day, and usually to accommodate them to the spirit of the times.

A protestant does not need to accept the changing "credenda" of the church if it doesn't fit scripture. Hence why in the American Episcopal Church about 1/4 of them left and went elsewhere when women's ordination became a thing. I would look inwards before accusing protestants of accommodating the faith, considering the Roman Church adopted liberation theology full stop when they went to conquer South America and other socialist leaning areas of the world.

And yes most mainline protestant churches do have a creed and statement of faith--the Nicene creed.

Why?

I don't know how people can take any of this seriously in 2018

Why have you posted a blank image?
I don't understand.

How can there be religion in current year? Why can't everyone be enlightened and intelligent like me?

The early Christians did not have the New Testament. It was compiled over the course of the 1st century of Christianity. The Apostles were sent by Christ to preach; some of what they taught was passed on in their writings (scripture), other things were passed on orally (tradition). Christianity grew up over the centuries and developed in its changing historical, political, cultural conditions. The fact that the veneration of the saints is not included in scripture, for example, is kind of irrelevant seeing as the New Testament scriptures were already written before such veneration could develop. The fact is that, just as Elisha used Elijah's cloak to work miracles, the early Christians also found that the relics of the saints and prayers to them also worked miracles. That the veneration of the saints is different in the New Testament era than in the Old Testament era is no surprise at all to Christian theology, because only in the New Testament era are men given a full participation in the divine life (theosis, divinization) through incorporation into Christ - the just men of the Old Testament were waiting in Sheol until Christ came and rescued them so that they could enter paradise, whereas the saints of the New Testament are already temples of the Holy Spirit through baptism and can enter heaven: this supernatural indwelling of the Holy Spirit within them makes them more worthy objects of veneration, and makes their intercession more powerful.

>How could you possibly venerate wise and temperate people who dedicated their life fully to their beliefs
Damn, the actual state of our society. Literally damn.

>How could all those people be wrong?
Yeah that's what Muslims say about their religion too. It's amazing how similar christcucks and mudslimes are.

actually
>perfect men and women in Heaven

You genuinely think there is anyone with sin (imperfect people) in Heaven? lol no.
How can man in Heaven be in union with God and be imperfect? Perhaps you should either stop misleading others on what I said or read tediously, before you reply something along the line of "HERESY!!!"—you definitely need to.

Oh too, Mary, the Mother of God, was sinless, perfect. And to clarify—because you most likely need it—, Mary is not equal to Jesus Christ. Christ is fully man and fully Divine; Mary is by no means divine and is the obedient creation of God.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Saints are not infallible or without sin and people outside of Catholicism can be wise teachers as well. The vast majority of people following the vast majority of religions think this way as well. The Dalai lama has said he feels he has more in common with Christian monks than many followers of Buddhism.

Dalai lama is the biggest cuck alive.

Cool. I'm sure a celibate monk really cares about being a cuck.

I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Imperfect men can definitely be in heaven user.

>In the Catholic Church dogma, what is the biblical basis for the intercession of the saints, who are long dead?
Saints are those who have died and received the Grace of God. It's like saying, what's the biblical basis for the intercession of Heaven?
Asking for the biblical basis of things is p Protestant tbhfam

He is a weak beta faggot who goes with what the crowd or the jews in power want.

John 3:16, in conjunction with the other posts here (about the prayers of a good soul being important), is all the basis you need. If you are a Catholic, you do not believe the saints to be dead: they are simply not on earth. They live on forever in God’s glory. Therefore we are not asking the “dead” to pray for us, we are asking those who have accepted Christ, and therefore received eternal life.

Wrong. Most people following their religion think everyone outside it will go to hell/equivalent of hell.

Strawman bruh. Statistically most people who describe themselves as being part of a religion don't even attend regular services

Find out who he is holding hands with, why it's significant and report back to us kid. Also:

washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/05/31/the-dalai-lama-says-too-many-refugees-are-going-to-germany/?utm_term=.866e57497c10

>Stands against China
>The single biggest crowd in the world
Yup just a regularly ol conformist.

pls excuse my ant-posting

Miguel Serrano? So what? He was another spook. He clearly wasn't a threat to anyone when "they" let him write books about esoteric hitlerism his whole life.

Their mortal sinful body has to be dead though, and they have to pass through purgatory in spirit for whatever length of time that is before joining the communion of saints though. Mary is the only one without original sin who is risen into Heaven without death of a mortal body because of her immaculate conception. Everyone else the body has to die for life everlasting.

Gay

Caring for others can in fact make you confident and self-assured, I know at least I was weaker when I followed "might is right" type of thinking.

He cares for what the Jews want him to care.

Imperfect men, who aren't in Hell are purged in purgatory. It sounds much more heretical to say that people WITH sin are in Heaven. Sin is not of God; it cannot be in Heaven.

Imperfect people are on earth, yes. Not in Heaven. Imperfect people enter Heaven after being purified of their non mortal sins (if they are in purgatory, they would not have any mortal sin unforgiven); after that process, they are perfect, because all of the wounds of their sins were healed.

I'll reiterate what I said before. How could a man be in union with God while sinning in Heaven? That doesn't make any sense.

>Imperfect men can definitely be in heaven user.
>be in
no.
>Revelation 21: 22-27

[22] And I saw no temple therein. For the Lord God Almighty is the temple thereof, and the Lamb.

[23] And the city hath no need of the sun, nor of the moon, to shine in it. For the glory of God hath enlightened it, and the Lamb is the lamp thereof.

[24] And the nations shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory and honour into it.

[25] And the gates thereof shall not be shut by day: for there shall be no night there.

[26] And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

[27] There shall not enter into it any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb.

>[27] There shall not enter into it any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie

I mean that men who were imperfect are with God now. Made perfect by him as the scripture I quoted necessarily implied.

Should've made that clear. You would agree with all my points regarding that there are no imperfect people in Heaven. Again, read before you type; considering this qualification of yours, you have been talking about something totally different.

I had said constantly that there are NO imperfect people in Heaven.

Apparently you misunderstood what I said completely by firstly disregarding that I said there are perfect people in Heaven. You called the statement "perfect men and women" heretical, but recklessly neglected to quoted "in Heaven" after. Secondly, You incorrectly use a verse describing how imperfect people might go about getting into Heaven, then wrongly say that "Imperfect men can definitely be in heaven user." Thirdly, you correct your ridiculous claims with " men who were imperfect" which I would agree with and have laid out in I was talking about perfect people in Heaven, you did a terrible job at saying "people who WERE imperfect are NOW perfect in Heaven." And you failed two times to see that I never spoke of imperfect men on earth, but rather address those in Heaven and how they are NOT imperfect.

Again, be precise, actually understand what I was saying from the first post to this one.

Are we in agreement that there are ONLY perfect people in Heaven, NOT imperfect people? Are we in agreement that imperfect people who are NOT going to Hell must be purified in some fashion(we don't have to agreement on purgatory or not. Just focus on the idea of someone entering Heaven with no sin) so that they may be perfect in Heaven?

I fucking hope so...

So are you Protestant? How did you misunderstand that other user so badly?