RCC-Questions

Questions for Roman Catholics:

If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the "Holy See" have known?
If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the eastern churches reject or question the inspiration of Revelation, then later accept it? Conversely, the east accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Orthodox church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple?
If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards?
If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome?
Since the synod Carthage in 393 AD stated, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon", does this not prove that Rome had no direct input or initiative in determining the canon.
Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the "orthodox church", how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?
If the Catholic church, "by her own inherent God given power and authority" gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?
Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose "church authority" shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?
Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.
Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral revelation" (tradition) differed from "written" (scripture)?
If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which "apostolic tradition" is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?
Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why would God suddenly provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD?
How could the Jews know that books of Kings or Isaiah were Scripture?
If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture: "the church is the pillar and foundation of truth" means the church is protected from error then: a. Why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other? b. How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general?
If the both the Orthodox and Catholic churches follow apostolic oral tradition exactly, how come they teach doctrine so different, that they are not even in communion with each other?
Both Tertullian and Jerome gave a list of oral traditions that were not found in the Bible. (Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4), (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8) Tertullian said of these practices that "without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone". These include, baptizing by immersion three times, giving the one baptized a "drink of milk and honey" then forbidding the person from taking a bath for a week, kneeling in Sunday mass was forbidden, and the sign of the cross was to be made on the forehead. Jerome, echoing Tertullian, said that these "observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law". Why does the Catholic church not immerse thrice and allow kneeling? Why do both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches not keep any of these traditions, with the exception of thrice immersion by the Orthodox? Why do Roman Catholic churches today have knelling rails in front of every pew? If the "apostolic tradition" was to make the sign of the cross on the forehead, why do both Orthodox and Catholic churches change this to the current practice of the sign on the chest and head? If extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed, then why don't the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches practice all of these things?

disown the devil before baptism

thrice immersed

Drink milk and honey after baptism

don’t bath for a week after baptism

kneeling in worship is forbidden

Sign of cross on forehead

Why do Roman Catholics always use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 as Bible proof that extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession, when tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church headed out of Constantinople? If 2 Timothy 2:2 proves succession, doesn't this prove the Roman Catholic church is not part of that succession?
When you see the word tradition, why do you always assume it to be oral tradition rather than scripture tradition, when the Bible calls scripture tradition in 2 Thess 2:15, and Athanasius call scripture tradition: "the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter, 'Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh" Athanasius then quotes: 1 Peter 4:1; Titus 2:13; Heb 2:1 (Athanasius, To Adelphius, Letter 60, 6)?

The Church Fathers believed what Paul said in Eph 3:3-5, that the scripture could be understood by merely reading it. They indicated that the scriptures themselves were clear, so clear, they even criticized the heretics for getting it wrong. If those outside the church and common pew dwellers are unable to understand the Bible themselves as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches teach, then why did the apostolic fathers expect the heretics to understand the Bible with their own human skills? (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 20), (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 1, 35), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 7, 16)

If each individual possessing a copy of the scriptures is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do illiterate Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the Catholic and Orthodox Catechisms? If illiterate Catholics and Orthodox can have the Catechisms read to them, then why not the scripture?

If universal distribution of the Bible in every home is an essential pre-condition of sola Scriptura, then how could Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the message of the Pope before the time of modern instant live communication?

If the ability to read is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do illiterate Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the Catholic and Orthodox Catechisms? Would not the same logic apply to illiterates in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches? If Catholic and Orthodox laity can "know the truth" by hearing the catechism read to them, then why not illiterate Christians when they hear the Bible read?

If the ability to read is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do the illiterate Catholic and Orthodox commoner know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they could not read the documents?

How do the Catholic and Orthodox commoners who can read, know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they did not possess copies of such documents?

If the earliest, universal oral tradition clearly states that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, why does the Roman Catholic church question this tradition to this day? (The Orthodox, are at least consistent in accepting this tradition, not that they are correct.)
Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Orthodox church is the one true church. (The challenge: make sure this method cannot apply also to the Roman Catholic church.)
Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Roman Catholic church is the one true church. (The challenge: make sure this method cannot apply also to the Orthodox church.)
If the personal illumination of the Holy Spirit upon each believer to understand the Bible is not a valid method of determining truth because of the many denominations that use this approach, then does it not follow that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are two denominations that use this method yet are divided on doctrine? Does this not prove both methods are wrong and a third method, one which we and the apostolic church practiced must be the correct method?
If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?

Articles:
18 questions for catholics
10 Commandments and Questions about
Questions for the Apologists
Questions for catholics

Having read through the recent controversial letters debating the truth or falsehood of the Protestant and Roman Catholic faiths as posted on the Take Heed Protestant guestbook, I ask these questions:

(1) If God is love, who loves and tolerates all people of all faiths, then why on earth is there eternal punishment promised, with no possibility of reprieve or let up, especially for those who take the Mark of the Beast?

(2) If the Mark of the Beast is administered via the right hand and forehead, described in the Revelation, why on earth does the Roman Catholic Church use this same method for signing the sign of the cross in all its rituals and blessings?

(3) If, in the Roman Catholic Latin Bible, the 'mark' - as in 'Mark' of the Beast - is translated characterem, �why on earth did she use the identical Latin word - characterem - when describing the indelible 'mark'� given in her sacraments of baptism, confirmation and holy orders?

(4) If the City of 7 Hills, Rome, is identified in the Revelation as the headquarters of the false church, the Mother of all Harlots, doomed to damnation by the infallible word of prophecy, why on earth did the Roman Catholic Church choose that site for her Holy See and Pontificate?

(5) If the beast from the earth, the false prophet doomed to damnation, is depicted as having two horns like the Lamb, Jesus, why on earth do the Roman Catholic bishops and Pontiff wear two-horned miters?

(6) If the false church, doomed to damnation, her capital in Rome, is named Mother, why on earth do Roman Catholics call her holy Mother, the church?

(7) If the false church, doomed to damnation, whose dominance, sway and authority is worldwide as described in the Revelation, why on earth did the Church of Rome call herself 'Catholic,' which means 'universal,' comprehending the whole world?

(8) If the false church, doomed to damnation, is depicted clothed in purple and scarlet in the Revelation, why on earth did the Roman Catholic Church choose those colors for her Pope, Cardinals and bishops?

(9) If the false church, doomed to damnation, is portrayed in the Revelation as wealthy beyond belief, wearing costly gold and precious stones and pearls, why on earth is the Roman Catholic Church the richest institution, whose wealth is incalculable?

(10) If, in the Revelation, the false church, doomed to damnation, is seen drinking the blood of the martyrs of Jesus in a golden cup, why on earth did the Roman Catholic Church spill the innocent blood of the true Christians who refused to partake the cup of the Mass, which of necessity must also be golden in its interior, if not its exterior?

(11) If the word of prophecy warned 1st century Christians of the coming Antichrist, why on earth did the Pope claim to be the Vicar of Christ when this title, translated into the Greek, is 'ANTICHRIST'?

I believe there can be only one explanation: The Roman Catholic Church is that false church foretold unto destruction, and her Pontiff the very Antichrist, whose predestined end is the Lake of Fire. Those who remain in her, no matter how kind, considerate and religious, are doomed to the same fate.

That would include the Order of Preachers who carry God's eternal curse for preaching another gospel.

P. S. The early church councils which enumerated the doctrine of the Trinity were Greek councils, comprised of nearly all Greek bishops. The Roman Pontiff was nowhere to be found.

Rand Winburn
Director

MORE QUESTIONS TO CATHOLICS:
I M A G E S:
Does the command of God to make the cherubims, (Exodus 25:18-19) prove the Roman Catholic teaching of the veneration of images?

No! The Cherubims were not adored or venerated, nor were they even seen by the people. They wree in the Holy of Holies into which the High Priest alone entered once a year, and then only with the blood of a sacrifice. The cherumbims were made at the express command of God, while the Church of Rome can not produce one such command enjoining the use and making of images.

"And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof." (Exodus 25:18-19)

Does the brazen serpent prove the Roman veneration of images?

No! "And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived." (Numbers 21:9) The brazen serpent is rather a proof against the worship of images! In fact, King Hezekiah later broke the serpent when the people burned incense before it - "He removed the high places and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it.. " (II Kings 18:4) - as Roman Catholics d today before their images.

Do the Old and New Testament forbid the use of images?

Yes! "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations of them that hate me, And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." (Exodus 20:4-6) "Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image; neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: I am the Lord your God." (Leviticus 26:1) "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." (John 4:24) "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things:" (Acts 17:24-25) "What say I then? that the idol is anything, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is anything? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils." (1 Corinthians 10:19-20)

Do Roman Catholics try to justify the use of images by making a distinction in their worship?

Yes! They make a distinction between the cult of Latria, given only to the Godhead; the cult of hyper-dulia, given only to Mary; and the cult of dulia, given to the Saints, images and relics, but this distinction is only theoretical.

T R A D I T I O N:
What is the rule of faith of the Church of Rome? Scripture and Tradition.

What does the Roman Catholic Church Mean by Tradition? The decrees of the Popes and of the Councils, the contents of which, they say, Christ and His Apostles taught by word of mouth, but which are not written down in the Bible.

Can the Church of Rome prove its tradition is divine or Apostolic? No! If the Roman Catholic Church could prove that its tradition was divine or Apostolic we would bow at once to its authority. Tradition at first was oral, but who could be trusted to report it? The Fathers or the Councils? They contradict one another even when presenting Roman teaching on many points.

Is there any remarkable instance in the Bible, which reports tradition circulated a falsehood? Yes! In John 21:22-23 we read: "Jesus said unto him, 'If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.' Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not to die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" Truly we cannot depend for our salvation on oral report!

Does John 21:25 prove that God's revelation is also contained in tradition? "And there are however many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itslef could not contain the books that should be written." No! While the preceding Scripture substantiates the fact that the Lord Jesus and His Apostles said and did many things that are not written in the Bible, the important fact is that the Scriptures were written by men, inspired by the Holy Spirit. They are sufficient for every need. John 20:31 declares: "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through His name."

Does II Thessalonians 2:15 Justify the Claims of Tradition? "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle." No! We do not deny that what is contained in the New Testament was first taught by word of mouth; but we know the Holy Spirit saw to it that everything necessry was later written down in the Bible. There is nothing in the above Scripture to support the claims of Tradition.

Did Christ Condemn Tradition? Yes! "But he (Jesus) answered and said unto them (the scribes and Pharisees) 'Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition'? (Matthew 15:3 (read also verse 4-9))

Did Christ appeal to the Scriptures as the rule of faith? Yes, many times. He resisted Satan with Scripture. (Matthew 4:4,7,10) He said that the Sadducees erred because they did not know the Scripture. (Matthew 22:29) He reproved two disciples as they journeyed to Emmaus because they did not believe all that the propphets said of Him. (Luke 24:25-27)

Did the Apostles appeal to the Scriptures? Yes! They followed the example of the Lord Jesus and quoted Scripture frequently. (See Acts 17:2; 26:22; II Timothy 3:15-17)

Did Christ or the Apostles ever appeal to tradition? No! Not even once. But rather warns as follows: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Colossians 2:8)

How can it be proven that the Christians in the Apostles' time had the same rule of faith as ourselves? They had the Old Testament, and the teaching of Christ and His Apostles. Today, we have the Old Testament and the New Testament which is the teaching of Christ and His Apostles.

Scripture warns us against tradition! "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Colossians 2:8)

I N T E N T I O N A N D S A C R A M E N T S:
Roman Catholics claim that grace and salvation are given through the sacraments, but are they certain of validly receiving sacraments? No! The validity of the sacraments depends upon the intention of the priest. The Council of Trent (Sess. VII. Can.II) declares: "If anyone shall say, that intention, at least of doing what the church does, is not required in ministers while performing and administering the sacraments, let him be anathema." Considered a doctor of the Roman Catholic Church, Cardinal Bellarmine stated: "No one can be certain, with the certainty of faith, that he has received a true sacrament, since no sacrament is performed without the intention of the minister, and no one can see the intention of another." (Bellarmine's Works, Vol. I, p. 488)

Are Roman Catholics certain of being Christian and not pagan? According to the Baltimore Catechism (Questian 152, 153) for instance, "Baptism is a sacrament which cleanses us from original sin, makes us children of God and heirs of heaven." "Baptism is neccessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven." But if the priest or the person who baptizes a child is lacking in the proper "intention," the child can never enter heaven. But Cardinal (Saint) Bellarmine assures us that "no one can see the intention of another," and thus, even though the rite of baptism is properly performed on a child, it will have no effect if the proper "intention" is lacking in the person who performs the rite!

Are Roman Catholics certain that their priest, bishop, pope are validly ordained, and not still pagan? Suppose a child is baptized by a priest who lacks proper intention. The baptism is then of no avail, and the child grows up a pagan. If he should enter a seminary and be ordained a priest, his ordination will be also invalid. All the thousands of masses he says, all the sacraments he performs, will likewise be invalid. If he becomes a bishop, the priests he ordains and the other bishops he consecrates will have no power as such. If by chance he should become Pope, the Roman Catholic Church would then have as "Vicar of Christ" and "Infallible Head" a man who was not even a Christian to start with.

CHURCH COUNCILS:
"A Practical Catholic Dictionary", Imprimatur Cardinal Spellman, defines Roman Catholic Church Councils as follows: "Ecclesiastical meetings for deciding matters of doctrine or discipline. Church councils may be Provincial (council of the bishops of a province), Plenary (councils of the bishops of a nation), or General (representing the whole church). The Pope or his representative preside at a General council which is called also an ecumenical council"

A new council, the Second Vatican Council, was convoked, starting in December 1962. Controversy over its decisions still rages. Many Romanists are disillusioned.

The Word of God is the Sole Rule of Faith for true Christians. All the doctrines of God are contained therein. The Roman Catholic Church has counterfeited many doctrines repugnant to Scripture and put them into circulation as though they were true. Millions have been deceived thereby. Read.. (Isaiah 8:20; II Timothy 3:16,17 Matthew 24:24; I Timothy 4:1-3; II Corinthians 11:13-15; and II Timothy 4:3,4)

One of the means Rome has used to accomplish this purpose is that of Church Councils. Romanists are not 100% agreed on the exact number of "General Councils", but the consensus of opinion seems to set them at twenty one: Nicaea I, 325; Constantinople I, 381; Ephesus, 431; Chalcedon, 451; Constantinople II, 553; Constantinople III, 680; Nicaea II, 787; Constantinople IV, 869; Lateran I , 1123; Lateran II, 1139; Lateran III, 1179; Lateran IV, 1215; Lyons I, 1215; Lyons II, 1274; Vienne, 1311; Constance, 1414; Florence, 1431; Lateran V, 1512; Trent, 1545; Vatican I, 1870; Vatican II, 1962.

True Christians who believe the Scriptures to be the Sole Rule of Faith, do not accept the infallibility of any Coucnil except that of the Apostles mentioned in the Bible, Acts 15:1-29.

The history of so-called "General Councils" sicne the Canon of Scripture was closed is one of conflicts, politics, rivalries, disputes, heresies. The medieval General Councils were mainly concerned with power, politics and jurisdiction, throwing anathemas and excommunications at Heretics, Patriarchs, Popes, Kings, Emperors, Knights Templars, Reformers, Protestants, or any one who threatened the wealth and jurisdiction of those in power. These councils were accompanied by riots, strikes, rebellions and uprisings. Even the most recent "Second Vatican Council" has been taken up with heated disputes between teh "liberal" and "conservative" elements among the bishops and cardinals. When it became apparent that the liberals outnumbered the conservatives, the first session was terminated. When Pope John, XXIII died in June 1963, all conciliar committees were dismissed. The second session was marked by petty squabbles, long discourses by certain egotistical cardinals.

Although the Pope is supposed to call a General Council, and personally or by representative preside over it, it should be remembered that during the first 1000 years no Ecumenical Council was summoned by a Pope, presided over by a Pope, or even attended by a Pope. The earliest Councils werre convoked by Emperors, not Popes! The first General Council presided over by a Pope was held in Rome in 1123 (Lateran I). The Council of Nicaea 325, was called by Emperor Constantine, who was baptized on his deathbed by an Arian minister who denied the divinity of Christ. Five years after the Council, Emperor Constantine consecrated the city of Constantinople to his "god." In the dedication of Constantinople in 330, the chariot of the Sun-god was set in the market place. (See Catholic Encyclopedia IV - 297).

MARY AND THE SAINTS:
Genesis 3:15 says: "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Does this text prove the Roman Catholic teaching of the Immaculate Conception of Mary? No.

The Hebrew text reads: "He" or "It," not SHE (Mary) shall bruise thy head.. "and even teh Septuagint version, approved by the Roman Catholic Church reads "He shall crush..., " etc. Therefore the subtle argumentation from the above text in favor of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary has no Scriptural foundation.

Does Luke 1:28, prove the Roman doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? "And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." No.

The angel saluted Mary with a gracious benediction on the ground that she was chosen from among all other women to become the mother of Jesus. But the Angel did not say or imply that she was conceived without original sin, or that she did not need salvation. Mary knew herself to be a sinner and in need of salvation, for in her song of praise she said: "And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior." (Luke 1:47) The Immaculate Conception was defined as dogma on December 8, 1954, by Pope Pius IX as follows:

"The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from he first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, pg 138, #491)

Believing that God redeemed Mary from the moment of her conception went against the teachings of many of Rome's theologians - Augustine, Cardinal Cajetan, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Pope Gregory the Great, etc. It most certainly is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture that all die in Adam. (Read 1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 5:12; Psalm 14:3; Romans 3:23; Isaiah 64:6)

In the Bible the brethren are often asked to pray for others. (Genesis 20:7; Phillipians 1:4; I Timothy 2:1; James 5:16) Does this prove the Roman Catholic teaching of prayers to the Saints? No. The preceding Scriptures do not prove that a living Christian should pray to a dead saint to intercede for him, but only that Christians, while on earth, should pray for each other. In Heaven none can mediate but CHRIST, (I Timothy 2:5)

Does Luke 16:19-31 prove that we can pray to the Saints? No. The request of the lost rich man, - verse 27-28 "Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they come into this place of torment" can in no way typify Christian prayer! Not being a believer and already in hell, his prayer was ineffectual. The only prayer God hears from the lips of any sinner during his sojourn on Planet Easrth, is: "God, be merciful to me, a sinner." Thus this scripture passage in Luke does not prove the Roman doctrine of praying to Saints. The Catechism of the Catholic Church. pg.707 #2683 states: "They (the Saints) contemplate God, praise him and constantly care for those whom they have left on earth. When they entered into the joy of their Master, they were "put in charge of many things." The Intercession is their most exalted service to God's plan. We can and should ask them to intercede for us and for the whole world."

God's Word states differently:
"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut the door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward the openly." (Matthew 6:6)

"I exhort therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men.. For there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." (1 Timothy 2:1-6) [Source "The Gospel Catholic, by Rev. Donald F. Maconaghie]