I have searched many sites to find evidence of the incorrupted body of St. Cecilia. But I have failed to find any evidence of the real body, only statues of the saint. Can anyone help to find out real photo of the saint's incorrupted body?

So says Matt. 19:24--- > It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. QUESTION: I would like to know who (if any) among the **non-royal laity** have been canonized by the Catholic Church who died a natural death (i.e., not martyred) as a lay person in an economic state that might be considered well-to-do or better? (I am interested in canonized Saints who fit this criteria; nevertheless, if anyone is aware of a well-to-do individual whose cause for Sainthood has been opened, I would like to know of that individual(s) as well.) *Remark:* I have not been able to think of one such individual. I know that the Ven. Leo Dupont was born wealthy and did many wonderful things with his money, much of which he spent on charitable and pious endeavors. I don't believe that he died poor. However, he still has not been declared a Saint in the Catholic Church.

I'm writing a story of sorts that has its basis in an Episcopal character who performed a great number of good and faithful deeds (caring for the sick, preaching and even claims of miracles). He was a good and faithful person. After his tragic death, I wonder how he may be remembered or venerated? I know devotion to the saints is usually less focused on than in say, Catholicism. Would the Anglican calender, perhaps at least locally, commemorate his death? Would he get visits to his grave?

Defense of the Augsburg Confession XXIV recognizes and does not prohibit mentioning the dead. In my church, we have a local service to commemorate the departed that were deported during second world war. But I'm too ashamed to ask the pastor at this point what exactly do be believe about this topic. Do Lutherans "pray" for the dead? If so, what does it mean for us?

Since the saints are said to be in the grave, if someone has answered that their spirits are in communion with Christ and interceding, then there would be no importance of the resurrection of bodies. Wouldn't this invalidate the need for the bodily resurrection?

Angels have powers inherent to their nature. So why can't we just ask an angel to use his power to help us, instead of asking the angel to pray for us while we wait for God to grant the request? If it's not a sin here on Earth to ask a doctor to heal me, instead of asking him to pray to God to heal me, why can't I do something similar with an angel?

I am presently engaged in a writing project, a component of which pertains to Pauline Jaricot. She was recently declared Blessed in the Catholic Church (May, 2022). I am inclined to call January 9 her "Feast Day"; but, despite what Wikipedia indicates, I am wondering if "Feast Day" is the proper way to refer to the day of her death---thinking, perhaps, that only Saints have Feast Days. Of course, I could be wrong. (I recall having read somewhere that some "Feast Days" are actually, more properly speaking, "Memorials." QUESTION: Regarding Blessed Pauline Jaricot, how shall I refer to January 9---her `Feast Day'', her `Memorial'', or perhaps, the "day" which "Commemorates" her death? Also, if someone could shine some light on how to do the same for Venerables, such as Ven. Fulton J. Sheen, it would be much appreciated. Thank you.

### What is "offering it up" As a Protestant, the Catholic practice of "offering it up" is new to me, although once I am acquainted with it, it seems very Biblical; see - [this article](https://catholicstrength.com/tag/offering-up-our-sufferings-for-others/) which interprets the practice in light of sharing in Christ's suffering in union with Him (*cf* Rom 8:17, Phil 2:17-18, Col 1:24, and 2 Cor 4:8-12) - Paul's advice to Timothy to "share in [Paul's] suffering [in Christ]" (*cf* 2 Tim 2:3) Other articles explaining "offering it up": - 2017 [*Catholic Digest* article](https://www.catholicdigest.com/amp/from-the-magazine/ask-father/what-does-it-really-mean-to-offer-it-up/) by Fr. Thomas V. Berg, Ph.D. - 2019 [*Word on Fire* article](https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/fellows/lets-get-reacquainted-with-the-idea-of-offering-it-up/) by Benedictine Oblate Elizabeth Scalia ### Offering it up *vs.* other suffering and works of love My question has to do with comparing "offering it up" (#4) to other 5 practices that can arguably produce merit: 1. "active" (visible) meritorious works of love ([congruous, not condign merit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merit_(Christianity)#Nature_of_merit) , done in the state of grace). Examples: [corporal works of mercy](https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/how-we-teach/new-evangelization/jubilee-of-mercy/the-corporal-works-of-mercy) , [spiritual works of mercy](https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/how-we-teach/new-evangelization/jubilee-of-mercy/the-spiritual-works-of-mercy) , etc. 1. "invisible" works of love we do in private. Examples: reward for praying in private *cf* Matt 6:5-6, reward for invisible fasting *cf* Matt 6:16-18, [mass intentions](https://www.catholiccompany.com/magazine/how-to-offer-up-your-intentions-at-mass-6222) , novenas, etc. 1. following evangelical counsels producing supererogatory merit (see Routledge entry on [Supererogation](https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/supererogation/v-1/sections/historical-antecedents)) 1. enduring unexpected hardship in life that we can designate ("offering it up") as [redemptive suffering for the spiritual benefit of others](https://catholicstrength.com/tag/offering-up-our-sufferings-for-others/) 1. penance for one's own satisfaction of temporal punishment, either prescribed by a priest or self-imposed 1. suffering because of persecution by others for the sake of Christ ### Is "Offering it up" a mere penance or can it also add to the treasury of merit? On the surface, #1, #2, and #3 are "positive" in character (in that there are **no effects of sin** factor into the acts), while - in #4 our suffering is through ***no fault of our own*** (like Job's), but maybe God's way to refine our character - in #5 it's clearly because of ***our*** sins - in #6 it is because ***other*** people's sins / provocations but what we do (i.e. not denying Christ at the risk of dying, or not ashamed of being a Christian in spite of jeers) will clearly be rewarded per Jesus's own promise in Matt 5:11-12. Per St. Cyprian (*c*. AD 250), Jesus's reward for dying for Him as martyrs clearly adds to the treasury of merit which apostates (*lapsi*) can then apply toward their penance. **My related questions**: 1. Does "offering it up" (#4) produces merit that is counted to the treasury of merit similar in #6 or should it be counted only as an unexpected opportunity to do penance for the sufferer's own temporal purification similar in #5? 1. But "offering it up" in its character of *redemptive suffering* seems to be heavily linked with the Catholic understanding of *communion of saints* where we help others in the purification process. So if our suffering in #5 can be "offered up" that God then redistributes to helping others, how does it compare with the **merit** rewarded by God as in #1, #2, and #3 ? An answer that addresses how each of the 6 cases relate to the treasury of merit would be appreciated.

### About Treasury of Merit The teaching of the [treasury of merit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasury_of_merit) (*GotQuestions* article [here](https://www.gotquestions.org/treasury-of-merit.html)) in connection to the communion of saints and indulgences is explained in CCC 1476-1477 and is based on the Catholic interpretation of Matt 6:19-20, 1 Cor 12:26, and Col 1:24. Two apologetics article, [Dr. Taylor Marshall's article](https://taylormarshall.com/2006/06/indulgences-and-treasury-of-merit.html) and [Bryan Cross's article](https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/01/indulgences-the-treasury-of-merit-and-the-communion-of-saints/) (from his *Called to Communion* website), address frequent misunderstanding by Protestants. But neither articles, nor the CCC, nor the Catholic Encyclopedia articles on [Indulgences](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm) and [Merit](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm) mention the patristic source of the teaching on **how the saints' merits are added to a treasury** from which the merit becomes available to be applied to another believer **instead of simply a reward** for themselves (i.e. the saints who obtained the merit through their good work on earth). ### Insufficient pointers 1. There is only one oblique reference to St. Cyprian's defending the *lapsi* against the Novatians: > St. Cyprian, therefore, believed that the merits of the martyrs could be applied to less worthy Christians by way of vicarious satisfaction, and that such satisfaction was acceptable in the eyes of God as well as of the Church. > > (*Source*: [Epistle 13](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050613.htm) of St. Cyprian of Carthage, AD 250, referred to in the *Indulgences* encyclopedia article) which is not that convincing because of lack of general application (i.e. non-martyr saints and non-*lapsi* situations). 2. I find that Eastern Orthodox also has a concept of Treasury of Merits **BUT** only God has the power to distribute the gifts. The justification for this teaching is from **liturgical text** (see 2018 blog article from the *Orthodox West Journal* website: [Regarding the Merits of the Saints](https://journal.orthodoxwestblogs.com/2018/02/09/regarding-the-merits-of-the-saints/)) . ### My question **Where can I see the earliest clear statement from the early church period, that the saints' merit is available to be applied to another?** The answer can also include: - The first Church Fathers who interpret Matt 6:19-20, 1 Cor 12:26, and Col 1:24 along the lines of modern Catholic teaching of the treasury of merit. - If the Catholic church also bases this teaching from early church liturgy, please provide the quote **linking** the liturgical text to a church council or a church father teaching.

Point 6 in the Our Sunday Visitor Article ["9 truths about purgatory"](https://www.osvnews.com/2013/09/18/9-truths-about-purgatory/) is that souls in purgatory can intercede for us: > The souls in purgatory can’t do anything for themselves, but the Church has long believed that they can do something for us: They can pray for us, helping obtain for us the graces we need to follow Christ more perfectly. Two other questions related to their consciousness while in purgatory, given their status as [disembodied souls](https://cct.biola.edu/thomas-aquinas-human-nature-soul-afterlife/) : 1. Whether they can hear our petition for them to intercede for us, or whether the initiative to intercede for us can only come from them? 2. Whether they retain the memory of their loved ones on earth so they can intercede for us? **What is the Catholic teaching on this: from Scripture, Magisterium, and/or respected saints & theologians?**

When I pray to the saints, does the Church have a specific teaching on how I should do it? Word choice, syntax, ect? Do I pray to Patron saints for specific things related to their patronage?

Simple question: according to adherents of the doctrine of [Intercession of Saints](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercession_of_saints) , just like the living can communicate with the dead, is it also possible for the dead to communicate with the living? In other words, is two-way communication between the living and the dead possible? If the answer is yes, could this reality be put to the test to confirm the veracity of the doctrine? For example, let's say a Protestant is reconsidering his beliefs and is no longer so sure whether the doctrine is true or not. He finally makes up his mind and resolves to pray to Mary, and to his surprise, Mary replies, leading to a whole conversation between the Protestant and Mary, confirming beyond any reasonable doubt to him that the doctrine is true. Would adherents of the doctrine of Intercession of Saints approve of such a test?

How common are apparitions of Mary and/or other Saints amongst non-Catholics? There are many testimonies about these sorts of apparitions published on the web, but people who report these experiences typically had some connection with the Catholic faith prior to the apparition. But what about non-Catholics? What about Protestant Christians? What about Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, etc.? For the purposes of comparison, stories of dreams, visions and encounters with Jesus among Muslims are [not](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/83548/50422) [uncommon](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/79535/50422) , but what about Mary and other Saints who passed away?

Does the Catholic Church teach that the type of love shared between all heavenly members is an affectionate brotherly love mentioned in the Bible, for example, in Romans 12:10 and 2 Peter 1:5-7? Below are the verses from Romans 12:10: > Love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honour. (NRSV) > Love one another with brotherly affection; outdo one another in showing honour. (RSV) > (τῇ φιλαδελφίᾳ εἰς ἀλλήλους φιλόστοργοι τῇ τιμῇ ἀλλήλους προηγούμενοι.) Below are the verses from 2 Peter 1:5-7 (emphasis added): > For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and *brotherly affection with love.*

My Q is concerned purely with how the NT seems to address all 1st century Christians as “saints” even while they were living. Of course, it also addresses martyred saints e.g. in Revelation 6:9-11: “the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held,” speaking from under Heaven’s altar. They must wait till the full number of their fellow-servants and brethren should be killed as had they. Revelation 20:4 also specifically mentions those who had been “beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God”, and that they had not received the mark of the beast”, therefore I am very happy to speak of martyred saints. My Q is about the NT use of the word translated “saints” when applied to living believers in the 1st century, and, by implication, to all believers thereafter. The Greek word in question is ‘hagios’ and I consulted the *Englishman’s Greek Concordance of the New Testament* (Bagster, London, 9th ed. 1903). I ascertained that there are some 58 times in the NT where believers are addressed as “saints”, the vast majority still being alive at time of writing. But modern translations seem to use other words, such as “holy ones”, or “God’s people” or “the believers”, as well as “the saints”. There seems to be no consistency in modern translations, whereas the A.V. and other older translations seem to stick consistently to “the saints”. For example, *Young’s Literal Translation,* 1898 (YLT) reads, “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, to all the saints who are in Ephesus, to the faithful in Christ Jesus… I also, having heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and the love to all the saints, do not cease giving thanks for you… the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints… ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens of the saints…” (Ephesians 1:1, 15, 18 & 2:19). I ask about why other translations use words other than ‘saints’. Does the Greek ‘hagios’ lend itself to a variety of meanings when it applies to living people (as opposed to objects or things, such as Jerusalem or covenants)? I know that Catholics speak of “the Saints” (such as the Apostles) and wonder if their translations confine ‘hagios’ to them alone, in the Bible? I seek the views of Catholics as I have a fair idea of the Protestant view, but I am NOT looking for anything about Canon Law – I seek a purely scriptural explanation about the scriptures themselves.

Do the Roman catacombs confirm the early church believed in the doctrine of the communion of saints, which includes prayer for the dead, intercession of the saints, invocation of the saints, and the threefold nature of the Church, in particular, the Church triumphant and Church penitent? If so, what are some of the archaeological evidence in the catacombs that confirms the early Church held such beliefs?

I understand that officially speaking when Catholics pray to saints, they are not supposed to really pray TO that saint, but rather are asking that saint to pray for them as you would ask any living friend to pray for you. The Bible does indeed say we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, but How is a particular saint supposed to hear me asking them to pray for me while John in England is asking the same thing. Are saints supposed to be omnipresent, or are you just rolling the dice that they are paying attention to you at that moment? Is there any official doctrine explaining this? Are all the saints watching all the believers all the time, or what? Are they in many but not all places? Bonus question, if a none-catholic christian asks them to pray for them do they hear that?

In my understanding, the Saints are part of the [Church Triumphant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churches_Militant,_Penitent,_and_Triumphant) and in the Catholic Church's understanding of the *Communion of Saints* they help the Faithful on earth (Church Militant) to intercede for us ([Catechism 954-959](https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p5.htm)) . When reading Fr. Armoth's book [An Exorcist Explains the Demonic](https://www.sophiainstitute.com/products/item/an-exorcist-explains-the-demonic) I came across this quote from Chapter 1 "The Victory of Christ over Sin and Death" under "The Consequences of Christ's Victory" (**emphasis** mine): > ... > > Here lies the victory over the second condemnation: man is made of soul and body and cannot live with the soul detached form the body. Body and soul are destined to reunite at the end of time, that is, at the moment of the Last Judgment. St. Thomas Aquinas -- in my view, the greatest Christian theologian -- affirms that, if in faith we believe in this unity between the soul and the body, even from a rational point of view (using only the power of reason), it is impossible to conceive them separated. **If we think of the saints -- who already enjoy paradise but whose bodies are still not united to their souls, since that will happen only at the end of time -- we can be certain that they already live the beatified state without the body** and that they will reach their highest level of blessedness when body and soul are rejoined. And through the mercy of God, the same can be said of us when we reach paradise. Only when time is completed, when the soul and the body are rejoined, will there be a true fullness of life. To say it in simple terms: **for the moment, the saints have so much happiness that they can be content with only their souls.** The same can be said inversely for the damned. > > ... Does it mean when the Catholic faithful pray to the Saints for their intercession, they are conscious but have not received their resurrected bodies? If so, why do the Church said (Catechism paragraph 956-957) that the Saints are in heaven?

Just a question that ought to have a concrete answer and be a good example for how the process of canonization works for my Religious Ed. class: 1. Who has been declared blessed for the longest period of time without being canonized? 2. Who is the oldest person to have been declared blessed (died shortest after Christ)? Bonus points if anyone knows who has been 'venerable' or 'servant of God' for the longest or is the oldest _(Bonus points may be stored up and redeemed in Heaven, where neither moth nor worm may spoil them)_

For the last decade or so, I have attended churches that fenced the communion table in a guarded way, opening it only to members of Gospel-believing churches in good standing. This did not bother me and, in fact, drove me to pursue formal membership at the first church I was a part of that practiced it this way. Three years ago I married a man who is a believer but finds this sort of fencing to be highly off-putting and offensive, given that it excludes real believers from the sacrament of communion (and thereby the grace it is supposed to convey to believers). You might think, well then just become members and that problem will be solved! If only it were that simple. My husband also does not have as strong of a belief in the importance or necessity of formal church membership. He is not against it, nor does he think it unreasonable, yet every time he has talked to an elder about church membership and the issue of fencing the table, he walks away utterly discouraged, feeling like the men he speaks to are not truly listening to him or answering his question, just defending a practice as biblical, and causing him to feel as though he is being disobedient by not becoming a member. (He has a hard time becoming a member if he has trouble reconciling his own beliefs with the greater body.) The last three reformed churches we regularly attended together fenced the table similarly. We've visited churches that don't do this, but find we are not as closely aligned theologically with them as we are in the churches that do. I find myself in the tricky position of wanting to respect my husband's desire to refrain from becoming a member of a church where he cannot seem to have open, honest, helpful discussions about this issue, yet yearning to just oversimplify the issue and view him as being in the wrong and urging him to go through with becoming a member even if he doesn't quite understand everything about the way this church does communion, because I really miss the sense of feeling like I really being to a local body, and it hurts me to not be allowed from sharing in communion Sunday after Sunday. (It's been about six months at this current church.) Almost everyone I talk to about this is either unsure (of why this is a thing since it is not explicitly stated this way in scripture: "You must be a formal church member in order to take communion.") yet willing to go along with it since they are already members of the church that practiced this OR very sure that this is not actually biblical and is not currently a formal member of a church. Would love to hear input if anyone can give me explanations as to what biblical arguments are used to support fencing in this way. Also, wondering if any reformed Christians out there are willing to say that it is not explicitly biblical, but rather just a good way to do things. (This sort of acknowledgement would absolutely help my husband to be okay with joining a church as formal members.)