A nonexistent conflict, according to the Scriptures. Other conflicts of the same kind.

Conflicts at first sight

Many of our non-Catholic Christian brethren believe that there are serious “conflicts” between the biblical doctrines and Catholic doctrine. For a great many this is something evident that does not even admit of discussion: Catholic teaching is clearly anti-biblical and based on human traditions. For this reason, when a Catholic Christian tries to explain that in reality there is no contradiction, for many of these brethren of ours this amounts to “trying to cover the sun with one finger.”

The present article intends, with God’s help, to show that such “conflicts” are apparent, not real. In the Scriptures we often come across, both Catholics and non-Catholics, difficult passages, which we try to understand in the light of all Scripture, of the context, and so forth. Since we cannot speak of every doctrinal point, we will take one, a very important one, which will help us clarify so many others, and which is a passage frequently pointed out to Catholics as anti-biblical. I refer to the passage of 1 Timothy 2:5 (For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus): does not this passage most clearly exclude the Catholic doctrine of the mediation of Mary and the Saints on behalf of believers? With a little patience we will see that the answer, according to the Scriptures, is “no.”

In this article I understand by “fundamentalist” a believer in Christ who claims to base his faith SOLELY on the Bible (although in this regard the popular saying already puts it well: “there is many a slip between the cup and the lip”), meaning by this that such a brother will lend no ear to the Church, nor to the oral preaching of Jesus’ first disciples (which would later in part be set down in writing), nor to anything in the world: ONLY what is WRITTEN, nothing more, since that is the Word of God, and there exists no other.[1]

The subject we are addressing is most interesting and very useful, not only for the specific verse of 1 Timothy 2:5, but for a better understanding of the Gospel message in its real perspective, thus avoiding shallowness of outlook, carnal criteria, and vain disputes. Without this “in-depth” vision, we will spend our lives quoting verses against one another, each interpreting in his own way every word of Jesus or of Paul or of John, and so on: a never-ending matter. The idea that moves me to write these lines is only one: to encourage reflection. Whoever is capable of thinking without prejudice disposes himself toward the truth, even though in practice –and without his knowing it– he may be one of its worst enemies[2].

Since ignorance of the Church’s authentic teaching is perhaps the main reason why many opt for Christian fundamentalism, I also intend to illustrate, both for the Catholic and for the non-Catholic, what is truly the teaching we profess concerning the sole mediation of Christ, the mediations of the Saints, and some other related doctrines, always in a simple and brief manner[3].

Two thousand years are not in vain

More than one person thinks that the Gospel was substantially corrupted in the period immediately after the apostles, passing through the long night of Catholic salvation-by-works, until a certain group of people came and renewed pure evangelism, without human traditions[4].

Things, however, are not so simple. This is not the place to write a history of the Church or of theology, but let me be permitted to recall that all the difficulties that exist in the Scriptures and all the possible interpretations have already been dealt with for centuries, by thousands of believers, with the most diverse interpretations, of course. But it is important to know that we are not mushrooms that spring up after the rain; rather, we are part of a body, we have forefathers in the faith, people whom the Holy Spirit also enlightened. On every word of the Gospel there are thousands of homilies, controversies, reflections… And there are thousands upon thousands of lives lived in faith and in response to the words of the Scriptures, even to the shedding of one’s own blood. Let us not believe ourselves to be the only ones, nor the first, nor the best!

Out of the thousands of things we can learn from Christians who lived before us, and who devoted their lives to the knowledge and interpretation of the Scriptures, two basic concepts serve us in this article, namely, the notion of “analogy” and that of “participation”: these two words will lead us by the hand to understand so very many apparent “contradictions” in the Scriptures, specifically our theme of the “one mediator.”[5]

According to the dictionary of the Real Academia Española (1992), analogy is the “relation of resemblance between different things.” For the noun participation, the dictionary refers to the verb “to participate,” and to participate is defined as “to take part in something; to receive a part of something; to share, to have the same opinions and ideas, etc., as another person.”

These concepts, in their simplicity, are of fundamental importance for our theme. The reality of these notions will become clearer as we apply them to various “conflicting” passages.

We will proceed thus: we will set forth a passage or several biblical passages where “contradictions” are seen, and then we will see how, applying the notions indicated above, the apparent contradiction vanishes. A trick to make the Bible coincide with Catholic teaching? The reader will judge for himself.

Jesus, the one foundation

Scripture teaches that

a. Christ is the one foundation and no one can lay any other (1 Corinthians 3:11). But it also teaches that

b. The apostles are a foundation (Ephesians 2:20). In both texts the same word is used (Gr. themelion) and referring to the foundation of Christians in both cases.

Since this seems to be a contradiction, one of my evangelical friends said that in Ephesians 2:20 one should read thus: “the foundation which the apostles have laid”… etc., that is, “foundation” here would be “Jesus,” not the apostles, and in that way there would be no opposition. This solution, from a grammatical point of view, is not viable (an “also” is missing that would give ground to the mentioned commentator’s proposal: the text says “Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone”, and not “Christ Jesus himself being also the chief corner stone”), and above all it breaks with the image Paul is using. Indeed, in the text in question Christ is presented as the “chief corner stone” (Gr. akrogoniaios). The corner stone is the stone that completes a building, that is placed at the end of it to bind together and secure the rest of the edifice; it is not a stone laid in the foundation of the building. Reading Ephesians 2:20 with the interpretation desired by the aforesaid evangelical Christian, we would be left with a totally deformed image: the text would read thus: “you have been built upon the foundation laid by the apostles and by the prophets, that is, upon Christ, Christ himself being also the chief corner stone.” But Paul’s idea is to speak of how each one is part of an edifice, in which Christ occupies the central place, and not all the places! On the contrary, the image makes sense if to the apostles and prophets is attributed the being “foundation” and to Christ the being “corner stone,” as, moreover, all the translations render it[6]. This idea of the apostles as foundation is also confirmed in Revelation 21:14.

Where does this, let us say, “forced” interpretation come from, which my evangelical friend wants to impose? From the desire to solve a “conflict,” but without using the appropriate means to do so. Let me explain: for him, the two passages “oppose each other”: how can Christ be the one foundation and at the same time the apostles also be so? And he explains the problem by changing the text by means of a translation that distorts and nullifies the image. That is not good exegesis. He justifies this translation because he says that the Word of God cannot oppose itself, and if the Word of God teaches that Jesus is the one foundation, it cannot be that the Word of God now says that the apostles are a foundation…

What is the solution? Would Ephesians 2:20 really oppose 1 Corinthians 3:11 if we take the apostles to be a foundation? The answer, according to Catholic doctrine, is no. Christ is the foundation; the apostles and prophets PARTICIPATE in that office of Jesus of being foundation. They are not foundations “parallel” to Jesus; rather, “in Jesus” they too are foundation. The Greek expression “en Christō,” “in Christ,” appears in Paul’s writings some eighty times. What does “in Christ” mean? Could it be a triviality, a meaningless turn of phrase of Paul’s?

To conclude this point, let us recall that the New Testament also calls “foundation” (in a spiritual sense, as in the two texts studied) the “repentance from dead works” (Hebrews 6:1), “good works” (1 Timothy 6:18-19), and “the preaching of the Gospel” (Romans 5:20). Especially notable is 1 Timothy 3:15, where the Church is called “the pillar and ground of the truth.”[7]

Jesus, the one shepherd

Scripture teaches that

a. Jesus is the great shepherd of our souls (Hebrews 13:17.20; 1 Peter 2:25; John 10:11.14.16). In 1 Peter 5:4 he is called “chief shepherd,” or “shepherd of shepherds” (Gr. archipoimēnos). I do not think it far-fetched to affirm that Christians have ONE single shepherd, who is Jesus. But Scripture also teaches that

b. There are other men who are also shepherds (Ephesians 4:11)

So then, who is the shepherd? Jesus or someone else? When Paul speaks of the “pastors” in Ephesians 4:11 (Gr. poimenas), is he harming Jesus as the one shepherd? When in Acts 20:28 Paul exhorts the presbyters of the Church to shepherd the flock, did he perhaps forget that Jesus is the Shepherd? Or did Jesus himself forget when he said to Peter “Feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17)?

No, neither Jesus, nor Peter, nor Paul, nor John had forgotten; rather, they knew perfectly well that the office of being “shepherd of our souls” Jesus wished to share, to “impart” to others. As he wished that we should “partake” of his sufferings (1 Peter 4:13). Jesus is “THE shepherd”; the others are “shepherds by participation.” Let us note that without this concept of participation, in all these passages there would be an insuperable “contradiction,” as in the passages we will see.

Jesus, the one teacher

Scripture teaches that

a. Jesus is the one teacher, and to no one else is that title to be given (Matthew 23:8.10; John 13:13). But it also teaches that

b. Paul called himself, in all truth, a “teacher” (1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11), and in the Church there were always many “teachers” appointed by the Holy Spirit himself (Ephesians 4:11).

But then, how can Jesus say that no one is to be called teacher, and then Paul freely calls himself “teacher,” as if Jesus had said nothing? And what of the first Christians who called certain men “teachers”? What had happened to Jesus’ prohibition? Could it be that the “corruption of the Gospel message with the human dogmas of the Catholic Church” had already broken into the Christian communities…?

Jesus, the one bishop

Scripture teaches that

a. Jesus is THE bishop (Gr. episkopos) of our souls (1 Peter 2:25). But it also teaches that

b. God established some as bishops of the believers (Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1).

With what we have said so far, I believe there is no need to abound in words. The “bishops” are such by analogy, that is, by participating in the “episcopate” of Jesus, who is the bishop in an absolute sense and from whom all episcopate proceeds. That someone is a “bishop” does not mean he is stealing Jesus’ place: if he is a bishop, he is so IN the one bishop of our souls, who is Jesus. There is no conflict; there is participation in an office.

God, the one Father

Scripture teaches that

a. No one in the world may be called “father,” but only God (Matthew 23:9). But it also teaches that

b. Paul presents himself as a father (1 Corinthians 4:15), and calls Abraham “the father of us all” (according to the context he refers to Jews and Greeks, that is, spiritual fatherhood, exactly what Jesus had “forbidden” in Matthew 23).

We understand Jesus’ words as referring to “fathers” in the spiritual sense, since if we take the literal sense we would not even be able to call our fathers “dad,” and so on. We set that aside.

But even on the spiritual plane, once again we come across a false “conflict,” so often raised against Catholics. The familiar refrain sounds more or less like this: “Matthew 23:9 forbids calling anyone in the world ‘father,’ and Catholics call their priests ‘fathers.’ It could not be clearer: there, once again, is the anti-biblical doctrine of the Catholics.”

The apostles, however, did not think so. Many fundamentalist Christians see the tree but ignore the forest. [8] For the apostles there was no exclusive opposition between God-the-Father and the apostle-father. Nor is there any opposition for the Church. The Catholic Church is free, and not everyone understands this. But she will continue to enjoy that freedom which comes from the Spirit. It already happened with Paul:

But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: but because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privately to spy our liberty, which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into servitude. To whom we yielded not by subjection, no not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you (Galatians 2:3-5)

Not for an hour! says Paul. Paul had a great, universal, open mind; he was no prude, nor did he want to appear as the perfect fulfiller of new laws. For him Christ was everything: his life, his preaching, his thoughts, his feelings… Would he not also call himself “father” of those whom he had “begotten with the pains of childbirth”? (Galatians 4:19). Christ, who had called him to fill up what was lacking of his passion for the benefit of his Church (Colossians 1:24), would he reproach Paul when he openly presented himself as “father” of those who heard him? Would God-the-Father take offense at this magnificent example of spiritual fatherhood, an image –though doubtless a dim one– of the fatherhood of God? Did not Paul participate in the divine fatherhood by “begetting” (Gr. gennaō, which means “to become a father by having begotten”) new children for the Gospel? (1 Corinthians 4:15)

In sum, Paul presents himself as “father” of his hearers. In particular, 1 Corinthians 4:15 can be recalled here:

For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you.

In Romans 4:16, Paul calls Abraham “the father of us all,” referring to the Jews who have believed and the Gentiles who have believed (see the context). So it is a matter of a spiritual fatherhood, like the one spoken of in the Holy Mass: “our father Abraham.” Well then, it was precisely this fatherhood that was at issue in Matthew 23:9, when Jesus said “call none your father upon earth.” Did Paul not understand Jesus’ message?

An explanation within the Scriptures themselves we find in another text of the apostle: in Ephesians 3:14-15, Paul proclaims: “I bow my knees to the Father, of whom all paternity (Gr. patria) in heaven and earth is named.” The Greek noun “patria,” sometimes translated as “family,” comes from the root “patros,” that is, “father.” Is this not what Jesus really meant in Matthew, and not that we should avoid “naming” anyone with the word “father”? If Paul speaks of a “fatherhood” that comes from God, would it be wrong to acknowledge that fatherhood in persons by calling them “father,” as Catholics do? Or must we acknowledge that “all fatherhood comes from God,” but then… we may not name it!? This would be very close to Pharisaism. Might it not rather be that what Jesus was teaching was to discover that, if fatherhood exists in the world, it comes exclusively from God?

God is Father, and “in God” Paul is a father. And if he is, there is no reason to abstain, moved by an Old Testament neo-legalism, from calling him “father.” He is called “father” by analogy with God-the-Father, by participation in his begetting of children. In 1 Thessalonians 2:11 Paul says that he behaved with the Thessalonians “as a father with his children”: is he surreptitiously stealing the glory from God, the one Father? [9]

The great scholar of the Scriptures and of the history of the Church, Tomáš Špidlík, explains our participation in the divine fatherhood in this way[10]:

“The paternal character of God is so perfect that it contains an absolute value, like all his divine qualities. For this reason Jesus warns us: ‘Call no one on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven’ (Matthew 23:9). On the other hand, however, God’s absolute values have been communicated to us with the gift of the Spirit, which is why we have been invited to ‘be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect’ (Matthew 5:48). The divine fatherhood is reflected, in some way, in the image, and particularly in the saints, destined to have disciple-children, and in general in the ‘motherhood’ of the Church. […] The life of the Spirit begins with baptism; therefore the priest who baptizes is ‘father,’ as is the one who reconciles with God and nourishes life with the Eucharist; fathers are also the bishops to whom the life of the Church is entrusted, who guard right doctrine in the ecumenical councils and who ordain priests.”

For these reasons Catholics call our priests, who begot us for God in baptism and set forth the faith to us (Hebrews 13:7) and feed us with the “bread of life” in the Eucharist, “fathers.” I agree that this requires a great deal of freedom.

God, the one Judge

Scripture teaches that

a. God is the one Judge (Psalm 50:6; 75:7; Hebrews 12:23). But it also teaches that

b. Christians will be judges (Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30; 1 Corinthians 6:2-3).

That is, God is the only one who can judge, and this appears clear throughout Scripture, but by a decision of his he has willed to impart that power to the believers. Who will judge the world, God or the believers? It is a false dichotomy: God will judge and the believers will also judge.

God, the one Holy One

Scripture teaches that

a. God is the one Holy One (Revelation 15:4, Gr. hosios). But it also teaches that

b. The bishop must be holy (Titus 1:8, Gr. hosios).

Obviously the holiness expected in the bishop is not a holiness parallel to that of God; rather it is a participation in the one holiness of God, and no one thinks that a quality exclusive to God is being attributed to a man. But the point is that Revelation 15:4 says that God alone is holy. So here we have another example of how something is attributed to God exclusively, and then it is attributed to, or expected of, a human being as well.

God, the one God

Scripture teaches that

a. There is one only God (from the first page to the last). But it also teaches that

b. “You are all gods” (John 10:34, where Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6 –Masoretic text: “elohim atem”; LXX: “theoi este”; also used analogically in Exodus 7:1)

Jesus uses this passage of the psalm in its most primary sense, making those who accused him of “making himself God” see that the Scriptures taught (and could not err) that we “are gods.”

What must be stressed here is the freedom of Jesus (and before him of the psalmist) to attribute to men the divine nature, at least in a certain sense. How can this be? Once again… by participation! But is it only an isolated and unimportant quotation, which we must take in an exclusively figurative way? By no means. It is rather a first stone of the theological edifice that would come afterward. Afterward, when? Certainly not with the Councils and dogmas of the Church, but with the preaching of the apostles. 2 Peter 1:4: “he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature.”

Participation! In the divine nature! One sees here that “participation” is, in truth, a biblical concept, and a very important one. What else remains for us to partake of from God? If we were made partakers of the divine nature (as a human being begets another human being, of the same nature), shall we be surprised that God, in Jesus, has made us partakers of everything else?

Other biblical aspects of participation

We do not wish to lengthen the article unnecessarily, since it has, moreover, already dealt with the substance of the problem. We mention here some other aspects (there are more) in which one sees Jesus’ desire to share with us everything –his person, his office, his life, his ideals– and that in doing so, not only does he not lower or impoverish himself, but he shows his power, his strength, his wisdom, his plans of mercy.

· Jesus is the light of the world (John 8:12), but so are his disciples (Matthew 5:14).

· God is the only good one (Luke 18:19), but persons are also good (1 Peter 2:18; 4:10, etc.).

· God is the only wise one (Romans 16:27), but men are also (Romans 16:19; Matthew 23:34, etc.).

· Jesus is, clearly, our one priest (the whole letter to the Hebrews), but we are priests too (Revelation 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).

· For Christians there exists one only sacrifice, that of Jesus (Hebrews 10:12), but we too must offer “sacrifices” (Philippians 2:17; Romans 12:1; Hebrews 13:15).

· The passion of Christ is sufficient for our salvation (the whole New Testament), but Paul says: “I fill up in my flesh those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, for his body, which is the church” (Colossians 1:24)[11].

· Only God forgives sins (all of Scripture), but the apostles do too (John 20:23).

· God is the only just one, and there is none just among men, not even one (Romans 3:10). But 1 Timothy 1:9 and 2 Peter 2:7-8 speak of the just, in general and in particular (Lot). Only if we apply the concept of “analogy” can we explain this apparent contradiction: God is the one Just One, but analogically and by participation so also are those who believe in him, and so on.

Of course, many non-Catholic readers will hasten to explain each one of these apparent conflicts. Very well! We too say that there is no real conflict in these “contradictions.” The question is: will they make the same effort to explain the supposed conflict “one mediator” – “mediation of the believers”? Will they be willing to see that in reality there is no opposition, just as they are willing to see no opposition in other biblical passages that, at first sight, turn out to be “evidently” contradictory? [12]

To all these manifestations and offices of Jesus, which he has willed to share with us, we could apply the expression of Yves Simoens, commenting on the spousal character of Jesus: “Christ is, yes, the one bridegroom, but not in a splendid isolation” [13] (emphasis mine). Indeed, Christ is the one light of the world, the one priest, the one mediator… “but not in a splendid isolation.” He could have been, of course, but his plans were otherwise: he willed to make us partakers of his life and of his mission.

Let us now turn to see concretely the theme that motivated the present work, namely, 1 Timothy 2:5, having already pointed out the keys to a just interpretation. That is, could we not be, “in Christ,” mediators between God and men, just as we are also in Christ “gods,” “fathers,” “just,” “teachers,” “light of the world,” “bishops,” “foundation,” etc., etc., etc.? Indeed, we must not only ask ourselves whether we “may” call ourselves and be “mediators,” but rather whether we “must” be so… Everything depends on God’s plan, on his will, and not on what seems best to us.

Christ, the one mediator between God and men

First of all, what is it to be a “mediator”? Once again, we turn to the dictionary of the Real Academia Española; “to mediate” is, according to that source, “to intercede or plead for someone. To interpose oneself between two or more who quarrel or contend, seeking to reconcile them and unite them in friendship. For a thing to exist or stand in the midst of others.” The term itself poses no great difficulty, and is generally understood right away: a “mediator” is one who stands between two or more persons, offering his person to act as a bridge between them, especially if they are in conflict.

The word used in 1 Timothy 2:5 is “mesitēs,” which apart from our text appears, in the Greek New Testament, in Galatians 3:19.20; Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 12:24. In the passages of Hebrews the term always appears together with “covenant”: Jesus is the “mediator of the new covenant,” in contrast to Moses and the angels, mediators of the old covenant.

The presence of “man” in Paul’s formulation is interesting: the one mediator between God and men is “the man Christ Jesus”: it is precisely as man that Jesus is able to intercede for us. This observation of Paul has been understood by some as intending to exclude the Church from the office of mediator; in other words: “Christ is the head of the body, which is the Church” (Colossians 1:18), but his office of mediator belongs to him alone as man, not as head of the body. What is to be said of this reading?

In my opinion we are dealing with an exegesis of the text that leaves quite a few doubts. We must ask ourselves: was that Paul’s idea? When he wrote in his letter that the one mediator is “the man Christ Jesus,” did he intend by this to exclude the Church from that office? Consulting various commentators, both Protestant and Catholic, all agree on the same thing: what Paul wishes to underscore with the use of the term “man” is that Jesus is true man, against what the Docetist heretics maintained[14], namely, that Jesus had a human appearance but was not truly man. Paul is emphasizing that it is Jesus, true man and not only apparently so, who is the mediator between God and men. There is no reason, either in the text or in the context, to interpret it in opposition to the Church, except the “fundamentalist” motive, namely, wanting to exclude the doctrine of the Church’s participation in Jesus’ office of mediator. Let us look at some commentators.

B. Witherington III explains thus the presence of the term “man” in 1 Timothy 2:5[15]:

What does Paul mean when he affirms that grace comes to us –as do resurrection and reconciliation– through a man? Sin was a human problem that could be resolved in favor of humanity only through a human being. Some may think that the efficacy of the salvation of humanity was due to Jesus as a divine being; instead Paul here wishes to stress the opposite: if Jesus were not true man, humanity would not have received grace, resurrection, or –as Colossians and Ephesians point out– reconciliation. In fact the extraordinary event is precisely that the man Jesus died and rose again: God, apart from the mystery of the incarnation, is not subject to death. (…) In sum, in order that salvation might reach men and ransom them, it had to be mediated by one who shared humanity.

The Vocabulary of Biblical Theology of Xavier Léon-Dufour[16], among many other considerations, makes the following comment, under the term “mediator”:

That Christ is the one mediator does not mean that the role of men in the history of salvation has come to an end. The mediation of Jesus takes on here below sensible signs: they are the men to whom Jesus entrusts a function toward his Church; even in eternal life Jesus Christ associates, in a certain way, with his mediation the members of his body who have entered into glory. (…) Those who exercise (the functions of the apostles throughout the history of the Church, editor’s note) are not, properly speaking, human intermediaries with a mission identical to that which the mediators of the OT had; they do not add a new mediation to that of the one mediator: they are only the concrete means used by him to reach men. (…) Evidently, this function ceases once the members of the Body of Christ have been reunited with their head in his glory. But then, with respect to the members of the Church who still struggle on earth, the victorious Christians still exercise a function of another kind. Associated with the kingship of Christ (Revelation 2:26f; 3:21; cf. 12:5; 19:15), which is an aspect of his mediatorial function, they present to God the prayers of the saints here below (5:8; 11:18), which are one of the factors of the end of history.

Commenting on the role of the “priests” in the book of Revelation, the commentators likewise do not hesitate to call the Christians “mediators,” since the priestly office, explicitly attributed to those who believe in Jesus (see Revelation 1:6, 5:10, and 20:6), is nothing other than an office of mediation between God and men. We cite some examples (emphasis always mine):

Christians share the authority of the King of kings, constituting themselves as priestly mediators in the world of humanity.[17]

The Greek “hiereis” –priests– appears in opposition to “basileian” –kingdom– and underscores the mediating role of the believers in their consecration to the service of God.[18]

… the members of the new Israel, by virtue of their incorporation through baptism into Christ, Priest and King (cf. Exodus 19:6; Isaiah 61:6; 1 Peter 2:9), also become mediators of the New Covenant.[19]

As one can see, it is not that we are inventing an interpretation to justify human traditions: many people, well-versed in the biblical text and in Christian living, affirm that the Scriptures teach that Christians are mediators, by participating in the priestly, prophetic, and royal office of Jesus Christ.

The office proper to the mediator

If we can attribute to a mediator an office proper to him, one that defines him as mediator, I think all will agree that it is intercession on behalf of someone. Let us recall that the dictionary gave us, for the verb “to mediate,” the definition “to intercede or plead for someone.”

In the Scriptures, Christ appears as our great intercessor (Greek for “to intercede”: entunchanō), as does the Holy Spirit also. With respect to Jesus, Romans 8:34 is a particularly strong text:

Who is he that shall condemn? Christ Jesus that died, yea that is risen also again; who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession (entunchanei) for us.

No less strong and beautiful is Hebrews 7:25:

Whereby he (Jesus) is able also to save for ever them that come to God by him; always living to make intercession (entunchanein) for us.

So it is clear that Jesus “intercedes” for us, an office proper to the mediator, and he does so at this very moment, while I write these words or while the kind reader reads them. Now then, according to the Scriptures, is it only Jesus who intercedes for us?

Leaving aside the office of the Holy Spirit, presented, as we saw, as intercessor, we find in the Word of God that men too are intercessors before God on behalf of their brethren[20]. Let us look at some passages, knowing that there are many others of similar content.

Paul does not hesitate to express his prayer for his Hebrew brethren, and for the believers:

Brethren, the will of my heart, indeed, and my prayer to God, is for them (the Hebrews) unto salvation (Romans 10:1)

…and in their praying for you (the other believers), being desirous of you, because of the exceeding grace of God in you (2 Corinthians 9:14)

…by all prayer and supplication praying at all times in the spirit; and in the same watching with all instance and supplication for all the saints (Ephesians 6:18)

Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much (James 5:16)

Now then, what is it to pray on behalf of someone, if not to intercede for him?

Paul commands us to pray for one another:

I beseech you therefore, brethren, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the charity of the Holy Ghost, that you help me in your prayers for me to God (Romans 15:30)

And in the context of our verse (1 Timothy 2:5) we find this commandment of Paul:

I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions (Gr. enteuxeis, from entunchanō, to intercede), and thanksgivings be made for all men (1 Timothy 2:1)

Let us note in this passage that Paul uses the same word (as a noun: “enteuxeis,” “intercessions”) that is used in Hebrews to say that Jesus is ever living to “intercede” (“entunchanein”) for us. Let us think for a moment: if Jesus is interceding for me at this very moment, then why the “intercessions” that Paul asks for? These are not accidental details of little importance, as one can see.

We might also think of the Pauline concept of “ambassadors for Christ” in 2 Corinthians 5:20. What is an ambassador, if not a mediator between the “king” and the others? Does Jesus have need of ambassador-mediators between himself and us? Many non-Catholic Christians hammer on this point, namely, that they go directly to Christ, whereas we would do so “through the mediation of” others (Mary, the Saints). But then, why “ambassadors for Christ”? Could not Jesus communicate directly with us, or else make use of his angels? Beyond how each one explains it, there is a profound truth, and it is the one we are trying to make clear: the sole mediation of Jesus must not be understood in the sense in which many non-Catholic Christians understand it, namely, denying the possibility and even the necessity that all should intercede and mediate for one another before our heavenly Father.

Leaving Paul, we have a very beautiful text of the Church interceding for Peter in prison, as we read in chapter 12 of the Acts of the Apostles:

Peter therefore was kept in prison. But prayer was made without ceasing by the church unto God for him (Acts 12:5)

Was the intercession of Jesus for Peter not enough? Why did the Christians also pray for him? We know the answer: the intercession of Jesus does not exclude other intercessions; on the contrary, it presupposes them, for he has willed to make us partakers of his saving work, that is, of his office of mediator.

In the book of Revelation we note the presence of prayers of the saints, presented to God by other intermediaries, the angels:

And another angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God. And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel (Revelation 8:3-4)

What is the role of the prayers of the saints? Is it a superficiality, or are they necessary?

There would be so many passages to comment on, but we stop here. Having reached this point, the non-Catholic believer must make this reflection: how can it be that Jesus, ever living to intercede for us, accepts other intercessors, whether they be men or angels? Is not the intercession of Jesus enough? What use are the prayers of Paul, or of the saints, or of any believer on behalf of their brethren? What does the prayer of the just man add to the prayer of Jesus on our behalf? Is it not entirely useless, and even blasphemous, to intercede for a brother before God, seeing that Jesus is ever living to intercede for us? (Hebrews 7:25).

But then… what does the uniqueness of Christ as mediator really mean?

At this point more than one may ask: but then, in what does the Pauline sentence consist that declares Christ the ONE mediator between God and men? Does this “Catholic” discourse do anything but annul the Word of God? For if the Word says that Jesus is the one mediator, why not accept it as it is clearly written and leave it at that?

The answer to the second part of the question lies in all that we have said so far: the uniqueness of Christ, as we saw, does not exclude our participation in his saving work. And this we have seen in the very Word of God.

So that no one may have the slightest doubt, let it be very clear to the reader that indeed Jesus IS THE ONE MEDIATOR, and there is no other name under heaven by which men can be saved (Acts 4:12).

To what, then, does 1 Timothy 2:5 refer? What did Paul want to make quite clear?

The context explains the true meaning of the expression: it excludes other ways, other saving sacrifices, other systems of salvation that are not Him.

I cite here a few paragraphs from the document of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus, which speaks entirely and precisely about this theme! I beg the reader to read these lines attentively: he will then tell me whether the Catholic Church does not affirm the exclusivity of the mediation of Christ, and in what sense she affirms it (whatever is in bold is always emphasis mine):

The thesis which denies the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ is also put forward. Such a position has no biblical foundation. In fact, the truth of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Lord and only Saviour, who through the event of his incarnation, death and resurrection has brought the history of salvation to fulfilment, and which has in him its fullness and centre, must be firmly believed as a constant element of the Church’s faith.

The New Testament attestation to this fact is quite clear: “The Father has sent his Son as the Saviour of the world” (1 John 4:14); “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). In his discourse before the Sanhedrin, Peter, in order to justify the healing of a man who had been crippled from birth, which was done in the name of Jesus (cf. Acts 3:1-8), proclaims: “There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). St. Paul adds, moreover, that “Jesus Christ is Lord of all,” “judge of the living and the dead,” and thus “whoever believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (cf. Acts 10:36,42,43).

Paul, addressing himself to the community of Corinth, writes: “Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth – as in fact there are many gods and many lords – yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist” (1 Corinthians 8:5-6). Furthermore, the Apostle John affirms: “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him” (John 3:16-17). In the New Testament, the universal salvific will of God is closely connected to the sole mediation of Christ: “[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Timothy 2:4-6).

It was in the awareness of the one universal gift of salvation offered by the Father through Jesus Christ in the Spirit (cf. Ephesians 1:3-14), that the first Christians encountered the Jewish people, showing them the fulfilment of salvation that went beyond the Law and, in the same awareness, they confronted the pagan world of their time, which aspired to salvation through a plurality of saviour gods. This inheritance of faith has been recalled recently by the Church’s Magisterium: “The Church believes that Christ, who died and was raised for the sake of all (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:15), can, through his Spirit, give man the light and the strength to be able to respond to his highest calling, nor is there any other name under heaven given among men by which they can be saved (cf. Acts 4:12). The Church likewise believes that the key, the centre, and the purpose of the whole of man’s history is to be found in its Lord and Master.”

It must therefore be held as a truth of Catholic faith that the universal salvific will of the One and Triune God is offered and accomplished once for all in the mystery of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God. [21]

This is the doctrine of the Catholic Church. It is clear that here it is affirmed, without a shadow of doubt, that Jesus is the one mediator between God and men, and that there is no other. And whoever does not believe this is simply not Catholic. That is the meaning, according to the Church, of Paul’s words. Or, to make it even clearer: what Paul is saying is that neither Gnosticism, nor Confucius, nor Buddha, nor Muhammad, nor the New Age, nor Dr. Moon, nor transcendental meditation, nor nirvana, nor Yoga gymnastics, nor spiritism, nor communist ideology, nor Nazi ideology, nor liberalism, nor any other creature of the past, the present, or the future, can ever be held as mediator between God and men, but only Jesus Christ, and IN HIM the whole Church, which is inseparably his body, and which is of Christ “his fullness” (Ephesians 1:23). We repeat it once more: the mediations of Christians for one another are made in Christ, and therefore this is not what Paul wishes to exclude; on the contrary, he himself asks for them (as we saw above).

The mediation of the saints

When Catholics invoke the intercession of Mary or of the saints, they do the same thing a Christian does when he asks another to pray for him. In fact, when the evangelical brethren “pray” for someone, they are acting as mediators between God (to whom they direct the prayer) and the person (on whose behalf they pray). Am I mistaken? If they are not exercising the office of mediation (to mediate is “to intercede” for someone), what are they doing?

The mediation that a Christian exercises when he prays for another (whether among the living, or on the part of those who “are with Christ,” the saints, on our behalf) is a mediation IN CHRIST, not apart from him nor parallel to it. This office of mediators does not annul the sole mediation of Jesus, for ours is a mediation shared in the ONE mediation of Christ, in the way that the moon radiates a light that is not its own, but the sun’s. The whole first part of this article was devoted to demonstrating precisely how in the Scriptures there are many qualities attributed exclusively to God that are then attributed to the believers as well.

With respect to the mediation of the saints (Christians who are already with Christ), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (956) teaches:

Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness… they do not cease to intercede with the Father for us. They present the merits which they acquired on earth… through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus… So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped.

Although it may seem hard to believe, so many Christians think that a believer, while he was alive, could pray to the Father for another brother, but once he dies and is with the Lord (cf. Philippians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 5:8)… he can no longer pray! God, who is a God of the living, not of the dead, and for whom all are alive, will he not allow love to continue to intercede for the beloved person? Is such a thing even thinkable? Can death separate us from Christ?

A word in particular for the mediation of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, who at the foot of the cross received from her Son the charge of being the mother of all believers[22]. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 970, says:

“Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men… flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it.” “No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is really communicated in different ways to his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.”

Angelic mediation

And what are we to think of the action of the angels? If Jesus is the one mediator in the way that so many non-Catholic brethren understand it, what place do the angels occupy, who are “sent to minister for them who shall receive the inheritance of salvation”? (Hebrews 1:14) Is not the angels’ ministry a “mediation”? In Revelation they appear offering to God the prayers of the saints… Does their participation in the work of salvation take away exclusivity from the sole mediation of Christ? Must we reject the help of the angels in the name of the sole mediation of Christ? Christ wishes to make use of the angels to help us in our salvation; are we going to say that we do not need them, because we go directly to God?

Revelation 8:3-4 presents the prayers of the saints carried to God by means of the angels. The question we ask ourselves is: does Christ, the Lamb that was slain, have need of other mediators between God and men? Is Jesus displeased with the angels who present the prayers to God? Of course not, because if the angels can in some way be mediators, that is possible only thanks to the mediation of Jesus; angelic mediation, in fact, would be absolutely ineffectual without the salvation that Christ, and Christ alone, obtained for us. But in Christ the work of the angels is effective toward us, as the prayer of the just man is effective (the letter of James), and certainly we are speaking of a mediation of salvation: they are placed at the service “of those who are saved.”

Conclusion

The fundamental solution with respect to this matter lies in the indissoluble union between the believer and Christ, which the Catholic Church has understood, lived, and developed throughout her now long history, and which a fundamentalist mentality cannot comprehend. When Jesus draws near to “his hour” and speaks with his heart in his hand, words like these are heard, again and again: “I in you, you in me” (see John 13-17). “It is now no longer I, but Christ who lives in me,” Paul will say. What Christ lives in Paul? Christ the Son, Christ the foundation, Christ the mediator, Christ the priest, Christ the shepherd, Christ the teacher, and so on. IN CHRIST and THROUGH CHRIST, Paul and the believer are also foundation, sons, mediators, priests, shepherds, teachers, fathers, light, and so on.

For Paul this was something he had experienced from his first contact with the Lord, when on the road to Damascus “and falling on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Who said: Who art thou, Lord? And he: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest” (Acts 9:4-5). Was Paul persecuting Jesus? But Jesus was dead, and Paul did not believe in the resurrection! Why does Jesus say “ME” you persecute? Why does he not say: “you persecute the Church” or “you persecute my disciples”? Might it not be because Christ is no longer separable from his Body, the Church?

Like the vine and the branches: “he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit,” and he “shall do greater works” than those of Jesus (John 15:2). Greater works than those of Jesus?

And what are we to say of “he that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me”? (Luke 10:16) Do we realize the weight of this “interdependence” between Jesus and his apostles? Do we not make its interpretation superficial?

In my opinion, the main problem of a small and “conflictive” interpretation of Scripture, such as happens with Christian fundamentalism, is no small matter. Whoever has this vision of the Gospel closes himself to the possibility of living in fullness the gift of Christ. It is important to accept the Gospel message in all its fullness, and not to remain at a certain distance. If Jesus wishes to make us one with him, we cannot content ourselves with anything else but being one with him. Erring in the understanding of the Scriptures and the power of God, we err “greatly” (Mark 12:27). These are not trifles, unimportant disputes: refusing to receive the message of Christ just as the Father has conceived it causes the believer to exclude himself from the communication that God wishes to make of himself. It is not enough to “not be far from the Kingdom of God” (Mark 12:34); rather one must “enter” (Matthew 23:13).

According to the fourth Gospel, believing is never a mere profession of faith, an “accepting” of Jesus as savior once and for all and thus being “irreversibly saved”; rather it is a “living out of divine sonship” to its ultimate consequences, wholly, living in inseparable communion with Jesus, even to giving one’s life if necessary. Jesus and the believer, one might say, are “one single thing” (see, for example, John 14:20; 15:4-9)[23]. And not only with Jesus, but, forming with him one single body, we are also “members one of another” (Romans 12:4-5).

I hope the Catholic reader has found good material to deepen his faith. As for the non-Catholic reader, I do not know whether this article will convince him of what we believe, but at least it will give him material for thought. Even if he does not share our doctrine, he will have to recognize that the biblical texts we have cited are there, and they speak of how God has willed to make us partakers of his office of mediator.

It only remains to hope that the Holy Spirit will continue the work, for in truth it is he who is the true interior teacher.

Author: Fr. Juan Carlos Sack

Source: Apologetica.org

Notes

  1. The great question will always be this: who will correctly interpret what is in the Bible? Many hasten to say: “the Holy Spirit”… It sounds beautiful, but in reality that gives rise to the many different and largely opposing beliefs of the fundamentalist denominations, not through the fault of the Holy Spirit, but of those who believe themselves to be the true interpreters of the Scriptures. While I write these lines, some non-Catholic Christian “church” is unfortunately splitting apart, and no doubt both sides do so because “the Holy Spirit has put it in their heart” to do this or that. Luther already said it, rather discouraged some years after his famous “95 theses”: “There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; a third posits a world between the present one and the day of judgment; not lacking is he who teaches that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not one of them, however buffoonish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, and who does not regard his dreams and ravings as prophecies.” Why does this happen, if the Word of God is ONE? No one doubts that the Bible is “infallible” and that it is the Word of God, but… is the interpretation each Christian gives of it also infallible, merely because he believes it comes from the Holy Spirit? In any case, that is the subject of other articles, already present on Apologetica.org. ↩
  2. Many Catholics come from fundamentalist Christian communities, and not a few used to regard the Catholic Church as the personification of the Antichrist. But what particularly characterized these people was that they had not lost the capacity to think nor the disposition to follow the truth whatever the cost, which in the end made all the difference. May the kind reader belong to this group; if so, I believe this article will interest him. ↩
  3. I am thinking in particular of DS, for example, who claims to know Catholicism, since he lived in it “for 32 years.” But according to his own words “the idea of God that had been handed on to me was that of that kind old man with a white beard who is seated on the Throne of Heaven, who loves us and awaits us. They never taught me His Majesty, His Sovereignty, His Supreme Authority over good and evil…” The reader will judge whether DS knows Catholicism. If in Catholicism it is taught that God is not Sovereign or has no authority over evil, then not only DS, but everyone would have to run away from such a Church. Supposing that what this brother says is true, without any doubt his catechists and priests (and in the first place his parents) are to be blamed for having handed on to him a NON-Catholic message. In any case, the fact that the Church passes through moments of crisis in certain places and periods does not disqualify her as the true church. Let us recall what happened with the people of Israel: for practically ALL its life it was unfaithful to Yahweh, with idolatries, murders, injustices, adulteries… and a long list besides; did it therefore cease to be the chosen people? No. Do the teachings of the Old Testament cease to have value? No. So too with the Church. And note well: we Catholics have 2000 years of existence, and we are speaking of a billion people as of today: should we expect that all, always, be a Saint Paul? Would that it were so! In this sense the fundamentalist denominations have neither a long history, nor a visible church that can be “reproached” for anything, nor visible pastors who take responsibility for the facts. In this way they can pass for “the just,” always and everywhere; in fact, one of the weapons wielded against the Catholic Church is the historical “sins” of Catholics, turning a deaf ear to the repeated requests for forgiveness on the part of Pope John Paul II, and above all sheltering behind a reality that, in the end, is contrary to them: they are not reproachable precisely because they did not exist in many of the centuries of the Church’s history. The Catholic Church never proclaimed that she was sinless, so that we Catholics are not frightened by the presence of the weeds in the Lord’s field. Luke 18:10-14 is also part of the Gospel message. ↩
  4. Not long ago a JW reproached me: “Tell me when the Catholic Church devoted itself to preaching the Gospel… and when it suffered persecution.” It goes without saying that we cannot waste time answering such messages. Out of respect for the millions of Catholic missionaries and martyrs. ↩
  5. We hasten to say that both analogy and participation are in reality elements of everyday life and language, which have simply been studied and deepened by great thinkers, for the benefit of all. We are not speaking of any strange philosophical invention: whoever does not accept the idea of analogy or of participation could not even speak with his neighbor. This will become clearer as the explanation proceeds. ↩
  6. Someone will say that I am bringing water to my own mill, making a “Catholic” and “forced” interpretation of the text. To prove that this is not so, I transcribe the commentary of Andrew T. Lincoln, a Protestant, in his work on the letter to the Ephesians, published in the prestigious “Word Biblical Commentary” series, merely as a sample proving that I am not proceeding on blind personal criteria. This author writes as follows (in short, he says exactly the same as what I said above, namely, that here the apostles do not lay the foundation, but are themselves the foundation): “The apostles and prophets are no longer seen as those who lay the foundation of Christ or who build upon it but as the foundation itself. Some have taken the genitive as a subjective genitive, ‘the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets’ (e.g., Meyer, 142; neb; gnb), but such an interpretation, which is sometimes motivated by the desire to harmonize Eph 2:20 with 1 Cor 3:11, introduces total confusion into the writer’s use of metaphor, because it makes Christ both the foundation and the keystone. With the vast majority of commentators we should take the genitive as appositional, i.e., the foundation which the apostles and prophets constitute” (emphasis mine). As Lincoln affirms, the vast majority of commentators (of all creeds) interpret this passage as we do. ↩
  7. A curiosity: in all the English versions, the word “hedraiōma” –which here we translate as “ground”– is translated as “foundation,” that is, the same word that those same Bibles –Protestant and Catholic– use for 1 Corinthians 3:11; in other words, for the whole English-speaking world, whether Catholic or Protestant, Christ is “foundation” –1 Corinthians 3:11– and the Church is “foundation” –1 Timothy 3:15. ↩
  8. In philosophy, this way of seeing things is called determinatio ad unum; a good example is Luther himself. He thought that the letter of James was “of straw,” and that Revelation revealed nothing, and that Hebrews does not lead to Christ…, because he had strongly discovered the truth of salvation by faith (the tree), but forgetting the rest of the Scriptures (the forest), in such a way that whatever did not fit with his view of things he declared to be “doctrine of straw,” “papist rubbish,” etc., etc., etc. Now many Christians justify him and regard him as a hero, excusing him all his errors (such as the Chick publications, or in En la Calle Recta, etc.), but I do not believe that this is to be a friend of the truth. If the German monk had preserved his Catholic vision, he could have been a great reformer, a true one, without needing to discard entire books of the New Testament. By the grace of God, the Council of Trent dogmatically declared that Hebrews as well as Revelation, as well as all the letters of John, as well as James, were the Word of God just as much as the rest, and not “of straw,” as the “reformer” thought. ↩
  9. Thus an evangelical understood it, who, faced with my objection, answered me: “Well, Paul is not God, he could have been mistaken, that is his affair; I follow the words of Jesus and I call no one ‘father.’” What leads a Christian to think this way? ↩
  10. Lo starets Ignazio, Lipa Edizioni, Rome (2000), pp. 8-10. ↩
  11. This expression of Paul’s causes problems for more than one Christian, perhaps because they have received a Gospel different from Paul’s, and this expression, among many others, does not fit into that “Gospel.” A former fundamentalist Christian told me that at least in his congregation they had never preached on this and other passages, finding them meaningless. In the case of this last quotation of Paul, what can be lacking in the passion of Jesus? What is lacking is my participation in the sufferings of the Lord, for the benefit of the Church. ↩
  12. Let us think, for example, of the apparent opposition between Paul’s “salvation by faith, without works” and James’s “salvation not only by faith, but also by works”; faced with this “contradiction” Luther declared James an “epistle of straw.” Others prefer not to go deeply into the subject, or to explain it with such convolutions that in the end what James is saying is denied. Once someone told me: “what James says is one quotation, whereas what Paul says is many”… It is obvious that this is not a solution. Following the Catholic Church, we choose to keep everything that is in the Bible, and especially what involves the greater difficulty, for God is infinitely greater than what we can understand of him, and the mysteries (and apparent contradictions) of revelation must be preserved, unless we wish to make ourselves a God to our own measure, as the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Moon, etc., have done. ↩
  13. In his magnificent commentary on the Gospel of Saint John: “Selon Jean,” now translated into Italian. ↩
  14. The whole of Paul’s letter to the Colossians, according to most commentators, would be a warning against the primitive heresy of the Docetists, which had already spread in the apostolic communities while the apostles were still living, as the letters of John also demonstrate. ↩
  15. In Dizionario di Paolo e delle sue Lettere, Milan (2000), 376. ↩
  16. Barcelona (1980), 518-523. ↩
  17. W. Harrington, Revelation, in Sacra Pagina, Collegeville (1993), 48. ↩
  18. R. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, in The New International Commentary of the New Testament, Grand Rapids (1998), 50. In a note on page 371, this Protestant author comments: “One of the Latin words for priest is pontifex, that is, ‘bridge-builder.’ The role of the priest is to establish a bridge between God and humanity.” ↩
  19. M. Ford, Revelation, in The Anchor Bible, Garden City (1975), 378. ↩
  20. Let us clarify that the prayer made to God and that made to a saint are two radically and absolutely different things: when the intercession of a saint is requested, it is the same case as one who asks a brother here on earth to “pray for him.” But we cannot here treat all the aspects of the matter. We refer the reader to the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding prayer (that is, the fourth of the four parts into which the Catechism is divided). ↩
  21. Numbers 13 and 14 of the declaration. You can download the entire text of this most beautiful Christological document at www.apologetica.org/dominus_iesus.htm. ↩
  22. And why did he give John another mother, if John already had one? Would the author have recorded that beautiful dialogue if it were a passing circumstance without relation to the Christians of all times? ↩
  23. See chapter 12 of the First to the Corinthians, for a deeper understanding of the unity of the body of Christ, head and members. ↩