BuddhistCatholicContemplativeEvangelicalGeneral ChristianHinduJewishLatter-day SaintMuslimNew VisionsProgressive Christian
Beliefs
- Buddhist
- Catholic
- Contemplative
- Evangelical
- General Christian
- Hindu
- Jewish
- Latter-day Saint
- More Voices
- Muslim
- New Visions
- Pagan
- Progressive Christian
Topics
- Religion News
- Food and Religion
- Sports and Religion
- Religious Art
- Religious Music and Entertainment
- Religious Events
- History and Religion
- Style and Religion
- Politics and Religion
- Women in Religion
- Recreation Outdoors and Religion
- Business Finance and Religion
- Careers Workplace and Religion
- Education and Religion
- Family Parenting and Religion
- Health Fitness and Religion
- Home and Religion
- Relationships and Religion
- Technology and Religion
- Travel and Religion
Columnists
- Buddhist Columnists
- Business Finance and Religion Columnists
- Careers Workplace and Religion Columnists
- Catholic Columnists
- Contemplative Columnists
- Education and Religion Columnists
- Evangelists Columnists
- Family Parenting and Religion Columnists
- General Christian Columnists
- Health Fitness and Religion Columnists
- Hindu Columnists
- History and Religion Columnists
- Home and Religion Columnists
- Jewish Columnists
- More Voices Columnists
- Latter Day Columnists
- Muslim Columnists
- New Visions Columnists
- Nonreligious Columnists
- Pagan Columnists
- Politics and Religion Columnists
- Progressive Columnists
- Recreation Outdoors and Religion Columnists
- Relationships and Religion Columnists
- Religion News Columnists
- Religious Art Columnists
- Religious Events Columnists
- Religious Music and Entertainment Columnists
- Sports and Religion Columnists
- Style and Religion Columnists
- Technology and Religion Columnists
- Travel and Religion Columnists
- Women in Religion Columnists
Resource Library
- 2026 Calendar
- Library of World Religions
- The 100 Most Holy Places on Earth
- Patheos Answers
- Podcasts
- Videos
- Faith Leaders Database
- Anglican Episcopalian
- Bahai
- Baptist
- Buddhism
- Christianity
- Confucianism
- Eastern Orthodoxy
- Hinduism
- Holiness and Pentecostal
- ISKCON
- Islam
- Judaism
- Lutheran
- Methodist
- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
- New Age
- Paganism
- Presbytarian and Reformed
- Protestantism
- Religion Behind the Scenes
- Roman Catholic
- Scientology
- Shia Islam
- Sikhism
- Sufism
- Sunni Islam
- Taoism
- Zen
- See all religions
Research Tools
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support
- Trending:
- Forgiveness
- |
- Marriage
- |
- Consciousness
- |
- Death Penalty
- |
- Election
- |
- Halloween
-
About
-
Catholic Apologetics
-
Church History
-
Great Apologists
-
Christian Worldview
-
Protestantism & Misc.
- Home
- Catholic
- History and Religion
- Can Mary Hear “Simultaneous” Prayers of Millions?
Can Mary Hear “Simultaneous” Prayers of Millions?
Last updated on: October 3, 2020 at 5:12 pm by Dave Armstrong
Can Mary Hear “Simultaneous” Prayers of Millions? 2020-10-03T17:12:53-04:00 Dave Armstrong
Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

This is a reply to Matt Slick: Presbyterian pastor and head of the large and influential anti-Catholic Protestant CARM discussion forum. I am responding to his article, “Can Mary hear our prayers?”. His words will be in blue.
*****
There is nothing in the Bible that says that Mary can simultaneously hear the prayers of people all over the world, in different languages, spoken, and thought, an attribute that God possesses. But, the Catholic Church says she can. . . .
Roman Catholics all over the world offer prayers to Mary on a regular basis and expect her to hear them and intercede for them with God and Jesus. This is unfortunate because it isn’t biblical. They have gone beyond scripture.
Not everything in the Bible or every Christian doctrine held has to be made explicit there; the Bible never teaches that. What is required is that a doctrine must be in harmony with the Bible, and not contradict it. Thus, we might observe that the Bible never states that Mary can’t do these things. Nothing in the Bible denies that God can grant extraordinary qualities such as this one to His creatures when they are in heaven with Him.
We know that God can hear simultaneous prayers because He is outside of time (a Catholic dogma). C. S. Lewis compared this to God being an author of a book and our being the characters in the book. The author can go away for two years and then come back to his book and its fictional “timeline” as if no time has passed by. That’s how God is with our prayers. He’s not constrained by time because He’s not in it in the first place, as its creator.
The question then becomes: are we creatures also outside of time (or do we at least transcend earthly time in some fashion?) when we get to heaven and enter eternity? Many philosophers of religion have thought so, on the grounds that heavenly eternity (for creatures) is not endless succession of time, but rather, the cessation of time as we know it from a particular point forward (rather like a ray in geometry). There are many mysteries about heaven, but who can say what it will be like: including our experience of time or lack thereof? It’s certainly possible that we could be outside of time: not eternally like God, but from the moment we get to heaven.
I couldn’t access the article for free, but “Time in Heaven: From Glory to Glory,” by Scott Steinkerchner OP, has an intriguing abstract:
This article addresses three questions: Is there time in heaven? If so, what is it like? and How does it relate to time in this universe? In dialogue with modern science, this paper argues that since Christianity believes in the resurrection of the body and life everlasting, it should also affirm that there is time and space in heaven. Thus, rather than picturing heaven as a changeless, eternal moment, it is better to picture is as an everlasting experience of advancing from glory to glory. The time and the space in heaven is not the same as the time and the space in this universe, but the relationship between spacetime in heaven and spacetime in this universe in shrouded in mystery. While in this universe time always advances in one direction, in heaven, we might be able to move both forwards and backwards in time, though always moving forward in glory. It is also possible that the saints in heaven could revisit different times on earth, making for a complex interaction between heavenly and earthly timelines that could explain how the saints in heaven can hear and respond to earthly prayers.
If indeed this is true (and I see nothing in the Bible that undeniably contradicts it), then it is entirely possible that Mary and other saints in heaven can not only hear our prayers, but hear the prayers of millions, because of being in a different state vis-a-vis time. And they would be able to do so because God willed it to be that way and gave them that power.
The main verse The Roman Catholic Church uses to support their idea about Mary hearing prayers is found in Revelation 5:8. . . .
- NASB, “When He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints,” . . .
Nothing in that verse says that anyone hears the prayers of the saints. It is a figurative context and is not explicit.
It may not say specifically that they “hear” them, but that notion is consistent with their having “the prayers of the saints.” What are they doing with them in the first place, if indeed (as Protestants tell us, as one of their unbiblical traditions) only God can ever be prayed to and receive prayer?
Slick provides four commentaries in an attempt to minimize the clear import of this text, and even one of those (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown) admits that it is a mystery; that these saints are “employed by God in some way unknown to us to present our prayers (nothing is said of their interceding for us) . . .”. This famous commentary concedes that they possess “our prayers” and present them to God. This makes them intermediaries, and is completely consistent with the notion that they are indeed interceding for us, which means in turn that they heard our prayers before God did, and presented them to Him.
Otherwise, why are they involved at all? Neither Slick nor his four commentaries have proven otherwise. If only God can be prayed to, and only directly, why in the world would Scripture present such a scenario? It seems like this would be the last way to portray it if Protestant assumptions are correct.
. . . does the text actually say that they hear the prayers? No, it does not. The saints in heaven offering the prayers doesn’t mean that they can hear the prayers of people on earth. The Roman Catholic Church has read a doctrine into the text.
It’s perfectly plausible and consistent to assert that they heard prayers, if they possess them. And it is because of things we do know: having been informed by Scripture. We know that saints are intensely aware of earthly events, like spectators in an arena, watching (see my paper on Hebrews 12:1). If they have such an awareness, it simply cannot be ruled out that they could hear our prayers, as part of that, and can function as intercessors for us. Jeremiah 15:1 (RSV) implies that Moses and Samuel could intercede after their death:
Then the LORD said to me, “Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people. Send them out of my sight, and let them go!
Abraham — after His death — is prayed to (asked for intercession) in a story (not a parable) told by Jesus Himself (Luke 16). So is the prophet Samuel (by Saul). Thus we know, with direct, explicit Scripture, that dead saints 1) observe us, and 2) can be prayed to. What more does one need? This being the case, it’s altogether fitting and plausible that Mary the Mother of God the Son Jesus, would be particularly involved in such loving intercession, by God’s will.
Now, even if it were possible that this verse could be interpreted to mean that the saints in heaven can hear Christians’ prayers, which I don’t assert is legitimate, it still does not mean that Mary can hear the prayers of people all over the world, simultaneously, both thought and spoken, and in different languages.
I explained how that is entirely possible and plausible, in the first section above.
If the people in heaven are aware of the prayers, it doesn’t say how they are aware.
It doesn’t have to. All we need to know is that they are aware. If they are, then they are involved in the process, regardless of the “how” and the “mechanics” of it. We know it is through God’s power.
I am aware that my friends pray to God but I don’t know what those prayers are unless they tell me. I cannot read people’s minds nor do I hear the prayers they give to God unless I’m physically present with them and they’re speaking out loud. So, the Roman Catholic church is stretching the verse beyond its intent and not being logical in its examination. The Catholics are committing the interpretive error called eisegesis.
None of this logically follows because of the difference of being in heaven and in a different relation to time, compared to being on earth, and because we know that dead saints can receive intercessory requests and present (as we would expect) them to God.
Roman Catholics say that heaven is not like it is here on earth and that we don’t know what Mary can and cannot do in heaven; therefore, they say, why can’t she hear our prayers and answer them. But this is an argument from silence. We should not argue from what we don’t know. We should argue from what we do know. To argue from what we do not know opens the door wide to saying anything.
It’s a valid deduction (which is arguing from what we know) from philosophy of religion, based on what we know from Scripture: speculation on the nature of eternity and what it will be like for creatures in heaven. We know it will be extraordinary and that we will have glorified bodies and that now we only “see through a glass darkly” as Paul stated, and “eye has not seen” etc. what God has prepared for us. And we have scriptural examples of Abraham and Samuel being asked to pray for us after their deaths. These are the relevant passages that Slick needs to grapple with, but he appears utterly unaware of them.
For example, the Bible does not say anything about life on other planets. Therefore, should we conclude that there is life on other planets? Of course not.
We can’t know for sure, based on the Bible, but it also doesn’t rule it out, which is why C. S. Lewis argued that it is entirely possible and not ruled out in the Bible.
This is why the Bible says that were not to exceed what is written (1 Corinthians 4:6). It sets the scriptures as the guide that should not be exceeded. Our admonition from Scripture is to use the word of God as the footstool upon which we build our truths, not the ignorance of what heaven might be like and then use it to justify a teaching about Mary is not supported in Scripture.
The problem here is that 1 Corinthians 4:6, closely examined, is not a prooftext for sola Scriptura, as Slick falsely assumes.
We often hear how Mary can hear our prayers and even answer them. I’ve had Catholics tell me that other saints can hear prayers as well. Can they also hear prayers in different languages, both thought and spoken, all simultaneously from all over the planet? If they can, why the focus on Mary?
Because she is the Mother of God the Son, immaculate by God’s grace, and the greatest of all creatures. Therefore, according to James (“The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects”: 5:16), her intercessory prayers have more power than any other creature’s have.
Furthermore, all of the so-called Roman Catholic Saints are creatures. They were created by God who is infinitely greater than the they. Why go to Saints and pray to them when Jesus said to seek him (John 14:14; Matthew 11:28) and that he alone was a way to the Father (John 14:6)? Isn’t Jesus enough? Isn’t God the Trinity enough?
I just explained it. If indeed, 1) God wants us to pray for each other (as He does), and if indeed, 2) prayers of more righteous people have more power (as James 5:16 proves), and if indeed 3) dead saints can hear our prayers and 4) present them to God, then all of it makes perfect sense and is completely harmonious with Holy Scripture.
Of course God is sufficient… unless you take your eyes off of God and put it on your tradition. Then, new doctrines creep in and with it comes a host of errors.
Yes, of course He is. And this same God expressed His will in His inspired revelation that we pray for each other, as part of His overall plan, and that this includes prayers of the departed, who are more alive and much more powerful and knowledgeable than we are, and who remain part of the Body of Christ (communion of saints).
For a Catholic to be persuaded by Pastor Slick’s interpretation, would require our sincere and zealous Protestant brother to refute all of the biblical and reasoned argumentation I have presented. He ignored almost all of it in his own “biblical” presentation, so his case is hardly compelling. It simply neglects (how ironic!) too much Scripture. We can’t pick and choose only what we like in God’s Word: only what fits in with existing arbitrary traditions of men.
We have to incorporate all of its relevant teachings into our analysis on any given topic. But sacred tradition is a valid thing, too, which is itself expressly sanctioned many times in Scripture, as part of the rule of faith, along with (also) the authority of the One True Church: set up by our Lord Jesus and perpetually guided and preserved from error by the Holy Spirit.
***
Photo credit: Prayer of Moses after the Israelites go through the Red Sea (1861), by Ivan Kramskoy (1837-1887) [public domain / WikiArt]
***
Previous Post

September 30, 2020
Presidential Debate: Interruptions vs. Irreverent Incoherence
Next Post

October 1, 2020 Sore Losers?: Hillary & Dems or Trump & the GOP?
Browse Our Archives
Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos
Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004
Follow Us!
TAKE THE
Religious Wisdom Quiz
What was a "phylactery," criticized by Jesus in Matthew 23?
Select your answer to see how you score.
A small box with Scripture A robe A lamp A fishing net
Books by This Author Books by Dave Armstrong
Related posts from Biblical Evidence for Catholicism
Top Three Anti-Catholic Lies About Catholicism
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism
Three More Anti-Catholic Lies About Catholicism (#6-4)
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism
Bible & Catholicism on Mortal Sin (vs. John...
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism
Top Ten Anti-Catholic Lies (#10-7)
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
Bear One Another’s Burdens, But Carry Your Own...
At first glance, Paul seems to contradict himself within the span of...
A Catholic Century or an Evangelical Century?
Will the form of Christianity that prevails in the years ahead be...
Crying in the Kitchen: When My Body Finally...
It was still dark when I found myself dancing in the kitchen...
'I Play Rocky': A Two-Fisted Tale of Hope...
Amazon MGM's 'I Play Rocky' recreates the making of the 1976 blockbuster...
Here's our band of pilgrims on Palace Green facing the Castle and...
Executions?: Hold the Pen Still, Byron Donalds
Byron Donalds, You Can Hold the Pen Still Florida executed nineteen people...
view all Catholic blogs
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support
- About Us
- 2026 Calendar
- Videos
- Podcasts
- Library of World Religions
- Faith In Media Tracker
- Advertise With Us
- Write for Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms of Service
- Do Not Sell My Data
- Contact Us
- Radiant Digital
- Manage Newsletter Subscriptions
- Unsubscribe From Notifications
- Sitemap
Copyright 2008-2026, Patheos. All rights reserved.
Subscription Support Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In











