Nothing makes Protestants balk more at Orthodoxy than the practice of praying to the saints, particularly to Christ’s mother. This is not without reason. In short, the objections to the practice may be summed up as both practical and theological.
Practical Objections. The practical objection can be summed up as, “Why waste my time praying to Mary when I can just pray to God.” In short, it is an efficiency-based argument which presumes we should be maximizing our prayer utility.
There are several obvious errors with this way of thinking–namely the presupposition that God desires our prayer life to be very efficient. If we should not be asking the saints for their prayers because it “wastes time,” then why ask anyone to pray for us? Or better yet, why even bother praying? God already knows what we need before we ask.
So, let’s dismiss the efficiency-based objections to prayers-to-the-saints because they are not serious objections. Let’s focus on the theological objections.
Theological Objections. The first objection Protestants usually put forward is that asking the saints for prayers is necromancy. As we have discussed previously, this is not a strong objection because 1. necromancy has a specific meaning which is obviously ignored by people who raise such an objection and 2. prayer and veneration do not meet the Biblical standard of worship.
The second objection is much more compelling and it can be summed up as follows: prayers to the saints are not in the Scriptures nor are they prominent in early Church history.
The preceding is a serious objection which cannot be hand-waved away with an unthinking “sola scriptura is false” sort of counter-argument. Think about it for a moment–if the practice is not in the Scriptures, then we lack a first century attestation. If it is not in the writings of the church fathers, then we lack historical evidence of the practice. This being the case, what historical basis would we have to reject the assertion that the practice is a later innovation? We would be forced to appeal to the infallibility of the Church, but this appeal is only convincing to those who have already drank the Koolaid. It does not appeal to those who are making an honest inquiry into the truth.
To answer the previous objection, I will make three points:
First, we will show that it is reasonable to trust the Church.
Second, we will briefly review the earliest historical evidence we have for prayers to the saints.
Lastly, we will offer our most compelling evidence of all–that we do not have evidence of early Christians rejecting the practice (with the exception of an outlier named Vigilantius.)
Trusting the Church. Fathers, with a high view of the Scriptures, saw no contradiction between believing that the Scriptures were materially sufficient (i.e. they contain all necessary Christian doctrine) and petitioning the saints for prayers.
Let’s take Saint Athanasius for example. After all, he wrote that “divine Scripture is sufficient above all things” and discounted novel Arian doctrines because “in the divine Scripture nothing is written about them.”
Yet, Saint Athanasius has a Marian prayer ascribed to himself and almost certainly was petitioning Mary in the anapohras of the Egyptian liturgy and praying the sub tuum praesidium. Obviously, he believed there to be no contradiction between such prayers and the Scriptures (which states all generations will bless Mary in Luke 1:48 and exalts the prayers of the righteous in James 5:16).
Why cannot Protestants simply write off Saint Athanasius (and Ambrose, Jerome, and pretty much every single saint that we have writings from after the fourth century) as being misguided in this one respect?
The reason Protestants cannot is because it creates epistemological mega-problems for Christianity. The modern doctrine of the Trinity, Christology, soteriology, and the Biblical Canon itself were all formulated in the fourth century. Why would we depend upon Saint Athanasius, Jerome, Ambrose, or whomever to understand what books are actually in the Bible if they were glorified polytheists, praying to Mary as if she were a demigod?
It would seem that if these men were outright heretics in their prayer life, then they would not be trustworthy authorities for anything. It would be like trusting the Mormons to tell us which books are in the Bible.
In reflecting upon this issue, I cannot help but think of Saint Augustine’s way of grappling with the question of the Bible’s trustworthiness. He wrote:
I felt that it was with more moderation and honesty that it commanded things to be believed that were not demonstrated (whether it was that they could be demonstrated, but not to any one, or could not be demonstrated at all)…After that, O Lord, You, little by little, with most gentle and most merciful hand, drawing and calming my heart, persuaded taking into consideration what a multiplicity of things which I had never seen…I believed of what parents I was born, which it would have been impossible for me to know otherwise than by hearsay — taking into consideration all this, You persuade me that not they who believed Your books (which, with so great authority, You have established among nearly all nations), but those who believed them not were to be blamed…For now those things which heretofore appeared incongruous to me in the Scripture, and used to offend me, having heard various of them expounded reasonably, I referred to the depth of the mysteries, and its authority seemed to me all the more venerable and worthy of religious belief, in that, while it was visible for all to read it, it reserved the majesty of its secret within its profound significance (Confessions, Book VI, Paragraphs 7 and 8).
The preceding is a mouthful, but it is important. Let me sum up Augustine’s argument as follows:
- The Scriptures require us to believe things that must be accepted by faith and lack demonstration.
- God gave him the conviction that we accept things all the time on good authority without demonstration, such as who our parents are.
- Hence, on good faith, Augustine accepted the Scriptures because when he heard them “expounded reasonably” he saw that they made sense.
- This gave him confidence that whenever he personally could not understand a certain Scripture in a reasonable way, he withheld judgement against the Scriptures because they were overall trustworthy.
- In such situations he would embrace the mystery of what he did not understand on the authority that whenever he had tested the Scriptures they were found trustworthy.
The preceding is an extremely compelling argument for the Scriptures–we accept them to be true, even when they may seem confusing, because whenever they are put to the test they have always proven themselves to us. If we can apply this epistemological argument to the Scriptures, then surely we would trust the authority of the Church, who has proven Herself correct with the Canon of the Scriptures, the preservation of their manuscripts, the defense of Christological doctrines from them, and all other things.
It would seem that the Church has earned the benefit of the doubt. So, if she preserved the practice of petitioning the saints, it is eminently reasonable that even if we do not fully understand their Scriptural basis, we would take it on good authority that it is there and embrace the mystery.
Early Historical Evidence of Petitions to the Saints. Many assert that prayers to the saints are a very late innovation. After all, the fourth century is 300 years after the time of Christ. A lot can change. For example, the USA was a collection of British colonies and Indian tribes three centuries ago!
That being said, it would be untrue to say that the earliest we see Marian veneration is in the fourth century. We have compelling historical evidence, accepted also by Protestant scholars, that we have third century Marian prayers (the above referred anaphoras and the sub tuum praesidium.)
These were preserved in Egypt. This was probably due to the climate which helps preserve very old manuscripts, the wealth of the Church of Alexandria which helped the proliferation of written documents (which increases the chance of their preservation for posterity), and the relative hands-off policy Rome treated their wealthy Egyptian province.
How do we know that Marian veneration was not some sort of Egyptian practice that later spread like a cancer? First, the sub tuum praesidium exists in slightly altered forms in all parts of the eastern and western church. This makes it less likely that it spread from Egypt itself. Rather, the document we have in Egypt was merely a prayer written down that was already widely disseminated.
Second, the contemporary liturgies copied in the fourth and fifth centuries (Liturgy of Saint James, Saint Basil, Saint Chyrsostom, etcetera) have invocations of the saints and requests for petitions. This is extremely unlikely without the practice being widespread, being that the creedal statements and sections of these liturgies have corroboration in second century (Saint Ignatius’ and Saint Irenaeus’ quoting of creeds) and third century (Saint Hippolytus’ Apostolic Constitutions) documents. We have are good grounds for believing, being that the fourth and fifth century liturgies agree ad verbatim with second century documents, that the later liturgies are simply the earlier liturgies in full written form.
Third, we potentially have second century evidence of Jewish prayers to the saints. One passage of the Talmud, dated between the second and third centuries, serves as an example:
Caleb held aloof from the plan of the spies and went and prostrated himself upon the graves of the patriarchs, saying to them, ‘My fathers, pray on my behalf that I may be delivered from the plan of the spies’ (Sotah 34b).
In light of the preceding, we must ask ourselves: what is the chance that both the second and third century Christians and Jews prayed to saints, over a large geographic spread, and that this does not represent a pre-Christian practice that was continued during the Apostolic age?
Early Christianity’s Allergic Reactions Against Innovations. In light of all of the preceding evidence, someone who rejects petitions to the saints may argue that the practice might have been a Jewish syncretistic holdover that latched somewhere onto the first or second century Church . Thereafter, it spread like cancer to the point it was common everywhere in the third and fourth centuries.
Yes, this is an argument from silence and obviously a conspiracy theory, but is it at least a sensible one? I think anyone who has studied early Church history and understands the culture of early Christianity and its successor, the Orthodox Church, would realize such a conspiracy theory is not workable.
Being that none of us can time-travel into the past, one way a modern Protestant can understand ancient Christian culture is by simply stepping foot into a modern Orthodox Church. Here, one would find when speaking to many Orthodox, particularly clergymen, an obvious stubbornness to compromise over matters that appear disputable (i.e. terminology, worship practices that are not doctrinal, etcetera). It seems to many that Orthodox are curmudgeons unwilling to level with us and just have a normal conversation.
Here is an example: I once asked the Deacon in my church why they watered down the blessed wine (what people drink after communion) with water instead of grape juice. He gave me a stare, thinking I was talking about the Eucharist, and then said coldly, “Because we only use water, and that’s all we have ever done.” Pertaining to the Eucharist, he is correct, as even in the third century Christians were already strict about mixing only water with wine (Cyprian, Letter 62, Par. 9). In fact, not mixing water with the wine was a major no-no (an interesting fact in that the Scriptures do not explicitly mention this practice).
To non-Orthodox this seems to be overly-scrupulous. Over-scrupulous or not, this sort of mentality prevents people from getting rid of things easily. It may be difficult to understand the preceding without firsthand knowledge of Orthodox worship and regular interaction with Orthodox. Nonetheless, I think the concept is helpful to have some familiarity with when discussing the conspiracy theory that prayers to saints were an innovation that somehow “snuck” into the Church somewhere and then spread like wildfire.
Why? Because we have examples of regional practices and innovations in the early Church. Likewise, we have examples of how Christians responded to them. The following early Church disputes have been recorded for us, showing that even small and seemingly trivial things did not go unnoticed without extensive debate:
- The date of the Easter celebration in Ephesus differed with the whole Christian world, resulting in councils and even an excommunication (mid to late second century)
- The Roman Church’s custom of accepting the baptisms of Christological heretics likewise resulted in councils and an excommunication as well (mid third century)
- Paul of Samosata, the Bishop of Antioch, taught that Jesus Christ was not the Word made flesh–resulting in his universal condemnation (mid third century)
- Saint Dionysus of Alexandria, in response to Paul of Samosata, used theologically imprecise language and as a result described Jesus Christ as a created being. The Egyptian and Roman Church rejected this teaching, and Dionysus recanted (mid third century)
- As part of the preceding debate, the term “of the same substance” was rejected due to Paul of Samosata’s usage of the term in denying the Trinity.
- The Council of Nicea described Jesus Christ as “the same substance as the Father.” This language was used previously by Paul of Samosata and so its connotations were disagreeable to many. Almost the whole Church later rejected the Council of Nicea over the meaning of this word and only four decades later did the doctrine of Christ’s same substance and essence gain wide acceptance. The reason for the debate ultimately was not because Bishops disagreed with Nicene doctrine but that they were distrustful of Nicea’s terminology. Only when the world’s Bishops were convinced that the terminology more accurately presented Trinitarian doctrine than any other options did the Arian controversy end. (early to late fourth century)
- Saint Jerome translated the Book of Jonah from the Hebrew and riots (Augustine, Letter 75, Par 22) broke out because he replaced the word “gourd” with “ivy” (late fourth century)
The preceding is not an exhaustive list, but this much is clear–if the Church experienced tumult over the day of Easter, the usage of an extra-biblical Greek term to describe Christ’s divinity, and even the inclusion of the word “gourd” into the Book of Jonah, it seems unthinkable that Marian prayers would start somewhere and then spread without notice. The intellectual atmosphere in early Christianity would have not permitted it. Yes, this is an argument from silence, but as they say, “the silence is deafening.”
Conclusion. In short, we may conclude the Orthodox pray to the saints on good authority in that:
- It being “a waste of time” is a baseless argument.
- Prayers to the saints is not “necromancy,” because necromancy has nothing to do with prayer.
- It’s widespread acceptance and huge importance in historic Christianity for 1500 years, the same Church that bequeathed us the Scriptures and all things Christian, cannot be ignored.
- Solid historical evidence exists that the practice existed during the centuries of Christian persecution by the Roman Empire and that it likely began as a pre-second century Jewish practice.
- If praying to the saints was antithetical to Christianity, it is almost unthinkable that it would have passed by without debate–when Christians even found the time to riot over the removal of the word “gourd” from the Book of Jonah.
In light of the preceding any reasonable person would conclude that without definitive grounds to object to the practice of praying to the saints, that they must be accepted. To not do so ultimately belies an unreasonable approach to Christianity itself.
We have some New Testament evidence of the practice. Consider that
– When Christ was dying on the cross, and crying out the words of the Pslam in Hebrew (“My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?”) he was misheard, and they thought he was calling for Elijah.
-In His parable about Lazarus and the rich man, Lazarus calls out to Abraham. The KJV version renders it nicely, “Father Abraham, have mercy on me…I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house.” Albeit, they were both in the realm of the dead, but the fact that Abraham would be asked to do the sending says something significant, I would be inclined to think.
That said, there was a small controversy and small amount of disention against the practice from the 4th-5th century, one of it’s chief opponents being Jerome’s former roommate Vigilantius, whom he writes against in his treatise “Against Vigilantius.”
Neither vigilantius nor helviticus said that they were defending an more ancient practice, though helviticus quoted tertillian out of context. If there was a large dissension they would have not failed to note it.
No, it was not a large dissention by any means. NewAdvent’s article relates that much — it took hold of a small region for a matter of mere years, and was the most extreme retalliation against the practice to occur til the Protestant Reformation.
And it was started from scratch by vigilantius. Jerome wrote in his letter that it was contrary to the custom of the whole Church. Plus it is interesting that vigilantius admitted that rev 6 had saints praying…but he argued God did nothing t answer their prayers.
Cornelius–
On what basis do you assert that the dissent was not large?
Craig–
On what basis do you assert that Vigilantius “started from scratch”?
Can you quote me a single line directly from Vigilantius’ works?
Have you ever heard that the victors write the history of an era? Who were the victors here? How do you know they are reliable?
Would you quiz Rush Limbaugh to get an accurate picture of Barack Obama? Would you interview Maxine Waters to get an objective evaluation of Donald Trump?
(Oh, and why have you not mentioned Jovinianus, Sarmatio, Barbatianus, and Aerius?)
So, you think that Jerome wrote an easily proveable lie that the whole custom of the world was against Vigilantius?
The examples you cite prove nothing. Aerius was an obvious innovator spouting his private opinions…he opposed Easter, which we have a 2nd century attestation to its existence. Further, he rejected prayers for the dead, but where is the evidence he rejected prayers to the saints like Vigilantius?
Sarmatio and Barbatianus were anti-asceticism. (Ambrose LXIII, par 7) But, there is no mention of their stance on prayers to the dead. Do you simply imagine that they were opposed to it, just because? What historical evidence would you cite?
Further, Jovinianus also wrote against asceticism. But where did he write against prayers to the saints (I have not read everything there is out there, but I am completely unaware of him taking such a stance.)
It appears you are citing evidence that monasticism is a sort of innovation, something I have already asserted on this website and in my book, but I do not see what evidence you ha ve brought to bear against my article…other than vigilantius…who appears to be all alone, though helviticus probably would have agreed.
Strange that not a single bishop supported them, not a a single parish…that not a single council was held to seriously entertain their ideas…
Besides, I think you’re disingenuous with the whole “dissent” issue anyway. There was tremendous dissent against iconodulia. I doubt you think that makes it an innovation. There was tremendous dissent against the complete deity of Christ. Was THAT an innovation?
Yes it was, the dissent was over unfamiliar terminology, as my article speaks of.
Elijah dissented and felt he was totally alone in his dissent.
In the history of the faithful, those who dissent against error have not always been sufficient in number to make an immediate impact.
there were 7000 others who did not bow the knee to baal.
Well, we’ll have to take the Lord’s say-so on those 7000. It cannot be confirmed independently. Elijah, not an obscure character to say the least, did not know of a single one himself.
Go ahead and ask the Lord whether there were any substantial dissents to Roman and Orthodox innovations.
I will wait for your reply.
Do you got me a quote from Vigilantius, yet?
Judging from both your replies it does not seem you are seriously interacting with this issue
Perhaps you’re right.
I didn’t think you took the writing of this article very seriously.
All I am saying is that you are privileging your particular “argument from silence.” We are discussing a time when many voices were either squelched or not preserved.
You cannot show any early evidence of intercession of saints or hyper-veneration of Mary. You reply that though it’s missing, it must have been there because it was there later. I say it must not have been because it wasn’t there earlier.
I don’t know whether or not there was any major dissent. Neither do you. I don’t think anyone CAN know.
Where are your arguments NOT based on silence?
Why, in your opinion, is there silence in Scripture? You make the point that the RC/EO community gave us the canon. If intercession and hyperdulia were so significant, why didn’t they include a book or two that made that clear?
The easy answer, of course, is that these beliefs are simply not Apostolic…no matter what later practice implies.
[Keep in mind that I–and many Protestants, for that matter–are not calling into question any reasonable veneration of the saints. Nor am I indicting just any old basic petition requesting a saint’s prayers as idolatrous. I am saying there is no early (or biblical) evidence for hyperdulia. And no early (or biblical) evidence for requisitioning saints’ favors and gifts and powers.]
Fair enough. I think the difference is I offered some evidence of the practice preceded the fourth century that was documented . I also put forward in an epistol mological problem that you would have in basing your modern day believes upon bucks and doctrines that were provided to you by people you consider to be so wrong.
As for hyperdulia this is a distinction that Orthodox do not make so I do not have a comment for that all I can say is that you should not let some flowery language get in the way of correct doctrine
1. “Waste of time”? I honestly don’t care. I think it mostly is a waste of time, but if you want to take part, knock yourself out!
2. No one I know of accuses you all of necromancy. They simply point out that the only time we have communication with the dead in Scripture, it is utterly discouraged.
3. Prayer to and veneration of the saints aren’t seen as idolatry. Hyperdulia and direct requests for favors from the saints are.
I really take exception to your notion that meticulousness in little things almost necessitates meticulousness in big things.
1. The Pharisees are castigated for “straining out a gnat but swallowing a camel.”
2. The Masoretes counted letters and words and verses in each copied biblical text. They knew the middle word…they knew the middle letter! But if you know anything about the history of Rabbinic Judaism, there is no such honor given to the content of Scripture itself. The Karaites did. But mainstream Jews were (and remain) all over the place theologically.
3. In ” Mein Kampf” Hitler speaks of the “Big Lie” (which he accuses Jews and Communists of). People much more easily accept an audacious untruth than a little one because they don’t think anyone could possibly be THAT brazen!
Besides, we have BIG errors accepted for a while in the early church: Arianism, for example, was almost victorious over the Nicene Party.
You must think that the Gates of Hell cannot prevail against the visible “church.” But that’s a huge presumption on your part.
Sorry it was not my intent to offend
Craig–
Protestants don’t believe that “books and doctrines” were bequeathed to us by Rome and Constantinople. Yes, they got some things right. But we go back to the beginning and check EVERYTHING.
But there’s a lot you cannot check so you take it on good authority that what has been preserved is in fact the Christian religion
On good authority?
A lot of these people were not particularly good at all.
At times, their opponents were better people.
For my own part, I don’t accept anyone’s authority, no matter how wonderful, when their ideas are innovative when compared with Scripture…which is the only real touchstone we have.
you made your own Canon bruh?
For my own part, I don’t accept anyone’s authority, no matter how wonderful, when their ideas are innovative when compared with Scripture…which is the only real touchstone we have.
Me – Do you listen to yourself? Scripture comes from Tradition which is worthless unless there’s authority behind what’s been passed down. Please tell me how you know the books you call Scripture are what you claim to be without accepting anyone’s authority? How do you even know it was translated correctly without the original letters?
Like I’ve said before, your assurance of what is Scripture is adhoc.
You have no more standing using your methodology than Joseph Smith.
I wasn’t offended, just using flowery, over-the-top rhetoric to express my disagreement. 🙂
It’s pretty difficult to offend me.
I’m sure your wife knows how to push the right buttons 🙂 God gave women a lot of strength in that category 🙂
Craig–
Hey, bruh. Did you have your canon imposed on you (against your better judgment)? Or did you accept it of your own free will? Do you agree with the criteria used by the Orthodox Church to determine the canon? Could you use these selfsame criteria to figure out the canon on your own? (Or did the Eastern Orthodox fathers use irrational, esoteric ahistorical guidelines to construct their canon?)
You’re in the same boat I’m in.
A little from column A and a little from column B.
CK–
Did you come up with your unique definition of “ad hoc” on the spur of the moment? Was it just for this occasion? 🙂
I remain mystified as to why the canon is a bone of contention. For goodness’ sake, all three branches of Christendom have virtually identical canons. It’s not like anybody chose something silly like the Gospel of Thomas or the Protoevangelium of James! Chill out….
You’re the one that says you don’t trust anyone’s authority but your own.
So now you do follow an authority.
You also said the the cannon was closed. When I asked how you know it’s closed you said it wasn’t.
What three branches are you talking about. If it wasn’t around in the beginning it can’t be relied on because it’s not the church Jesus founded. Protestants still keep branching out. For all I know your branch might only be 50 years old or you might just have started your own.
You are all over the place.
Well one group did pick Mac 1 & 2, wisdom etc.. so there is a difference specially if you are a bible alone type like yourself.
Btw I am chill. I just want consistency from you. Don’t say you don’t rely on authority when you do and don’t tell me the cannon is closed when you don’t know it’s closed.
And yes, Craig, my wife has the knowledge but chooses not to use it for the most part. She is very easy to live with. (Plus, she loves theology!)
CK–
No one can fly solo as their own authority. That doesn’t even make sense. Do I sound like I was alive in the first and second centuries? I’ve studied Aramaic, but I don’t speak it.
Everyone relies on authorities. Everyone. But the crux of the matter is in how one’s authorities are chosen. No matter what, the buck stops with the individual doing the choosing. That’s me. That’s you. You let the Catholic Church pick some of your authorities by proxy. Of course, that’s your right. (Kind of unwise, if you ask me, but it is still your right.)
Just don’t make it out to be something noble. You believe them to be trustworthy. I myself (and many, many like me) do NOT believe them to be so. The academic community does not have a consensus on the overall trustworthiness of Catholicism because Catholic scholars, quite frankly, are all over the place. They’re not monolithic by any means. Academia would have all kinds of problems, though, with Catholic magisterial norms. Nobody besides Catholics, for example, believes that Rome (or Constantinople, for that matter) is the “church Christ founded.” They all think that most Catholic distinctives developed over time.
I believe that the canon is closed for all practical purposes. The likelihood of finding a new Apostolic text, completely compatible with all the others, is incredibly small. And even if we found one, it wouldn’t have the benefit of corroboration by the early church. It might be widely read as a curiosity but not subsumed into the New Testament as we know it.
Everyone besides you accepts three branches of Christianity: Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. This may surprise you, but Protestants, by and large, are Protestants BECAUSE they think it is the earliest church. The Reformation occurred BECAUSE it was felt Rome no longer represented Apostolic beginnings. We started around 30 AD with the death and resurrection of Christ, and then the fall of the spirit on the believers at the first Pentecost. Orthodoxy began with its complete separation from Rome in the 1400’s. And modern Rome began in 1963 at Vatican II. If you are a pre-Vatican (basically Tridentine) Catholic, then your religion began around 1546 at Trent.
I’ve read the deuterocanonicals, and I have little against them. They don’t change, in any way, a single tenet of the faith. Wisdom of Solomon and Ben Sirach are extremely well written, especially the former. Absolutely beautiful.
I’m basically neutral toward the lot of them. There is evidence for the deuterocanonicals and evidence against. Catholicism didn’t see fit to cement them in the canon until Trent. (Only Ben Sirach has a Hebrew urtext…and that wasn’t discovered till relatively recently.)
By the way, I’m not a “Bible alone” type; that’s not what Sola Scriptura signifies. We look at all the history, all the language studies, all the cultural background, all the commentary. We allow “iron to sharpen iron” to determine what Scripture meant and means. But Scripture is nearly all we possess with surety that goes back to the opening generation of believers.
Hans-No one can fly solo as their own authority. That doesn’t even make sense. Do I sound like I was alive in the first and second centuries? I’ve studied Aramaic, but I don’t speak it.
Me- then don’t say this “For my own part, I don’t accept anyone’s authority, no matter how wonderful, when their ideas are innovative when compared with Scripture…which is the only real touchstone we have.”
Hans-Everyone relies on authorities. Everyone. But the crux of the matter is in how one’s authorities are chosen. No matter what, the buck stops with the individual doing the choosing. That’s me. That’s you. You let the Catholic Church pick some of your authorities by proxy. Of course, that’s your right. (Kind of unwise, if you ask me, but it is still your right.)
Me- I believe I found the Church Jesus founded and I follow it 100%. Historically it’s Orthodox or RCC. Protestantism by definition is to follow what feels right because no one has the authority greater than your own authority. This is not what we see in the early church. Protestantism relies heavily on one’s interpretation of the bible. It can’t truyly exist without a cannon.
Everyone that had the authority to officially teach had hands laid on them by someone else who had hands laid on them (the laying of hands) going back to the Apostles.
If Protestantism was around from the beginning the first order would be to identify all of Scripture instead of taking their sweet time..200 plus years.
Hans-Just don’t make it out to be something noble. You believe them to be trustworthy. I myself (and many, many like me) do NOT believe them to be so.
Me-the Mormons don’t believe RCC, EO or Protestants to be trustworthy also. What’s your point.
Hans-The academic community does not have a consensus on the overall trustworthiness of Catholicism because Catholic scholars, quite frankly, are all over the place. They’re not monolithic by any means. Academia would have all kinds of problems, though, with Catholic magisterial norms.
Me-What academic community? Protestant scholars are unified? Catholic scholars are not the magisterium so your point is irrelevant. I go to official Catholic teaching. Point me to the official Protestant teaching.
Hans-Nobody besides Catholics, for example, believes that Rome (or Constantinople, for that matter) is the “church Christ founded.” They all think that most Catholic distinctives developed over time.
Me- Nobody but Protestants think that their sect is the one Christ founded. Nobody but EO think…etc..What is your point. I do know this, I only see EO or RCC in the fathers.
Hans-I believe that the canon is closed for all practical purposes. The likelihood of finding a new Apostolic text, completely compatible with all the others, is incredibly small. And even if we found one, it wouldn’t have the benefit of corroboration by the early church. It might be widely read as a curiosity but not subsumed into the New Testament as we know it.
Me-so you look to the Early Church for corroboration. Do you follow any councils? Is there a website where I can learn what exactly what you believe or is it a mixture of this and that and Hans personal feelings.
Hans-Everyone besides you accepts three branches of Christianity: Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism.
Me- I believe it’s a branch but I’m searching for the trunk. Protestantism is not ancient so I dismiss it.
Hans-This may surprise you, but Protestants, by and large, are Protestants BECAUSE they think it is the earliest church. The Reformation occurred BECAUSE it was felt Rome no longer represented Apostolic beginnings.
Me- The Mormons felt the same but push it back to around 100 AD. So your point is irrelevant. Feeling is just that. It doesn’t prove anything.
Hans-We started around 30 AD with the death and resurrection of Christ, and then the fall of the spirit on the believers at the first Pentecost.
Me- Ok this is more what I’m looking for because I believe you can find the church Christ founded by looking at history alone. So Protestantism started around 30 AD. Does this include Baptists, Lutherans, Calvinists? Can you narrow this down? There are like thousands of protestant denominations.
So when did modern Rome begin? Complete separation did not begin EO. They existed and separated before then but reconciled back with RCC. EO existed much earlier. It was and is much of a cultural divide. So when did they begin? When did Protestantism disappear?
Hans-Orthodoxy began with its complete separation from Rome in the 1400’s. And modern Rome began in 1963 at Vatican II. If you are a pre-Vatican (basically Tridentine) Catholic, then your religion began around 1546 at Trent.
Me- can you tell me how my beliefs differ from the Church of 1545????
Hans-I’ve read the deuterocanonicals, and I have little against them. They don’t change, in any way, a single tenet of the faith. Wisdom of Solomon and Ben Sirach are extremely well written, especially the former. Absolutely beautiful.
Me – maybe not you but it does other Protestants. Those who cringe praying for the dead. BTW are those protestants the original believers dating back to 30 AD?
I’m basically neutral toward the lot of them. There is evidence for the deuterocanonicals and evidence against. Catholicism didn’t see fit to cement them in the canon until Trent. (Only Ben Sirach has a Hebrew urtext…and that wasn’t discovered till relatively recently.)
Me- you don’t seem to understand how and why we have councils. We have them to resolve issues/heresies as they arise. First of all the Vulgate included those books. Second there’s a lot that wasn’t cemented until hundreds of years later. The Trinity is an example. Using your way of thinking we should question it also.
Hans-By the way, I’m not a “Bible alone” type; that’s not what Sola Scriptura signifies.
Me- to some protestants it does. Why is your way right but not theirs? Whose authority should I look to?
Hans-We look at all the history, all the language studies, all the cultural background, all the commentary. We allow “iron to sharpen iron” to determine what Scripture meant and means. But Scripture is nearly all we possess with surety that goes back to the opening generation of believers.
Me- Actually, most Protestants are completely ignorant of Christian history. I’ve been to their bookstores and church fathers are Luther, Calvin, etc… Either way, when you all disagree you go to Pope “YOU” and that is not how the early church operated. This is evidence that Protestatism did not exist prior to the 1500s.
CK–
1. The two quotes of mine you cite are not incompatible in the least. Both statements say I pick my authorities oh, so carefully…and for coherent and rational reasons.
2. Protestantism has nothing whatever to do with picking what “feels right,” at least not in its original forms. (Nowadays, people call all sorts of churches and denominations “Protestant” which have no discernible ties to the historic Reformers.)
How, in your view, does the laying on of hands guarantee authority? Many in the legitimate line of succession have been heretics, apostates, schismatics, murderers, rapists, womanizers, slave holders, tyrants, and the like. Some lines of succession deemed as illegitimate go back hand over hand over hand as far back as the legitimate lines do (for example, the line of the SSPX or of the Jansenist Old Catholics).
All kinds of Catholic parishes teach beliefs not found in the CCC. In point of fact, almost assuredly there are many more of these than parishes which fully teach ACCORDING to the Catechism!!
CK–
3. The bulk of the biblical canon was identified and in use from VERY early on. Reread those church fathers you say you’ve read. They are CONSTANTLY using Scripture to carry forward their arguments, long before there was any official canon to hang their hats on!
4. If you want to know OFFICIAL Protestant teaching, study the Three Forms of Unity, the Westminster Confession, the Book of Concord, and the Thirty-nine Articles.
How shall I determine OFFICIAL Catholic teaching? Should I go by Vatican II or Tridentine norms? Should I follow Thomistic or Molinistic soteriology? Augustiniaism or semi-Augustinianism?
Is the Baltimore Catechism correct to say that few if any Protestants will be saved in the end…or is Nouvelle Theologie right in calling us “separated brethren”?
5. You have got to be kidding me that you only see RC/EO distinctives in the early fathers! Find me a single instance of such a distinctive in the Apostolic Fathers. ONE SINGLE ONE!!!!
Do it. I dare you.
CK–
6. Like most Protestants, I see the first four Ecumenical Councils as basically correct, but I do not slavishly follow them.
7. When you say that Protestantism is not ancient, what on earth do you mean? That it is not Christian? When did Christianity begin?
Hebrew was supplanted by Aramaic as the native language of the Jews in Palestine. It declined and died out entirely as a spoken language by the fourth century AD. And yet it was revived in the nineteenth century to further the cause of Zionism. Today, over nine million people claim it as their mother tongue. Is it ancient? Yes and no. Does it have roots in ancient speech? You’d better believe it? (Is it even possible to speak Biblical Hebrew? Only haltingly…not enough vocabulary. Modern Hebrew added a ton of vocabulary and simplified some of the syntax, but it’s definitely still Hebrew (and they had Medieval Hebrew, a purely literary language, as a further resource).
You see, when it comes to the history of ideas (or of philosophical movements and faith traditions), one can experience a revival. There need not be actual continuity across time like the physical continuity of a vine with its roots or a tree trunk with its branches. Don’t get stuck on the analogy! True ANCIENTNESS for religion relies on how close one comes to practicing faithfulness to the ideas of the founder and his initial followers. Laying on hands is meaningless unless you transmit the teachings without change across the centuries. Dogmatic continuity creates ancientness…not continuity of hierarchy.
The YWCA is no longer a Christian organization in any sense; in fact, it’s pretty anti-Christian despite its name remaining unchanged. You have “continuity of hierarchy” But that’s all you have.
CK–
8. When I say Protestant, wanting it to mean something other than the generic “non-Catholic Christian” it has come to mean, I tend to narrow it down to those denominations derived from the initial magisterial Reformation: Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and the Reformed denominations (Dutch, Swiss, German, Hungarian, etc.)…with the Reformed Baptists probably thrown in there for good measure. They themselves would lobby for inclusion. Of course, I would only include the traditional/conservative versions of each. (So-called “Mainstream Protestants” deny so many of the original tenets of the faith (sometimes including the Resurrection itself) that I scarcely think they deserve our consideration.)
9. To be honest, I’d probably agree to place the founding date of all three branches at the beginning. Then it comes down to how soon did each significantly DEVIATE from true orthodoxy? I don’t know for sure, and I’m not sure it matters. What matters is WHO is now preserving the message of the Gospel as originally proclaimed. I don’t particularly care whether Protestantism disappeared for a time or was there in the background somewhere, waiting to re-emerge (kind of like the 7000 who had never bowed the knee, being hidden from the eyes of Elijah.)
CK–
10. The Church of 1545 had no set canon and no fixed doctrine on justification, intended to exclude Sola Fide.
CK–
11. You note that the East-West schism was along cultural lines, but fail to notice that the Reformation split along political/cultural/linguistic lines, as well. The Germans cooked with butter and drank beer. The Latins cooked with olive oil and drank wine.
There was just as acrimonious a conflict between the Dominicans and the Jesuits later on. But that was between Italians and Spaniards. Similar ethnic stocks. The rift was healed.
I think a lot of what Hans is writing makes sense. He even concedes that some veneration and prayers could be okay. I think the crucial issue is ultimately methodology. If you buy into Consent/Universality/Antiquity argument (Orthodoxy) or the Pope (Roman Catholicism), then we have a way to settle disputes. And while Hans can say certain practices may not fall under either criteria (at least in the early Church) he would be forced to concede that 90% of what RCism and EOism is meets such a crietia when 90% of what Protestantism is pretty much doesn;t (say sola scriptura all one wants, no where does it explicitly say anything about a “sanctification process,” or that only adults could be baptized, or that the eucharist is mere symbolism–ironically, all things the fathers would have also condemned as well.)
I think Hans is working his way over, in my opinion. Even if he does not know it. There is no way to seriously interact with the fathers for long before one simply concludes they are apostates or adopts historic Christianity.
Craig–
Thanks for the conciliatory tone.
I think I’m understanding better and finding more common ground; nevertheless, I feel farther away, more entrenched where I am. I find very little appeal in either EO or RC. If I became convinced of the truth of either one, I think my basic reaction would be one of tremendous disappointment.
1. I have no clue why you have a bee in your bonnet over the “sanctification process.” Odd. Really odd.
2. I’m getting closer to thinking there may actually be a smoking gun in Scripture establishing credobaptism. But I’m not there yet.
3. None of the magisterial Reformers come anywhere near to the Eucharist as mere symbol (except for Zwingli, and even he was no modern Evangelical). I don’t know where that silliness came from (and Christian teetotaling was unknown before the pasteurization of grape juice…19th century, I think?)
Hans
“I find very little appeal in either EO or RC. If I became convinced of the truth of either one, I think my basic reaction would be one of tremendous disappointment.”
Yeah, I agree the appeal was not there. Deciding to become Orthodox was not an exciting experience for me. I had been a Lutheran, so I knew what it would be like joining a church full of people not knowing whats going on nor caring that much. Thankfully, the average Orthodox is better than a Lutheran in this department, but still nowhere close to the average Reformed Christian.
Nevertheless, the Church is the Church. Succession is a real thing (Clement, mentioned in the Bible as an associate of Paul, teaches that Christ instituting succession). Schism is a damning thing (Paul literally teaches this as do the fathers). Honestly, I can care less about the window dressing in the passenger cabin of a boat when the boat all of my Reformed brethren are on is sinking into the ocean.
“1. I have no clue why you have a bee in your bonnet over the “sanctification process.” Odd. Really odd.”
1. Not in Bible.
2. Not in tradition at all.
3. Cannot even be inferrd from the Scriptures without major problems. It makes the life of David, and his Godliness, something of an impossible mystery. Now I realize David’s greatness is in his repentance and humility–as for progressive sanctification, this is wholly lacking in his life.
“2. I’m getting closer to thinking there may actually be a smoking gun in Scripture establishing credobaptism. But I’m not there yet.”
I have not seen it, as a credobaptist I was more swayed by the traditional evidence in favor of it.
“3. None of the magisterial Reformers come anywhere near to the Eucharist as mere symbol (except for Zwingli, and even he was no modern Evangelical). I don’t know where that silliness came from (and Christian teetotaling was unknown before the pasteurization of grape juice…19th century, I think?)”
It comes from being cut off from the tree. When a branch is broken off, the leaves still live…for a little. They the whole things rots. The magesterial reformers mainly rejected two things–succession and the sacrifice. They were cool with Mary, liturgies, and all of the other distinctives. But they rejected those two things–which ironically are both IN the Scriptures and documented explicitly in the earliest records of Church history. Their position was indefensible, but they swallowed the poison pill and later heresies would naturally pop up as the broken off branch withered.
There is a reason why Mormons, JWs, Unitarians, and modern mainliners are all from protestantism. While nuts exist within RC and EO, they have not been able to change dogmas and their splinter groups are inconsequential.
God bless,
Craig
Craig–
I should not neglect to note that consent/universality/antiquity works fine for me, with conciliarism added in to put teeth to it.
I think the EO/RC percentage is closer to 75…but with some significant issues pocking that remaining 25. Significant enough, in fact, that I have trouble categorizing them as valid churches.
One of the issues where this is true is their virtual absence of good-faith ecumenism. “Our way or the highway” is an inflexible, authoritarian, arrogant, uncharitable, unbiblical, un-Christ-like approach to unity.
I realize, however, that I come dangerously close to the same attitude. Still, in all, I try my very best to find common ground.
I also get angry about the lack of unity (not to mention charity) in Protestant circles, believe you me. And the careless–nay, reckless–approach to theology in many (so-called) Protestant communities. But I would actually place a much higher percentage of agreement with the early church on the Protestants (or at least on the bonafide ecclesial progeny of the magisterial Reformation) than you…and higher than for the superficial conformity of the EO and RC churches.
Inter-EO agreement is pretty darn high IMHO unless you are going to pit the “you kiss the chalice” versus “you don’t kiss the chalice” people against each other. The real problem in EOy right now is ecclesiological, as Russia is setting themselves against Constantinople. But this is all political crap–it has happened a thousand times and it has no bearing on the faith (though we pray no schism occurs, because schisms have happened throughout the first 1000 years of the Church.)
Honestly, the big thing in Orthodoxy for you is the same for me. Culture. Orthodoxy has stuff we accept in small dosages, but in large dosages they are hard to swallow. For example, I can bend with asking Mary for prayer, but saying “Save Me!” or calling her “All Holy” and praying to her for two paragraphs, and reading about saints crying out to her all night–its the sheer emphasis that just makes Orthodoxy seem and feel “unchristian.” Sure, I can get into intellectual defenses for all of those things and your intellect can concede that they all make sense, but none of these things address the matter of the heart.
The heart is so challenging because our hearts are stoney, obstinante, and taught wrong by the world at a young age. Hence, the counter-cultural nature of Orthodoxy is hard to stomach for some, while for some converts who are more out there, it is appealing to them.
God bless,
Craig
Craig–
I don’t know you very well, but I believe that, in general, your heart is in the right place. I just think you’re wrong. Sincere, yes, but still wrong.
I’ll have to take this in small bites.
Why do you think the Reformed are so far ahead of others when it comes to catechesis (and/or in terms of adherents knowing their own faith). The only groups that come close, in my experience, are Evangelical converts to Catholicism and Evangelical converts to Orthodoxy.
Easy to see the common thread: Evangelicalism tied to a rich, intellectual theological system. (Conservative Anglicans and Lutherans who embrace rather than run from Reformed and Evangelical distinctives are also represented here.)
It’s hard not to see this as a sign of spiritual vitality. I tend to look for ecclesiastical substance over form. Which groups are demonstrably ALIVE to Christ and lives of holiness? I’m nether impressed when a group has been around nor dismissive when a group has just hit the ground running. Is what they teach compatible with Scripture (for Scripture itself is old)? Is what they practice compatible with what they teach (for this comports with how the early church lived)? Is their love for one another the first thing that others see?
I love ancient liturgies and music and ritual, but these are not the core of the faith. My problem with Orthodoxy is not cultural. (If I had to learn Ukrainian to attend a great local Orthodox parish, I would.) My wife and I both LOVE Pascha services! We went for many Easters in a row till children made it difficult. We’d also break the fast with Orthodox friends of ours. Greeks really know how to feast!
My problem is faith based on cultural identity. But even more, my problem is a lack of substance. I don’t see Christ honored above all things. I see a reliance on rules. A blind following of tradition.
Plus, to be honest, I’m really turned off by people who go out of their way to denigrate my understanding of the Gospel. I can comprehend slight differences in soteriology. But blatant (and sometimes viscious) antagonism toward imputation or vicarious atonement or forensic justification or Sola Fide or compatibilistic freedom strikes me as signifying a community lacking in the light and grace of my precious Jesus.
Craig–
Faustine Sozzini, the founder of Socinianism/Unitarianism was an Italian Roman Catholic. The founders of Mormonism and the JW’s were nut cases. You can’t foist them on Protestantism. Roman Catholicism itself is virtually indistinguishable from the liberal Mainlines, especially in terms of how it treats Scripture.
The causes of these particular splinter groups has mostly to do with the Enlightenment, the rise of Modernism, and a quaint new notion called “freedom of religion.” Religion no longer has hegemony. Nut-case practitioners can sell their wares in the public square. It’s a good thing, all in all, but it has led to much more diversity of thought.
I always point out to Catholics that it is Western Christendom which has splintered (in contrast to the East), so, in a very real sense, it is ROME which has fragmented into thousands of pieces. Now, why is that? What is it about Rome which led to disunity? Her tyranny?
And the East can hardly point with pride to her unity. Scandinavians are Lutheran, Poles are Catholic, Scots are Presbyterian, and Brits are Anglican. Bulgarians are Orthodox BECAUSE they are Bulgarian. Almost all the Orthodox are either Slavic or Greek.
That’s NOT Christian unity; it’s ethnocentrism!!
Plus, you’ve got the whole church-state thing. It’s actually difficult to be anything other than Orthodox in Bulgaria!
Also, speaking of the apostate Mainlines, Orthodoxy hobnobs with them in the World Council of Churches while Evangelicals (appropriately) cut off fellowship.
Fausto.
Craig–
Just a word concerning your description of the human heart (and mind, for that matter).
Yes, we have stony hearts, which are often wary of or even rebellious toward the truth. But we also have gullible hearts capable of swallowing major falsehoods hook, line, and sinker (and to feel “courageous” doing it). We’re seeing the “light” while other, lesser souls are still stumbling about, lost in utter darkness.
It is almost a universal experience amongst those who convert to Catholicism or Orthodoxy. One of the last bastions of their Protestantism to fall is the refusal to enter into Marian devotion. It feels odd to them. It feels wrong. They remain hesitant for a good long time.
One well-known Catholic apologist terms this hesitancy “novelty aversion.” But, as you might imagine, Protestants tend to see it as the response of a still sensitive conscience to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. It FEELS wrong because IT IS wrong!!
I have very little aversion to novelty. I like experimenting with the new. I like revivals of the old. The only thing about the trappings of Orthodox worship that bothers me is the incense (and that only because it messes with my sinuses).
But when it comes to Eucharistic Adoration or Veneration of the Cross or prostration before (or promenading with) statues of saints or over-the-top Marian prayers, my conscience goes bonkers!
Would you have me quench the Spirit? Work calluses into my conscience?
I would have you begin worship and at your own pace evaluate on your own whether your consceince still feels the same way.
(Some of those last were Catholic practices, I realize. I feel a little less queasy about kissing icons and rings. But much of the same “feel” is there. The Orthodox are just not as “in your face” about it.)
So you believe consciences can be too sensitive, and thus can “calm down” or “adapt”?
How would I differentiate between that and searing my conscience?
Not even. I have been thinking about this. I would say, simply start worshiping with the Orthodox and not partaking in anything objectionable. Respectfully keep your silence and pray to God about it. I think God would open your eyes in time where you would not object. I think you, like me at one point, are afraid of precisely that actually occuring. And, by the way, it is not as if I have worked out all the kinks in my veneration of the saints.
God bless
Craig
Craig–
I’m afraid of that happening for the wrong reason. One can used to all kinds of things–erroneous things–by approaching them with a slow, let’s-see-how-it-goes attitude.
Why would one have to “get used” to the truth slowly? In the past, when I have changed, the changes have come quickly, usually due to new, irrefutable information. I adore the beauty of the truth. I don’t have to be coaxed into it.
I guess the new irrefutable information is that the people that gave you your Bible had no problem with the things you’re objecting to
The Apostles gave me my Bible. And tellingly, they made no mention of these things. Furthermore, the Apostolic Fathers made no mention of these things. So I fail to see how “these things” could be anything but innovation.
That even a corrupted church would later be able to correctly pick out a NT canon is singularly unimpressive to me. (Especially since they picked it out but then didn’t bother going by it.)
The fact that you are somehow impressed is genuinely mystifying to me.
The Apostles wrote it, they did not give it to you.
OK, Craig, so who DID give it to me?
Did the Muslims “give” Aristotle to the Latin West by translating and preserving the texts? Did Avicenna and Averroes “give” his works to Aquinas through the Angelic Doctor’s interaction with their scholarship?
I am grateful to the later churches (RC, EO, OO, Nestorians, Donatists, etc.) when, through the Providence of God, they preserved the texts. But the texts were “given” to them by earlier Christians, earlier churches. And this transmission, this inheritance might have legitimate or illegitimate. For all we know, they might have exchanged hands through coercion or subterfuge.
Likewise, the EO church did not “give” me the canon. That was established earlier in the rather organic, inchoate groupings of beginning churches. The EO inherited a canon, nothing more.
You’re assuming the continuity of the church. In other words, you’re begging the question.
It would be difficult enough to show physical continuity. But continuity of teaching? That’s impossible. From first century to fourth century: they’re just way, way, way too different.
You can argue for development of doctrine, I suppose. That what appear to be innovations are just the consequential acorns of a maturing oak. But when it comes to the history of thought, how does one prove that the sapling was an oak? How does one tag its DNA?
Maybe it was a Maple all along. And your proverbial “acorns” have been tacked on where they don’t belong.
As one who on the Canterbury trail, I thought I would give an Anglican perspective on the issue of invocation of saints (IOS). First, scripture is neither for or against this practice. Second, in tradition you get the arguments of silence from both sides. Protestants use silence for the practice for first 3-4 centuries and eo/rv use silence of opposition from 3-4 centuries onward. Each tried to explain the others argument of silence. While arguments of silence have weight they are not always conclusive. IOS is an example of that.
It seems to me that IOS is adiophora and not an apostolic practice/doctrine. An ecclesiastical custom adopted that was considered compatible with the faith. The church fathers are trustworthy when they speak in consensus. Individually they can and have erred. For example there were a few eastern fathers that were universalist and st. Augustine though highly regarded in the west has been accused of teaching heresy on original sin by the eo.
Whether IOS meets patristics consensus or not is still an open question for me. But even if it does it would still not rise to that of doctrine.
Both sides of this have also made some arguments that are quite weak. For example,Protestants that oppose this on the basis of Christ being the one mediator. Yet this does not hold because they believe that those on earth intercede for one another and yet this does not undermine Christ unique mediation. So the same can be said for our brothers and sisters in heaven. A bad argument made by rv/eo is when they defend how the saints may hear or have knowledge of all invocations and they pray specially and simultaneously for all those individuals that invoke them. That undermines the omniscience/omnipresence that belongs only to triune God.
To conclude, this is an adiophora issue. I don’t believe saying the Hail Mary is idolatrous as Protestants claim. However, “Mary save us” is not acceptable. The Marian prayers of Alphonse de Liguria is not acceptable. Even the rosary where the Hail Mary get said 10 times per prays to God is not acceptable to me. The eo does better than the rv with the Jesus prayer being the dominant devotional prayer.
As such my beef with IOS is not in principle per se but how it has been abused so the distinction between invoking the saint and prayer to God becomes a distinction with no real difference. We humans do have an idolatrous nature, so one can see that while IOS may have been well intentioned by the fathers, it got corrupted in medieval ages and still is today.
The better practice is the ancient practice of comprecation of saints where one addressses the Lord by asking him to bring our requests to the saints to pray for us and/or hear the the intercessions of the saints on our behalf.
Peter–
Thanks for the comment. A couple of minor issues.
The silence of opposition is not terribly compelling when the opposition during this time was often silenced. Many times we have no writings remaining from RC opponents. We know about their teachings only from their inclusion in RC polemical works.
Anglican theologian Peter Toon speaks of comprecation as perfectly acceptable but adds that there is no evidence for it in the early church. What we do see there is believers thanking God for the (assumed) prayers of the saints.
Hans-
The silence of opposition is in reference to the fathers themselves. I am not aware of any CF that opposed IOS. The assertion that the RC would silence them does not concur with what we have recorded from the fathers. We have fathers on record advocating beliefs that are contrary to RC teachings. This is not covered up by the RC. The RC acknowledges this that is why they teach patristic consensus. They acknowledge that there fathers who believed things that they would label as heretical.
On the issue of comprecation, I will concede a point you made. I could not find as of yet ancient prayers to god asking him to take our petitions to the saints to pray for us. So I will have redact my previous statement. Comprecation was simply affirming to god that they do pray us and/or to ask God to hear their prayers for us.
Peter–
Let’s at least clear up the nomenclature. The “invocation of the saints” is specifically condemned in the Thirty-nine Articles of Anglicanism. We cannot pray TO the saints and ask for their direct blessings. We can ask them to pray FOR us: to “intercede” for us or to “advocate” for us. Thus, Anglicans may speak of the “intercession of the saints” or the “advocation of the saints.”
I don’t believe there is any evidence in the very early church for the INVOCATION of the saints. (And you appear to agree.)
Peter–
And I don’t think it’s debatable whether or not the RC silenced opposition. With many early heretics, the only reason we have any record of their teachings is that the church preserved the polemics AGAINST them.
Hans-
You are referring to article 22 of the 39 articles that
specifies the ROmish doctrine
In reference to the invocation of saints under the category of purgatory. It was the Roman teaching that was rejected not blanket condemnation of all IOS.
Where you and I are differ is in terminolgy, not sure we differ really in substance. When I use the term invoking the saints, I am defining it as the practice of one directly asking a/the Saint(s) to intercede on one’s/others behalf. Nothing more than that. The Roman IOS Went beyond that.
You utilize the term “advocation” in contrast to invocation. We could spill alot of ink over terminology but we are saying the same thing.
Hans-
You bring up heretics that the Roman church silenced, but I brought up church fathers themselves that clearly taught things that are contrary to RC teachings. Those fathers were not silenced when it came to those views that RC rejects. That is the argument of silent opposition that I was ‘referring to. There was no CF thAt I know of who stated opposition to directly requesting the Saints solely for intercession.
Hans because they would be Church fathers that agree with him if they weren’t just labeled. By discounting vigilantius and Company we eliminate the early church witnessed against what he considers to be the innovation of asking the Saints for prayer. Being that we already know from the scriptures that the Jews venerated Saints as they decorated their tombs I think a lot of this is a tempest in a teapot. We already agree the Saints pray and we already agree it’s legitimate to venerate them and it just seems like the opposition can’t go the one extra step and say ask them prayers The Logical consequence of these things. I know they think the scriptures are not explicit enough on this issue but then I would say they’re not explicit enough on abortion being that it’s a lesser penalty to kill a fetus then a human being in the Old Testament. Ultimately people could claim to use tradition as some sort of authority but to reject petitions the Saints it requires ejecting tradition entirely as it is entirely consistent with the scriptures and historical evidence.
Peter–
I think you’re right. I think we’re basically in agreement. I’m against invocation, and more or less ok with intercession as a pious option. (I’m not at all sure it’s beneficial, but I don’t see how it hurts anything.)
The silence of opposition is a neutral concept that neither affirms nor denies a tenet’s presence in any given age.
I’m not sure why folks like Origen and Tertullian were allowed to stand unedited. Maybe what they had to say was less than heretical at the time…or maybe their orthodox works allowed their questionable teachings to be preserved, as well.
In general, I find the whole “unanimous consent of the fathers” deeply troubling and, frankly, self-serving. It’s circular: the ones deciding who counts as a father are the ones looking to corroborate later teachings with earlier ones.
Craig–
Very few pro-lifers advocate for capital punishment for abortive mothers or even the abortion doctors. There is an almost universal understanding that something is different even if it can’t be articulated. That squares with Scripture.
Unlike many Protestants, I’m not barring the door when it comes to asking the saints for intercession. But, since the PRACTICE of pretty much every single RC/EO adherent goes beyond that into the request for blessings and gifts, the point is moot.
Quit explaining it to outsiders as “we’re just asking for prayer” when that is simply not true. Hypocrisy doesn’t look good on you.
I think you’re being selective because you have read the Orthodox prayers and they specifically say that they’re asking the saint for prayer. While we believe that glorified Saints have spiritual gifts like living saints that may include healing and what not this is not the majority of petitions to the Saints at least in Orthodoxy and it’s not biblically inconsistent anyhow so I do not understand your opposition.
Craig–
Even if Benny Hinn has a legitimate gift of healing, I will ask for his prayers. I will not pray to him.
You clearly understand this line, but your compatriots don’t seem to. (And you have said you bow to your mentors’ superior spiritual maturity rather than trust your own conscience on the matter. I think that’s dangerous.)
This is just silly now the word prayer means ask. You see this in King James English as well as in the original Greek and Hebrew where the word prayer means asking in a secular context
Craig–
Silly? How so? There are things which I can legitimately ASK of you (Can I have your telephone number?) and things which I cannot (Could you please send me some enriched uranium for this bomb I’m building?)
I can kindly ASK a saint for his or her prayers. I cannot ASK them if they would please send me my personal salvation by return post. It’s not theirs to give.
I think you’re going to have to convert the Orthodoxy if you already arrived at these conclusions by argumentation
You’ve already conceded that asking for prayer is not evil and if fact pious. You have also clarified that asking for something that is within the Saints power is not bad either. So it would seem you already concede that the prayers or perhaps even spiritual gifts of the Saints both living and dead could affect healings and other things by the grace of God.
So you having clarified further now say we simply cannot ask saint for salvation
Now and this we agree. If you’re going to be honest having read the Orthodox prayers then you would know that no one is asking for the saint to affect their salvation by their own power. The prayers are both explicit and extremely clear that it’s by the prayers of Mary that we are saved and the prayers of the other Saints. I’ve heard one Orthodox Monk argue this is the clear delineating Factor explicitly and he’s not some American convert he lives in Serbia.
This is why for me prayers the Saints was never the reason that I wasn’t Orthodox for so long. There’s nothing theologically wrong with the practice nothing that contradicts the scriptures and it is so widespread among Christianity where it became Universal beyond all opposition for 1200 years by anyone’s measure that too seriously argue that prayers to the Saints are evil would require arguing that no Christians lives for more than a millennia or that their witness a silent and Secret 1.
I am talking into my phone so I apologize for the typos God bless
Craig–
I daresay that, if anything that you just wrote were true, you might have me over a barrel. But the things you claim to be crystal clear, couldn’t be much murkier.
Take an honest look at one of the prayers to the Theotokos you sent me. Here is a list of the direct requests found therein.
******************
O Sovereign Lady:
Grace my mind.
Teach me to step aright.
Strengthen me to keep awake in song.
Drive away the sleep of despondency.
Release me from my bonds of sin.
Guard me by night and by day.
Deliver me from foes that defeat me.
Enliven me who am deadened by passions.
Enlighten my blinded soul.
Make me to be a house of the Divine Spirit.
Heal the perennial passions of my soul.
Guide me to the path of repentance.
Deliver me from eternal fire.
Let me not be exposed to the rejoicing of demons.
Renew me, grown old from senseless sins.
Present me untouched by all torments.
Vouchsafe me to find the joys of heaven.
Hearken unto the voice of thy servant.
Grant me torrents of tears.
Raise me above this world’s confusion.
Direct the grace of the Spirit in me.
Deliver me from soul corrupting evils.
******************
It’s clear all right. Clear that how you described it is utterly false. I don’t doubt your good intentions, but you must be in a state of denial as to what the Orthodox actually believe in practice.
By the way, saying that something is a “pious option” only infers that it is within the bounds of acceptable piety, not that it is particularly pious. I view it as a mistake, but an honest mistake. In other words, it is not an error worth disfellowshipping over.
And the Invocation of the Saints, the direct request for blessings and gifts, is not found in the very early church. It is clearly an innovation. You seem to agree but then send me Orthodox prayers which do not conform to your agreement.
If you pray that prayer within the context that one of the most popular hymns and Orthodoxy is through the prayers of the theotokos Saviour save us, then I do not see grounds for your opinion. Go look at the other prayers go look at the evening prayers go speak to Orthodox that aren’t Americans. I believe you’re making false accusations that you cannot backup. Find a single Orthodox that agrees with you it says these prayers are Mary doing these things by her own power. You’re not going to find it.
This is not to say that the relationship with the theotokos is not very personal 4 Pious orthodox. I don’t think I will ever have that sort of relationship with any of the Saints nor I feel any inclination of that. However you cannot confuse devotion with worship or an idea about prayer that is simply not accurate.
You have already conceded everything in this conversation the only thing you disagree with is verbiage. My honest opinion the only question is whether you’ll be Roman Catholic or Orthodox soon.
My apologies poor grammar and tone I’m talking into my phone
Craig–
I don’t know what to say. In the world I inhabit, words have meanings. It would be easy enough to write prayers in an unconfused fashion. The Orthodox have chosen otherwise.
It makes no difference to me that your intentions are not thus. Mean what you say and say what you mean. And don’t make it worse by punting to “context.” I call B.S.
In 2 Kings 5, Naaman asks for an exemption concerning the crime of idolatry despite how clear it is as to his good intentions:
“If you will not,” said Naaman, “please let me, your servant, be given as much earth as a pair of mules can carry, for your servant will never again make burnt offerings and sacrifices to any other god but the Lord. But may the Lord forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord forgive your servant for this.”
Good intentions don’t let you off the hook. If you don’t believe Mary can deliver blessings under her own power, then DON’T ASK HER FOR THEM!!!!
I have absolutely no intention of ever even considering conversion to a faith verbally clinging to idolatry.
Hans your passion blinds you. This makes no sense “ If you don’t believe Mary can deliver blessings under her own power, then DON’T ASK HER FOR THEM!!!!”
Now do your brothers and sisters in Christ on earth.
You have no concept of the communion of saints and how we as part of the body of Christ are dependent on one another.
CK you’re cradle RC right?
Yes. Cradle Catholic.
As a cradle Catholic, did doing the hail mary every feel like worship to you?
The Hail Mary never felt like worship. Most of the prayer comes from scripture and ends with a request for her prayer. Part of my childhood was spent in south america and as you can imagine veneration of the saints is big. So culturally there was nothing to shock me. The concept of family helping one another is also big in South America. Though I had never heard of the “communion of saints” I knew all of us, including the saints in heaven, were part of one big family and so asking them to help us made sense.
Frankly, I never questioned it until a protestant friend brought it up to me. I was poorly catechized and assumed they knew more about RC. I fell for the prayer can only mean worship, etc…I was ripe for the taking. I attended her baptist service and knew right away something was not right and stopped.
The priests molestation of kids and the Church’s response really make me question the authority of the Church and I walked away attending mass occasionally. Things didn’t really pick back up for me until I had kids. I guess up to that point I was willing to gamble on my eternal salvation but couldn’t gamble theirs. So I really questioned the Church and her teachings and looked at other christian denominations. I couldn’t really ascertain who was right or wrong with confidence because they all have some scripture to support their belief though I did notice there were a lot of moral inconsistencies, specially with abortion, so I looked into church history and there I found the church Christ founded and came back home to RCC. Now I follow her teaching and if I don’t understand it, I take the position that the Church is right and try to understand the teaching from the Church’s perspective.
I didn’t really consider EO because at the time I couldn’t really find much on them.
As time has passed the inconsistency of Protestantism has become painfully obvious.
I can certainly understand how a convert from your tradition would feel very uncomfortable praying to the saints. I personally say my own prayers to Mary/saints except when I’m saying the rosary. We are encouraged but not required to pray to the saints. So if you are uncomfortable praying the canned prayers just speak to them as if they were sitting across from you. The saints in heaven as members of the body of Christ is a wonderful gift and we should use these gifts as often as possible. Every member has a purpose.
1. The Church has historically taught Naaman was saved and 2. The Scriptures use non-literal lanugage all the time. God speaks of things never even occuring to Him in His mind in Jeremiah–the same God that knows all things. Luke calls Theophilus “most excellent,” obviously something which cannot be literally true. Paul speaks of wishing to be damned for the sake of the Jews. Your western literalism and if and then statements are what’s inconsistent with Biblical Christianity in my honest opinion.
God bless,
Craig
CK–
If I have a mistaken concept of the Communion of Saints, I’d be glad for you to try and clear that up for me.
How, in specific terms, is our dependence on one another different from our dependence on Christ? What do we get from him that we cannot get from each other?
Craig’s view you described below matches the Church’s. So you do understand you just don’t agree with it. I stand corrected
Craig–
1. Well, yes, of course, Naaman claims in the end to be a worshiper of Yahweh and no other god. That’s why bending a knee to a local god would be idolatry. His conscience tells him it will be so whether or not he bows intentionally.
2. We’re not talking about hyperbole here. We’re talking about two concepts which are diametrically opposed. The Law of Non-Contradiction is Western, I suppose. But Semitic religions and philosophies fall in line with Greek thought in this regard.
Your point number 2 still doesn’t address the fact that there’s nothing contradictory of the theology of praying to the Saints and the scriptures
Craig–
In the light of morning, I need to amend my remarks. I had forgotten about your belief that the spiritual gifts which a saint possesses in life may be bestowed on us by them from beyond the grave. In other words, we can ask them directly for healing and wisdom and comfort and rescue and strength. With that true, the list of requests of the Theotokos makes more sense.
Unlike Peter, the Anglican above, you have no problem with the INVOCATION of the saints, asking them directly for blessings.
Your caveat that they cannot do this on their own power is about as meaningless as a caveat can be.**
As creatures, we cannot do anything without the grace and providence of God. We cannot breathe or think or walk or talk or even lie on the floor, motionless and still, unless the Almighty allows it and provides it. With that as a standard, we can speak of Pelagians endorsing Sola Gratia. With that as a standard, we can grant the saints any god-like powers we wish as long as we attribute them to God.
It’s an “end around” and not a very imaginative one at that. It allows you to be as synergistic and legalistic as you please without any pangs of guilt. It allows you to establish Mary as a semi-divine creature of inordinate loveliness, worthy of all worship and obeisance. After all, she can do anything God can do…by his grace.
(**Your statement concerning Orthodox adherents is likewise meaningless: “Find a single Orthodox that agrees with you it says these prayers are Mary doing these things by her own power. You’re not going to find it.”)
Well, then, you will ask, what about the heavenly gifts exercised by believers here on earth? Does that make them semi-divine?
And the difference, I think, is that they have these gifts in jars of clay, cracked and dusty. The glory of God is thus revealed in the light they shed since it cannot be construed to exude from them. Many wonder workers throughout the history of the church have not been the best of saints. And many of the best of saints have not worked any wonders. There are no recorded miracles concerning Mary, for example.
Hans,
“Your caveat that they cannot do this on their own power is about as meaningless as a caveat can be”
True. We cannot even breath apart from the grace of God (I am a theological “occasionist” to be frank.) And I think your summation as follows was accurate:
“It’s an “end around” and not a very imaginative one at that. It allows you to be as synergistic and legalistic as you please without any pangs of guilt. It allows you to establish Mary as a semi-divine creature of inordinate loveliness, worthy of all worship and obeisance. After all, she can do anything God can do…by his grace.”
I mean, if the Mary stuff is not true, then yes you pretty much summed up how an apologist can try to get around making his veneration equivalent to worship without having to lable it worship.
So I am not going to fight you on that. If the authority of the Spirit in the historical Christian witness is meaningless, then what you say makes perfect sense and is perfectly rational.
On the other side of the coin, if your methodolgy for understanding the Scriptures and God’s revelation is wrong, then what I am saying is not only a good-enough apologetic, but the truth.
In my honest opinion, your methodology is unbiblical, ahistorical, and epistemologically suspect–and so the fact that you concede that if going by the historical methodology of the CHurch what I said makes sense, I think at the very least shows I have explained myself well.
You also write:
“Well, then, you will ask, what about the heavenly gifts exercised by believers here on earth? Does that make them semi-divine?”
Yes. All Christians are being transformed into Christ, are indwelt by the Spirit, and some are reported to take on divine qualities like shining with brilliant light (i.e. Moses, St Seraphim of Sarov, etc.).
” There are no recorded miracles concerning Mary, for example.”
I think Christians are not contesting to who can have the msot sooper-dooper powers 🙂 Humility and repentance are greater miracles than moving mountains.
God bless,
Craig
” There are no recorded miracles concerning Mary, for example.”
You’d think giving birth to God would count. 🙂
Playing gotcha I see, I think Hans was speaking about her raising the dead and doing healings. It does seem that Mary has had far more miracles ascribed to her apparitions than to anything she did on Earth.
Lol. Yes. Having a little fun. Frankly I personally don’t have a strong devotion to Mary and the saints so I’m not aware of all the different prayers, but I do pray to her more often than in the past. Incredibly enough my overall prayer life has improved immensely and I can honestly say I’ve grown closer to Jesus because of it. Weird.
In a non-disfunctional family, loving one’s children should not detract the love of one’s wife. In fact, it should deepen one’s devotion.
We are very sinful, so it is very possible for us to love a saint and detract from our love from God, just like there are those who idolize their children to the detriment of their marriage. But, by the grace of God, the love of His people ideally deepens our love for Him.
Craig–
Though you are inconsistent with it, I do appreciate the fact that you realize our disagreements are largely paradigmatic.
You wrote:
“If the authority of the Spirit in the historical Christian witness is meaningless, then what you say makes perfect sense and is perfectly rational.”
This, of course, begs the question as to who decides what is supported by “the authority of the Spirit” or indeed, what the testimony of the “historical Christian witness” is. I happen to think you’re way off base in both cases.
But we won’t get anywhere by sticking out our tongues and spouting: “Your views are unbiblical and ahistorical and epistemologically suspect! Nyah-nyah. Nuh-nyah-nyah!!” (Punctuated with a raspberry or two.)
And, for what it’s worth, an apologetic technique can be irrational and ineffective even if it is defending the truth.
Hans, this is why I think the approach of St Vincent de Lerins, approached in an intellectually manner, brings one to Orthodoxy. I just posted another article on veneration of the saints. And there is another awaiting. I just think intellectually, the Orthodox case is most obviously the Biblical one. In the end, it is not the Biblical evidence, but Protestant tradition, that rejects venerating the saints.
I think when you realize this, you will seek to convert. Obviously, this appears to be your main sticking point. When you realize you can venerate saints, but love God and serve Him infinitely more, your opposition will diminish.
God bless,
Craig
Yes, CK, but to put that in perspective, a neophyte JW, learning that Jesus is just “one of the perfect sons of God,” may well speak of their improved prayer life and of growing closer to “Jesus” as a result.
Yes, Hans, but to put that in perspective, a neophyte mormon, learning that the church Christ founded apostatized may well speak of their improved cannon and being closer to the truth.
See, we can all play this game.
CK–
My only point was that “feeling” closer doesn’t necessarily translate into actually being closer. You may feel closer when, in fact, you are farther away. (And the same goes for me.)
In a discussion like this, I basically don’t care how you feel. It has no significance to me because it is your experience and not mine. (I happen to feel closer to God staying away from the saints).
In the final analysis, you can’t argue with my experience, and I can’t argue with yours. It is what it is.
Hans I don’t believe I said “I feel “closer. I said my prayer life improved. That is what gets me closer to Jesus. Praying and meditating on Mary and her role was the catalyst.
You say you are closer to God not praying to the saints. You mean to tell me you actually tried praying to them? I might have to call you out on this one! 😉
Craig–
I’m all for “universality, antiquity, and consent” but fail to see how it could possibly lead me to Orthodoxy. The whole premise of the Protestant Reformation is that Rome (and by extension Constantinople) had abandoned antiquity. Pretty much an open-and-shut case, if you ask me.
The most one can say for the “veneration of the saints” biblically is that it is not overtly condemned…kind of like prayer to the spirits of dead bears, skunks, and possums is not overtly condemned. 🙂
Probably not a good idea though….
CK–
Yeah, back in my stupider days…in a contingent manner…dear saint, if you’re conscious rather than “at rest” in Jesus…if you’re omniscient enough to hear what I have to say…give me a sign. St. Therese is famous for sending roses to grace those who call on her. I guess she didn’t like me much. I didn’t get so much as a carnation! Zero, zip, nada. Broke my heart!
Perhaps I didn’t give it much of a chance. But judging from what you have said, you didn’t give Evangelicalism much of a chance either (and Reformed forms of it no chance at all). Try it. Your prayer life will sky rocket!!!!!
Craig-
You go to great lengths to draw the distinction between IOS and praying to God. But then you defend the actual prayers utilized in EO practice (Hans posted an example above) in which the language used obliterates the distinction. You have by de facto a distinction with no difference in practice. Your defense of this only reminds of the proverbial statement,” dying the death of a 1,000 qualifications.” I would like to point out that unlike the RC, the EO does not/ will not refer to Mary as “co-meditatrix. This is so not cause confusion. But unfortunately is not as careful when comes to “Mary save us” pray found in EO prayer book.
Also asking a departed saint to pray for us is not the logical consequence of affirming that do intercede for us. It is not an inevitable conclusion. I know of close relative here on earth who is praying for me, because of that I don’t ask for that person’s intercession, because I know I already have it.
Finally the communion of the saints can be practiced without invoking them. In the Anglican BCP, we affirm in our prayers to God ,that we pray and worship with those in heaven.
A few quick replies:
1. Historically the EO/RC is much stronger. The whole Christian world before the Reformation (Nestorians, MOnophysites, RCs, and EOs) all followed the practice. There is scanty evidence of opposition, unless we consider one disgraced heretic in the fourth century as “Evidence.” We have evidence from the Talmud that 2nd and 3rd century Jews also had the practice of directly asking saints for prayer, plus we have a Biblical (!) example! All of this begs the question, where is the evidence to the contrary? Your p[ersonal reading of the Scriptures in contradiction to how the whole Judeo-Christian world understood those same Scriptures and bequeathed them to you? There is a certain point where you realize the “obvious” Protestant position is simply wrong.
2. Your treatment of the language of EO prayers I think is either not thought out or too quickly accusatory. Yes, we Orthodox pray, “Most Holy Theotokos save us.” But, do you really think we believe she atones for our sins? Can you quote a single EO, even a layman, say such a thing? No! Because the hymnograpy of the Church ceaselessly sings throughout the year, “Through the prayers of the Theotokos O Savior, save us!” We are not confused when we ask the Theotokos (or any other saint) to save us anymore you confuse asking a lifeguard to pull you out of a pool. The word “Save” does not always pertain to blood atonement, that is a presupposition you are imposing upon our prayers.
I had a third reply, but who remembers anymore 🙂
God bless,
Craig