JASON ENGWER SAID:
“And I note, again, that if prayer to the dead had been practiced in Biblical times as it's practiced in Catholicism and Orthodoxy today, we wouldn't expect people to have to resort to the sort of argumentation we've gotten from Lvka and Christine in order to make the case.”
I’d like to piggyback on something that Jason said. We don’t have any examples of divinely sanctioned prayers to the dead in Scripture.
We do, however, see a similar practice in Scripture, although it’s forbidden rather than sanctioned. And, what is more, this practice involves different cultural assumptions regarding the accessibility of the dead.
I’m alluding to necromancy. This was an attempt to contact the dead. And, as I say, Scripture sternly prohibits this practice.
In addition, it’s instructive to see how people in Bible times thought it was possible to contact the dead. The locus classicus is 1 Sam 28.
Saul doesn’t think it’s possible contact Samuel by simply speaking to him directly. In order for Samuel to hear him, Saul deems it necessary to go to a medium to establish contact. In order for Samuel to be sensible to what Saul has to say, it’s necessary to bring Samuel back into the land of the living. You can’t reach Samuel merely by talking to him on your own.
If Christians and Jews in Bible times believed in prayers to the dead, then this would be the mechanism. In order for the “saints” to hear you, you need a living medium, and you also need the medium to bring the decedent back into the sphere of the living.
Of course, a Catholic or Orthodox apologist can reject this framework, but in so doing, he has to reject the only Biblical precedent we have for contacting the dead. And Catholic and Orthodox apologists are thereby rejecting the cultural understanding how the dead could be made aware of the living. In that case they can’t appeal to tradition. For tradition assumes continuity with the past. That you can extrapolate from the practice of Christians in the early church to Christians in the NT church or pious Jews in OT times.
If there’s a fundamental discontinuity in the way in which Catholic and Orthodox theologians deem it possible to access the dead, and the way in which people in Bible times thought it possible to access the dead, then it’s no longer reasonable to assume that Bible writers thought it possible for the saints to be conscious of the living, and available to the living, in the way that Catholics and Orthodox believe.
To the extent that people in Bible times thought it possible to reach out to the dead (and remember that even this is a forbidden practice), that required a link with a living medium. Furthermore, the medium had to bring the dead into the presence of the living.
This is a little off topic but I'll have a go anyway.
ReplyDeleteI've come across the argument in several places, here I think also, that we can pray for things in the past.
If we can pray for things after they have happened does this also follow in praying for people exercising faith on earth who are presently dead?
I suppose the distinction being that the prayer is not offered to change what already is in the afterlife.
There are three separate issues:
ReplyDeletei) Praying *for* the dead.
ii) Praying *to* the dead
iii) The dead praying for *us.*
In principle, you can pray for a past event if you don't know the outcome. Say you apply to a college. You receive a letter in the mail. Before you open the letter, you pray about it.
Of course, the letter was written before you pray about it. College admissions already accepted or rejected your application before you pray about it.
However, God isn't bound by relative chronology in a situation like this.
You're not asking God to retrocausally change the outcome. Rather, you're asking God to cause a past outcome. "Past" in relation to you, but not in relation to God, who is timeless.
I often tell my wife that, if I should precede her to glory, and if the dead can pray for the living, I'd pray so very much for her and our children. And I would. But I don't know if we'll spend our time on that when in Heaven. Maybe, maybe not.
ReplyDeleteOf course, that's not to say that she can ask me to pray for her once I'm there, or that she can communicate with me. Separate issues, like Steve said.
I agree they are separate issues. Praying to the dead and the dead praying for us are completely different from praying for the dead. There even seems to be different senses of praying for the dead.
ReplyDeleteSteve's college letter is a good analogy for what I was getting at.
A godly mother loses her son in an accident. As far as she knew he never professed faith in Christ. Can she, should she, continue to pray about (for?) the salvation of her son?
Not that it would change the outcome but the prayer would be instrumental in the past outcome.
ANDREW SAID:
ReplyDelete"A godly mother loses her son in an accident. As far as she knew he never professed faith in Christ. Can she, should she, continue to pray about (for?) the salvation of her son?"
IMO, there's nothing wrong with her continuing to pray for her late son in the sense of praying that God saved him before he died.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteEither you did not read the rest of my comments on Engwer's post, or you are deliberately evading them, as I dealt specifically with these objections.
Let me know when you've actually read them and have a substantive response to them, and I'll be happy to reply.
CHRISTINE SAID:
ReplyDelete"Either you did not read the rest of my comments on Engwer's post, or you are deliberately evading them, as I dealt specifically with these objections."
You're attempting to deflect OT prohibitions against necromancy as inapplicable to the intercession of the saints because the OT prohibitions refer to mediums.
But my post takes this for granted, and builds on it to demonstrate that people in Bible times regarding a living medium as a necessary mode for consulting the dead.
Therefore, they wouldn't think it's possible for the dead to hear us apart from the instrumentality of a living medium.
Your attempt to deflect the prohibitions boomerangs. Try to follow the argument.
"But my post takes this for granted, and builds on it to demonstrate that people in Bible times regarding [sic] a living medium as a necessary mode for consulting the dead."
ReplyDeleteIt's a good thing you aren't charged with scriptural interpretation, because the inference you draw from one or two passages forbidding necromancy is absurd. Your argument is that, because this passage forbids consulting mediums to contact the dead, therefore, mediums were the only way to contact the dead. That's like reading a manual that tells you not to pour yeast into apple cider because it will produce alcohol, and then inferring from that that the only way to get alcohol is to mix yeast with apple cider (when in fact there are all sorts of ways to produce alcohol). Faulty logic, dear sir. And I'd be careful about what I proclaim authoritatively concerning "Bible times" based on a few verses. This is nothing more than the subjective, individual interpretation that is the inevitable fruit of the Protestant Reformation.
Christine said...
ReplyDelete"It's a good thing you aren't charged with scriptural interpretation, because the inference you draw from one or two passages forbidding necromancy is absurd. Your argument is that, because this passage forbids consulting mediums to contact the dead, therefore, mediums were the only way to contact the dead."
i) To begin with, you yourself tied OT necromancy to mediumship when you told Jason that "Your interpretation of the scriptural passages on necromancy are dubious. Scripture must be interpreted consistent with the context--and in the context cited, it is clearly referring to consulting mediums and spiritists, which is something Catholics agree is wrong."
If, however, you now decouple OT necromancy from mediumship, then that would broaden the terms of the condemnation to necromancy per se, and not necromancy-cum-mediumship.
ii) Apropos (i), even if OT prohibitions against necromancy involve mediumship, this doesn't mean the OT condemns necromancy because it happens to employ that mode of communication. In general, a particular mode of communication is morally neutral, like whether we use a phone or email. The mode is incidental.
What would be condemned is not the mode of communication, but the underlying principle (attempting to contact the dead).
Necromancy isn't wrong because it resorts to mediumship; rather, mediumship is wrong because necromancy is wrong, and mediumship facilitates necromancy.
Christine said...
ReplyDelete"This is nothing more than the subjective, individual interpretation that is the inevitable fruit of the Protestant Reformation."
Well, that's pretty rich coming from a lay Catholic like yourself. Feel free to quote where the church of Rome has infallibly interpreted these passages.
And why did Saul go to the trouble of hunting down a medium if he thought the dead could hear him directly?
ReplyDeleteAnd needless to say, this wasn't merely a private belief, but a common belief. That's what made mediumship a popular profession.
"The Egyptians were known for necromancy and conducting séances in order to inquire about the state of the deceased or to ask for predictions about the future."
ReplyDeleteSéances involve mediumship. So do you admit or deny the connection between necromancy and mediumship"
" "This is nothing more than the subjective, individual interpretation that is the inevitable fruit of the Protestant Reformation."
ReplyDeleteWell, that's pretty rich coming from a lay Catholic like yourself. Feel free to quote where the church of Rome has infallibly interpreted these passages."
How so? The Magisterium clearly teaches--and has always taught--the intercession of the saints. As I've mentioned, there is an unbroken tradition going back to earliest times supporting the notion of the intercession and communion of the saints, and thus far, you and Jason are hard pressed to contradict that, instead going back to a few passages in Scripture clearly condemning necromancy (which is what Saul did, by the way) and twisting the interpretation according to your agenda. The Magisterium has history, tradition, and Scripture on its side. And you?
Christine wrote:
ReplyDelete"As I've mentioned, there is an unbroken tradition going back to earliest times supporting the notion of the intercession and communion of the saints, and thus far, you and Jason are hard pressed to contradict that, instead going back to a few passages in Scripture clearly condemning necromancy (which is what Saul did, by the way) and twisting the interpretation according to your agenda. The Magisterium has history, tradition, and Scripture on its side."
Interested readers can follow the discussion Christine is referring to here. Notice how poorly she understands the issues involved, her use of patristic quotes from a Catholic Answers tract, and her ignoring of most of the evidence cited against her position.
CHRISTINE SAID:
ReplyDelete"How so? The Magisterium clearly teaches--and has always taught--the intercession of the saints."
Now you're shifting the goalpost. You accused Jason of misinterpreting three specific verses of Scripture. Show us where the Magisterium infallibly interprets the verses in question. Otherwise, you're falling back on your private interpretation of said passages.
BTW, since the Magisterium hasn't always existed, it would be in no position to always teach anything.
"As I've mentioned, there is an unbroken tradition going back to earliest times supporting the notion of the intercession and communion of the saints."
"Earliest times" which only start sometime after NT times.
"The Magisterium has history, tradition, and Scripture on its side. And you?"
Where does Scripture teach us to pray to the dead?
As to history, even if you could establish the antiquity of the practice, heterodoxy and heteropraxy can be just as ancient as orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Many of the NT letters are directed at false doctrine and practice in the NT church.
> "and then inferring from that that the only way to get alcohol is to mix yeast with apple cider (when in fact there are all sorts of ways to produce alcohol)"
ReplyDeleteYeah, or like reading the story of Onan and inferring that all forms of birth control are in all circumstances prohibited (and not merely the use of withdrawal when having sex with one's widowed sister-in-law for the supposedly sole purpose of giving her children). That would be an unwarranted stretch, right?
> "And why did Saul go to the trouble of hunting down a medium if he thought the dead could hear him directly?"
I raised this with a smart Catholic friend once who said (a) Samuel hadn't been canonised, and (b) Jesus hadn't yet preached to the "spirits in prison".
Granted, (a) tends to run against the "Well, you can ask your parish priest to pray for you, why not St Anthony?" and (b) tends to sound a bit Adventist coming from a Catholic, but I gave her full marks for having an answer ready.
"Notice how poorly she understands the issues involved, her use of patristic quotes from a Catholic Answers tract, and her ignoring of most of the evidence cited against her position."
ReplyDeleteNotice how Steve refuses to provide a response to the substance of the patristic quotes furnished, resorting instead to ad hominem attack, which we all learned in Philosophy 101 is not only logically fallacious but the ken of those who feel insecure in their position.
Tom wrote:
ReplyDelete"Yeah, or like reading the story of Onan and inferring that all forms of birth control are in all circumstances prohibited... That would be an unwarranted stretch, right?"
Actually, Tom, that would only be a stretch if the Church practiced bibliolatry and individual interpretation, as Protestants seem to do. Since, however, we follow Scripture and Tradition, listening to the inerrant words of the Bible along with the wisdom of the Councils, and the teachings of the Magisterium, doctrine is based on more than simply one verse in Scripture.
As to your question about why Saul would go to a medium, it's very simple: Saul was attempting to summon a spirit back from the dead. That's an utterly different thing from requesting that a saint pray for you.
Cheers.
Christine said...
ReplyDelete"As to your question about why Saul would go to a medium, it's very simple: Saul was attempting to summon a spirit back from the dead. That's an utterly different thing from requesting that a saint pray for you."
And why was he attempting to summon a spirit back from the dead? Because that was the only way for Samuel to hear him. It wasn't sufficient to "direct his interior thoughts" to Samuel.
You're not trying to be logical. You're not considering *why* people employed a medium in the first place.
On the one hand, Christine said:
ReplyDeleteNotice how Steve refuses to provide a response to the substance of the patristic quotes furnished, resorting instead to ad hominem attack, which we all learned in Philosophy 101 is not only logically fallacious but the ken of those who feel insecure in their position.
On the other hand, Christine said:
Nothing wrong with criticizing those whom you consider hold a faulty theology--but to arrogantly mock a man [Pope JPII] . . . this does no credit to you. For a moment I thought I was debating intelligent, thoughtful Christians on this website; your post proves me wrong in this regard.
Of course, Christine herself is making an ad hominem attack here.
In light of these Scriptures, I wonder if I should immediately start praying to Moses to assist me in keeping the Law of Righteousness and to Elijah to walk more righteously than I am now, towards my wife and children and many others, including some of you in here commenting?
ReplyDeleteAfter all, none of us would ever conclude Moses and Elijah are dead? Or, should we just keep praying to God Our Heavenly Father, Jesus, both of them are in Heaven too, with Moses and Elijah. Or should we just pray to the Holy Spirit, Who is here with us and among us?
Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Mat 17:1 And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves.
Mat 17:2 And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light.
Mat 17:3 And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him.
Mat 17:4 And Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah."
Mat 17:5 He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him."
Mat 17:6 When the disciples heard this, they fell on their faces and were terrified.
Yes, Jason, Christine did ignore most of your material. (Fairly poor performance for someone from Oxford.)
ReplyDeleteWhen pressed on specifics or a particular argument, it seems all she has to offer is condescension.
Thanks for all your hard work.
Mr. Schultz,
ReplyDeleteI understand it's "circle the wagons" time here, but your claim that "[w]hen pressed on specifics or a particular argument, it seems all she has to offer is condescension" is simply false. There's another conversation going on over at "Desperate to Justify Prayers to the Dead," if you wish to follow the conversation. If you wish merely to leave unhelpful (untrue) remarks, though, then probably best to move along.
Christine,
ReplyDeletewould you address my comment directly?
I don't consider myself apart of that circle of wagons you refer too?
They haven't invited me inside their circle, most likely because I am a California Indian and we are partly to blame for their circles? :)
By the way, we tried to get the Catholics on our reservations to leave but they didn't!
Nata,
ReplyDeleteYou'll have to clarify exactly what you meant by your post, because it was unclear. What is it in particular that you meant to explain when you cited these verses?
Thanks,
Christine
Christine said:
ReplyDeleteI understand it's "circle the wagons" time here,
How is that idiom appropriate in this context?
if you wish to follow the conversation.
Yes, I've been following the conversation. (That is, after all, where I read that you graduated from Oxford.) My judgment hasn't changed.
Christine,
ReplyDeleteMoses and Elijah are two primary "living" Saints.
If Jesus wanted His disciples, presumably you consider yourself one, to pray to the departed Saints gone on before us during our sojourn too, wouldn't you consider after the events that unfolded there in those verses, Matt. 17 cited, He would have taught the necessity to ["pray to the departed living Saints as a necessary part of our Salvation"], "oh, by the way Disciples, you should pray to Moses and Elijah also, as I am teaching you to pray to Our Heavenly Father as well? You know the rulers are about to incite my death by crucifixion by the hands of godless men in just a little while and you too, are going to need all the spiritual guidance, comfort and assurances to make it out of here alive. You know, all of you are going to be killed like me except John who will get to die of old age in a prison on an Island. And the rest of you, in all coming generations, if they don't kill you, they certainly will hate you as they have me and persecute you and trouble you and do many ungodly things to hinder your success in their world, as they have Me, the world I am leaving you to die in, when you do, however you are to die?"
And, He logically could have taught about the doctrine of praying to living departed Saints after these verses too, "but He did not", so why do the RCC and EO?:::>
Joh 15:23 Whoever hates me hates my Father also.
Joh 15:24 If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father.
Joh 15:25 But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: 'They hated me without a cause.'
Joh 15:26 "But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.
Joh 15:27 And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning.
or
Joh 16:1 "I have said all these things to you to keep you from falling away.
Joh 16:2 They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God.
Joh 16:3 And they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me.
Joh 16:4 But I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember that I told them to you. "I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you.
Joh 16:5 But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, 'Where are you going?'
Joh 16:6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart.
Joh 16:7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.
Clearly in the citations above and those from Matthew's Gospel, cited, He is preparing all of His disciples, including those of us alive, now, today, to "pray" to Our Heavenly Father; to Him; and to the Holy Spirit because He is with us now.
It seems to me, both naturally and supernaturally, that it is at these times then that He would have laid the foundation for what you claim is a "true" doctrine of the Faith not a later tradition of a coming human developed Magisterium of the RCC, for the faithful to follow??
Once we start playing "Here's how the Bible would have to read for Catholicism not be consistent with its own holy book", there's the weekend gone.
ReplyDeleteYou start off with, eg, "For you are Peter, and on the rock of Peter and his duly-ordained successors I will build my only (visible) church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it for more than 20 or maybe 25 years at a time on any really important matter pertaining to faith and morals (as distinct from economic, social or political questions); and I will give you, Peter, and your successors (not anyone else) the keys to the kingdom of heaven, so that whatsoever you bind on earth (except, of course, for ordaining women), but again only in relation to faith and morals, shall be bound in heaven..." and you end up with having to re-write the Transfiguration so that when Peter suggests building three tabernacles, Jesus pats him on the head and says "Finally! We're getting there!" Meanwhile, your tax return isn't getting done.
By the way, Christine, from a very quick look at your webpage is it fair to say that you are not the world's greatest admirer of the post-Vatican II Catholic Church?
It seems that Steve's argument might be in tension with some other points that were made in the linked thread. This is because it appears odd to say that, say, Deuteronomy 18:11 deals with all forms of communication with the dead (and not just necromancy) if it is the case that the ancient Israelites believed that necromancy was the only way to communicate with the dead. Still, I think that this argument is pretty good, and some secular scholars (like Brian B. Schmidt) agree that the idea of the veneration of the dead and of one's ancestors did not exist in ancient Israel; necromancy was the only known was of contacting them.
ReplyDelete