Thursday, June 10, 2010

Lactantius And Prayer To The Dead Again

Scott Windsor recently wrote a response to my post on Lactantius and prayer to the dead. He writes:

So, what Lactantius is speaking of here is the deifying of dead men and praying to these dead men as gods.


Notice the qualifiers he adds, as if prayer to the dead is acceptable as long as it doesn't include those qualifiers. Lactantius doesn't say that, and his context doesn't suggest it.

Apparently, Scott didn't read my previous discussion of Lactantius with Christine, which led up to the post to which Scott has responded. I'll repeat an analogy involving abortion that I cited in that discussion.

Professing Christians didn’t normally have abortions in antiquity, so the earliest Christian condemnations of abortion are primarily given in the context of criticizing non-Christians. And other activities that Christians didn’t normally participate in would be mentioned along with abortion. It doesn’t follow that abortion is wrong only if done by non-Christians or only if accompanied by those other activities. Similarly, when Lactantius condemns prayer to the dead, without telling us that it's wrong only with the qualifiers Scott has mentioned above, we don't conclude that he meant to condemn it only when those qualifications are in place.

Scott goes on:

So, yet again - the context is objecting to praying to other gods and that the images of these "dead men" are being so worshiped. This has nothing to do with the practice of asking the Saints to pray with and for us.


He's repeating more arguments I addressed in my earlier exchanges with Christine. See here and here. As I explained in those threads, Catholic prayers to the dead involve more than "asking the Saints to pray with and for us". And even if they only involved what Scott describes, they would still be prayers to the dead.

He writes:

Well, yes - they refer to physical death - but of men whom those pagan poets believed to be gods! Again, Mr. Engwer has missed the point here and has based his argument on a false premise which then leads him to conclusions which are just as false....

Well again, referencing Book 2, Chapter 18 is regarding the worship of false gods and false religions, namely paganism.


Scott repeatedly makes such points in his article, as if I was unaware of these things. But I quoted some of Lactantius' references to gods and paganism in the post Scott is responding to, and I addressed the objections he's raising in my earlier exchanges with Christine.

If Lactantius meant to condemn prayer to false gods or some other such category, then why would he refer to prayer to the dead? Why didn't he refer, instead, to prayer to false gods or some other such category in particular? His focus is on the dead. As I documented, Lactantius argues for the dead status of these men by pointing to their tombs and other evidence leading to the conclusion that they're dead men. Scott's assumption that Lactantius meant to condemn only a narrower category, as if praying to other dead men outside that category would be acceptable, is a less natural way of reading the text. He's assuming that "dead men" only means something like "dead men who are false gods", which adds a qualification that Lactantius doesn't state or imply.

It would be like adding a qualification to early Christian condemnations of abortion or homosexual activity, as if they were only condemning such practices if done by non-Christians or done in the same context in which non-Christians were practicing those things. If an early Christian condemns homosexual acts without qualification, but the individuals he's condemning were non-Christians who did those things in the context of a pagan religious ceremony, we don't assume that only homosexual acts done in that context are being condemned. See, for example, section 9 of the Apology of Aristides, which contains an early Christian condemnation of homosexuality and other sins in the context of criticizing paganism.

Scott writes:

And again, the section refers to dead men being worshiped as gods/deity so what Mr. Engwer is doing, continually throughout this treatise is ignoring the context which denies his conclusions.


Actually, Lactantius condemns some of the activities in question even if they're singled out. Below is the entire sentence from Divine Institutes 2:18, referring to prayer to the dead. Notice the term "either" and the repeated use of "or":

"But if it appears that these religious rites are vain in so many ways as I have shown, it is manifest that those who either make prayers to the dead, or venerate the earth, or make over their souls to unclean spirits, do not act as becomes men, and that they will suffer punishment for their impiety and guilt, who, rebelling against God, the Father of the human race, have undertaken inexpiable rites, and violated every sacred law."

We can't assume that everything these pagans did must be present in order for anything they did to be wrong. Apparently, Lactantius thought that something like "making prayers to the dead" is wrong if done by itself, without the other practices accompanying it. And he doesn't add qualifiers like "if the dead men are false gods". What Scott is doing is assuming qualifications that will reconcile Lactantius with Roman Catholic tradition. That's a possible interpretation of Lactantius. But it isn't the most likely one.

Scott continues:

Here Mr. Engwer gets SO CLOSE to pointing to the truth when he points out the "except the single deity..." condition for adoration and worship, but fails to make the connection that what Lactantius is objecting to is not the praying with the Communion of Saints to join us in our petitions but rather he objects to deifying dead people and worshiping them as gods. Neither Catholics nor Orthodox worship saints as gods.


Now Scott is adding another qualifier. He's assuming that Lactantius means "prayer that is worship". Supposedly, what Lactantius meant was "worshipful prayer to dead men" or "non-worshipful prayer to dead men who are false gods" or some other such qualified condemnation that would be consistent with Roman Catholicism. Why are we supposed to read such qualifiers into the text?

Since Scott ignored some portions of my Lactantius post and seems to be unaware of my previous exchanges with Christine, I'll repeat some points I made earlier. For documentation, see here and here. The evidence suggests that prayer to the dead is absent and condemned in the Bible and among the earliest post-apostolic Christians. Consider how often prayer to the dead is evidenced in Catholicism and Orthodoxy today. It's present in their church services, in their books, in their conversations, and in many other contexts. Its absence in scripture and early post-apostolic church history offers a stark contrast. Lactantius came out of that context. We don't begin with the default assumption that he believed in praying to the dead. And Scott hasn't produced any evidence that Lactantius believed in the practice. Thus, when Lactantius condemns prayer to the dead without the qualifiers that Scott wants to add to that condemnation, the most natural conclusion to reach is that he was condemning prayer to the dead in general, not just if the dead are false gods or with some other such qualification attached.

12 comments:

  1. JE: Notice the qualifiers he adds, as if prayer to the dead is acceptable as long as it doesn't include those qualifiers. Lactantius doesn't say that, and his context doesn't suggest it.
    Yes, his context DOES suggest this. You may have turned a blind eye to the context, even after quoting some of it, just to further a bigoted agenda, but the context most certainly does state the prayers to the dead men he objects to are these dead men spoken of by the poets who have been deified by them. It is NOT a blanket statement against asking the Communion of Saints to join us in our prayers to God.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<
    CathApol Blog

    ReplyDelete
  2. Scott Windsor wrote:

    "You may have turned a blind eye to the context, even after quoting some of it, just to further a bigoted agenda, but the context most certainly does state the prayers to the dead men he objects to are these dead men spoken of by the poets who have been deified by them."

    You're ignoring what I wrote against that argument. Again, Lactantius twice chose similar phrases ("prayers to dead men", "prayers to the dead") to describe what he had in mind, and his focus both times was on the dead in general. He didn't use other phrases available to him that could have been used to express the focus you're suggesting, such as "prayer to false gods" or "prayer to the dead as if they're God". You aren't explaining why he repeatedly focuses on the dead status of the recipients of the prayers. If you think there's nothing wrong with praying to the dead, why would you repeatedly focus on the dead status of the recipients of prayers?

    I gave you an example of a somewhat similar comment on a different subject, a comment Aristides made about homosexuality. You haven't responded to that example. Here's what Aristides wrote:

    "By reason of these tales, O King, much evil has arisen among men, who to this day are imitators of their gods, and practise adultery and defile themselves with their mothers and their sisters, and by lying with males, and some make bold to slay even their parents." (Apology, 9)

    Do we assume that Aristides is only condemning such practices if done by people as "imitators of their gods"? When he refers to "lying with males", do we assume that he's only condemning homosexuality when done in pagan religious contexts? Or that he's only condemning it when it's done outside of marriage, for example? No, despite the immediate context of pagan religions, and despite the fact that the homosexual activity in question did occur outside of marriage, we conclude that homosexual activity in general is being condemned. Not only is that the prominent view of Christianity in general at the time when Aristides lived, and not only is it the view of the sources that would have most influenced Aristidies on the issue (such as scripture), but it's also the most natural way to interpret his choice of words. If his focus was on pagan homosexuality or the fact that the sex was outside of marriage, then he could have said so. But a broad phrase like "lying with males" is most naturally taken as a condemnation of homosexual acts themselves, regardless of whether they take place in a pagan religious context or outside of marriage. If he meant something like "lying with males in a pagan context" or "having sex outside of marriage", he could have said so. But he chose to focus on the homosexual nature of the sex instead.

    Similarly, as I argued in the previous threads linked above, the Christianity Lactantius had lived in and the sources that would have influenced him (primarily scripture) viewed God alone as the proper recipient of prayer and sometimes condemned any attempts to contact the deceased. And Lactantius repeatedly chose terminology suggesting that he had the dead in general in view, not just false gods or some other narrower category that would be consistent with Roman Catholicism. When somebody who comes out of Lactantius' context repeatedly uses such broad language about prayer to the dead, the most natural interpretation isn't to conclude that he had your qualifiers in mind. The fact that he shows no concern for adding such qualifiers suggests that he didn't come from a perspective like that of a modern Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

    And you'll have to explain why my "agenda" allegedly is "bigoted", whereas yours isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Scott's comments miss the mark. The context is this:

    1) Pagans think they are worshiping "gods."

    2) But these foolish pagans have forgotten that these "gods" are nothing more than dead men.

    3) Therefore, in effect, these idiots are praying to dead men. What could be more stupid?

    Thus, he quotes with approval Lucretius' exclamation: "O foolish minds of men! O blinded breasts! In what darkness of life and in how great dangers is passed this term of life, whatever be its duration!"

    Indeed, it is idiotic to entreat the dead: they cannot hear your voice nor answer you.

    -TurretinFan

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, first off, my fuller response to Mr. Engwer can be found here which also addresses Turretinfan indirectly (I had not seen TF's response before posting that). As for TF's response, let me just say that he's entitled to his opinions, as faulty as I perceive them to be. He wishes to use ridicule and boorish comments, sobeit. As my fuller response shows, Origen points to Scripture showing support for those receiving aid and intercession from those above (angels and saints). Origen was contemporary to Lactantius' writing too.

    It is my continued prayer that God softens your hearts and allows you to open your mind to His Truth and not the bigotry you espouse against Him and His Church.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<
    CathApol Blog

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is my continued prayer that God softens your hearts and allows you to open your mind to His Truth and not the bigotry you espouse against Him and His Church.

    This one is #3 in my "The Ten Worst But Most Common Techniques of the Roman Apologist"

    #3 reads: "Accusation of hate technique - Insist vehemently that your opponent is full of hate. It is always advisable to paint your opponent as hateful. This technique should always contain a reference to your opponent as an “anti-Catholic,” and to your great charity and the limitless bounds of your great humility."

    These kind of responses are so common that it's enabled me to construct a list years ago. :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Scott:

    1) What part of my assessment of the context is wrong? You don't say. It's very easy to wave one's hands, as you've demonstrated.

    2) And will you agree that I accurately quoted Lactantius quoting from Lucretius?

    3) You do need to wake up and smell the coffee when it comes to talking with dead people. They can't hear you. You may sincerely believe and wish they can, but it doesn't change the facts.

    -TurretinFan

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've posted a response to Scott at his blog. He doesn't advance the discussion, but instead repeats bad arguments I've already addressed and continues with his unsupported claim that I have an "agenda" that's "bigoted".

    ReplyDelete
  8. >> sw: It is my continued prayer
    >> that God softens your hearts
    >> and allows you to open your
    >> mind to His Truth and not the
    >> bigotry you espouse against Him
    >> and His Church.
    >
    > DK: This one is #3 in my "The
    > Ten Worst But Most Common
    > Techniques of the Roman
    > Apologist"
    >
    > #3 reads: "Accusation of hate
    > technique - Insist vehemently
    > that your opponent is full of
    > hate. It is always advisable to
    > paint your opponent as hateful.
    > This technique should always
    > contain a reference to your
    > opponent as an “anti-Catholic,”
    > and to your great charity and
    > the limitless bounds of your
    > great humility."
    >
    > These kind of responses are so
    > common that it's enabled me to
    > construct a list years ago. :)

    sw: Well, all good and well, Mr. King, but I didn't say that those whom I was addressing were hateful, but simply that God softens their hearts and opens their minds to His Truth. A hardened heart does NOT equivocate to a hateful heart nor does my hope for them to open their minds to His Truth. Not a WORD about "hate" in there - you have imputed that sentiment, not I... and to the objective reader, perhaps you have convicted yourself of that which you accuse me.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<
    CathApol Blog

    ReplyDelete
  9. I addressed the objections he's raising in my earlier exchanges with Christine.

    No, Jason, you have not. Your responses were totally off the mark and did not understand my points at all. I've addressed this in our continuing combox discussion...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mr. Windsor: Jason's favorite accusation is that his opponents "ignore" what he says, when in fact the opposite tends to be the case, as I'm learning in my exchange with him on the intercession of the saints.

    ReplyDelete
  11. See my responses to Christine here. As I and other posters have noted, Christine is highly ignorant of the issues and highly evasive. The reason why she's accused of ignoring a lot is because she ignores a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks, Jason, for confirming my point.

    ReplyDelete