There are many hundreds of contexts in which prayer to the dead could have been mentioned in scripture and the early patristic literature. Instead, it's absent and sometimes contradicted.
Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox will often try to make the practice seem more credible by citing references to prayers for the dead, prayers by the dead for us, prayer or alleged prayer to angels, the presence of angels or deceased humans among humans on earth, etc. But a person can pray for the dead, believe in guardian angels, or think that deceased humans sometimes intercede for people or events on earth, yet not believe in prayer to the dead.
I recently discussed the example of Origen, who held some such beliefs while, at the same time, saying that we should pray only to God and not to lesser beings. In our day, Protestants believe that angels are involved in human affairs, and thus sometimes know about our prayers or are active in God's answering of prayer, without believing in prayer to angels or prayer to the deceased. Even in a mostly Protestant nation like the United States, many people believe in concepts like guardian angels and knowledge of earthly individuals and events on the part of the deceased, yet don't believe in prayer to angels or prayer to the dead. In past articles, such as here, I've discussed why such categories should be distinguished from one another. Even if we believed that an angel or deceased human is sometimes nearby or aware of what's happening in our lives, it doesn't follow that he's always present or always aware or that we can pray to him.
We also need to be discerning about the nature of the sources that are cited, such as their dating and authorship. Catholics and Orthodox often cite late, forged, apocryphal, and heretical documents to make their beliefs seem more historically credible than they actually are. See, for example, the work Turretinfan has done to demonstrate the poor quality of some of the sources cited by the Catholic apologist Steve Ray. In a recent discussion at Beggars All, the Orthodox poster Lvka failed to demonstrate any Biblical or early patristic support for prayers to the dead, but he did appeal to some beliefs in post-Biblical Judaism and offered a highly dubious and anachronistic interpretation of a passage in Justin Martyr. Just recently at this blog, a Catholic poster by the name of Christine posted a quote from Methodius that comes from a document that most likely is inauthentic.
Think about the large amount of evidence we see for prayers to the dead in modern Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It's prominent in their church services, their conversations, their television programs, their books, their web sites, etc. Contrast that with the absence and contradictions of the practice in scripture and early patristic church history. Why do Catholics and Orthodox so often resort to changing the subject to something like prayers for the dead or rely on so many late, forged, apocryphal, and heretical sources?
"Think about the large amount of evidence we see for prayers to the dead in modern Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It's prominent in their church services, their conversations, their television programs, their books, their web sites, etc. Contrast that with the absence and contradictions of the practice in scripture and early patristic church history. Why do Catholics and Orthodox so often resort to changing the subject to something like prayers for the dead or rely on so many late, forged, apocryphal, and heretical sources?"
ReplyDeleteHmmmm, Alex Trebek, what is... uh, uh, ahh,
if they stay on subject, they won't like the answer they find? And it might cause cognitive dissonance? Or it might lead them to change their mind in acknowledgement of an untenable contradiction?
Jason,
ReplyDeleteLet's see--so Steve Ray cites a purportedly forged source, as does Lvka, and suddenly you claim there are scores and scores of Catholics and Orthodox all over the place who cite forged sources? Can you provide any examples other than Steve Ray or Lvka? Or is it your regular practice to make gross, inaccurate generalizations based on two examples?
You, of course, mention me and my citation of Methodius's "Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna" as proof positive that I deliberately cite forged sources, when in fact there is no modern consensus among patristic scholars that Methodius's Oration is inauthentic. For instance, Sir William Smith, editor of the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, 1880, writes of the "Oration":
"This work is said to be the production of a later Methodius, but Allatius vindicates the authorship of Methodius Patarensis [the 3rd century martyr presumed to be the author of this work]."
Read it for yourself:
http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/2175.html
So Turretin's citations exclude opinions from contemporary authors who claim Methodius's Oration is authentic. There is no modern consensus on the Oration, so it would be best to refrain from accusing these mysterious scores of Catholics and Orthodox of citing forged sources, including myself. Thanks.
"Plain reasons against joining the Church of Rome" by Richard Littledale (1880) pp. 19-21:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.archive.org/details/plainreasonsaga01littgoog
"Nevertheless, in direct rebellion against the plain letter and spirit of both the Old and New Testaments, the Roman Church practically compels her children to offer far more prayers to deceased human beings than they address to the Father or to Christ. It is not true, as is often alleged in defence, that the prayers of the departed Saints are asked only in the same sense as those of living ones, with the added thought that they are now more able to pray effectually for us. The petitions are not at all limited to a mere "Pray for us;" but are constantly of exactly the same kind and wording as those addressed to Almighty God, and are offered kneeling, and in the course of Divine Service, which is not how we ever ask the prayers of living friends. A few specimens are here set down from the "Raccolta," (Eng. Transl., Burns & Oates, 1873), a collection of prayers specially indulgenced by the Popes, and therefore of absolute authority in the Roman Church.
1. "Hail, Queen, Mother of Mercy, our Life, Sweetness, and Hope, all hail! To thee we cry, banished sons of Eve, to thee we sigh, groaning and weeping in this vale of tears. Turn then, O our Advocate, thy merciful eyes to us, and after this our exile, show us Jesus, the blessed fruit of thy womb, O merciful, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.
"V. Make me worthy to praise thee, O sacred Virgin. R. Give me strength against thine enemies."
2. "We fly beneath thy shelter, O holy Mother of God, despise not our petitions in our necessities, and deliver us always from all perils, O glorious and blessed Virgin."
3. "Heart of Mary, Mother of God . . . worthy of all the veneration of angels and men . . . Heart full of goodness, ever-compassionate towards our sufferings, vouchsafe to thaw our icy hearts ... In thee let the holy Church find safe shelter; protect it, and be its sweet asylum, its tower of strength ... Be thou our help in need, our comfort in trouble, our strength in temptation, our refuge in persecution, our aid in all dangers ..."
4. "Sweet Heart of Mary, be my salvation."
5. "Leave me not, my Mother, in my own hands, or I am lost. Let me but cling to thee. Save me, my Hope; save me from hell."
6. "Michael, glorious prince, chief and champion of the heavenly host . . . vouchsafe to free us all from every evil, who with full confidence have recourse to thee."
7. "Benign Joseph, our guide, protect us and the holy Church."
8. "Guardian of virgins, and holy father Joseph, to whose faithful keeping Christ Jesus, innocence itself, and Mary, Virgin of virgins, were committed, I pray and beseech thee by these two dear pledges, Jesus and Mary, that being preserved from all uncleanness, I may with spotless mind, pure heart, and chaste body, ever most chastely serve Jesus and Mary. Amen."
These are only a few specimens culled out of many, and it is easy to test their true nature by substituting the names of the Father and Christ for those which occur in them; so nothing less can be said than that they encroach sorely on the incommunicable attributes of God."
Christine wrote:
ReplyDelete”Let's see--so Steve Ray cites a purportedly forged source, as does Lvka, and suddenly you claim there are scores and scores of Catholics and Orthodox all over the place who cite forged sources? Can you provide any examples other than Steve Ray or Lvka? Or is it your regular practice to make gross, inaccurate generalizations based on two examples?”
Turretinfan gave more than one example from Steve Ray. But even one example would be more than your zero examples of Biblical or early patristic support for praying to the dead. Yet, you claimed an “unbroken tradition” in the other thread linked above. If you want other examples of the use of forged documents, apocryphal material, etc., see the widespread Catholic use of documents like the Donation Of Constantine and the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals in the past and, today, documents like the Protevangelium Of James. Anybody who knows much about the history of Catholicism and interacts much with Catholic apologists should be familiar with what I’m referring to.
You write:
”You, of course, mention me and my citation of Methodius's ‘Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna’ as proof positive that I deliberately cite forged sources”
I didn’t say that you cited a forgery “deliberately”. To the contrary, I’ve said that you don’t seem to know much about some of the issues we’ve been discussing. That’s why you’d be going to a source like a Catholic Answers tract for so much of your information.
You write:
”there is no modern consensus among patristic scholars that Methodius's Oration is inauthentic. For instance, Sir William Smith, editor of the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, 1880, writes of the ‘Oration’:”
You criticize me for only citing a few examples of Catholic and Orthodox use of forged documents, yet you give us even fewer sources to support your claim about modern scholarship. I’ve already cited Turretinfan’s article, which goes into more depth on this subject than you do. The more recent sources I’ve consulted seem to go in the same general direction as Turretinfan’s sources.
We are also justified in using "the tree is known by its fruits"-principle on the cult of saints. Historically, saint-worship has been weighed and been found wanting.
ReplyDeleteInvocation of saints has given birth to many foul fruits in RC/EO cultures. For one thing, the worship of IMAGES became established largely as a logical result of and as a "sequel" to the saint-worship - one evil leading to another.
The 8th and 9th century iconoclast reformers failed largely because they (generally speaking) were not consistent enough to reject both the worship of images AND of saints. Only few people like Claudius of Turin had guts to go that far back in those superstitious times.
One should indeed realize that the invocation of saints is a centuries-older phenomenon than the worship of images. Even such a brazen saint-worshipper as pope Gregory the Great still refused to "adorare" images around 600 AD.
But eventually, by the sheer perverted logic, the invocation of saints led to the worship of images as well - a position totally opposite to that of the early church that boasted of its lack of sacred images. Thus on this basis alone we can say that saint-worship has born rotten fruit and should be rejected according to the Gospel principle.
"Even such a brazen saint-worshipper as pope Gregory the Great still refused to "adorare" images around 600 AD."
ReplyDeleteAnother example - the separated "Nestorian" Assyrian church in Asia has practised the invocation of saints but NOT the worship of images, while RC and EO churches have ploughed ahead in that process of idolatrous evolution.
Citing Edward Gibbon:
"In their Syriac liturgy the names of Theodore and Nestorius were piously commemorated: they united their adoration of the two persons of Christ; the title of Mother of God was offensive to their ear, and they measured with scrupulous avarice the honors of the Virgin Mary, whom the superstition of the Latins had almost exalted to the rank of a goddess. When her image was first presented to the disciples of St. Thomas, they indignantly exclaimed, "We are Christians, not idolaters!" and their simple devotion was content with the veneration of the cross."
http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume2/chap47
Nestorians became separated from mainstream churches from 430 AD onwards. This would be a proof that 5th century Christians practised the invocation of saints, while still considering the veneration of images as idolatry.
Viisaus:
ReplyDeleteIf you want to discuss the veneration of images, we can--but that's a different topic from the intercession of the saints.
As to Edward Gibbon, two things:
1) Historians generally acknowledge he was not without bias, being deeply anti-Catholic; and
2) His rejection of the term "Theotokos" means a rejection of the Council of Ephesus (431), where the term was formulated; Protestants have traditionally affirmed the legitimacy of the Third Ecumenical Council.
3) Gibbon misunderstands Theotokos (as so many Protestants do) as somehow giving glory to Mary, when in fact the doctrine was formed as a result of combating a christological heresy: Nestorianism, which denied that Christ was one person in two distinct natures. It was Nestorius who rejected the title Theotokos, because it meant Mary was the mother of both the divine and human Jesus. The center of the controversy here was the nature of Jesus--not the nature of Mary.
I am therefore surprised you would cite (take note of the word, Gene) the Nestorian Assyrian church approvingly in this regard. Surely you do not, like they, reject the orthodox belief that Christ is one person in two natures?
Another point: worship is not the same as veneration. It's another thing Protestants get rather confused about.
As to Edward Gibbon, three things: [sic]
ReplyDeleteChristine wrote:
ReplyDelete"If you want to discuss the veneration of images, we can--but that's a different topic from the intercession of the saints."
You've just been participating in another thread that refers to "prayers to the dead" in its title. The person who initiated the thread, me, repeatedly explained to you that the subject was prayer to the dead. Yet, you kept bringing up other issues, like prayer with the dead, prayer by the dead, the presence of angels among believers, and prayer to angels. Now you're criticizing Viisaus for not staying on topic?
Jason, Gene, etc.,
ReplyDeleteIn answer to your request for citations, I've got my copy of Kelly's 1993 edition "Early Christian Doctrines" open before me, and gladly refer you to pp.490ff, where he discusses the "enthusiastic cult of the martyrs for the first three centuries", and cites (take note of the term, Gene) Origen as supporting the practice of requesting the saints' intercession (i.e., praying to the saints). He says much more, so please do acquire a copy and read it for yourself.
As someone who claims to be so widely read in patristics, Jason, I'm surprised you've never heard of JND Kelly, considered one of the foremost authorities on patristics (and not a Catholic, by the way).
As to Peter Brown, the whole of the 120-page work is devoted to discussing the rise and development of the cult of saints, and its popularity in the early church. You can order the book and read it for yourself at:
http://www.amazon.com/Cult-Saints-Function-Christianity-Religions/dp/0226076229
During the first decade of the 5th century, one of the first reformers appeared to criticize the superstitious cult of the saints that had arisen in the church, namely Vigilantius.
ReplyDeleteHe provoked a rabidly hostile reaction from Jerome, but I find it interesting that even while unrestrainedly denouncing Vigilantius, Jerome was forced to concede that Christians did NOT (or should not) worship saints - not even with second-rate worship but merely "honoured" them.
This was indeed something like a reluctant concession that Jerome was forced to declare, and many ignorant half-converted Christians at that time were probably already doing exactly what Jerome denied they were doing.
Here is an excerpt from Jerome's letter to Riparius, and its Latin original (from "Vigilantius and His Times"):
http://www.archive.org/details/vigilantiusandh00gillgoog
p. 376
"We however do not worship and adore, I do not say the relics of the Martyrs, but even the sun and the moon; we do not worship and adore the Angels, nor the Archangels, nor the Cherubim, nor the Seraphim, nor any name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come, lest we serve the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed for ever. But we honour the relics of the Martyrs, that we may adore Him Whose Martyrs they are."
"Nos autem non dico Martyrum reliquias, sed ne solem quidem et lunam, non Angelos, non Archangelos, non Cherubim, non Seraphim, et omne nomen quod nominatur et in praesenti seculo et in futuro, COLIMUS ET ADORAMUS; ne serviamus creaturs potius quam Creatori, qui est benedictus in sascula. Honoramus autem reliquias Martyrum, ut eum cujus sunt Martyres adoremus."
I am not absolutely sure about "adoramus", but the term "colimus" does indeed refer to the kind of second-rate worship that the Tridentine-era Roman church commanded to be paid to images, for example.
So while Jerome still adamantly denied that the church paid "cola"-worship to saints, the later idolatrous church went on to do exactly that.
p. 434
"Jerome had disclaimed the worship or adoration of the relics of the martyrs, and the adoration even of the martyrs themselves, in his Letter to Riparius (see supra, p. 376 ; non colimus, non adoramus, were his words); and now he repeats his disclaimer, 'Madman, that thou art, who ever adored the martyrs'? He utterly denied that such was the practice of the church. But the times arrived, first, when a council of the church, the second Council of Nice, ruled, that 'the bones, ashes, blood, and sepulchres of the martyrs ought to be adored;' and afterwards, when a council of still greater authority, the Council of Trent, pronounced, that the decrees of the relic-adoring and saint-worshipping synod of Nice were binding on all Christians.
On this subject Chemnitius maintains that Jerome,* in the whole of his prolix and bitter invective against Vigilantius, did not write a line which intimated approbation of saint-worship; on the contrary, that he condemned it, and that his opinions therefore were at variance with those propounded by the Council of Trent."
"As to Edward Gibbon, three things: [sic]"
ReplyDeleteGibbon was not a modern politically correct historian, that's for sure. While people like him have overly bashed the Middle Ages, Catholic and pro-Catholic historians have for their part lately whitewashed the Middle Ages.
In today's academia, it's seen as so "judgmental", so rude to bluntly state that post-Constantinian Christianity sank into ignorant superstition, falling from its earlier monotheistic purity - or like Gibbon put it:
http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume1/chap28.htm#intr
"If, in the beginning of the fifth century,(86) Tertullian, or Lactantius, (87) had been suddenly raised from the dead, to assist at the festival of some popular saint or martyr,(88) they would have gazed with astonishment and indignation on the profane spectacle which had succeeded to the pure and spiritual worship of a Christian congregation. As soon as the doors of the church were thrown open, they must have been offended by the smoke of incense, the perfume of flowers, and the glare of lamps and tapers, which diffused, at noon-day, a gaudy, superfluous, and, in their opinion, a sacrilegious light. If they approached the balustrade of the altar, they made their way through the prostrate crowd, consisting, for the most part, of strangers and pilgrims, who resorted to the city on the vigil of the feast; and who already felt the strong intoxication of fanaticism, and, perhaps, of wine. Their devout kisses were imprinted on the walls and pavement of the sacred edifice; and their fervent prayers were directed, whatever might be the language of their church, to the bones, the blood, or the ashes of the saint, which were usually concealed, by a linen or silken veil, from the eyes of the vulgar. The Christians frequented the tombs of the martyrs, in the hope of obtaining, from their powerful intercession, every sort of spiritual, but more especially of temporal, blessings."
Here is something from a glowing review of Peter Brown's book:
ReplyDelete"Brown has an international reputation for his fine style, a style he here turns on to illuminate the cult of the saints. CHRISTIANITY WAS BORN WITHOUT SUCH A CULT; it took rise and that rise needs chronicling."
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/presssite/metadata.epl?isbn=9780226076386
It's clear that Brown refuses to consider the rise of saint-worship as a deformation of apostolic Christianity (like us un-PC, judgmental Protestants would put it), and yet even he apparently does not try to claim that it dates from the very beginning.
In other words, hagiolatry cannot be justified without employing the Newmanian "doctrine of development".
I can also cite J.B. Bury, another famous classical scholar. He is a more recent author than Gibbon, and yet dates from pre-PC era. Thus he could describe the 4th-century explosion of saint-worship like this:
"In a hundred years the Empire had been transformed from a state in which the immense majority of the inhabitants were devoted to pagan religions, into one in which an Emperor could say, with gross exaggeration, but without manifest absurdity, that not a pagan survived. Such a change was not brought to pass by mere prohibition and suppression. It is not too much to say that the success of the Church in converting the gentile world in the fourth and fifth centuries was due to a process which may be described as a pagan transmutation of Christianity itself. If Christian beliefs and worship had been retained unaltered in the early simplicity of their spirit and form, it may well be doubted whether a much longer period would have sufficed to christianize the Roman Empire. But the Church permitted a compromise. All the religions of the age had common ground in crude superstition, and the Church found no difficulty in proffering to converts beliefs and cults similar to those to which they had been accustomed. It was a comparatively small matter that incense, lights, and flowers, the accessories of various pagan ceremonials, had been introduced into Christian worship. It was a momentous and happy stroke to encourage the introduction of a disguised polytheism. A legion of saints and martyrs replaced the old legion of gods and heroes, and the hesitating pagan could gradually reconcile himself to a religion, which, if it robbed him of his tutelary deity, whom it stigmatized as a demon, allowed him in compensation the cult of a tutelary saint. A new and banal mythology was created, of saints and martyrs, many of them fictitious; their bodies and relics, capable of working miracles like those which used to be wrought at the tombs of heroes, were constantly being discovered."
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/BURLAT/11*.html#3
Hagiolatry represented the great watering-down of Christianity - making the new religion accessible to those large masses that became nominally Christian between the reigns of Constantine and Theodosius. Accessible in a concrete, visible and materialistically dumbed-down form.
Gene and I have responded to Christine's misleading references to J.N.D. Kelly and Peter Brown in another thread. See here.
ReplyDelete"So while Jerome still adamantly denied that the church paid "cola"-worship to saints, the later idolatrous church went on to do exactly that."
ReplyDeleteHere is some official documentation on how Tridentine-era RCC demanded its followers to give "coli"-worship to created things.
(This is from an old Protestant pamphlet originally written in the 1680s.)
http://www.archive.org/details/apreservativeag08cummgoog
p. 290
"The # Roman Catechism enjoins the parish priest to declare, "that images of saints are placed in the Church, UT COLANTUR, that they may be worshipped;" and they have forced those who held the contrary, to renounce it as heresy.
When therefore any English or French Papists tell us, that they do not venerate, or bow down to images; or that the Church of Rome doth not enjoin them so to do, they either know not what their Church doth teach, or wilfully prevaricate; all Roman Catholics being obliged by these Councils, and taught by this Catechism, to pay this veneration and worship to them."
# Part 3. ch. 2. sect. 24. [De Invoc. Sanct. sect. 40. p. 363. Mechlin. 31.]
"You seem to have a problem finding objective sources. If you could find and quote a Catholic document that actually says all this, it might be more persuasive."
ReplyDeleteThis is a mere impotent ad hominem response. My Protestant source gives an exact footnote, citing a Tridentine-era RC catechism. See the online book I linked to yourself.
Likewise Gibbon also usually manages to properly source his claims, no matter how negative or biased they might be. There is no use in shooting the messenger, at best you could accuse him of telling half-truths.
"I'm sure you wouldn't take very seriously my quoting from a 17th-century Catholic document purporting to explain one of the basic tenets of Protestantism."
Actually, yes I would - IF it would manage to do its sourcework properly, like finding some incriminating authentic citation from Luther or Calvin.
Here is the Latin version of the Trent Catechism that my Protestant source alluded to - Question 24:
ReplyDelete"Sanctorum quoque imagines in templis positas demonstrabit, UT ET COLANTUR, et exemplo moniti, ad corum vitam ac mores nos ipsos conformemus."
http://books.google.com/books?id=Mv4MAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA859&dq=%22solum+Angeli,+sed%22&lr=&as_brr=1#v=onepage&q=colantur&f=false
Here are the Latin conjugations of the worshipping term "colere" - Jerome wrote "non colimus" about any created being:
http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/~lha/Latin_vocab/verb3/colere.html
The rise of saint-worship during the 4th and 5th centuries was hardly any glorious chapter in the Christian history.
ReplyDeleteIt was just during this time period that many or most of those famous and popular MADE-UP saints that still today embarrass RC and EO churches were invented (their non-existence was more or less admitted at Vatican II).
Like "saint Catherine of Alexandria":
http://parentingbeyondbelief.com/blog/?p=178
Or "saint Maurice of Thebes":
http://www.ucc.ie/milmart/maurorig.html
Or "saint Margaret of Antioch":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_the_Virgin
The RCC is forcing its followers to pray to people who are no more real than pagan gods.
The translation of the Latin from the Catechism of the Council of Trent you cited is the following:
ReplyDelete"He should, also, point out that the images of the Saints are placed in churches, not only to be
honored, but also that they may admonish us by their examples to imitate their lives and virtues." Part III, "The First Commandment"
"Colere" has a number of acceptable meanings, only one of which is "to worship." Acceptable definitions include "to cultivate," "to tend to," and "to honor," among others. It is in this sense ("to honor") that the Catechism enjoins the faithful to honor the image of the saints, whose examples they are encouraged to follow.
Jerome says we do not "COLIMUS ET ADORAMUS." "Adorare" is unambiguous in its meaning: to address/worship a deity. If colimus had the same meaning here, Jerome would be redundant, saying "we do not worship and worship..." Clearly, "colere" is not meant in the same sense as "adorare", and the fact that he couples them together highlights this fact.
I can also tell you, as a Catholic myself with the same misgivings as you when I was once a Calvinist, that Catholics absolutely forbid the worship of saints. I do not worship saints; I don't know a single Catholic who does.
You criticize me for only citing a few examples of Catholic and Orthodox use of forged documents, yet you give us even fewer sources to support your claim about modern scholarship.
ReplyDeleteI didn’t make an inaccurate generalization about a whole class of people based on two pitiful examples. My citation was meant to show that there is no consensus on the authenticity of Methodius. You conveniently refer to those who claim he is dubious, yet ignore other scholars who claim the opposite.
If you want other examples of the use of forged documents, apocryphal material, etc., see the widespread Catholic use of documents like the Donation Of Constantine and the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals in the past and, today, documents like the Protevangelium Of James.
The traditional well-known Catholic encyclopedia New Advent (written in the early 1900s) acknowledges that the Donation of Constantine and the Isidorian Decretals are forgeries. (“Nowadays every one agrees that these so-called papal letters are forgeries.”) No knowledgeable Catholic would disagree, so your claims are simply false. Catholics also recognize the ProtoEvangelium of James as a non-inspired, noncanonical document, not written by James himself. None of the examples you cite prove your claim that Catholics everywhere always use dubious sources to support their arguments. You malign a whole group of people based on false assertions.
Christine writes:
ReplyDelete"I didn’t make an inaccurate generalization about a whole class of people based on two pitiful examples."
Neither did I.
You write:
"My citation was meant to show that there is no consensus on the authenticity of Methodius. You conveniently refer to those who claim he is dubious, yet ignore other scholars who claim the opposite."
The article I linked on the subject mentions defenders of the document's authenticity, including references to some of them by name. You keep making claims that are demonstrably false. Why are you so careless?
There doesn't have to be a "consensus" on what you've cited from Methodius in order for the document to be doubtful. You're the one who cited the work. You attributed it to Methodius. When I cite widespread scholarly doubt about the document's authenticity, you object that there isn't a consensus, whatever you mean by that term. That's not a sufficient response. You cited the document. Justify your citation.
You write:
"The traditional well-known Catholic encyclopedia New Advent (written in the early 1900s) acknowledges that the Donation of Constantine and the Isidorian Decretals are forgeries. ('Nowadays every one agrees that these so-called papal letters are forgeries.') No knowledgeable Catholic would disagree, so your claims are simply false. Catholics also recognize the ProtoEvangelium of James as a non-inspired, noncanonical document, not written by James himself. None of the examples you cite prove your claim that Catholics everywhere always use dubious sources to support their arguments."
I didn't say that "Catholics everywhere always use dubious sources to support their arguments". And I said that the Donation Of Constantine and Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals were used "in the past". Pointing out that they aren't currently used does nothing to refute what I've said. And the use of a forged document doesn't require that the user consider it genuine. The fact that Catholics don't attribute the Protevangelium Of James to James doesn't prove that they don't use the document.
Again, why are you so careless? You frequently misrepresent other people's positions, and you repeat obvious errors over and over again, even after being corrected. You need to make an effort to think and argue more accurately.
To refresh your memory:
ReplyDeleteYou said, Catholics and Orthodox often cite late, forged, apocryphal, and heretical documents to make their beliefs seem more historically credible than they actually are.
So in addition to maligning a whole group of people by offering little evidence (mentioning documents that the Church has for at least a century acknowledged as forgeries), you also claim the power to read into their hearts to determine their sneaky, dishonest motives. And instead of repenting of such slander, you attempt to justify it. If that sits well with your conscience, well, that says a lot...
Christine wrote:
ReplyDelete"So in addition to maligning a whole group of people by offering little evidence (mentioning documents that the Church has for at least a century acknowledged as forgeries), you also claim the power to read into their hearts to determine their sneaky, dishonest motives. And instead of repenting of such slander, you attempt to justify it."
I didn't refer to dishonesty. As I explained in my first reply to you above:
"I didn’t say that you cited a forgery 'deliberately'. To the contrary, I’ve said that you don’t seem to know much about some of the issues we’ve been discussing. That’s why you’d be going to a source like a Catholic Answers tract for so much of your information."
I was addressing the use of sources like the ones I described, regardless of whether dishonesty is involved.
And you've ignored most of what I said in my last post.
You keep misrepresenting what people believe and what they've argued, yet you complain about "slander".
Let me guess--you get a lot of your information from TurretinFan, don't you?
ReplyDeleteTF wrote a post about how certain Catholic Answers apologists use the Protoevangelium of James to support their arguments. The only problem is that he fails to specify in which way they use it. Catholics readily acknowledge the PoJ not to be written by James himself--but that does not mean it does not contain some useful historical information, like geography, names, etc.
In any case, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You've selectively quoted me and ignored things I've said all along--yet I don't continually complain about being ignored, as you seem to do. I did indeed ignore your previous comments--because they struck me as a subterfuge, and not worthy of a response.
If I say that Protestants have a habit of citing forged documents to make themselves seem more historically credible than they actually are (and I wouldn't say that), then I'd better be prepared to back that accusation up with solid evidence. You, on the other hand, say it and offer almost nothing to back up the claim. Instead, you cite documents that Catholics everywhere readily acknowledge to be forged. And then when you're called on it, you try to back away from the plain import of your charge (that we're dishonest) by trying to deny that's what you meant. But I will attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt and try to believe that your charge was *not* intended to insinuate that Catholics and Orthodox are sneaky and dishonest in the way we use historical documents. If that's naïve on my part, so be it.
Christine: What post of mine did you have in mind?
ReplyDeleteChristine wrote:
ReplyDelete"If I say that Protestants have a habit of citing forged documents to make themselves seem more historically credible than they actually are (and I wouldn't say that), then I'd better be prepared to back that accusation up with solid evidence. You, on the other hand, say it and offer almost nothing to back up the claim. Instead, you cite documents that Catholics everywhere readily acknowledge to be forged. And then when you're called on it, you try to back away from the plain import of your charge (that we're dishonest) by trying to deny that's what you meant. But I will attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt and try to believe that your charge was *not* intended to insinuate that Catholics and Orthodox are sneaky and dishonest in the way we use historical documents."
You accuse me of "trying to back away from the plain import of my charge". You accuse me of offering irrelevant evidence "instead" of the evidence I should be offering. Yet, you tell us that it would be wrong for me to suggest that Catholics are dishonest, that I would need to "read hearts" to have such information. How do you know that I'm "backing away" from a position and offering the wrong evidence "instead"? Are you reading my heart?
If you're now "giving me the benefit of the doubt", then your previous objections that didn't give me that benefit of the doubt were wrong under your current position. Are you going to "repent" of "slandering" me?
Before I even began this thread, I had explained to you that you came across to me as highly ignorant of the issue we were discussing (prayer to the dead). I mentioned that much of the material you cited seemed to come from Catholic Answers. I said that you were being careless, dishonest, or both. For you to interpret my comments in this thread as a claim that dishonesty is involved in every instance I referred to is ridiculous. The idea that I was suggesting dishonesty on the part of every Catholic who used the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, for example, is absurd. So is the idea that I was arguing that every Catholic who uses the Protevangelium of James claims that James was the author. You've been misrepresenting what I said, and your "benefit of the doubt" is just an acknowledgment of what I've been saying all along.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteAnd while you've been mostly discussing forgeries, my initial post referred to "late, forged, apocryphal, and heretical documents". As I said earlier, anybody who has much knowledge about Catholicism should be able to think of many examples that fall into those categories, so the idea that I need to cite more examples than I have is unreasonable. Before this thread even began, I pointed out to you that the relevant material you were citing on prayer to the dead (as opposed to material on issues like prayer by the dead) came from late patristic sources. Similarly, we frequently get citations of late, forged, apocryphal, and heretical documents from Catholics when discussing Marian doctrine. Since you've used Catholic Answers material in the past, note the use of material of the nature I've described in Catholic Answers articles like the ones here and here. You haven't seen Catholics inordinately citing apocryphal and late sources for the assumption of Mary? Or for the sinlessness of Mary? Or Purgatory? Not only have you distorted my argument, but you've also ignored a large amount of evidence supporting that argument, as if something so evident requires more documentation.
You write:
"You've selectively quoted me and ignored things I've said all along--yet I don't continually complain about being ignored, as you seem to do."
I've responded to your material far more than you've responded to mine. Readers can scroll the screen up and note how much you've been ignoring in this thread alone.
TF: This one.
ReplyDeleteJason: Your words speak for themselves:
Catholics and Orthodox often cite late, forged, apocryphal, and heretical documents to make their beliefs seem more historically credible than they actually are.
The plain import of this is clear.
If you did not mean that we're dishonest, and if you were interested in serious dialogue, then you would have included a qualifier in the post making clear that Catholics are not intentionally using forged documents in a dishonest way, or that Catholics are well aware of the forged nature of the source, yet use them for other reasons (e.g., they contain historically useful information). But you deliberately leave your meaning vague, so that your readers can draw negative conclusions about a whole class of people. Yes, I'd certainly classify that as slander. Sometimes, what you fail to say is just as significant as what you say.
If I say, "Jason Engwer left his wife when she was 9 months pregnant," and nothing more, readers will justifiably draw negative conclusions. If I leave out the fact that you did not want to go but were in the military and were ordered to go overseas, I'd be guilty of failing to supply the necessary context.
Besides, I've encountered Protestant apologists elsewhere who have insinuated that Catholics as a group are sneaky and dishonest and cunning; your post here is just another example of that false stereotype.
I should say that your repeated claim that I get "so much of [my] information" from a Catholic Answers tract is just false. If you want to keep repeating this misrepresentation, that's your choice. I haven't bothered to correct you on this point because I didn't think it was worthy of a response. From my silence, you've assumed agreement (you seem to have a thing for arguments from silence), but I might as well tell you now that it's false.
You have the last word. I'm through with this silly discussion. If I don't respond to any more of your comments, here or elsewhere, it's because I'm not bothering to read them. Good day to you.
Christine:
ReplyDeleteThanks for identifying the post. I have made sure that readers of my post will be able to find your criticism in the comment box of that post.
With all due respect, however, the work is fiction and forgery from heretics. It lies about being written by James, why would or should we trust it on other things? I'm not sure why anyone would expect it to have any particularly reliable information, which is one reason that I'm very critical of folks from your side of the Tiber quoting it, as though it were a reliable Early Christian writing.
-TurretinFan
Christine wrote:
ReplyDelete”The plain import of this is clear.”
You keep contradicting yourself. Earlier, you said that you were giving me the benefit of the doubt. And I explained how your not doing so, which is the position you’ve apparently reverted to now, is inconsistent with your earlier claim about “reading hearts”. You should try to be more consistent.
You write:
”If you did not mean that we're dishonest, and if you were interested in serious dialogue, then you would have included a qualifier in the post making clear that Catholics are not intentionally using forged documents in a dishonest way, or that Catholics are well aware of the forged nature of the source, yet use them for other reasons (e.g., they contain historically useful information). But you deliberately leave your meaning vague, so that your readers can draw negative conclusions about a whole class of people.”
I’ve already explained how unreasonable it would be to read my initial post the way you’re suggesting I intended it to be read. You’re ignoring that explanation.
You haven’t argued for your claim that I was suggesting dishonesty. Different people would have different levels of knowledge and honesty in using the sources in question. One person forges a document, while another person is deceived by the forgery. But both use it, and I was addressing the use of such sources. I wasn’t claiming that everybody who uses the sources is dishonest, nor was I claiming that everybody who uses them is honest.
You write:
”I should say that your repeated claim that I get ‘so much of [my] information’ from a Catholic Answers tract is just false.”
As I explained before, I’m referring to where the information comes from, not whether you got it directly from Catholic Answers. I explained how similar some of your quotes were to what one finds at Catholic Answers. You haven’t addressed what I said, nor have you told us what your source was. Instead, you just tell me that the charge is false, then say that you’re leaving the discussion.
And how many times now have you suggested that you’re finished with a discussion, only to continue posting?