tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7827800131616784034..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Desperate To Justify Prayers To The DeadRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger139125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73544987192986276592013-09-29T22:40:13.030-04:002013-09-29T22:40:13.030-04:00(continued from above)
MG makes some claims about...(continued from above)<br /><br />MG makes some claims about prayers to the dead in ancient Judaism. He cites an article that I've already responded to. Go to <a href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/05/daniels-susanna-why-isnt-it-biblical.html" rel="nofollow">the thread at Beggar's All that I linked earlier</a>. Use the Ctrl F feature on your keyboard to search for "post-Biblical Judaism". Read my comments that follow. MG cites the article and calls it an "excellent essay" (note 12), despite the problems involved with citing the article in support of his position.<br /><br />MG draws some of his material from <a href="http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-intercession-of-the-saints" rel="nofollow">a Catholic Answers tract that's largely misleading and irrelevant</a>. See my discussion of that tract in response to Christine earlier in this thread. Go to her 10:40 P.M. post on 6/4/10. Read my responses that follow.<br /><br />Having said all of that, you might want to go back and reread the third paragraph of my response to you tonight. I think it's an accurate summary of the evidence.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72178934032496834962013-09-29T22:39:25.947-04:002013-09-29T22:39:25.947-04:00(continued from above)
Regarding his citations of...(continued from above)<br /><br />Regarding his citations of catacomb inscriptions and other such sources, see my earlier comments on that line of evidence. MG admits that there's much we don't know about the sources behind catacomb inscriptions and the like, and he admits that the dating is often disputed.<br /><br />He brings up a prayer to Mary that he dates to around 250. But <a href="http://theoblogoumena.blogspot.com/2007/08/john-rylands-papyrus-470.html" rel="nofollow">the article he cites</a>, after mentioning the 250 dating, tells us "Some initially placed the papyrus in the fourth or fifth century (the John Rylands Library description below lists it as 3rd - 4th century)". Sarah Jane Boss dates it to "the fourth or fifth century" (Empress And Handmaid [New York, New York: Continuum, 2000], n. 1 on 41). Natalia Smelova dates the manuscript to "fourth-century (?)" (in Leslie Brubaker and Mary Cunningham, edd., The Cult Of The Mother Of God In Byzantium [Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing, 2011], 118). Others date it earlier. I haven't followed the dispute closely. I don't know what the correct dating is. But MG doesn't provide an argument for the 250 dating.<br /><br />What about something like a catacomb inscription that addresses a dead person in some way? I've argued that it could be equivalent to a psalmist addressing mountains (Psalm 114:6), Protestant hymns that address angels, Protestant poetry addressing the dead, or addresses to the dead at Protestant gravesites. If Protestants and other people who don't believe in praying to the dead or angels use such rhetorical devices, how does MG distinguish the ancient sources he's citing from the modern ones I just mentioned?<br /><br />(continued below)Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74641495080905820712013-09-29T22:38:17.716-04:002013-09-29T22:38:17.716-04:00(continued from above)
The earliest source he cit...(continued from above)<br /><br />The earliest source he cites after Hermas is Hippolytus. I've already refuted his misuse of that source. See <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/06/hippolytus-and-prayers-to-dead.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />The Origen passage is likewise one I've addressed before. See <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/06/perry-robinson-on-prayers-to-dead.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. MG's article you've cited apparently uses a different numbering system for Origen's treatise, but it seems to be the same passage I discussed in the thread linked above. If it isn't the same passage, then it's one that doesn't contain any significant conceptual difference that I'm aware of.<br /><br />Furthermore, MG's article doesn't interact with the large amount of evidence against prayers to the dead and angels in Origen's writings, which I've discussed in many places. I've already provided some relevant links, and you can search the archives for more material.<br /><br />Thus, the only three fathers MG cites from the ante-Nicene era fail to support his position. I've shown that they support my position rather than his.<br /><br />(continued below)Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1529040365733984562013-09-29T22:37:16.308-04:002013-09-29T22:37:16.308-04:00(continued from above)
The only source MG cites p...(continued from above)<br /><br />The only source MG cites prior to the third century is Hermas. I'm excluding his appeal to Irenaeus, since he doesn't demonstrate that Irenaeus said anything supporting MG's position. And I've argued that the evidence we have from Irenaeus goes in the opposite direction.<br /><br />The Hermas passage mentions an angel, so it wouldn't be about prayers to the dead. I've argued in the past for the importance of distinguishing between the two (e.g., angels could have powers that deceased humans don't have; angels are portrayed in scripture as frequently traveling to earth and as being more closely involved in earthly affairs than deceased humans are in other ways).<br /><br />But does the Hermas passage even support praying to angels? A being appears to Hermas. Who denies that it's permissible to speak to a being who appears to us? There are many Biblical examples of people speaking with angels who come to earth or who appear to humans in visions, for example. That's not equivalent to initiating a discussion with an angel by praying to that angel when you don't know that he's in your presence in any relevant way and you don't know that he'll be aware of your prayer. I've addressed such distinctions in the past, like <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/do-passages-like-genesis-19-and-luke-16.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. There's nothing in the passage MG has cited that suggests Hermas supported prayer to angels, and praying to angels is different than praying to the dead.<br /><br />He quotes a translation using the phrase "I prayed", but the being Hermas is addressing is visible and nearby. Michael Holmes' translation uses the phrase "I urgently asked" rather than "I prayed" (The Apostolic Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2005], 435). MG doesn't explain to his readers that Hermas is addressing a being with whom he had been having a conversation, a visible being who was nearby. Instead, MG begins his quotation with the words "I prayed" and goes on to refer to how Hermas was "praying" to this being. That's misleading.<br /><br />Furthermore, MG doesn't quote what Hermas goes on to say:<br /><br />"Sir, since I have you with me, I must of necessity ask you and inquire of you, for you show me everything and speak with me; but if I had seen or heard them without you, I would have asked the Lord, that it might be explained to me." (ibid., 435)<br /><br />Hermas is having a discussion with this being because "I have [him] with me". If the being hadn't appeared to Hermas, he'd go to God instead. He doesn't say that he'd pray to an angel or deceased person. Rather, he'd pray to God. Those comments undermine MG's position rather than supporting it.<br /><br />(continued below)Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85300838716318589032013-09-29T22:34:50.175-04:002013-09-29T22:34:50.175-04:00Midas,
You refer to "the veneration of the s...Midas,<br /><br />You refer to "the veneration of the saints", but this thread is focused on prayers to the deceased. My response below will be focused on the latter rather than the former, which is a broader issue.<br /><br />And you referred to Perry Robinson as the author of the article you cited. I don't know why you're attributing it to him. It's attributed to MG <a href="http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/author/mgmg1/" rel="nofollow">here</a>. And MG seems to refer to himself as the author in the comments section of the thread. See his comments at 10:40 P.M. on 7/29/11.<br /><br />MG claims that "There are no examples of orthodox Christians opposed to these practices [including praying to the dead]." A commenter in the thread tells us "one encounters something such as intercessory prayer to the saints and finds no objections to the practice before the 16th century". I've provided arguments to the contrary, in this thread, the other threads I've linked here, and elsewhere. As I've documented, as early as the second century, Celsus implied that Christians in general prayed only to God and were opposed to praying to other beings, such as angels. I've cited multiple fathers, from East and West, opposing prayer to the dead in some manner, including multiple sources from the second century. In comparison to what MG has given us, my ante-Nicene sources are more numerous, more mainstream, and often more contextually relevant (e.g., they make their comments in treatises directly addressing prayer). I've argued that the Biblical evidence, which is even earlier than what MG is discussing, is opposed to praying to the dead and angels as well. I've cited many sources from the second century and earlier, the cumulative weight of which is much more significant than what MG has cited.<br /><br />I'm going to be focused here on the most relevant evidence MG cites, the allegedly more explicit references to praying to the dead and angels. I'm focused on the first of his three numbered sections. I'll be addressing that section more than the rest, since the other portions of the article are relatively insignificant for reasons I've addressed in the past (e.g., you can think that deceased humans and angels pray <i>with</i> you, yet not believe in praying <i>to</i> them).<br /><br />(continued below)Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-90451833048091592013-09-17T16:59:41.416-04:002013-09-17T16:59:41.416-04:00Thank you for the thorough reply, Jason. I have a ...Thank you for the thorough reply, Jason. I have a couple further questions on this subject. First, how would you deal with Perry Robinson's collection of ante-Nicene patristic quotations and his analyses of them (http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/prayers-to-saints-in-the-pre-nicene-era/)? He seems to cover some early church fathers which do not appear to be addressed in this or other related threads. Particularly, what would you say about his analysis of Origen, which I quote at length:<br /><br />"1.3 Origen of Alexandria:<br /><br />Now supplication and plea and thanksgiving may be offered to people without impropriety. Two of them, namely pleading and thanksgiving, might be offered not only to saints but to people alone in general, whereas supplication should be offered to saints alone, should there be found a Paul or a Peter, who may benefit us and make us worthy to attain authority for the forgiveness of sins.<br /><br />On Prayer, 14.6 [3]<br />Alexandria, Circa AD 253<br /><br />In Origen’s discussion of prayer, he distinguishes the kind of prayer that should be offered to God alone, and the kind of prayer that should be offered to humans. Remember that prayer is any kind of “asking”. Among the prayers that can be offered to humans, the kind of prayer that should be offered to only saints (which could mean Christians alive on earth or Christians departed) is supplication, while the kinds of prayer that can be offered to all people (saints or not) are plea and thanksgiving. The context is ambiguous about whether Origen means by saints the living or the departed; he uses “saints” in both senses depending on context. Four factors contribute to the conclusion that he is talking about departed saints. First, he clearly teaches (see the Origen quote included in section 2 below) that departed saints can pray for us (though this point considered all by itself does not support the interpretation that these are departed saints). Second, he speaks as though it is difficult to find saints of the kind he is discussing, implying that it is not merely normal Christians he is talking about. Third, he mentions Peter and Paul as examples of the kind of difficult-to-find saints, and they are indeed deceased and lived a holy life, implying that it is Christians of the deceased and holy variety that are hard to find, but permissible to pray to. Fourth, he speaks of how these saints “may benefit us and make us worthy to attain authority for the forgiveness of sins.” This suggests that the power or authority that they make available is spiritual strength to overcome the power of sin: again, this could not just be a request made to any Christian. Perhaps this power for forgiveness could be a reference to absolution by a priest; but given the mention of Peter and Paul this is not likely."<br /><br />Do you think that Perry's arguments regarding Origen and the other ECFs he cites makes it more plausible than not that they held to the veneration of the saints? If not, what could one say in response to his arguments?Midashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16116187071955572970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76089681357379946632013-08-21T17:53:13.242-04:002013-08-21T17:53:13.242-04:00Midas,
You can find a collection of links to many...Midas,<br /><br />You can find a collection of links to many of our articles on prayer <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/03/christian-view-of-prayer.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Some of the articles are specifically about Origen's view of prayer. And you can find other relevant material in the Triablogue archives with a Google search.<br /><br />We've offered a wide variety of arguments against prayer to the dead and angels. Our case doesn't depend on whether worship is involved in the prayer.<br /><br />However, since you brought the subject up, notice the distinction between the following claims:<br /><br />- We shouldn't pray to the dead in a way that involves worship.<br /><br />- We shouldn't pray to the dead, since praying to the dead is a form of worshipping them.<br /><br />A Catholic or Orthodox agreement with the first statement doesn't reconcile their position with the second statement. Whether a particular source, such as Origen, meant to make the first claim, the second claim, or something else has to be judged case-by-case. One way of discerning what was meant is to look at how the language is most naturally interpreted. For example, does Origen say that we should avoid praying to an entity under particular circumstances? Or does he say that we should avoid praying to that entity without qualification? If the latter, yet a Catholic or Orthodox suggests that we should read a qualification into the text, then he's proposing a less natural interpretation. Since Origen addresses the subject of prayer so many times, in so many contexts and from so many angles, we're not dependent on something like one or two phrases he used in one or two places. Rather, we have a lot of evidence to draw from. And that evidence points in the direction of his opposition to praying to the dead and angels. You can see the articles I referred to above, as well as earlier posts in this thread, for my arguments to that effect.<br /><br />We should take a similar approach on the issue of whether the patristic sources are only condemning "asking the dead to answer certain requests using their own power rather than 'passing them on' to God". Do the sources in question suggest such a qualification? How does the person arguing for that qualification supposedly know that the dead and angels hear our prayers, which they then pass on to God? How would their qualification explain the absence of prayer to the dead and angels in contexts in which we'd expect people to mention the practice if they believed in it? And so on. The qualification being proposed isn't suggested by the sources in question, and it fails to address some of the issues involved.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-59101529980371385312013-08-21T00:09:53.570-04:002013-08-21T00:09:53.570-04:00(Continued above)
Second, regarding Origen's ...(Continued above)<br /><br />Second, regarding Origen's work against Celsus, Origen says in Against Celsus 5:11 the following:<br /><br />"But even this rational light itself ought not to be worshipped by him who beholds and understands the true light, by sharing in which these also are enlightened; nor by him who beholds God, the Father of the true light,—of whom it has been said, “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.” Those, indeed, who worship sun, moon, and stars because their light is visible and celestial, would not bow down to a spark of fire or a lamp upon earth, because they see the incomparable superiority of those objects which are deemed worthy of homage to the light of sparks and lamps. So those who understand that God is light, and who have apprehended that the Son of God is “the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” and who comprehend also how He says, “I am the light of the world,” would not rationally offer worship to that which is, as it were, a spark in sun, moon, and stars, in comparison with God, who is light of the true light. Nor is it with a view to depreciate these great works of God’s creative power, or to call them, after the fashion of Anaxagoras, “fiery masses,” that we thus speak of sun, and moon, and stars; but because we perceive the inexpressible superiority of the divinity of God, and that of His only-begotten Son, which surpasses all other things. And being persuaded that the sun himself, and moon, and stars pray to the Supreme God through His only-begotten Son, we judge it improper to pray to those beings who themselves offer up prayers (to God), seeing even they themselves would prefer that we should send up our requests to the God to whom they pray, rather than send them downwards to themselves, or apportion our power of prayer between God and them. And here I may employ this illustration, as bearing upon this point: Our Lord and Saviour, hearing Himself on one occasion addressed as “Good Master,” referring him who used it to His own Father, said, “Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God the Father.” And since it was in accordance with sound reason that this should be said by the Son of His Father’s love, as being the image of the goodness of God, why should not the sun say with greater reason to those that bow down to him, Why do you worship me? “for thou wilt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve;” for it is He whom I and all who are with me serve and worship. And although one may not be so exalted (as the sun), nevertheless let such an one pray to the Word of God (who is able to heal him), and still more to His Father, who also to the righteous of former times “sent His word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions.”"<br /><br />By the looks of it, it seems that Origen is condemning prayer to created beings in the context of worshipping them since Origen's analogy regarding celestial bodies and sparks of a fire/a lamp says that both are worshipped. Yet, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox (as well as those who do not identify with either but still think that we should pray to the dead) will claim that they only offer dulia to the saints (and hyperdulia to Mary) and not latria, which is worship. Do you think that this could be used as an escape route against Origen's testimony here?Midashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16116187071955572970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9042282525745118152013-08-21T00:09:33.857-04:002013-08-21T00:09:33.857-04:00Thanks for the useful comments in this thread, Jas...Thanks for the useful comments in this thread, Jason and Steve. I've found a lot of the information you've presented to be quite helpful in exposing Rome and Constantinople's claims about the early church. I had two questions that I'd appreciate your help on.<br /><br />First, while it is true that Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox sources do speak of praying to and invoking saints, couldn't someone who is not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox but still believes that it is permissible to send our requests to dead saints (I can imagine some Anglo-Catholics fitting this description) claim that the patristic condemnation of prayer only refers to asking the dead to answer certain requests using their own power rather than "passing them on" to God? I recognize that you both have dealt with this objection, but it seems that your main response is that Catholic and Orthodox documents do not define prayer that way. But, this response would not seem to apply to someone who fits the aforesaid description, so I'm wondering if there is anything more that can be said to show that prayer in the patristic context is to understood broad enough so as to include asking someone to pray for oneself.<br /><br />(Continued below)Midashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16116187071955572970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38876037944020957992010-06-16T18:07:58.113-04:002010-06-16T18:07:58.113-04:00(continued from above)
You write:
"First, o...(continued from above)<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"First, one can consider someone a fellow Christian while still disagreeing with fundamentals."</i></b> <br /><br />If a belief isn't necessary for being a Christian, then why should we classify it as "fundamental"?<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"I assume he acknowledges that all the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers support the practice of requesting the saints’ intercession."</i></b> <br /><br />No, what I acknowledge is that the practice was popular in the post-Nicene era. When beliefs develop over time, they go through transitional phases. Some sources comment on the subject, and some don't. Even if every father had commented on the issue, I don't know what position every father held.<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"My answer: There is a big difference--all the fathers were of one voice when it came to requesting the saints’ intercession."</i></b> <br /><br />I reject that claim, for reasons I've explained. You haven't documented any support for prayer to the dead among the earlier fathers. And I've argued for early opposition to the practice. Its popularity in later generations doesn't prove that "all the fathers were of one voice".<br /><br />And I've repeatedly cited examples of patristic opposition to Roman Catholic doctrine, including at times when none of the fathers were advocating the Roman Catholic view. I repeatedly asked you to address the example of the sinlessness of Mary, and I linked you to my material on the subject. You've decided to not respond.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7737853053069450602010-06-16T18:07:31.654-04:002010-06-16T18:07:31.654-04:00(continued from above)
You write:
"The burd...(continued from above)<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"The burden is on Jason to show that Lactantius means it in this way (and it’s a burden he will not be able to meet)."</i></b> <br /><br />I've already argued for my view of Lactantius in multiple threads at Triablogue and at Scott Windsor's blog. You're ignoring most of what I said in those discussions.<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"It is a historical fact that the majority of the Church came to view Vigilantius as a heretic, and on this basis, he remains. It wasn’t Jerome’s lone opinion. A few renegade bishops may have supported Vigilantius, but that proves nothing--no more than the fact that a few renegade bishops who supported Arius somehow frees Arius from the stigma of heresy."</i></b> <br /><br />That's an argument from analogy minus the argument. Why should we think that Vigilantius was a heretic in any relevant sense? If something like opposition to prayer to the dead is what allegedly makes Vigilantius a heretic, then Protestants would be heretics by such a standard. If Vigilantius was only a heretic in that sense, then why should any Protestant think that we shouldn't cite Vigilantius because of his status as a heretic? If you're going to define opposition to prayer to the dead as heresy, then what's the sense in asking for non-heretical historical sources who opposed prayer to the dead?<br /><br />(continued below)Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47155338359813994692010-06-16T18:07:02.884-04:002010-06-16T18:07:02.884-04:00(continued from above)
You write:
"As to At...(continued from above)<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"As to Athenagoras, the only mention of prayer in ch. 15 is the prayer of pagans to manmade idols of gold or silver. Again irrelevant. As to ch. 20, after listing a litany of Greek gods--Zeus, Demeter, Persephone, Kronos, Ouranos, Koré, etc.--he asks, How, then, I ask, can we approach them as suppliants, when their origin resembles that of cattle, and they themselves have the form of brutes, and are ugly to behold? Again, anyone can see this has nothing whatsoever to do with requesting the saints’ intercession. The fact that Jason would even compare the saints in heaven with mythical Greek gods boggles the mind."</i></b> <br /><br />Why are you ignoring my explanation of why I cited those passages in Athenagoras? As I explained, I cited the passages because of what Athenagoras says about the nature of the proper recipient of prayer. In both sections I cited, Athenagoras argues against prayer to gods on the basis of the distinction between the Creator and creation. In other words, we shouldn't pray to any creature. We should only pray to the Creator.<br /><br />And if you want to argue, again, that Athenagoras was only condemning a particular type of prayer to creatures, but not a lesser type of prayer practiced by Roman Catholics, then you need to justify the reading of such a qualifier into the text. We don't begin with an assumption that such a qualifier is in mind.<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"Jason's quote from Hippolytus says absolutely nothing in reference to, much less against, requesting the saints’ intercession. Frankly, I’m not even sure how he thinks this is evidence in his favor."</i></b> <br /><br />Hippolytus defines prayer as "supplication offered to God for anything requisite". He doesn't mention angels or the deceased. You can assume that he also believed in praying to angels and the dead, in order to get them to bring requests to God. But you'd have to justify the reading of such a qualifier into his comment. And, as I documented earlier in our discussion, Catholics don't just pray to the dead and angels in an attempt to get them to bring requests to God. Rather, they also praise the dead, thank them, etc. Hippolytus' definition of prayer doesn't include such concepts.<br /><br />(continued below)Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56240395172007927412010-06-16T18:06:31.367-04:002010-06-16T18:06:31.367-04:00(continued from above)
You write:
"Jason...(continued from above)<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"Jason's quote of Tertullian is irrelevant, as it speaks nothing of prayer."</i></b> <br /><br />I referred you to my 11:19 P.M. post on June 4 in the thread <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/06/desperate-to-justify-prayers-to-dead.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. My Tertullian quote there is about prayer. Apparently, you went to the wrong post.<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"What tosh! As if the truths of the faith must be subject to empirical verification in order to prove their veracity! Try doing that with the doctrine of the Trinity. If that is what Jason is saying, then he's quite muddled with regard to proofs of the natural and the supernatural."</i></b> <br /><br />I didn't mention "empirical verification". I said that we need evidence, which would include the evidence of Divine revelation. I said that you need to produce an argument that our ability to pray to the dead and the acceptability of so praying are <i>probable</i>, not just possible. It's not enough to say that the dead <i>might</i> receive our prayers. Imagining how they might do that doesn't give us reason to think it's probable that they do it.<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"The definition of evoke is 'to call up; cause to appear; summon: to evoke a spirit from the dead.' This is not what Catholics do when they request the saints' intercession--we do not summon a spirit to appear--and therefore Justin Martyr's quote here is utterly irrelevant."</i></b> <br /><br />As I've documented, your own denomination uses terms like "invoke" to refer to prayer to the dead, yet you assume a different definition whenever a patristic source uses such a term. A term like "invoke" or "evoke" <i>can</i> involve trying to make an entity appear, but that's not inherent in the term. You keep adding qualifiers to what these patristic sources said, then you dismiss their comments as irrelevant on the basis of those qualifiers. But we don't begin with the assumption that a broad term is being used in a narrower, qualified sense. Ancient pagans did sometimes try to get spirits to appear. But they also tried to communicate with the dead and angels without any appearance involved. If they required an appearance every time they prayed, most of them would have soon noticed that their prayers were failing.<br /><br />(continued below)Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38727861896616074712010-06-16T18:06:08.750-04:002010-06-16T18:06:08.750-04:00(continued from above)
You write:
"It’s mis...(continued from above)<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"It’s misleading for Jason to quote this in his favor, since these chapters in Book VIII specifically deal with Celsus’ call for Christians to join in sacrificial offerings to demons. Origen clearly defines what is meant by 'demons' here"</i></b> <br /><br />You're ignoring the distinction between Celsus' definition and Origen's, which I pointed out earlier. See Against Celsus 5:5, as well as the other relevant material I've discussed <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/06/roman-catholics-and-eastern-orthodox.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Origen addresses the term "demon" in more than one sense, not just the sense you've highlighted, and Celsus had objected to the Christian view of prayer on multiple grounds. He didn't just criticize Christians for neglecting angels within his own (Celsus') belief system. He also criticized Christians for neglecting angels within their own system of belief.<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"The fact that Origen would make the disclaimer that the saints and angels in heaven even when not asked pray with us on earth means that other situations exist in which we do ask them to pray with us."</i></b> <br /><br />You're ignoring the context. Origen is responding to Celsus, who argued that angels should be prayed to. Origen had been making the point that we don't need to pray to angels in order for them to be favorable to us. He never approaches this issue as a Roman Catholic would. He never responds to Celsus by arguing that we should pray to angels in some sense that's lesser than our prayers to God. Rather, he denies that we should pray to angels at all.<br /><br />(continued below)Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41322841000849309632010-06-16T18:05:39.214-04:002010-06-16T18:05:39.214-04:00(continued from above)
You write:
"It very ...(continued from above)<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"It very clearly sets forth a type of prayer that involves worship, asking forgiveness, and contemplation. None of these is relevant to requesting the saints’ intercession, since any Catholic will readily acknowledge that we do not worship, ask forgiveness from, or contemplate the saints. These are reserved for God alone, and Origen rightly notes that."</i></b> <br /><br />When God is the recipient of prayer, then prayer involves saying and doing things appropriate to communication with God. It doesn't therefore follow that terms like "pray" and "invoke" always carry with them attributes reserved to God alone. As I've documented, your own denomination applies such terms to communication with the deceased and angels. And you've cited later patristic sources using such terms in that manner. If the Catechism Of The Catholic Church refers to praying to God for forgiveness, do you therefore assume that all references to prayer in the catechism must be referring to prayer to God? No, that would be an unreasonable assumption. Similarly, the fact hat Origen describes prayer to God as involving attributes that wouldn't be involved in prayer to a lesser being doesn't prove that every reference to prayer in Origen assumes the attributes of prayer to God.<br /><br />You refer to "a type of prayer". But the fact that Origen argues for a type or prayer directed to God doesn't prove that he only had that type in mind when he denied that we should pray to other beings. Origen repeatedly made unqualified denials that we should pray to the dead and angels, and you're assuming that he meant to qualify those denials. Supposedly, he only meant to deny that we should give the dead and angels the <i>type</i> of prayer you describe above. That isn't what Origen says, though. You're reading that qualifier into the text. It's unlikely that he or Celsus had such a qualifier in mind, for reasons like the ones I've explained in the thread <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/06/roman-catholics-and-eastern-orthodox.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. If you want us to believe that <i>unqualified</i> terms like "pray" and "invoke" had the <i>qualified</i> meaning you refer to above, then you bear the burden of proof.<br /><br />(continued below)Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-10190934017584221282010-06-16T18:05:11.763-04:002010-06-16T18:05:11.763-04:00Christine writes:
"Based on this, he claims ...Christine writes:<br /><br /><b><i>"Based on this, he claims that '[p]raying to the dead…is unbiblical [and] anti-Biblical.' An 'anti-biblical' practice is sinful, is it not? So I repeat,Jason extrapolates from silence that requesting saints’ intercession is therefore sinful."</i></b> <br /><br />You quote some of my comments on silence, then quote one of my comments on the anti-Biblical nature of prayer to the dead, then claim that I "extrapolate from silence that requesting saints’ intercession is therefore sinful". You aren't giving us any reason to agree with your assessment. The fact that I refer to prayer to the dead as anti-Biblical doesn't prove that my conclusion is based on silence. You've combined my comments in two different threads, and you've ignored the evidence I cited to support my conclusions. I distinguished between silence and condemnation, which is why I referred to prayer to the dead as both "unbiblical" and "anti-Biblical", and I cited Biblical and patristic passages that contradict the practice. Your claim that I derived sinfulness from silence is false.<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"I responded that one of the definitions of 'to invoke' is 'to call forth or upon (a spirit) by incantation,' i.e., to summon a spirit to manifest itself. No one should 'invoke' the angels, if by that we mean summon them to manifest themselves."</i></b> <br /><br />And I cited Roman Catholic documents that refer to "praying to" and "invoking" the dead. It's not enough for you to cite "one of the definitions". You need to address what definition Celsus and Origen had in mind. You haven't argued for the definition you've proposed.<br /><br />Since Origen mentions that we should pray to and invoke God, not angels or deceased humans, it's doubtful that he was referring to invoking in the sense you've suggested. Did Christians use "incantations" to get God to "manifest" Himself? No, they didn't. Your proposed definition is absurd.<br /><br />(continued below)Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71296892705938714322010-06-15T21:30:13.233-04:002010-06-15T21:30:13.233-04:00I've responded in detail to Jason here.I've responded in detail to Jason <a href="http://laudemgloriae.blogspot.com/2010/06/on-intercession-of-saints.html" rel="nofollow">here.</a>Christinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05205862627682998184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31191722698376636252010-06-14T16:19:15.200-04:002010-06-14T16:19:15.200-04:00Jason,
It reflects poorly on you that you would we...Jason,<br />It reflects poorly on you that you would welcome and support spurious arguments like those Steve and Gene have made. If some Catholic ignorant of Protestant theology started spewing nonsense over at my blog, I would gladly correct him. I suppose, though, that any anti-Catholic is a friend of yours. <br /><br />As to the rest of your comments, I'll deal with them later when I have free time.Christinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05205862627682998184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73962934806524880592010-06-14T12:30:43.134-04:002010-06-14T12:30:43.134-04:00If only Steve's posts would measure up to Chri...If only Steve's posts would measure up to Christine's high standards. Maybe Steve should copy and paste some irrelevant patristic quotes from a Protestant equivalent of Catholic Answers, vaguely point people to books that allegedly support his view without offering any further documentation when asked, repeatedly misrepresent the topic under discussion even after having been corrected repeatedly by multiple people, etc.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-4437100654857974382010-06-14T11:58:02.212-04:002010-06-14T11:58:02.212-04:00If your submission to the Magisterium is contingen...<i>If your submission to the Magisterium is contingent on your private judgment regarding the orthodoxy or heresy of the Magisterium, then you're a crypto-Protestant.</i><br /><br />*Sigh.* This convoluted argument confirms the reason why I refuse to deal with Steve. Back to ignore.Christinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05205862627682998184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86429820451911869362010-06-13T23:36:43.301-04:002010-06-13T23:36:43.301-04:00STEVE SAID:
Christine said...
"At least mak...STEVE SAID:<br /> Christine said...<br /><br />"At least make an effort to understand the Catholic Church's position on obedience before throwing out wildly inaccurate claims as this one."<br /><br />Who appointed you to speak for Catholicism, anyway? Are you La Popessa?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79140356693413461322010-06-13T23:26:05.573-04:002010-06-13T23:26:05.573-04:00CHRISTINE SAID:
"Steve, your reasoning here ...CHRISTINE SAID:<br /><br />"Steve, your reasoning here is so inane as to be laughable. It demonstrates the utter ignorance and misrepresentation of anti-Catholics eager to denounce the Church whose positions they do not comprehend. At least make an effort to understand the Catholic Church's position on obedience before throwing out wildly inaccurate claims as this one. As an anti-Catholic Evangelical once myself, I all too well understand that tendency among Protestants."<br /><br />The church of Rome is a hierarchical institution. And you yourself said that heresy penetrated the highest reaches of the hierarchy.<br /><br />Are you now telling us that the laity stands in judgment of the hierarchy? In that event, why bother with the Magisterium at all? <br /><br />If your submission to the Magisterium is contingent on your private judgment regarding the orthodoxy or heresy of the Magisterium, then you're a crypto-Protestant.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-10274039275201947392010-06-13T22:29:56.775-04:002010-06-13T22:29:56.775-04:00(continued from above)
You write:
"Ah, but ...(continued from above)<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"Ah, but there’s a crucial difference: although individual Catholics may disagree on various points, the Magisterium itself does not offer different views on the sacraments, salvation, Scriptural inerrancy, etc."</i></b> <br /><br />Actually, the Catholic hierarchy has contradicted itself over the years. I've cited examples many times before. See, for instance, the articles I linked earlier about ecumenical councils.<br /><br />Even if we were to assume a unity of teaching by the magisterium, or dismiss all of the contradictions as fallible and thus unofficial and irrelevant, you're drawing a false comparison. You're comparing disunity among Protestants to unity within the Catholic rule of faith. But just as you claim that the magisterium is consistent, I would claim that scripture is consistent. If Catholics can disagree with each other, as long as their rule of faith is consistent, then the same standard should be applied to Protestants.<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"In some cases, the Church leaves the question open, so disagreement is possible (e.g., eschatology, evolution, etc.). But on the fundamentals, the Magisterium is clear. Not so among the many different Protestant denominations, who cannot even agree on the fundamentals."</i></b> <br /><br />You're begging the question about what is and isn't fundamental. You cited the example of Protestant disagreement over credobaptism. You haven't given us any reason to consider that issue a fundamental one. I consider Presbyterians fellow Christians, even though I disagree with them on infant baptism. Why are we supposed to believe that my disagreement with Presbyterians over infant baptism is more significant than your disagreements with liberal Catholic theologians, Catholics who disagree with you about the salvation of non-Catholics, sedevacantists, etc.?Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-61279936438499155412010-06-13T22:29:31.247-04:002010-06-13T22:29:31.247-04:00(continued from above)
You write:
"Second, ...(continued from above)<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"Second, he is considered a heretic—so you might as well quote Donatus or Marcion or Arius for your position. St. Jerome very clearly condemns Vigilantius’s erroneous claims."</i></b> <br /><br />Jerome also condemned some of your beliefs and sometimes condemned the bishop of Rome (Letter 127:9-10). You'll have to explain why being condemned by Jerome would prove that a source shouldn't be cited in this context. If being condemned by Jerome is enough of a basis for dismissing a source, then why didn't you dismiss Vigilantius on that basis earlier? And what about the bishops and other Christians who supported Vigilantius? Why does Jerome get to decide who's a heretic? And if the alleged heresy in question is opposition to prayer to the dead, then you're begging the question by assuming that such a position is heresy. Whether it's heresy is one of the issues under dispute in this thread.<br /><br />Putting Vigilantius in the same category as Marcion and Arius doesn't make sense. What foundational doctrine of Christianity did Vigilantius deny? Jerome himself acknowledged that Vigilantius was a Christian (Letter 61:3).<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"I’m going to go back and deal directly with your response on Lactantius, as I missed it the first time. (No, I did not ignore it, as you love to claim—how about giving the benefit of the doubt, rather than being quick to accuse? Is that not the least that Christian charity demands?)"</i></b> <br /><br />The problem is that you've been "missing" a lot, and you keep making false claims about having responded to everything.<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"Um, where did I ever make this argument? You totally misunderstand me if you think this is the argument I’m making (which I’ve never made). Of course Lactantius is discussing praying to the physically dead. What I deny is that Lactantius condemns requesting the saints’ intercession."</i></b> <br /><br />Here's what you wrote in your 3:13 P.M. post on June 5, in response to some of my comments on Lactantius:<br /><br /><b><i>"First of all, Catholics do not 'pray to the dead,' we pray to living saints in Heaven."</i></b> <br /><br />The reason why I addressed what sort of dead people Lactantius was referring to was because <i>you</i> disputed the point.<br /><br />If the saints are physically dead, then you need to explain why Lactantius' condemnation of praying to the physically dead doesn't apply to praying to those physically dead saints.<br /><br />(continued below)Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-51674404300768919412010-06-13T22:28:59.076-04:002010-06-13T22:28:59.076-04:00(continued from above)
You write:
"When an ...(continued from above)<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"When an early church father claims we pray to God alone, every Catholic will agree with you, because we acknowledge that the saints lay our petitions before God, so that ultimately, we all pray to God alone."</i></b> <br /><br />The fact that a petition is placed before God doesn't prove that only God is prayed to. See my citations of the Catechism Of The Catholic Church and Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII above. As I documented, your own denomination's leadership affirms a Roman Catholic belief in praying to the dead. If you pray to Mary <i>and</i> God, then you aren't praying to God alone. Praying to Mary in order to have her bring your petition to God isn't the most natural way of interpreting a phrase like "pray to God alone".<br /><br />But, for the sake of argument, let's temporarily assume that our interpretations of such a phrase are equally reasonable. The fact that we don't find examples of these ante-Nicene sources referring to prayers to the dead in their writings, in contrast to their hundreds of references to prayers to God, favors my interpretation over yours. Why would they so persistently not refer to praying to the dead if they believed in it?<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"The drinking and driving analogy was one among hundreds of others that would demonstrate the clear and natural import of Isaiah and Deuteronomy. I offered another analogy to clarify this, and you failed to interact with it."</i></b> <br /><br />In other words, you ignored my response to your first analogy, but now you want me to respond to a second analogy. Why should I do that? So that you can ignore my second response as well? Respond to what I said about your first analogy.<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"On Vigilantius: first of all, he is not an ante-Nicene father."</i></b> <br /><br />You keep making mistakes that suggest you don't even understand what we're discussing. I was addressing the post-Nicene era when I cited Vigilantius, not the ante-Nicene era.<br /><br />(continued below)Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.com