Consular, I do agree that Revelation is "dreadfully symbolic, complex, metaphorical and open to many meanings." However, Revelation isn't the only witness we have regarding the departed. I posted Philippians 2 as another witness; and don't forget, after the crucifixion, Christ went and "proclaimed to the spirits in prison." 1 Peter 3:18-22 (ESV): 18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. We are only given brief insights into life after death, prior to the Resurrection. N.T. Wright wrote about "Life After Life After Death." In an interview You Can't Keep a Justified Man Down, Wright said, "One is going to heaven after you die, and the other is the resurrection of the body as the final destination. Many conservatives are puzzled when I tell them that there's not very much in the New Testament about going to heaven when you die, and that where you do find material in the New Testament about going to heaven when you die, this is a temporary thing. What really matters is resurrection—Life After Life After Death." [emphasis is mine] That's all for now. Got to get some things done. Peace and blessings, Anna
Anna, surely the spirits in prison were the just men and patriarchs of the old law, and that preaching-event was a unique moment of the Holy Triduum, that sanctified three days in which all was fulfilled? There's no need to argue this point much I guess. The fact is that God nowhere tells us to ask others to pray for us, only that we should always pray for one another. The injunction is an order to each person of himself. All these communion-of-saints assumptions are made up anyway. Just for one scholar's vision of Revelation: Interesting! The inclusion by John may have firstly been a way of cheering the Anatolian churches up!
Unfortunate! We should confess the truth as it stands, in its entirety! Creeds can be made, corrupted, and changed. The Scripture cannot be broken. I prefer the safest route at all times...
Adam, does the clause in the creed necessitate the ability to speak to departed saints? Both sides in this argument acccept the clause
You oppose the fact that we accept the Creed? We confess the Creed (and belief in the Communion of Saints) at Baptism, at Confirmation, and during Morning & Evening Prayer. No, it does not. But there are those who do not accept the Creed at all; and Consular just said that he does not accept the clause. Thus, I wanted to be sure that everyone knows: the Communion of Saints is not optional or disputed within Anglicanism or any historic Christianity. It means what it has always meant. It does not, by itself, necessitate the ability to speak to departed saints; but it can be used to support that view. It does mean that the Communion of Saints is real. It means that we are all part of one mystical Body.
I oppose the fact that the Church accepts one clause. It clearly is not present in any Eastern or Western version of the Creed until the 5th century. Neither Cyril of Jerusalem, nor Rufinus, nor Augustine add it to the Creed as received in their churches. I think it's untrustworthy as an orthodox clause because it seems to have been added to justify the developing veneration of the saints throughout the 4th and 5th centuries. When I pray Mattins & Evensong, I do reluctantly recite the clause, but in my own understanding of it and not in the vile sense that it first appeared in the rapidly-destabilising Church, which had taken in too many pagans to catechise properly (I think). "Any historic Christianity before A.D. 450 or so* - which is, oddly enough, the cutoff point for the Anglican Divines in recognising Ecumenical Councils and "The Fathers". If all that is meant by "the Communion of Saints" is the unified mystical body, surely the clause "the holy catholic church" satisfies for that requirement? Our clause in question is clearly a useless repetition, if that is all it means. It must mean something else, something more.
That's well and good, but does it imply more? "God is a God of the living", but what does the wakeful-sleep of the Church Triumphant actually mean for us here? Does their activity and knowledge of God and the world beneath, entitle them to hear the prayers of all Christians throughout the world at once? Remember, the O.P. asks "what about praying to saints?", not "are we all in this together?". We just need to define these things stringently, or else errors creep in - as they have done at Rome and in the East. That's all.
Half presbyterian? The insults are really flying now you quasi anglican lol, the historic creeds are listred with the westminster confession as subordinate standards of the church of scotland, and yes, it includes the communion of saints - it's very reformed Not that it really matters lol I'm with you in spirit in this topic
Well there you go 4 pages of sweating the small stuff again... Well it seems that on one side of the fence I am hell bound for asking the saints to pray for me and on the other side of the fence I am not... I am off to ask St Francis to put in a good word in for me.... I might even ask our Mother Mary to do the same thing...
If you don't mind my saying Gordon, it seems like you're rubbing the scrupulosity of some of us, into our own faces. "Four whole pages of wasted time! Oh well, I'll go pray to the saints while you sods worry yourselves to death. " We're worried and sweating over offending the all-holy, jealous, zealous, unique, perfect God. Allow us that! Allow us that little bit of awe and fear! God bless you and your familial outlook, but not all of us are there. The fact is, that if the Gospel is true, no merits or perfections of the saints are of any special avail for us. The saints would have been sinners if not for the extraordinary grace of He who has overcome the whole world. We all have confidence and boldness before Christ Jesus to go before the face of the All-Holy Father. By the Cross of the Son and His very blood, we are washed clean, all of us, and able to come before His presence with thanksgiving, with a new song. The idea of praying to anyone in Heaven but our most holy and loving Father (through our Lord & Saviour His Son, in the power of the Spirit) is utter rubbish to me, and an insult to my God. That is the last I will say in this thread, and I hope it will be enough. Grace alone through faith alone! Not the merits of the mother of us all, not works, not penances, not merits of the saints - no: Him, Him, and Him alone forever! Amen!
Brother you are free to write about what ever you like when ever you like and to who ever like. You can agree with who ever you like when ever you like I am simply making an observation again about how we as humans can spend 4 pages on this after 2 other fairly lengthy threads on exactly the same subject and not one person has changed their stand on this matter.... Actually it is quite fascinating and IMHO I don't think God is really concerned about who you talk to and when you do it...
Indeed, The Communion of the Saints is part of Anglicanism and historic Christianity. I think Consular is perhaps "over correcting" out of fear that he would be "invoking the dead," which is a valid and important concern. Yet, we know from Holy Scripture that through Christ the saints are alive and resting in Him; and as you said, we are all part of the Mystical Body of Christ. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. An example of an actual "invocation of the dead" can be found in 1 Samuel Chapter 28, in the well known story of Saul asking the medium/witch of En-dor to summon the spirit of Samuel. I've read different interpretations of this passage. Some claim it was really Samuel who appeared from the dead. Some think it was a demon in disguise. Whatever the case, the spirit knew Saul's future and foretold his death (which unfolded as foretold according to 1 Samuel Chapter 31.) 1 Samuel 28 (ESV): 15 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” Saul answered, “I am in great distress, for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams. Therefore I have summoned you to tell me what I shall do.” 16 And Samuel said, “Why then do you ask me, since the Lord has turned from you and become your enemy? 17 The Lord has done to you as he spoke by me, for the Lord has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, David. 18 Because you did not obey the voice of the Lord and did not carry out his fierce wrath against Amalek, therefore the Lord has done this thing to you this day. 19 Moreover, the Lord will give Israel also with you into the hand of the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me. The Lord will give the army of Israel also into the hand of the Philistines.” This occurred prior to the Passion of Christ and his proclamation to the "spirits in prison." Don't misunderstand me. I'm against the use of mediums and all sorts of divination. That is dangerous territory to be sure; but it is entirely different from the Communion of the Saints. Certainly much to ponder. Anna