"Either The Saints are Alive or Jesus is dead," a new and timely blog entry by the Conciliar Anglican. Warning, the following blog post contains historical citations, backing from the Church fathers, evidence, and classical Anglican history. If you don't want to think outside your own box, then avoid this blog at all costs!! In all seriousness, just try to read it with an open mind! http://conciliaranglican.com/2012/09/05/either-the-saints-are-alive-or-jesus-is-dead/ Remember, please read the article before commencing with disagreement and arguing! Thanks!
I just want to say, Sean, before reading the article, that it's very petty to say, "if you don't want to think outside your own box, then avoid this blog at all costs", insinuating that everyone who disagrees with your position is an unthinking fundamentalist fool. I went through hell in the last year trying to justify my R.C. practice of prayers to the saints - only to find it an impossible thing - and here you guys come in to tell people like me that we're trapped in a bloody box? Please don't assume that everyone has always been set in the same unquestioning opinion which you now see declared before your eyes.
I'm sorry for reacting so very strongly, but my mind's already stretched by the insolence of this whole era. Oh, the unadulterated hubris of wishing every human being to be converted to God, the infinite eternal king of glory, and to hope that they should rely on Him alone! The arrogance! The pride! My goodness, "it's old" and "a lot of people have done it" is no reason.
Consular, that is not at all what I meant. I've never said that intercession should or should not be practiced by all, only that those who don't practice it should try to understand the reasons of why some of us do. I have been a part of many threads in which some posters state their position (which is usually full of misrepresentations and insults) and then completely ignore any responses and then start a new thread later. You have not done that Consular, however, there are many on this forum who are unable to consider anything outside their own "box." If we go into a discussion with notion of not caring about or listening to differing opinions, then what is to be gained? I totally understand why some may choose not to ask for intercession and I get the reasons, that said, I think it's only fair that those who are not comfortable try to understand the other side of the issue. That's how a mutual discussion works.
Hi Sean, I've read the article; it's intriguing yet inconclusive, but more-so saddening, that the author wasn't loyal to Anglican tradition. There was a reply to his post, that was both excellent and also not refuted: I can add this which is the core of our argument:
Basically, if a poster starts a thread under the pretense of trying to understand an opinion different from their own with no real interest in reading or understanding a different belief or position, then why start the thread?
Let me add my comment from the blog article: The simple fact that the clause “the Communion of the Saints” is not present in the expositions on the Creed by Rufinus, Augustine, and Cyril of Jerusalem, should give saint-whisperers pause. Augustine did not even correct his own exposition of the Creed by adding the clause to it in his “Retractions” of A.D. 426, which he might’ve done, had it been a truly ancient belief. There, we have a certain, simple proof that this erroneous phrase crept into the Apostles’ Creed to justify an already-existing practice of prayers to the saints, NOT that the already-existing clause served as a reason for developing prayers to the saints. This addition must stem from the un-catechised pagan masses entering the Church at breakneck speed in the 4th century. They came in too quickly to be properly taught that ancestor worship was wrong. They just carried it over to the saints, and once it had become established it was made part of the Apostles’ Creed, post-A.D. 430. Regardless, Revelation says they're dead IN THE LORD and are at rest; alive, but asleep.
What do you mean? Did you actually strive to understand an opinion different from your own? It seemed like you only posted sympathetic blogs and were interested in whatever bolstered your case. In the very blog you posted, I found an opposite post that seemed to make a stronger case than the blog post itself. Why shouldn't we reference it? The analogy of bypassing the President, in favor of choosing to talk to his aides instead, is extremely important to the very heart of our objections. Be they ultimately right or not, this is the source of our objections. If you really wanted to understand an opinion different from your own, you'd hear our concerns seriously. If our concerns aren't addressed, we cannot come over and cross the divide, onto the saint-praying territory. And if your concerns aren't addressed, you can't cross over into the God-only territory. But I'm not sure what your concerns are (about our view). What salvific, theologically intense issues are in danger for you, in the God-only territory? Whereas you can see clearly (even if you don't agree), the salvific, theologically intense issues that make us feel wrought with danger, in the saint-praying territory.
Stalwart, thank you for your reply!! I'm still waiting for your reply to my post a few pages ago that was in response and hopefully answered some of your questions/concerns that were directed toward me. I've read the article; it's intriguing yet inconclusive, but more-so saddening, that the author wasn't loyal to Anglican tradition. I would say that that is your opinion that he wasn't loyal to Anglican tradition. I think he was more concerned about being loyal to the tradition of Christianity. What do you think of his citations that he used in the article in regards to classical Anglicanism and the early Church fathers? I would like to start there first, rather than continuing to run around in circles. 1) Christ is physically resurrected and hence is alive in the fullest sense of the word. 2) The saints are NOT (yet) physically resurrected, and hence their resurrection or alive-ness is not complete. As to their spirits currently being in heaven–this is a mystery, not (even) required in the creeds (as an Anglican seminary professor of mine was fond to say, “Orthodoxy does not require you to believe the immortality of the soul, but it does require you to acknowledge the resurrection of the dead.”) 3) God alone has omniscience–or an all-knowing nature, enabling him to hear our prayers. 4) Spiritual union with God does NOT mean creatures will ever be given His attributes–such as omniscience. 5) While not expressly forbidden in scripture–IF prayers to saints are so helpful and effective…it’s a shame that St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John, St. Luke, St. James…along with all other NT authors apparently didn’t know about it…and left it out. (Isn’t it great that Tradition has made us so much smarter and wiser than the Apostles???) These are all good points, however, as other posters have pointed out, much of the above is purely based on speculation and will only lend itself to circular arguments. I suspect that is why Father Jonathan ignored it, but you'd have ask him. Much of these arguments have been touched on by me and by many others throughout this thread, perhaps you can look there first and if you still have any concerns, i'd be glad to answer them. Since the only possible way for the spirits of saints to hear us, is through the agency of God Himself, the idea of praying to the spirits of saints–even if God allows them some of His insight to events on earth, is also a lot like, if you were invited for a regular audience with the President, and you ignored him, and decided it was just easier to talk with his aides. Again, responding to this only lends itself to circular arguments of which i've spent much time and many threads fighting. Lets stick to the article itself and the sources used, that was the purpose in posting it.
I do wish you'd respond to the whole post, not just one line! What about the rest of what was said? If the SDAs say it, and it's true, then it is no sin to agree with the SDAs. Really, argumentum ad hominem and gotchas?
Interestingly enough I was doing a google search and came across that article and read it 30 min. before you posted it on here... While I thought he makes some interesting points, I was disappointed in it when I read: Jesus IS risen from the dead... the saints are not. Not to mention that small little matter that Jesus is human AND GOD. I certainly appreciated his posting of the burial prayer from 1979 BCP: Which I think we can all get around.
Stalwart, i'm not the one saying that a person should or shouldn't ask for Saintly intercession. You and many others are saying that it violates God's law and the Bible and that those that do it are in error. I have never said that those who do or don't ask for intercession are somehow less Christian or less Anglican, which has been implied on this thread and many many others. I have said this over and over, I understand and respect your arguments and why you and others don't ask for intercession. What i'm asking for is for understanding and respect in return and you can't possible say that that is possible with the tenor of many of these threads and posts. I can tolerate and respect the fact that you don't ask for intercession and I even think that you're Anglican. However, can you say the same about me and tolerate my worship practices. The posts on this forum say the answer is no. Like I said, if you don't want to understand a differing opinion or position, then don't bother with it.
No we can't, because it says that we're aided by their prayers. If they're asleep and/or don't have ears & mouths, they're not much use to us - according to some on this forum.
And that's fine Consular, but there has been ample sources, examples, and arguments to show why it isn't wrong (to us). We just keep arguing in circles. Who, besides you, has bothered to respond to anything that I or anybody else has posted. Many posters want to post their opinion and that's the end all be all to it....that's not honest discussion. Again, i'm not the one making claims over what makes us more or less Christian. When I was in the SBC, they always claimed that their attacks against the mormons, muslims, homosexuals, Catholics, and many many others was in the quest for what's right and for the truth. Yet, this quest for the truth has led to the SBC being embarassed again and again by hateful and ignorant statements being made by both pastors, leaders, and laity alike.
There's no point only if one party insists there's no point. How do you read Revelation 6 and 14, then? The dead are clearly told to rest by the Lord, and they are described as being at rest. Well I assure you that my opinion, until April of this year, was that which allowed me to freely converse with the Virgin, Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom, and many others. I've had to abandon it from conviction, thanks to the simple lack of belief that it's a safe thing to do. You seem pretty convinced that your view is absolutely true, so why are you posting here? The fact that Augustine, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Jerusalem bare witness to saint-whispering and approve of it, means that our side has no business appealing to the Fathers. We just believe the Fathers could err, and did err in tolerance, in this matter. This discussion comes more down to reason than history. I am 100% open to good reasoning. It's not as if I want to ignore my brothers and sisters, if they happen to be near... but only God is ever described as truly near to us, in the Bible. I protest so loudly entirely out of concern for your souls. Let my opinions be damned. In a way you are, and that's partly what this debate is about: You approvingly sent an article saying that anyone who refuses to call the saints "alive", in your definition, must also believe that Christ is dead, and must refuse the fullness of the Incarnation, and must deny the ancient faith. That's some serious stuff. Ironically it's only the Protestants here who have been called fools and pharisees. We may get passionate or bold in our speech, but you'll never see us calling names. I don't think you personally ever will.
Well I assure you that my opinion, until April of this year, was that which allowed me to freely converse with the Virgin, Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom, and many others. I've had to abandon it from conviction, thanks to the simple lack of belief that it's a safe thing to do. You seem pretty convinced that your view is absolutely true, so why are you posting here? I post on here because we are constantly being asked why we think the way we do or threads are made to challenge our beliefs. All of this is fine and dandy, but these threads just keep coming back and the same questions are being asked. I feel like we have sufficiently answered these concerns. If you don't like the answers, don't ask the question....it's simple. The fact that Augustine, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Jerusalem bare witness to saint-whispering and approve of it, means that our side has no business appealing to the Fathers. We just believe the Fathers could err, and did err in tolerance, in this matter. The Fathers were in error in this matter? How can we trust the early Fathers and who gets to decide what is rubbish and what is truth? This discussion comes more down to reason than history. I am 100% open to good reasoning. It's not as if I want to ignore my brothers and sisters, if they happen to be near... but only God is ever described as truly near to us, in the Bible. I protest so loudly entirely out of concern for your souls. Let my opinions be damned. I've seen good arguments here and good reasoning on both sides, but I have yet to see anything that proves intercession to condemn me to hell. In a way you are, and that's partly what this debate is about: You approvingly sent an article saying that anyone who refuses to call the saints "alive", in your definition, must also believe that Christ is dead, and must refuse the fullness of the Incarnation, and must deny the ancient faith. That's some serious stuff. I said no such sweeping statements about anybody believing Christ is dead if the Saints are not alive, I simply provided an article that did a great job defending intercession and those that disagree with it refuse to consider it....this discussion is over and has been over for awhile now. The "protestant" wing on this site is mad that we are not convinced of their arguments nor are they convinced of our arguments. I'm fine with that, yet the "protestant" side is not fine with it and must get us to think the same way they do on the subject. Ironically it's only the Protestants here who have been called fools and pharisees. We may get passionate or bold in our speech, but you'll never see us calling names. I don't think you personally ever will. I never called any Protestants/evangelicals fools or pharisees and i'd like to the posts where anybody has done that. My post about the SBC was attempting to show that even the most sincere truth seekers can fall into hate, judgement, bigotry, confusion, and fear that doesn't resemble following our Lord Jesus Christ. If seeking out the truth in some matter leads to these things, then perhaps there are much more productive and Christ-like things to focus on. However, many Protestants/evangelicals are pros at name calling, passing judgement, and deciding who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Go to the forums on the evangelical "paradise" carm.org. So, i've seen plenty of the name calling....all under the guise of "truth."