tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post5681075546476216005..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Invocation of saintsFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-86305968672408068142011-07-21T07:54:27.254-04:002011-07-21T07:54:27.254-04:00Sean, I have known many, many Roman Catholics in m...Sean, I have known many, many Roman Catholics in my time and I know well that educated Roman Catholics consider fanatical converts to be an embarrassment.<br /><br />Not that all the fanatics are converts.<br />I recall a Dominican priest friend of mine who had to work with a certain lay catechist (a cradle RC) whose presentation of Roman Catholicism was similar in tone and ethos to yours. As he was sharing his frustrations with me, my friend observed, "She is the perfect example of non-Christian Catholic." In her mean-spirited obsession with the errors of Protestantism, she had missed the whole point of the Catholic Faith.<br /><br />Compare your own writing with that of Fr Benedict Groeschel or Bishop Robert Baker. Compare yourself even to the somwaht strident "apologists" on EWTN. Others, at any rate, will perceive the difference, even if you do not.<br /><br />A leading Continuing bishop recently wrote, "The departure of Anglo-papalists<br />for the RCC simplifies the picture, and, to be frank, removes from the scene some problematic individuals. Rome, with its size and experience, will be much better equipped to deal with them."<br /><br />I wish you a long and happy life in the RCC. Perhaps they have some blogs where you may share your thoughts and feelings.Fr. Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00842080747345893229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-21504166758409750402011-07-20T22:46:26.710-04:002011-07-20T22:46:26.710-04:00J.M.J.
Rev. Mr. Wells wrote:
"... What he ...J.M.J.<br /><br /><br />Rev. Mr. Wells wrote:<br /><br />"... What he dishes out on a regular basis is the false religion of a Latter-Day Feeneyite. Such a warped interpretation of the RCC is about like accepting Ian Paisley or Carl McIntire as representatives of Calvinism, or the Westboro Baptist Church as typical Baptists. What he dishes out on a regular basis is the false religion of a Latter-Day Feeneyite. Such a warped interpretation of the RCC is about like accepting Ian Paisley or Carl McIntire as representatives of Calvinism, or the Westboro Baptist Church as typical Baptists..."<br /><br />I would challenge you to point out a single instance where I have not accurately and specifically articulated the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, usually correcting misstatements and erroneous presentations of members of your ecclesial community.<br /><br /><br /><br />SWRSean W. Reedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07413612375936682682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-58533432421726655802011-07-20T21:45:23.767-04:002011-07-20T21:45:23.767-04:00Joe Olivieri asks:
"Am I to understand that ...Joe Olivieri asks:<br /><br />"Am I to understand that it is now the position of this blog that Roman Catholics are in thrall to a "false religion" and a "cult"? Is that a misreading?"<br /><br />Yes, that is a misreading of my post and a particularly bad misreading. I have never confused Mr JMJ's presentation of the faith of the Roman Catholic Church with the presentation of the real thing. What he dishes out on a regular basis is the false religion of a Latter-Day Feeneyite. Such a warped interpretation of the RCC is about like accepting Ian Paisley or Carl McIntire as representatives of Calvinism, or the Westboro Baptist Church as typical Baptists.Fr. Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00842080747345893229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-15911350119200164992011-07-20T15:06:59.480-04:002011-07-20T15:06:59.480-04:00Am I to understand that it is now the position of ...<i>Am I to understand that it is now the position of this blog that Roman Catholics are in thrall to a "false religion" and a "cult"? Is that a misreading?</i><br /><br />I am sure Fr. Kirby would say no. My position is rather via media on the matter. I hold to the position of Richard Hooker concerning <a href="http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2008/03/hooker-on-unity-with-rome.html" rel="nofollow">unity and communion with Rome.</a> Little real progress has been made since his time, and that only after the situation became worse. The Church of Rome is part of the Universal and Catholic Church. But, the teaching of purgatory and the treasury of merits is contrary to the Gospel of Christ. The Church of Rome is in need of genuine Reformation.<br /><br />As for the position of this blog, other than affirming Continuing Anglicanism and working to unify the Affirmation churches into one body, on various questions there may be up to four positions of this blog.<br /><br />But, after SWR's Roman sermonizing on our <i>Anglican</i> blog, I feel like calling the RCC a cult too, just because the RC scolding gets annoying. Nonetheless, I cannot take the matter of a doctrinal system at odds with the Gospel lightly; and that is what the whole Purgatory-treasury of merits system is; a false gospel.<br /><br />SWR:<br /><br /><i>...by virtue of the power of binding and loosing...</i><br /><br />In context that could only have referred to teaching true doctrine; but, without applying first century Jewish meaning to what Jesus said, it can be hard to understand His words. <br /><br /><i>If you wish to deny the teaching of The Church...</i><br /><br />Obviously, no one here is trying "to deny the teaching of The Church." But, we are quite happy to argue against various teachings of Rome. The choice of words here has been heavy on both sides of that argument. But, to even so much as use the words, "if you wish to deny the teaching of The Church" is an action; the equal and opposite reaction may as well be expressed, since that is all that such language can cause.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-31690081651822834702011-07-20T14:35:09.223-04:002011-07-20T14:35:09.223-04:00Am I to understand that it is now the position of ...Am I to understand that it is now the position of this blog that Roman Catholics are in thrall to a "false religion" and a "cult"? Is that a misreading?Joe Oliverihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18158355659523906494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-26858166312220542962011-07-20T13:39:28.950-04:002011-07-20T13:39:28.950-04:00I am glad that Sean Reed had gotten the memo perta...I am glad that Sean Reed had gotten the memo pertaining to the "Indulgence" for Bible-reading. It would not require 30 minutes time with the Word of God for him to learn how false a religion he has embraced. I hope he will stumble upon Ephesians 2:8, <br />"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not yur own doing; it is the gift of God, not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."<br /><br />I pray that he can comprehend the truth of Romans 3:23-24, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and ae justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith."<br /><br />May he come to grips with the truth of Matt 15:7--9, "You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said,<br />'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me, in vain to they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"<br /><br />I hope he will read Matt 16 in its entirety, paying close attention to Matt 16:23, "And Jesus turned and said to Peter, 'Get thee behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.'"<br /><br />May the Spirit open his mind to hear Galatians 2:11, "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to to his face, because he stood condemned."<br /><br />I hope he will get as far as 1 Timothy 6:20, "I Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have swerved from the faith."<br /><br />The "Indulgence" for Bible-reading proves that our God truly has a sense of humor, and that St Paul was never more right than when he wrote (1 Cor. 1:23), "For the foolishness of God is wiser than men," even wiser than the Roman magisterium. What a trick for God to play on Mr JMJ and his fellow cultists!Fr. Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00842080747345893229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-47784144443512035702011-07-20T13:21:59.424-04:002011-07-20T13:21:59.424-04:00J.M.J.
Brian wrote:
"...The issue isn't...J.M.J.<br /><br />Brian wrote:<br /><br />"...The issue isn't whether or not they are easy to obtain: Rather, the fact that the Roman Magesterium claims the ability to increase the "value" of prayer or devotional actions through indulgences shows how arbitrary the whole system really is..."<br /><br />The Church claims no such ability to increase the "value" of anything.<br /><br />If you wish to deny the teaching of The Church, that is your choice, but at least accurately articulate what The Church teaches.<br /><br />The Catechism of The Catholic Church teaches quite plainly:<br /><br />1478 An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins. Thus the Church does not want simply to come to the aid of these Christians, but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity.90<br /><br />See 1471 - 1479 at http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm#1471<br /><br />SWR<br /><br /><br /><br />O Lord Jesus Christ, who, when Thou wast about to suffer, didst pray for Thy disciples to the end of time that they might all be one, as Thou art in the Father, and the Father in Thee, look down in pity on the manifold divisions among those who profess Thy faith, and heal the many wounds which the pride of man and the craft of Satan have inflicted upon Thy people. <br /><br />Break down the walls of separation which divide one party and denomination of Christians from another. Look with compassion on the souls who have been born in one or other of these various communions which not Thou, but man hath made. Set free the prisoners from these unauthorised forms of worship, and bring them all into that one communion which thou didst set up in the beginning, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. <br /><br />Teach all men that the see of St. Peter, the Holy Church of Rome, is the foundation, centre, and instrument of unity. Open their hearts to the long-forgotten truth that our Holy Father, the Pope, is thy Vicar and Representative; and that in obeying Him in matters of religion, they are obeying Thee, so that as there is but one holy company in heaven above, so likewise there may be but one communion, confessing and glorifying Thy holy Name here below. {190}<br />- from Meditations & Devotions, Blessed John Henry NewmanSean W. Reedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07413612375936682682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-87229946508661255802011-07-20T10:36:51.742-04:002011-07-20T10:36:51.742-04:00I.N.R.I.
If those mean and nasty Romans were try...I.N.R.I. <br /><br /><em>If those mean and nasty Romans were trying to keep people in purgatory they would not have plenary indulgences so easy to obtain, would they?</em><br /><br />The issue isn't whether or not they are easy to obtain: Rather, the fact that the Roman Magesterium claims the ability to increase the "value" of prayer or devotional actions through indulgences shows how arbitrary the whole system really is. <br /><br />Biblical soteriology is much simpler--even scandalously so.Briannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-58421102912225755872011-07-20T01:25:42.393-04:002011-07-20T01:25:42.393-04:00That is an oft repeated protestant thought, and do...<i>That is an oft repeated protestant thought, and does make sense if one does not realize how simple plenary indulgences are to obtain.</i><br /><br />Yes, it makes a better argument to say that the whole damned system was never revealed by God, but dreamed up by false teachers. Not only is it no part of the Gospel, but it represents a completely alien religion altogether that has nothing to do with Christ.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-17484190106283092162011-07-19T23:37:05.023-04:002011-07-19T23:37:05.023-04:00J.M.J.
Brian wrote:
"...If the Roman Magest...J.M.J.<br /><br />Brian wrote:<br /><br />"...If the Roman Magesterium has the authority to effectively give its adherents "double coupons" on prayer, then why wouldn't they open the spiritual spigot still further? Is there some interest in keeping souls locked in purgatory?..."<br /><br /><br />That is an oft repeated protestant thought, and does make sense if one does not realize how simple plenary indulgences are to obtain.<br /><br />Among others:<br /><br />30 minutes reading sacred scripture<br />30 minutes with the Blessed Sacrament<br />Public recitation of the Rosary<br />Stations of the Cross<br /><br /><br />If those mean and nasty Romans were trying to keep people in purgatory they would not have plenary indulgences so easy to obtain, would they?<br /><br />Plenary indulgences are, of course, under the usual conditions.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />SWRSean W. Reedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07413612375936682682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-45334241405964596542011-07-19T15:36:27.914-04:002011-07-19T15:36:27.914-04:00Is there some interest in keeping souls locked in ...<i>Is there some interest in keeping souls locked in purgatory?</i><br /><br />More specifically, is there some <i>ecclesiastical</i> interest in keeping souls locked in purgatory? That is, since God has abdicated this responsibility to the pope, perhaps trusting that man's judgment over His own.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-23983921302236515422011-07-19T11:42:05.184-04:002011-07-19T11:42:05.184-04:00The day, years etc - were a means of quantifying a...<em>The day, years etc - were a means of quantifying a pious act with the equivalent time of penance in the early church. That is to say, a prayer with "three days" attached to it - availed as much as three days penance assigned in the early church.</em><br /><br />If the Roman Magesterium has the authority to effectively give its adherents "double coupons" on prayer, then why wouldn't they open the spiritual spigot still further? Is there some interest in keeping souls locked in purgatory?Briannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-88284122898443165172011-07-18T17:32:41.673-04:002011-07-18T17:32:41.673-04:00It is fascinating to me to observe how distinctive...It is fascinating to me to observe how distinctively <i>Roman</i> Catholic doctrine, so very, very "developed" indeed, is full of so many fine details. Logic must go to its end; but, its beginning is more interesting. In this matter it begins without revelation.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-90774627911022046572011-07-18T09:05:04.487-04:002011-07-18T09:05:04.487-04:00J.M.J.
Father Hart wrote:
"... To gaze at ...J.M.J.<br /><br /><br />Father Hart wrote:<br /><br />"... To gaze at a specific relic gave so many years "off"..."<br /><br />It seems your statement should be clarified a bit, to prevent a factual misunderstanding that does not want to die out it seems.<br /><br /> Never, at any time, did the days, years, quarintines, etc correspond to that same quantity off of the time to be spent in purgatory. That was a common mis-understanding that would not die out until the Second Vatican Council changed indulgences to be simply plenary (under the usual conditions) or partial.<br /><br />The day, years etc - were a means of quantifying a pious act with the equivalent time of penance in the early church. That is to say, a prayer with "three days" attached to it - availed as much as three days penance assigned in the early church.<br /><br />The Catholic Encyclopedia puts it this way:<br /><br />"...To say that an indulgence of so many days or years is granted means that it cancels an amount of purgatorial punishment equivalent to that which would have been remitted, in the sight of God, by the performance of so many days or years of the ancient canonical penance. Here, evidently, the reckoning makes no claim to absolute exactness; it has only a relative value."<br /><br />http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm<br /><br /><br /><br />SWRSean W. Reedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07413612375936682682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-49677670036779546702011-07-16T15:31:05.386-04:002011-07-16T15:31:05.386-04:00Back in the 19th century, J.C. Ryle wrote:
...the...Back in the 19th century, J.C. Ryle wrote:<br /><br /><i>...their belief in Purgatory, and in the power of the priest to relieve from its penalties...</i><br /><br />It should be pointed out that priestly Absolution is not about Purgatory, and that it is from the verses of Scripture quoted in the Ordinal (Ordering of priests), namely John 20:22,23. Ryle, who was an extremist in his time, showed his departure from the doctrine of the Book of Common Prayer both in his criticism of Absolution and in his rejection of what the Prayer Book teaches concerning Baptism. He was a forefather, it seems, of a modern school that calls itself Evangelical, but which has no more in common with the English Reformers than the man in the moon.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-21726861340539634652011-07-16T12:23:30.622-04:002011-07-16T12:23:30.622-04:00Aaytch:
The problems here are, 1) You seem to thi...Aaytch:<br /><br />The problems here are, 1) You seem to think you have presented an argument against my essay, when in fact the whole comment (just above) is no such thing, and 2) in earlier comments you put help finding car keys on the same level as the intercession in Col. 1:9f (which brings us to the points Fr. Wells has made about prayer).<br /><br />But, nothing can make people guilty of idolatry simply because they ask others to pray for them. That accusation goes way too far, condemning as sin an innocent practice. Yes, we have no revelation that justifies any teaching that departed saints hear requests, though we do have evidence from Scripture that those who have gone before with the mark of faith do surround the Church Militant. I have quoted Scripture, and you have quoted Ryle. On Reformation principles, that I assume you hold dear, which is weightier?<br /><br />But, even though they might not hear us, it is not the sin of idolatry, no matter who has said otherwise. Idolatry is the worship of other gods. Yes, the "cult of saints" has led to that kind of idolatry many times. But I have condemned that in crystal clear language, and I wonder why you fail to notice.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-85252516834401386062011-07-16T11:04:09.868-04:002011-07-16T11:04:09.868-04:00I am hearing you say, "When the saints get to...I am hearing you say, "When the saints get to go home to heaven the work of prayer continues." <br /><br />Question: Do we continue to pray when we get to heaven, and will we know what to pray for in heaven since (if) we won't know what is happening on earth?<br /><br />Answer: The Bible does not teach that when we go to be with the Lord we are no longer aware of continuing conditions on earth. Nor does it teach that we are aware of them. Revelation 6:10 implies that the dead remember their former lives, and that they may be aware of at least some continuing conditions on earth. However, death does not make us omniscient or omnipresent -- the dead cannot know everything that goes on in the earth, nor can they be present here as well as in heaven. Only God Himself has that ability to bridge heaven and earth.<br /><br />Nevertheless, they are still "saints" (e.g. Rev. 11:18), they are still conscious, and they, like we, are still awaiting the completion of the Gospel. They are waiting for the final resurrection and the last judgment, and they are aware that before these things occur there is still evil in the world. They do not stop loving their families and friends, and they do not lose the freedom or ability to speak to God. <br /><br />In fact, this ability to speak to (commune with) God is greatly enhanced for the deceased saints since they are face-to-face with God and can simply talk to Him rather than we who must pray to Him by faith. <br /><br />Although we can infer that they are able to petition God on behalf of people still on earth, we cannot infer (from the Bible) that deceased saints can hear us talk to them, or that they know anything about continuing life on earth except what God may tell them (speculative: or by talking to others who died later, or to angels ).<br /><br />To this you will probably want to claim support from certain verses. For example <br /><br />Revelation 5:8, but this is in an allegorical book describing only deceased saints offering up the prayers of living saints. It does not say they have any knowledge of the content of those prayers. Or <br /><br />Matthew 17:3, but this is not about communication between living and dead saints, but rather about communication between the incarnate Jesus and dead saints.<br /><br />You might also consider the views of J.C. Ryle as propounded in "Against Ritualism, the teaching of the Ritualists is not the teaching of the Church of England"<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow">"http://www.biblebb.com/files/ryle/against_ritualism.htm" http://www.biblebb.com/files/ryle/against_ritualism.htm </a><br /><br />Ryle declares all forms of communication with the deceased to be incompatible with the teaching of the Church of England. That includes prayers to the virgin Mary, the archangel Michael, or to any other saint or angel. It pertains to prayers to them, or for them, or with them, and it does not matter whether the subject is as serious as one's sins or as frivolous as one's lost car keys. Below are specific references. Note please that Ryle finds, as I do, that Article XXII is not merely about the false doctrine of Purgatory, but is about the false practice of invocation of saints generally.<br /><br /><i><br />"5. They pray to the Virgin Mary and elevate her to a throne in heaven; [whereas] our Church declares such adoration to be superstitious and idolatrous."<br /><br />"6. They pray to saints and invoke their intercession. [whereas] Our Church terms such prayers “repugnant to the Word of God.” (Art. xxii.) St. Paul says there is “one Mediator between God and man.”--1 Tim. ii. 5."<br /><br />"10. They pray for the souls of the Dead, and they declare their belief in Purgatory, and in the power of the priest to relieve from its penalties; whereas our Church declares purgatory to be “a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded on no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.” (Art. xxii.)" </i>Hudsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05511526445868840330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-15017959293889836582011-07-16T01:49:34.325-04:002011-07-16T01:49:34.325-04:00Aaytch wrote:
I find no essential difference betw...Aaytch wrote:<br /><br /><i>I find no essential difference between that and "St. Antoine, pray for me while I look for my car keys",</i><br /><br />No one has mentioned the sort of "help me while" business you have dreamed up, or anything akin to it.<br /><br /><i>And yet, in the homily I find no allowance for your position.</i><br /><br />It is about prayer, and we have already agreed that the saints are not to be treated like gods. Did you miss my point that badly?<br /><br />"I cannot promise, however, that specific saints hear specific requests, for though the Church has long practiced calling on departed saints by name, each one is still a limited, finite being who waits to be clothed again in the resurrection. We must not imagine that they have become omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent. Like the angel who spoke to John on Patmos, they are our fellow servants."<br /><br />Why have you chosen to ignore that?<br /><br /><i>I mean communicating with the dead.</i><br /><br />Communicating with the dead is not the issue; such a phrase alludes to occult practices of hearing from the dead through mediums - certainly very evil, but hardly relevant. <br /><br /><i>We pray with the saints in heaven because we sense the joy they have found and the satisfaction they have brought to our Lord, and perhaps these saints remember us in some way.</i><br /><br />Well, either you believe that, or you disagree with my essay. You can't have it both ways.<br /><br />"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel." (Heb. 12:22-24)<br /><br />How have we "come to" what he calls "the spirits of just men made perfect"?<br /><br /><i>But we do not expect them to know anything about us except what God himself should tell them...</i><br /><br />Either we are "surrounded by a cloud of witnesses," and "come to...the spirits of just men made perfect," or we have not. Besides, no matter what they may know or not know, how can they not know that we are striving against evil while they are free from the dangers?<br /><br /><i>...for they more than even we are fully aware that we are in good hands.</i><br /><br />By that logic we never need to pray for one another at all. Paul wasted his breath, and his ink, I suppose, in that passage from Colossians, and others. <br /><br />For the rest, obviously, the homily is about prayer, and about matters I have addressed in perfect harmony with its meaning. Fr. Wells has said enough in the comment above that I do not need to defend my essay. Besides, it was so balanced and clear that I ought not dignify Aaytach's distortion of it anymore, especially inasmuch as the essay itself actually answers his objections.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-61283512274236072812011-07-15T21:36:03.686-04:002011-07-15T21:36:03.686-04:00I wish that "Aatch" would read carefully...I wish that "Aatch" would read carefully the chapter on the Communion of Saints in the Westminster Confession of Faith, a document with no authority for Anglicans but one which represents a high water mark for Puritan theology. That might help him understand Fr Hart's point.<br /><br />Much of this discussion both pro and con grows out of a shallow concept of the nature of prayer. I have no problem with saying (and indeed I frequently say) "Father Fred, pray for me," when I walk past the site of his home. Fr Fred V. Yerkes was a saintly priest who fell asleep in the Lord over 20 years ago. The last time I saw him in the world I asked for his prayers, at a time when I truly needed them.<br />Even yet I say, "Fr Fred, pray for me" with the absolute certainty that he does indeed pray still. To unpack the phrase, "pray for me" means "I am thankful for the union and communion which we still have in Christ and for the knowledge that your prayer-life is now more intense and that I still benefit from it."<br /><br />Prayer (I repeat myself) is the offering of our desires to God, even when we say "St Maximilian Kolbe, pray for us." We need to disabuse ourselves of the sub-Christian notion that prayer is a bratty child trying to coerce or manipulate his Father. As long as we think of prayer in terms of wheedling God to get what we want from Him, then IOS is a very bad thing to do.<br /><br />I am horrified by the suggestion sometimes offered, that invoking the saints is pulling strings in the corporate office, using special influence to get through the call-screener. Most Marian prayers, particularly the "Memorare," have that false notion as their sub-text. <br />It is simply blasphemous to suppose that God is more likely to give a positive answer to a saint in heaven than to a saint on earth. When we offer our prayers for the healing of a sick child, our case is no stronger if we ask the saints to pray for us. The reality is they are already busy on our behalf!<br /><br />One final point. We need to keep this topic in perspective. While IOS can be documented into the ante-Nicene period, it has remained fairly marginal in Christian devotion. It is glaringly absent from the Mass of the Roman Rite, save on those very few occasions when the Litany of the Saints is recited. <br />A form of it turns up in the Confiteor, a late mediaeval prayer originally said privately by priest and sacred ministers. (The Commemoration of the Departed in the Roman Canon is another matter.) <br /><br />No one is required to practice the IOS. The practice, no matter how ancient, remains an adiaphoron (an indifferent matter). Fr Kirby to the contrary notwithstanding, IOS is no litmus test for true Catholic faith, no shibboleth for doctrinal soundness.<br />So why the fuss and bother?Fr. Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00842080747345893229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-13457387259320173752011-07-15T17:54:08.398-04:002011-07-15T17:54:08.398-04:00Fr. Hart:
You saved me (and your readers) from a ...Fr. Hart:<br /><br />You saved me (and your readers) from a lengthy post.<br /><br />welshmannwelshmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021662418461137766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-5872763425114201382011-07-15T16:21:18.194-04:002011-07-15T16:21:18.194-04:00I also direct you to this fine article about praye...I also direct you to this fine article about prayers for the dead... from the Church Society. Although it is not specifically about "invocation of saints", it is relevant to Anglican tradition and its formularies. <br /><br />http://www.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_106_WhatShouldWePray.pdf<br /><br />Finally, I have to point out that the Mary prayer that leads your essay is not in the 1662 BCP, but was brought back into Anglican liturgy only with the Oxford movement. As such, it is NOT truly Anglican.Hudsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05511526445868840330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-52468106085483184242011-07-15T15:42:37.983-04:002011-07-15T15:42:37.983-04:00The differences are very clearly presented in my e...<i>The differences are very clearly presented in my essay. </i><br /><br />If you find the differences to be so clear, please provide the words and context of an IOS prayer that you would approve. The only one that I know you approve is "Holy Mary Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death." I find no essential difference between that and "St. Antoine, pray for me while I look for my car keys", which you and/or Fr. Wells seemed to approve earlier, but which you now say you disapprove.<br /><br />Your position, as I understand it, is that my asking you to pray for me, or you asking me to pray for you is not idolatry, nor is it logical to treat simple intercession as if it were equal to Divine-human Mediation, which only one Man, Jesus Christ, may do (I Tim. 2:5).<br /><br />And yet, in the homily I find no allowance for your position. Since it is a homily on "Prayer", and there are many references of invocations or prayers to saints, then why doesn't your point of view stand out.<br /><br /><i>Joining? Do you mean communion? </i><br /><br />No. I do not mean Holy Communion. I mean communicating with the dead. I find no warrant in Scripture, nor any reason why it might be edifying. This has nothing whatsoever to do with lack of belief in the resurrection, or belief that the resurrected are not alive before the throne and in the courts of the Lord. It means just exactly what I said and no more. Death is not a "barrier" between earth and heaven, but neither is it a bridge. The only one who can bridge the temporal and the eternal is God. We pray with the saints in heaven because we sense the joy they have found and the satisfaction they have brought to our Lord, and perhaps these saints remember us in some way. But we do not expect them to know anything about us except what God himself should tell them, and we definitely do not expect them to be concerned for our welfare, for they more than even we are fully aware that we are in good hands. In short, we do not expect to have direct communication with them until (unless) we are reunited in heaven.Hudsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05511526445868840330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-38514152958441701152011-07-15T13:45:31.458-04:002011-07-15T13:45:31.458-04:00One more thing. You need to explain what you mean ...<b>One more thing</b>. You need to explain what you mean by "But I do not count any other type of joining between the living and the dead as warranted or edifying." <br /><br />Joining? Do you mean communion? If so, I take you back to my earlier caveat: "But, so is the danger of treating death like an absolute barrier within the Church, which would make it an absolute barrier "in Christ." Has this led to rejection of the whole doctrine of the Resurrection? For the answer to that, look at modern mainstream Protestant churches, beginning with the Episcopal Church wherein all orthodoxy is merely an option at best. So, we need our Anglican balance to prevent one heresy or the other." What do say in response to that warning?Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-56089799466010089582011-07-15T13:42:08.551-04:002011-07-15T13:42:08.551-04:00Aaytch:
I find no essential difference between &q...Aaytch:<br /><br /><i>I find no essential difference between "St. Antoine pray for me (as I look for my car keys)", and "St. Antoine help me to find my car keys."</i><br /><br />Neither do I see any difference. So, again, did you actually read the essay, or for that matter Fr. Wells' comment? If so, you picked a very irrelevant illustration, unless you wrote to agree with both him and me.<br /><br /><i>Unfortunately I still find myself equating your approved IOS with the disapproved IOS of Article XXII (and the associated Homily).</i><br /><br />The differences are very clearly presented in my essay. I suggest you try to "square" your persistent take on this whole thing with what I actually said, specifically: <br /><br />"The questions that arise generally are about whether or not the practice is dangerous, or whether or not it contradicts the Gospel. Does it amount to idolatry when Christians ask those who have departed, but who surround them in the great cloud of witnesses, to pray as intercessors? Does it make those departed saintly spirits into extra mediators, as if we needed more than the One Mediator Himself? <br /><br />"The answer to these questions is no; no more than my asking you to pray for me, or you asking me to pray for you. It would not be idolatry, obviously, nor is it logical to treat simple intercession as if it were equal to Divine-human Mediation, which only one Man, Jesus Christ, may do (I Tim. 2:5)."<br /><br />I know what is in the homily, and I am certain about the meaning of the Article, for reasons you have dismissed, but which you have to refute.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-26887908494333148882011-07-15T13:35:46.701-04:002011-07-15T13:35:46.701-04:00Fr. Wells and Welshmann:
I understand the point e...Fr. Wells and Welshmann:<br /><br />I understand the point each of you has made. I think it comes under what we may call the Nehushtan principle (II Kings 18:4).Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.com