Thanks for everyone contributing to the excellent discussions over the last few days. I am astounded that one combox string went for over 170 comments. I am still working my way through all of those.
Things are very busy here as I am preparing for a Joint Muslim Catholic Pilgrimage to Istanbul and Rome after Easter, and for a week in Rome before that (Holy Week!). Hopefully I will have my new laptop with me on the trip and will be able to give regular updates on our journey (you will recall the red-wine incident… )
In the mean time, I just want to throw a few pebbles in the pond – I don’t have the time to work these into full separate theses, so they are just ideas:
1) On the invocation of the Saints:
There have been two objections from our Lutheran commentators. The first has been that there is no command or promise attached to the invocation of saints in the Scriptures. The second is how can the dead hear us?
Answer to the first objection could be that we don’t have any promise or command in scripture (as far as I know) about asking our fellow Christians to pray for us either. We have the command to pray for others – a command which I presume even the departed saints alive in Christ continue to fulfill. There are examples in the Old Testament of people asking prophets to intercede for them (eg. 1 Sam 12:19, Job 42:8, Jer 37:3). There is a striking parallel in the New Testament of Simon Magus asking Peter and John to pray for him to the Lord (Acts 8:24) – a very interesting case that could be used as the basis for the invocation of saints. Then there are several places in the letters of Paul and in Hebrews where the request is made that the readers “pray for us”.
All these examples seem to assume that the one being asked to pray – prophet, apostle, churches – have some influence with God. They are “near to God” in a way that would make their prayers beneficial. This seems to fit with James 5:16-18, where the “righteousness” of the intercessor adds power to the prayer. Again, this would seem to support invocation of saints. We invoke them to intercede for us because they are more righteous, more holy and closer to God than we are.
I can’t find anything in the Scriptures that would seem to say that we can’t invoke the saints to pray for us – unless of course it is the second objection: that they are dead and this would be communication with the dead, something explicitly rejected in the Old Testament.
But here we come to the fact that the doctrine of the Communion of Saints is based on the doctrine of the Resurrection and new life in Christ. They are not dead, but living, and therefore invoking them does not come under the OT ban.
However, can they hear us? No, not directly. They are not divine or omniscient or omnipresent. (I like the idea that theosis comes into play, but theosis is only complete with resurrection, so I can grant this in reference to Our Lady, but am not sure how it applies to all the rest of the saints beholding the beatific vision.) The Communication of Saints (if I may coin that term) depends on the same thing that the Communion of Saints does: they and we are all one in Christ and in the Spirit. Indeed that is the reason we can ask our brothers and sisters in Christ here on earth to pray for us: not because they can hear us, but because they are in Christ and the Holy Spirit with us. St Paul tells us that nothing, not even death, can separate us from Christ (Rom 8), and so this connection does not cease at death. It is an indirect communication, granted, just as our communion with one another is indirect, whether in this life or in the next. But Christ shares his glory with his people by allowing them to share with him the role of sole intercessor before the right hand of God.
2) On purgatory:
Pastor Weedon said in a combox:
“Purgatory I have no truck with; purgation is another matter. Our God IS a consuming fire. And the way St. Paul speaks in 1 Cor. 3 suggests that purgation is order for all of us. The Lutheran Symbols note – without censure – that St. Augustine apparently so understood it. So not a place, but the final purification that burns out of us all that is not love – and that we rejoice in. An ouch before the “ah” as a friend used to put it. But an ouch to which we cry: Burn, baby! Burn! Destroy in me all that is not the love of God!
Such purgation, I might note, begins long before our death. It is to start at the moment of our Baptism and will be complete when our Baptism is completed in passing through death.”
I wonder, what does he actually think it is that we Catholics believe? For in this, he says nothing other than that which the Catholic Church teaches. See a presentation I did on this matter here (powerpoint file)
3) Regarding the Word of God:
Pastor Weedon also said in another combox: “I do deny that the Scriptures are anything less than the active and living Word of God which itself decides truth.” I would like to put this alongside something Ratzinger wrote way back in 1965 (you can find it in the Ignatius Press collection of Ratzinger essays “God’s Word”):
Can the Word be handed over to the Church, without having to fear that it will lose its own life and power under the shears of the Magisterium or amid the uncontrolled growth of the sensus fidelium? That is the Protestant’s question to the Catholic.
Can the Word be set up as independant, without handing it over to the arbitrariness of the exegete, to be emptied in the disputes of historians, and thus to the complete loss of normative authority? That is the question with which the Catholic will directly respond…
I think there are two things going on here. There is the Word of God as it directly and existentially and spiritually addresses me as a creature of God, convicting me of sin, calling me to repentance, forgiving me my sin and strengthening me in faith, hope and love towards God and my neighbour. That is definitely the work of God’s living and active Word alone, which no human being can ever control nor for which any human being can ever take credit.
But then there is the other way in which the Word of God works, as teaching and as commandment, creating and ordering the Church and binds me together in community with my fellow believers. In this sense the Word requires an “administrator” as much as the sacraments do; in order for the Word to teach doctrine, there must be a teaching office (Magisterium). But the Lutheran claim is (as Ratzinger puts it in the same essay mentioned previously) that they have
“set the Word of God free from its chains in the ecclesiastical office…
This notion, that in the Catholic Church the Word of God had been fettered by being linked to the authority of office, that it had been robbed of its active, living power, is expressed time and again in the writings of the Reformers… [In the Catholic Church] office appears…as the criterion for the Word. It guarentees the Word. In Melanchthon’s thinking, it is the other way round: the Word appears as the criterion for office… The Word has become independant. It stands over and above the office, as an entity in itself. Perhaps it is even in this reversal of the relations between Word and Office that the real opposition lies between Catholic and Protestant conceptions of the Church…”
Does it help if we distinguish between the way in which the Word of God speaks to us as teaching and commandment (requiring “Office”) and the way in which it speaks to us for the sake of convinction, repentance, forgiveness and nourishment (independantly of “Office”, living and active and powerful)?
Quit wasting Your breath on blind men; particularilly on those that scourged their own eyes out, and then go on denying that there is light in the world.
Ah, Lucian, that is not the way of those of us committed to dialogue…
Go and read Pope Benedict’s Letter to the Bishops once more, and find a heart for unity.
Why? Am *I* the one who brought dis-unity in the first place? Let those that tore Christ’s raiment asunder be the ones seeking unity! (And besides, I’ve already warned You about my ecumaniacal skills [or lack thereof] before, haven't I?) >;)
“There have been two objections from our Lutheran commentators. The first has been that there is no command or promise attached to the invocation of saints in the Scriptures. The second is how can the dead hear us?
Answer to the first objection could be that we don’t have any promise or command in scripture (as far as I know) about asking our fellow Christians to pray for us either.
1. a third, bigger ‘objection’ is simply:
‘why would a child of God go through a third party?’
Lack of conviction?
Lack of relationship?
..possibly both.
2. No command or promise?
II Cor 1:11 for a start.
Gal 6:2 implicity includes prayer..yes?
Numerous examples from Paul:
eg 1 Th 3: 11 ff
I wish I had the time to participate here. I haven’t read the other comments so can’t know if what I have to say is redundant but to address Vicci’s “bigger objection”
a third, bigger ‘objection’ is simply:
‘why would a child of God go through a third party?’
Lack of conviction?
Lack of relationship?
..possibly both.
This argument essentially nullifies the need for those of us on earth to pray for each other. Why would I ask David to pray for a need of mine instead of going to directly to God? Lack of conviction? Lack of relationship? Of course not (although chief of sinners that I am my conviction and relationship are not as they should be).
Vicci, even you yourself quote scriptures that tell us to pray for one another.
So…there can be no argument about going directly to God. We do that, too…and we ask those around us to pray. For the Catholics and Orthodoxy that sphere of “those around us” is seen as something larger than earthly flesh and blood.
So the argument really is a two point one…that the saints can’t hear us and that there is no command in Scripture.
However, both arguments are linked to the same resolution. If one can get to the point that they believe that the saints hear our pleas then in fact we do have evidence from Scripture that says we are to ask people to pray for us and the Scriptural concern goes away.
So it all comes down to “Do the Saints hear our pleas for their prayers?”
Apart from theological reasonings that shows how they can (which I suspect were covered in the previous combox), I would also suggest experience can play a role. I know the saints hear our pleas from my experience of praying to the saints.
One doesn’t have to pray to the saints to have faith in Christ, but I would suggest one’s experience of Christ is limited if their experience doesn’t include prayer to the saints.
faityle: that brought about by fate
One more factor should be introduced on the invocation of the saints and it is a major one: it is where the practice has actually led in the piety of the people of God. I’ve frequently cited one Orthodox prayer that I believe no amount of explanation can adequately set aside, for it asks not for Mary to pray for me, but for the Mother of God to grant me repentance and a worthy reception of the Sacrament. Yes, Orthodox defenders say: we mean BY HER PRAYERS to ask GOD to do this for us. The prayer, however, says nothing of this. Chemnitz supplies copious examples from the prayers the Reformers were familiar with in Roman use that were equally as bad. Hence, the theory is not by itself so bad – and Lutherans freely grant that the saints alive in Christ forever do indeed intercede for the Church on pilgrimage – but the actual practice has had a very bad track record. People turning to the saints for that which they should only be asking of the Blessed Trinity. Our Lord taught a great deal about prayer in the Gospels, it was something near and dear to his heart. It is surely worth considering that He never one time mentioned that we should invoke the saints. “The Father Himself loves you,” He said and urged us to pray in His name to the Father.
On the other points, David, more later as God gives time.
Lucian – ironic that you chastise David for dialog with a Lutheran the same day you posted twice on my blog…
1. But, my dear Vicci, the examples I gave from scripture should indicate that asking another to pray for one is hardly “lack of conviction” or “lack of relationship”. Was Paul lacking in conviction or relationship when he asked his addressees to “pray for him” (Col 4:3, 1 thes 5:25, 2 Thess 3:1; and Heb 13:18)? Why should St James make note that the “prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (James 5:16) if not to encourage us to ask the “righteous man” to intercede for us? Only a conviction that one’s relationship with God is to the exclusion of others would deny the value and role of mutual intercession among the saints.
2. “10 He who rescued us from so deadly a peril will continue to rescue us; on him we have set our hope that he will rescue us again, 11 as you also join in helping us by your prayers, so that many will give thanks on our behalf for the blessing granted us through the prayers of many.” (2 Cor 1:10-11).
Now that is an interesting passage. And yes, I grant that it is indeed a passage which indicates blessing to come from “the prayers of many”. Thank you for finding it and pointing it out. Interesting that in this passage, Paul sees no contradiction between “all our hope for rescue is set on God” and “the blessing granted us through the prayers of many”. If anything, I would read this verse to strengthen the case for invoking the intercession of the saints.
Gal 6:2 (“Bear one another’s burdens”) does not specifically mention intercession – but again, if anything, this strengthens the Catholic case that the merits of the saints are shared out within the communion of saints.
I don’t see the relevance of 1 Thess 3:11…
suichee: sweet asian fruit.
We’re all active tonight – two posts – from Pastor and Dixie – while I was writing mine.
Thanks, Dixie – good points.
Pastor Bill,
One more factor should be introduced on the invocation of the saints and it is a major one: it is where the practice has actually led in the piety of the people of God. I’ve frequently cited one Orthodox prayer that I believe no amount of explanation can adequately set aside, for it asks not for Mary to pray for me, but for the Mother of God to grant me repentance and a worthy reception of the Sacrament. Yes, Orthodox defenders say: we mean BY HER PRAYERS to ask GOD to do this for us. The prayer, however, says nothing of this.
Actually I heard just such a question raised by a Baptist doing RCIA on Catholic Answers tonight and Jim Aitken gave the “orthodox” answer: it is by the prayers that this is done. The Baptist cited two Catholic prayers: the Prayer to St Michael (“Defend us in the day of battle…”) and the prayer to Our Lady (“Never was it known that those…”). In both cases, Jimmy said that “these things are granted by their prayers” (although I rather think that St Michael has actual powers to protect), and said that the rest is pious speculation as to whether these things could be done by direct action – which they could be.
Now, think of St Michael in this connection. We ask for his protection. Does he do this just by prayer? I don’t think so. He is an Archangel afterall, with particular powers to protect us from evil. This is granted by protestants and Catholics alike. Yet is to ask St Michael for protection tantamount to failing to ask God for his protection? Hardly, for to ask God to protect us is to ask him to grant us the protection of his Angels. His angels are his means for protecting us.
I guess therefore that there is absolutely no glory lost to God if the means of God granting a host of other graces is through the intercession of his saints.
I don’t see that as an aberation. It could only be interpreted as such if you read and understand such prayers to be (as Pastor calls it) “People turning to the saints for that which they should only be asking of the Blessed Trinity.” What we ask of the Saints we ask of God. What the Saints grant, is granted by God. We do not see God in opposition to his saints, or vice versa. Such an objection sounds silly to our ears.
“Our Lord…never one time mentioned that we should invoke the saints.” Equally, Pastor Weedon, our Lord never taught that we should ask our fellow Christians to pray for us. Name me one text where he does. Yet St Paul asks his fellow Christians to pray for him. Please explain?
I always thought the argument to discontinue a practice because of abuses was a weak one. The church dealt with a kind of argument like this early on…the use of icons. The iconoclast controversy was grounded in the fact that there truly was misuse of icons…that the piety of some folks with regard to icons had drifted off course. But the 7th ecumenical Council authorized their return–knowing full well that some folks had abused this in the past. If you stopped all the practices in the Church which had a potential for abuse…there wouldn’t be any practices left.
The 1965 Ratzinger essay addresses this Lutheran tendancy to equate tradition with abuse – I will look it up again when I get into work in the morning.
Yes, abuse does not abolish but establishes use. The question is whether or not the substance of asking for saintly invocation is itself an abuse of prayer or whether it is a practice that is innocent itself but can be abused. I think the Roman and Orthodox practice of it tends to point to the former being the case – though I do beg pardon for speaking so bluntly on a Roman board in discussion with an Orthodox Christian! Since you’re both former Lutherans (sort of…), and I’ve come to love and treasure you both, I hope you don’t mind me being blunt.
Oh, and David, if our Lord’s apostle commanded us to pray for one another – that is the Lord Himself commanding us to pray for one another, no? In fact, it is striking that St. James, urging us to pray for one another, evokes Elijah as an example of one’s whose prayer had great effect, yet he says nothing about invoking HIS prayers, but rather urges us to pray AS he did.
However, can they hear us? No, not directly. They are not divine or omniscient or omnipresent.
Well I’m glad to see at least that much acknowledgement. Many Catholics on the popular level believe otherwise. Let is be said that Lutherans are very well aware that the saints are alive in Christ, as are the baptized here on earth.
Jaroslav Pelikan in his book “Roman Catholicism” agrees that officially invoking the saints means asking them to pray WITH us, but in popular piety it often doesn’t work out that way. I have regular conversations with a lady who has left her novus ordo parish and now attends an SSPX chapel. She is still so stuck on the “Third Secret of Fatima” it just amazes me. Yes, she prays her rosary faithfully morning and night, but I’d love to see her reading more Scripture so she can move on.
I know what the Catholic church teaches about purgatory and it was further reflection that brought me back to my senses in the realization that if Jesus is not my sole and only righteousness before God, then the doctrine of purgatory gives me scant comfort (not to mention that no one can answer “how long” any soul is in purgatory, and since purgatory is supposedly outside of time that’s an endless loop). The fact that masses could theoretically be said ad infinitum (I am exaggerating of course) for the “poor souls” tells me that my understanding of purification as a Lutheran is very different from what I would hold as a Catholic.
If I believe that in Holy Baptism the righteousness of Christ is now mine and will plead for me at the judgment seat, I have no need of purgatory. I will be completely holy in Him whenever He calls me home and no, that doesn’t mean I am free to live my life as I please on this earth.
Christine
Rather than jump in over the top rope with a flying elbow smash — in part because a discussion is emerging between parties quite well already and I would like to watch it unfold, and in part because such an action is so foreign to the irenic nature for which I am known hic et ubique — just two questions.
One, is it now just “the prayer” and not the Memorare, a name instantly recognised and following the Latin custom of naming texts by their first word or two?
Two, in the Muslim/Catholic pilgrimage, who exactly is “Muslim”, there being several answers in Islam itself as to what is correctly Muslim?
Pastor Wheedon,
I’m intrigued by your statement that Our Lord “never one time mentioned that we should invoke the saints.” I find this an odd statement because until the resurrection, there were no saints. In part, we confront the challenge of applying the teaching of the Saviour pre-resurrection / pre-ascension / pre-pentecost to the time of the Church…
Damian
Touche, Fr Damian. I thought that when I read Pastor’s comment, but went on another tack.
Christine said: “if Jesus is not my sole and only righteousness before God, then the doctrine of purgatory gives me scant comfort”.
Amen, Sister. Couldn’t agree more. BUT Jesus is my sole righteousness before God, and thus the doctrine of purgatory gives me great comfort.
If I believe that in Holy Baptism the righteousness of Christ is now mine and will plead for me at the judgment seat, I have no need of purgatory.
Well, not quite so, Christine. Maybe you never quite got a handle on the difference between temporal and eternal punishment. Even as a Lutheran, I was taught to pray a prayer of confession that said we deserved punishment “in time and in eternity”. In the Catholic faith, eternal punishment is remitted by baptism and absolution, but the temporal consequences of actual sin do not disappear with the absolution (just like when I spill a carton of milk in the kitchen, Cathy may forgive me, but I still have to clean it up). Purgatory is about temporal, not eternal, consequences of sin.
PE asked “in the Muslim/Catholic pilgrimage, who exactly is “Muslim”, there being several answers in Islam itself as to what is correctly Muslim?.
They are an Australian Turkish association connected with the Gulen Movement in Turkey. Generally of the sufi mould. I don’t tend to judge the self-description of my dialogue partners.
Since you’re both former Lutherans (sort of…), and I’ve come to love and treasure you both, I hope you don’t mind me being blunt.
LOL! I don’t have a problem in the world with you disagreeing vehemently with any theological point I might hold or make–we Orthodox are big on free will–however, its a little hard not to be offended with you call me a “former Lutheran (sort of).”
But you might be right with such a qualifier. I don’t know how much a person has to know to be considered a fully authentic Lutheran…I am sure I fell short in Lutheran knowledge–although I did give it a good try having taken coursework in doctrine and completing 2/3rds of the requirements for Lay Ministry certification–which required more hours in the subject than my undergraduate degree in chemistry! And if being a fully authentic Lutheran is less about knowing but about belonging to the right congregation then I would say of the 4 congregations in which I held membership, one might have squeaked by the purity tests for being fully Lutheran, 2 were clearly in the “sort of” category and one might even be considered not Lutheran by whoever judges these things. So I suspect on average that would have made me “sort of” Lutheran. Seriously though…no matter how one makes this measurement…from “sort of Lutheran” to “fully authentic Lutheran” I imagine I would have fallen short…nonetheless, it still hurts when you say it. ;)
Sigh. David, if I learned anything in my ten years as a Catholic I hope one thing was the difference between “temporal” and “eternal” punishment.
That’s exactly what I deny.
The difference between the understanding of Scriptural “repentance” and Catholic “penance” is a huge one.
I don’t at all deny the teaching that both Lutherans and Catholics hold that nothing unclean can enter heaven. And I too pray the prayer you prayed as a Lutheran. But the difference is, after having prayed that prayer my Pastor announces that for Christ’s sake God forgives me ALL my sins and I am renewed in Holy Baptism (wherein I continue to rejoice that you and I are joined as brother and sister in Christ) to repent and live again for Christ.
What I maintain is that either at death or at the Parousia, Jesus, who knows His own, will enact that purgation that will grant those of the true faith entrance into God’s Kingdom.
I don’t accept the Catholic doctrines of “temporal” and “eternal” punishment anymore. The Sacrifice of Calvary cleanses it all.
What a poor comfort for Catholics to wonder how long their loved ones must suffer in purgatory. They never really knows.
Christine
“I don’t tend to judge the self-description of my dialogue partners.”
Holy crap, who asked you to?
I guess I still operate under the idea that the name of something meant something, and those associated with that name would be charateristic of it.
Funny how that persists after 40 odd years of post-conciliar “Catholic”.
Just wanted to know what you “dialogue partners” mean by Muslim, since within Islam Muslim can mean different things.
The prayer, however, says nothing of this.
So now You’re up to interpreting the text of our prayer-books in the same manner You interpret the text of the Bible?
I guess the verse must actually read “It is finished, except your part”.
Only then does it make sense to say one believes Jesus is his sole righteousness before God and therefore rejoices in the doctrine of purgatory.
You guys sure like mazes. What was hidden in former times is now revealed — the true maze. A-maze-ing.
I’m confused-
DS: “Answer to the first objection could be that we don’t have any promise or command in scripture (as far as I know) about asking our fellow Christians to pray for us either”
DS: “1. But, my dear Vicci, the examples I gave from scripture should indicate that asking another to pray for one is hardly “lack of conviction” or “lack of relationship”. Was Paul lacking in conviction or relationship when he asked his addressees to “pray for him”
Schutz playing tennis on BOTH sides of the net..??
and Dixie:
(who claims) “This argument essentially nullifies the need for those of us on earth to pray for each other.”
No it doesn’t.
Suggest a re-read might help?.
Dixie,
You misunderstood; I didn’t mean you were “sort of” Lutheran then. I meant you are “sort of” Lutheran still! David too. You’ve both carried with you a great deal of Lutheranism that I think enables you both to hear things that your respective jurisdictions are saying in a better way than they were meant. I don’t know if that makes any sense to you at all, but when I say your’re only sort of an ex-Lutheran, it’s a compliment! :)
David,
If Roman Catholics no longer teach that purgatory is a state and that people suffer there for an extended time, then it is teaching something different today from what it taught as recently as the publication of the Baltimore Catechism, no? The unchanging faith??? PE where are you???
Pastor Bill said: You misunderstood; I didn’t mean you were “sort of” Lutheran then. I meant you are “sort of” Lutheran still! David too. You’ve both carried with you a great deal of Lutheranism that I think enables you both to hear things that your respective jurisdictions are saying in a better way than they were meant. I don’t know if that makes any sense to you at all, but when I say your’re only sort of an ex-Lutheran, it’s a compliment! :)
That’s the way I took it, Pastor. I like to describe myself as a “Lutheran in communion with the Bishop of Rome”. Just goes to show you that it is possible to enter full communion with the Catholic Church without repudiating the good things Lutheranism has to offer the Church.
Sionso: the way Jerusalem is now.
Vicci, I do like dialoging with you. You have a certain “innocence” in these matters that is refreshing. I note also your great willingness to study and learn, as you did with the question regarding Jesus’ brothers.
But you misunderstand what I have said when you say that I am trying to have a bet both ways.
In regard to invoking the saints to pray for us, I am distinguishing between a “command” and a “promise” and an “example”.
We do not have a dominical command to ask our fellow believers to pray for us. Strictly speaking, I find no such command in the Apostolic writings either. I find a clear “example” of asking others to pray for us, and a “description” (not quite a “promise”?) of the benefits that come from such mutual intercession, but no direct “command”. The “command” to “pray for one another” (James 5:16) is not yet the same thing as a “command” to invoke one another to pray for us.
It is almost as if the Apostolic practice of asking others to intercede for us is a pious and devout practice based upon faith in God our Father and in his Son Jesus Christ, but not one that either they or we do because we had a specific command to do so.
I make this point only in response to the Lutheran demand for a clear “command” and “promise” attached to the practice of invoking the intercession of the departed saints. My point is that we do not even have such a clear “command” and “promise” attached to the common practice among all Christians of asking the living (in this world) saints to pray for us. And yet we do it. [And hence the only real objection to invoking the departed saints to intercede for us is that natural human objection that they can’t hear us – an objection which we answer theologically on the basis of the ancient, universal and revered tradition of the Church.]
Christine said:
David, if I learned anything in my ten years as a Catholic I hope one thing was the difference between “temporal” and “eternal” punishment.
That’s exactly what I deny.
…What I maintain is that either at death or at the Parousia, Jesus, who knows His own, will enact that purgation that will grant those of the true faith entrance into God’s Kingdom.
I don’t accept the Catholic doctrines of “temporal” and “eternal” punishment anymore. The Sacrifice of Calvary cleanses it all.
But that makes me think that you really never understood the Catholic doctrine of temporal punishment at all, Christine.
If I do something that really hurts my wife Cathy, and I repent of this and confess this and receive absolution for it, from both God and from Cathy, there nevertheless remains the damage I have done to our relationship which needs to be repaired. There are temperol consequence of my sin which do not go away with either God’s or the Cathy’s forgiveness. I have damaged our relationship, and I have to work at restoring it.
Now, of course, not only the initial repentance but also this post-absolution “work” is only possible by the grace of Christ. He is the one who “purges” my heart and gives me the strength to do what I must to rebuild the relationship.
When we sin, we make a mess of our relationship with God, with one another, and with the world. Acts of “penance” are therefore required by nature. I would be entirely remiss if I said to my wife, after having hurt her, well, I have been forgiven, so I don’t have to repair the damage I have done.
As regards purgation after death, of course this is entirely the work of Jesus in me. The “suffering” that comes with this purgation is no more than the pain that I experience when God by his grace wrenches away from me my attachments to sin. I look forward to that – truly as a divine gift to be eagerly desired – but I know (from my experience of trying to detach myself from sin in this life) that it will be a painful business.
I like to think of purgatory as God finally taking the wire scrubbing brush to me and finishing the work that was not completed in me while I was alive (presuming that this work is not completed in me during my lifetime and that I probably will not die a perfect saint!).
Sorry for being so dense! (Although I don’t quite see things the same way as David.)
I have no doubt that I carry with me some Lutheran remnants. I am told it takes about 10 years before someone becomes fully Orthodox so I have some time yet to finish shedding my Lutheran skin and complete the putting on of an Orthodox one. I imagine I’ll fare better in these discussions then!
Naturally, Dixie, your situation is different from mine.
Essentially, to become a Catholic, all I needed to do was to declare that “I believe and profess all that the Catholic Church believes teaches and proclaims to be revealed by God”, receive confirmation and first Eucharist, and (behold!) I was in communion with the Bishop of Rome. I didn’t have to make any statement about abjuring “all that the Lutheran Church believes teaches and proclaims to be revealed by God” (which would have been silly, since most of that is what I was promising in my declaration re what the Catholic Church teaches etc.), and I didn’t have to make any significant cultural shift either, since my Christianity was already “Western”.
(See how easy it is, Pastor? :) )
I imagine it is rather different becoming Orthodox – which includes so much that is cultural as well as so much that is distinctively Eastern. Did you have to make any declaration other than the Nicene Creed at your reception into the Orthodox Church?
Certainly different in a cultural sense as there is an Orthodox culture but not so much in a distinctively Eastern sense if you mean that in an ethnic way. The non-Orthodox make a lot of the ethnicity associated with Orthodoxy but frankly with 3rd generation families here in the US the whole ethnic thing gets pretty diluted and overpowered by the American thing…which I don’t know is such a great trade off. There are exceptions…of course.
Oh yeah, I had to make a few declarations upon entering the Church. I had to agree with icons and that the Orthodox Church is the one true Church…there were a couple of ones in there that were decidedly not Lutheran. I’ll have to see if I can find the text because I can remember everything.
I’d be very interested.
Sorry, real life getting in the way of blogging, Pastor.
It is more Dante than the Catholic Church that teaches Purgatory as a physical place. So I’ll pass over going on about a crater caused by Satan’s fall etc. The decree of Trent on Purgatory (Session 25, 4 Dec 1563) doesn’t get into where Purgatory is at all, just that it is, and those there are helped by our prayer — and that speculation that is not edifying, ass well as practices that lead to superstition or misuse of funds are to be stopped by the diligent action of the bishops.
In more recent times, some have taught that Purgatory is not that big a deal, something simply tied to the limited physical knowledge of the universe in former times which though of the Earth as everything, a heaven above and a hell below. This is not and has never been the position of the Church, though it is related to it. Chesterton observed that error is never so wrong as when it is nearly right.
Even before the Council, we were taught that neither heaven and hell nor purgatory are strictly speaking physical places — space travel will not one day reach heaven and more than it will poke holes in the sky — as spiritual states outside of physicality which historically have been represented physically to allow our comprehension at all, periods of time being a way to express relative seriousness rather than exact designations of periods of time, for example. Purgatory then is a condition of existence, not a literal place of existence, and what happens there is as David describes.
That said, is the path to Rome now clear? See how easy it is? It was all based on a big misunderstanding, and as soon as that is cleared up, welcome home to Rome where you always really wanted to be?
Pig’s bum. None of the above is the basis of why Purgatory is pure speculative fiction nor does clearing it up make it any less opure speculative fiction — re that, doesn’t matter in the least whether it is a place or a condition of existence.
For one thing, temporal consequences are by definition, well, temporal; if they persist beyond the temporal into eternity, they are not temporal. Thus, it is inventing some sort of temporary state in eternity where the temporal is still dealt with that makes me think someone does not understand the idea of eternal and temporal punishment — for the absurdity that it is.
Rather, it makes me think that the full and free forgiveness of sin announced in the Gospel is believed but still chained to the very sinful limitations from which the Gospel delivers, having to find a place in eternity for the temporal to work out, a place to clean up the spilt milk still on the floor you couldn’t clean up before leaving here, unable to grasp that not being able to make everything right is exactly the condition from which the Gospel saves us!
For another, it is truer than you think that you have made no abjuration of heresy. You misrepresent entirely what the abjuration even is, not surprising since it is no longer made. There is nothing whatever of rejecting all that the Lutheran church or any other body teaches. Rather, one professes sorrow inasmuch as one has held doctrines opposed to those of God’s church. Inasmuch. Big difference, Likewise, the lifting of excommunication includes the word perchance (forsan) thou hast incurred. The abjuration concludes with an abjuration of every error, heresy and sect opposed to the Catholic Church. It is in terms of every generally, not all of one in particular.
There is absolutely no such thing as a Lutheran in communion with the bishop of Rome. That is a fiction only possible in the quasi Protestant “Catholicism” developed by the nouvelle theologie, condemned by the Catholic Church, and now the teaching of the Catholic Church since the debacle of Vatican II.
That’s the way I took it, Pastor. I like to describe myself as a “Lutheran in communion with the Bishop of Rome”. Just goes to show you that it is possible to enter full communion with the Catholic Church without repudiating the good things Lutheranism has to offer the Church.
Christine
I discovered that that is utterly impossible. A Lutheran in Communion with Rome is a total oxymoron.
Your analogy of spilling milk and your wife’s annoyance isn’t going to fly, David. Thus saith the Lord: “My ways are not your ways.” Purgatory is typical Roman philsophical wrangling. Even the Orthodox don’t buy it. It is finished indeed.
When the Lord told the woman caught in adultery she was forgiven, to go and sin no more there was no penance of any sort attached. None. Same for the Good Thief. TODAY you will be with Me in paradise.
Easy to become Catholic, David? After all the hoops you and I had to jump through to get our marriages “regularized?” I don’t think so.
I’m only sorry I didn’t leave the Catholic church earlier.
Christine
SchutZ,
Have a safe journey,and I hope you get to see the whirling dervishes.
Lucian your manner is off handed and disrespectful.
David:
“Why should St James make note that the “prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (James 5:16) if not to encourage us to ask the “righteous man” to intercede for us?
Reading the context suggests that ‘we’ are (or can be) the ‘righteous man’, and so are encouraged to pray for ourselves, and for others. (..even for healing.)
I read that WW suggests that Elijah is the righteous man referred to. Don’t really see that, myself. Seems like he is an example used ‘after the fact’ of 5:16.
btw:
~ did you use the ‘Prayer and the Oil’ in your ministry?
Fr. Damian,
If we turn to those whom our Lord instructed and who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and who lived on the other side of the resurrection and knew the death of saints, we still find nothing. I can nowhere find St. John urging us to call upon his brother; nor does the writer to the Hebrews, who urges us to remember those who taught the faith and considering the outcome of their lives to imitate their faith (sounds like dead apostles?), but not a word about asking their intercessions.
Is it found in any of the Apostolic Fathers? Does Ignatius mention it? Irenaeus? Justin? Polycarp? Not mentioning it does not, of course, provide proof positive that it was not taught and practiced, but it is odd that there is no trace of it in the writings of the fathers until the great fathers of the 4th century. I suppose the same argument could be made of Mary’s ever-virginity, but at least St. Ignatius hints at it. I can’t find a hint in those early fathers of teaching Christians on pilgrimage to seek the intercessions of Christians at rest.
Lucian – ironic that you chastise David for dialog with a Lutheran the same day you posted twice on my blog…
And why do You think that is?
Lucian your manner is off handed and disrespectful.
Why?
What, Lucian off handed and disrespectful? Hardly. Hell, wait until Lucian and I lock horns, THEN you’ll see some off handed and disrespectful! So far, it only looks like the same treatment everyone gets here who does not go “the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church” — there being no other position possible in this mindset, any other position must proceed from a defective psychological state (bitter etc)or bad manners (disrespectful, rude etc.)
Well, Past Elder, You never explained (or I wasn’t paying attention) how You managed to overcome the historical continuity problem which Lutheranism presents (and due to which You Yourself apostatized into Judaism for several decades).
Pastor Wheedon,
Thanks for the reply. It is clear that there is no encouragement to seek the prayers of the saints in glory in the New Testament. The manner in which it explodes on the stage in the fourth century, at the most suggests that it was a very common practice in the latter part of the third century.
Ultimately, for me, my practice rests on that which David outlined in his blog-post: namely, I ask the saints in glory to pray for me in the same way that I ask the saints on earth to pray for me.
In terms of liturgical practice, I have found those few moments when the saints are invoked, such as during the Easter Vigil and at the time of Prayers before Death, to be incredibly powerful. These are moments in the life of the Church when we are aware in a special way of the great hosts of witnesses who stand before the throne of heaven. While we begin and end invoking the mercy and mediation of Christ, we also ask the saints and angels to pray for us or the one who approaches the judgement seat.
God Bless
Damian
Father,
Though we do not invoke them, at such times we do indeed sense their closeness to us (or ours to them) and we rejoice in their intercessions for the Church still on pilgrimage. With the dying we pray:
Go in peace. May God the Father who created you; may God the Son who by His precious blood redeemed you; may God the Holy Spirit who sanctified you in the water of Holy Baptism, receive you into the company of saints and angels to await the resurrection and live in the light of HIs glory forevermore.
And we sing to them:
Lord, let at last Thine angels come,
To Abram’s bosom bear me home
That I may die unfearing…
Say, David, speaking of renunications and such required of the Orthodox converts, have you ever read these?
http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutheranheritage.palatineconversions.html
Deary me. That’s a bit of a sad episode, Pastor W. One might pass over the fact that these “converts” were doing so for the sake of worldly benefit. One might overlook the fact that the laws of the day were designed to force consciences. One might not be surprised at the horrible twisting of the teaching of the Catholic Church at points, and rather blunt contrast drawn with the evengelical doctrines.
Oh well. The times and the customs…
One thing interests me is the idea that these chaps were being received into something called the “communion of evangelical churches”. I wonder what that could have meant?
hanteid: What these poor German bastards must have felt…
I think “communion of evangelical churches” was just a reference to Lutheran Churches – at that time you could commune from Iceland to Sweden, from Finland to Hungary, from England (the Lutheran parishes, I mean) to Holland.
I agree that the polemical cast is unfortunate, but it interests me that such renunciations were required — there was a very clear sense of one’s confession in those days.
Lutheranism held no attraction for me when I left the Catholic Church. Nothing did. I believed its argument that it is the fulness of the true Church of Jesus Christ, and if it had imploded, then the whole thing, Christianity itself in any form, was false and always had been.
That, actually, was the hardest part — not that the present “Catholic Church” is false to the Catholic Church and therefore not true, which is patently obvious, but for that to have happened the whole thing must have been false all along, and there being no other with a credible claim to being true (Orthodoxy a “close but no cigar”), it’s all false.
Which does not invalidate the OT, onlt the New, so I went with the Old, which became then not the OT but the Hebrew Scriptures.
“Babylonian Captivity” and the BOC changed all that.
Yes, You’ve said that many times now, but You haven’t explained HOW the BoC “changed all that” (I haven’t read it, so…)
Sorry for the omission PE but I take exception to Lucian’s inference that Protestants are breakers of the raiment of Christ ,and by extension must be Antichrist. Sorry but I out that in the same boat as my fellow protestants who would regard you Lucain and catholics as being also of the same ilk-crap and piffle. We have world that is rushing headlong into a Christless eternity and we spend time taking potshots at each other when we should be ,as true Christians, working to overcome the World,the Flesh and the devil,by living lives dedicated to Christ.
As Corrie ten Boom wrote of her experiences in Ravensbruck concentration camp what mattered was our faith in Christ all the rest was superfluous.
Hope things are well in Romania Lucian. Hopefully not Arad as here in Australia
Matthias,
we had that experience during communism. (Ecumenism began in communist prisons). And I share Your concern (and Leonard Cohen shares it also). And I agree with Your opinion on the war against the flesh. (I also see Corrie ten Boom died the same year I was born)
Now, the difference between us is as follows: I’m not desperate. :-) And I never lessen the importance of dogma. Apart from nagging cute little Protestants, I also bug sweet, innocent, unsuspecting atheists, and try to fight my own little passions — all with the same lack of effect, sadly. :D
Very honest answer and I can appreciate that -and I am not been condescending,far from it- your concern for Christian dogma is as a result of your country emerging from an appalling dictatorship and perhaps there has been a vaccuum left which only Jesus and thus Christianity can fill satisafctorily,but there are diversions.
i’m the same as you,I never lessen dogma,for any compromise
in doctrine,is a compromised faith
You are still young then for Ms Ten Boom died in the 1980’s.
That’s always the difficulty — wanting to share Christ, disagreement over what then is shared. Flip sides of the same coin. By some lights, if some come to Christ and believe what I do, they will know there is the Eucharist but not have it and not know that they don’t have it.
In my case, Luther’s essay “Babylonian Captivity” was the perfect place to start. That may not be so for someone else. But the light went on for me in reading his discussion of the mass in Babylonian Captivity, and the rest followed.
I can only describe the process in a combox.