Okay, I wasn't going to blog on this, but it is too funny. Earlier today a friend sent me this gem:
WELS Q&A
Go visit. Talk about a bunch of bologna!
Now, if someone tells me "You're too catholic" I usually say "Thank you! Let's talk about that!" But when someone accuses me of being a ROMANIST, well, that's just going too far!
Um, as the dear Reverend Dean of the Society of St. Polycarp, Pastor Larry Beane, points out, the Society is committed to a quia subscription to the Book of Concord, and the Book of Concord prohibits invocation of the saints. Next question? I find it VERY humorous.
Except that they should have contacted the Dean and gotten the straight scoop rather than inventing something out of their own imagination. Kyrie eleison!
51 comments:
The possibility that Mary could pray for the welfare of the church in general is no support for the claim that we should pray to her.
Right. Mary prayed with the nascent Church for the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
The minute she was raised to heaven her prayers ceased.
I'm glad I'm a Romanist. How is being LCMS, ELCA and WELS "catholic"?
To Will:
Boy is this weirdly curious. Somewhere today you wrote how you are reluctant to mess with the formatting of your blog, so I clicked on the Google Blog tour etcetera to learn more about Google Blog mechanics and found the Google Blog Search engine. It searches for Blogs. On a whim, I typed in LCMS and Poof! There near the top of the Listings results was "LCMS Romanizing Lutherans." I went there and read it and laughed. But now, I'm seriously wondering. . . . Would I have won another beer if I had forwarded it to you?
(This was the exact same web site by the way, same article.)
I sure hope that the WELS hymnals, past and present, don't include the hymn "Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones"! That hymn might just lead Lutherans actually to call upon (invoke?! ;-) folks like the "bearer of the eternal Word" as well as "patriarchs and prophets blessed"! But, shhh!, please don't tell the Lutherans what they're really singing there! :-)
(Okay, trouble-maker mode off. :-)
If we go by a *very narrow* interpretation of scripture, using no more example or sanction than we see or hear from Christ Himself, we'll have to limit ourselves to "invoking" only three "dead saints" (that I can think of at the moment): Moses, Elijah, and Father Abraham.
Anastasia
Anastasia,
The Father Abraham one is a very beautiful example and highly suggestive. Christ speaks of Abraham reminding the Rich Man that his brothers have MOSES AND THE PROPHETS. So much for the departed not having a clue about what's going on here on earth. Abraham knows all about Moses and the other prophets.
As I reminded some folks earlier today, and as I posted on the blog before, Luther can speak powerfully about the prayers of the departed:
""For to everyone who believes through the word of the Apostles, the promise is given for Christ's sake and by the power of this prayer,
that he shall be one body and one loaf with all Christians; that what happens to him as a member for good or ill, shall happen to the whole body for good or ill, and not only one or two saints, but all the prophets, martyrs, apostles, all Christians, both on earth and with God in Heaven, shall suffer and conquer with him, shall fight for him, help, protect, and save him and shall undertake for him such a gracious exchange that they will all bear his sufferings, want, and afflictions and he partake of all their blessings, comfort, and joy.... For who can harm or injure a man who has this confidence, who knows that heaven and earth, and all the angels and the saints will cry to God when the smallest suffering befalls him?" (Sermons on John xvi-xx, 1528)
Which still doesn't prove one little thing about invoking. As my friend Pr. Curtis likes to point out, we hardly need to ask the Mother of God and the saints to pray for us - they do it all the time without our asking!
Philip,
I think I owe you another beer just for finding it! :)
One of many reasons I am no longer a member of an ELS congregation.
Floyd Bass, SSP
I couldn't help but notice the "Mother of Jesus" in the Q&A title. This same Q&A can also be found by going to the Topics list under "Mary" and the expanded category "Mother of Jesus". Mary's proper title is Mother of God. I believe the Lutheran confessions even use the term. Why doesn't WELS?
Well, Dixie, I think the answer is that "sub-Lutheran" practice is not an exclusive right of the LCMS. :(
The point is not just that Abraham knows what is happening on earth, and that he is able to respond, too. The point is that in this parable told by Jesus, the rich man INVOKES Abraham.
And Jesus did the supposedly verboten thing, conversing with Moses and Elijah.
And people quite naturally supposed, albeit erroneously, Jesus was invoking Elijah as He hung on the Cross. That's highly suggestive, too.
Anastasia
Ditto, Pastor Bass! It's one of many reasons why I am LCMS and no longer WELS.
Ah the dear old WELS Q&A! It was my proto-blogging. Speaking of trouble maker mode, I used to Q on there all the time about substandard Lutheran practice. Sometimes I flatter myself that I may have had something to do with the disclaimer they have added that it is not a discussion forum.
Some have sought refuge from the ills that assault LCMS in WELS, but the problem with that is two-fold. First, WELS itself has no idea how enmeshed in Pietism it still is, and second, they are only a quarter century or so behind us in having those same ills.
Anastasia,
First, let me tell you how much I've been enjoying your blog - I love the inside picture of life in Greece! And somehow the dove story has been my favorite. I hope your dear hubby is feeling better.
About the rich man "invoking" Abraham - well, you see where HE ended up, eh? In the glorious Transfiguration the point is simply that where our Lord is, there His saints are. I suspect that if in the presence of the Lord you wanted to chat with Moses or Elijah, they'd say to you the same thing that God the Father did when Peter was rather amazed at THEM being there: "Shh! Hear HIM!"
Past Elder,
I think you're right - sadly - about WELS/ELS. The Wauwatosa theology has done great damage to upholding the authority of the Symbols.
hey...thats OUR church
Fr Weedon,
where our Lord is, there His saints are
Precisely. You make Anastasia's point for her. For if the saints are where the Lord is, are we not there also with Him (and therefore with them), Who promised I will be with you alway, even to the close of the age? They are with Him, and we are with Him, because both we and they are IN Him.
If we are cut off from the saints, either they are not in Christ or we are not in Christ. But of course neither is true, hence we can never be separated from them.
Don't you see that to forbid the invocation of saints is to deny the communion of saints?
Christopher,
Note that the "being with them" doesn't result in asking their intercession in Scripture. Hebrews 10 is one powerful passage about how we gather in worship "with the spirits of the just made perfect." But nowhere in the passage is there any hint of our asking them to pray for us about this, that, or the other thing. Rather, together with them we are drawn into the adoration of the Lamb once slain, whose blood has blotted out our sins and in whom we are indeed one. Our Lord is the Head of His body; and prayers are directed not to feet, ears, toes or anysuch. But to the Head: which is where the ears are. :)
Ack! You know what I meant. The EARS were not supposed to be in the list!!!
Off topic (maybe), but what is the "Wauwatosa theology"?
Brian (someone who gets very confused following the timeline and various historical synods of American Lutheranism)
August Pieper, Koehler, and Schaller were the big lights - they taught at the Wauwatosa seminary and were characterized by their rejection of or at least great skepticism toward the dogmatic heritage of the Lutheran Church and insisted on a form of "sola Scriptura" that ended up in all practicality rejecting the authority of the Symbols (and the dogmatic tradition of which they are a piece). Thus, in Missouri it is quite normal practice to cite the teachings of fathers in the faith - how they understood the Sacred Scriptures - and to respect those who came before us. In the Wauwatosa school this approach would be derided as "authority theology."
It's as though you took the intro to the Formula and held it aloft apart from the rest of the BOC and the Catalog of Testimonies.
Fr Weedon,
That is not an answer. It is an argument from silence. And there is, as always, almost no argument against invocation that cannot equally be deployed against asking the intercessions of the living. There is only the rather lame claim that "we don't know" that the saints can hear us -- to which point the examples given by Anastasia are quite apposite.
What we receive from tradition we treasure and hand on, unless it can be proven to be contrary to the Scriptures. And a proof that something is contrary to the Scriptures requires more than an argument from silence. Christian orthopraxis is not fully and explicitly set forth in Scripture, and to argue against a pious practice because it is not explicit in Scripture involves a version of Sola Scriptura to which I do not subscribe.
Christopher,
It is not an argument from silence when we hear our Lord's very gracious words to us: "Call upon ME in the day of trouble, and I will deliver you and you shall glorify Me."
When the Lord insists that His glory shall not be given to another, that includes being the One who answers prayers. "To you shall all flesh come."
To turn to the saints for what is clearly given only in the Lord must be very displeasing for them. It was the Mother of God who proclaimed: "He has done great things for me and holy is His name." She never once suggested that if we invoke her, she would do great things for us! Her last words to us in Sacred Scripture are "do whatever He tells you." Good words. Did our Lord tell you to invoke the saints in the Church triumphant? Did His apostles teach you to do this? Did the Holy Spirit in His inspired Word provide you a single example of this practice?
Nor may we ignore the history of where it led. Chemnitz provides copious citations of the prayers in use to the saints:
O Mary, admit our prayers in the sanctuary where you hear prayers, and bring back to us the remedy of reconciliation; let that which we bring be excusable through you; let that be attainable which we request in faith and mind; accept what we offer; grant what we ask; excuse what we fear.
Remember Virgin Mother, when you stand at the sight of God, to bespeak good things for us, that He may turn His wrath away from us!
O noble Mary, excellent above all, procure for us forgiveness. O Mary, full of grace, sweet, mild, and beautiful, grant us grace. O glorious Mary delicate in delights, prepare glory for us.
Come, loftly Lady Mary, visit us; illumine our minds through the sacred gift of life.
Out of the depths have I cried to you, Lady; Lady, hear my voice. Let your ears be attentive to the voice of my praise and glorification. Deliver me from the hand of my adversaries. Confound and destroy the schemes and the attempts made against me. Save me in the devil day, and do not forget my soul on teh day of my death.
Be pleased, sweet Mary, to keep us now and always without transgression. Have mercy upon us, good Lady, have mercy upon us.
I could go, but I think anyone can see what has happened here: the Blessed and Holy Virgin has become the one to whom people were taught to flee in time of need! This is to make of the Most Holy Virgin an idol indeed, and I cannot doubt that it grieves her heart.
Oh, though I quoted only prayers from the West, the prayers of the East in this regard are no better. Christopher, I might ask you to pray for me, but I would never ask you:
Give to the eyes of my heart the light of understanding; quicken me who am slain by sin; give me humbleness and contrition of heart and lowliness in my thoughts and an awakening from the captivity of my own imaginings; and permit me even to my last breath to receive uncondemned the hallowing of the sacred mysteries unto the healing of my body and soul.
You are arguing that it is no different to ask Mary's prayers than to ask yours. I ask you: would you ask such things of me???
Nor may we ignore the history of where it led. Chemnitz provides copious citations of the prayers in use to the saints:
Oh good grief, if one reads the writings of Saint Therese of Lisieux out of the context of her time by today's standards they would also be considered hopelessly romantic and syrupy.
Personally, I love a traditional Franciscan ending to the Daily Office or even one's own spontaneous prayers:
"May our Blessed Lady pray for us, may all the saints pray for us, may the holy angels befriend us and surround us to keep us, and may the Lord Jesus give us His blessing of peace.
Really, sometimes Lutherans are so time-warped.
We pray with Mary to the Logos, the one Eternal Word, Who is the source of all our hope.
I also agree that arguing from silence is not always fruitful. The title "Mother of God" is something that Luther carried over from his Catholic roots. It is certainly not stated in Scripture.
Watching the ongoing debate on other Lutheran blogs about the perpetual virginity of Mary is also very interesting. No, Scripture doesn't address it. But no one over there has thrown out the question of if Mary and Joseph had other natural children, why on earth were none of them present to stand with the Blessed Mother at the foot of the cross? Even if they didn't share her faith in her Christ's divinity, wouldn't even on a natural level a mother deserve the support of her other children at such a dire time?
Arguing from silence can become very circular.
Christine,
No time warp. The prayer I cited from the Eastern source is from a prayer book published not so many years ago.
About the title Mother of God, it is most certainly a Biblical term. For the One to whom Mary gave birth is Immanuel. If He is Immanuel, the God who is with us; His Mother is the Mother of the God who is with us, no?
Yes, Pastor, and that is arrived by theological deduction. Please find me one textual reference to Mary as Mother of God in Scripture.
It simply wasn't definitively defined until the Council of Ephesus. In other words, through holy Tradition.
Very few Protestant denominations use the title.
I ask you: would you ask such things of me???
If you were to pray that God should grant me those blessings, I should be very grateful. If the Blessed Virgin were to pray that God should grant them to me, why should I not also be grateful?
No one is asking the saints to grant us anything by their own power, but only to pray to God for those blessings.
I don't know about you, but when I am in a time of trouble, I do call upon the Lord, but I also ask the prayers of those who love me (even including the saints). That doesn't take any glory away from the Lord. Why would it?
I just don't see a conflict here between the prayers of the saints and the glory due to God alone. What I do see is a baseless fear of idolatry which erects a wall of separation between us and our elders in the faith who have fallen asleep in the Lord. They are my brothers and sisters in Christ, who are now partakers of His nature. I am not going to let anyone separate me from them, to whom I am joined in Him.
Anastasia,
The Jews thought Christ was invoking Elijah because Elijah was seen to still be alive and they thought he would return to herald the end of the world. He wasn't invoking Elisha or another prophet who fell asleep in the Lord. I don't think that point would be valid.
Note, Chris, though, that the prayer I cited does not ask Mary to ask God for these things. It asks her for them. Now, I know I've heard folks say you have to put it in the context of all the other prayers addressed to the Blessed Trinity. Hurray for those prayers, but that still does not explain why I am to ask Mary to grant me these things. Again, I'd say: you wouldn't ask me to give them to you, though you might ask me to pray with you to God to give them to you. I just note that the prayer cited doesn't do that.
Various replies to various posts:
Yup, we know where the rich man ended up. But we also know it wasn't as a result of invoking Abraham. Jesus does not show any aversion at all to this practice, seems to take it as perfectly natural. He is the one taught this parable, so it forms a scriptural precedent.
So does His conversing with Moses and Elijah. Yes, we ought to follow His example.
Your arguments all seem to posit, as Chris pointed out, 3 separate parties. Christ is the Party of the First Part, "I" am the party fo the second part, with Moses and/or Elijah forming the party of the third part. Just as if none of us was IN Christ.
In fact, there is One party, Christ, together with all His members, a single, living organism. In a living organism, all parts naturally communicate with all other parts. When Christ converses with Moses and Elijah, everyone IN HIM is also conversing with them. And vice versa: if we converse with Moses and Elijah, we are doing so as members of Christ; hence Christ is speaking to them through us.
Yes, God does give His glory to another! Since when? Since Christ.
"And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them." John 17:10
"And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:" (John 17:22)
It wasn't orginally their glory; it was the Father's. But He has given it to Christ who gives it to all His siblings, us, and now we cannot clearly demarcate whose it is. Where does the vine end and the branch begin?
Yes, people though of Elijah as alive. We also think of all the saints as alive. I can't see any difference there.
When we ask saints to do this or that for us, we understand one of two things, and sometimes both. (1) That we are asking a saint to pray for this specific thing on our behalf; (2) That God has given various ministries to various Christians, who continue these ministries in heaven. In which case, these ministries are still, as always, carried out by the power *of God* working in them. (But then we're back to "whose power?" which is the same problem as "whose glory"?) Deification!
Delighted you enjoy my blog, William. The dove, within 2 days, has already learned where to come for good food, and has brought a mate with her.
Please feel free to leave comments.
Finding out who and what the Wauwatosa Theologians were was about the last big thing to happen to me in WELS -- which is no accident.
It strikes me that their validity, as least as expressed to me by my then pastor, was couched in terms very similar to Roman talk: that they espoused no new doctrine, but simply supplied needed clarification of what was already believed.
Oddly enough, I came to it through an article on Consensus, about several times in LCMS history when a less than forthright stand against false teaching led to bad consequences. The case of the Ohio man excommunicated by his LCMS parish for not sending his kids to the parish school particularly struck me and still does. The LCMS District overturned the excommunication, and the parish sought aid from WELS, which it appears was not given officially but exercised unofficially, and set off a frenzy of theologising over what is church and what is a call that reached its expression in Wauwatosa.
Being a guy who for several reasons did not send his kids to the WELS parish school, that got my attention! I began to see that behind the surface of that school and those kids, there was a lot more that explained a lot more for me. The eventual result was joining LCMS.
Asking a saint for help, rather than explicitly asking them to pray to God for me for that help, is the result of simply overthinking what's going on. Neither I nor you all nor any saint nor any created thing can do anything apart from God - "He is everywhere present and fills all things" and is He wasn't we would go back to our natural state of nothingness, from which all things were created (ex nihilo). So, whether I explictly pray to God to help me take the trash out like my wife asked (lit. 'prayed') me to do, it is not me simply doing it on my own. It is the same with much more complex and 'important' work such as a believing husband or wofe "saving" his unbelieving spouse - language of St. Paul that, if parsed as closely as language surrounding invocation of the saints, would be condemned as heretical, too.
It should also be noted that, unlike the common example given of us asking for each others prayers, we are not speaking about regular men and women. The point isn't that they are saints, the point is that they are already in the Presence of God, fully united with and dwelling in Him. Some even teach that the saints in heaven, since heaven is in eternity and without that created thing we call time, have in fact already experienced the resurrection and judgement of the Last Day where truly Christ fills all things (which includes all people). This union by grace whereas in Christ it is hypostatic), this adoption as sons, this deification by grace given as truly ours is the basis of the work the saints are capable of - which is both by prayer and simply through their being without any action on their part (examples of both types of miraculous, properly god-like works can be found performed by and through unresurrected men in the Acts of the Apostles).
And if the "prayer of a righteous man availeth much" ... well.
The Communion of Saints as our intercessors (not mediators) is one of the most joyous aspects of being catholic.
As someone once said, Jesus never comes alone, He is always with His friends.
Oh, and for what it's worth, I thought the read of the Society's position was not really understood or dealt with appropriately by the Q&A. I don't think it was a fair read and took a sidelong swipe at it without really responding.
Thanks, Christopher.
Christine, isn't amazing how James totally blew it? I mean, he SHOULD have written: "The prayer of a righteous man availeth much, so invoke Elijah now and ask him to pray for you. He'll get the job done." But somehow I don't seem to recall that's what he came up with... Hmm...
;)
Sorry, couldn't resist!
We are all aware that there is no explicit instruction in the Scriptures along the lines of "what James should have written." But as you are surely aware, our argument is that this is a practice that is quite consistent with, and is expressive of, something that the Scriptures do teach.
It's like "Theotokos." The word "theotokos" never appears in Scripture, nor is the Blessed Virgin ever explicitly named "Mother of God." But the term "theotokos" arose (first, as it seems, in popular piety and later as part of the public liturgy -- the lex orandi -- of the Church) as a way of expressing the Church's veneration of the Virgin. It was an instance of pious practice which is consistent with, and expressive of, the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation.
By itself, the term "theotokos" is an indifferent matter. A believer can have a right understanding of the Incarnation and of the role of the Virgin in the economy of salvation without ever using that particular term. But to refuse to use the term or to forbid its use because it is somehow seen to be theologically incorrect is (implicitly but nonetheless truly) a denial of orthodox Christology.
Similarly, one can be a good Christian without venerating or invoking the saints. But to refuse it or forbid it is a denial of the doctrine of the communion of saints. It is putting blinders on the eyes of faith so that we do not see the righteous spirits who are helping us in our struggle.
If you can see the logic that orthodox Christology requires the acceptance of the term "theotokos", I don't understand why you can't see the logic that the orthodox doctrine of the communion of saints implies the permissibility of invocation. Indeed, I would say that the communion of saints implies that veneration is required, and invocation is permitted as an appropriate form of veneration.
I think it is relevant here that many Protestants (including, sadly, some Lutherans) are distinctly uncomfortable with calling the Virgin "Mother of God," even though they understand the conciliar history and the Christological implications. Is it not obvious that the reason for that discomfort is that "Theotokos" is precisely a term of veneration? The term "Theotokos" was not used primarily in theological treatises; it was used in hymns and prayers addressed to the Virgin! Somehow Protestants have persuaded themselves that Cyril was right and Nestorius was wrong about whether "Theotokos" or "Christotokos" was the right term to use when venerating the Virgin, all the while denying that such veneration ought to have been going on in the first place. It is a contradiction.
;)
Sorry, couldn't resist!
And I'm smiling right back at you Pastor! :=)
No, James didn't blow it. It's a verse that makes one "ponder in one's heart" about the Holy Mother of God and the saints, our family in faith and the love they show for us in their intercession before Him who is Head of us all in heaven and on earth.
Especially the one "full of grace" named Mother of the Church by millions.
The saints in glory are not our competitors. They take nothing away from the glory of Christ, as if such a thing were possible. They reflect the Light who is the source of all that is good and holy.
Dear Christopher,
I, at any rate, think you're mixing apples and oranges. The Scriptures teach that Mary is the Mother of God - for her Son is Emmanuel.
But there is simply no Scripture that commands, promises, demonstrates nor suggests the practice of the saints in the Church Militant calling upon the saints in the Church Triumphant for their intercessions.
Christine,
Indeed, they would never WANT to be competition with Him who alone is their light, their joy, their crown. And I can't help but believe that when we in our sinful human speculations put them into competition with Him - for example, asking them to conciliate Him for us - they are grieved to their heart's core and intercede for us all the more that Christ alone would come to be our trust and joy, even as He is theirs!
But the greater catholic tradition does not put them into competition with Christ, Pastor. We do not "adore" the saints. Yes, Christ is our joy, our hope and our life but we are still living in this fallen world. I have not yet been literally resurrected but the saints have passed through the veil and now see the Lord face to face.
If the prayers of my earthly brothers and sisters are of value so are the prayers of those who have conquered in the blood of the Lamb and can join their prayers to mine.
A catholic Christian is simply not going to argue this from sola scriptura. Look at all the Protestant denominations that claim their faith is based on "the Bible alone," in particular your reference that the scriptures teach Mary as Mother of God because she is the mother of Immanuel.
That certainly is not the conclusion many other Protestants have come to. The term simply does not appear in the Bible and was brought forth by an ecumenical Council.
For St. John Chrysostom and the many other patristic luminaries whom you post the intercession of the saints was as natural as breathing.
And I'm still smiling :=)
I'm glad you're smiling! But do not confuse the issue of invocation with intercession. As a confessional Lutheran I readily grant and rejoice in the intercession of the saints. What I do not grant - and what the SSP was falsely accused of - was the invocation of the saints.
But there is simply no Scripture that commands, promises, demonstrates nor suggests the practice of the saints in the Church Militant calling upon the saints in the Church Triumphant for their intercessions.
There is no Scripture which forbids it. By what authority do you forbid it?
Christopher,
I don't think the proof is too difficult. In the Church, prayer rests upon the certain promises of God: "Call upon me in the day of trouble," "whatever you ask the Father in my name..." and so on.
There are, however, no promises of God's Word given regarding invocation of the saints: either that they hear it, that it pleases them, or that it please HIM!
Without God's Word of promise, then, such invocations remain in the realm of speculation.
Speculation is not the grounds on which prayer can be raised, since: "for let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord."
For asking in such faith, concrete promises of God's word are not merely "nice" to have, but downright essential.
Hence, if Scripture commands prayer to be raised in faith; and faith rests on the promises of God; and Scripture contains no promises of God regarding the invocation of the saints; the invocation of the saints cannot rest upon faith.
Fr Weedon
Your logic rests on the premise that prayer to God and invocation of the saints are two instances of the same sort of thing -- that is, that there is a category named "prayer" under which there are two sub-categories: "prayer to God" and "prayer to saints". But that is not the case. The two differ in kind, not just in the person to whom they are addressed.
You are right that our prayer to God is grounded in our relationship of faith in Jesus Christ. That is the basis on which we have been given the power to become the sons of God, so that we may with confidence and without fear of condemnation dare to call upon the heavenly God as Father.
But that same grace of adoption makes the saints who have gone before us our brothers and sisters, because they, like us, are sons of God by virtue of their faith in Christ. We have an intimate relationship with them; a relationship which is different in kind from our relationship with the Father, but is no less real. That relationship among the saints takes nothing away from the glory of Christ or from His headship, because the establishment of that relationship, which is the restoral of the unity of mankind, was wrought by Christ Himself, being one of the great purposes of His incarnation.
We venerate and, yes, invoke the saints because of that relationship among the saints which we have by virtue of our common adoption in Christ. You would forbid that. But those Churches which do not allow veneration and invocation have, for all practical purposes, no expression of that relationship among the saints in their public, liturgical worship nor in their personal piety. The doctrine of the communion of saints has no expression in the life of those Churches; this means that the doctrine has become a dead letter. Lex orandi lex est credendi is a sword which cuts two ways.
And you still have not given me a Scripture which forbids it.
Chris,
Again, I would respectfully disagree. And that's not a polite nothing - I do respect your approach to this, but I cannot agree.
You see, it's not holding invocation of the saints as a subcategory of "invocation" in general that gets me there. It's the category of "faith" that gets me there. "Whatever is not of faith is sin" the Apostle teaches. But faith is founded on the Words and promises of God in Christ. No Word and promise of God, no way that I can have the assurance that faith gives that what I am doing is God-pleasing.
God in His Word warns us against setting up human traditions as acts of worship. "In vain do they worship me, teaching as precepts the doctrines of men." I place invocation of the saints precisely under that category. It's a doctrine that men thought up - not something revealed by the Holy Spirit to the Apostles. It's something people have come to think God should accept and be pleased with, though it is without example, command or promise in the Sacred Scriptures. It's not the category of pastors wearing vestments, or lighting candles, or chanting or whatever - all of which are covered under the "whatever is not forbidden is permitted." No Lutheran teaches that vestments, candles, chanting and so on are a part of divine worship. The same cannot be said for the Orthodox or Romanists on the invocation of the saints, can it?
I'm not sure what you mean about Churches without invocation have no practical expression of the doctrine of the communion of saints!
Review the LSB's section on the Church Triumphant, any of which hymns may be heard rather frequently in Lutheran Churches.
Think of the weekly: "therefore with angels and archangels and all the company of heaven...."
Think of the Confiteor at Compline: "I confess to almighty God before the whole company of heaven..."
Think of every time the Our Father is prayed as the Church Triumphant joins us in the first three petitions and the doxology.
Think of the end of the post-sanctus is DS I and II: "Gather us together, we pray, from the ends of the earth to celebrate with all the faithful the marriage feast of the Lamb in His Kingdom, which has no end."
Think of the third post-communion collect in those liturgies: "...that on the day of His coming we may, together with all Your saints, celebrate the marriage feast of the Lamb in His Kingdom, which has no end."
Think of the alternate hymn of praise in those services: "Sing WITH ALL the people of God and join in the hymn of all creation!"
Each All Saints Day we pray: "You knit together Your faithful people of all times and places into one holy communion, the mystical body of Your Son, Jesus Christ. Grant us so to follow Your blessed saints in all virtuous and godly living that, together with them, we may come to the unspeakable joys You have prepared for those who love You."
We sing: "We feebly struggle; they in glory shine; yet all are one in Thee for all are Thine!"
Come Easter we pray: "Therefore with Mary Magdalene, Peter and John, and all the witnesses of the resurrection, with angels and archangels, and with all the company of heaven..."
On the saints' days we remember them by name in the collects as our present brothers and sisters.
So I don't get at all the idea that by denying invocation of the saints we have denied in practice the doctrine of the communion of all saints. I can honestly say I *learned* this doctrine in the Lutheran Church's liturgy and especially in her celebrations of All Saints - memories of which I will always treasure.
Chris,
Perhaps you remember the words of Lewis on this. He said something along the lines that although Christians are not agreed on whether prayers may be addressed TO the saints, all Christians are agreed that we pray and praise WITH them!
Ack! I also left off during our Evening Prayer liturgy, praying:
For the faithful who have gone before us and who are with Christ, let us give thanks to the Lord: Alleluia!
...
Rejoicing in the fellowship of all the saints, let us commend ourselves, one another, and our life to Christ our Lord.
Or in our Prayer of the Church, saying:
"Keep us in fellowship with all Your saints, and bring us at last to the joys of Your heavenly Kingdom." (Prayer of the Church: Responsive Form, Altar Book, p. 443)
And what about our hymn during communion:
"Wide open stand the gates adorned with pearl, While round God's golden throne The choirs of saints in endless circles curl, And joyous praise the Son... The cherubim, their faces veiled from light, While saints in wonder kneel, Sing praises to Him..."
But do not confuse the issue of invocation with intercession.
No confusion at all. The historic catholic position has always been both/and, not either/or.
It's a doctrine that men thought up - not something revealed by the Holy Spirit to the Apostles.
More to the point, at least in discussions such as this that come down to what sources one trusts for faith, invocation is not something that has been revealed in an explicit way in the surviving documents of the Apostolic age (i.e., the New Testament).
Arguing against the invocation of the saints from given a certain locus of authority and a certain hermeneutical lens (hypothesis, assumption) makes perfect sense. From this perspective one can make blank Reality statements such as is common in the writings of some. Of course, such is also the way of atheistic evangelists such as Hawkins and how they argue, demeaning others positions by sidestepping the issue of authority and the assumptions one brings to a matter.
Christopher,
As always, you go directly to the point of divergence, which is the question of authority.
I hope that my words in this thread and others are not taken so much as an attack on those who practice the invocation of the saints as a defense of why I, as a Lutheran, cannot advocate the practice, but find it erroneous, and truthfully, dangerous. And also why I think it is fallacious to say that without the practice one loses the communion of saints as a reality in which one lives.
Post a Comment