A Critique of Prayer to the Saints (Evidence in Augustine, Chrysostom, Athanasius)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 авг 2021
- Our website: www.justandsinner.org
Patreon: / justandsinner
This video is the continuation of a series I began quite a while ago on the subject of prayer to saints. In this part of the series, I look at the evidence of later church fathers, such as Chrysostom, Augustine, and Athanasius.
Whoa whoa did a Lutheran just quote Calvin??
No way you’re here 😂😂 nice videos dude! Keep up the good work
😂😂😂
A broken clock is right a couple times a day.
Yeah so what lol there is nothing wrong with overlapping beliefs it should be called out like Dr Cooper did. Thankfully we have more in common than differences in the body of Christ
As a SyroMalabar Catholic my liturgical tradition is of the East Syriac Rite of the Church of the East. We call a feast day of a saint "Dukhrana" which only means "remembrance". Of course we do say things like "pray for us" in the litany of the liturgy. But it is not as developed as how it is in the Roman/Latin Rite.
The East Syriac tradition purely only has the Eucharist and the breviary as the main prayers. There are no other developed devotions such as novenas, rosary and other prayers to the saints. Even tho purely in E Syriac rite Mary is called "Mother of Christ" they still do a Dukrana of the Assumption on Aug 15th and some other Marian feast days. But it's not too excessive in terms of devotion as in the Latin & Greek traditions.
That's very interesting. Thanks!
But aren't you supposed to uphold Roman Catholic dogma because you're under the pontiff? I'm genuinely just curious
@@wesmorgan7729 they do uphold the dogma. They just don't use the same devotionals as us.
hello malayali
@@wesmorgan7729 Roman Catholics tend to be very chill about other traditions entering communion so long as they don't dissent to declared dogmas. For example, a good deal of Eastern Catholics venerate St. Mark of Ephesus, the man who was single-handedly responsible for stopping the 16 Century reunion council of Florence. By all accounts, a consistent Catholic should say the man's most likely damned, but because he was canonized by the Eastern Orthodox, he's now a saint.
Regarding Chrysostom, while it's true what you said about him, he also explicitly wrote about prayer to saints:
1) Homily 26.5 to 2 Corinthians, Migne PG 61: 581: " For he that wears the purple himself goes to embrace those tombs, and, laying aside his pride, stands begging the saints to be his advocates with God, and he that has the diadem implores the tent-maker and the fisherman, though dead, to be his patrons."
2) Homily 44.8 to Genesis, in: St John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 18-45, The Fathers of the Church, Volume 82, Catholic University of America Press, Washington 1990, p. 458: "Mindful of this, dearly beloved, let us have recourse to the intercession of the saints and call on them to intercede for us, but let us not only have confidence in their prayers but let us also manage our affairs properly and undergo a change for the better so as to provide grounds for the intercession made on our behalf.”
3) A homily of praise on the holy martyrs Bernike and Prosdoke 24, Migne PG 50: 640.43-49 in: St John Chrysostom, The Cult of the Saints: Select Homilies and Letters, St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, New York 2006, p. 175.
This is what I was hoping he was going to address and critique: all the references that were made to the church fathers actually asking the saints to pray for us.
Does he do this at all? I'm asking before I commit to watching the whole video. So far, he hasn't.
Thank you for this reference!
@@wonderingpilgrim If he were to deal honestly, he would become some type of Catholic.
@@Catholic-Perennialist This is typical Roman arrogance.
@@marcuswilliams7448 I do not say that he would become Roman Catholic. But I do insist that the day Dr. Cooper deals honestly with both the evidence and his presuppositions, he will join an apostolic communion.
@@Catholic-Perennialist He's in one, whatever the arrogance of Successionists asserts to the contrary.
Great work Dr. Cooper. I love it. Never stop
Like many of these issues it seems to boil down to development and authority. Thanks for your work on this Dr. Cooper. I’m def interested in reading Chemnitz and the fathers on this topic.
if everything in catholicism and EO can just handwave it away with develpment of doctrine then the discussion is entirely meaningless as nothing is unfalsafiable and also the RCC can prcatically declare anything. EO on the other hand has been stuck since the 8th century theology.
@@duckymomo7935 yeah… but the Pope says otherwise so you are wrong. And since he says you are wrong, obviously you are reading history wrong. Clearly Paul and Peter planted the seed of praying to Mary. 😂
The more I learn about the RCC, the less Christian it looks. I could be wrong, I hope I am wrong but… it’s hard for me not to view RCC’s dogmas and anathema’s as very anti biblical Christianity. It comes off more cultish than maybe it actually is. I have no idea if it’s a cult or just resembles cult like practices. I struggle seeing the RCC as a Christian church, I hope I’m wrong.
Hello there Dr Jordan Cooper
Another excellent presentation
And very educational information once again thank you. God bless you ❤️🕊️✝️
Thank you for your labor of love in bringing forth reliable intel. Your videos are so important in these times when so much info available to the public is often slanted to persuade and to convert many to these "Scripture PLUS Tradition" paths. Been there done that. You, Tony Costa / Toronto Apologetics and Gavin Ortlund have become the You Tube go to guys. Thanks again, Dr. Cooper.
A history of the development of the Cult of the Saints would be great. Definitely more, please! And thank God for all you do!
Thank you for this series! I would be interested in a series on the Marian dogmas
What Augustine said was very interesting and not what I expected. I would love to see you make videos on Mariology, particularly on the assumption and immaculate conception and all the apocryphal geneologies on Mary. Ortlund did a discussion series with the guys at Reason and Theology that was great and would love to hear your thoughts on this topic.
As a side, I like this quote by Piepkorn:
"Let those Christians whose defect is that they have neglected the proper veneration of the saints sedulously refrain from sitting in judgement on the Roman Catholic Church for its past excesses. As the Roman Catholic Church is today [Vatican II, context] seeking to remedy its excesses, let them consider how they may repair their defects."
~ Piepkorn, Arthur Carl. "Review of 'The Saints Who Never Were'" in Concordia Theological Monthly 41 (June 1970) p. 372-3
I can't help but think about this when we in the Protestant world talk about this subject. As important as it is, I think it too easily can turn triumphalist. I appreciate your careful tenor Dr. Cooper.
Great quote. So true. We can understand why things develop and be gracious without agreeing with the same conclusions or where said development has led others. We all need grace on either side of anything.
The problem is they haven't actually cleaved off these excesses
It’s hard to be more gracious when they curse you to hell for not believing their doctrines, which aren’t back by scripture or early church fathers
Here is another quotation from Athanasius that undermines the argument that prayer to dead saints is Apostolic and catholic:
† Athanasius of Alexandria; Four Discourses Against the Arians; Discourse 3, Ch. 26, §32 (NPNF Series 2, Vol. 4, p. 411) †
These things¹ were so done, were so manifested, because He had a body, not in appearance, but in truth; and it became the Lord, in putting on human flesh, to put it on whole with the affections proper to it; that, as we say that the body was His own, so also we may say that the affections of the body were proper to Him alone, though they did not touch Him according to His Godhead². If then the body had been another’s, to him³ too had been the affections attributed; but if the flesh is the Word’s (for "the Word became flesh"⁴), of necessity then the affections also of the flesh are ascribed to Him, whose the flesh is. And to whom the affections are ascribed, such namely as to be condemned, to be scourged, to thirst, and the cross, and death, and the other infirmities of the body, of Him too is the triumph and the grace. For this cause then, consistently and fittingly such affections are ascribed not to another, but to the Lord; that the grace also may be from Him, and that we may become, not worshippers of any other, but truly devout towards God, because we invoke no originate thing, no ordinary man, but the natural and true Son from God, who has become man, yet is not the less Lord and God and Saviour.
Footnotes:
1. I.e. miracles where Jesus' body was involved (e.g. spitting on mud, walking water, healing by touch, raising the dead by voice etc.)
2. Archaic word for Godhood or Divinity
3. i.e. this hypothetical "other" person
4. John 1:14
Thank you for your work on this!
Reverend please continue this series, wuld be nice a episode focus in the eastern churches and another witch the XVI century latin church.
"Nor does [the Church] perform anything by means of angelic invocations, or by incantations, or by any other wicked curious art; but, directing her prayers *to the Lord* who made all things, in a pure, sincere, and straightforward spirit, and calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, she has been accustomed to work miracles for the advantage of mankind, and not to lead them into error."
Irenaeus of Lyon
Against Heresies, Book 2
😂 that’s just a seed for progressive church revelation to pray to Mary and Saints 😂
Could you get these into a playlist? Would be great for sharing
Thank you for this. Very helpful and in depth
Brother Dr. Cooper, this subject is getting more and more important in these confusing days. I am happy to see my fellow protestants awakening to the need to give historical foundation to their beliefs and to be able to prove that true catholicity is that which is attached to the scriptures, without the leaven of men.
God bless you very much, Dr. Cooper! 👍🙏🙌
Ps: Pls, consider subtitle your videos. I'll be able to share them with my brazilian brethren, indicating them just to activate "automatic translation" to portuguese. This would help us a lot! Thanks in advance.
Eis aqui uma carta de St.Celestino ào Concílio de Efésio.
I exhort you, most blessed brethren, that love alone be regarded in which we ought to remain, according to the voice of John the Apostle whose relics we venerate in this city. Let common prayer be offered to the Lord. For we can form some idea of what will be the power of the divine presence at the united intercession of such a multitude of priests, by considering how the very place was moved where, as we read, the Twelve made together their supplication. And what was the purport of that prayer of the Apostles? It was that they might receive grace to speak the word of God with confidence, and to act through its power, both of which they received by the favour of Christ our God. And now what else is to be asked for by your holy council, except that you may speak the Word of the Lord with confidence? What else than that he would give you grace to preserve that which he has given you to preach? That being filled with the Holy Ghost, as it is written, you may set forth that one truth which the Spirit himself has taught you, although with various voices.
É que eu disse para você: se tu quiseres continuar com o _proof-text_ , nós podemos fazer isto "ad infinitum".
@@heinrich3088 A cobra levantada por Moisés, e que depois virou Neustã, está aí pra provar que o folclorismo entra de repente como um fermento. Portanto, 0 surpresa! No mais, peço a gentileza de, ao menos, citar a bibliografia da sua citação e datá-la.
Eu lhe dei a citação logo no começo. É a carta St.Celestino, bispo de Roma ao Concílio de Efésio I. And by the way, é este tipo de "folclorismo" que perpetrou no império romano consolidando a fé cristã: é muito feio cuspir no prato que comeu. Em outras palavras, tu não terias as Sagradas Escrituras se não fosse por estes bispos que você rotula de idólatras. Na ressurreição dos mortos, garanto que você não terá a coragem de dizer e isto para eles. Terceiro, ícones não são ídolos.
@@heinrich3088 Sorry i dont speak Portugese. But i think we need to lay off the argument if not for certain people we wouldnt have the Bible. God can use anyone to have the Bible. God used King Cyrus to allow the Israelite back to Jerusalem. God can use anyone.
@@joefear For sure. The text was transmited, but in someway formed during the following centuries. But that is not my argument: I was only responding to argument
made by some that, after the conversion of Constantine and especially after the edict by St. Theodosius, the pagan masses were converting in _masse_ , bringing their pagan practices into Christianity. So those who says this, are placing themselves in certain conundrum because the religion only flourished in Europe after these events. Therefore is a case of divine Providence.
Thank you for this continuation on the subject of the prayers to the saints. Martin Chemnitz was a great help to me when I studied this topic ¿Could you make a video where you quote what the Fathers really say and understand about the Eucharist as a sacrifice? Many Roman Catholic apologists cite the Fathers to justify the doctrine of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice. I think it would be a great help! Federico, from Argentina.
P.S. sorry for my English!
I tend to agree with your reasoning about Marian devotion, but I also wonder what evidence we can find elsewhere. For example, what do we see in the liturgies from the St Thomas Christians in India and/or the Ethiopian Coptic churches, both of which were cut off from the rest of Christendom long before the 7th century?
Very good point.
Well the Portuguese who encountered the Ethiopian church heavily criticised them for not recognising the Devine nature of the beloved virgin Mary
The following quotation is not necessarily about veneration of dead saints, but it is about iconography which is often interconnected with veneration to dead saints:
† Epiphanius Bishop of Salamis; Letter to John Bishop of Jerusalem (Jerome Letter 51), §9 (394 C.E., NPNF Series 2, Vol. 6, p. 88-89) †
Moreover, I have heard that certain persons have this grievance against me: When I accompanied you to the holy place called Bethel, there to join you in celebrating the ¹Collect,¹ after the use of the Church, I came to a villa called Anablatha and, as I was passing, saw a lamp burning there. Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered.² It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ’s church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. They, however, murmured, and said that if I made up my mind to tear it, it was only fair that I should give them another curtain in its place. As soon as I heard this, I promised that I would give one, and said that I would send it at once. Since then there has been some little delay, due to the fact that I have been seeking a curtain of the best quality to give to them instead of the former one, and thought it right to send to Cyprus for one. I have now sent the best that I could find, and I beg that you will order the presbyter of the place to take the curtain which I have sent from the hands of the Reader, and that you will afterwards give directions that curtains of the other sort-opposed as they are to our religion-shall not be hung up in any church of Christ. A man of your uprightness should be careful to remove an occasion of offence unworthy alike of the Church of Christ and of those Christians who are committed to your charge.
Footnotes:
1. I.e. the short service which preceded the eucharist. The words might, however, be rendered, “When the congregation was gathered together.”
1:11:00 Well historically Mary has also been seen as a model or prototype of the Church, so a lot of titles attributed to her are also interchangeably used with the Church. They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
that would be very disturbingly wrong and thus RCC and EO cannot be correct
I absolutely would love to hear more on Marian dogmas for sure! As someone who has almost converted to Catholicism before finding you Dr. Cooper and finding Dr. Gavin that saints and the Marian dogmas were definitely up there of being a weird belief for me. So to hear the Protestant side of it would be much appreciated! Since all i hear is the Catholic side.
Ortlund has done discussions (similar format to the Cooper/Ortlund discussion on baptism) with the guys at Reason and Theology if you want to hear Ortlund's take on it.
Recommend you get Chemnitz books [borrow it from a oublix library, library loan] and James White's book that covers a lot of the Roman Catholic apologetiv arguments.
Can you do a video on Marian Apparitions ONLY? This would be interesting to hear your thoughts on this.
Please see my earlier comment.
It might be a good idea to link to the previous video in your notes section as an easy reference.
Thank you so very much for this ❤
Aside from primary sources, what other works have you consulted? I'd be interested in reading them
Very helpful. Thank you!
PSA: the full citation for the quotation from Athanasius around 34:00 mark is:
Athanasius of Alexandria; Four Discourses Against the Arians; Discourse 1, Ch. 11, §40 (NPNF Series 2, Vol. 4, p. 329-330)
Thank you.
I find it interesting that that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, largely ignores praying to saints. The closest it gets is Part Four, Section One, Chapter 2, Article 3 (CCC 2683):
"The witnesses who have preceded us into the kingdom,41 especially those whom the Church recognizes as saints, share in the living tradition of prayer by the example of their lives, the transmission of their writings, and their prayer today. They contemplate God, praise him and constantly care for those whom they have left on earth. When they entered into the joy of their Master, they were "put in charge of many things."42 Their intercession is their most exalted service to God's plan. We can and should ask them to intercede for us and for the whole world." (41 Cf. Heb 12:1; 42 Cf. Mt 25:21.)
This is saying that the church militant "can and should ask" the church triumphant to intercede (i.e., pray) for us. That still leaves the prayer addressed to God. I won't dispute that modern practice may differ in places from this. It does imply that the church in Rome does not officially subscribe to the view of late medieval scholastics.
Dr. Cooper, you do a great job of presenting the view vis-a-vi late medieval Romanists. I would be interested to see you dialog more with modern day Roman Catholics you keep their comments confined to the official teachings or at least say when they are expressing their own opinions and not the official teachings of Rome.
The closest thing to that medieval argument (mentioned at 56:06) I could find in Augustine is in Sermo 332, 3, where he speaks about how the love of the martyrs by which they suffered was a gift from God: "From Him did the martyrs receive to suffer for Him. Believe [this]: from Him did they receive. The Head of this family gave to them a place from which they may feed on Him. And we have Him, from Him let us ask! If we are less worthy to receive, let us ask through His friends, who fed on Him by His richness! They will pray for us so that He'll grant [this] to us.” (Ab illo martyres acceperunt quod pro illo passi sunt: credite; ab illo acceperunt. Paterfamilias dedit illis unde illum pascerent. Ipsum habemus, ab ipso petamus. Et si accipere minus digni sumus, per amicos ipsius, qui eum de ipsius dono paverunt, petamus. Orent ipsi pro nobis, ut donet et nobis.)
Does this fit with what St. Augustine says in other places? To me he seems inconsistent. In "The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity" Peter Brown suggests that Augustine's thought on the cult of the saints was deeply influenced by the popular piety of his time, by which he was drawn more or less unwillingly. That's why many times he cautions moderation.
I went through his sermons and this is as far as he gets to „invoking” the saints. In other places he is more careful and seems to avoid saying that we talk directly, through our prayer, with the saints in heaven. The way we ask for their intercession would be through our prayer to God.
thanks this was quite well done
Just found your RUclips channel! I'm trying to learn about Lutheranism and I am having a very hard time tracking your sources because they're not written down in your description. Some of these names I've never even heard of so to try to find the name, the book, the page, etc, is a little difficult when they're not cited!
I love Dr. Cooper and Dr. Gavin work show the Historical flaws in Catholic and Orthodox beliefs
It's a shame that neither the Gospels nor any Epistles seem to clearly indicate that calling upon the departed saints is actually of benefit. It seems that the best option regardless would be to go directly to the Lord Himself anyway. We have an Advocate with the Father.
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are-yet he did not sin. - Heb 4:15
I don't understand the logic of how saints are 'closer' to God when the bible/God admits that we are never too far from God for redemption
Well the Pope says so and the Pope says he can not lie in certain circumstances. The pope backs his claim up because he says he can and he says he has the power to. 😂😂
Regarding Epiphanius, Mary and the cult of saints, I really recommend the work done by Stephen J. Shoemaker: "Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption", "Mary in Early Christian Faith and Devotion".
I agree with the principle that when something is described as worship in the Bible we should not say that it's not worship. I am a bit concerned that this principle is not consistently apllied however. I find it strange that when some people look at an icon of Christ during worship, while singing songs of worship, that they should say that they are only venerating the icon, and that it is not worship.
Praying to saints is the clearest example of tradition in opposition to scripture and God's Will.
Perfeito
I Jew says something to a Christian pertaining to the Trinity. I'm sorry but this not a congent argument anyway.
Too bad the Trinity was clearly concealed in the OT and revealed when read through the lenses of Christ's fulfillment in the NT.
Super cogent.
I've said the Jews, not the Christian. Oh Shema Israel! The Lord our God is One. What is the concept of "oneness" to Jew?
@@heinrich3088
1.The Lord
2.Our God
3.The Lord
Is One...
Read Deut 6:5 and count it out bud.
You are a great and hard working scholar Dr. Cooper, God bless you.
Sometimes I fear that as Lutherans/Protestants critique RCs and EOs for making a distinction without a difference in regard to "veneration" and "adoration"... that our solution to have "commemoration" replace how we treat all but God turns the devotional life of the Church into a purely intellectual exercise whereby our fellowship in the departed Communion of Saints is reduced to "remembering the saints" (like studying historical figures that we have no supernatural union with).
We should equally caution against any view of an Article of the Creed that is purely mental. Lest we forget that IN CHRIST the saints (Heaven and Earth) are _one_ ...
I'd like to see an interfaith discussion on this.
This is gonna be good.
Thank you for your interesting discussion. You keep mentioning the Roman Catholics in the discussion but It wouldn’t be fair to say and eastern orthodox every time.
I think prayers to the saints is demonstrably universal in the 4th century. It is in most of the saints and theologians of whom we have much writings from at the time. Second, it is in a synodical letter of the Second Ecumenical Council. If it could be included in a synodical letter at a council, it’s probably a bit widespread by the 4th century at the latest
Even if the kind of statistical consensus you are saying is remotely accurate, Those are not the same kind of prayers which are prevalent today in modern Romanism or in modern Eastern traditionalism.
@@RussianBot4Christ How could you possibly know that
@@CHURCHISAWESUM Because it was so unimportant and not central to worship or prayer that the apostles forgot to mention it. Oops, silly Apostle Paul!
@@RussianBot4Christ St. Paul absolutely encouraged people to pray for each other, why would the Saints no longer pray for us just because their souls are with God instead of in physical bodies?
@@morgunismDoes the Bible say to pray for each other?
Archeology debunk a very good chunk of this video, let me explain:
There are over 600 prayers to peter and Paul in the saint Sebastian catacombs in Rome (the first to named catacombs)
Many of them are petitionary prayers, most famously "peter and Paul pray for victory" but also "peter and Paul help /this guy/" literally an example given in the video as worshipping gone astray.
They are written in multiple languages, mostly latin but also Greek, syriac and Aramaic, meaning probably it was a practice spread across the empire.
They weren't in a forsaken part of the empire but literally at the core of Christianity since Constantinople didn't exists yet.
The dating goes back to 250 AD there is no guy that can say "oh I think they are from the 7th century instead" because Constantine buried the site roughly in 300AD to build a church on top.
They were so concerned about idolatry and it was such dead serious matter, that in that day it was the major issue the church was facing. the controversy was "if someone is forced under the penality of a slow and painful death to perform a pagan practice but then repent, can the church forgive him or he have to carry the burden of the sin until the final judgment?" They went under a mini schism on this matter but nobody was like "hey guys don't do petitionary prayers to Paul and Peter, seems kinda like idolatry"
Most of the catacombs including the one you referred to were still being referrenced as late as the 7th century and some well into the medieval period. The idea that Constantine sealed all these in the 4th century is simply mistaken.
Additionally, non of this solves the obvious textual problems. Am I really to take possibly medieval rock inscriptions over the clear testimony of Augustine, Athanasius and so on who seem to be ignorant of or opposed to what your church teaches?
@@JRMusic933 "Around the half of the 3rd century the whole piazzola was filled in, so as to create an embankment at an upper level. Three monuments have been brought to light on this shelf: the so-called triclia, a covered porticoed hall used for burial banquets, whose walls display more than 600 graffiti with invocations to the Apostles Peter and Paul;"
@@astrol4b ok, where's the quote from? Simply repeating the assertion doesn't do much.
@@JRMusic933 Wikipedia
@@astrol4b and what does Wikipedia cite? I've looked at it and its blank so I assume its just copy and pasted from some other website wholesale but I haven't found any source that seems credible that corroborates the claim
This doesn't negate the practice of asking saints for prayer. It only negates the corruption of it.
Based Dr. Cooper!
Ecclesiasticus 24:24-25. Or Sirach 24:24-26. I am the mother of fair love, and of fear, and of knowledge, and of holy hope. 25 In me is all grace of the way and of the truth, in me is all hope of life and of virtue. John 14:6. Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.
I really appreciate the argument you're making here. But it would be easier to follow if you could maybe do 1 or 2 things: Put your sources and citations in the the description of the video so we can easily find them, or even go further and put some text on screen as you're reading so we can follow along. I realize that's more work, but it would be helpful. Thanks.
Good program, Dr. Jordan. I think that Reformed intellectuals like Dr. James White often get too polemical in their argumentation. After accusing RC/EO of idolatry, they then lean on "this isn't in the bible so we can't do it". That's just not sufficient argumentation. You have a much better argument if you read the early fathers like Athanasius, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and Augustine; very *clearly* their conception of the relation of the believer to the saints was not akin to the medieval _cultus sanctorum_.
I mean how isn’t proper exegesis and hermeneutical practice bad argumentation.
The name thing is why the shepherd of Hermes was thought by some to be canon lol
Stephan Shoemaker, the secular historian of Marian origins, interpretation of Epiphanus is very damaging to the Roman apologists. Dr. Cooper it would be great for you to review how secular scholars have painted a picture very different then Roman Catholic apologists.
The saints don’t know what’s going on earth unless they’re still alive in their human bodies, walking the earth, and reading the news. I’m a saint.
Even if praying to the saints were valjd it is inefficient My father light heartedly claimed to have saved Mexico City a lot of suffering two major earthquakes ago. He was in bed on an upper floor of a major hotel. While he had confidence in the earthquake proof construction of the building his bed was sliding back and forth. There was concern that he would go out the window still in his bed. Dad's contention was that while everyone else prayed to Mary and various saints who then had to pass their requests on to God he skipped the middle man and asked the Lord directly to end the shaking. Quicker response, less damage.
Oy Vey
@@richardsaintjohn8391 There is a serious point to the story.
Even if the saints can hear our prayers and pass our petitions on to God why would we pray to anyone but God Himself since we are told He will hear us.
ReligionforBreakfast did a great video covering this subject from a historical perspective.
Does it lend credence to your Christian videos when atheists agree with you? 🤔
@Christos Kyrios Why though? We have 2,000 years of history that would gain nothing from their interpretation of it. Ideally their studies will lead them to conversion.
@Christos Kyrios Why would a secular atheist have more insight into the Fathers than their own students did?
@Christos Kyrios Bart Ehrman is only a scholar in his own mind, I don’t know a single Christian who takes him and his goofy anti-Christian perspective seriously. The man makes money to deny Christ, he is nothing but a modern Judas.
My point was that, in this case for example, the direct disciples of Athanasius and other Fathers - many of whose books we still have and you can easily find online - are better sources of information than anyone who’s not even a part of the Church they belonged to.
@Christos Kyrios Right, but the Orthodox view is objectively true. Most Church Fathers - something like 80% of them according to Michael Whelton’s excellent book “Two Paths” - did not think the person of Peter himself was the “rock” and on which the Church was founded. And zero of them, ever, believed in the Vatican 1 papal powers that started to develop with Pope Gregory VII. “Roman Catholicism” is an objective aberration from the Apostolic Faith.
a thought just hit me while watching this for the fourth time.... what a shame for a women/father to be cut off from 'communion' of their still-born or 'aborted' child {assuming they found faith/repentance later}. a striking example of these two 'faith' worlds.
Pray means ask. Why would it be wrong to ask a righteous person (the prayers of a righteous man avail much) to pray for you?
In this case..necromancy
@@mhjl214 RCC and EO sainthood is essentially a pagan pantheon and necromancy or communicating with the spirits is really what prayer to the saints is (and thus dangerous and potentially anti biblical)
Acts 9:36-41. A certain disciple named Tabitha She was dead; He was addressing her. There is no impenetrable wall between heaven and earth. This is not only praying to the dead, but for the dead, since the passage says that Peter “prayed” before addressing Tabitha first person. And he was praying for her to come back to life. John 11:41-42) Our Lord Jesus does the same thing with regard to Lazarus. He prays for Lazarus (a dead man: and then speaks directly to a dead man (in effect, “praying” to him): 1 Samuel 28:15 Praying to Saints: Saul Petitions the Prophet Samuel After the Latter’s Death. Luke 1:48 behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed virgin Mary. Maccabees 12:46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. there are many moor in scripture like Rev.
Athanasius talking to the arians 29:50
Here is an explicit teaching by Origen of Alexandria against praying to anyone, but the Father. It might sound Arian, but he technically wasn't, because he believed in the eternal generation of the Son (Commentary on John Book 2). You could think of his Trinitarian model as having a very hard Monarchy of the Father (cf. Cappadocian Fathers).
† Origen; On Prayer; Ch. 15 (Ancient Christian Writers Vol. 19, pg. 39) †
If we understand what prayer really is, we shall know that we may never pray to anything generated-not even to Christ-but only to God and the Father of all, to whom even Our Saviour Himself prayed, as we have already said, and teaches us to pray. For when He is asked, "Teach us to pray",¹ He does not teach how to pray to Himself, but to the Father, and to say: "Our Father, who art in heaven,"² and so on. For if the Son, as is shown elsewhere, is distinct from the Father in nature and person, then we must pray either to the Son and not to the Father, or to both, or to the Father only. Everyone will that agree to pray to the Son and not to the Father would be very strange, and maintained against the clearest evidence; and if to both, then we must obviously pray and make our requests in the plural saying, "Grant ye," "favour ye," "provide ye," "save ye," and everything similar in the same way. But this is clearly incongruous, nor can anyone point out where anyone has used it in Scripture. There remains, then, to pray to God alone, the Father of all, but not apart from the High Priest who was appointed with an oath by the Father,³ according to the words: He hath sworn and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.⁴
Footnotes:
1. Luke 11:1
2. Matthew 6:9
3. Cf. Hebrews 7:20f
4. Psalms 109:4 (Hebrews 7:21)
In the next chapter Origen says that all prayer must be done in the name of the Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Yet, St. Gregory of Nyssa & St. Basil the Great, both assiduous readers of Origen, says this in _magnum opus_ :
"This thought suggests itself when I think of one who freely communicated to others the beauties of his own soul, I mean that man of God, that mouth of piety, Basil; one who from the abundance of his spiritual treasures poured his grace of wisdom into evil souls whom he had never tested, and into one among them, Eunomius, who was perfectly insensible to all the efforts made for his good. Pitiable indeed seemed the condition of this poor man, from the extreme weakness of his soul in the matter of the Faith, to all true members of the Church; for who is so wanting in feeling as not to pity, at least, a perishing soul? But Basil alone, from the abiding58 ardour of his love, was moved to undertake his cure, and therein to attempt impossibilities; he alone took so much to heart the man’s desperate condition, as to compose, as an antidote of deadly poisons, his refutation of this heresy59, which aimed at saving its author, and restoring him to the Church.
He, on the contrary, like one beside himself with fury, resists his doctor; he fights and struggles; he regards as a bitter foe one who only put forth his strength to drag him from the abyss of misbelief; and he does not indulge in this foolish anger only before chance hearers now and then; he has raised against himself a literary monument to record this blackness of his bile; and when in long years he got the requisite amount of leisure, he was travailling over his work during all that interval with mightier pangs than those of the largest and the bulkiest beasts; his threats of what was coming were dreadful, whilst he was still secretly moulding his conception: but when at last and with great difficulty he brought it to the light, it was a poor little abortion, quite
36
prematurely born. However, those who share his ruin nurse it and coddle it; while we, seeking the blessing in the prophet (“Blessed shall he be who shall take thy children, and shall dash them against the stones60”) are only eager, now that it has got into our hands, to take this puling manifesto and dash it on the rock, as if it was one of the children of Babylon; and the rock must be Christ; in other words, the enunciation of the truth. Only may that power come upon us which strengthens weakness, through the prayers of him who made his own strength perfect in bodily weakness61. " (Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium Book I § I
And by the way Origen was not a "harder-Monarchist", but he was subordinationist. Read Fr.John Behr article _One Father Almighty_ where he treats about the development of the monarchical theme from the 2nd century onwards, esp. the work of Origen "On the First Principles". The only reason why Origen calls the Son "God" (θεός) is because he does not distinguish between an eternal act of begotting the Son and the eternal act of creation.Therefore the Christ is indeed a deity, --even to the point to receive divine names-- but only in the sense of being the ´logos´ of all things.
Origen is an anathematized heretic and not a model for proper Christian understanding and worship.
@@brotheraugustine he was condemned like a century after his death, but not over his trinitarian belief nor his stance on prayer. In his lifetime he was considered orthodox, maybe overly speculative, but his works provide evidence for the fact that prayer was viewed as an act of worship, which is only appropriate in relation to God.
@@heinrich3088 I read through the quotation of Gregory of Nyssa concerning Basil and his refutation of Eunomius.
I'm not understanding how this relates to Origen or his argument that prayer is a form of worship due to God alone. Could you please explain what you are trying to point to within the quotation.
A set of considerations that bother me:
1. The Jewish people practice a kind of intercessory prayer called tzadikim which predated the New Testament by quite a bit and is practiced today at the tomb of Rachel. If this were more commonplace among the early Church, would we expect to see any pushback or acclaim for the idea? Why also did Christ not speak against this practice? This would not have been "vain repetition" in the eyes of the Jewish people, nor did the Jews of that time believe it was necromancy or spiritism, as they were merely asking a righteous woman for intercession.
2. The ancient Church of the East split off from the rest of the Church in 431 during the so-called "Nestorian Schism" (despite their theology not actually being Nestorian) and their oldest liturgies also engage in intercessory prayer. At the time, Zoroastrianism was the state religion of Sassanid Persia which would not have a background of paganism (as they are strict monotheists), so why would the CotE have developed this practice apart from the rest of the Church based on the timeline presented? They also had liturgical iconographic use until the Islamic takeover, when the icons were destroyed by Muslims but the intercessory prayer continued (despite Islam being radically opposed to prayer to anyone but Allah).
3. The Oriental Orthodox also split off in 451 AD during the Chalcedonian Schism and they, too, developed both iconography and intercessory prayer in the absence of the liturical and dogmatic developments of Rome or Constantinople. Most important to this number is the Ethiopian Church, which invokes the Saints for intercession despite having no nearly universal pagan background to speak of and always being somewhat far-removed from the rest of the Churches geographically-speaking.
4. Why don't we see the same logical development from paganism into pseudo-paganic monotheism among the Muslims? Mohammed went around and converted the pre-Islamic Arab pagans to his neo-gnostic religion and somehow asking the gods or angelic beings for help didn't persist. Why would it have struck Christianity and Judaism but not Islam? It almost seems that the intercession we practice is closer to the Zoroastrian concept of communicating with your guardian/patron angel than anything resembling ancient hero cultus or polydeity worship.
Catholic believe Mary is the New Eve . Can you look into why that is ?
That’s why the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable. It’s not a real story. If you take it literally you have a man that has skipped the second coming, the resurrection of the dead, and judgment day. And he also has two separate physical bodies. One in the tomb and one in the afterlife. It’s just a parable.
The Paraklesis, a service common in the Orthodox church, alternates between worshiping God and Mary to the point where she seems like a fourth person of the Godhead.
“BuT, iT’S jUsT LiKe aSkiNg a FriEnd to pRaY foR yOu.”
Uhhh…. no… this language is worship.
Veneration is not worship. The Eucharist is worship, and we worship the Holy Trinity by participating in it. We venerate and praise the Mother of God in the Paraklesis due to the church's experience of her powerful intercession and prayers for us. We also meditate on the relationship between the Theotokos and her Son, whom she recognized and obeyed as her God and our God. NEVER has the Eucharist been offered to anyone but the Trinity in the Orthodox Church.
@@zachw4228
Mmmm…. no. The language and ordering of words in the Paraklesis is worship. If it’s not, someone isn’t very careful with words.
As a catechumen in the EO Church, I’ll admit... that just shocked me.
@@permanenceaesthetic6545 I didn't mean to shock, just to clarify the danger of reducing the sum total of what worship IS to words alone. Are words, songs of praise and prayers PART of and included in worship? Absolutely. But the climax, the pinnacle of Orthodox services is always the Eucharist, as worship has been understood from ancient times to include a sacrificial meal with a god or spiritual being. We see this in the hymns we sing after receiving Communion, "we have found the true faith by our Worshipping the undivided trinity". Intent of our words and actions matter, but the purpose of our words and actions towards the Theotokos and the Saints are always to venerate how God worked through them (as all good works are done by God through us and His Holy Ones), NOT to offer them worship.
@@zachw4228
I meant the words of the aforementioned prayer/text itself. I am 100% on board with Mary being the Blessed Virgin and even Mother of God. I think a failure to recognize (especially the second term) is to misunderstand the incarnation all together. But to then jump from that and refer to her as the ‘Bride of the Father...?’
I just don’t know man. THAT makes me feel uncomfortable.
36:00
250 prayer to Mary 16:00
Luke 20:38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him. take a trip to the Catacomb's
Tertullian (and many other ANF apologist) attacked the Pagans for praying and worshiping dead men (i.e. their gods). Here is an interesting quotation from Tertullian attacking the idea of praying to the dead for healing or blessing in general and arguing that Christians pray to the "One".
† Tertullian of Carthage: The Apology; Chapter 29, ¶v1 (Fathers of the Church Vol. 10) †
First, then, let it be established whether those to whom sacrifice is offered can grant health to the emperor or to any man at all, and then proclaim the charge of treason against us if the angels or demons, who are by nature the most evil of spirits, work any good; if the lost can save and the damned grant freedom; if, finally, the dead, as you well know they are, can protect the living. Certainly, they should first protect their own statues, images, and temples, which, I believe, the emperors' soldiers have to keep safe with guards. Moreover, those very materials for them come, I think, from the emperors' mines, and entire temples depend upon the nod of a Caesar. In fine, many gods have irritated a Caesar; it also has bearing on our case, that, if they have gained the good will of an emperor, he confers upon them some gift or privilege. If they are so completely in Caesar's power, and belong to him so completely, how can they have Caesar's welfare in their power? Would it seem that they can supply that which they themselves more readily obtain from Caesar? So, we are committing a crime against the emperors because we do not subordinate them to their property, and we do not make a joke of our duty regarding their health, for we do not think it rests within hands that are soldered on with lead! But then, you are the irreligious ones who seek health where it is not, who ask it from those who have no power to give it, and neglect the One in whose power it lies. And, in addition to all this, you assail those who know how to pray for it, and who can obtain it, too, since they know how to pray!
Are there any early Christians who were not heretics that believed asking a Christian in heaven to pray for you is idolatry?
Jordan I love you but you should check out John of Damascus work on his defense of icons since it CLEARLY lays out the difference between veneration and worship. This particular issue was handled in depth already.
“Pray for your parents, Matronata Matrona. She lived one year, fifty-two days” -- grave inscription -- A.D. 300.
Were they orthodox pr heretics?
Grieving parents aren’t making didactic theological assertions
@@nate9601 How are you blind to the beauty of the truth and love in this inscription?
@@billyhw5492 it is beautiful, and no doubt she is praying for her parents. But nothing in that tells us we have the ability to pray to saints and they receive our prayers
@@nate9601 Why would it be beautiful if it's false?
For every protestant refutation of something Catholic there is a genius Catholic apologist defending it giving evidence from the same church fathers/letters... this is so confusing
Homily 33 in Acts by John Crysostom. If the Scriptures are clear for you, stay tied to them. Never trespass them. Conform your mind to them.
@@josueinhan8436 You cannot do that, because the calvinist will do the same, the pentecostal will do the same, the baptist will do the same... That's why the church has councils. The opinion of one particular individual is not infalible. Also, in what context is he writing? There were no scriptures for the lay people untill the printing press. People where supposed to come to church and submit to what the church taught
@@pabloh5884 „There were no scriptures for the lay people until the printing press”: Fortunately, that was not the case in the church pastored by St. John Chrysostom (read the first paragraph from Homily 11 on the Gospel of John: www.newadvent.org/fathers/240111.htm ). But sadly that became indeed to be the case in many churches...
*Roman *Papist Catholic, not Catholic. If The Apostles forgot to mention an such an apparently important practice, it's not a Catholic practice.
@@pabloh5884 Tell me, which interpretation of the scriptures gets you to demanding Churches allow icons or have prayers to the saints? You cant because there is not even a mention.
Wait… you have a PhD and re a Lutheran theologian but can’t read German?!
He's not WELS, otherwise he would. ;-)
The application of pagan practices applied to the veneration of the saints is still extant in Roman Catholic countries, like Italy
Portugal.and Spain are very Catholic countries too
catholic piety does take the marian devotion too far see Luguori
47:30
Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31 indicates the ability of the dead to pray for the living. The intercession of the dead for the living is shown in 2 Maccabees 15:14-17; an intercession on behalf of Israel by the late high priest Onias III plus that of Jeremiah, the prophet who died almost 400 years earlier. " And Onias spoke, saying, ' This is a man who loves the brethren and prays much for the people and the holy city, Jeremiah, the prophet of God.
I affirm 2nd Macc. as part of the OT Cannon, but that passage you cited is telling of a vision that Judas received in a dream of Onias III and Jeremiah praying for the Jerusalem. It no where teaches that one should pray to the dead for intercession. This was miraculous event not a normative one. The passage doesn't say that Judas Macc. was praying to the Onias III and Jeremiah for intercession. It just says he received a vision of them praying in intercession for Jerusalem.
Athanasius was responsible for the title "Mother of God"
Wasn't that Elisabeth (Luke 1, 43).???
I agree that a person from pagan background would need some foundation on doctororine of monotheism and the Trinity of God to be able to honor the saints in the right way. But that is not an argument for not having devotion to saints. Epiphanius was probably warning against understanding Mary as one of the pagan Godesses. There was a heresy in the early Church that placed Mary as the 4th person of the Trinity (quaternity in that case). Again reminescense of paganism.
If Saints intercede for us before the Throne of God, and it’s accepted on the authority of Scripture that “the prayers of a righteous man availeth much”, and there’s no reason to think they can’t hear us (especially considering that they are no longer bound by space and time), then can there be anyone better to ask for prayers than the Saints and the Mother of God?
@@alexandrealencastro5534 Why would the Saints have to be omniscient to know many things Alexandre? We know many things and you would never think to claim we’re omniscient. The Bible teaches that Christ will be “all in all” and that the goal of the Christian life is that “(we) no longer live but Christ live in (us). If all of “the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” dwell in Him and He dwells in the Saints then it isn’t just possible but much more reasonable that the Saints in Heaven hear the prayers of those who, for whatever reason, have developed a relationship with them, than that Christ would not allow them to know that those who have come to love them are asking for their prayers or that God would allow them to hear their prayers but break His word that “the prayers of a righteous man availeth much”
Except the Bible tells us Jesus alone interferes before the Throne of God.
The prayer of the righteous avalieth much. James was speaking of the righteous ones on earth
@@alexandrealencastro5534 there's no evidence that saints get supernatural powers, why should only select saints (canonized) get that privilege? it's just not consistent to biblical
By your understanding and reading of scripture you could come up all kinds of heresies. And that’s the RCC
@@CCiPencil Every text requires interpretation. That’s what hermeneutics is all about
The one thing that always gets my goat about biblicist. The Saints 98 percent of at the time of the apostles were alive. Mary probably alive. St. Jude. And majority of saints in light yet born. Yes asking the saints was a development. So was Sunday as the official Lord's day. Christmas Easter. The Holy Ghost didn't take a vacation after the New Testament church. And the Holy Ghost didn't take a vacation after the Book of Concord.
@Richard Saint John
As a Protestant, I think you make a very valid point that few have adequately addressed when speaking against the practice.
Perhaps Dr. Cooper has addressed this, but I haven't listened to everything he has yet said on this issue.
@@wonderingpilgrim And I'm not Roman Catholic either. I just have 40 years of studying Scripture. Church History. Comparative Denominational Theology. Plus Old age and Reason.
A key to Roman cult of Mary is the history of so called “Marian Apparitions”.
Growing up Catholic, I was taught that because we are filthy sinners, unable by reason of our sinfulness need a sinless intercessor to take our prayers to God, and as the Immaculate Conception, Mary is that buffer between our sinfulness and the Holiness of God. But once I had read & studied the Bible while studying to be a Catholic missionary, I found that God had provided that one sinless Person in our Emmanuel. So I no longer dedicated my life to Mary or sought her intercession. The Father had drawn back that curtain spoken of in Scripture and showed me that He had provided EVERYTHING I need for both salvation and sanctification in Jesus.
Many years later I was visiting a friend who had the Medjugorji newsletter, and was shocked to see that this “Mary” was claiming for herself the attributes that belong only to God, according to Scripture.
So, I asked, How did the Catholic Church go so wrong on these and other “approved” apparitions. I found a book, Those Who Saw Her, a history of these apparitions written by a devotee of that Mary.
So, the first written record of these apparitions was to Saint Gregory the Wonder Worker, who died in AD 270, which would coincide with the first, (250 A.D.) prayer you found to Mary. . There have been many, many apparitions since that time that have been “approved” by the Catholic Church. So I had three questions about these apparitions: What did “Mary” claim about herself?, what did she require?, how did the church react?
The answer to the first question was a bunch of “I am” statements by which she claimed for herself titles and attributes belonging only to God.
The answers to the second question were: make an image of me (statue, medal, etc); build a shrine to me on this spot; dedicate your life to me and I will protect you from the wrath of my son; pray the rosary to me daily.
The response of the church was to require two documentable miracles attributed to this “Marian” apparition; declare thereby that it is supernatural; approve. Most of the Marian Doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church proceed from the claims of these apparitions, like the Immaculate Conception.
The church failed to follow the Scriptural command to test every spirit to see if it is of God. Jesus even warned that there would be counterfeit miracles in the last days. So, how do we know these apparitions were of a demon and not of God? THE CLAIMS AND DEMAND OF THIS “MARY” ARE CONTRARY TO THE COMMANDS OF GOD GIVEN IN THE BIBLE!!
Medjugorje was never approved, I think until this day parishes can't organize pilgrimages there
@Sue Regan Thank you so much!!!
You are absolutely correct to point this out. Many Catholics are fanatically obsessed with apparitions and prophetic visions of Mary, and cling to “her” every utterance as if the word of God in spite of the holy scriptures. My own mother is obsessed with some apparitions supposedly happening in Ohio in which Mary and some saints are “appearing”.
Praying to the saints is biblical and has been a practice of the church since its early days. We have actual physical evidence of this in the ancient Christian catacombs, papyrus, and early patristic writings.
In scripture, did not the 24 elders in heaven intercede for the saints on earth in Revelation 5 & 8? And did not the rich man asks Abraham to intercede on his son's behalf in the story of the rich man and Lazarus in (Luke 16). In the OT, we see Saul was seeking the intercession of the Prophet Samuel in 1 Samuel 28. The only problem was that Saul sought after a medium to reach Samuel instead of going to Samuel directly as the early church believed. If Saul had been in God's good graces he wouldn't have needed a medium to reach Samuel, but could have prayed directly to the saint to intercede on his behalf. Jeremiah 15:1 supports this as "Moses and Samuel stood before me"
In Matthew 27, those present at the crucifixion thought Jesus was calling on Elijah. These bystanders were not enemies since one of them offered him a drink (Matt. 27:48) Matthew 27:49 shows that this was a commonly held type of petition. This is further evidence that this was not a foreign concept to the Jews in the 1st century.
Other OT examples:
- In Isaiah 6, God sends an angel for intercession
- David communicates with angels in the Psalms
- Lot venerates and talks to the angels (Gen 19:1-2)
- Jacob invokes the help of an angel (Gen 48:16)
Some other NT examples:
- In Luke 1, Zechariah questions the angel who tells him that his will give birth to John the Baptist. Although it is the angel of the Lord, it is less likely this is a pre-Incarnate Christ given that in the same chapter has the story of the Incarnation (Blessed Lord Jesus)
- Mary converses with the Angel Gabriel in Luke 1
- Throughout the Book of Revelation - John sees or is accompanied by angels. He directly speaks to the angel in Rev 10:9. REv 17:7 alludes to a possible conversation with an angel.
- The Apostle Paul's prayer for the deceased in 2 Timothy 1:16-18
- St. Peter prayed to the deceased Tabitha, who was a disciple in Joppa, and tells her to rise in Acts 9:36-41 as did the Lord Jesus Christ did with Lazarus
Other examples:
- In the Book of Enoch, which Jude quotes, prayers to the angels in heaven is described: The earth made without inhabitant cries the voice of their crying up to the gates of heaven. And now to you, the holy ones of heaven, the souls of men make their suit, saying, "bring our cause before the Most High." (Enoch 9:1-3)
- The Book of Maccabees contains prayers for the dead
- In the Prayer of Azariah, verse 64 - the righteous departed are called upon to praise the Lord: "O ye spirits and souls of the righteous, bless ye the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever."
For evidence outside of scripture, just check out the inscriptions on ancient catacombs from the 1st to 3rd centuries and the early church father writings, especially the ones who were successors to the apostles. The proof is in the pudding....
Reply
If early Christians were praying to saints (asking them to pray for us) and the fathers didn't object to the practice, they would have no particular reason to mention it.. It would simply be taken for granted.
Lots of ifs. What we do know is most of Catholic dogma in which they anathema anyone who doesn’t bow down is not at all attested to in the Bible or early Church Fathers even though they claim it’s the same apostolic deposit of faith and at the same time claiming a progression of church understanding, worship, and dogma.
Through there dogmatic belief that they are infallible and etc etc, they promote and practice heresy
@@CCiPencil Actually, only one if.
@@williamfarmer5154 one small if one giant leap to idolatry. I think a pope said
@@williamfarmer5154 😂 good job not addressing the argument
@@CCiPencil I'm sorry, but I don't see how you contradicted my point. We simply don't have much info on whether early Christians prayed tp saints or not. But as far as I know, none of the fathers condemn the practice. This means that either the practice was unknown to them, or if they knew of it they said nothing against it.
Not convincing, literally every Christian communion that isn’t Protestant does this.
But that has not always been the case and the Church's documents serve as evidence.
@@davidsanabria6006 You can just say that all day long, doesn’t make it true. If literally everyone is doing something by the time of Nicaea, I feel more than comfortable doing it myself.
@@drewmann856 we don't have evidence of people praying to dead saints at the time of Nicea I or prior. Evidence we do have from the ANFs undercuts the claim that praying to the dead is a apostolic and catholic practice.
Now, we do have evidence of Christians doing it after Nicea I. Keep in mind that the church expanded drastically in the early fourth Century do to it becoming a legal religion (113 Edict of Milan) and even a preferred religion, both within society and the political elite. Shortly after that the death of Constantine the Great Christianity becoming the official religion of the Roman empire.
@@davidsanabria6006 Ok, then I’ll recount my statement and say if every Christian was doing something from the year 400 until the Reformation, I feel more than comfortable doing it as well. You all make this way too complicated.
@@drewmann856 the eastern Assyrian church doesn’t pray to saints
The _sensus fidei_ is a better argument than all of the Fathers combined. If petitioning the saints were idolatry, it would not be a universal reality in all apostolic churches.
It is also a non-starter to utilize primitivist assumptions against the cult of saints while remaining a Lutheran. Christianity developed into two distinct traditions over the course of 1000 years. Just about everything we do and believe is a post-Nicene development, and the Amish are the only Christians who consistently apply your presuppositions here.
If the apostles didn't mention your practice which you claim to be important, then at minimum the apostles did not find your practice important. But more likely, your practice is not on their lips because it was not in their hearts.
So many children can claim an "apostolic" practice, while the apostles themselves do not value the practice enough to even mention it.
@@RussianBot4Christ So, you're Amish?
@@metalifex8458 I'm a legitimate Catholic, not a "Catholic" who slanders and damns the Catholic church through ridiculous dogmas about Mary or who demands prayers to the saints.
@@RussianBot4Christ So then, you must necessarily adhere to many developments not found on the lips or in the hearts of the apostles.
@@Catholic-Perennialist Oh, we all do. We all "know in part" and we all only "testify in part", as Paul has wrote. But to hold those developments up as dogma though... is to relinquish the title of Catholic and to become a schizmatic damner and slanderer of the Catholic church.
So lets trust some rando who contradicts all of the big church fathers?
He is citing the church fathers.