ICONS OR IDOLS In the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches

[BigNorsk]

The traditional approach of Lutherans to the question is summed up
well by Pope Gregory the Great:

On Images:

"For indeed it had been reported to us that, inflamed with inconsiderate zeal, thou hadst broken images of saints, as though under the plea that they ought not to be adored8 . And indeed in that thou forbadest them to be adored, we altogether praise thee; but we blame thee for having broken them. Say, brother, what priest has ever been heard of as doing what thou hast done? If nothing else, should not even this thought have restrained thee, so as not to despise other brethren, supposing thyself only to be holy and wise? For to adore a picture is one thing, but to learn through the story of a picture what is to be adored is another. For what writing presents to readers, this a picture presents to the unlearned who behold, since in it even the ignorant see what they ought to follow; in it the illiterate read.

Hence, and chiefly to the nations9 , a picture is instead of reading. And this ought to have been attended to especially by thee who livest among the nations, lest, while inflamed inconsiderately by a right zeal, thou shouldest breed offence to savage minds. And, seeing that antiquity has not without reason admitted the histories of saints to be painted in venerable places, if thou hadst seasoned zeal with discretion, thou mightest undoubtedly have obtained what thou wert aiming at, and not scattered the collected flock, but rather gathered together a scattered one; that so the deserved renown of a shepherd might have distinguished thee, instead of the blame of being a scatterer lying upon thee. But from having acted inconsiderately on the impulse of thy feelings thou art said to have so offended thy children that the greatest part of them have suspended themselves from thy communion. When, then, wilt thou bring wandering sheep to the Lord's fold, not being able to retain those thou hast? Henceforth we exhort thee that thou study even now to be careful, and restrain thyself from this presumption, and make haste, with fatherly sweetness, with all endeavour, with all earnestness, to recall to thyself the minds of those whom thou findest to be disjoined from thee.

For the dispersed children of the Church must be called together, and it must he shewn then by testimonies of sacred Scripture that it is not lawful for anything made with hands to be adored, since it is written, Thou shalt adore the Lord thy God, and him only shalt serve (Luke iv. 8). And then, with regard to the pictorial presentations which bad been made for the edification of an unlearned people in order that, though ignorant of letters, they might by turning their eyes to the story itself learn what had been done, it must be added that, because thou hadst seen these come to be adored, thou hadst been so moved as to order them to be broken. And it must be said to them, If for this instruction for which images were anciently made you wish to have them in the church, I permit them by all means both to be made and to be had. And explain to them that it was not the sight itself of the story which the picture was hanging to attest that displeased thee, but the adoration which had been improperly paid to the pictures. And with such words appease thou their minds; recall them to agreement with thee And if any one should wish to make images, by no means prohibit him, but by all means forbid the adoration of images. But let thy Fraternity carefully admonish them that from the sight of the event portrayed they should catch the ardour of compunction, and bow themselves down in adoration of the One Almighty Holy Trinity." (St. Gregory the Great, Book XI, Epistle 1)
– NPNF.

Q

A Pope, is an extremely poor spokesman to speak for Lutherans. I am sure that much here would be made of the term adore as if the only offense of icons is if one adores them. Others what to say one can venerate, others that it is alright to invoke. That whole position is contrary to the Lutheran Confessions.

From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:
Among theologians this error also prevails: that a special sphere of activity has been assigned to each saint. Thus Anne bestows riches; Sebastian fends off the plague; Valentine heals epilepsy; George protects knights. These opinions clearly arose from pagan examples. For among the Romans, Juno was thought to bestow riches, Febris to fend off fever, Sastor and Pollux to defend knights, etc. Even if we should suppose that the invocation of the saints could be taught with great moderation, nevertheless the precedent would be very dangerous. What is the point of defending such a thing, when it has neither a command nor testimony form the Word of God? Indeed, it does not even have the support of the writers in the ancient church. As I said earlier, when we seek other mediators in addition to Christ and place our trust in them, our entire knowledge of Christ disappears. The facts ear this out. It seems that when the saints were first mentioned, as in the ancient prayers, this was done in a tolerable way. Soon afterward, invocation followed and then after that enormous abuses far worse than pagan practices. The invocation of saints then led to the veneration of their images. These supposedly contained some sort of power, just as sorcerers imagine that when artisans fashion astrological signs at a certain time, they contain power. In one monastery we saw a statue of the blessed Virgin that was manipulated like a puppet so that it seemed either to refuse or approve a request.

So if a person says a prayer to their dead loved ones, there would be no harm. But to set up a system of special saints and special powers and invoke and venerate this system and those saints. There is no room in the Confessions for such despite what some here want others to believe.

Marv

 

[Qoheleth]

A Pope, is an extremely poor spokesman to speak for Lutherans. I am sure that much here would be made of the term adore as if the only offense of icons is if one adores them. Others what to say one can venerate, others that it is alright to invoke. That whole position is contrary to the Lutheran Confessions.

Which statements do you have issue with?

Rightly understood and in context To invoke means to call upon or pray to. Invoking the saints is calling on them or praying to them. Commemorating, however, is simply remembering them or honoring them. The church has never prohibited honoring or commemorating the saints, teaching that such commemoration is, in the end, honoring the grace of God lived in and through the saints. Concerning invocation, the church prohibits only one kind of invocation—calling upon or praying to the saints in place of Christ, or as if one needs to approach them first in order to pray to Jesus.

This form of invocation is idolatry since it places trust not in God but in our prayers or in the saints. Other invocations (with or without Icons), however, such as asking them to pray for us are permissible.

But to set up a system of special saints and special powers and invoke and venerate this system and those saints. There is no room in the Confessions for such despite what some here want others to believe.

Indeed, abuses are found in all things religious.

But tell me, does the Lutheran position prohibit the use of Icons in: Rememberance, honoring, commemorating, aids, or windows (so to speak ) in prayer?


Q

 

[MORTANIUS]

So far, no one has proved that Roman Catholics and Orthodox are innocent of Idolatry.

I'll stress the points again.

1) Having transformed veneration of Saints into Praying to Saints, then to Praying to Saints for specific outcomes and needs and by assigning Saints in a polytheistic manner of which each Saint is prayed to for "safe travels" "protection from magic" etc.

2) Taking the above points and employing them through the use of Icons, is what really makes the case for Idolatry.


Its strange how people can't see this situation for what it is. Idolatry.

 

[gtsecc]

Who is the Authority, for Lutherans, to say whether it is idolatry or not?
Bishop?
Ecumenical Council?
Local pastor?
Congregation by vote?

 

[BigNorsk]

Which statements do you have issue with?

Rightly understood and in context To invoke means to call upon or pray to. Invoking the saints is calling on them or praying to them. Commemorating, however, is simply remembering them or honoring them. The church has never prohibited honoring or commemorating the saints, teaching that such commemoration is, in the end, honoring the grace of God lived in and through the saints. Concerning invocation, the church prohibits only one kind of invocation—calling upon or praying to the saints in place of Christ, or as if one needs to approach them first in order to pray to Jesus.

This form of invocation is idolatry since it places trust not in God but in our prayers or in the saints. Other invocations (with or without Icons), however, such as asking them to pray for us are permissible.



Indeed, abuses are found in all things religious.

But tell me, does the Lutheran position prohibit the use of Icons in: Rememberance, honoring, commemorating, aids, or windows (so to speak ) in prayer?


Q

What statements would I take issue with.

Well, here we have a Pope who is talking about people adoring images. Now we don't know exactly what the people were doing, but there is no arguement about whether the people were committing idolatry, that is admitted.

What does the Pope call these idolaters? His brethren, that's what, he calls them his spiritual brothers. Can a Christian be the spiritual brother of an idolator? Can he be one with the Lord and one with an idol at the same time? I say no.

He is really telling us that he doesn't think the people were doing any great wrong.

An interesting part of the letter is a part you left off.

Furthermore, it has come to our ears that thy Love gladly receives bad men into its society; so much so as to have as a familiar friend a certain presbyter who, after having fallen, is said to live still in the pollution of his iniquity132. This indeed we do not entirely believe, since he that receives such a one does not correct wickedness, but rather appears to give licence to others to perpetrate the like things. But, lest haply by any subornation or dissimulation he should prevail on thee to receive him and keep him still in favour, it becomes thee not only to drive him further from thee, but also in all ways to cut away his excesses with priestly zeal. But as to others who are reported to be bad, study to restrain them from their badness by fatherly exhortation, and to recall them to the way of rectitude. But, if (which God forbid) you seem not to profit them at all by salutary admonition, these also thou wilt take care to cast off far from thee, lest, from their being received, their evil doings should seem not at all to displease thee, and lest not only they themselves should remain unamended, but others also should be corrupted in consequence of thy reception of them. And consider how execrable it is before men, and how perilous before the eyes of God, if vices should seem to be nurtured through him whose duty it is to punish crimes. Attend therefore to these things diligently, most beloved brother; and study so to act as both wholesomely to correct the bad and to avoid breeding offence in the minds of thy children by associating with evil men.

So here in one letter he admonishes the priest against his destruction of the idols in the church, calls the idolaters his brethren, and then he warns the priest to get rid of evil people. I don't see any conclusion but that the Pope didn't see the people committing adoration of the images as evil people.

So we see that 900 years before Martin Luther, people are committing clear idolatry in the church, and the Pope is worried that the idols shouldn't be destroyed.

I just don't see how we should look to such for guidance in this matter.

As to your question of does the Lutheran position prohibit icons in various things. If the icon is thought to be special, by that I mean to be in some way mystical, to have any sort of powers, or if the saint is thought to have any sort of powers then it would be prohibited. If an icon is nothing more than anything else made by human hands and if the saint is nothing more than the person seated next to you in the pew, then I would not say it would be prohibited, but then noone would call it an icon, and noone would bother to call the person a saint would they?

Now the whole thing about an icon is that it is a magical mystical thing, is it not. Why is it so important that it be done in certain ways and made of certain things, it is because it would not be an icon. If it were only a picture to remember the person then the icon wouldn't be an idol of itself, but while I sometimes here pictures or photographs used to explain the icon, I never hear that the icon has no power. For what else is it to say that the "honor" given the icon is not given to the icon at all but to the person the icon represents.

And again we must look at the system using icons. Does it use patron saints, are the saints said to have special areas of aid to the person praying to them? Everything I see says that it does. I can find no use of icons outside such a system. If the icon is to the Patron saint of... there is no way to use it. I see miracles claimed from icons and miracles claimed from saints. We should have nothing to do with that.

So is it prohibited by the Confessions, I would say it is because it is a system created by man. The dogmas and doctrines associated with it are likewise a creation of man. You have repeatedly said it is prohibited if it takes away from the worship of God, if it is done in place of Christ. I say that is exactly what the whole man made system of saint "honoring" does.

Marv

 

[Protoevangel]

Who is the Authority, for Lutherans, to say whether it is idolatry or not?
Bishop?
Ecumenical Council?
Local pastor?
Congregation by vote?

Lutherans have confessions, but we do not have an institutional, normative, ecclesial teaching authority. Lutherans simply have no one to keep Lutheran teaching pure. When the winds of change blow, traditional interpretations of the Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions are easily and often exchanged for those having perceived social and cultural relevance. Theologians with differing hermeneutical stances arrive at quite different readings. It is all very messy.

Thanks to Dr. Dennis Bielfeldt for allowing me to use his words to answer this question. I'm feeling to lazy this morning to come up with my own words.
The article I ripped off is here.

 

[revjpw]

Who is the Authority, for Lutherans, to say whether it is idolatry or not?
Bishop?
Ecumenical Council?
Local pastor?
Congregation by vote?

The First Commandment.

 

[MORTANIUS]

People assume that Lutherans have no means of understanding the scriptures, and I find this amusing.

We neither read them as complete metaphor or complete literal representations of what is presented in the Holy Bible.

The concerns about Idolatry are not just viewed in the Bible and proclaimed. There is always consideration and examining the arguments, and measuring how these hold up to what is abiding the Holy Bible and what is not.

This is not an ICONOCLAST argument I have posted. I don't believe in doing away with Icons. I only believe in doing away with how they are used which makes them Idols.

Strangely, many people can't see that.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

People assume that Lutherans have no means of understanding the scriptures, and I find this amusing.

Actually I think they do. I think they necessarily lean heavily upon Holy Tradition for much of their biblical understanding (not that they simply use it, but traditional Lutherans, high or low, LEAN and DEPEND on Holy Tradition). So many, unfortunately, just ignore the very wall (Holy Tradition) they're leaning against to stand up straight and properly interpret the Holy Bible. Fortuantely I do not think that the Lutheran Church is truly Sola Scriptura. Let me explain myself: You coined the term, yes. But I have seen churches that do this much "better". Usually they are the "Bible Churches" down the road that constantly split off from each other because Brother Whoever was in his room, reading his Bible and was "lead by the Spirit" to believe something entirely new (and ahistorical). THEY are truly Sola Scriptura for it is just them and their Bible. You may have the Bible as your sole central focus (so yes, in this way, you are Sola Scriptura) but you necessarily depend on the Fathers' writings (reformation fathers who in turn depended on understandings they gained from the historical Church Fathers) to interpret these Scriptures. Martin Luther did not reinvent the wheel completely. When he confessed that the Body and Blood are truly present in the Eucharist, he didn't get that idea out of a vacuum. There are other ways to understand that verse (for not everything is always literal. Jesus is not the "door" and so on.. you've heard all these half-baked arguments before). Simply Symbolical understandings may be fallible when we look at what the Church always believed (we and you both would argue this to the death)... but it was necessary for Luther to lean on the Holy Tradition from which the Scriptures sprang forth.

So yes, I do think that traditional Lutherans have a pretty good understanding of the Scriptures because thankfully their own Tradition is not Sola Scriptura in the way that most protestants understand Sola Scriptura.

By the way, I am not supporting even the most traditional Lutheran concept of Sola Scriptura, I am only stating that it is a much more mature form of the concept than many protestants understand it to be. I am also only putting out this semi-defense for the TRADITIONAL Lutheran stance on Sola Scriptura and how it has been put into practiced by it's theologians in the past. Perhaps it is not so true here in TCCL, but most everyday LCMSers you meet would give a very "Bible Church" understanding of Sola Scriptura (just me, Jesus and my Bible) and this is sad and not Lutheran. Just as the Orthodox Church needs to be re-evangelized in many places by Her own people, the Lutheran Church needs to be seriously re-Lutheranized, brought back to its roots and understand what it means to be Lutheran. It would help, it seems to me, to re-educate it's people so they understand that being protestant should not make them somehow more comfortable with Baptists and Pentecostals than they are with Catholics.

John

 

[Qoheleth]

What does the Pope call these idolaters? His brethren, that's what, he calls them his spiritual brothers. Can a Christian be the spiritual brother of an idolator? Can he be one with the Lord and one with an idol at the same time? I say no.

Even in my own sin, or you in yours, we are still brethren in Christ--are we not? If anyone of us breaks one commandment, have we not broken the entire law? Are we then no longer part of the body?

He is really telling us that he doesn't think the people were doing any great wrong.

"For to adore a picture is one thing, but to learn through the story of a picture what is to be adored is another"

You must see that the adoring of the picture (icon) alone is not right, but learning through the picture (icon), its story of God's work and grace is what is to be adored.

So we see that 900 years before Martin Luther, people are committing clear idolatry in the church, and the Pope is worried that the idols shouldn't be destroyed.

You have missed the entire context. He is trying to thwart chaos and persecution of other brethren. A peacemaker.

Did you miss this:

"And with such words appease thou their minds; recall them to agreement with thee And if any one should wish to make images, by no means prohibit him, but by all means forbid the adoration of images."

As to the rest of your post, I'll say this again, the Confessions nor any other Lutheran writing prohibits Icons to be had in: Rememberance, honoring, commemorating, aids, or windows (so to speak ) in prayer.

So is it prohibited by the Confessions

Only the abuses.

I say that is exactly what the whole man made system of saint "honoring" does.

I stand humbly in awe of the work of Christ done in, with and through the saints. Those who have been utterly obedient to the call and work of Christ, by grace, deserve our commemoration and honor.

This is a reason why the Lutheran Liturgical year names and celebrates, commemorates and honors many Saints.

Q

 

[MORTANIUS]

Hi John how are ya?

Sola Scriptura
I have been taught that it is not something to discover new things. I know what you mean about some groups taking the Bible and transforming one passage into an entirely new theology.

However, I do realize that many passages of the Bible offer deeper and more profound meanings every time I read them. I mean this as an example of what benefit the Bible is to our experiences in walking toward Christ.

Sola Scriptura isn't the foundation of Christianity. It is however, one of the strongest supporting texts of Christianity. That is why we put so much emphasis on it.

Many Christian sects can come and go, but the Scriptures don't cease to exist. Gods Word is eternal.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Hi John how are ya?

good Mort, thanks

Sola Scriptura
I have been taught that it is not something to discover new things. I know what you mean about some groups taking the Bible and transforming one passage into an entirely new theology.

happens all the time.

However, I do realize that many passages of the Bible offer deeper and more profound meanings every time I read them.

I guess my problem, to start off with is the word "I" here and what that implies. But maybe I'm understanding it wrong.

I mean this as an example of what benefit the Bible is to our experiences in walking toward Christ.

The Bible can give us new insights into our personal situations... but I wouldn't trust any that give us new insights into doctrine or dogma... especially if it's just me and a few buddies. Otherwise, if it is only giving us further insight into what the Pillar and Ground of Truth already teaches, then that's great and it is the Church's hope that the Scriptures would lead us into a deeper understanding of God, Salvation and Truth: ie, "walking toward Christ."

Sola Scriptura isn't the foundation of Christianity. It is however, one of the strongest supporting texts of Christianity. That is why we put so much emphasis on it.

But see... we as Orthodox would say the same thing. The word Sola and the next phrase there that I bolded don't seem to match up well. Sola means only, alone. ONE OF THE, imples the the necessary presence of other elements. I'm not going to tell you what Lutherans believe, but I'm not sure this is the safest response to offer as a Lutheran (I'm not lutheran anymore, and was never particularly and Dr. Pelikan on the denomination, so I re-iterate... I'm not sure)

Many Christian sects can come and go, but the Scriptures don't cease to exist. Gods Word is eternal.

Again, an Orthodox believes the same thing. But this doesn't lead one to Sola Scriptura.

In the end, my long post had many points in it which I'm sure you didn't agree with, but main focus was to be that I do think that Lutherans (traditional, mind you) are not the best at Sola Scriptura as it is understood today, and BECAUSE of this, they are probably among those protetants who best understand the meaning of the Scriptires because of their necessary reliance on the Holy Fathers and their unintended respect and dependance on some of the Holy Tradition. The problem is that this fact is either ignored or vehemently denied at the cost of what will be your very own Tradition.

John

 

[MORTANIUS]

I especially agree with what you said about "new insights"

I truly believe the Bible reveals lessons to our personal lives and experiences that can benefit our understanding the message and teachings of Jesus Christ.

But I am always careful not to take what I read and formulate a doctrines.

Its a dangerous trend I notice amongst some bible study groups I go to from time to time.

 

[gzt]

1) Having transformed veneration of Saints into Praying to Saints, then to Praying to Saints for specific outcomes and needs and by assigning Saints in a polytheistic manner of which each Saint is prayed to for "safe travels" "protection from magic" etc.

2) Taking the above points and employing them through the use of Icons, is what really makes the case for Idolatry.

In other words, your main problem is with prayer to the saints, your problem with icons is only tangential. Frankly, your case for idolatry does not even need #2. It is clear that the icons are not the idols, the saints are, and this does not make the employment of icons idolatry. As I have said repeatedly, your problem is with prayer to the saints and not with iconography.

The main point is that you are wrong about point 1. The Orthodox and Catholic alike believe that it is wrong to treat the saints as little gods with special realms of influence to pray to besides Christ for your needs. That is clearly an abuse. As for what constitutes proper prayer to the saints and the defenses of this doctrine, you've asked before on TAW and Qoheleth is giving a Lutheran opinion here.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Somehow, and quite how is beyond me, this thread has not yet reached the attention of OBOBers. Either that or others are doing so well defending icons that they've decided there's no point.

Peace be with you

 

[BigNorsk]

Lutherans can and do honor the saints.

So I find no place in the Confessions that would say something like honoring a saint by something like this is wrong, whether the saint is living or dead.
"Saint Q I thank you for living your life of submission to Christ."

I do not see anywhere that that is against the Confessions.

Now if I were to invoke Q with the understanding that he has better access than I do or special powers then that is against the Confessions. It is not so much the asking for prayer as the idea that there are different levels of saints. The very system of canonizing saints assumes that some saints are special and somehow more worthy of honor than the others.

We aren't told from scripture that the departed saints even hear our prayer, if you asked the departed to pray for you, you don't know they even hear. You can ask the living saints to pray for you and know that they can hear you and can do that, but not the departed saints. The question has to be asked why pray to the saints you pray to. If you are praying to the saint because you think that saint is "special" that he or she is more holy or has special help in that area, then that would be against the Confessions.

We don't need a priest to intercede for us whether that priest is living or dead. The dead saints aren't more holy or more powerful than those who are living, much of the point of scripture is not that the saints we read about are so special and great, but that they are such sinners, and even though they live much less than perfect lives, God used and uses them.

Is it not amazing that Peter, who repeatedly denied our Lord, also had such faith that he walked on water, if only for a time.

I also would not bow down before an icon, a statue, or a living saint. We have the examples from scripture where people were doing that and they were commanded to stand up because the person was just a person or the angel was just an angel. And just to clarify, I do not believe it is sinful to bow before say a king, you are recognizing his worldly office and power. But to bow down to a saint, you are not recognizing something of this world but something spiritual, and for that, I believe we bow down to God, not people.

Marv

 

[ByzantineDixie]

But to bow down to a saint, you are not recognizing something of this world but something spiritual, and for that, I believe we bow down to God, not people.

But bowing down before the icon of a saint is, in essence, bowing down before God. It is recognizing God's good work in them! It is not bowing down to the saint as if they are God! They could not have done what they did (evangelize, be a martyr, feed the hungry and clothe the poor) if it were not for God's grace working in them. It is for these things, the work of God, that we honor the saints.

Now...about Saint Q. I am thinking I might try getting an icon of him and put it by my computer. I think he is the patron saint of the Internet! (Just messin' with ya, Marv. )

 

[MORTANIUS]

In other words, your main problem is with prayer to the saints, your problem with icons is only tangential. Frankly, your case for idolatry does not even need #2. It is clear that the icons are not the idols, the saints are, and this does not make the employment of icons idolatry. As I have said repeatedly, your problem is with prayer to the saints and not with iconography.

The main point is that you are wrong about point 1. The Orthodox and Catholic alike believe that it is wrong to treat the saints as little gods with special realms of influence to pray to besides Christ for your needs. That is clearly an abuse. As for what constitutes proper prayer to the saints and the defenses of this doctrine, you've asked before on TAW and Qoheleth is giving a Lutheran opinion here.

Exactly! Icons are not idols on their own. They are beautiful inspirations of Christian art and Memory.

When used to pray to saints it becomes an idol. I don't know the passage from the Holy Bible off hand, but it does mention not to make any image of even a man or woman for the purpose of worship.

I understand that worship does not mean you make them God, but the level of veneration applied to them continues. Here is how,

Saints are assigned spiritual authority for specific outcomes. As I stated with the brief examples (Saint Cyprian for example), an almost polytheistic distribution of Divinity is established. Its not entirely deifying the Saint, but it neglects to recognize that (for example) Saint Cyprian did not use his abilities other than faith and realization in Jesus Christ to overcome the devils magic.

Therefore, to pray to Saint Cyprian for intervention or intercession doesn't make sense, if you consider that he didn't pray and recognize Saints to give him power over the Devil. He recognize JESUS CHRIST.

I believe in the Saints, but I don't believe they do what has been ascribed to them within the branches of Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

Miracles that are credited to Saints don't come from the Saints. They come from God.

Once miracles and answers to prayers are recognized to Saints, then the danger of deifying the Saint and crediting the Saint (instead of God) occurs.

 

[Protoevangel]

For the Lutherans here, I wonder if the following portion of the Smallcald Articles have aqny bearing on the conversation:


THE SECOND PART
Article II: Of the Mass.
Of the Invocation of Saints.
26-28
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And although the angels in heaven pray for us (as Christ Himself also does), as also do the saints on earth, and perhaps also in heaven, yet it does not follow thence that we should invoke and adore the angels and saints, and fast, hold festivals, celebrate Mass in their honor, make offerings, and establish churches, altars, divine worship, and in still other ways serve them, and regard them as helpers in need [as patrons and intercessors], and divide among them all kinds of help, and ascribe to each one a particular form of assistance, as the Papists teach and do. For this is idolatry, and such honor belongs alone to God. For as a Christian and saint upon earth you can pray for me, not only in one, but in many necessities. But for this reason I am not obliged to adore and invoke you, and celebrate festivals, fast, make oblations, hold masses for your honor [and worship], and put my faith in you for my salvation. I can in other ways indeed honor, love, and thank you in Christ. If now such idolatrous honor were withdrawn from angels and departed saints, the remaining honor would be without harm and would quickly be forgotten. For when advantage and assistance, both bodily and spiritual, are no more to be expected, the saints will not be troubled [the worship of the saints will soon vanish], neither in their graves nor in heaven. For without a reward or out of pure love no one will much remember, or esteem, or honor them [bestow on them divine honor].

Just curious. I actually looked this up when thinking about another subject, and wondered if it may have any bearing here.
[/font]

 

[MORTANIUS]

For the Lutherans here, I wonder if the following portion of the Smallcald Articles have aqny bearing on the conversation:


THE SECOND PART
Article II: Of the Mass.
Of the Invocation of Saints.
26-28
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And although the angels in heaven pray for us (as Christ Himself also does), as also do the saints on earth, and perhaps also in heaven, yet it does not follow thence that we should invoke and adore the angels and saints, and fast, hold festivals, celebrate Mass in their honor, make offerings, and establish churches, altars, divine worship, and in still other ways serve them, and regard them as helpers in need [as patrons and intercessors], and divide among them all kinds of help, and ascribe to each one a particular form of assistance, as the Papists teach and do. For this is idolatry, and such honor belongs alone to God. For as a Christian and saint upon earth you can pray for me, not only in one, but in many necessities. But for this reason I am not obliged to adore and invoke you, and celebrate festivals, fast, make oblations, hold masses for your honor [and worship], and put my faith in you for my salvation. I can in other ways indeed honor, love, and thank you in Christ. If now such idolatrous honor were withdrawn from angels and departed saints, the remaining honor would be without harm and would quickly be forgotten. For when advantage and assistance, both bodily and spiritual, are no more to be expected, the saints will not be troubled [the worship of the saints will soon vanish], neither in their graves nor in heaven. For without a reward or out of pure love no one will much remember, or esteem, or honor them [bestow on them divine honor].

Just curious. I actually looked this up when thinking about another subject, and wondered if it may have any bearing here.
[/font]

Dan, if you look throughout this thread, I believe this has already been posted.