The Biblical Basis of 10 Catholic Distinctives

[Berserk]

[3] THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL BASIS OF PRAYING TO SAINTS

Countless testimonies attest the validity and effectiveness of praying to saints. If such prayers can be valid and effective, then they shed light on important faith issues that evangelicals usually duck.
So before I lay out the biblical case for praying to saints, please ponder the exciting possibilities raised by these 5 questions raised by such prayers:

(1) Does God allow our deceased loved ones to monitor our progress here on earth?
(2) If so, do they still pray for us as they did during their earthly existence?
(3) Who separated them from the unity of the corporate Body of Christ?
(4) If Christ's role as our heavenly Intercessor and Advocate does not eliminate our need to pray for each other, why would it eliminate the need to seek prayer support from deceased saints?
(5) Is it possible that great saints now in Christ's presence have a deep faith to effectively petition God on our behalf?

 

[bbbbbbb]

The glory goes to God the Son, who the monk prays to continuously, and having prayed continuously, has made himself an obedient servant to God the Father through the grace of God the Holy Spirit.

If, as you said, the monk caused the healing, he probably ought to receive his due level of praise and thanksgiving.

 

[The Liturgist]

If, as you said, the monk caused the healing, he probably ought to receive his due level of praise and thanksgiving.

I reject monergism. The monk, who was a priest, acted in synergy with God by the grace of the Holy Spirit, by applying the sacrament of unction, anointing with holy oil, directly on the cancer, in accordance with the instructions in the Epistle of St. James. We don’t worship priests or bishops for celebrating the Eucharist or reconciling sinners, or performing baptisms, chrismations, marriages, or in the case of bishops, ordaining clergy, and likewise it would be wrong to worship a priest for applying holy unction. Presbyters, bishops, deacons, deaconesses (in their function in the early church as ministers of baptism) and subdeacons act as sacred ministers of divine grace, leading the congregation in prayer, and celebrating or assisting in the celebration of the sacrament.

 

[The Liturgist]

[3] THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL BASIS OF PRAYING TO SAINTS

Countless testimonies attest the validity and effectiveness of praying to saints. If such prayers can be valid and effective, then they shed light on important faith issues that evangelicals usually duck.
So before I lay out the biblical case for praying to saints, please ponder the exciting possibilities raised by these 5 questions raised by such prayers:

(1) Does God allow our deceased loved ones to monitor our progress here on earth?
(2) If so, do they still pray for us as they did during their earthly existence?
(3) Who separated them from the unity of the corporate Body of Christ?
(4) If Christ's role as our heavenly Intercessor and Advocate does not eliminate our need to pray for each other, why would it eliminate the need to seek prayer support from deceased saints?
(5) Is it possible that great saints now in Christ's presence have a deep faith to effectively petition God on our behalf?

1. Yes
2. Absolutely.
3. No one: they are still united to the Body of Christ as noted in the Apostles’ Creed.
4. It doesn’t. Seeking the intercession of the saints, especially the Theotokos, has enormously enriched my prayer life. The true saints (as opposed to a minority consecrated by some denominations for political reasons, who I feel can easily be differentiated from those who merited glorification, such as the martyrs) are wonderful Christians who love us. One project of mine is developing an ecumenical martyrology consisting of Roman Catholic saints not involved in the cause of the Great Schism or the Crusades or the Inquisition, who would be acceptable to the Orthodox, and a list of Protestant saints. Right now, in addition to Saints Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague, who are already venerated by the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, John and Charles Wesley, Soren Kierkegaard, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Luther King are among some of the obvious choices.
5. Yes, quite naturally.

 

[Berserk]

@The Liturgist,

Consider the plight of evangelicals for whom praying to saints is an experientially alien concept, even if it seems a fascinating and appealing possibility. How on earth could evangelicals ever find inner confirmation that such prayers should be included in their prayer life? How would they even begin? How should they determine which saints to ask for petitionary prayer? I will shortly make the case for the biblical basis of praying to saints. But I can't imagine adopting this practice personally unless I experienced convincing "success" in a prayer experiment. Yet I recognize the perils of putting God to the test.

This issue reminds me of my youthful skepticism about modern speaking in tongues. I thought most of the tongues I heard were fleshly gibberish. But when I actually had the experience at age 16, it was so electrifying that witnesses later told me my face was glowing in the darkening sanctuary. A nearby Lutheran pastor approached me, saying he didn't believe in tongues and was just there as an interested spectator. But when I gently touched his forehead, he exploded in other tongues! That experience was BY FAR the highlight of my life; and I doubt that a skeptic like me would even still be a Christian without that experience, the memory of which spiritually nourishes me almost daily. So decades later. I wonder if my life might be enriched by alternative forms of prayer like praying to saints.

 

[The Liturgist]

@The Liturgist,

Consider the plight of evangelicals for whom praying to saints is an experientially alien concept, even if it seems a fascinating and appealing possibility. How on earth could evangelicals ever find inner confirmation that such prayers should be included in their prayer life? How would they even begin? How should they determine which saints to ask for petitionary prayer? I will shortly make the case for the biblical basis of praying to saints. But I can't imagine adopting this practice personally unless I experienced convincing "success" in a prayer experiment. Yet I recognize the perils of putting God to the test.

This issue reminds me of my youthful skepticism about modern speaking in tongues. I thought most of the tongues I heard were fleshly gibberish. But when I actually had the experience at age 16, it was so electrifying that witnesses later told me my face was glowing in the darkening sanctuary. A nearby Lutheran pastor approached me, saying he didn't believe in tongues and was just there as an interested spectator. But when I gently touched his forehead, he exploded in other tongues! That experience was BY FAR the highlight of my life; and I doubt that a skeptic like me would even still be a Christian without that experience, the memory of which spiritually nourishes me almost daily. So decades later. I wonder if my life might be enriched by alternative forms of prayer like praying to saints.

There’s actually an easy way to put something to the test, and that is to look at the early church. If we do this, we find that the Orthodox and some of the Eastern Catholic churches look most like it, and also some Latin Rites other than the Roman, namely the Mozarabic and Carthusian Rite liturgies, but the Roman, Ambrosian and Dominican Rite in their pre-Vatican II state look fairly like the early church, albeit with the influence of novel ideas from Scholastic theology, and for that matter Anglicanism, Lutheranism, some Methodist churches, some Moravian churches, and even some Congregational and Reformed churches. The essential characteristics of the early church are sacramentalism and liturgical worship so as to “let everything be done decently and in order,” as St. Paul wrote.

By the way, forgive me, but speaking of validating things throufh the experience of the early church, and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches which look most like it (along with some ultra-high churchn Continuing Anglican churches which recognize seven sacraments rather than the two mentioned in the Articles of Religion, and the Assyrian Church of the East, and few other instances), I have seen what I consider to be speaking in tongues, which is the useful ability to communicate verbally or otherwise abstract concepts without a common language, with an Eastern Orthodox monk, and it did not resemble the experience you describe, which appears to contradict the utility requirements for edification set out in 1 Corinthians.

I also must admit, begging your pardon, that some charismatic practices frighten me, for example, the Toronto Blessing and “Being slain in the Spirit.” And I can’t think of a compelling reason why these practices were apparently dormant from the second century until 1906 on Azusa St. in Los Angeles.

 

[Berserk]

The Liturgist: "I have seen what I consider to be speaking in tongues, which is the useful ability to communicate verbally or otherwise abstract concepts without a common language, with an Eastern Orthodox monk, and it did not resemble the experience you describe, which appears to contradict the utility requirements for edification set out in 1 Corinthians."

I will digress from the thread's topic to reply to your comments. I wrote my 452 page Harvard doctoral thesis on the gift of prophecy in the first 3 centuries. To my knowledge, ALL academic book commentaries on 1 Corinthians agree that Paul distinguishes between corporate tongues where unbelievers can be present and self-edifying private prayer tongues which need no interpretation:

"He who speaks [privately] in tongues edifies himself (1 Cor. 14:4)."
"But if there is no one to interpret, let him speak [in prayer tongues] to himself and to God (14:28)."

My tongues experience happened after at the altar after an evening camp meeting when no unbelievers were present to be offended. Wave after wave of ever intensifying liquid love surged through my being until I feared my own ego would be totally absorbed in God mind. As for edification, the experience so transformed my mind that I shortly received the highest average in my Canadian province as a high school senior--and knew by "a word of knowledge" this would happen immediately after the tongues experience! A framed photo of the Premier shaking my hand in acknowledgement of this achievement sits on my living room table, not as a monument to my intelligence, but as a testimony to the transforming power of the Holy Spirit mediated to me through speaking in tongues.

The Liturgist: "I also must admit...that some charismatic practices frighten me, for example, the Toronto Blessing and “Being slain in the Spirit.”

Thomas Merton famously told his Gethsemane monks that they weren't really contemplatives, but merely introverts! The forces of evil counterfeit God's most empowering spiritual gifts. I witnessed the profound lasting impact of being "slain in the Spirit" on my own mother!

The Liturgist: "And I can’t think of a compelling reason why these practices were apparently dormant from the second century until 1906 on Azusa St. in Los Angeles."

On the contrary, scattered pockets of Christians speaking in tongues persisted throughout the centuries prior to Azusa Street, though this seems to have been rare and highly localized.

 

[Berserk]

BIBLICAL FOUNDATION OF PRAYING TO SAINTS

(1) Are the righteous dead aware of earthly events? Yes.
"There will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over 99 righteous ones who need no repentance (Luke 15:7)."
"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also set aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us (Hebrews 12:1)."
It is important to recognize what is not said--these deceased saints do not "precede" us; rather, they are alive and now surround us like spectators in a great arena, cheering us on in our race and sending us aid. in Hebrews the word for "witnesses" always means "eyewitnesses." The interaction between deceased saints and struggling Christian athletes makes this text foundational biblical justification for praying to saints. Thus, Heb. 12:1 is a foundational text for the Apostles' Creed through which we confess, "We believe in the Communion of Saints," living and dead.

(2) Right before the decisive battle of the Maccabean revolt (175-163 BC) between the Jews and the Syrian Greeks, Judas Maccabaeus has a vision of the late high priest Onias III and the prophet Jeremiah in which Judas learns that these 2 saints hold up Israel in fervent intercessory prayer for victory. Jeremiah presents Judas with a "golden sword" as a symbol of imminent victory (2 Maccabees 15:11-16, in the Catholic Bible). The prophet Jeremiah's role in this victory convinces some of Jesus' followers that Jesus is actually Jeremiah raised from the dead (Matthew 16:14). But, you say, that incident is not in my Protestant Bible. So what? It's history--and it attests the intercessory power of the prayers of deceased saints.

(3) Thus, we learn from Rev. 6:9-10 that deceased martyrs are well aware of what is transpiring back on Earth and engage in a intercessory prayer for vindication of the persecuted church.

 

[Berserk]

(4) CATHOLIC MARIOLOGY

Catholics recognize the exalted Woman in Rev. 12:1-3 as a reference to Mary. This vision reflects a Christian application to Mary of pagan myths of the birth of the gods Apollo and Isis. Many interpreters wrongly restrict the reference to this Woman as a symbol of Israel or the Church. In fact, 3 considerations point to Jesus' mother as a referent:
(1) After the expected birth pangs. she gives birth to Jesus.
(2) The Dragon (= Satan tries to have the baby Jesus killed, an obvious reference to Herod's efforts to kill every baby boy in Bethlehem under 2 years of age (Matthew 2:16-18)
(3) The Woman flees in the wilderness to escape--a reference to Mary's flight into Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) to escape the mass infanticide.

The legitimacy of prayer to Mary logically follows from the practice of praying to deceased saints. This in no way clashes with Jesus' unique role as our heavenly Mediator. Neither Mary nor the saints are expected to intervene and remedy earthly plights. Catholics merely ask for their prayer support. When Christians die and go to be with the Lord, they are still members of the Body of Christ. Why is it hard to believe that deceased saints continue to pray for Christ's church after their deaths?

 

[bbbbbbb]

(4) CATHOLIC MARIOLOGY

Catholics recognize the exalted Woman in Rev. 12:1-3 as a reference to Mary. This vision reflects a Christian application to Mary of pagan myths of the birth of the gods Apollo and Isis. Many interpreters wrongly restrict the reference to this Woman as a symbol of Israel or the Church. In fact, x considerations point to Jesus' mother as a referent:
(1) After the expected birth pangs. she gives birth to Jesus.
(2) The Dragon (= Satan tries to have the baby Jesus killed, an obvious reference to Herod's efforts to kill every baby boy in Bethlehem under 2 years of age (Matthew 2:16-18)
(3) The Woman flees in the wilderness to escape--a reference to Mary's flight into Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) to escape the mass infanticide.

The legitimacy of prayer to Mary logically follows from the practice of praying to deceased saints. This in no way clashes with Jesus' unique role as our heavenly Mediator. Neither Mary nor the saints are expected to intervene and remedy earthly plights. Catholics merely ask for their prayer support. When Christians die and go to be with the Lord, they are still members of the Body of Christ. Why is it hard to believe that deceased saints continue to pray for Christ's church after their deaths?

In order to do any such thing they need to become omnipresent and omniscient and almost omnipotent. For example, we have Saint Christopher (who now officially never existed). In the time of his popularity literally thousands upon thousands of prayers were being offered to him at any one moment in time. These prayers were being offered in vastly different locations, as well. Thus, the justly maligned Christopher had to be in all of those places at the same time in order to hear those prayers. There was no internet then, nor telephonic communication, and not even postal service. Christopher had to be a demi-god. In addition, he had to be fully cognizant of each and every prayer. No human mind is capable of any such thing. Thus, he had to be omniscient. The true miracle is that there were tens of thousands testimonies from faithful Catholics attesting to receiving answers to their prayers to this non-existent saint.

 

[Berserk]

In order to do any such thing they need to become omnipresent and omniscient You

You ignore the absence of space and time as we know in the afterlife and the fact that telepathic thought does not exist in space.

 

[BobRyan]

[3] THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL BASIS OF PRAYING TO SAINTS

Countless testimonies attest the validity and effectiveness of praying to saints. If such prayers can be valid and effective, then they shed light on important faith issues that evangelicals usually duck.
So before I lay out the biblical case for praying to saints, please ponder the exciting possibilities raised by these 5 questions raised by such prayers:

(1) Does God allow our deceased loved ones to monitor our progress here on earth?
(2) If so, do they still pray for us as they did during their earthly existence?
(3) Who separated them from the unity of the corporate Body of Christ?
(4) If Christ's role as our heavenly Intercessor and Advocate does not eliminate our need to pray for each other, why would it eliminate the need to seek prayer support from deceased saints?
(5) Is it possible that great saints now in Christ's presence have a deep faith to effectively petition God on our behalf?

Possibly these are the wrong questions. Try this

1. Does the Bible say that a dead person is omni-present or omniscient at the point of death --- at least to the point that they can hear all individual prayers made to them from all over the world at the same time - and can respond to each request either directly to the individual praying or in their supplication to God on behalf of each individual case. Does the Bible teach that about the dead?

2. Are there any examples of some saint in the Bible praying to a dead person and making a request of them (that is not in the form of a demon lead spiritist seance that most Christians would reject since the Bible condemns it.)

3. If it is to be argued that the dead person merely has the same ability and desire to pray for others as when they were alive - then was it ever the case that when alive they were able to hear all requests all around the world made to them at the same moment in time and respond to those requests -- or did they need to hear each one separately and be in real contact with each individual that made requests of them in their life time?

4. In what sense are Bible texts true -- that say "the dead know not anything" and "god is not the God of the dead" Matt 22 -- ?

 

[tall73]

Of these initial eight, I think the only one I would disagree with is purgatory, because we don’t see it discussed by the Greek or Syrian fathers even in exhaustive works like the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by St. John Damascene.

I have read some of Kallistos Ware's modern works. How accessible is this work that you reference for someone without a ton of background?

 

[BobRyan]

You ignore the absence of space and time

What Bible text says "there is an absence of space and time for the dead that operate/function after the person has died"??
What Bible text says they are omnipresent or all knowing at the point of death?

 

[BobRyan]

@The Liturgist,

Consider the plight of evangelicals for whom praying to saints is an experientially alien concept, even if it seems a fascinating and appealing possibility. How on earth could evangelicals ever find inner confirmation that such prayers should be included in their prayer life?

What Bible texts do Evangelicals use to argue that the dead are hearing and answering prayers made to them???

 

[bbbbbbb]

Possibly these are the wrong questions. Try this

1. Does the Bible say that a dead person is omni-present or omniscient at the point of death --- at least to the point that they can hear all individual prayers made to them from all over the world at the same time - and can respond to each request either directly to the individual praying or in their supplication to God on behalf of each individual case. Does the Bible teach that about the dead?

2. Are there any examples of some saint in the Bible praying to a dead person and making a request of them (that is not in the form of a demon lead spiritist seance that most Christians would reject since the Bible condemns it.)

3. If it is to be argued that the dead person merely has the same ability and desire to pray for others as when they were alive - then was it ever the case that when alive there were able to hear all requests all around the world made to them at the same moment in time and respond to those requests -- or did they need to hear each one separately and be in real contact with each individual that made requests of them in their life time?

4. In what sense are Bible texts true -- that say "the dead know not anything" and "god is not the God of the dead" Matt 22 -- ?

All very excellent questions. I look forward to the Catholic response(s).

 

[JSRG]

In order to do any such thing they need to become omnipresent and omniscient and almost omnipotent. For example, we have Saint Christopher (who now officially never existed). In the time of his popularity literally thousands upon thousands of prayers were being offered to him at any one moment in time. These prayers were being offered in vastly different locations, as well. Thus, the justly maligned Christopher had to be in all of those places at the same time in order to hear those prayers. There was no internet then, nor telephonic communication, and not even postal service. Christopher had to be a demi-god. In addition, he had to be fully cognizant of each and every prayer. No human mind is capable of any such thing. Thus, he had to be omniscient. The true miracle is that there were tens of thousands testimonies from faithful Catholics attesting to receiving answers to their prayers to this non-existent saint.

You claim he "officially never existed." What, exactly, this is "officially" coming from? Who has the ability to "officially" declare whether someone existed or not?

 

[bbbbbbb]

You claim he "officially never existed." What, exactly, this is "officially" coming from? Who has the ability to "officially" declare whether someone existed or not?

You may want to read this - Once a Saint, Always a Saint? Kind Of -- Unless You're Demoted

It was your own pope and his advisors who decided that there was little to no historical basis for 93 saints.

 

[JSRG]

You may want to read this - Once a Saint, Always a Saint? Kind Of -- Unless You're Demoted

It was your own pope and his advisors who decided that there was little to no historical basis for 93 saints.

So first off, that doesn't say they declared anyone non-existent (let alone "officially"), contrary to your claim. Indeed, the article notes:

But they weren’t actually de-sainted, just downgraded, said Christopher Bellito, a history professor at Kean University.

"The purpose was to clean up a crowded liturgical calendar,” he said. "They decided to remove particular feast days of those saints whose origins were shrouded in more mystery than manuscripts."

So all that was done was his feast day was removed from the calendar. That's it. That's not an "official" declaration he didn't exist. Plenty of people declared saints aren't on the calendar.

Now, the article does go on to talk specifically about Christopher. Let's see what it says:

Among Catholicism’s most popular saints, Christopher was listed as a martyr.

Legend had it he carried a child who grew increasingly heavy across a river -- the child was supposed to be carrying the weight of God.

But there wasn’t enough historical evidence the man ever existed, so Pope Paul VI dropped him.

Note, yet again, there is no mention of any "official" declaration he did not exist, which is what you claimed. All it says is that he was removed because there wasn't enough historical evidence he existed, which is a very different claim.

However, even that more moderate claim seems to be inaccurate. Looking into it, this seems to be the "official" announcement regarding the changes in the calendar that happened:

Calendarium Romanum (1969) : Catholic Church : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The liturgical calendar of the Catholic Church as reformed after the Second Vatican Council.The first part of the book is a description of the calendar; the...

archive.org

Memoria S. Christophori, anno circiter 1550 in Calendario romano ascripta, Calendariis particularibus relinquitur: quamvis Acta S. Christophori fabulosa sint, antiqua inveniuntur monumenta eius venerationis; attamen cultus huius Sancti non pertinet ad traditionem romanam

Which means, at least according to an automated translation (they've gotten a lot better with Latin to English computer translations):

"The memory of St. Christopher, recorded in the Roman calendar about 1550, is left to particular calendars: although the Acts of St. Christopher are legendary, ancient monuments of his veneration are found; however, the cult of this Saint does not belong to the Roman tradition"

So what does it say? Well, it was taken from the Roman Calendar (that is, the calendar of the church as a whole) but is left to local ones. It notes the Acts of St. Christopher (a later document) is legendary, but that there are ancient monuments of his veneration. Its concluding statement, which appears to be the reason he was removed, is that he does not belong to the Roman tradition (he was, after all, only added to the calendar in 1550).

So not only does it not make any official proclamation he didn't exist, it does not state his existence is doubtful, just a particular later document about him was legendary. Maybe one could read that as saying we don't really know anything about his life, but that's a far cry from expressing doubts on his existence, let alone making any official declaration he didn't exist. And finally, the apparent reason for him being dropped isn't due to doubt of his existence, but his late inclusion.

Indeed, he still seems to be listed in the Roman Martyrology (a list of saints, martyrs, and those declared blessed) at least as of 2004 (I'm not sure if there are any newer editions):

Martyrologium Romanum (2004) : Catholic Church : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The updated Latin edition (2004) of the Martyrologium Romanum as reformed after the Second Vatican Council.Contains over 7,000 saints and blesseds currently...

archive.org

I believe he is the "Christophorus, m. Lycia, 25 iul. 2 (s. inc.)"

So he does not seem to have ever been declared (officially or otherwise) to be nonexistent by the Catholic Church, and is still regarded as a saint. All they did was drop him from the Roman liturgical calendar to try to lower the number of people on it (local areas can still include him), and the "official" reason given seems to--contrary to what the article claimed--more be that he just wasn't part of the Roman tradition.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have read some of Kallistos Ware's modern works. How accessible is this work that you reference for someone without a ton of background?

Metropolitan Kallistos is extremely accessible in that his two works The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way are intended for use both by Orthodox and by other people with no prior knowledge of Orthodox Christianity - he wrote them largely to address a lack of public knowledge anout Eastern Christianity. They are both freely available on scribd, by the way. Note that what I said is also true of older editions of The Orthodox Church, which some people prefer. His other work is less accessible, for example, his translations of the Philokalia and the Triodion and Festal Menaion with Mother Mary, a Greek nun, who has kept a low profile (I have no idea which monastery she is even a member of) are of interest to those with some knowledge of Patristics and mystical theology in the case of the Philokalia and the other two, the Triodion and Festal Menaion, are liturgical books, largely hymnals, in that they contain the hymns and certain rubrics, that is to say, instructions on how to perform the services, which in antiquity were written with red ink before someone had the idea of using rubrication to highlight the words spoken by Christ in the Bible. In many modern service books, rubrics are written in italics to save money on printing since buying only black ink is cheaper, and also for legibility, and this is the case in the Triodion and Festal Menaion as translated by His Eminence. I really like these works, but obviously they are less accessible than The Orthodox Church, which is his most accessible work, and The Orthodox Way, which is also extremely accessible, being a meditation on Orthodox theology.

Also accessible and more doctrinaire, no pun intended, is Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, which is slighly more accessible than St. John of Damascus, because Patristic writers can be challenging for some to read owing to their different approach to organizing and presenting information. However Fr. Michael assumes the reader is Orthodox and does not go out of his way to engage in lengthy apologetics; it is a work of dogmatic theology intended to clearly define the Orthodox doctrine as a reference for clergy and the faithful and anyone else who cares, but not as much an attempt to promote the Orthodox Church, which the writings of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Way, to some extent are (more to publicize the church and inform Western Christians about a largely unknown and at times seemingly alien or inscrutable form of Christianity, which can seem bizarre to some Protestants who are not acquainted with its history). However Metropolitan Kallistos is much less interested in proselytizing with the work or engaging in active apologetics than, for example, Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick in Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy.