am I the only protestant that does this?

[FireDragon76]

It's my understanding that to be in the ELCA we don't have to believe the Vatican is the anti-Christ, so it's clear that the ELCA and LCMS do not agree on what subscription to the confession means, because to my knowledge LCMS still considers the office of Pope anti-Christ, quoting the Confession to justify that stance.

I think I will take what you say into consideration before I would ever officially join the ELCA or an ELCA parish, and be sure to discuss it with a pastor . I know the local ELCA parish's pastor I have been visiting is very familiar with Eastern Orthodoxy and often uses Orthodox theology in his sermons. But as for me, the basic truth of what I said isn't something I'm free to disagree with. It's just essential to my understand of being a Christian- I spent years in the Eastern Orthodox church and the saints were not a reason I left.

That doesn't mean I think that others that disagree are not justified before God or my brothers and sisters in the faith. We all have our different approaches to understanding God.

 

[FireDragon76]

WSB, I'd like to expand further on the point I mad earlier.

The Reformers were mostly interested in the doctrine of grace. But I do not believe they considered doctrines even more essential to the Christian faith. At the time, they took belief in God and God's presence for granted. Today, we live in a different world than them. We do not live in a world where God is necessarily evident to many people. The sacramentalism and formation of Christian tradition was taken for granted by the Reformers. Today, on the other hand, it is not by many Christians and non-Christians alike. We live in a "post-Christian" world where the symbols of Christianity have ceased to have meaning for many people, where religion has become what we do inside four (often barren) walls of a church building, and little else. I believe that this is a direct result of theology from the Reformation being overly reified. The Gospel is in danger of becoming something merely theoretical that we use to deal with our own personal guilt, rather than a proclamation that Christ is King over all spheres of our lives, that he is the conquerer of the grave and holds the keys to death and hades. Too often we merely talk about these things, but do not live them out. This is why I felt drawn to the Orthodox spirituality in the first place.

 

[WirSindBettler]

WSB, I'd like to expand further on the point I mad earlier.

The Reformers were mostly interested in the doctrine of grace. But I do not believe they considered doctrines even more essential to the Christian faith. At the time, they took belief in God and God's presence for granted. Today, we live in a different world than them. We do not live in a world where God is necessarily evident to many people. The sacramentalism and formation of Christian tradition was taken for granted by the Reformers. Today, on the other hand, it is not by many Christians and non-Christians alike. We live in a "post-Christian" world where the symbols of Christianity have ceased to have meaning for many people, where religion has become what we do inside four (often barren) walls of a church building, and little else. I believe that this is a direct result of theology from the Reformation being overly reified. The Gospel is in danger of becoming something merely theoretical that we use to deal with our own personal guilt, rather than a proclamation that Christ is King over all spheres of our lives, that he is the conquerer of the grave and holds the keys to death and hades. Too often we merely talk about these things, but do not live them out. This is why I felt drawn to the Orthodox spirituality in the first place.

I agree up until you claim that the theology of the Reformation is overly reified, at which point I strongly, strongly, disagree.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I agree up until you claim that the theology of the Reformation is overly reified, at which point I strongly, strongly, disagree.

Precisely which theology of the reformation is not overly reified?

 

[WirSindBettler]

Precisely which theology of the reformation is not overly reified?

The issue which he stated I find more as a result of the increasing liberalization of Christianity, combined with the more non-theistic and at times greatly anti-theistic actions of secular humanism. I don't disagree with the problem, I disagree with the diagnosis.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The issue which he stated I find more as a result of the increasing liberalization of Christianity, combined with the more non-theistic and at times greatly anti-theistic actions of secular humanism. I don't disagree with the problem, I disagree with the diagnosis.

How, exactly, does that answer my question?

 

[WirSindBettler]

How, exactly, does that answer my question?

I was clarifying my point. Your question was a misrepresentation of my original post, and as a result, I clarified it, so that you could understand it better.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I was clarifying my point. Your question was a misrepresentation of my original post, and as a result, I clarified it, so that you could understand it better.

Okay. Do you agree with the assessment of Reformation theology being overly reified?

 

[WirSindBettler]

Okay. Do you agree with the assessment of Reformation theology being overly reified?

A lot of it is, yes.

 

[FireDragon76]

Luther, Erasmus, and Calvin's ridicule of relics and prayers to the saints is itself just a secular humanism, albeit in seed form. Their successors assumptions that justification sola fide was the central article of faith of the Church just made it much, much worse. To add insult to injury, the missionaries of this faith often spread their prejudices baptized into faith imperialistically across the globe, becoming justification for the destruction of cultures and enslavement of whole peoples in the process (because the Bible, in their eyes, justified it). The opposite of incarnation.

Now, let's look at the Virgin of Guadalupe. According to the account, she came to a subjugated people and gave them hope that God was with them. And yet, to be a Protestant you must deny that, you have to believe that the only truth about God is held within a book bound in leather, with words written in ink on paper pages, and guarded carefully by predominantly white people with power - only they are allowed to interpret the sacred words, through things we call "theology". Which one sounds more like the method that Christ used, and which one sounds more like the Pharisees that crucified him?

 

[topcare]

I ask for prayers from people that have died that I believe evidenced some sign of holiness in their life. Sometimes I feel like I'm probably one of the few Protestants doing that, but I do go to Lutheran and Episcopalian churches, and I spent time as an Orthodox catechumen.

While we are not Protestants we do pray to Saints and it is part of our Mass and at the end we prayer the charge to St. Micheal the Archangel. I remember a particularly bad day at work with the students being somewhat rude and there was a feeling of oppression in the tutor room (I am a Tutor) and so the next day before I opened I prayed to St. Micheal and made the sign of the cross over the door and it was peaceful the rest of the semester

 

[Anguspure]

It seems to me that this problem finds much of its root in the Platonic philosophy of dualism of the mind, that pervades much of Christian theology and side steps the original Jewish understanding of resurrection of the dead.
As I understand it, the Jewish understanding is that the dead have a bodily resurrection, and this is the same promise that is given to the believer in Christ.
Thus the idea that people find themselves floating around in a disembodied form in some sort of ghostly form after "death", and that they can be communicated with is incompatible.
Any ideas of great clouds of witnesses or visions of people in hell are, in this view, more properly understood as either some sort of time relativity thing or as prophetic visions of a future state.

 

[FireDragon76]

Somebody needs to explain Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones. IF addressing the saints and angels is forbidden... why is this hymn so frequent in Protestant hymnals? There are other hymns that similarly address Biblical figures, not just Jesus Christ.

 

[WirSindBettler]

Somebody needs to explain Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones. IF addressing the saints and angels is forbidden... why is this hymn so frequent in Protestant hymnals? There are other hymns that similarly address Biblical figures, not just Jesus Christ.

It's the same sentiment as For All the Saints.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's the same sentiment as For All the Saints.

Perhaps, though that hymn doesn't directly address angels, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and the Mother of God. Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones it is a kind of intercessory prayer (an intercessory prayer of praise, rather than petition).

And you know what Augustine said: "When you sing, you pray twice."

 

[FireDragon76]

I talked to the local ELCA pastor about this. He said we'ld have to discuss it more in the future, that only a minority of Lutherans have ever considered the issue positively, mostly those restricted to a more catholic identity. I just had to be aware of the historical role of the Confessions if I were to consider myself Lutheran, and that they are a statement about what Lutheranism is, in the same way the Church Fathers would be for the Eastern Orthodox.

I'm not yet ready to consider myself Lutheran. But I do identify broadly as a catholic Christian, as does he.

 

[WirSindBettler]

Perhaps, though that hymn doesn't directly address angels, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and the Mother of God. Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones it is a kind of intercessory prayer (an intercessory prayer of praise, rather than petition).

OK then, let's analyze the text of Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones:

Stanza 1:
"Ye watchers and ye holy ones,
Bright seraphs, cherubim, and thrones,
Raise the glad strain, Alleluia!
Cry out dominions, princedoms, powers,
Virtues, archangels, angels' choirs:
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!"

No intercessory prayer here. In fact, it quite reminds me of the third Eucharistic prayer.

"Therefore with Angels and Archangels, and with all the company of heaven, we laud and magnify Thy glorious Name; evermore praising Thee, and saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts, heaven and earth are full of Thy glory: Glory be to Thee, O Lord most High. Amen." (1662 BCP)

Stanza 2:
"O higher than the cherubim,
More glorious than the seraphim,
Lead their praises, Alleluia!
Thou bearer of th'eternal Word,
Most gracious, magnify the Lord.
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!"

Though this most certainly refers to Mary, it most certainly is not an intercessory prayer. Again, I'm quite reminded of "with all the company of heaven" from the third Eucharistic prayer.

Stanza 3:
"Respond, ye souls in endless rest,
Ye patriarchs and prophets blest,
Alleluia! Alleluia!
Ye holy twelve, ye martyrs strong,
All saints triumphant, raise the song.
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!"

Is it just me, or is there still no intercessory prayer? Why is it that I still am reminded of the third Eucharistic prayer?

Stanza 4:
"O friends, in gladness let us sing,
Supernal anthems echoing,
Alleluia! Alleluia!
To God the Father, God the Son,
And God the Spirit, Three in One.
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!"

Nope, no intercessory prayer here.

It should be noted that there's quite a big difference between "Mary, pray for me" and "Let's all worship God, both on this side of the veil and the other, because we all believe in the communion of saints!"

 

[FireDragon76]

Pray just means to beg or to request. And that's how I see the hymn, it's a request.

Are you saying you see it as just an acknowledgement that the saints pray with us? I agree it is that too, but in my mind it's not a one or the other thing. But if it were only about acknowledging that the saints and angels pray, the language used would not have been using the second person (you vs. he/she/it/they), imperative mood of the verbs, indicating requests or demands to an unseen but present other.

 

[WirSindBettler]

Pray just means to beg or to request. And that's how I see the hymn, it's a request.

Are you saying you see it as just an acknowledgement that the saints pray with us? I agree it is that too, but in my mind it's not a one or the other thing. But if it were only about acknowledging that the saints and angels pray, the language used would not have been using the second person, imperative mood of the verbs, indicating requests or demands.

It is a one or other thing.

Oh, and I guess "O Come, All Ye Faithful," "Onward Christian Soldiers," "Brethren, We Have Met to Worship," "Down in the River to Pray," "For All the Saints," "Shall we Gather at the River," and my all time favorite hymn, "God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen" are all about intercession as well.

Stop trying to add a non-existent dimension to a relatively simple Anglican hymn, and then try and lambast Protestantism for being supposed hypocrites in recognizing and confessing the idolatry of praying to the saints while still singing Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones.

 

[FireDragon76]

Praying for the intercession of the saints was not a medieval development.
There's a significant patristic witness.

Here is a short list from the early Church, of fathers, epistles, and writings that mention the intercession of the saints:

- Hippoplytus of Rome 3rd century
- Sub Tuum (prayer to Mary) 3rd century
- Cyril of Jerusalem 4th century
- epistle to Theodosius 4th century
- Ephraim the Syrian 4th century
- Basil 4th Century
- Gregory of Nyssa 4th Century
- Gregory Nanzianzus 4th Century
- Augustine of Hippo 4th century Early 5th century
- John Chrysostom 5th century
- Jerome 5th century

http://orthodoxyforlutherans.blogspot.com/2010/09/on-invocation-of-saints.html

All the men that received the Scriptures in the early Church seem to acknowledge the validity of prayers to the saints, if not to pray those prayers themselves.

The blog Energetic Procession, by Perry Robinson (an Orthodox Christian) presents some evidence that is more indirect or subject to interpretation, but it helps build a case that prayer to the saints is compatible with the early Christian worldview, even before the council of Nicea:

https://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/prayers-to-saints-in-the-pre-nicene-era/

Clement of Alexandria (Miscellanies 7:12 [A.D. 208]) "In this way is he always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him".

Origen (Prayer 11 [A.D. 233]) "But not the high priest (Jesus) alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep".