Mary Omniscient and Omnipresent?

[Resha Caner]

we believe that through the Church as a whole God reveals things. so a saint is one whose veneration grows, usually locally to universally. the Church then looks at the saint's life and usually miracles happen. folks start making unofficial hymns and icons to the person. the saint is often called saint or blessed even before they are officially glorified, and the Church just formally recognizes the holiness that had always been there.

Hmm.

 

[ArmyMatt]

yeah, it's a very organic way to approach it, but basically God makes saints in their lives, and the recognizes them in His Church

 

[rusmeister]

Again, that could be applied to anything. I've had Gnostics tell me that the reason there is no evidence of Gnosticism in the scripture is because there was a conspiracy to shut them out, led mainly by John who slandered Thomas in his Gospel. Uh huh. If there is no evidence of it among the Apostles - no evidence, it appears, until roughly the time of Constantine - then I find it very suspect.

I think you will find that it is "no evidence that you know of" (yet).

If you want to talk history, I found Hilaire Belloc (a Catholic, so I take his specifically Catholic assertions with a grain of salt) to be a compelling historian, and I think it is his book "Europe and the Faith" that deals with the whole issue of evidence convincingly, as well as the ability of the good historian to reconstruct, in the face of other evidence of what likely was or must have been the case.

 

[choirfiend]

The story of Lazarus and the rich man is NOT a parable. When Christ told parables, he never mentioned proper names. It is a historical event, which Christ God knew, and the implication is that the audience knew the beggar Lazarus.

 

[Resha Caner]

yeah, it's a very organic way to approach it, but basically God makes saints in their lives, and the recognizes them in His Church

I was going to just let this go, but I couldn't sleep. The biggest thing that bothers me about this "organic" approach is that the Church has assumed the ability to discern the eternal fate of people - something clearly reserved for God alone.

Another thing I find odd about this is that the Jews never canonized saints, whereas all other aspects of the Church (at least all the ones I can think of) have clear precendents in the OT.

Next, I understand the Orthodox to believe the church in Rome to have been within the fold at one time and that is has fallen away ... the point being that the Orthodox do seem to believe a church can fall away. I would expect the Orthodox do not accept saints canonized by the RC (unless separately canonized by the Orthodox). As such, has there ever been a "bad" Patriarch? From my readings of history, I certainly think there were a few bad eggs among the lot, but I don't know what you think. If so, did one of these bad Patriarchs ever canonize a saint? Has this ever been rescinded? It seems a system much too open to human abuse, much too much like (pardon my saying it) the Papacy.

For example, I knew the "robber council" at Hieria in 754 had rejected the veneration of icons, but I didn't realize they also rejected the invocation of saints (I've been doing some research). What I find interesting is that 338 bishops attended that conference ... sounds pretty "organic" to me. The only reason for its later rejection was that none of the Patriarchs had attended ... which sounds more like a hierarchical reason than an organic one to me. When the next Council met at Nicea in 787 to overturn Hieria, only 308 bishops were represented. Hmm. And of those who were represented at both, why the flip-flop? Again, too subject to human politics and the abuse of power.

But I figured I'd give them a chance, so I looked up the transcripts for the 787 Council. It's available as a free e-Book at Google (The Seventh General Council, the Second of Nicaea by John Mendham, 1850). The discussion about images was very lengthy, but I struggled to find anything about the intercession of the saints aside from the anathema statement. Interestingly, the introduction makes that same comment - that the issue was hardly discussed. No evidence opposing the conclusions of the council was ever heard, and iconoclasts were only admitted after they had already repented of their position. Sounds ripe for confirmation bias to me.

So, let me pose a question this way. Let's pick something we can both agree is in error, say the meditative experiences of a Buddhist. I'm sure there has been at least one Buddhist who was convinced that Samatha meditation taught him the ultimate nature of reality and thereby released him from all suffering. So how is this experience to be differentiated from Orthodoxy such that one knows the one is false and the other is true?

 

[Protoevangel]

Thanks. That gives me quite a list of texts to chase. I imagine I'll be busy for quite some time.

[edit] I guess I would ask, though, what you make of the argument given in the Confessions that no one prior to Gregory ever asked for an intercession, and, therefore, that it appears to be a later invention.

Defense of the Augsburg Confession - Book of Concord

Just to make sure we are on the same page:

The best I can tell, Pope Gregory I was the most likely "Gregory" who was being mentioned here, as he is the "Gregory" mentioned in the Augsburg Confession: "And this custom is not new in the Church; for the Fathers before Gregory make no mention of any private Mass, but of the common Mass [the Communion] they speak very much."

In "Luther's First Front: The Eucharist as Sacrifice", Robert C. Croken quotes Martin Luther claiming that Pope Gregory the Great (Gregory I) was the inventor of Private Mass. Private Masses are indeed dated to around his lifetime as well, so it does make sense. So it's pretty clear that at least here in the Augsburg Confession, this must me the Gregory being mentioned.

I can't see any reason to assume that Melanchthon was referring to a different Gregory in the portion of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession you are referencing, can you?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I was going to just let this go, but I couldn't sleep. The biggest thing that bothers me about this "organic" approach is that the Church has assumed the ability to discern the eternal fate of people - something clearly reserved for God alone.

we don't decide anything. whether St Tikhon is in heaven or hell has nothing to do with whether or not his name is on a calendar.

Another thing I find odd about this is that the Jews never canonized saints, whereas all other aspects of the Church (at least all the ones I can think of) have clear precendents in the OT.

officially no, because heaven was not opened to them until Christ. when you were dead you were dead, you might be slightly comforted in a place like Abraham's bosom, but you were not in Paradise. but, if you look how guys like Moses and David are referred to, it's very much alike even though the title was not there.

Next, I understand the Orthodox to believe the church in Rome to have been within the fold at one time and that is has fallen away ... the point being that the Orthodox do seem to believe a church can fall away.

no, the Church cannot fall away, people fall away from the Church.

As such, has there ever been a "bad" Patriarch? From my readings of history, I certainly think there were a few bad eggs among the lot, but I don't know what you think. If so, did one of these bad Patriarchs ever canonize a saint? Has this ever been rescinded? It seems a system much too open to human abuse, much too much like (pardon my saying it) the Papacy.

yes, there have been many bad Patriarchs. and they don't canonize saints, the Church as a whole does.

Hmm. And of those who were represented at both, why the flip-flop? Again, too subject to human politics and the abuse of power.

because it's only valid when accepted by the whole Church. there have been many councils that have been wrong because it was the laity that said no.

So how is this experience to be differentiated from Orthodoxy such that one knows the one is false and the other is true?

because humans can deceive themselves. only God can erase all doubt as to nature of reality,

 

[Resha Caner]

we don't decide anything. whether St Tikhon is in heaven or hell has nothing to do with whether or not his name is on a calendar.

I try to choose my words carefully. I did not say "decide." I said "discern." You have ascribed to the Church an ability to discern if someone is in heaven.

officially no ... but, if you look how guys like Moses and David are referred to, it's very much alike even though the title was not there.

Many improper things happen among the congregants of any given religious body. If the official organization does not recognize it, then that has no bearing on the sanctioned practices of that body. The Jews did not canonize in the OT. The Orthodox do now. Somewhere in between the practice must have been instituted. However, the explanation I've gotten so far is that it was just kind of an accidental thing and nobody really knows when it started.

no, the Church cannot fall away, people fall away from the Church.

Despite my efforts, maybe I have not been careful enough with my words, but it does seem like you're starting to play word games with me. I expect you know what I meant. I used church with a lower case "c", not Church with an upper case "C." To my knowledge, the bishop of Rome has basically not been in communion with the eastern patriarchs since 1054 (though I think there have been some brief interludes in there). Despite that, the Orthodox have not, to my knowledge, appointed an Orthodox bishop to the Roman See. Therefore, it seems the position of the Orthodox is that the Roman Catholic congregants (the church of Rome as I said) have fallen away.

Let's not do this, OK?

yes, there have been many bad Patriarchs. and they don't canonize saints, the Church as a whole does.

I doubt every congregant of the Orthodox church attends the canonization of every saint. When that ceremony is performed, who are the required attendants? Is it acceptable for an Orthodox congregant to pray to whomever they wish before the canonization ceremony occurs? If not, from where do they obtain confirmation that the person to whom they wish to pray is indeed canonized?

And, if you could, I would still like an answer to question I originally asked in this section of the discussion. Do you know if a canonization has ever been revoked? Or one Patriarch denied the canonization done by another (as I expect has been done with Rome)?

because it's only valid when accepted by the whole Church. there have been many councils that have been wrong because it was the laity that said no.

How is it determined that the whole Church accepts this? If one congregant objects, does that stop a saint from being canonized?

because humans can deceive themselves. only God can erase all doubt as to nature of reality,

This doesn't answer the question. The Buddhist can answer with exactly the same words as to why he is correct.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I try to choose my words carefully. I did not say "decide." I said "discern." You have ascribed to the Church an ability to discern if someone is in heaven.

yes God must speak through some earthly authority. so yes, the Church can discern that

Somewhere in between the practice must have been instituted. However, the explanation I've gotten so far is that it was just kind of an accidental thing and nobody really knows when it started.

well, if you are looking for a date I could not tell you when it was instituted.

Despite my efforts, maybe I have not been careful enough with my words, but it does seem like you're starting to play word games with me. I expect you know what I meant. I used church with a lower case "c", not Church with an upper case "C." To my knowledge, the bishop of Rome has basically not been in communion with the eastern patriarchs since 1054 (though I think there have been some brief interludes in there). Despite that, the Orthodox have not, to my knowledge, appointed an Orthodox bishop to the Roman See. Therefore, it seems the position of the Orthodox is that the Roman Catholic congregants (the church of Rome as I said) have fallen away.

Let's not do this, OK?

forgive me then, I did not mean to play any games with you. I musta read something wrong.

I doubt every congregant of the Orthodox church attends the canonization of every saint. When that ceremony is performed, who are the required attendants? Is it acceptable for an Orthodox congregant to pray to whomever they wish before the canonization ceremony occurs? If not, from where do they obtain confirmation that the person to whom they wish to pray is indeed canonized?

it's the Synod of the person who is a saint. so like a Greek monk who is canonized would be officially canonized by the Greeks for general veneration, and then the other Synods would accept the saint and add them to the calendar.

And, if you could, I would still like an answer to question I originally asked in this section of the discussion. Do you know if a canonization has ever been revoked? Or one Patriarch denied the canonization done by another (as I expect has been done with Rome)?

forgive me again. as for the first question, no. I don't think any canonization has been revoked. as for the second, yes. there are some who might be officially recognized by certain jurisdictions and not others. one would be St Basil Martycz, who was a martyr and glorified by the Polish Church a few years ago and only officially recognized by the OCA earlier this year. some jurisdictions are slow at times.

How is it determined that the whole Church accepts this? If one congregant objects, does that stop a saint from being canonized?

well, to my knowledge, it takes time. the veneration of the saint is usually across the board before the canonization. but if one congregant objects, if he is in the right, then God will work through him and the person will not be glorified.

This doesn't answer the question. The Buddhist can answer with exactly the same words as to why he is correct.

no Buddhism does not teach of an eternal and unchanging God. so the Buddhist can not. he might use the same words, but the theology points differently. so while the Buddhist can say it, it only works with a God, eternal and unchanging, which Buddhists reject.

and again, please forgive my misreading what you wrote. I was not trying to cause any problems.

 

[ArmyMatt]

if one accepts the presupposition that the Holy Spirit leads the Church with Christ as it's head, then the Church does not err when it comes to saints.

 

[Protoevangel]

So, let me pose a question this way. Let's pick something we can both agree is in error, say the meditative experiences of a Buddhist. I'm sure there has been at least one Buddhist who was convinced that Samatha meditation taught him the ultimate nature of reality and thereby released him from all suffering. So how is this experience to be differentiated from Orthodoxy such that one knows the one is false and the other is true?

Paul tells us that our authority is not only the Holy Scriptures, but also oral tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15). How can we trust the Church to faithfully tradition the truth to us? Because Jesus came to establish His Church, not just a book. He promised that His Church would be led by the Holy Spirit, into all Truth (John 16:13). This Church still exists, with a historical, visible, unbroken lineage to the Apostles, Pentecost, and to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Himself. This Church still teaches All Truth as promised by Jesus Christ, and the gates of Hades has not overcome her (Matthew 16:18).

If you can compare that Truth to Buddhism, then the problem is not in the Church or our practice, but in your approach.

 

[rusmeister]

What I would add to that is that the authority is outside of ourselves, and consistently knows more than we do, and is consistently right, especially when we are wrong.

 

[choirfiend]

As far as history goes, sources would indicate that recognizing the locale of a Christian post-death began in the Church in the very early years, while it was a persecuted catacomb church. The Church met where the graves of the martyrs were, and held services there, over their bones, seeing it as a holy place. Christians also inscribed things similar to this statement: Name, pray for your parents, name and name on the tombs. They also created iconography of Christ and others. I'm sure a little google searching would bring some of these archeological findings to light. I specifically remember an article within the last year using the above example, but havent found it.
I did find this article: Danilo Mazzoleni

Christians always asked the departed for their prayers, and believed that at least the martyrs received their crown and were in heaven.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The Church met where the graves of the martyrs were, and held services there, over their bones, seeing it as a holy place. Christians also inscribed things similar to this statement: Name, pray for your parents, name and name on the tombs.

yeah, I think as well in the oldest areas of the Christ's Tomb, they found old rolled pieces of parchment that were the prayers of the pilgrims, not only given to Christ but to all the saints involved with His Passion

National Geographic has a special on it

 

[Resha Caner]

and again, please forgive my misreading what you wrote. I was not trying to cause any problems.

I re-read my response later and fretted about what fireworks it might produce. So, it seems Proverbs 29:23b applies to how you handled it

... but he who is lowly in spirit will obtain honor.

All I can really say about the details of your reply, though, is that I find them a bit disturbing. Your answer comes across as saying, yes, the Orthodox allow people to pray to whomever they wish. A local parish could canonize someone. If that is truly the case, that bothers me. If it is not true, you are playing down the role of authority within the Orthodox church.

What I would add to that is that the authority is outside of ourselves, and consistently knows more than we do, and is consistently right, especially when we are wrong.

I could put together bits and pieces of what people have said (like Rus' comment above) to assemble an answer in the way I would give it. But none is as explicit as I would have liked.

I have a friend who converted from Catholicism to Lutheranism who once said something that seems to apply. He said the RCC is like a person who is given a picture of Jesus and it is a dear treasure to him. He doesn't want it to be damaged so he puts it under glass and into a frame. But his friends don't seem to understand how dear it is to him, so he puts garland on the frame to try to make it look better ... and then lights and flowers and other baubles ... until the picture is completely covered and no one can see it. None of the things that was added to the picture is inately bad, but by covering the picture they become bad because they obsure what was important in the first place.

The answer to the question about the Buddhist, IMO, is Christ and only Christ. Christ is what differentiates us. Without Christ, we are no different than the Buddhist, and so if we cover up Christ with other things, we eventually become no different than a Buddhist.

The Church must keep that the focus. Baptism points to Christ because he instituted it (Matt 28:16-20, 1 Cor 1:10-17), and he gives the living water (John 4:13). The Eucharist points to Christ because it is his body and blood (Mark 14:22-24). Scripture points to Christ because he is the Word (John 1:14). A Buddhist may "accept" Jesus as a great teacher or because of some silly mystical teaching, but if all of that were stripped away so that nothing stood between the Buddhist and Christ, that person would no longer be a Buddhist.

It may seem like I'm just preaching to the choir, but moving on from that point, no saint who truly is a saint would want to do anything but point to Christ. Veneration of a saint can give courage to the faithful, but we must always remember John 15:5 ... apart from him we can do nothing. As soon as we think a saint has some special power that we can access through that saint apart from Christ, then we have let something come between us and Christ. To say that the Church can discern the eternal fate of a dead saint is to say the Church knows what God knew when he judged that person - it is to give the Church a divine power. You can disagree with that by saying it was God who revealed this to the Church, but if you follow your own rule about taking lessons away from the story of Lazarus and the rich man (as I pointed out earlier), then you will hear what is said in Luke 16:31. God doesn't do that. No where in scripture does God ever explicitly reveal the eternal fate of anyone. It is something people infer from passages such as that of the Transfiguration.

Anyway, my answer is Christ, and for whatever its worth, I'll end my sermon there.

 

[rusmeister]

I re-read my response later and fretted about what fireworks it might produce. So, it seems Proverbs 29:23b applies to how you handled it

... but he who is lowly in spirit will obtain honor.

All I can really say about the details of your reply, though, is that I find them a bit disturbing. Your answer comes across as saying, yes, the Orthodox allow people to pray to whomever they wish. A local parish could canonize someone. If that is truly the case, that bothers me. If it is not true, you are playing down the role of authority within the Orthodox church.



I could put together bits and pieces of what people have said (like Rus' comment above) to assemble an answer in the way I would give it. But none is as explicit as I would have liked.

I have a friend who converted from Catholicism to Lutheranism who once said something that seems to apply. He said the RCC is like a person who is given a picture of Jesus and it is a dear treasure to him. He doesn't want it to be damaged so he puts it under glass and into a frame. But his friends don't seem to understand how dear it is to him, so he puts garland on the frame to try to make it look better ... and then lights and flowers and other baubles ... until the picture is completely covered and no one can see it. None of the things that was added to the picture is inately bad, but by covering the picture they become bad because they obsure what was important in the first place.

The answer to the question about the Buddhist, IMO, is Christ and only Christ. Christ is what differentiates us. Without Christ, we are no different than the Buddhist, and so if we cover up Christ with other things, we eventually become no different than a Buddhist.

The Church must keep that the focus. Baptism points to Christ because he instituted it (Matt 28:16-20, 1 Cor 1:10-17), and he gives the living water (John 4:13). The Eucharist points to Christ because it is his body and blood (Mark 14:22-24). Scripture points to Christ because he is the Word (John 1:14). A Buddhist may "accept" Jesus as a great teacher or because of some silly mystical teaching, but if all of that were stripped away so that nothing stood between the Buddhist and Christ, that person would no longer be a Buddhist.

It may seem like I'm just preaching to the choir, but moving on from that point, no saint who truly is a saint would want to do anything but point to Christ. Veneration of a saint can give courage to the faithful, but we must always remember John 15:5 ... apart from him we can do nothing. As soon as we think a saint has some special power that we can access through that saint apart from Christ, then we have let something come between us and Christ. To say that the Church can discern the eternal fate of a dead saint is to say the Church knows what God knew when he judged that person - it is to give the Church a divine power. You can disagree with that by saying it was God who revealed this to the Church, but if you follow your own rule about taking lessons away from the story of Lazarus and the rich man (as I pointed out earlier), then you will hear what is said in Luke 16:31. God doesn't do that. No where in scripture does God ever explicitly reveal the eternal fate of anyone. It is something people infer from passages such as that of the Transfiguration.

Anyway, my answer is Christ, and for whatever its worth, I'll end my sermon there.

Well, so far it's Orthodox. Maybe you are not a far away from us as you think. I suspect you in part of taking typical objections to Catholic thought, and applying them to us. I'll let Catholics offer their own answers, but we don't think any saint can give us something apart from Christ, either, so I sspectou have been reading in what isn't there.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The Church must keep that the focus. Baptism points to Christ because he instituted it (Matt 28:16-20, 1 Cor 1:10-17), and he gives the living water (John 4:13). The Eucharist points to Christ because it is his body and blood (Mark 14:22-24). Scripture points to Christ because he is the Word (John 1:14). A Buddhist may "accept" Jesus as a great teacher or because of some silly mystical teaching, but if all of that were stripped away so that nothing stood between the Buddhist and Christ, that person would no longer be a Buddhist.

this is correct. the focus is always Christ and has always been, even saint veneration. all a saint is, is someone who allowed Christ to lead and work through him. the focus of iconography and saints are Christ.

The answer to the question about the Buddhist, IMO, is Christ and only Christ. Christ is what differentiates us. Without Christ, we are no different than the Buddhist, and so if we cover up Christ with other things, we eventually become no different than a Buddhist.

right, Christ is that eternal and unchanging God whom the Buddhists reject.

No where in scripture does God ever explicitly reveal the eternal fate of anyone.

yes He does, He does for all of the Apostles to include Judas.

 

[Blonde]

It's only because you are relating the saints to Christ and distorting the actual truth. The saints have run the race and finished. But all are subject to Christ as He is our Head.
We join in prayer with the saints as we do our Mom and we take those prayers to Christ.

 

[Protoevangel]

I guess I would ask, though, what you make of the argument given in the Confessions that no one prior to Gregory ever asked for an intercession, and, therefore, that it appears to be a later invention.

Defense of the Augsburg Confession - Book of Concord

Just to make sure we are on the same page:

The best I can tell, Pope Gregory I was the most likely "Gregory" who was being mentioned here, as he is the "Gregory" mentioned in the Augsburg Confession: "And this custom is not new in the Church; for the Fathers before Gregory make no mention of any private Mass, but of the common Mass [the Communion] they speak very much."

In "Luther's First Front: The Eucharist as Sacrifice", Robert C. Croken quotes Martin Luther claiming that Pope Gregory the Great (Gregory I) was the inventor of Private Mass. Private Masses are indeed dated to around his lifetime as well, so it does make sense. So it's pretty clear that at least here in the Augsburg Confession, this must me the Gregory being mentioned.

I can't see any reason to assume that Melanchthon was referring to a different Gregory in the portion of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession you are referencing, can you?

Well, since Resha appears to be ignoring my posts after I exposed him using straw-man arguments, I'll go ahead and finish the point I brought up in my above post, for others who may be reading.

This reference (that Gregory was the first ever to ask for an intercession from the Saints) really exposes the poor scholarship of the early Lutherans.

Pope Gregory I lived from 540 until 604. Prayer to the Saints was recorded hundreds of years before that.

The first explicit prayer, that I can recall, was by Hippolytus of Rome (170 – 235), in his Commentary on the book of Daniel, where he writes a short prayer to the Three Holy Youths, "Think of me, I beseech you, so that I may achieve with you the same fate of martyrdom." God did indeed grant this request.

Knowing also that not everything pertaining to the Faith was written, especially so early, as my post yesterday clearly demonstrated, along with St. John's testimony, " And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen." We can also find an earlier hint as to the Orthodox Church's dedication to the Saints in a piece Resha claims he read, "The Martyrom Of Polycarp", where it is written:

Accordingly, we afterwards took up his bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, whither, being gathered together, as opportunity is allowed us, with joy and rejoicing, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already finished their course, and for the exercising and preparation of those yet to walk in their steps.

So while I do believe it is true that Martin Luther and the Lutheran Fathers did a good and necessary thing when they attempted to correct the errors of Rome, they were unfortunately left on their own when they were excommunicated. They did the best they could, but without access to the True Deposit of Faith in the Orthodox Church, they ended up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They rebuilt the broken faith that had been abandoned by the Catholicism of their day, but missing key components that the Catholics has trampled underfoot, their structure, while good, was incomplete.

 

[Protoevangel]

It's only because you are relating the saints to Christ and distorting the actual truth. The saints have run the race and finished. But all are subject to Christ as He is our Head.
We join in prayer with the saints as we do our Mom and we take those prayers to Christ.

Without quoting a post or using a name, I'm not exactly sure who or what you are responding to, although I have a strong suspicion... And if i'm right, I totally agree with you.