RE: Protestant vs. Catholic

[KephaMeansRock]

This is aphisherofmen,

What happened to the protestant v. Catholic debate forum that was going on here?

I just worked last night for over an hour on a post, and now it's gone, and my account is deleted!!!

Did we break a rule'? We were on topic and being respectful....

Anybody? HELP?!

[MagusYanam]

Catharsis:

Interesting link, though I found it often presented straw-men of the 'Protestant' position and presented it at its most narrow, dogmatic and parochial when the entire point of Protestantism was, in essence, to get away from narrow, dogmatic and parochial interpretations of Scripture that disabled personal agency among the laity within the larger context of the Church (capital 'C').

In many cases, as you would rightly note, it failed miserably. I often find myself in more agreement with the Catholic and Orthodox positions than with some of my fellow Protestants, even though I'm supposed to be part of the radical wing of the Reformation.

Still, I don't deny that there are awe-inspiring and good figures throughout history for whom veneration would be well-earned. Many of the Church Fathers certainly qualify, as do peaceful martyrs such as St. Maximilian and Dirk Willems. (Heck, we Anabaptists have the Martyr's Mirror!) In some cases, however, I question the judgment of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox wings of the Church. Though KMR and yourself do not deny that the power structures can produce extraordinarily political, power-hungry and corrupt leaders, you expect that those named saints by these political, power-hungry and corrupt leaders should receive veneration, without undergoing the scrutiny of the Church-at-large? There are a number of these 'saints', including Demetrius of Thessaloniki and Jeanne d'Arc, for example (the latter in particular having questionable sanity, being utterly devoted to a political cause and a power structure and (often) gleefully engaging in violence, and who was beatified at a time when the Roman Catholic leadership was trying to establish good relations with France...) - surely this leaves some room for doubt?

Anyway, my two cents on the issue.

[samuelbb7]

Well Magnu it looks like this thread is dying.

We have some good agreements. GOD be with you.

Agape my brother.

[Catharsis]

Hey guys,

How's it going? Well, I completely neglected Magus' post. I will reply to it shortly.

[Catharsis]

To Magus

>>>Interesting link, though I found it often presented straw-men of the 'Protestant' position and presented it at its most narrow, dogmatic and parochial when the entire point of Protestantism was, in essence, to get away from narrow, dogmatic and parochial interpretations of Scripture that disabled personal agency among the laity within the larger context of the Church (capital 'C').<<<

I am not sure what you specifically mean by '...personal agency among the laity within the Church'? Nevertheless, we can both agree that Protestantism rebelled against Papism, not Orthodoxy. Protestants mistakenly assumed at the time (and still do) that the overall Church ecclesiastical 'structure' and 'institutions' of the Orthodox and RC Churches are the same. Throughout history, laity in Orthodoxy has always 'enjoyed' great freedom and has had a lot of influence on the Church, even when the power was abused by the patriarchs and the emperors. One example is the False Union of Florence. The two Churches more or less united, on paper, for essentially political reasons, but for one Orthodox bishop. The laity never accepted this union in the least.


>>>In some cases, however, I question the judgment of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox wings of the Church. Though KMR and yourself do not deny that the power structures can produce extraordinarily political, power-hungry and corrupt leaders, you expect that those named saints by these political, power-hungry and corrupt leaders should receive veneration, without undergoing the scrutiny of the Church-at-large?<<<

I'm sure there are questionable cases, but are all questionable?

Why did Protestants eliminate the practice of honoring Saints altogether, if this has always been part of the Christian Faith? Surely, not all are Saints 'crooked'?

[MagusYanam]

Throughout history, laity in Orthodoxy has always 'enjoyed' great freedom and has had a lot of influence on the Church, even when the power was abused by the patriarchs and the emperors. One example is the False Union of Florence. The two Churches more or less united, on paper, for essentially political reasons, but for one Orthodox bishop. The laity never accepted this union in the least.

Hm. I'm not as good on Orthodox Christian history as I am on Western Christian history, but I do notice that Orthodox Christianity does have some quite admirable communitarian (if not democratic) qualities. I also don't think I ever claimed that the ecclesiastical structure and institutions of the EC's and the RCC were the same - if I did, I'm sure I was in the wrong.

I'm sure there are questionable cases, but are all questionable?

No. I never claimed all were. But there certainly do seem to be some cases at least where political expediency triumphed over legitimate veneration.

Why did Protestants eliminate the practice of honoring Saints altogether, if this has always been part of the Christian Faith? Surely, not all are Saints 'crooked'?

Long story short, we didn't eliminate the practise. I think I mentioned the Anabaptist Martyr's Mirror earlier, and I know for a fact that the Anglican Communion still venerates saints. And I wasn't saying at all that all saints were 'crooked', I said here:

In some cases, however, I question the judgment of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox wings of the Church.

[samuelbb7]

I believe the practice of honoring Saints was eliminated or lost by most Protestants due to a couple of factors. First we consider all Christians to be Saints. When we are Born again by the power of the HOLY SPIRIT we become saints.

Second past Saints are of no help to us except as examples. So we honor them but venerate them we do not do. Since they cannot help us it is useless to pray to them.

We can pray directly to JESUS and GOD so there is no need of any human intermediates who are dead. It ia a fundamental tenet that we need only JESUS and therefore no other person can help us or guide us like JESUS.

Now in my churches case we believe they are asleep but you will not find any fundamentalist praying to those who are dead.

[MagusYanam]

You're right, samuelbb7, of course, that saints in the Protestant tradition - even Anglicans and Anabaptists - do not mediate faith, do not act as intercessors. I don't think honouring saints or even venerating them means that you ascribe to them any such mediating ability. But I have to insist on their value as exemplars of faith, people to whom we can look and say, these people dealt admirably with their own trials, would to God that we had the same kind of courage.

Problem is, I think that some of the 'saints' that are venerated in the RCC (and perhaps the EC's, but like I said I'm not that well-up on EC history) are so more because of political expediency than from genuine, heart-felt admiration.

[Catharsis]

To Samuel and Magus,

>>I believe the practice of honoring Saints was eliminated or lost by most Protestants due to a couple of factors. First we consider all Christians to be Saints. When we are Born again by the power of the HOLY SPIRIT we become saints.<<

I disagree. Sainthood is achieved by very few, and is a painful and arduous journey (ie. most of the saints came from the ranks of the monks). We cannot put ourselves in such a position, and assume that we are all "saints" automatically. It is harmful spiritually.

I'd like to share an excerpt from the book "The Mountain of Silence", by Kyriacos C. Markides:

"Not too many years ago a young monastic aspirant went to Mount Athos. In talking with the venerable abbot of the monastery where he wished to stay, he told him, 'Holy Father! My heart burns for the spiritual life, for asceticism, for unceasing communion with God, for obedience to an elder. Instruct me, please, Holy Father, that I may attain spiritual advancement.' Going to the bookshelf, the abbot pulled down a copy of David Copperfield by Charles Dickens. 'Read this, son,' he said. 'But, Father!' object the disturbed aspirant. 'This is heterodox Victorian sentimentality, a product of the Western captivity! This isn't spiritual; it's not even Orthodox! I need writings which will teach me spirituality!' The abbot smiled, saying, 'Unless you first develop normal, human, Christian feelings and learn to view life as little Davey did - with simplicity, kindness, warmth, and forgiveness - then all Orthodox spirituality and Patristic writings will not only be of no help to you - they will turn you into a spiritual monster and destroy your soul.'"


Further down, it also explains that thoughts that we are especially favored by God could stimulate our pride and vanity. We should pray with the attitude 'Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner'.


>>Second past Saints are of no help to us except as examples. So we honor them but venerate them we do not do. Since they cannot help us it is useless to pray to them.<<

Yes, they serve as our examples, and we should emulate them.

Useless to pray to them? But this was exactly the practice and part of the Faith of the early Christians (and still is in the Orthodox Faith).


>>You're right, samuelbb7, of course, that saints in the Protestant tradition - even Anglicans and Anabaptists - do not mediate faith, do not act as intercessors. I don't think honouring saints or even venerating them means that you ascribe to them any such mediating ability. But I have to insist on their value as exemplars of faith, people to whom we can look and say, these people dealt admirably with their own trials, would to God that we had the same kind of courage.<<

Why don't they act as intercessors?

I have to ask.

Why are Orthodox accused of breaking commandments, idolatry or whatnot, if the Orthodox Faith practices the same Faith as the early Christians? Acting as intercessors was always part of the Faith.

If we had perfect faith, at all times, we would have no need of icons, liturgies, intercessors, etc. But we do not have perfect faith, we are weak, far from being saints, and all these things help to guide us and elevate our thoughts upwards.

[MagusYanam]

Why don't they act as intercessors?

I have to ask.

Why are Orthodox accused of breaking commandments, idolatry or whatnot, if the Orthodox Faith practices the same Faith as the early Christians? Acting as intercessors was always part of the Faith.

Then, forgive me, but it seems that you are using the word 'faith' (or perhaps 'Faith' with a capital 'F') in a way which I don't think holds water. The movements, the practise of faith cannot be undertaken on someone else's behalf. As Kierkegaard would have it, only Abraham could have raised the knife to his son's throat; only Abraham could have sheathed it again. From what other man, from what saint, had Abraham to ask intercession?

I find no fault with looking to the saints for guidance, or for moral strength. But the saints simply cannot intercede; that's just not how faith works. You can't ask some other person to live your life for you, to bear your sins for you - only God can do that, through the person of Jesus, and that only through the profound dialectical absurdity of God having died and then having been raised again. Each person has her own trials to be worked through in fear and trembling, and these are matters between herself and God. This isn't perfect faith, this is simply what it means to even have faith.