Seeking Protestant opinions on this article on the Rosary

[Paprika]

Well said!

The bolded made me chuckle because I have said the same thing. I align myself with the Calvinist tradition, but whenever I hear a pastor go on about Calvin and Luther I envision myself jumping out of window.

Now now, their own Traditions are important to many Protestants. Be understanding

[Scrawly]

Now now, their own Traditions are important to many Protestants. Be understanding

I try.

[Kelp(p)]

Here is what Wright says on this, and related subjects:

http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Rethinking_Tradition.htm

Thanks.

It is true that, if the saints are conscious, and if they are ‘with Christ’ in a sense which, as Paul implies, is closer than we ourselves are at the moment, there is every reason to suppose that they are at least, like the souls under the altar in Revelation, urging the Father to complete the work of justice and salvation in the world. If that is so, there is no reason in principle why they should not urge the Father similarly on our behalf. I just don’t see any signs in the early Christian writings to suggest that they actually do that, or that we should, so to speak, encourage them to do so by invoking them specifically. Likewise, there is certainly no reason in principle why we should not pray for them - not that they will get out of purgatory, of course, but that they will be refreshed, and filled with God’s joy and peace. Love passes into prayer; we still [40] love them; why not hold them, in that love, before God?

Well said.

If Paul could say that to newly converted Gentiles, he can certainly say it to us today. To deny this, even by implication, is to call in question one of the central blessings and privileges of the gospel. The whole point of the letter to the Hebrews is that Jesus Christ himself is ‘our man at court’, ‘our man in heaven’. He, says Paul in Romans 8, is interceding for us; why should we need anyone else?

Wright, I am disappoint. By this logic, why ask a friend to pray for you either?

Why rely on the Spirit's intercession for us?

If we are "weak and don't know what to pray for," then how much more profitable could it be to also (never instead of, or even apart from Christ, there's no "treasury of merits" until the medieval West) seek the intercessions of those that have already finished the race and are being glorified in Christ?

Also, if Eastern Orthodoxy is correct about theosis being an eternal process, then the Saints really can benefit from our prayers.

When we step off such firm biblical ground, no matter what later traditions may suggest, we are always taking a risk.

Amen... says the Church of Christ pastor who tells his congregation not to use instruments in worship.

Explicit invocation of saints may in fact be — I do not say always is, but may be — a step towards that semi-paganism of which the Reformers were rightly afraid.

So silly as to not even deserve a rebuttal.

The world of late Roman antiquity found it difficult to rid its collective imagination of the many-layered panoply of gods and lords, of demi-gods and heroes, that had been collecting in the culture for well over a thousand years. The second-century church began, quite understandably, to venerate the martyrs as special witnesses to the victory of Christ over death

And yet the Pagan-Copycat Thesis of the Christ-mythers is completely baseless...

Once Christianity had become established and persecution ceased, it was not a large transition for the church to nominate for ‘veneration’ others who, though not martyred, had nevertheless been notable Christians in other ways. But the whole process of developing not only hierarchies among such people but also elaborate systems for designating them (canonization and the like) seems to me a huge exercise in missing the point.

Yes, bad author of Hebrews! Stop commemorating the non-martyred OT faithful immediately!

As someone conversant with Orthodox theology, Wright should know better. "Hierarchies" of Saints and elaborate canonization systems are a development of the medieval West. In Orthodox theology "Saint" still really just means "one that the Church is sure is in Heaven." Canonization does not require three posthumous miracles or anything of the such, just evidence of a good Christian life and death). It's usually done is response to popular devotion amongst the people. Labels like "Passion-Bearer (a non-martyr who nevertheless showed exemplary Christlike grace in accepting their murder)," "Holy Hierarch (theoretically any bishop-Saint but usually applied to Sts. John Chrysostom, Basil of Cesarea, and Gregory the Theologian to commemorate the sheer volume and value of their writings and sermons)," "Hieromartyr (a martyr who was a priest)," "Confessor (one who suffered for the faith without being killed)," and "Equal to the Apostles (the first person to take the Gospel into a new area)" just denote what they did in their lives. There's no suggest of one being "better" than the other- just like how John the Apostle is honored as a martyr despite not having been executed.

I don't expect Wright to agree with me since he's not into authoritative extra-biblical tradition, and that's fine. But with all due respect to the guy, these arguments are just weak sauce and far beneath one of his learning.

[Adrift]

Who are you referring to as a Church of Christ pastor? And are you asserting that Wright, one of the world's foremost scholars on the history of the NT and the early church, is unfamiliar with process of the veneration of saints. That his description is anything at all like Christ mythicism?

[Kelp(p)]

Who are you referring to as a Church of Christ pastor? And are you asserting that Wright, one of the world's foremost scholars on the history of the NT and the early church, is unfamiliar with process of the veneration of saints. That his description is anything at all like Christ mythicism?

A hypothetical CC pastor of the none instrumental variety who is use to using the, "if it's not in the Bible, we shouldn't do it" argument.

I'm not saying that Wright is unfamiliar with it, and I only have the utmost respect for him. I'm just saying he's making some really crap arguments against it. I have the utmost respect for the guy, but "Saint veneration is just a rip-off of paganism?" Really? Ok, then. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander then. Jesus is a rip-off of Bacchus now, right?

[One Bad Pig]

Also, if Eastern Orthodoxy is correct about theosis being an eternal process, then the Saints really can benefit from our prayers.

Minor nit to pick: in Eastern Orthodoxy, once a saint is canonized, he/she is no longer prayed for (IIRC the first step of the glorification ceremony is a final panakhida).

[Adrift]

A hypothetical CC pastor of the none instrumental variety who is use to using the, "if it's not in the Bible, we shouldn't do it" argument.

I don't think Wright would agree with the Church of Christ's stance on instruments either.

I'm not saying that Wright is unfamiliar with it, and I only have the utmost respect for him. I'm just saying he's making some really crap arguments against it. I have the utmost respect for the guy, but "Saint veneration is just a rip-off of paganism?" Really? Ok, then. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander then. Jesus is a rip-off of Bacchus now, right?

I don't think his arguments are crap at all, and since his academic speciality is in the development of the early church, I'm willing to bet he knows something about how early Christian practices began and evolved. I don't think his assertion that there's a connection between Roman pantheism and Saint veneration is anything at all like the copy cat theory.

[Kelp(p)]

Minor nit to pick: in Eastern Orthodoxy, once a saint is canonized, he/she is no longer prayed for (IIRC the first step of the glorification ceremony is a final panakhida).

My mistake. Thanks.

[Kelp(p)]

I don't think Wright would agree with the Church of Christ's stance on instruments either.

I'm sure he wouldn't. I'm just saying he's using the same faulty reasoning that they do to ban instruments.

I don't think his arguments are crap at all, and since his academic speciality is in the development of the early church, I'm willing to bet he knows something about how early Christian practices began and evolved.

I'm sure he does. Doesn't mean I can't disagree. I should not have been so harsh though, I suppose.

I don't think his assertion that there's a connection between Roman pantheism and Saint veneration is anything at all like the copy cat theory.

It's the same argument from silence that assumes that just because they have some similarities in appearance, therefore the Church must have absorbed them. I'm not saying there's never been some ex-pagan who found it easy to burn incense to a Saint because he used to do it to Jupiter, but there are theological reasons and Jewish sources that can also account for it.

[Adrift]

I'm sure he wouldn't. I'm just saying he's using the same faulty reasoning that they do to ban instruments.

I don't really see the parallel. The Bible is replete with examples of worship through instruments.

I'm sure he does. Doesn't mean I can't disagree. I should not have been so harsh though, I suppose.

Sure.

It's the same argument from silence that assumes that just because they have some similarities in appearance, therefore the Church must have absorbed them. I'm not saying there's never been some ex-pagan who found it easy to burn incense to a Saint because he used to do it to Jupiter, but there are theological reasons and Jewish sources that can also account for it.

I don't think its an argument from silence. Its pretty well known that the type of veneration that the early Christians showed for the early martyrs (for instance) mirrored the practice of refrigerium of the ancient Roman pagans. And quite unlike the mythicist view, there are plenty of qualified scholars who agree that there was a borrowing of pagan customs in the veneration of saints (Bruce Metzger, John Crook, Luke Timothy Johnson, Candida Moss, NT Wright, etc.).

[Kelp(p)]

I don't really see the parallel. The Bible is replete with examples of worship through instruments.

But no commands that the Church continue this.

I don't think its an argument from silence. Its pretty well known that the type of veneration that the early Christians showed for the early martyrs (for instance) mirrored the practice of refrigerium of the ancient Roman pagans. And quite unlike the mythicist view, there are plenty of qualified scholars who agree that there was a borrowing of pagan customs in the veneration of saints (Bruce Metzger, John Crook, Luke Timothy Johnson, Candida Moss, NT Wright, etc.).

Ok. Fair enough.

[Kelp(p)]

I guess I just don't care that much to what extent it has pagan origins, to be honest. Christianity has always been an adapting religion in terms of art, philosophy, festival days, etc. Taking useful aspects of pagan forms and fitting them to more specifically Christian content. All truth is God's truth.

[Catholicity]

Minor nit to pick: in Eastern Orthodoxy, once a saint is canonized, he/she is no longer prayed for (IIRC the first step of the glorification ceremony is a final panakhida).

umm yeah I don't remember Catholics doing it either after canonization

[Spartacus]

www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/mary_rosary.php



Aside from the idiosyncratic interpretation of Mary as being the Woman crowned with stars in Revelation (I think the mainstream Catholic view is that the Woman is the church or Israel).

Mary, Church, Israel... same thing. Welcome to typology.

[Rushing Jaws]

I don't see how.



I agree with NT Wright that the dead in Christ are in conscious rest with him, and that there is nothing in scripture that suggests that they can offer prayers up for the living. I recommend checking out his short and readable, Surprised by Hope. He doesn't deal with the subject as thoroughly as I like, but he gives a good crash course.



That's okay. For the record, I didn't read any new arguments there that I hadn't seen before.



LOL. Kelp, don't worry about offending me. I know that that isn't in your heart.

I'll be blunt with you though. As a huge fan of ancient history, saint and Mary devotion/adoration/and mediation, as its commonly understand and practiced, harks so much to pre-Christian Roman religious practice for me to ever feel comfortable with. I know quite a bit of the theology that has been thrown up around the practices to safeguard them from that assumption, but I can't shake the connection. I think sometimes its beautiful, and I even understand the allure, but there's something off about it.

## Not wanting to butt in, or to niggle - but "adoration" is definitely not the *mot juste*. Adoration/latreia is for God alone - Mary is most definitely a creature, & not God. Just saying, in case any lurkers don't realise that Christians who venerate her belong to Churches that are very well aware that she is not in any way on a par with God. This is a subject which seems to arouse a remarkable amount of misunderstanding