Part 1: https://www.solasacramentum.com/post/the-lutherans-ain-t-the-only-ones-with-daddy-issues-part-1
Part 2: https://www.solasacramentum.com/post/the-lutherans-ain-t-the-only-ones-with-daddy-issues-part-2
For the final post of this series, I will be taking on the numerous patristic quotations regarding prayer to the saints.
The first quotations will be those I put the most weight in, the ante-Nicene fathers. The earliest quotation here is from Tertullian's Apology, paragraph 30: "These things I cannot ask from any but the God from whom I know I shall obtain them, both because He alone bestows them and because I have claims upon Him for their gift, as being a servant of His, rendering homage to Him alone, persecuted for His doctrine, offering to Him, at His own requirement, that costly and noble sacrifice of prayer dispatched from the chaste body, an unstained soul, a sanctified spirit." In this passage, we see Tertullian describing prayer, which he says is "to Him [God] alone." This also opens up another point, since Tertullian also has a treatise simply On Prayer, and he never mentions the practice, which is a pretty striking omission. Origen, who also has his own treatise on prayer that doesn't mention the practice, says similar: “Away, then, with this counsel, which Celsus gives us, to offer prayer to daemons [spiritual beings, be they evil or benign]: it is not to be listened to for a moment; for our duty is to pray to the Most High God alone, and to the Only-begotten, the First-born of the whole creation, and to ask Him as our High Priest to present the prayers which ascend to Him from us, to His God and our God, to His Father and the Father of those who direct their lives according to His word” and “For it is the Son alone who leads to God those who are striving, by the purity of their thoughts, words, and deeds, to come near to God the Creator of the universe.” (Contra Celsum 8.26, 8.4) In these passages, Origen affirms that prayers are to God alone, specifically mentioning that we ought not invoke angels, and that it is Christ alone who brings us to God, neither the martyrs and apostles nor the spirits. The final ante-Nicene quote is from the holy father Irenaeus, who boasts of being only one generation from the apostolic teaching: "Nor does she [the Church] perform anything by means of angelic invocations, or by incantations, or by any other wicked curious art; but, directing her prayers to the Lord, who made all things, in a pure, sincere, and straightforward spirit, and calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, she has been accustomed to work miracles for the advantage of mankind, and not to lead them into error." (Against Heresies 2.32.5) This passage is exceedingly simple: we do not invoke angels, because this is related to witchcraft, but we call to God alone and to our one mediator Jesus Christ. Some have argued that he is rather referring to magical spells rather than the prayer to St. Michael or Gabriel. However, this is a moot point. If Irenaeus were to believe that the prayer to the saints were idolatrous and it was a rare if even existent practice in his time, as Protestants claim, then that this passage reads exactly as he would portray it. If it were a common and valid practice, as the opponents claim, then he would need to mention the practice if he were to make such a strong claim, or else his own opponents would easily counter with this practice, by which the church even is said to give us salvation in some cases. Finally, I can offer many more testimonies from fathers who talk about how we ought to pray to the Lord alone, such as Athanasius, Augustine, and Hippolytus, but I've made my point. For more testimonies, you can see my google doc.
Now, there are some rather early testimonies for the doctrine, but how early is debatable. Some have pointed to Hippolytus, who is also one of the earliest fathers we have writings from, and his commentary on the book of Daniel: “Tell me, you three boys, remember me, I entreat you, that I also may obtain the same lot of martyrdom with you…” (2.30.1) However, if you were to finish the quote, it would be very clear that he was using a rhetorical device called apostrophe, in which one speaks to someone who is not present or a personified concept, "...who was the fourth person with you who was walking in the midst of the furnace and who was hymning to God with you as from one mouth? Describe to us his form and beauty so that we also, seeing him in the flesh, may recognize him. Who was he who in this way orderly described all creation through your mouth, so that you omitted nothing of which is and has been?” What's more, he also makes similar attempts to communicate with king Nebuchadnezzar when he writes, “For they who believe have carried up all authority and glory to God, because he is able to deliver us, but if not we would rather gladly die than to do what is prescribed by you, Nebuchadnezzar!” and "Tell me, Nebuchadnezzar, on what account do you order these boys to be bound and cast into the fire? Lest they flee? Or being released they quench the fire with their feet? But you are not the one who does these things, but another in you, who works these things.”(2.24.8 and 2.27.2) All parties agree that to seek information from the dead directly is simply necromancy, which is obviously illicit, and as Nebuchadnezzar's salvific status is in question, we have never been authorized to pray to a deceased king of Babylon. This is evidently or at least likely the case in most testimonies of prayer to the saints, at least those that I have seen and especially the early ones.
However, this practice did become very common, to the point where it was near universal in the 4th century, especially in the Eastern church. In his Examination of the Council of Trent, Martin Chemnitz makes argues that Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory Nazianzus are responsible for its popularity in the church and that they promulgated it not from the exposition of scripture but from the common people's practices (specifically the women's, but that's neither here nor there). I don't know the history nor the figures well enough to argue for that, but I can tell you that they are the earliest mainstream promoters of the doctrine that I've seen. Some have argued for one supposedly from Athanasius, but I have never seen an actual work or citation, only the prayer attributed to him. This, however, is unsurprising. We see from a bishop around the same time, Epiphanius of Salamis, that there was at least one heretical group worshipping Mary as a goddess. The Collyridians, named after the cakes they would make as sacrifices to her, were a Gnostic sect that believed her to be a deity, possibly the incarnation of Sophia but I'm not quite sure. Where did they arise? Arabia, which is a hop-skip-and-a-jump away from where the desert fathers would hang around. That is not to say that they were influenced by heretics, they were much too orthodox for that, but perhaps there was something in the water (metaphorically speaking) that encouraged them towards an incorrect view of the regard we ought to have towards the saints. As Epiphanius sees these excesses he responds, "For the harm done by both of these sects is equal, since one belittles the holy Virgin while the other, in its turn, glorifies her to excess…For how can such a thing not appear insane to every wise man whose <mind is sound> in God? How can the practice not seem idolatrous and the undertaking the devil’s? But the devil has always slipped into the human mind in the guise of someone righteous and, to deify mortal human nature in human eyes, made human images with a great variety of arts" and "As Maker and Master of the thing [to be made] he formed himself from a virgin as though from earth—God come from heaven, the Word who had assumed flesh from a holy Virgin. But certainly not from a virgin who is worshiped, or to make her God, or to have us make offerings in her name, or, again, to make women priestesses after so many generations.” (2.79.1.4-5, 2.79.4.4, 2.79.7.2; also, remember how Nicaea 2 validated the giving of "offerings" to the saints) And he didn't only condemn the worship of Mary, but of the other saints as well, and please pardon the long quote, I couldn't bear to take part of it out:
“For what this sect has to say is complete nonsense and, as it were, an old wives’ tale. Which scripture has spoken of it? Which prophet permitted the worship of a man, let alone a woman? The vessel is choice but a woman, and by nature no different [from others]. Like the bodies of the saints, however, she has been held in honor for her character and understanding. And if I should say anything more in her praise, [she is] like Elijah, who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was taken up and has not seen death. She is like John who leaned on the Lord’s breast, “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” She is like St. Thecla; and Mary is still more honored than she, because of the providence vouchsafed her. But Elijah is not to be worshiped, even though he is alive. And John is not to be worshiped, even though by his own prayer— or rather, by receiving the grace from God—he made an awesome thing of his falling asleep. But neither is Thecla worshiped, nor any of the saints. For the age-old error of forgetting the living God and worshiping his creatures will not get the better of me. They served and worshiped the creature more than the creator,” and “were made fools.” If it is not his will that angels be worshiped, how much more the woman born of Ann, who was given to Ann by Joachim and granted to her father and mother by promise, after prayer and all diligence?” (2.79.5.1-4)
What about the western fathers, what did they have to say about it? Well, for one, Ambrose did support it, which Chemnitz also blames on his friendship with Basil. Augustine, however, is a stranger case. Chemnitz argues that he was against it but went with it out of a fear of the people, but I couldn't track down any of his citations and thus I would rather like to avoid the argument. Instead, an analysis of his treatise On Care to Be Had For the Dead is in order. For one thing, he certainly believes that men in the presence of God do not have any knowledge of the things on earth without a prophetic gift from god, ie, it's very unusual (17-18). However, he does allow for the prayers of the saints to be answered by God, but in a roundabout way. He says that the saints may ask the Lord to grant the pleas of their suppliants, though this does call into question the usefulness of the saint (20). It'd be like asking your neighbor to pray for you and when the time comes for their daily prayers, they tell the Lord to "Just grant whatever it was William asked." It is very kind of them to pray for us, and I don't believe it goes unheard, but it really ruins the point of the prayer to the saints; they might as well pray "give William whatever he needs." I'll admit, I can't necessarily argue against it, but it does lose the rhetorical or thematic oomph and becomes more of a technicality, bordering on sophistry. As for Jerome, I would agree with Chemnitz that he was either unfamiliar with the practice or at the very least didn't believe in its efficacy. In his treatise against Vigilantus, he never actually fights the heretic on his claim that prayers to the saints are wrong, but he instead argues for the fact that the saints pray for the Church (6). In addition, even when discussing one possibly praying to a saint, he seems to treat it as a metaphorical action: "For she was accustomed to spend whole nights in vigil at his [Hilaron’s] tomb, and to converse with him as if he were present in order to stimulate her prayers." (Life of St. Hilaron, last paragraph) When addressing Vigilantus' claim that they are offering candles as sacrifices to the dead, he says, “As to the question of tapers [candles], however, we do not, as you in vain misrepresent us, light them in the daytime, but by their solace we would cheer the darkness of the night, and watch for the dawn, lest we should be blind like you and sleep in darkness. And if some persons, being ignorant and simple minded laymen, or, at all events, religious women— of whom we can truly say, “I allow that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge”— adopt the practice in honour of the martyrs, what harm is thereby done to you?” (7). He simply denies that they are offering them to the dead and saying they are rather for giving light in the night. In addition, when he acknowledges that the practice does exist, he responds that it's none of Vigilantus's business (which is a bad response but that's neither here nor there).
But how could so many in the church fall into such an error, to the point where it was nearly if not entirely universal practice in the middle ages? Well this wouldn't be the first time the church fell into idolatrous practices, especially not over holy things. The bronze serpent that Moses made at God's command to save Israel (Num 21:8-9), which was also a type of Christ (John 3:14-15), became an idol that Israel worshipped named Nehustan and had to be destroyed by Josiah (2 Kings 18:3-4). Earlier, Moses body, which God buried through the archangel Michael (Jude 9), was buried in secret so that Israel would not fall into idolatry over the body (Aphrahat the Persian, Demonstrations 8.9). And in the New Testament era, in Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9, John the Apostle worshipped an angel, who instead pointed him to the one true God. I'll say that again: John the Apostle worshipped an angel twice, in the span of like three chapters. The human soul is bent by sin towards idolatry, and Satan disguises himself as an angel of light so that we think our practices our holy, especially if they aren't.
I pray that we, as the church, would be reminded once more of the creature-creator distinction and flee from the idolatry of the saints. May we heed the angel's call to John and look towards Christ as the one mediator between us and the Father. Amen.
Comentários