In principle it also opens the door for some to have no problems with theological novelty because “hey, whatever was done in the early church is probably bad anyway, right?” That not all Reformed brethren do this does not dismiss the concept which is embraced by more evangelical types.

Your second response hinges on a distrust of ancient practices, by associating prayers to/for the dead with heresies. But that’s not really what Calvin said. Let’s go back to his statement:

“As to purgatory, we know that ancient churches made some mention of the dead in their prayers, but it was done seldom and soberly, and consisted only of a few words. “

Calvin made a qualified historical difference between the practice of the 1500s and set it in distinction from the practice of the ancient churches, not from a heretic here or a heretic there. And note that he didn’t condemn the practice from square one.

Ultimately, when it pays no regard to ancient practices, Protestantism can no more condemn or accept prayers for the dead as it can the new idea that one must wear purple clothing to receive grace, as Acts 16 describes how Lydia made clothing out of purple. I make this last comparison slightly in jest, but you get where I’m coming from.

The point is that after seeing the “perspicuity” of Scripture disproven through the kaleidoscopic ways that my home churches interpreted Scripture, I wanted something more stable-this led me to Tradition. May God lead us all towards Tradition.

Blessings,
Jonathan

That the ancient practice may have been X, Y or Z is only referred to by Calvin in order to anticipate the response of the Bishop that “X, Y or Z was practiced in the the early church.” It does not indicate that Calvin establishes doctrine from the actions of the early Church for it is undeniable that to some extent even the early church was corrupt – even if that corruption was less than the corruption at the time of Calvin or even today.

That is to say; the historical use argument works for a Roman Catholic; but not for a protestant. Just like with papal infallibility in which something infallibly declared is binding on a Roman Catholic but still only a flawed interpretation or opinion to the protestant. Unless the underlying doctrine of historical use is present, the doctrines which arise from it remain unfounded.

Vincent

Thanks for posting this and enjoy your Thanksgiving!

David

Thank you for a very insigtful post. As a former Protestant – Catholic Convert it gave me a moments pause. Even as a Reformed “Baptist”, I wasn’t a “fan” of John Calvin.

IMHO, Calvin’s Institutes, letters, commentaries, etc., that inspire many still today are just that – Calvin’s writings. He wasn’t a prophet (even if Beza called him that after his death as some have suggested). I don’t care if he thought we shouldn’t pray for the dead or that the ancient church didn’t. He said none of the books of the “deuterocanonicals” were ever written in Hebrew , and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Qumran) proved him wrong all these years later.

When anyone says, “Calvin said” it means no more to me than someone saying, “Henry VIII” said…”
Moderate appropriately because I think my disdain for this Early Protestant Church Father is too evident.

Have a wonderful Thanksgiving, Dr. Deane,
Teri

The reformers did have valid points regarding the abuses associated with Indulgences being sold and the Church addressed these points during the counter-reformation period (as it is called).

But the month of November drives home several points regarding prayers for the dead in the Catholic Church:

1) The Church still prays for the faithful departed often in the liturgy (not only in November too)
2) She encourages us to assist the dead in our personal prayer life, almsgiving and fasting
3) The Church still grants Indulgences out of her treasury of merits

You may not have a parish that focuses on these practices but mine does. It is of great comfort to know that we can help our loved ones and that they can help us too. But you must apply these practices and see if there are positive results in your own life.

Interesting point. I went back and read some of Calvin’s remarks on prayers for the dead in the Institutes and it has raised a question that my own brief experience in the Church can’t answer. It seems that Calvin rejects prayers for the dead for two reasons; the lack of scriptural support for the practice, and the trajectory which the practice had taken over the course of history. My impression is that Calvin’s experience of the Mass must have had significantly more prayers for the dead then the various Catholic masses I’ve experienced. Prayers for the dead at the parish I attend never last more than thirty seconds. Would you agree that prayers for the dead do not occupy the place of importance that they did in the late medieval Church? Why the change? Did the practice diminish in response to the Reformation? If it did diminish, then isn’t that itself a concession to Calvin and the Reformers, that maybe they did have a point?

Thanks, Jeremy Tate

Thanks for the reply. To me, it makes no difference what the early church did or did not do and so the question of segregation or differentiation does not arise as anything other than of purely academic interest.

Yet, if I were to venture an answer, I would look at Calvin’s words “to attest in passing the affection which was felt”. Here there is no reference to praying for the soul of the departed or of any supposed benefit to the departed. I would suggest that what Calvin references is equivalent to “Lord, thank you for the life of N, now departed in faith and whom we loved”. This is in contrast to what by means of the mention of purgatory I think he is implying, and was both contemporary and is current Roman style “Lord, we pray that you permit your servant N to rest in peace” or “Lord, have mercy on the soul of N”.

I do not, in saying this, make any statement upon the actual usage of the ancient church but only on the extent of doctrine, as I see it, expressed within the quotation you give. In interpreting a letter, the context is always very important; particularly in this case, that is forms part of an argument against current practice rather than an effort to determine the theological basis of the ancient church.

Vincent