Canon 35 of the Synod of Laodicaea and the Invocation of Angels

 Canon 35 of the Synod of Laodicaea (mid-4^th century) reads as follows:

 

Christians must not forsake the Church of God, and go away and invoke angels and gather assemblies, which things are forbidden. If, therefore, any one shall be found engaged in this covert idolatry, let him be anathema; for he has forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and has gone over to idolatry (NPNF2 14:150)

 

Schaff provides the following notes to this canon:

 

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXXV.

 

Whoso calls assemblies in opposition to those of the Church and names angels, is near to idolatry and let him be anathema.

 

Van Espen.

 

Whatever the worship of angels condemned by this canon may have been, one thing is manifest, that it was a species of idolatry, and detracted from the worship due to Christ.

 

Theodoret makes mention of this superstitious cult in his exposition of the Text of St. Paul, Col. ii. 18, and when writing of its condemnation by this synod he says, "they were leading to worship angels such as were defending the Law; for, said they, the Law was given through angels. And this vice lasted for a long time in Phrygia and Pisidia. Therefore it was that the synod which met at Laodicea in Phrygia, prohibited by a canon, that prayer should be offered to angels, and even to-day an oratory of St. Michael can be seen among them, and their neighbours."

 

In the Capitular of Charlemagne, a.d. 789 (cap. xvi.), it is said, "In that same council (Laodicea) it was ordered that angels should not be given unknown names, and that such should not be affixed to them, but that only they should be named by the names which we have by authority. These are Michael, Gabriel, Raphael." And then is subjoined the present canon. The canon forbids "to name" (ὀνομάζειν) angels, and this was understood as meaning to give them names instead of to call upon them by name.

 

Perchance the authors of the Capitular had in mind the Roman Council under Pope Zachary, a.d. 745, against Aldebert, who was found to invoke by name eight angels in his prayers.

 

It should be noted that some Latin versions of great authority and antiquity read angulos for angelos. This would refer to doing these idolatrous rites in corners, hiddenly, secretly, occulte as in the Latin. But this reading, though so respectable in the Latin, has no Greek authority for it.

 

This canon has often been used in controversy as condemning the cultus which the Catholic Church has always given to the angels, but those who would make such a use of this canon should explain how these interpretations can be consistent with the cultus of the Martyrs so evidently approved by the same council; and how this canon came to be accepted by the Fathers of the Second Council of Nice, if it condemned the then universal practice of the Church, East and West. Cf. Forbes, Considerationes Modestae. (NPNF2 14:150-51)

 

In his commentary on Col 3:17, Theodoret made a similar argument to the Synod of Laodicea:

 

Offer thanksgiving to God and the Father through Him [Christ], not through angels. The Laodicean synod, following this law and desiring to find a cure for that old disease, enacted a law that they should not pray to angels, nor forsake our Lord Jesus Christ. (Original translation by Seth Kasten, PG 82 :620, in Seth Kasten, Against the Invocation of Saints: An Apology for the Protestant Doctrine of Prayer Over and Against the Doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church [Royal Oak, Mich.: Scholastic Lutherans, 2023], 73)

Charles Joseph Hefele (1809-1893), a leading Roman Catholic historian, wrote the following about the canon in his work on the Councils of the Church:

 

Can. 35. “Christians shall not forsake the Church of God and turn to the worship of angels, thus introducing a cultus of the angels. This is forbidden. Whoever, therefore, shows an inclination to this hidden idolatry, let him be anathema, because he has forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and gone over to idolatry.”

 

The Apostle Paul had before found it needful in his Epistle to the Colossians (2:18), which was probably addressed also to the Laodiceans, to warn the Christians of Phrygia against a worship of angels, which was contrary to the faith. Notwithstanding which, however, this superstitious worship of angels still continued in those countries, the very native home of this Synod, for in the fifth century Theodoret of Cyrus bears witness to it in his commentary on the passage of S. Paul just quoted, observing that the Synod of Laodicæa had forbidden “praying to the angels” (τὸ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις προσεύχεσθαι), but that, in those regions of Phrygia and Pisidia “Michael-Churches” were to be met with as late as his own time. The basis of this worship of angels was the idea that God was too high to be immediately approached, but that His good will must be gained through the angels.

 

It hardly needs to be observed that this canon does not exclude a regulated worship of angels, such as is usual in the Church, although on the Protestant side it has often been so interpreted. Augustine and Eusebius have long ago given the true view of this. If the ancient Church allowed the worship of martyrs, why should she have entirely forbidden the worship of angels? This canon expresses the idea of the worship of angels by ὀνομάζειν ἀγγέλους, which gave occasion for the statement in a capitulary of Charlemagne of the year 789, that “the Synod of Laodicea had forbidden the giving of other names to the angels than those authorized: Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael.” Perhaps, however, the capitulary in question had in view a Roman Synod under Pope Zacharias in 745, which, in contradistinction to the eight angels invoked by the heretic Adelbert (at the time of S. Boniface, the apostle of the Germans), only allowed the names of the angels above mentioned.

 

Lastly, it must be observed that, after the example of several codices of the translation by Dionysius in Merlin’s edition of the Councils, instead of angelos was written angulos, which of course was originally a mere clerical error. (Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, 5 vols. [trans. Henry Nutcombe Oxenham; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1876], 2:317-18)

  

John Chryssavgis (EO) on Ignatius of Antioch's Comment that the Church of Rome "Presides in Love"

  

Now what does Ignatius have to say about the Church of Rome? In the prologue to his Letter to the Romans, the bishop of Antioch observes that the Church of Rome presides in love: προκαθημενη της αγαπης. It is important to note here that Ignatius is not referring to the pope (or bishop) of Rome, but to the Church of Rome. It has been argued that Ignatius may not have been aware of the Roman pontiff’s name.

 

Still, the word “love” (αγαπη) is more pertinent here. Is the word “love” a designation of the brotherhood or charity that united and bound Christians throughout the world, in accordance with Christ’s exhortation to his disciples: “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13.35). (In this case, scholars have sometimes read the papacy into the phrase; however, this would probably be reading too much into Ignatius) A second interpretation understands the word αγαπη in the literal and ordinary sense of “Love.” This would mean that the phrase suggests an expression of mere courtesy, ascribing to Rome a special place of honor but not necessarily a status of privilege. (The Greek phrase “privilege of honor” [πρεσβεια τιμης] was later translated into Latin by, among others, the monk Dionysius Exiguus at the beginning of the sixth century as ‘”primacy” [primatus]) Finally, does the word αγαπη denote the Eucharist? This would imply that προκαθημενη signifies presiding over the Eucharist, which in turn would indicate a local Church or community since there can only be a local eucharistic assembly. Inasmuch as Ignatius places great emphasis and importance on the celebration of the Eucharist in the defined region (The literal sense of the word “parish” in Greek: εν-ορια) of the local community under the presidency of the local bishop, this last interpretation is probably also the most likely. (John Chryssavgis, “The Apostolic Tradition: Historical and Theological Principles,” in Primacy in the Church: The Office of Primate and the Authority of Councils, ed. John Chryssavgis, 2 vols. [Yonkers, N.Y.: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2016], 1:57)

 

Luke 1:34 in light of Mishnah Ketubot 5.2

  

Mishnah Ketubot 5.2 reads as follows:

 

One gives a virgin twelve months from the time the husband asked to marry her after having betrothed her, in order to prepare herself with clothes and jewelry for the marriage. And just as one gives a woman this amount of time, so too does one give a man an equivalent period of time to prepare himself, as he too needs time to prepare for the marriage. However, in the case of a widow, who already has items available from her previous marriage, she is given only thirty days to prepare. If the appointed time for the wedding arrived and they did not get married due to some delay on the part of the husband, then the woman may partake of his food. And if her husband is a priest, she may partake of teruma, even if she is an Israelite woman. The tanna’im disagree about the permission granted to a priest to sustain his betrothed with teruma before she is married to him. Rabbi Tarfon says: He may give her all of her required sustenance from teruma. During her periods of impurity, e.g., menstruation, when she cannot partake of teruma, she may sell the teruma to a priest and use the proceeds to buy non-sacred food. Rabbi Akiva says: He must give her half of her needs from non-sacred food and half may be from teruma, so that she can eat from the non-sacred food when she is ritually impure.

 

In this text,

 

a virgin is given a year from betrothal to prepare herself for marriage, during which time she remains under her father’s roof. Gabrial’s visit was early in [Mary’s] betrothal, and yet he came bearing imminent news: “behold (ιδου) thou shalt conceive in thy womb” (Luke 1:31). Such a greeting, “behold,” or literally, “Look!” “is an attention grabber appropriate to the context, [and] often introduces something new or unusual, or something that requires special attention.” Something very significant was about to happen. Just as Gabriel’s “behold (ιδου)” as spoken to Zacharias a few verses earlier indicated that he would become immediately mute, just so the “behold (ιδου)” to Mary indicated that she would become immediately pregnant, and so she interprets it: “Behold the handmaid of the Ord; be it unto me according to thy word” (Lk 1:38). Mary forthwith departed “with haste” (Luke 1:39) to visit her cousin Elizabeth, announcing that she “hath rejoiced” at what the Lord “hath done” (Luke 1:49), spending “about three months” with her, and then “returned to her own house” (Luke 1:56). Although she was betrothed, none of her behavior suggests that the marriage was imminent at the time of Gabriel’s visit. Matthew relates that Mary “was found with child” (Matthew 1:18), indicating that Joseph was not told of the pregnancy, but rather discovered it on his own, something that could have happened no earlier than Mary’s return from her visit with Elizabeth, at the beginning of the second trimester (Luke 1:56), when a woman begins to show visibly. Thus, while Mary did not act as if her marriage was imminent, her pregnancy certainly was. Her question to Gabriel, therefore, rather than revealing a vow of perpetual virginity, more naturally expresses puzzlement about the proper order of events—to wit, how a pregnancy could take place immediately when marriage was still a distant event. (Timothy F. Kauffman, “The Blessed Virgin Mary,” in A Gospel Contrary! A Study of Roman Catholic Abuse of History and Scripture to Propagate Error [2023], 203)

 

Hans Dieter Betz on those Condemned in Matthew 7:15-20 and 7:21-23

  

Who then are the people targeted in 7:15-20 and 7:21-23? Are they real opponents or fictitious projections of heresy to come in the future? Are the same persons addressed in vss 15-20 and in vss 21-23? Based on the SM as a whole, one can conclude that the opposition consists of people who for the author(s) of the SM really exist, not merely hypothetical constructs of what might happen in the future. It seems also clear that the "false prophets" of vss 15-20 are not to be confused with the rejected petitioners of vss 21-23.  The latter are the victims of the former, the ones who have been deluded by the false prophets.  It is also important to distinguish between opponents recognized by the pre-Matthean SM and Matthew's ideas about the heretics in his own church (cf. Matt 24:5, 10-12, 23-24; also 23:28).

 

The question has frequently been discussed whether the group of people described in vss 22-23 are "charismatics" or "antinomians." The evidence leaves little room for doubt that they are indeed charismatics. They claim to have prophesied, exorcised demons, and performed miracles, deeds that involve ecstatic phenomena typical of charismatics.

 

Are these people also antinomians? They may be to some extent, for they use, at least in this description, their charismatic experiences as substitutes for their obedience to the Torah. Thus operating outside the Torah, they are in the situation of "lawlessness" (ανομια). This verdict is polemical. It does not mean that the real intentions of the people portrayed were to be immoral and lawless. They should not be stamped as anarchists denying the validity of all law. Rather, it appears from the description in the SM that these people end up being "lawless" against their own intention and to their surprise, when Jesus rejects them and lets the verdict of condemnation stand unopposed. They are the victims of self-deception caused by false teachers who have set aside the teaching of Jesus (cf. 5: 19) and have led them to ignore the Torah. They were led to think that charismatic experiences are the greater accomplishments in the eyes of God. (Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the Mount [Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1995], 541)

 

Hans Dieter Betz on Matthew 5:48

  

It is not clear from the outset whether εσεθε is merely an imperative ("Be perfect!"), or a prediction ("You will be perfect"), or an eschatological promise ("You may be perfect"). Grammatically as well as contextually, one could justify each of the options. The imperatival meaning follows from the other commandments in vss 43b, c; 44b, c (see also 5:17, 21b, 24, 25, 27b, 29, 30b, 34a, 37, 39a and c, 40b, 41 b, 42a and b). Those who take εσεθε as a prophetic prediction can point to the beatitudes (5:3-12), while the eschatological promise follows from that interpretation of the Torah which leads to the greater righteousness required in the last judgment (5:20; 7:13-14, 21-23). My suggestion is that the ambiguity is intended precisely to combine the various aspects, none of which can be isolated without losing grasp of the theology of the SM as a whole. Basic to it all is the divine promise of salvation for those who are obedient to the will of God. Based on this promise are the commandments of Jesus as interpreted by the SM. Finally, given these promises, one can venture predictions concerning the eschatological future, as is done throughout the SM either by imagining or anticipating the future or by warning against failure. All these aspects are combined as well in 5:45a: οπως γενησθε. ... ("so that you might become ... "). (Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the Mount [Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1995], 321, emphasis in bold added)

 

The adjective τελειος ("perfect") derives from τελεω, τελος, and so on ("finish," "complete," etc.; "end," "goal," etc.). The basic meaning, therefore, is "having attained the end" or "purpose," "complete," "perfect." Depending on the general context, this meaning can be specified in terms of cult, education, and ethics, to name the most important fields of meaning. Although the term "perfect" occurs only here in the SM, it seems to have influenced other closely related texts that provide further explanations. A close parallel is Matt 19:21, Matthew's version of the story of the Rich Young Man (Mark 10:17-22/ /Matt 19:16-22/ /Luke 18:18-23).

When Jesus, according to Mark (10:17-22), says to the young man, "You lack one thing" (εν σε υστερει) Matthew's version changes this to, "If you wish to be perfect" (ει θελει τελειος ειναι). The change, whether the result of Matthew's or of pre-Matthean redaction, appears to be influenced by the SM. Both passages are concerned with the proper interpretation and fulfillment of the Torah and with the goal of discipleship, that is, they combine the ethical and the educational fields of meaning. One can conclude that had the young man followed Jesus' advice, he would no longer Jack anything as a student but would reach the stage of maturity. He would obey the Torah adequately and could therefore expect to be admitted to the eschatological kingdom of God. (Ibid., 322-23)

 

Hans Dieter Betz on Matthew 5:22

  

A number of important manuscripts read εικη ("without cause"), obviously modifying the anger against the brother. There has been a longstanding controversy over the acceptability of this variant. Preben Wernberg-M¢ller has attempted to strengthen its place in the text by noting a parallel in IQS 7.8. It is most likely, however, that εικη represents a secondary ethical interpretation. What is the reason for substituting anger against the brother for murder? One can cite several reasons, some having to do with ancient ethical doctrines, others with the composition of the SM: (1) What the SM leaves unstated, Did. 3.2 spells out: "Do not become angry, for anger leads to murder" (μη γινου οργιλος, οδηγει γαρ η οργη προς τον φονον). One can hardly doubt that the SM tacitly presupposes the same idea. The theory that anger leads to murder was commonly known in antiquity, and especially in the biblical tradition. (2) Anger corresponds to hatred, the opposite of love (αγαπη). (3) The brother (αδελφος-) should be treated first in this list of disturbances of neighborly relations because the closest family member is the brother; "brother" is also the name for the fellow Christian and the fellow Jew; thus loving one's neighbor (SM/Matt 5:43) means first of all loving one's brother. (Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the Mount [Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1995], 219-20)

 

Hans Dieter Betz on Matthew 5:12

  

The tenth and last beatitude has an altogether different form. Instead of continuing the initial "Blessed are ... " in vss 3-11, it begins by issuing a double call for joy: "Rejoice and be glad" (χαιετε και αγαλλισαθε) This double call appeals to the hearers or readers for what amounts to a liturgical response, much like "hallelujah" or similar exclamations.  As the second part makes clear (vs 12b-c), gladness and jubilation are called for at the present time, not only in the eschatological future (as in SP /Luke 6:23).  The two imperatives are more than simple duplication; they describe a sequence, first the reaction of joy and then its expression by exclamation.

 

Formally, the double call in vs 12 raises the question about the relationship of vs 12 to vs 11 and beyond to the other beatitudes. Some scholars have taken vss 11 and 12 together as one beatitude, but this is unconvincing. Parallels of other beatitudes show that vs 12a introduces a new element. Another question is whether vs 12 can be treated as another beatitude, or whether the series of beatitudes in vss 3-11 ends with a different form-critical statement.

 

The change introduced by vs 12a is that it calls for a response by the hearers or readers to the messages they have received in vss 3-11, the final one addressing them directly (vs 11). It is, therefore, quite fitting that the series of blessings in vss 3-11 ends with the hearers' response of jubilation. The question also arises whether this response reflects actual liturgical practice or whether it is merely a literary device.

 

Though never repeated in the SM, the appeal is basic to it. Eschatological joy provides much of the motivation for the ethics of the SM ( cf. the attitude of good will in 5:26, or the cheerful face in 6: 17). 502 Although the SM never uses the term "gospel" (ευαγγελιον), the combination of blessings and the call for joy in vss 3-12 provides almost a description of it.

 

Verse 12b-c contains dogmatic statements justifying not only the call for joy but also the beatitudes in vss 3-11. These dogmatic statements simply furnish information, presumably not unknown to the recipients but needed at this point in order to understand that the response called for is theologically legitimate.

 

The οτι-clause of vs 12b provides an immediate reason for vs 12a: "for your reward is great in the heavens" (οτι ο μισθος υμων πολυς εν τοις ουρανοις). This οτι-clause is parallel to the similar clauses in vss 3b-10b and sums up what they have presented in more detail. Although vs 12b has no verb, it is self-evident that the reward exists in the present. SM/Matt 6:20 leads one to assume that the "reward" (μισθος) is stored with God ("in the heavens" [plural]), waiting for those who are entitled to it. Since that reward is "theirs" already now, jubilation is in order.

 

This doctrine of reward requires further explanation.

 

Generally speaking, it is a Jewish doctrine, here attributed to the theology of Jesus. In the SM, reward is not a "gift" given by God through grace. Rather, reward is to be claimed by those who are entitled to it as a matter of justice. Thus, this entitlement is conditional.

 

For the SM, the conditions are set by the teachings of Jesus in the SM: If the disciples are faithful to these teachings, they are entitled to this "treasure in heaven." Their faithfulness does include access to God's mercy and forgiveness, if they have petitioned God in the appropriate manner (see below on 6:12, 14-15). The faithful disciples can justifiedly be joyful even now,

because they can be sure that their reward is awaiting them in heaven and that God himself as the guarantor of justice is guarding the treasure. Also part of this doctrine is the idea that the reward can be claimed only once. Therefore, its actual claiming must be postponed until the eschatological kingdom of God. Only the joy can be anticipated in the present. (Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the Mount [Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1995], 151-52, emphasis in bold added)

 

Some notes on ὁμοίωμα ("like"/"likeness") in Romans 6:5

  

"like": Gr: ομοιωματι specifies that our death to sin resembles the death of Christ only as a comparison, not as an exact identification. The Greek sense is: "for if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, indeed we shall also be with his resurrection," that is, our baptism is like a death, and our newness of life is like a resurrection, and the former assures the letter. The verb γεγοναμεν ("have been") is a perfect tense, while εσομεθα ("we shall") is a future tense, both tenses denoting an increase, that is, we will grow in this twofold likeness of Christ (see vr. 11). (Robert A. Sungenis, The Epistles of Romans and James [The Catholic Apologetics Study Bible; San Goleta, Calif.: Queenship Publishing, 2007], 48 n. 139)

 

BDAG:

 

5296  ὁμοίωμα

• ὁμοίωμα, ατος, τό (ὁμοιόω; Pla., Parm. 132d; 133d, Phdr. 250b; Ps.-Aristot., Int. 1, 16a, 7f; SIG 669, 52; PFay 106, 20; LXX; En 31:2; Just., D. 94, 3).

 

1. state of having common experiences, likeness e;vν ὁμ. τυγχάνειν ‘liken’ Theoph. Ant. 2, 16 [p. 140, 12]) οὗ (Χριστοῦ) καὶ κατὰ τὸ ὁμοίωμα ἡμᾶς … οὕτως ἐγερεῖ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ in accordance with whose likeness (=just as God raised him) his Father will also raise us in this way ITr 9:2. This is prob. the place for Ro 6:5 εἰ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τῷ ὁμοιώματι τ. θανάτου αὐτοῦ if we have been united (i.e. αὐτῷ with him; cp. vs. 4 συνετάφημεν αὐτῷ) in the likeness of his death (=in the same death that he died); but s. PGächter, ZKT 54, 1930, 88-92; OKuss, D. Römerbr. I, ’63, 301. On the syntax, B-D-F §194, 2; Rob. 528. ἁμαρτάνειν ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι τῆς παραβάσεως Ἀδάμ sin in the likeness of Adam’s transgression (=just as Adam did, who transgressed one of God’s express commands) 5:14.—Abstr. for concr. τὰ ὁμοιώματα = τὰ ὅμοια: ὃς ἃν τὰ ὁμοιώματα ποιῇ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν whoever does things similar to (the deeds of) the gentiles = acts as the gentiles do Hm 4, 1, 9. περὶ τοιούτων τινῶν ὁμοιωμάτων πονηρῶν (thoughts) about any other wicked things similar to these 4, 1, 1.—ἐν τίνι ὁμοιώματι παραβάλωμεν αὐτήν; with what corresponding thing can we compare it? Mk 4:30 v.l.

 

George P. Lee's 1989 Letters to Church Leadership and the LDS Indian Student Placement Program

 In two letters directed to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in 1989or, George P. Lee lamented and critiqued the Church for phasing out the Indian Student Placement program:

 

The question of “Do you think President Kimball approves of your action?” has been asked of me by one of you and I would like to respond to your inquiry with the following questions:

 

a. Who terminated the BYU Indian Education Dept?

b. Who terminated BYU Indian Special Curriculum which helped Indian Students succeed in college:

c. Who is phasing out BYU American Indian Services?

d. Who is phasing out the Church’s Indian Student Placement program?

. . .

24. What about the thousands you might have injured as you cut off Lamanite programs and as you downplayed the role of the Lamanites? (George P. Lee, Letter no. 1 to the First Presidency and the Twelve, c. 1989, pp. 2, 7, in Excommunication of a Mormon Church Leader: Containing the Letters of Dr. George P. Lee [Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1989], 18, 23)

 

According to the Lord Jesus’ definition the “remnant of the House of Israel” means Lamanites or children of Lehi not all members of the church. I cannot be a party to anything less than this. I cannot be a party to false teaching, teachings which are man-inspired.

 

3. You have taught that the Book of Mormon is not written to the Lamanites but to the Gentiles in our day. You have come very close to denying that the Book of Mormon is about Lamanites. You have cut out Indians and ^or^ Lamanite Programs and are attempting to cut them out of the Book of Mormon. You are trying to discredit or downplay the role of Lamanites in these last days and downplay their role and importance and d in the building of the New Jerusalem. (George P. Lee, Letter no. 2 to the First Presidency and the Twelve, c. 1989, pp. 16-17, in ibid., 48-49)

 

For a very good essay on the history of the Indian Student Placement Program, see:

 

James B. Allen, “The Rise and Decline of the LDS Indian Student Placement Program, 1947-1996,” in Mormons, Scripture, and the Ancient World: Studies in Honor of John L. Sorenson, ed. Davis Bitton (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1998), 85-119

 

The essay is a good refutation of the common claim that the program was “cultural genocide.”

Some Examples of Early Christians vs. the Invocation of Angels and/and Saints

  

Irenaeus of Lyons:

 

They also hold, like Carpocrates, that men cannot be saved until they have gone through all kinds of experience. An angel, they maintain, attends them in every one of their sinful and abominable actions, and urges them to venture on audacity and incur pollution. Whatever may be the nature of the action, they declare that they do it in the name of the angel, saying, ‘O thou angel, I use they work; O thou power, I accomplish thy operation!’ And they maintain that this is ‘perfect knowledge,’ without shrinking to rush into such actions as it is not lawful even to name. (Against Heresies 1.31.2 [ANF 1:358])

 

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. If, therefore, the name of our Lord Jesus Christ even now confers benefits [upon men], and cures thoroughly and effectively all who anywhere believe in Him, but not that of Simon, or Meander, or Carpocrates, or of any other man whatever, it is manifest that, when He was made man, He held fellowship with His own creation, and did all things; truly; through the power of; God, according to the will; of the Father of all, as the; prophets; had foretold. (Against Heresies 2.32.5 [ANF 1:409])

 

Origen of Alexandria:

 

Having thus learned to call these beings “angels” from their employments, we find that because they are divine they are sometimes termed “god” in the sacred Scriptures, but not so that we are commanded to honour and worship in place of God those who minister to us, and bear to us His blessings. For every prayer, and supplication, and intercession, and thanksgiving, is to be sent up to the Supreme God through the High Priest, who is above all the angels, the living Word of God. And to the Word Himself shall we also pray and make intercessions, and offer thanksgivings and supplications to Him, if we have the capacity of distinguishing between the proper use and abuse of prayer.

 

For to invoke angels without having obtained a knowledge of their nature greater than is possessed by men, would be contrary to reason. But, conformably to our hypothesis, let this knowledge of them, which is something wonderful and mysterious be obtained. Then this knowledge, making known to us their nature, and the offices to which they are severally appointed, will not permit us to pray with confidence to any other than to the Supreme God, who is sufficient for all things, and that through our Saviour the Son of God, who is the Word, and Wisdom, and Truth, and everything else which the writings of God’s prophets and the apostles of Jesus entitle Him. And it is enough to secure that the holy angels of God be propitious to us, and that they do all things on our behalf, that our disposition of mind towards God should imitate as far as it is within the power of human nature the example of these holy angels, who again follow the example of their God; and that the conceptions which we entertain of His Son, the Word, so far as attainable by us, should not be opposed to the clearer conceptions of Him which the holy angel possess, but should daily approach these in clearness and distinctness . . .

 

And being persuaded that the sun himself, and the moon, and the stars pray to the Supreme God through His only-begotten Son, we judge it improper to pray to those beings who themselves offer up prayers (to God), seeing even they themselves would prefer that we should sent up our  requests to the God to whom they pray, rather than send them downwards to themselves, or apportion our power of prayer between God and them . . .

 

It was for these and similar mysterious reasons, with which Moses and the prophets were acquainted, that they forbade the name of other gods to be pronounced by him who bethought himself of praying to the one Supreme God alone, or to be remembered by a heart which had been taught to be pure form all foolish thoughts and words. (Against Celsus 5.4-5, 1, 11, 56 [ANF 4:544-45, 548, 564])

 

Origen explicitly condemns invocation of angels and also states that their nature is greater than that of men, so surely this rules out invocation of saints too; furthermore, he states that we are not permitted to pray  to any other than God: (Seth Kasten, Against the Invocation of Saints: An Apology for the Protestant Doctrine of Prayer Over and Against the Doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church [Royal Oak, Mich.: Scholastic Lutherans, 2023], 66)

 

Lactantius:

 

For if Jupiter holds the first place, both among the gods and in religious rites, if no gods were worshipped by the people before him, because they who are worshipped were not yet born; it appears that the Curetes, on the contrary, were the first who did not understand the worship of the deity, since all error was introduced by them, and the memory of the true God was taken away. They ought therefore to have understood from the mysteries and ceremonies themselves, that they were offering prayers to dead men. I do not then require that any one should believe the fictions of the poets. If any one imagines that these speak falsely, let him consider the writings of the pontiffs themselves, and weigh whatever there is of literature pertaining to sacred rites: he will perhaps find more things than we being forward, from which he may understand that all things which are esteemed sacred are empty, vain, and fictitious. But if any one, having discovered wisdom, shall lay aside his error, he will assuredly laugh at the flies of men who are almost without understanding. (The Divine Institutes 1.21 [ANF 7:37])

 

But if it appears that these religious rites are vain in so many ways as I have shown, it is manifest that those who either make prayers to the dead, or venerate the earth, or make over their souls to unclean spirits, do not act as becomes men, and that they will suffer punishment for their impiety and guilt, who, rebelling against God, the Father of the human race, have undertaken inexplicable rites, and violated every sacred law. (The Divine Institutes 2.18 [ANF 7:67])