The following note from the URL.
"St. Denys, Bishop, the patron Saint of France, a missionary bishop (of Paris), and a martyr in the 3rd century (about A.D. 272), under the persecution of Aurelian. He was often confused with Dionysius the Areopagite, the convert of St. Paul (Acts xvii. 34), and, by tradition, the first Bishop of Athens; whose name was made famous in the Middle Ages by the celebrated mystic work on the "Celestial and Ecclesiastical Hierarchies," published in his name probably in the 5th century, and translated into Latin by the celebrated John Erigena in the 9th century. -- October 9th."
A few needed notes:
(1) All elect and justified believers are “saints.” All were born dead in their sins and trespasses. No saint, including all “Superintendents” or “Over-seers” are anything, have anything or do anything—if good—apart from His Majesty’s grace. Hence, we object to partitioning schemata. It's a natural result of historical studies, but cautions are biblically warranted; idolatrous proclivities inhere to the heart; it must be resisted. The Law and Gospel is a humbling message—from kings to farm hands, from scholars to the intellectually challenged, etc. So, while registering the caveat, we do not ditch the lectionary or the review.
(2) The term, “patron saint” must be qualified. Given my time and experiences in Italy for years, medievalism lifted saints to a status of “heavenly patronage” and induced the abominable doctrine of saints invocation, as practiced by Greeks, Romans and Tractaholics. It's just awful to observe amongst the rank-and-file. Modern American Anglican-Tractarians needed to be rebuked. But, Low-T obtains. Their clerics, if unrepentant, need to be defrocked. We never invoke saints, never.
There is, however, no objection to the term “patronage” in another sense: sponsorship, honored position, etc. For example, one might consider a "wealthy donor" to a church or school a "sponsor" or "patron" of the school. But, medievalism must be corrected.
(3) With Heinrich Bullinger, it is honorable to remember and review the lives of those in church history. It is done all the time by scholars, teachers, and students. That's what the lectionary does: it prudently reminds us of church history. Of course, the lectionary must be updated with some changes. We would add that the "note" above needs correction. I'm not sure who wrote it, but it is problematic.
(4) Put more simply, on the 9th of October, in the Anglican tradition, we rehearse and review Mr. (Bp.) Denys, martyred for the faith. Who can object meritoriously, provided prudent caveats are registered?
These corrections—schooling—are offered without ditching the day either.
Presbyterian objections to “days of remembrance” are rejected.
Of course, the Anabaptists and others wouldn’t have any idea of which we speak; they are properly dismissed until they get better minds.
No comments:
Post a Comment