Protestant understanding of the Communion of the Saints

[57Bill]

W/O the souls in purgatory.

 

[The_Reginator]

I never really understood it and didn’t really think about it.http://www.datasea.info/avatar4.jpg;)

Hey there Peter!
Welcome to CAF.

I see you are a Catholic so I’ll sway from my question about protestants’ understanding of the Communion of the Saints for this one post.
Here is an article that might help you understand the Catholic belief in the Communion of the Saints: Communion of Saints: Key to the Eucharist

Here’s how I look upon this wonderful gift from God –
Jesus established His Church before ascending into heaven. On the day of Pentecost the Church was born.
What is this Church? It is composed of three parts, the Church Militant (us), the Church Suffering (the holy souls in Purgatory), and the Church Triumphant (the saints in heaven).
The Body of Christ (His Church) does not simply consist of those occupying the pews around you but also those being purified in Purgatory and those adoring our Lord in heaven.
Although separated, we are all still in communion. At each and every Holy Sacrifice of the Mass the saints and angels are present too!
The bible itself tells us that “The Prayer of a Righteous Man Availeth Much” (James 5:16). Who is righteous? The saints and especially Mary. We are in communion with them. We can pray to them and they, in heaven, will intercede for us.
And our loved ones who have passed away … we are not God so we do not know whether or not they are in heaven. We can pray that their suffering as they are purified in Purgatory is relieved by our faithfulness here on earth.

I hope this muddies things up enough to get you thinking better than I can write.

• Reg.

 

[Newsy]

I tried to get an answer on this very subject, when I was a Presbyterian. We used both, the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds. This is mentioned in the Apostle’s Creed. I was unable to get a sufficient answer. It seems that the Presbyterian Church originally believed in the communion of saints, but has lost the meaning of it. To be fair, I was a member of the PCUSA, a very liberal branch.

The only way I have been able to understand “communion of Saints”, is from the Catholic perspective. I believe it to be the Church Militant, the Church Triumphant and the Church Suffering.

 

[seanman611]

The Anglican doctrine on the Communion of Saints is actually quite similar or nearly in line with the Roman Catholic understanding.

However, in the 39 Articles, the doctrine of invocation of the Saints is rejected. However, more high church and anglo-catholic wings in Anglicanism accept the invocation of Saints (as well as many individual Anglicans).

It should be further stated that the 39 Articles are not a binding document for Anglicans(The Episcopal Church calls them a "historical document"and the continuing Anglican movements tend to have little to say about them). Some Anglican clergy pay “lip service” to the 39 articles, but most parishes (dioceses as well) don’t even reference or mention them. Gotta love being Anglican, nothing is set in stone lol.

Further, most Anglicans don’t really consider themselves “protestant” in the full sense of the word or as it is understood today. When one of my fellow Anglicans was asked rather he considered himself more protestant or more catholic, he replied, “I consider myself more Anglican.” Lol! So much truth is this answer!

 

[brb3]

Southern Baptists teach it’s the immediate joining of the faithful with their deceased brethren upon their death. A joining of the spirits in heaven, with Christ. All the heavenly saints able to view events on earth, but not able to actively intervene or influence events. A ‘great gulf’ existing between heaven and earth … preventing saints influencing Earthly events.

Only Christ being able to influence events, the ONE MEDIATOR between GOD and man. Thus, praying to Mary or any Heavenly Saint is not believed/encouraged. They can’t understand why Catholics are so confused on the matter. They don’t see this concept of Saints taking our prayers to Christ being taught in scripture, or Mary having the paramount role as Mediatrix.

I think it’s primarily based on 1.) the parable of the Poor Man and Lasarus … where Christ taught that a great Gulf exists between the afterlife and those remaining on Earth, and communication is not allowed … 2.) scripture stating that Christ is the ONE MEDIATOR between God and man … & 3.) the scripture where Mary and family came to speak with Christ, while he was talking to the crowd … and Christ seemed to ignore/de-emphasize Mary & family, stating that “whoever believes in Him is his mother or brother”.

 

[stewstew03]

here is how I had described it elsewhere:

The Church today (as always) is the body of Christ. Upon believing in Christ as Lord, one is given the Holy Spirit. (Eph 1:13-14) In accepting such believers and in giving the gift of the Holy Spirit, God did not distinguish between the Jews and the Gentiles (Acts 15:8-9) and does not distinguish between the Catholics and the Protestants and Orthodox today. As we are all given one and the same Spirit, we constitute the one body of Christ. (1 Cor 12:12-27) God has worked to combine us into that one body so that there should be no division (1 Cor 12:25). Within that body, all should be seen as indispensable (1 Cor 12:21-22) No part of the body should think that it is more important than any other part. (1 Cor 12:21-22 & Romans 12:3).

This seems like an argument for ecumenism rather than a response to the OP, but I’m curious - does your definition of the Body of Christ include all saints, both those on earth and those who have passed?

 

[7_Sorrows]

The Anglican doctrine on the Communion of Saints is actually quite similar or nearly in line with the Roman Catholic understanding.

However, in the 39 Articles, the doctrine of invocation of the Saints is rejected. However, more high church and anglo-catholic wings in Anglicanism accept the invocation of Saints (as well as many individual Anglicans).

It should be further stated that the 39 Articles are not a binding document for Anglicans(The Episcopal Church calls them a "historical document"and the continuing Anglican movements tend to have little to say about them). Some Anglican clergy pay “lip service” to the 39 articles, but most parishes (dioceses as well) don’t even reference or mention them. Gotta love being Anglican, nothing is set in stone lol.

Further, most Anglicans don’t really consider themselves “protestant” in the full sense of the word or as it is understood today. When one of my fellow Anglicans was asked rather he considered himself more protestant or more catholic, he replied, “I consider myself more Anglican.” Lol! So much truth is this answer!

i was baptized and confirmed in the episcopal church so i can identify with what you are saying in your post. i later became a member of an anglican church and, finally, converted to Catholicism. i have great affection for the anglican communion and as an episcopalian/anglican, felt pretty Catholic in my thinking. one of the big differences is that anglicanism is rooted in the anglo/saxon culture and Catholic in the roman culture.
so that was a little hard to get used to when i converted. however. i feel like i had the same understanding as what the Catholic church teaches regarding communion of saints.
so i guess being anglican, prepared me for being Catholic!