Wanted Onesiphorus: Dead or Alive

[Catholic_Dude]

I have come across Catholics saying that a man named Onesiphorus who helped Paul had passed away and Paul was praying for him in 2 Tim 1:
16May the Lord show mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains. 17On the contrary, when he was in Rome, he searched hard for me until he found me. 18May the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the Lord on that day! You know very well in how many ways he helped me in Ephesus.

Also at the end of the letter 2 Tim 4:
19Greet Priscilla and Aquila and the household of Onesiphorus.
I see how this can make sense given that Paul only talks about his “household” so what do you think?

Are there other references is Scripture that talk about a “household” in a similar manner or is the father and his household always mentioned?

 

[DeFide]

I have come across Catholics saying that a man named Onesiphorus who helped Paul had passed away and Paul was praying for him in 2 Tim 1:16May the Lord show mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains. 17On the contrary, when he was in Rome, he searched hard for me until he found me. 18May the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the Lord on that day! You know very well in how many ways he helped me in Ephesus.

Also at the end of the letter 2 Tim 4:

19Greet Priscilla and Aquila and the household of Onesiphorus.
I see how this can make sense given that Paul only talks about his “household” so what do you think?

I agree. Many Protestants even concede this. If I walked into a room and heard someone talking like this, I’d certainly assume the guy they were talking about was dead.

 

[Contarini]

I have come across Catholics saying that a man named Onesiphorus who helped Paul had passed away and Paul was praying for him in 2 Tim 1:16May the Lord show mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains. 17On the contrary, when he was in Rome, he searched hard for me until he found me. 18May the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the Lord on that day! You know very well in how many ways he helped me in Ephesus.

Also at the end of the letter 2 Tim 4:

19Greet Priscilla and Aquila and the household of Onesiphorus.
I see how this can make sense given that Paul only talks about his “household” so what do you think?

I think this is a probable argument but not proof. It will not fly against a dogmatic belief that prayer for the dead is wrong (such a belief can’t be defended IMHO, but that has to be shown on different grounds; the belief can’t simply be overturned with this passage). I approach it this way: “if you imagine for a minute that prayer for the dead is possible, then this is probably an example of it. Bear in mind that even if II Maccabees is not divinely inspired, it is a witness to the common belief of ancient Jews. So the burden of proof is on you to show that this *can’t *refer to prayer for the dead. In the face of this passage, you can’t reject prayer for the dead because ‘it isn’t in the Bible,’ because it may well be in the Bible.” This will not work unless the person is somewhat open to the traditional (i.e., Catholic in the broad sense) point of view. But then that’s true of any argument!

Edwin

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I agree. Many Protestants even concede this. If I walked into a room and heard someone talking like this, I’d certainly assume the guy they were talking about was dead.

Wow, many protestants? Please give some names!

I think this is a probable argument but not proof. It will not fly against a dogmatic belief that prayer for the dead is wrong (such a belief can’t be defended IMHO, but that has to be shown on different grounds; the belief can’t simply be overturned with this passage). I approach it this way: “if you imagine for a minute that prayer for the dead is possible, then this is probably an example of it. Bear in mind that even if II Maccabees is not divinely inspired, it is a witness to the common belief of ancient Jews. So the burden of proof is on you to show that this *can’t *refer to prayer for the dead. In the face of this passage, you can’t reject prayer for the dead because ‘it isn’t in the Bible,’ because it may well be in the Bible.” This will not work unless the person is somewhat open to the traditional (i.e., Catholic in the broad sense) point of view. But then that’s true of any argument!

Edwin

But dont you as an Episcopalian believe in prayers for the dead? Even comments like “May God rest his soul” are prayers for the dead.

 

[Contarini]

But dont you as an Episcopalian believe in prayers for the dead? Even comments like “May God rest his soul” are prayers for the dead.

I thought my belief in prayer for the dead was obvious from my post. Did I speak obscurely or did you misunderstand?

The current Episcopal prayer book (1979) does have explicit prayer for the dead, and earlier American versions had a more muted form. The official English BCP has not included such prayers since 1552, although the modern liturgies used as “alternatives” in the Church of England since the 1980s (and which have now mostly replaced the BCP) also include such prayers, I’m quite sure.

My point was simply that this passage does not *prove *prayer for the dead, or would not prove it to someone who had other theological grounds (mistaken, in my opinion) for disbelieving in it.

You may be confused by my parenthesis “such a belief can’t be defended.” I was referring to the belief that prayer for the dead is wrong, not to belief in prayer for the dead. I think my syntax was logical, but I admit that it was convoluted.

Edwin

 

[William_Putnam]

I thought my belief in prayer for the dead was obvious from my post. Did I speak obscurely or did you misunderstand?

The current Episcopal prayer book (1979) does have explicit prayer for the dead, and earlier American versions had a more muted form. The official English BCP has not included such prayers since 1552, although the modern liturgies used as “alternatives” in the Church of England since the 1980s (and which have now mostly replaced the BCP) also include such prayers, I’m quite sure.

My point was simply that this passage does not *prove *prayer for the dead, or would not prove it to someone who had other theological grounds (mistaken, in my opinion) for disbelieving in it.

You may be confused by my parenthesis “such a belief can’t be defended.” I was referring to the belief that prayer for the dead is wrong, not to belief in prayer for the dead. I think my syntax was logical, but I admit that it was convoluted.

Edwin

Edwin, have I not sprecken upon thee before? (I’t’s been years!)

Anyway, while scripture is quite sparce on this subject, as you have discussed, when we go extra-scriptural and see what the early fathers (and some inscriptions) reveal to us, their works would have you see that they believed in purgatory (even while that word is not actually used.)

cin.org/users/jgallegos/purg.htm

It was the evidence of the early fathers and other artifacts, including inscriptions on ancient Christian tombs whose epataphs asks for prayers for the deceased, that was one of the big convincers for me to seek conversion into the Catholic Church in the early 1950’s.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, have I not sprecken upon thee before? (I’t’s been years!)

Anyway, while scripture is quite sparce on this subject, as you have discussed, when we go extra-scriptural and see what the early fathers (and some inscriptions) reveal to us, their works would have you see that they believed in purgatory (even while that word is not actually used.)

cin.org/users/jgallegos/purg.htm

It was the evidence of the early fathers and other artifacts, including inscriptions on ancient Christian tombs whose epataphs asks for prayers for the deceased, that was one of the big convincers for me to seek conversion into the Catholic Church in the early 1950’s.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

I’m really baffled as to why everyone is trying to convince me of something I already believe. . . . Perhaps just because I think the evidence isn’t as clear as you do?

Jacques Le Goff argued that Purgatory did not emerge as a doctrine until the 12th century. But he was defining it as a specific place. You are certainly right that some kind of purgation was a common belief (though not a dogma) at least by the time of St. Augustine.

I do not think that prayer for the dead necessarily implies a belief in purgatory. Episcopalians typically argue that prayer for the dead is an expression of Christian charity and that we do not know exactly in what way the dead might need our prayers (just as one might pray for friends on a long journey from whom one has not heard for a long time–we don’t need to know the precise nature of the danger they might face, but we know that praying for those we love is a good thing and is used by God in a mysterious way to preserve them and promote their well-being).

Perpetua’s vision of her dead brother (I think it was her brother) is the first clear-cut Christian example of prayer for the dead I can think of, and clearly he didn’t fit the traditional picture of someone who goes to Purgatory–it sounds much more like a harsh version of Limbo—a relatively moderate hell for unabaptized children a la St. Augustine.

It seems to me that the eternal nature of hell was not firmly established until Augustine (and the Orthodox are still looser about it than the Western Church), and so there wasn’t a lot of ground for distinction between purgatory and hell (as there still isn’t in Orthodox Judaism, if I understand it correctly). Of course, standard imagery of purgatory continued this confusion until relatively modern times (though Dante and St. Catherine of Genoa, and no doubt others as well, had very different views of Purgatory).

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[William_Putnam]

I’m really baffled as to why everyone is trying to convince me of something I already believe. . . . Perhaps just because I think the evidence isn’t as clear as you do?

Ok, sorry, but the discussion is interesting for others to read I am sure.

Jacques Le Goff argued that Purgatory did not emerge as a doctrine until the 12th century. But he was defining it as a specific place. You are certainly right that some kind of purgation was a common belief (though not a dogma) at least by the time of St. Augustine.

I do not think that prayer for the dead necessarily implies a belief in purgatory. Episcopalians typically argue that prayer for the dead is an expression of Christian charity and that we do not know exactly in what way the dead might need our prayers (just as one might pray for friends on a long journey from whom one has not heard for a long time–we don’t need to know the precise nature of the danger they might face, but we know that praying for those we love is a good thing and is used by God in a mysterious way to preserve them and promote their well-being).

Perpetua’s vision of her dead brother (I think it was her brother) is the first clear-cut Christian example of prayer for the dead I can think of, and clearly he didn’t fit the traditional picture of someone who goes to Purgatory–it sounds much more like a harsh version of Limbo—a relatively moderate hell for unabaptized children a la St. Augustine.

It seems to me that the eternal nature of hell was not firmly established until Augustine (and the Orthodox are still looser about it than the Western Church), and so there wasn’t a lot of ground for distinction between purgatory and hell (as there still isn’t in Orthodox Judaism, if I understand it correctly). Of course, standard imagery of purgatory continued this confusion until relatively modern times (though Dante and St. Catherine of Genoa, and no doubt others as well, had very different views of Purgatory).

I am sure you have seen the argument that If you believe in praying for the dead, there must be a “sequestering place” for purgation, since if the deceased individual is in heaven, no prayers are necessary, but if in hell, no prayers would do any good.

Anyway, I am glad you believe in the existence of “that place” (or perhaps better, “spiritual condition.”)

BTW, your reply is much better and quite civil compared to what I wouild have gotten in CARM!

I have to get used to this!

It has been a while since I have post here…

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

[Contarini]

I am sure you have seen the argument that If you believe in praying for the dead, there must be a “sequestering place” for purgation, since if the deceased individual is in heaven, no prayers are necessary, but if in hell, no prayers would do any good.

Yes, but I don’t buy it. It implies that we know a lot more about the afterlife than we do. Leaving aside the notion that hell might be temporary (which I reluctantly reject as incompatible with the historic consensus of the Church), we have at least three possibilities:

1. The Orthodox believe that some “borderline” cases might go to heaven because of our prayers even though they would have gone to hell otherwise. I believe the Orthodox generally defend this idea by the supposition/tradition that the dead person’s final destination is not determined till some days after death (hence prayer for the dead is particularly appropriate immediately after death, and indeed there are certain prayers to be said at certain intervals–nine days and forty days, I think; this is rather close to Jewish practice unless I’m mistaken).
2. However, another possibility is that prayer is not limited by time, because God is not limited by time. This would presumably be especially the case for the dead, since we don’t know how the dead experience time or how their “time” may be related to ours (there are a lot of pious legends about this, such as the priest who went into church to say Mass for his friend’s soul as soon as he heard his friend was dead, and before he could get his vestments on his friend appeared to him and asked him why he’d let him suffer in Purgatory for years). So my prayer for a dead person might actually affect their soul at the moment of death. I’m not saying this is true, only that we can’t know it isn’t.
3. Finally, even if the above suppositions were false and even if there were no purgatory, prayer for the dead might still have an effect on both the saved and the damned. It is traditional to believe that the saved have degrees of glory, and at least in the East it is believed that the state of blessedness is not static but involved continual growth (I know Gregory of Nyssa believed this, but I think it’s a commonly accepted idea though I could be wrong). This is supposed by the American 1928 BCP’s prayer for the dead to increase in God’s love and service. Similarly, it is also traditional to believe that the damned have degrees of torment and that they may suffer less at some times than at others. Prayer might possibly bring about such a lessening of their suffering.

For all these reasons, I reject the idea that prayer for the dead necessarily implies purgatory. The only thing it excludes is the neat two-part division of the Protestant afterlife, with both parts utterly cut off from all contact with the living. The creation of that picture of the afterlife was one of the most devastating effects of the Reformation.

Anyway, I am glad you believe in the existence of “that place” (or perhaps better, “spiritual condition.”)

Yes. I hold it as a reasonable opinion, not as a dogma, but it is certainly not a part of Catholic doctrine that I find difficult to accept (though I do have problems with a legal understanding of the debt of temporal punishment).

BTW, your reply is much better and quite civil compared to what I wouild have gotten in CARM!

Why wouldn’t it be? I don’t understand why Catholics on the Internet are so fascinated by CARM. I suppose it’s brave of you. . . . I could never survive there long myself (I don’t think I got banned but I got too annoyed to hang around–it was a long time ago and I’ve never seen any reason to go back).

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[William_Putnam]

Where I last said:

BTW, your reply is much better and quite civil compared to what I wouild have gotten in CARM!

It is a tough place to be, but not as bad as some forums I haved been on and banned from.

And when you see me post here, you know I am “taking a rest” from there, at least until after Lent and then I may get so used to the quietness, I may never go back!

I don’t see any Episcopalians in CARM, so perhaps they feel the same way you do (or have had the same experience.)

As for the Orthodox, my encounter with them is sketchy. I do know they do not like the way the Catholic Church has pigeon-holed so many dogmas and definitions, where they prefer to have them remain as a mystery.

I have tried to convince them that their beliefs, under close examination, parallels quite closely what the Catholic Church teaches. Some come to agree, somewhat, but others deny that completely.

But that is another thread!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Jesus said unto them, “And whom do you say that I am?”
They replied, “You are the eschatological ground of our being,
the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood.”
And Jesus replied, “What?”

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Edwin, have I not sprecken upon thee before? (I’t’s been years!)

Anyway, while scripture is quite sparce on this subject, as you have discussed, when we go extra-scriptural and see what the early fathers (and some inscriptions) reveal to us, their works would have you see that they believed in purgatory (even while that word is not actually used.)

But not necessarily the “Romish” version - the passage won’t take the weight of later developments, such as the “treasury of merits”, and indulgences. If legitimate, these have to be justified on other grounds, not on that alone. Wolves are not the only canines descended from wolves - dogs are too. IOW - the later stages of a belief as an historical thing may or may not be the only legitimates of a belief taken as a doctrinal thing.​

Besides, some of the Patristic evidence (such the often-quoted vision of the child Dinocrates in the “Acts of Perpetua and Felicity”) may be Montanist rather than belonging to the “Great Church”. Apologists tend to simplify historical detail too much. ##

cin.org/users/jgallegos/purg.htm

It was the evidence of the early fathers and other artifacts, including inscriptions on ancient Christian tombs whose epataphs asks for prayers for the deceased, that was one of the big convincers for me to seek conversion into the Catholic Church in the early 1950’s.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

That doesn’t mean it was legitimate to pray for the dead: only that it was widespread. Whether a thing is right, & whether it is well-evidenced, are different types of question - so arguments that support one, are irrelevant to the other. Just as questions about the height of the Statue of Liberty, can’t be answered by giving info - not even vast amounts of it - about the colour of the Statue of Liberty. So a million Patristic citations stating as a fact that people prayed for the dead, cannot tell us anything about the rightness (or otherwise) of the practice. The question is more complex than that. Which is inconvenient for quickie apologetics, but a fact even so. “A little learning is a dangerous thing” - yes indeed.​

Plenty of Christians resorted to the use of magic too - (that’s why there are so many magical papyri, especially from Egypt: they are evidence of Jewish & Christian practice); just as they resort to fortune-tellers or trust in astrologers today. As Protestants so often point out, even in the NT period St.Paul (for instance) had plenty complained of various things which had doctrinal implications: such as the cult of angels, & misuse of the doctrine of grace. Catholics can’t wave away these things by brandishing Matthew 16 at them - on this issue, it’s the Protestants who are looking at what the NT says, & Catholics who are failing to; & need to. ##

 

[William_Putnam]

This is my second attempt as posting this…

Gottle of Geer replied:

Originally Posted by William Putnam

Anyway, while scripture is quite sparce on this subject, as you have discussed, when we go extra-scriptural and see what the early fathers (and some inscriptions) reveal to us, their works would have you see that they believed in purgatory (even while that word is not actually used.)

But not necessarily the “Romish” version - the passage won’t take the weight of later developments, such as the “treasury of merits”, and indulgences. If legitimate, these have to be justified on other grounds, not on that alone. Wolves are not the only canines descended from wolves - dogs are too. IOW - the later stages of a belief as an historical thing may or may not be the only legitimates of a belief taken as a doctrinal thing.​

Huh? most of the fathers I see are of the “Roman/Latin Rite” but still Catholic nevertheless, and the inscriptions came from Roman tombs.

Besides, some of the Patristic evidence (such the often-quoted vision of the child Dinocrates in the “Acts of Perpetua and Felicity”) may be Montanist rather than belonging to the “Great Church”. Apologists tend to simplify historical detail too much. ##

“May be Montanist”?

We know about Tertullian and his Montanist tendencies, yet he is quoted in that he reflects the teachings of the Church, even when he was in opposition. Saying that, the Montanist teachings, as I recall, were mainly correct, as most heresies seem to be, but are corrupted by some error that defeated them in the long run.

cin.org/users/jgallegos/purg.htm

It was the evidence of the early fathers and other artifacts, including inscriptions on ancient Christian tombs whose epataphs asks for prayers for the deceased, that was one of the big convincers for me to seek conversion into the Catholic Church in the early 1950’s.

That doesn’t mean it was legitimate to pray for the dead: only that it was widespread. Whether a thing is right, & whether it is well-evidenced, are different types of question - so arguments that support one, are irrelevant to the other. Just as questions about the height of the Statue of Liberty, can’t be answered by giving info - not even vast amounts of it - about the colour of the Statue of Liberty. So a million Patristic citations stating as a fact that people prayed for the dead, cannot tell us anything about the rightness (or otherwise) of the practice. The question is more complex than that. Which is inconvenient for quickie apologetics, but a fact even so. “A little learning is a dangerous thing” - yes indeed.​

Then if we see evidence of this belief from the link I give above, developed within the only Church around that I can see for the first 1600 years (excepting the Orthodox, of course) I seem to get the feeling that this “Great Church” was wallowing in error all that time, yes?

If so, then the question of the infallibility of the Church is destroyed, and Christ went back on His promise and indeed, the “Gates of hell has prevailed against his Church”?

Plenty of Christians resorted to the use of magic too - (that’s why there are so many magical papyri, especially from Egypt: they are evidence of Jewish & Christian practice); just as they resort to fortune-tellers or trust in astrologers today. As Protestants so often point out, even in the NT period St.Paul (for instance) had plenty complained of various things which had doctrinal implications: such as the cult of angels, & misuse of the doctrine of grace. Catholics can’t wave away these things by brandishing Matthew 16 at them - on this issue, it’s the Protestants who are looking at what the NT says, & Catholics who are failing to; & need to. ##

Non sequitur to the issue, but something we may discuss in another thread, wanting to stay on the subject of purgatory per this thread. In any case, we have something in writing. What do you have to counter it?

Or are all we are able to produce, in your mind, is “magical papyri”?

God bless,"

PAX

Bill+†+

A piece of spaghetti or a military unit can only be led from the front end.
George S. Patton