(I found this here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/justin-martyr-circumcision-baptism-19299))
Justin Martyr's article: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Justin Martyr on circumcision and baptism
(I found this here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/justin-martyr-circumcision-baptism-19299))
Justin Martyr's article: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html
Thursday, February 16, 2012
The OT canon of scripture
http://www.salvationhistory.com/blog/thoughts_on_the_churchs_old_testament_canon/
Good article on the canon of Scripture --OT
also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon
for example: Following Jerome's Veritas Hebraica (truth of the Hebrew) doctrine, the Protestant Old Testament consists of the same books as the Hebrew Bible, but the order and numbering of the books are different. Protestants number the Old Testament books at 39, while Judaism numbers the same books as 24. This is because Judaism considers Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles to form one book each, groups the 12 minor prophets into one book, and also considers Ezra and Nehemiah asingle book. Also, the Bible for Judaism is specifically the Masoretic Text. Protestant translations of the Hebrew Bible often include other texts, such as the Septuagint. There is also a dispute as to whether the Canon of Trent is exactly the same as that of Carthage and Hippo.[3]
see also http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html This one gives a lot of quotes from the Early Church Fathers from the deutero
see also http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html very long article--here is part of the conclusion:
We examined statements of Protestant apologists who argued that the Fathers denied the inspiration of the Deuterocanonicals. Although as JND Kelly indicated, the majority of Fathers cited the Deuterocanonicals without much differentiation between those and the Protocanonicals, there were some Church Fathers who gave lists of canons that did exclude the Deuterocanonicals that at first glance seemed to deny them as Scripture. Now the most common argument used by Protestants is that when those Fathers gave those lists, the Fathers meant to give the whole list of that which is inspired, and that which was left off those lists were considered uninspired. The Protestant apologists claimed that those Fathers considered them edifying, but not Scripture. We saw, though that even the answer to the solution was hinted at by Protestant apologist William Webster, who did argue that when those Fathers gave lists of canons, the term canon did not necessarily mean ‘This is all of inspired Scripture.’ The term ‘canon’ had various possible meanings, as he admits. Thus, just giving the list of the canon did not necessarily mean that if the books were not in that list, the books were uninspired. We examined one possible explanation: That in many cases the list of the canon only meant those books that are read in the Liturgy. It did not mean that those books left off the list were uninspired.
the conclusion continues and then there is an appendix Appendix: Did Inspiration Cease for 400 years?:
An Examination of Norman Geisler's Attack
on the Deuterocanonicals
Good article on the canon of Scripture --OT
also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon
for example: Following Jerome's Veritas Hebraica (truth of the Hebrew) doctrine, the Protestant Old Testament consists of the same books as the Hebrew Bible, but the order and numbering of the books are different. Protestants number the Old Testament books at 39, while Judaism numbers the same books as 24. This is because Judaism considers Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles to form one book each, groups the 12 minor prophets into one book, and also considers Ezra and Nehemiah asingle book. Also, the Bible for Judaism is specifically the Masoretic Text. Protestant translations of the Hebrew Bible often include other texts, such as the Septuagint. There is also a dispute as to whether the Canon of Trent is exactly the same as that of Carthage and Hippo.[3]
see also http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html This one gives a lot of quotes from the Early Church Fathers from the deutero
see also http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html very long article--here is part of the conclusion:
We examined statements of Protestant apologists who argued that the Fathers denied the inspiration of the Deuterocanonicals. Although as JND Kelly indicated, the majority of Fathers cited the Deuterocanonicals without much differentiation between those and the Protocanonicals, there were some Church Fathers who gave lists of canons that did exclude the Deuterocanonicals that at first glance seemed to deny them as Scripture. Now the most common argument used by Protestants is that when those Fathers gave those lists, the Fathers meant to give the whole list of that which is inspired, and that which was left off those lists were considered uninspired. The Protestant apologists claimed that those Fathers considered them edifying, but not Scripture. We saw, though that even the answer to the solution was hinted at by Protestant apologist William Webster, who did argue that when those Fathers gave lists of canons, the term canon did not necessarily mean ‘This is all of inspired Scripture.’ The term ‘canon’ had various possible meanings, as he admits. Thus, just giving the list of the canon did not necessarily mean that if the books were not in that list, the books were uninspired. We examined one possible explanation: That in many cases the list of the canon only meant those books that are read in the Liturgy. It did not mean that those books left off the list were uninspired.
Although some individuals in the early church had a high regard for the Apocrypha, there were many who vehemently opposed it. For example Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, and the great Roman Catholic biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, Jerome, all opposed the Apocrypha. Norman Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, 1995, p. 162.Geisler even uses the phrase ‘vehemently opposing it’, in reference to these Fathers supposed treatment of the Deuterocanonicals. However, just in the index of the Schaff edition, which has just some of the writings of the Fathers, we saw that each of the Fathers quoted these books they supposedly rejected dozens of times and more often than not, more than 20 times in support of whatever they were teaching. We saw St. Athanasius, one of the ones who supposedly ‘vehemently opposed’ the Deuterocanonicals, call these very books ‘The fearless words of Holy Scripture’, and had the ‘Spirit commanding’ through the Deuterocanonical books. St. Jerome himself referred to or directly quoted the Deuterocanonicals approximately 55 times!!! They quoted them in proof of doctrine and did not make the distinctions that ‘while I am quoting them to you, these are not Scriptures’. These ‘vehemently opposing Fathers’ applied “Scripture says’ to the Deuterocanonical books. “The prophet says” applied to the Deuterocanonicals. “It is written” applied to the Deuterocanonicals. Those are tell-tale signs of unmistakingly referring to these books as Scripture that no one who is objective will ignore. I did not quote the numerous other times where each of these Father quoted and referred to the Deuterocanonicals in the same manner that they referred to the other Scriptural passages. And these are written by the ones who vehemently oppose the Deuterocanonicals???? Not quite. They saw them as Scripture and they saw them as inspired. You will never see the Fathers deny the Deuterocanicals’ inspirational status. I in fact even provided the quote at the beginning of each of the Fathers (except St. Basil, because that citation could not be found), which that are used by Protestant apologists to say they denied them as Scripture. I showed that when they actually wrote about the Deuterocanonical books, they only affirmed their equal status to the rest of the books.
the conclusion continues and then there is an appendix Appendix: Did Inspiration Cease for 400 years?:
An Examination of Norman Geisler's Attack
on the Deuterocanonicals
also here
from comment 110 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/09/scripture-and-tradition/
If I may add a few thoughts to your exchange. Firstly, I agree with David that the Jews did not, in fact, have anything like an agreed upon canon; and in that situation they certainly were not making the sort of claims respecting some delimited set of writings (inspiration and inerrancy of “the” 39 books for example) which Reformed theology makes for the 66 books in the WCF.
Moreover, even if first century Jews had made the claim: “this, and only this collection of 39 writings is inspired, inerrant and functions as the sole rule of faith binding upon on all Jews”; in order to avoid a legitimate charge of fideism, they too would have needed to provide a rational justification for that assertion. At a basic level, and from what I can tell, there are only three broad means by which a first century Jew might have attempted a rational justification for the conclusion that only “these 39 wittings are inspired, inerrant, and the sole rule of faith”.
1.) By affirming that some person or group of persons, other than God, had conveyed this doctrine concerning the nature of the 39 books to the first century Jew, or . . .
2.) If the first century Jew were to appeal to some motive(s) of credibility whose direct object was to accredit the 39 book codex per se as bearing a divine message, or . . .
3.) By asserting that God had privately and directly conveyed this doctrine concerning the nature of the 39 books to the first century Jew
2.) If the first century Jew were to appeal to some motive(s) of credibility whose direct object was to accredit the 39 book codex per se as bearing a divine message, or . . .
3.) By asserting that God had privately and directly conveyed this doctrine concerning the nature of the 39 books to the first century Jew
(1) The (non-divine) person or persons involved in settling upon the 39 books as the inspired, inerrant and sole rule of faith, were either known to be providentially protected from error while coming to that identification, or they were not known to be protected from error while coming to that identification. If they were thought to have been providentially protected from error, then the first century Jew would have to admit that the 39 books are not the “sole” inerrant and binding rule of faith, since embrace of the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of “the” 39 books would logically require a concomitant embrace of the inerrant and authoritative (extra-canonical) human decisions by which the 39 books were identified. That admission would require – at a minimum – a reformulation of the first century Jew’s rule of faith. If, however, the person or persons involved in settling upon the 39 books as inspired, inerrant and the sole rule of faith, were acknowledged as not having been providentially protected from error, then there seems to be no rational justification for the claim that “these, and only these, 39 books are inspired, inerrant and authoritative”. For not only might some inspired and inerrant writing(s) have been left out of the collection, the possibility of error entails that some non-inspired, non-inerrant book(s), might have been included as well. The strong claim to inspiration and inerrancy of the 39 books would have no adequate rational foundation. The claim would have to be downgraded to a probable claim at best.
(2) Suppose the first century Jew did not wish to acknowledge any inerrancy or authority in the persons or decisions tied up with the identification or veneration of the 39 books within the historical Jewish community because he wished – at all costs – to preserve his OT version of sola scriptura. Rather than appeal to any historical person(s) or process by which the 39 writings might have been identified, he appeals instead to some motive(s) of credibility unrelated to that process. Firstly, it should be noted that nowhere within the 39 books can one find a reference to the list of 39 books per se as being inspired and inerrant. And even if there were such a written statement within the codex, such statement would provide no rational justification for assent to the claim, since accepting the inerrant and inspired status of a codex based solely on a textual claim internal to that codex is to embrace a conclusion which does not follow from the premise. Otherwise, any group of writings containing a statement attesting its own inspiration or inerrancy would have to be regarded as inspired or inerrant on that basis alone – which is absurd.
But that means, in order to secure rational justification for the original claim, the first century Jew will have to point to some motive(s) of credibility over and above any mere statement(s) found within the text. Now a motive of credibility, by very definition, must be a motive which is open to public inspection, otherwise it serves as a motive only for the one making the assertion (which would entail fideism). Moreover, as I’m sure you both already know, a motive of credibility is primarily ordered to making credible the claim that some agent speaks on God’s behalf. It is not directly intended to make the content of the agent’s message credible (though it does so indirectly); but rather, its principle function is to provide reasons for thinking that the agent in question is authorized by God’s to speak on His behalf. Once one has reasons for thinking that some agent speaks for God, then it follows that the message is to be received as God’s message, even if the content of the message is not directly open to reason’s vision. Hence, if an apostle after Christi’s ascension performs a miracle before an on looking crowd, that miracle serves as a motive of credibility for thinking that the apostle’s message is a message from God. Accordingly, if the apostle asks the crowd to believe in Christ’s divinity or the Trinitarian nature of the Godhead (realities which human reason cannot discover on is own), the crowd has justifiable reason to believe those revealed truths, not because the crowd can see the intrinsic truth of those revelations in themselves, but because the crowd has a justifiable reason for taking the apostle’s word for it; namely, the miracle that was performed. The miracle accredits the messenger directly, and the message indirectly, by giving a third party reason to think that the messenger speaks for God.
Now here is the main point I want to add to the discussion. In the Church’s traditional apologetic method – say as systematically articulated within the neo-scholastic tradition by writers such as Lagrange and incorporated within the teaching of Vatican Council I – what makes a motive of credibility capable of sustaining an inference to divine sanction of an agent’s message, is that the motive itself be explicable only on the supposition of direct divine action. In other words, the motive in question must be what the neo-scholastics termed “modally” supernatural in order to warrant the inference that the motive was produced by God. For unless we have good reason to think that some given motive of credibility could only have been produced by the direct intervention of God, we have no inferential warrant for thinking that the motive in question provides any divine accreditation of the agent with whom the motive is associated. That is why both prophecy and miracles have always held a privileged place within the Church’s apologetic methodology. The fulfilling of prophecy is a modally supernatural motive of credibility because it involves foreknowledge of nondeterministic future events which depend upon multiple intersecting lines of free will agency. Successful prediction of such events is a feat which no known secondary cause, or aggregation of secondary causes, can accomplish. Hence, it must be the work of God’s primary causality – its “mode” of occurrence entails the super-natural. Likewise miracles, whether miraculous by their very nature (such as a bodily resurrection), or miraculous through the manner in which they are accomplished (instantaneous, rather than gradual, healing) are, in either case, happenings which no known secondary cause, or aggregation of secondary causes, can accomplish – miracles too are modally supernatural. The supernatural modality of the motives of credibility is what provides the inferential warrant for thinking that the agents with whom such motives are associated have been sealed with God’s approval to speak a message in His name.
Now when I look at the motives of credibility for the inspired, inerrant, and authoritative status of the 66 books which are put forward within the WCF (such as the “heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole . . ., the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies . . .”), it seems that none of them require an appeal to God’s primary causality to explain. Every one of them – as far as I can see – could be equally predicated of the Summa – which no one takes to be inspired or inerrant (even if Thomas came close to the latter :>)). Given as much, they provide no rational warrant for the strong claim which the Reformed theologian wishes to make. I am not even sure what a modally supernatural motive of credibility underwriting a collected codex of writings as a bearer of God’s message would look like. Perhaps if every sick, lame, or blind person that ever touched a Protestant bible was immediately healed of their infirmity? I don’t know, but I doubt anyone has ever offered an account of a modally supernatural motive of credibility whose object was the affirmation of a 66 book canonical codex as such. In any case, as the matter stands, and under close inspection, the WCF appeal to motives seems unable to escape the charge of fideism.
(3) God could have privately and directly revealed the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of the 39 book OT codex to a first century Jew. In such a case, that Jew would, himself, certainly know the truth concerning the 39 books. But as I have been arguing, if that personal experience alone was the sole ground for his assertions concerning the 39 books, that Jew’s argument could not possibly be recognized by a third party as anything other than a fideistic appeal. To avoid the charge of fideism, the first century Jew would have to either advert back to the historical process by which the 39 books were identified and communicated to him, or else offer some other motive(s) of credibility for his claim (options 1 & 2 already explored).
I deeply appreciate Jonathan’s attempt to think in Reformed terms and try and find a way to present the strongest possible Protestant argument by which an appeal to fideism might be avoided. I tried very hard to do that myself prior to conversion, and I have tried to work it out as a matter of logic several times thereafter. I surely do not want to criticize a straw man. But given the argument above, I don’t see how anything about the development of the OT Hebrews scriptures or the situation of a first century Jew provides an analogy which saves the Reformed position. From the standpoint of reason, and without any willingness to modify sola scriptura, I see no way in which the Reformed position avoids the charge of fideism. I realize that is a serious charge and I am happy to have my conclusion proved wrong. Obviously, even if the Reformed position were not ultimately fideistic, that would not resolve the question concerning the truth of the Protestant paradigm. Also, as David has been pointing out, the power of natural reason is a contested issue within Reformed theology. It may be that some are perfectly happy to bite the fideistic bullet. Nevertheless, as far as I can tell, from a third party perspective, the Reformed position is ultimately fideistic. (once the details have been unpacked and explanations exhausted through circumlocution).
{and then in the next comment he answers a question or statement:}I’m not sure how this is much different from Protestantism. I, for one, don’t deny that God works supernaturally through the church to lead us into all truth. The question is how we recognize when that has happened. For Rome, it has happened whenever Rome says it has happened. Even then, however, it isn’t clear WHEN this has happened, as our continual request for that infallible list of infallible statements keeps getting ignored or shunted aside.
I addressed the objection you raise in this article which I wrote for CTC in 2012, and especially within the comment thread following. It may be worth a read (if you have not read it already) if for no other reason than to get a good feel for the Catholic response to the infinite interpretive regress objection.
Catholic customs and their Biblical roots
Fr. Mitch talks with Dr. Scott Hahn about his newest book, Signs of Life: 40 Catholic Customs and Their Biblical Roots. Very helpful!
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Worship
Part of what the Eucharistic worship is about---the Lamb is interceding for us before the throne in heaven based on his great sacrifice. At Mass we join in since we are in union with Him--we intercede with him for ourselves and all mankind. The veil is taken away and we along with all of the saints (in heaven and earth) are present in prayer. It is one sacrifice--we take the words literally--This is my body ; this is my flesh. We proclaim his death until his return.
Forgiveness of sins requires application of his one great sacrifice. His blood cleanses us. All of our sin are removed at Baptism when we are joined to Christ;and sins committed after Baptism are forgiven when we confess our sins, repenting. Mortal sin in which one looses sanctifying grace needs to be taken care of through reconciliation---Thus God uses the sacraments He has ordained to apply the benefits of His sacrifice.
from comment 83
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/reformed-imputation-and-the-lords-prayer/ :
here is a bit from it:
Please note that in no way do we as Catholics believe that Christ continues to be crucified physically or die a physical death in heaven over and over again. However, we do believe that the Mass does participate in the everlasting sacrifice of Christ.
also see here http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/frequently-asked-questions/the-real-presence-of-jesus-christ-in-the-sacrament-of-the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm
and from here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/08/to-enter-the-sanctuary-by-the-blood-of-jesus-a-literal-account-of-becoming-catholic/ --
When the Eucharistic bread and wine are changed by the power of the Holy Spirit through the prayer of the priest so that they become the Body and Blood of Christ, we are mystically present with the Lord in Heaven, with the angels and saints gathered in adoration of the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Thus, there is even here and now sacred space, holy ground, where Heaven and Earth meet and the faithful gather.
see also CCC
1436 Eucharist and Penance. Daily conversion and penance find their source and nourishment in the Eucharist, for in it is made present the sacrifice of Christ which has reconciled us with God. Through the Eucharist those who live from the life of Christ are fed and strengthened. "It is a remedy to free us from our daily faults and to preserve us from mortal sins."35
and
Forgiveness of sins requires application of his one great sacrifice. His blood cleanses us. All of our sin are removed at Baptism when we are joined to Christ;and sins committed after Baptism are forgiven when we confess our sins, repenting. Mortal sin in which one looses sanctifying grace needs to be taken care of through reconciliation---Thus God uses the sacraments He has ordained to apply the benefits of His sacrifice.
from comment 83
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/reformed-imputation-and-the-lords-prayer/ :
I didn’t say that this chapter is only about the procurement of redemption, and not about its application. The focus in this chapter is on the procurement. Step back to the broader context. In chapters three and four [hebrews] the author explains that Jesus is our high priest in the New Covenant. Because He is our high priest in heaven, we may draw near with confidence to receive grace to help in the time of need. (Heb 4:16) The receiving of grace is the application of Christ’s priesthood to us. To all those who obey Him, He becomes the source of eternal salvation. (Heb 5:9) Then, at that point, the author says that he wants to explain more about Christ’s high priesthood, but the persons to whom he is writing are still immature. He shouldn’t need to lay again the foundation about the elementary teaching about Christ, namely, repentance, faith, washings (i.e. Baptism), the laying on of hands (i.e. Confirmation), and tasting the heavenly gift (i.e. Eucharist). Those are the ways in which Christ’s work are applied to the believer.
In continuing to explain Christ’s high priesthood, in Heb 7:23-25 we are told that because Christ holds His priesthood permanently [lit. into the age], He is forever [lit. to the perfection/completion/entirety] able to save those drawing near to God through Him, because He is always living to make intercession for them. Christ, in heaven, now has “obtained a more excellent ministry.” (Heb 8:6) That ministry in the New Covenant is His intercession for us, through His once-and-for-all perfect sacrifice. He entered into the more perfect tabernacle (Heb 9:11), through His own blood. (Heb 9:12) There is a clear relation between Heb 10:14,18 on the one hand, and Heb 6:6 and 7:22-25 on the other hand. In Hebrews 10:14, when the writer refers to the “one offering” he is referring primarily to the procurement of redemption. In the second half of the verse, the “being sanctified” refers to the on-going application of that redemption to the believer. Objectively, Christ takes away sins once and for all by His once-and-for-all sacrifice. But, that objective work has to be applied to the individual person, or it does not benefit them. The one-time nature of Christ’s sacrifice is reflected in the one-time nature of the application of it (to us), in baptism, as I explained in comment #67 of the Baptismal Regeneration thread. Christians are to remain in the grace that they receive in their baptism. This is what is meant by keeping unstained the white robes we receive at our baptism. Baptism in this way is the application Christ’s sacrifice, by which the baptized are “the perfected forever [lit. into the continuity, i.e perpetually].” Through our baptism into Christ’s one sacrifice, we are in this way once-and-for-all perfected with respect to being translated from the kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of light, having put off the old man and putting on the new man, having received the Spirit and walking thereon in the newness of the Spirit. And yet through the means of grace we continue to grow in the life of Christ and partaking of the grace He merited through His sacrifice; hence the continuous, progressive nature of “being sanctified.” (Heb 10:14)
see this link on forgiveness- for more details on this forgiveness http://nannykim-catholicconsiderations.blogspot.com/2013/05/forgiveness-of-sins.html
also http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/REALLYSC.HTM this deals with the subject of the mass as sacrificehere is a bit from it:
Please note that in no way do we as Catholics believe that Christ continues to be crucified physically or die a physical death in heaven over and over again. However, we do believe that the Mass does participate in the everlasting sacrifice of Christ.
First, one must not separate the sacrifice of our Lord on the cross from the events which surround it. The sacrifice of our Lord is inseparably linked to the Last Supper. Here Jesus took bread and wine. Looking to St. Matthew's text (26:26ff), He said over the bread, "Take this and eat it. This is My body"; and over the cup of wine, "This is My blood, the blood of the covenant, to be poured out on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins."
The next day, on Good Friday, our Lord's body hung on the altar of the cross and His precious blood was spilt to wash away our sins and seal the everlasting, perfect covenant. The divine life our Lord offered and shared for our salvation in the sacrifice of Good Friday is the same offered and shared at the Last Supper. The Last Supper, the sacrifice of Good Friday and the Resurrection on Easter form one saving event.
Second, one must have a nuanced understanding of time. One must distinguish chronological time from kairotic time, as found in sacred Scripture. In the Bible, <chronos> refers to chronological time—past, present and future—specific deeds which have an end point. <Kairos>, or kairotic time, refers to God's eternal time, time of the present moment which recapitulates the entire past as well as contains the entire future. Therefore, while our Lord's saving event occurred chronologically around the year AD 30-33, in the kairotic sense of time it is an ever-present reality which touches our lives here and now. In the same sense, this is why through baptism we share now in the mystery of Christ's passion, death and resurrection, a chronological event that happened almost 1,965 years ago, but is still efficacious for us today.
With this in mind, we also remember that our Lord commanded, as recorded in the Gospel of St. Luke (22:14ff) and St. Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians (11:23ff), "Do this in remembrance of Me." Clearly our Lord wanted the faithful to repeat, to participate in and to share in this sacramental mystery. The Last Supper, which is inseparably linked to Good Friday (and the Resurrection), is perpetuated in the holy Mass for time eternal.
The Mass therefore is a memorial. In each of the Eucharistic prayers, the <anamnesis>, or memorial, follows the consecration, whereby we call to mind the passion, death, resurrection and ascension of our Lord. However, this memorial is not simply a recollection of past history in chronological time, but rather a liturgical proclamation of living history, of an event that continues to live and touch our lives now in that sense of kairotic time.
...................................The sacrifice which Christ made for our salvation remains an ever-present reality: "As often as the sacrifice of the cross by which 'Christ our Pasch is sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out" ("Lumen Gentium," No. 3). Therefore, the <Catechism asserts>, "The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is a memorial and because it applies its fruit" (No. 1366).
Therefore, the actual sacrifice of Christ on the cross and the sacrifice of the Mass are inseparably united as one single sacrifice. The Council of Trent in response to Protestant objections decreed, "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different," and "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered Himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner." For this reason, just as Christ washed away our sins with his blood on the altar of the cross, the sacrifice of the Mass is also truly propitiatory. The Lord grants grace and the gift of repentance. He pardons wrong-doings and sins. (cf. Council of Trent, "Doctrine on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass")
Moreover, the Mass involves the sacrifice of the whole Church. Together we offer our prayers, praise, thanksgiving, work, sufferings to our Lord and thereby join ourselves to His offering. The whole Church is united with the offering of Christ. This is why in the Eucharistic Prayers we remember the pope, the vicar of Christ; the bishop, shepherd of the local diocese; the clergy who minister <in persona Christi> to the faithful; the faithful living now, the deceased and the saints.
The "Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy" of the Second Vatican Council summed it up well: "At the Last Supper, on the night He was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and Blood. This He did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice on the cross through the ages until He should come again, and so to entrust to His beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of His death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us" (No. 47).
I gave a comment to Wilson's statement about worship being an offering of ourselves to God. This is correct in so far as it goes. But it must go further--
When we come to church we are not coming to a “meeting” or to sing or to hear a sermon, and Wilson has it right when he says we are coming to present ourselves to God. But it is more than this—we have “come , in a mystery, to the frontier that lies between the seen and the unseen, or between heaven and earth–as we all do when we pray, for example.” With liturgical churches this is very evident when celebrating the Eucharist. “It would seem, then, that there is a source other than ourselves from which proceed the form and content of worship. The question for the believer from any religion is not, first of all, ‘How do I feel about this?’ but, rather, ‘What am I to do when I come to the Holy of Holies?’” “Christian worship did not simply proliferate randomly. There was a shape given to it in the beginning. Actually, it took this shape………..The particular act that was understood by the apostolic and patristic Church to constitute worship…..had been received from the hands of Jesus Christ himself. And it was a particular act. What he had done on the night before his betrayal in the Upper Room was received by the apostles as his ordering of the act of Christian worship. He took, blessed, broke, and gave bread to them, and he blessed the cup of wine; and by his word he inaugurated this strange quasi meal as the act that would ‘make present’ (his word—anamnesis) for them, until history ended, the entire mystery of his redeeming self-oblation to the Father, that is to say, the entirety of revelation. The whole of the Law and the Prophets and of the history of Israel, and of his own coming into the world, passing through it (it is pasch–passing), and returning to the Father is opened up in this rite. It can never be exhausted or wholly comprehended. It will never run dry, for as long as Christian people gather for worship.”
We offer ourselves in the celebration of the Eucharist…I think Wilson somehow has missed all of this.
(some quotes from thomas Howard--On Being Catholic
also here from encyclical--
“Union with Christ is also union with all those to whom he gives himself. I cannot possess Christ just for myself; I can belong to him only in union with all those who have become, or who will become, his own. Communion draws me out of myself towards him, and thus also towards unity with all Christians. We become “one body”, completely joined in a single existence. Love of God and love of neighbour are now truly united: God incarnate draws us all to himself. We can thus understand how agape also became a term for the Eucharist: there God’s own agape comes to us bodily, in order to continue his work in us and through us. Only by keeping in mind this Christological and sacramental basis can we correctly understand Jesus’ teaching on love. The transition which he makes from the Law and the Prophets to the twofold commandment of love of God and of neighbour, and his grounding the whole life of faith on this central precept, is not simply a matter of morality—something that could exist apart from and alongside faith in Christ and its sacramental re-actualization. Faith, worship and ethos are interwoven as a single reality which takes shape in our encounter with God’s agape. Here the usual contraposition between worship and ethics simply falls apart. “Worship” itself, Eucharistic communion, includes the reality both of being loved and of loving others in turn. A Eucharist which does not pass over into the concrete practice of love is intrinsically fragmented. Conversely, as we shall have to consider in greater detail below, the “commandment” of love is only possible because it is more than a requirement. Love can be “commanded” because it has first been given.”
| — | Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est
“The ancient world had dimly perceived that man’s real food—what truly nourishes him as man—is ultimately the Logos, eternal wisdom: this same Logos now truly becomes food for us—as love. The Eucharist draws us into Jesus’ act of self-oblation. More than just statically receiving the incarnate Logos, we enter into the very dynamic of his self-giving. The imagery of marriage between God and Israel is now realized in a way previously inconceivable: it had meant standing in God’s presence, but now it becomes union with God through sharing in Jesus’ self-gift, sharing in his body and blood. The sacramental “mysticism”, grounded in God’s condescension towards us, operates at a radically different level and lifts us to far greater heights than anything that any human mystical elevation could ever accomplish.”
|
Those “stumbling blocks” that you mentioned are all huge, important issues, and there are various ways to approach them. Of course I will not try to go into detail here, but I do think that there is a simple way to understand many of these things, namely, the cultus of Mary, the saints, images and icons, and the Eucharist, which is at once both paradigmatic and concrete; namely, the Church’s liturgy.
So far as I can tell, the biblical perspective on Christian liturgical worship is that it is a family gathering centered upon the Lamb of God. Perhaps it will help to start with an earthly analogy: When I gather with my biological family, we exchange greetings and hugs and kisses, and some (namely, the oldest among us) receive special deference and attention. We celebrate any special achievement by a family member and ask one another to offer up prayers on behalf of each other. None of this conflicts at all with prayers we collectively offer to God before the meal–in fact, such things are very much joined to our prayer to God.
In a similar way, when I go to liturgy later this morning, I will greet those physically present, showing special deference and honor to the clergy, and kiss the images of my heavenly family members who are not physically present except by way of their icons, showing special deference and honor to the Mother of Our Lord. We (the visible and invisible congregation) will then join with one another in commemorating the virtues of the saints (after the manner of Hebrews 11), Mary in particular (cf. Luke 1:41-43), and offering up praise, entreaty, and thanksgiving to God, culminating in the Eucharist.
The chain of Bible verses that paints this picture and points to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist–the Lamb of God who is to be worshiped and adored–is comprised of the passages cited below; for convenience I will give the quotes in full, please pardon the length. Of course I don’t intend this to be an argument, in the strict sense, for the Catholic view on these matters, but I hope that it will at least be of help towards seeing “the big picture” as many Catholics (as well as many Orthodox) see it:
For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 1:11)
Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. (Hebrews 10:19-22)
… you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel. (Hebrews 12:22-24)
And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth; and he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints; and they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on earth.” Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all therein, saying, “To him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might for ever and ever!” And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped. (Revelation 5:6-14)
Hope that helps a little. I will remember you in my prayers at church this morning.
and from here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/08/to-enter-the-sanctuary-by-the-blood-of-jesus-a-literal-account-of-becoming-catholic/ --
When the Eucharistic bread and wine are changed by the power of the Holy Spirit through the prayer of the priest so that they become the Body and Blood of Christ, we are mystically present with the Lord in Heaven, with the angels and saints gathered in adoration of the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Thus, there is even here and now sacred space, holy ground, where Heaven and Earth meet and the faithful gather.
see also CCC
1436 Eucharist and Penance. Daily conversion and penance find their source and nourishment in the Eucharist, for in it is made present the sacrifice of Christ which has reconciled us with God. Through the Eucharist those who live from the life of Christ are fed and strengthened. "It is a remedy to free us from our daily faults and to preserve us from mortal sins."35
and
1393 Holy Communion separates us from sin. The body of Christ we receive in Holy Communion is "given up for us," and the blood we drink "shed for the many for the forgiveness of sins." For this reason the Eucharist cannot unite us to Christ without at the same time cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins:
For as often as we eat this bread and drink the cup, we proclaim the death of the Lord. If we proclaim the Lord's death, we proclaim the forgiveness of sins. If, as often as his blood is poured out, it is poured for the forgiveness of sins, I should always receive it, so that it may always forgive my sins. Because I always sin, I should always have a remedy. 230
1394 As bodily nourishment restores lost strength, so the Eucharist strengthens our charity, which tends to be weakened in daily life; and this living charity wipes away venial sins. 231 By giving himself to us Christ revives our love and enables us to break our disordered attachments to creatures and root ourselves in him:
Since Christ died for us out of love, when we celebrate the memorial of his death at the moment of sacrifice we ask that love may be granted to us by the coming of the Holy Spirit. We humbly pray that in the strength of this love by which Christ willed to die for us, we, by receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, may be able to consider the world as crucified for us, and to be ourselves as crucified to the world.... Having received the gift of love, let us die to sin and live for God. 232
1395 By the same charity that it enkindles in us, the Eucharist preserves us from future mortal sins. The more we share the life of Christ and progress in his friendship, the more difficult it is to break away from him by mortal sin. The Eucharist is not ordered to the forgiveness of mortal sins - that is proper to the sacrament of Reconciliation. The Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church.
see also http://nannykim-catholicconsiderations.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-is-relationship-of-sacrament-of.html which explains the relationship between the 2 sacraments of Eucharist and Reconciliation
Justification--Catholics and Protestants
Here is an excerpt from David Armstrong's defense of Catholicism ---in blue is the attack and in black is the defense. This is just the part on justification--it shows how close Catholics and Protestants really are --it depends on how one is defining faith. He has other subjects in the link here: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2012/01/comprehensive-response-to-protestant.html
Similarly, since the Anathemas of the Council of Trent and Pope Pius IX's ‘Syllabus of Errors’ still officially stand (both of which gathered together in one spot teaching that was already part of the magisterium), both Protestants as well as Roman Catholics have been struggling to understand just how serious Rome’s claims to catholicity are in the post-Vatican II world.
This is also massively misunderstood. Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin showed in a superb 1996 paper, "Justification by Faith Alone," how the Tridentine anathemas do not apply to most Protestants:
The three theological virtues of Catholic theology are thus summed up in the (good) Protestant's idea of the virtue of faith. And the Protestant slogan "salvation by faith alone" becomes the Catholic slogan "salvation by faith, hope, and charity (alone)."
This was recognized a few years ago in The Church's Confession of Faith: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, put out by the German Conference of Bishops, which stated:
Catholic doctrine . . . says that only a faith alive in graciously bestowed love can justify. Having "mere" faith without love, merely considering something true, does not justify us. But if one understands faith in the full and comprehensive biblical sense, then faith includes conversion, hope, and love . . . According to Catholic doctrine, faith encompasses both trusting in God on the basis of his mercifulness proved in Jesus Christ and confessing the salvific work of God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. Yet this faith is never alone. It includes other acts.
The same thing was recognized in a document written a few years ago under the auspices of the (Catholic) German Conference of Bishops and the bishops of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany (the Lutheran church). The purpose of the document, titled The Condemnations of the Reformation Era: Do They Still Divide?, was to determine which of the sixteenth-century Catholic and Protestant condemnations are still applicable to the other party. Thus the joint committee which drafted the document went over the condemnations from Trent and assessed which of them no longer applied to Lutherans and the condemnations of the Augsburg Confession and the Smalcald Articles, etc., and assesses which of them are not applicable to Catholics.
When it came to the issue of justification by faith alone, the document concluded:"[T]oday the difference about our interpretation of faith is no longer a reason for mutual condemnation . . . even though in the Reformation period it was seen as a profound antithesis of ultimate and decisive force. By this we mean the confrontation between the formulas 'by faith alone,' on the one hand, and 'faith, hope, and love,' on the other."We may follow Cardinal Willebrand and say: 'In Luther's sense the word 'faith' by no means intends to exclude either works or love or even hope. We may quite justly say that Luther's concept of faith, if we take it in its fullest sense, surely means nothing other than what we in the Catholic Church term love' (1970, at the General Assembly of the World Lutheran Federation in Evian).If we take all this to heart, we may say the following: If we translate from one language to another, then Protestant talk about justification through faith corresponds to Catholic talk about justification through grace; and on the other hand, Protestant doctrine understands substantially under the one word 'faith' what Catholic doctrine (following 1 Cor. 13:13) sums up in the triad of 'faith, hope, and love.' But in this case the mutual rejections in this question can be viewed as no longer applicable today"According to [Lutheran] Protestant interpretation, the faith that clings unconditionally to God's promise in Word and Sacrament is sufficient for righteousness before God, so that the renewal of the human being, without which there can be no faith, does not in itself make any contribution to justification. Catholic doctrine knows itself to be at one with the Protestant concern in emphasizing that the renewal of the human being does not 'contribute' to justification, and is certainly not a contribution to which he could make any appeal before God. Nevertheless it feels compelled to stress the renewal of the human being through justifying grace, for the sake of acknowledging God's newly creating power; although this renewal in faith, hope, and love is certainly nothing but a response to God's unfathomable grace. Only if we observe this distinction can we say"In addition to concluding that canons 9 and 12 of the Decree on Justification did not apply to modern Protestants, the document also concluded that canons 1-13, 16, 24, and 32 do not apply to modern Protestants (or at least modern Lutherans)."During the drafting of this document, the Protestant participants asked what kind of authority it would have in the Catholic Church, and the response given by Cardinal Ratzinger (who was the Catholic corresponding head of the joint commission) was that it would have considerable authority. The German Conference of Bishops is well-known in the Catholic Church for being very cautious and orthodox and thus the document would carry a great deal of weight even outside of Germany, where the Protestant Reformation started.
Furthermore, the Catholic head of the joint commission was Ratzinger himself, who is also the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, which is the body charged by the pope with protecting the purity of Catholic doctrine. Next to the pope himself, the head of the CDF is the man most responsible for protecting orthodox Catholic teaching, and the head of the CDF happened to be the Catholic official with ultimate oversight over the drafting of the document.
Before the joint commission met, Cardinal Ratzinger and Lutheran Bishop Eduard Lohse (head of the Lutheran church in Germany) issued a letter expressing the purpose of the document, stating:"[O]ur common witness is counteracted by judgments passed by one church on the other during the sixteenth century, judgments which found their way into the Confession of the Lutheran and Reformed churches and into the doctrinal decisions of the Council of Trent. According to the general conviction, these so-called condemnations no longer apply to our partner today. But this must not remain a merely private persuasion. It must be established in binding form."I say this as a preface to noting that the commission concluded that canon 9 of Trent's Decree on Justification is not applicable to modern Protestants (or at least those who say saving faith is Galatians 5 faith). This is important because canon 9 is the one dealing with the "faith alone" formula (and the one R.C. Sproul is continually hopping up and down about). It states:"If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, so as to understand that nothing else is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema."The reason this is not applicable to modern Protestants is that Protestants (at least the good ones) do not hold the view being condemned in this canon.
Like all Catholic documents of the period, it uses the term "faith" in the sense of intellectual belief in whatever God says. Thus the position being condemned is the idea that we are justified by intellectual assent alone (as per James 2). We might rephrase the canon:"If anyone says that the sinner is justified by intellectual assent alone, so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema."And every non-antinomian Protestant would agree with this, since in addition to intellectual assent one must also repent, trust, etc.
So Trent does not condemn the (better) Protestant understanding of faith alone. In fact, the canon allows the formula to be used so long as it is not used so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required. The canon only condemns "sola fide" if it is used "so as to understand that nothing else [besides intellectual assent] is required" to attain justification. Thus Trent is only condemning one interpretation of the sola fide formula and not the formula itself.
I should mention at this point that I think Trent was absolutely right in what it did and that it phrased the canon in the perfect manner to be understood by the Catholic faithful of the time. The term "faith" had long been established as referring to intellectual assent, as per Romans 14:22-23, James 2:14-26, 1 Corinthians 13:13, etc., and thus everyday usage of the formula "faith alone" had to be squashed in the Catholic community because it would be understood to mean "intellectual assent alone".
Note that these ecumenical sentiments were wholeheartedly espoused by none other than the present pope: Benedict XVI (formerly Joseph Ratzinger). We can continue to be stuck in the mutual anathemas of the 16th century or we can move ahead, with this sort of charitable understanding of each other. One may not want to become a Catholic, but at least (hopefully) our position can be correctly understood, as it is clarified and explained in greater detail.
Monday, January 30, 2012
The church fathers' on Baptismal Regeneration and so forth
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/the-church-fathers-on-baptismal-regeneration/ Also In 1 Peter 3:21
from comment 13 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/12/justification-catholic-church-and-the-judaizers/ :
It is St. John who tells us at the beginning of his gospel (written later in his life, according to tradition) that Jesus said to Nicodemus, “unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.” (John 3:5) Jesus is the one who “added” baptism, just as He did in Mark 16:16, and just as Peter did on Pentecost: “repent, and let each of you be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38) It is baptism that now [in the New Covenant] saves us. (1 Pet 3:21)
and on baptism/justification from comment 49 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/12/justification-catholic-church-and-the-judaizers/
from comment 55 at the same link:
Concerning St. John 3, allow me to explain why the Catholic Church has always understood Jesus’ words to Nicodemus to refer to the sacrament of baptism.
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.
The verse could not be more clear. Baptism is a part of salvation. Does this take away from Christ’s perfect sacrifice for sins on the Cross? No, not at all– because baptism has its ultimate *efficacy* in the *context* of Christ’s perfect sacrifice.
The last statment is one made by Christopher Lake in a comment at Called to communionfrom comment 13 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/12/justification-catholic-church-and-the-judaizers/ :
You’ve made no attempt to explain the large number of Biblical examples of justification apart from baptism that I cited earlier.
First, there are many more things I have “made no attempt” to do. But that doesn’t nullify the truth of what I have said. If I start listing out the things you have “made no attempt” to do, the list could be endless. That’s why such a claim is sophistry; genuine rational dialogue avoids it. Second, your claim trades on an ambiguity in the word ‘apart’, in the phrase “apart from baptism”. If you mean it in the sense of not simultaneous, then undoubtedly we see that in Scripture. But if you mean ‘apart’ in the sense that the sanctifying grace by which persons were brought to living faith in the New Covenant did not come to them through the sacrament of baptism, even if it came to them prior to their being baptized, then there are no such Biblical examples. The Bible nowhere says that the sanctifying grace a person received under the New Covenant did not come to them through the sacrament of baptism..........
[and]
I am following St. Justin Martyr, St. Theophilus bishop of Antioch, St. Irenaeus bishop of Lyon, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Augustine bishop of Hippo and the many other Church Fathers, who consistently taught that the sanctifying grace by which we are justified comes to us through baptism. This is what is meant in the Creed by “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” This is the faith of the Church, handed down from the Apostles...........................
St. Luke tells us in the passage to which you already referred (Acts 19:4) that St. Paul explicitly distinguishes between John’s baptism for repentance, and Christian baptism under the New Covenant. This is why those believers there (at Ephesus) had not yet received the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is received through the sacraments of the New Covenant, specifically baptism and confirmation. Nothing about Matthew 3:11 requires reading Acts 2:38 as meaning that Christian baptism was equivalent in effect to the baptism of John the Baptist. In fact, in that very passage (Mt 3:11), John the Baptist explicitly distinguishes his own baptism from Christ’s. John the Baptist recognizes that when Christ baptizes (as He does through those whom He chose and authorized to represent Him), He does so with the Holy Spirit and [cleansing] fire; it is a baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Those who are baptized into Christ Jesus come up out of the font with no sin.also at the same location but at comment 11
It is St. John who tells us at the beginning of his gospel (written later in his life, according to tradition) that Jesus said to Nicodemus, “unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.” (John 3:5) Jesus is the one who “added” baptism, just as He did in Mark 16:16, and just as Peter did on Pentecost: “repent, and let each of you be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38) It is baptism that now [in the New Covenant] saves us. (1 Pet 3:21)
and on baptism/justification from comment 49 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/12/justification-catholic-church-and-the-judaizers/
First, regarding the alleged conflict between baptism and justification by faith advanced by Mr. Engwer, I would simply like to point out that Engwer’s problem is not just with the Catholic Church, but it is also with Martin Luther and the Reformation he initiated. I refer everyone specifically to Luther’s Large Catechism and his discussion of Holy Baptism. Baptism, Luther writes, is not our work but God’s work:
“But if they say, as they are accustomed: Still Baptism is itself a work, and you say works are of no avail for salvation; what then, becomes of faith? Answer: Yes, our works, indeed, avail nothing for salvation; Baptism, however, is not our work, but God’s (for, as was stated, you must put Christ-baptism far away from a bath-keeper’s baptism). God’s works, however, are saving and necessary for salvation, and do not exclude, but demand, faith; for without faith they could not be apprehended. For by suffering the water to be poured upon you, you have not yet received Baptism in such a manner that it benefits you anything; but it becomes beneficial to you if you have yourself baptized with the thought that this is according to God’s command and ordinance, and besides in God’s name, in order that you may receive in the water the promised salvation. Now, this the fist cannot do, nor the body; but the heart must believe it. Thus you see plainly that there is here no work done by us, but a treasure which He gives us, and which faith apprehends; just as the Lord Jesus Christ upon the cross is not a work, but a treasure comprehended in the Word, and offered to us and received by faith. Therefore they do us violence by exclaiming against us as though we preach against faith; while we alone insist upon it as being of such necessity that without it nothing can be received nor enjoyed.”
Luther rightly understood that to posit a conflict between justification by faith and the sacramental order of the Church would utterly destroy the gospel. Faith requires an embodied word to which to cling. For this reason Luther saw that the anti-sacramental views of the Swiss “reformers” and enthusiasts were even more dangerous than the Catholic views he was more than willing to attack.
Second, at this point in my life I confess that the relationship between justification, Church, baptism, and union with Christ is so obvious to me that I do not know quite how to respond to exegetical arguments like the ones offered by Mr. Engwer. Why does baptism justify? Because through baptism we are incorporated into the Church. Why does incorporation into the Church justify? Because the Church is the Body of Christ. Why does incorporation into the Body of Christ justify? Because to be united to the Body of Christ is to be united to the Second Person of the Holy Trinity and to share in the divine life–and one can’t get any more justified than that! Until one grasps the profound unity of these divine realities, one will never exegete Scripture properly.
Finally, I believe that Catholic apologists make a mistake when they attempt to explicate and defend the Catholic understanding of justification exclusively within Thomistic and Tridentine categories. Not only does this strategy ignore significant Catholic reflection of the past 150 years on justification–reflection that helped to produce the Lutheran/Catholic Agreement on Justification–but it keeps us trapped within the polemical debates of the 16th century. Sometimes it is necessary to step outside those debates in order to acquire a fresh and perhaps deeper perspective.
from comment 55 at the same link:
Concerning St. John 3, allow me to explain why the Catholic Church has always understood Jesus’ words to Nicodemus to refer to the sacrament of baptism.
Firstly, here is the passage in its entirety:
Gospel of St John Chapter Three1Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews;
2this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”3Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”4Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?”5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.6″That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.7″Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’8″The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”9Nicodemus said to Him, “How can these things be?”10Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?11″Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony.12″If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?13″No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.14″As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;15so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.16″For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.17″For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.18″He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.19″This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.20″For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.21″But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”
I’ll start by pointing out that the context of the first four chapters of St. John demonstrate that ‘water and Spirit’ refer to baptism. We know from Jesus’ baptism that the Spirt ascended over Jesus in the water as he was being baptized by John.
St. John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!30″This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’31″I did not recognize Him, but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water.”32John testified saying, “I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him.33″I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’
Here we see that ‘water’ and ‘Spirit’ explicitly refer to baptism. (Also see St. Matthew 3:16-17 which explicitly joins the water of baptism with the Holy Spirt. And also Mark 1:10)
I am not aware of any Reformed exegesis that would deny that John 1, Mark 1:10 and Matthew 3:16-17 are speaking about baptism. John 3 uses the exact same language.
Furthermore, right after discussing being born again in ‘water and Spirit’ with Nicodemus we see that Jesus and the disciples immediately set out baptizing. (John 3:22, John 4:1)
So, John 3 is book-ended by explicit references to baptism.
This is followed by St. Peter the Apostle’s command to be baptized in order to receive the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) and also (Acts 10:47):
Then Peter said, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”
Peter also recognizes water to be associated with the Spirit in the sacrament of baptism.
It must be admitted that scripture, in every other instance where ‘water’ and ‘Spirit’ are discussed, is referring to the sacrament of baptism.
It must also be mentioned that John 3:5 is unique among the church fathers in that the Catholic interpretation of the passage is utterly unanimous in the church fathers. The first extant record of exegesis of this passage is from Justin Martyr AD 150:
Whoever is convinced and believes that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, is instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing with water. For Christ said, “Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” …The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles. (The First Apology 61)
This orthodox interpretation of John 3:5 continued throughout the ages:
Irenaeus AD 190“And Naaman dipped himself…seven times in the Jordan” [2 Kings 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but this served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: “Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”Tertullian AD 200..no one can attain salvation without Baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says: “Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life.” (On Baptism 12:1)Cyril of Jerusalem AD 350And He says, “Unless a man be born again” — and He adds the words “of water and of the Spirit” — “he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” He that is baptized with water, but is not found worthy of the Spirit, does not receive the grace in perfection. Nor, if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it. (Catechetical Lectures 3:4)Augustine AD 412Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without Baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture too.If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this….The Sacrament of Baptism is most assuredly the Sacrament of regeneration. Emphasis Added. (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 c. A.D. 412)
This is why the Creed says, “We believe in one baptism for the remission of sins.”
That the church fathers were unanimous on baptismal regeneration and in particular the Catholic interpretation of John 3:5 is not even a matter of debate. JND Kelly, Schaff, Pelikan and others admit this. Zwingli even famously admitted that it was his belief that ‘all’ of the doctors of the church erred on baptism.
There is a lot more to scripture and baptism that the Church draws upon in Her teaching on baptism.
I realize I did not directly interact with your view on John 3:5 here. The reason is that your argument is merely an assertion.
Your argument summarized: Baptism is a work and works of any kind are excluded from justification therefore John 3:5 must not be talking about baptism.
I respond by saying that John 3:5 is clearly referring to baptism and therefore some of the underlying presuppositions behind your understanding of justification are not true."
end of comment 55
and on the same link comment 82:
Baptism, therefore, is not just a symbolic pouring of water that points us away from itself to something else: it is God speaking to us now and God accomplishing what he speaks. And this is the solution to the problem of faith with which you are struggling. Precisely because baptism is divine Word, spoken to us directly and personally in the form of first-person discourse, it summons us to faith, bestows faith, and sustains faith. The fact that it is a word spoken to us in the form of symbolic action involving material elements does not alter its character as divine Word. Baptism is the gospel simultaneously proclaimed and enacted.
from comment 108 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/12/justification-catholic-church-and-the-judaizers/
The righteousness that is infused into us at baptism was merited for us [by way of satisfaction] through Christ’s sacrifice, and yet is also, by infusion, truly ours. And the increases in righteousness through acts of love flowing from that infused agape are Christ’s because they are the dynamic expression of that infused agape, and are ours, because they are our cooperation in that agape. This is one implication of the ontology of participation.
and from comment 13
There’s a reason we can’t baptize ourselves, even though we do a number of things during the rite of baptism. Someone else has to baptize us, precisely because we can’t incorporate ourselves into Christ and His Body, and forgive our own sins. The baptizing person acts in persona Christi, because it is Christ who baptizes. Stepping into the font is a necessary condition for baptism, but it is not baptism. If you step into the font, and nobody baptizes you, you’re not baptized. Baptism in its essence consists of form and matter: the matter is water, and the form is the application of water to the catechumen while saying the Trinitarian baptismal formula with the intention of doing what the Church does in baptism. That’s why stepping into the font is not just one more “element” of the “ceremony.” It is a necessary precondition (usually), but nothing more. Even an atheist can administer a valid baptism, so long as he/she intends to do what the Church does in baptism. That’s because Christ is the one doing the baptizing. Of course, more than faith is involved in the acts surrounding and leading up to receiving the sacrament of baptism. We have to request baptism, and prepare for it, then make a public profession of faith, including renouncing Satan, and making public baptismal vows. But none of those acts is meritorious, if we are not yet justified.
baptism
“41. The transmission of faith occurs first and foremost in baptism. Some might think that baptism is merely a way of symbolizing the confession of faith, a pedagogical tool for those who require images and signs, while in itself ultimately unnecessary. An observation of Saint Paul about baptism reminds us that this is not the case. Paul states that “we were buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:4). In baptism we become a new creation and God’s adopted children. The Apostle goes on to say that Christians have been entrusted to a “standard of teaching" (týpos didachés), which they now obey from the heart (cf. Rom 6:17). "
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20130629_enciclica-lumen-fidei_en.html
First Apology of Justin. Describing the baptismal liturgy at the Church of Rome, St. Justin Martyr (ca. 150 A.D.) remarks:
“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. They are then brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated” (LXI).
from comment 202 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/12/rome-geneva-and-the-incarnations-native-soil/
Rev. Brian W. Harrison wrote the following regarding our discussion on justification by faith and the relationship to baptism.
Finally, St. Paul’s teaching regarding justification by faith rather than by works must not be taken in isolation from other Biblical passages which clearly speak of the sacramental aspect of justification. St. Paul certainly does not regard Baptism as one of the human “works of the law” which cannot justify us; rather it is a “work” of God Himself, which completes the process of justification for one who has never previously been baptized. St. Paul teaches that in Baptism we participate in Christ’s death, that this, we receive through this sacrament the grace that Jesus won on the Cross by his death on the Cross; and this enables us to live the new life of his resurrection (Rom 6:3-4). Paul, on one occasion, recalled his own conversion and the role Baptism played in it: Ananias, he recalls, exhorted him shortly after he came to believe in Jesus, saying, “And now why delay? It is time you were baptized and had your sins washed away while invoking his name” (Acts 22:16). St. Peter speaks of “the baptism which saves you now, and which is not the washing off of physical dirt but a pledge made to God from a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pt 3:22. See also Jn 3:5; Mk 16:16).
You should note, specifically, in Romans 6, how Paul refers to the grace of baptism as the instrument by which we receive a participation in the death of Christ and in the new life of His resurrection.
from comment 13 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/baptism-now-saves-you-some-more-prolegomena/#comment-79555
from comment 13 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/baptism-now-saves-you-some-more-prolegomena/#comment-79555
Here are some answers to your questions about the Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration:
1) Do you permit extra-sacramental grace? That is, can one receive Christ and all his saving benefits upon hearing the gospel apart from baptism?
These are two different questions. The answer to the first question is yes, if by “permit” you mean “recognize”. The answer to the second question depends upon circumstances. Normally, adult catechumens believe in Christ before or while they are preparing to enter the visible communion of the Church via Baptism. These catechumens are not considered to be “unsaved”; however, Baptism confers saving benefits. In the extraordinary circumstance that such a believer in Jesus, i.e., one who is preparing for Baptism or one who would have been preparing for Baptism had he or she known of its necessity (e.g., the thief on the Cross who believed in Christ), he is considered to be saved by the grace of God through the “baptism of desire” (cf. the article on “Baptism” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, under the sub-heading, “Substitutes for the sacrament”). Some theologians have stated that one saving benefit that is not received by the “baptism of desire” is the sacramental character that is conferred by the sacrament, which, along with the sacrament of Chrismation (Confirmation), renders the baptized person capable of fully participating in divine worship as member of the Body of Christ.
2) Are the regenerating affects of baptism necessarily annexed to the time of administration? The tradition with which I’m most familiar, Reformed Presbyterianism, permits extra-sacramental grace and does not inseparably tie the benefits of baptism to that moment. That is, baptism might “kick-in” later.
The Catholic Church teaches that the sacraments have their effect ex opere operato, that is, from the “work being performed” (i.e., the sacrament being administered). The word “annex” is far too weak, as expressing a secondary and / or extrinsic relationship, to adequately express the relation between the sacraments and their proper effects. However, St Thomas Aquinas, among others, teaches that “insincerity” hinders the effect of Baptism, and that that effect is produced when the insincerity ceases (Summa theologiae, III, 69, 9-10 [link]). So there is a sense in which some of the effects of Baptism “kick-in” after the administration of Baptism, though these effects are still given in Baptism, as being intrinsic to it.
3) Is the final justification at all related to the “initial” justification conferred in baptism? Or, are the two so dichotomized that there is really no relationship?
Yes, all of the sacraments are ordered to our final justification, beginning with Baptism, which lays the foundation for our new life in Christ by making us new creations in Him.
see also
see also
baptism and confirmation
The link below explains the sacraments of Baptism and confirmation
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0285.htmlhttp://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0285.html
and by Peter Kreeft on Baptism and Confirmation and the catechism: http://www.beginningcatholic.com/confirmation.html This is very helpful
from http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/05/the-witness-of-the-lost-christianities/#comment-116050
You assert,
The first three big mistakes of the early church that were later developed into full blown false doctrines:
1. The language of sacrifice for the Eucharist/Lord’s supper.
2. Baptismal regeneration.
3. Exalting one of the presbyter-overseers out from the college of presbyters and making him a mono-episcopate.
…but such assertions ought not come out of nowhere. They ought to be demonstrated to be consistent with early evidence.
Now when it comes to the Early Church encountering new ideas which alter or reverse the teachings they’d learned from the apostles, we observe regular pattern of behavior: A huge uproar of denunciations typically resulted, complete with name-calling. What we might now call “letter writing campaigns” would emerge, in which outraged partisans of one view would argue their cases to anyone they could contact by letter. (I believe it was the heretic Marcion who was called “firstborn of Satan” by Polycarp, wasn’t it?) I suppose St. Paul’s remark about the Judaizers (that he wished they’d “go the whole way and cut the whole thing off”) kind of set the tone.
My point is: When, in the Early Church, a controversy arose, it was not the habit of the early Christians to shrug it off and stay mum about it. They did not, as a rule, react to alterations of the apostles’ doctrines with a genteel smile and a vague hope that the truth would win out. Quite the contrary: Verbal and Written (and sometimes Physical) combat was waged. And this naturally produced documentary evidence of the conflicts. We have copies of some such documents; of others, we have only reports and references from later authors who were aware of them.
So…,
If you believe that Jesus taught the Apostles, and the Apostles taught their successors, that the Eucharist was NOT a Sacrifice, and that later on, some other Christians changed this and began saying that the Eucharist WAS a Sacrifice, it follows from historical precedent that we should expect such a reversal, on such a central matter, to have produced a truly explosive controversy.
So where is it? Where is the documentary evidence that one would expect, showing the proponents of these two ideas clashing, with (in your view) the wrong side eventually winning out?
I don’t think there is any. There should be, but there isn’t.
Likewise, you hold that Jesus taught the Apostles, and the Apostles their successors, that baptism was merely symbolical, not sacramentally regenerative. Now the Biblical evidence can go both ways — personally I think it’s far stronger on the regenerative side — but let’s assume you’re correct for the sake of argument. But then suddenly Christians were teaching baptismal regeneration. In both the East and the West. So, if your view is right, then — for some reason — a change was introduced, quite early, in different geographical locations.
Where is the outraged reaction? Where is the evidence that the orthodox Christians (who, in your view, did NOT believe in baptismal regeneration) encountered this new teaching and began their usual practice of denouncing the heretics and defending what they’d learned from the Apostles?
And, again, where is the outraged reaction about some presbyters asserting a higher degree of authority or ordination than others? If, as you believe, this is a change from what the Apostles themselves taught, then it is a change which happened very early: John the Apostle could not have been in his grave for more than 15 years when Ignatius of Antioch wrote as if it were the accepted and uncontroversial norm. And of course Clement of Rome was sending legates to Corinth to see that his instructions (!) to the church in Corinth (!!) were being followed, even while John the Apostle yet lived.
If the assumptions behind such assertions of episcopal authority or bishop-of-Rome authority were new, we can assume they would be hotly challenged. The (in your view) orthodox Christians would have railed against such new innovations in doctrine.
So, surely, Ignatius of Antioch, in spite of his martyrdom, became a suspicious or derided figure among the early Christians on account of his heretical innovations…right? Surely the Church at Corinth rejected the words of Clement, tossed his letter unceremoniously in the wastepaper basket, and called him out for being a pushy busybody from the distant city of Rome who was interfering unasked in the internal affairs of their church, which was none of his business.
Surely that’s how it went down…isn’t it?
If it isn’t, then we have another case of “the curious incident of the dog in the night-time,” as in the old Conan Doyle story:
Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”
If these three items you list — which everyone agrees are taught very early, within the lifetime of the Apostles or of their immediate successors, or their successors’ successors — are indeed reversals of the real Christian doctrine delivered by Jesus to the Apostles, and by the Apostles to those first successors, we would expect a record of the controversy. But the “dog did nothing.”
Instead, it seems the whole Christian world was nodding at these “innovations” as if they were old news. The persons saying them seem not to be arguing them but mentioning them as things the readers (if they are Christians) already know, or ought to.
What’s your solution to this, Ken?
Do you believe that the very persons whom we trust to transmit the books of the New Testament canon to us, cannot be trusted to transmit basic doctrines also?
To me, it seems more likely that the correct interpretation of Scriptures which can be read two ways is the interpretation which is taken by those readers who are closest to the original authors in time and culture and geography…especially when (a.) these readers report that this interpretation is an unbroken tradition coming to them from the preaching of the original authors of the text; and (b.) I am forced, anyway, to rely upon these same readers to even obtain the text itself.
And when I find that there are passages which can be viewed one of two ways, but no early witness seems to support one of those views, or to bother contradicting the other view when it is widely taught? In such cases, it seems to me more probable that the other view was, among those early witnesses, the only known view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)