This is an email from my friend Millie sent to the Witherspoon Fellows back in 2006 during one of our famous "discussions.." She's brilliant by the way.
Dear Fellows:
Anyone in my class will tell you that I just can't resist this sort of debate, and hence, I offer my humble seven cents:
1) Just so no one delves deep into the annals of history to attempt to answer Matthias Caro's question, I'll go ahead and state it: At no point in history has the Catholic Church changed her official teachings. It simply hasn't happened. She has learned more, and been guided further and further into truth (the Kingdom of Heaven is like the mustard seed that grows into a tree that gives shelter – see Matthew 13), but she has not changed her teachings.
For, perhaps, my favorite example, bear with me as I sum up the story of one of my favorite popes, Vigilius.
Vigilius was a papal representative at Constantinople and, being very ambitious, was courted by the Empress Theodora to implement the Monophysite heresy. She promised to make Vigilius pope and give him much riches, and Vigilius, adhering to the heresy himself, agreed to do as she asked, in addition to reinstating a Monophysite bishop who had been removed from office due to his heresy. As antipope (claiming to rule while he imprisoned the actual pope), Vigilius wrote many letters in support of the Monophysite heresy. Eventually, the pope died, and much to the chagrin of the electoral college, he was duly elected pope himself. Once legitimately in office, Vigilius recanted his promise and wrote vehemently against the Monophysite heresy. He had been changed completely, and found himself unable to do what he had promised he would do: lead the Church into heresy.
The story accurately demonstrates what the Church really believes about infallibility: the overwhelming grace of our God prohibits the rightful leader of his Church from teaching error (note that Vigilius was not protected from promoting error until he was the legitimate pope). But it is that grace which is the focus. Infallibility is not about the man; it's about the office. It's about grace, not arrogance or the goodness of the man.
To me, this seems like a point the average Calvinist would appreciate, if not incorporate into his thinking: the grace of God is so powerful in certain circumstances that it prevents the believer from acting contrary to it. That is how much God loves us; that is how overwhelming his goodness is to his children: he keeps us, protects us, and plants us in a safe place. We can trust our Father, and we can trust his gifts, the greatest of which was his Son, who gave us the cross, the resurrection, and the Church.
No matter how many illegitimate children the pope has, no matter how many unjust wars he may or may not have sanctioned (and I strongly recommend reading good history on this subject -- the Spanish Inquisition, for example, was far less bloody and far more political than your average high-schooler is taught), no matter what heresy a certain pope promised to install, or seemed likely to sanction (i.e. Pope Paul VI's remarkable orthodoxy on the issue of birth control, against all exterior pressure), Jesus Christ himself promised that the Church would not fail.
See Matthew 16 and John 16. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church; the Spirit of God will guide her into all truth.
All of Jesus' words were intentional. There are only three ways to regard what Jesus said of his beloved, the Church:
a) The Church has not always been correct in her teaching. She has taught heresy and error. Therefore, Jesus was lying when he said the gates of Hell would not prevail against her. They did.
b) The Early Church -- the supposed, ahistorical church mentioned in an earlier e-mail, the one "of Jesus and John the Baptist, before those Peter nuts sprang up in Rome " -- knew the truth. Once those Romish sorts got their hands on her, they led her into all sorts of error, from cannibalism to that Marian weirdness to all those darn statues and gold bricks and wars. It took good old Martin Luther and his sort to straighten her out, and thank goodness for their courage! If this is true, then again, Jesus' promise failed. The gates of Hell prevailed against the Church, at least for about 1100 years. (And I'd challenge anyone to maintain that the ridiculous abundance of Protestant denominations is an accurate portrait of hell not prevailing, and being led into all truth.)
c) The pope has the grace to make infallible statements. Jesus Christ led her into truth; he preserved her against all hell. His promises hold weight; he keeps them. We can trust the Church he instituted, as the Sacred Scriptures teach us he did: with authority, with the power to bind and loose, to cast out demons, to cast a shadow and heal the sick, to bring Sapphira to death, the power to forgive sins -- it's all in there. Jesus meant what he said, and he kept his promises.
2) Passages like the aforementioned are almost always ignored as the Protestant seeks to build his case against the Catholic Church. "Where's infallibility in the Bible?" he asks. I respond, "Where's the Bible in the Bible? And what are the Bible's claims about the Church?"
I'll make it simple: I Timothy 3.15 -- The Church is "the pillar and bulwark of truth."
What? Despite all the claims made by our Reformed brothers, the Bible doesn't tell us to look for it as the final source of truth? (Anyways, rhetorically, appealing to one's own authority doesn't exactly begin to build a watertight case. Note: the Church appeals to the authority of Jesus Christ, who in turn gave her authority. The Church does not say, "Listen to us; we're in charge." It says, "Listen to us; Jesus Christ gave us authority to loose and bind, and he guides us.") My own Bible tells me to look to the Church?
But whose Church? The Unity Church ? Martin Luther's? John Calvin's? Full Gospel Eden Road Free Will Missionary Baptist Alliance ? Those house churches cropping up all over the place, with the tongues and the prophecy and stuff?
And furthermore, whose Bible? Someone had to proclaim -- or, if you prefer, "discover" -- what the canon of Holy Scripture was. Do you want the one everyone used until the 1500s, the one still used by 1.5 billion Catholics and Orthodox? Or would you prefer Martin Luther's, which cut out the books of Revelation and James? The modern day evangelicals', which appears not to have those pesky passages in John, where Jesus tells his followers that unless they gnaw on his flesh and slurp his blood (literal translation there), they do not have life within them? And without those irritating stories in Acts, where even a cursory reading clearly demonstrates that Peter is given the most human authority in the early Church?
Mr. Freels, avoiding Rick Barry's legitimate question about how we know what is Scripture by throwing Plato's works into the heap does not begin to answer his challenge. Nor does suggesting that the early Christians individually worked out for themselves a reliable canon. Much confusion surrounded Scripture, and doctrine, and practice. We look to the Church Fathers for guidance on the interpretation of Scripture because they were there. The early Christians continued "In the Apostle's teaching, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers."
No fallible individual is able to determine for himself what accurately belongs in Scripture. Many attempt this; hence, too many Christians avoid the Eucharist, the anointing of the sick, and what the Bible clearly teaches about the authority of the apostles. Yes, you have the luxury of a reliable tradition in what you accept to be Sacred Scripture, but to begin to suggest that either a) the early Christians had the same luxury or b) they were somehow able to work it out amongst themselves is at best, ahistorical; at worst, it is ludicrous.
Whether the Canon was proclaimed or discovered (and I maintain that for the purposes of this discussion, they are one and the same), someone had to tell us what rightly belonged in Holy Scripture. That someone had to have authority, and had to be protected (if God does indeed protect his children) from including, say, the rather Buddhist-seeming Gospel of Thomas. Being and nothingness, indeed.
3) I digress. If you're still with me, thank you. There's really nothing I'm more passionate about than this subject.
We can see from point one that Jesus maintained that the Church would not be given over to the devil, and we can see from point two that the Bible confirms this, though the words of the Great Apostle (that is, Saint Paul).
(My favorite discussion regarding I Timothy 3.15 was with a Witherspoon alumnus, who told me that because the Bible only makes this claim once -- debatable; I think it makes this claim implicitly about fifty times -- it doesn't really count. Given the fact that Holy Scripture has a lot more to say about shellfish than sodomy, I'd question the integrity of this line of reasoning. And no, I won't tell you who it was.)
4) Given the assertions of Jesus Christ and the Bible, it seems that God intended for his children to have a safe place to reside, where they would not be led into lies and error. If Jesus really meant what he said, wouldn't he offer the Church the grace to fulfill his promise? (That seems to be Saint Paul ’s understanding of things, too.)
Americans are terrified of authority. We love to think that we act autonomously and that we can take care of our own salvation. However, without a God-given authority to discuss the issues of today, we are lost. Hence, the overwhelming acceptance of birth control ("The Bible doesn't say it's wrong, so let's get you on the Pill, honey!"), the willful ignorance of what Jesus says regarding remarriage (hint: it has to do with adultery), and the casual disregard of the Eucharist (which, I hasten to add, was the Last Act of our Lord before his crucifixion), it is hard to believe that we can shake ourselves free of our culture in order to find truth. We desperately need guidance and ought to be grateful that our God offers it, not just through Scripture, but through his Church. When you really read the Scriptures, you begin to discover that Jesus came to save his people, and he intended to do so through a Church.
Rejecting authority is not just a silly American ignorance; it is diabolical. We find it easy to say that Jesus is our authority, because he seems far away, and apparently has little to say about whether or not I use a diaphragm. But tell me some group of men is going to guide me, and my knickers are in a twist!
(Which is silly, because if I don't rely on authority, I am my own authority, and many painful, pre-Catholic years have taught me how well that worked.) I repeat myself: for me, for any reader, for any Christian to reject God-inspired human authority is a grave error, and history has demonstrated that it leads to much heartache and sin.
5) We have two choices: to disbelieve the promises of our Lord, or to believe them. We can approach humbly, and in awe, at the overwhelming grace of God, who has sustained his people and continued to maintain them in truth, despite centuries of intellectual dissention, transubstantiation versus consubstantion, and anti-popes.
Catholics disagreeing with one another about clerical dress and giving the Eucharist to Bill Clinton or John Kerry are still unified. Their arguments may not be. There may be tares among the wheat, or bad fish among the good catch, as our Lord calls them. They may be bad Catholics, or heretical ones, but ultimately, they still have to reckon with the fact that they are out of line with the Church. "There's no such thing as a pro-choice Catholic." As Matthias Caro so concisely pointed out, a fundamental unity -- in reality, not in some esoteric "We all believe in Jesus, so who cares?" realm -- remains, no matter what.
In this way, the authority of the Church acts as a safety net, reminding believers of what is true, and what matters, and what Jesus said, and what it means to be his follower.
6) As a former anti-Catholic who was grabbed, hard, by the simple truth of the matter at hand (as well as the truth about birth control, baptism, the Communion of Saints, and the Eucharist), I found in an honest reading of Holy Scripture -- and re-reading, and crying arguments, and anger, and a thousand other hissy fits -- that my Protestant education had been a sort of thin gruel, neatly ignoring the Creeds (one, holy, catholic, and apostolic? who does that sound like? --and, no, redefining "one" "holy" "catholic" and "apostolic" does not make for a legitimate confession of the creed-- one baptism for the remission of sins? the remission?), a great deal of the Bible, and history.
I would humbly urge my Protestant siblings and friends to examine history. Discover what Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of Saint John ) has to say about the Eucharist. Find out how confused the early Christians were about Scripture, and how it would have been impossible for them to build their doctrine on it (given the proliferation of false Gospels and an abundance of heresy, not to mention the fact that the Epistles recommend against it – re-read 1 Timothy 3.15). Read about how every see besides Rome -- Jerusalem , Antioch , Alexandria , and Constantinople -- taught heresy for long periods of time. Consider the fruits of the Reformation: there are over 30,000 Protestant denominations, and new ones form almost daily. Is that the unity Jesus begs of his father in John 17? Think about Francis Schaffer alone saving Protestants from long believing in the gift of abortion, when the Church has always taught against it. What about the history of birth control, when one by one, major Christian denominations loosened their stance, until now no one has anything authoritative and concrete to say about it, besides the Catholic Church? What about divorce, remarriage, and uncertainty about doctrine? What about, I beg you to consider, the Eucharist? What did Jesus say about it? What did everyone believe, including Martin Luther (though he in a complicated, unorthodox way) until the 1500s?
I strongly recommend Stephen Ray's Crossing the Tiber, heavy on the footnotes but clear on the inevitable conclusions that history actually demonstrates.
7) So I can legitimately call this a response to the debate about the initial question of soteriology, I would point out that neither Saints Aquinas nor Augustine teach infallibly. Their arguments are plausible, and often correct, and certainly worth reading, but the Church maintains what she has always maintained: "Are we saved by works or by faith? Neither, you dolt. We're saved by grace." Separating faith and works creates a false dichotomy; hence: Saint James’ words on the subject.
No honest Christian can take credit for his own salvation, and no honest Christian can continue to believe that he bears no responsibility for it. God stretches out his arm across the chasm that separates him from his creation. He does so 100%. And we must respond 100%. True, only grace allows us to respond, but who am I to claim that what I Timothy 4.9-11 says isn't true? ("This is a faithful saying worthy of all acceptance. For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.")
When I began to truly read the Holy Scriptures, my life was at a point of crisis. I remained there for three years, struggling over passages about baptism, about Jesus' descent into hell, over the pastoral epistles, over the book of Revelation. The only group of people I discovered who were actually dealing with the entirety of Scripture were the Catholics. There were no “Yeah, but” responses from the Catholic Church when I asked questions about the Bible. They believed it all. And they believed all of it at once.
Most Reformed folks I knew (and my life is still full of them) dealt well with particular passages, say, Romans 8. Yet there was a great blindness to the whole of the faith. Saint Paul 's words about predestination are short passages in long letters which are primarily focused on what it is to be good and faithful and to submit to Jesus Christ, the head of his body the Church, and to love our neighbors. I have often felt that Calvin and his followers are sitting in front of a tapestry, pulling out all the red threads, saying, "See? This one's red, too!" all the while ignoring the picture. For a human being trapped in time to attempt to comprehend the workings of God's mind is simply silly. And with all the assertions Reformed theology makes about the flawed reasoning of men and the absolute brokenness of our nature, it seems a little preposterous to suggest that these men could determine what is Scripture, let alone sum up the work of God in an acronym of five points.
That only the Catholics discussed the whole of Scripture was a bitter pill to swallow, particularly given my penchant for attempting to "rescue" Catholics from their papist, Marian idolatry (what I'd now call "sheep stealing" -- and the reason I'm not impressed with the obscene numbers of folks going to predominately Catholic countries to evangelize those poor, lost souls) and my own ego, but I have finally come. I approach the confessional humbly, knowing that it is not the priest who forgives my sins, but Jesus Christ through the office of the priest. I look to Pope Benedict for leadership (still with my fingers crossed in the hopes that the Holy Spirit won't fail!), knowing that what his office is about isn't really the power or authority of the Church, per se, but about the grace of God and the power and authority of Jesus Christ. And I receive the Eucharist with a timid heart, rejoicing in the fact that the whole Church -- past, present, and future, Militant, Penitent, and Triumphant, on earth, in Purgatory, and at the last supper so beautifully described in Revelation -- eats and drinks our Lord with me. What magnificence.
I am grateful to my Protestant father -- an Anglican rector -- who raised me on the Scriptures, to the Reformed University Fellowship, who challenged me to base my faith on the Bible -- and were horrified at what happened when I did! -- and for the lonely hours I have spent with the prophets major and minor, with Saints John, Peter, and Paul, and later, with a history so powerful and overwhelming I finally had to do what my Catholic husband did so beautifully: submit. Ultimately, I realized that his submission to authority was a thousand times more Christian than my arrogance was.
I rejoiced when I arrived at the Witherspoon Fellowship, realizing I could finally talk about all these things with my peers, and I lamented our disunity, and I confess my own long, repeated moments of unkindness and pride in dealing with the issues, but I am delighted, as always, to be able to listen and share my own journey to find truth.
Gratefully,
Millie McGehee Jerome Dasher
Fall 2005
(Yes, Jerome is my confirmation name. And yes, it's because he was the worthy translator of Scriptures and fleer of temptation, and it was nothing short of the Sacred Scriptures that led me into his Church.)
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Friday, March 5, 2010
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The Canon of Scripture
This was an email composed by my friend Rick...on his way to becoming a theologian.
Dear Bill,
Okay, I have many thoughts swirling around my head. I hope I can get them all out. First, thank you for a wonderful and thought-provoking email. You bring up some interesting ideas...some I had never heard before (I'm not sure whether that is because these ideas are original to you, or because I have not read as widely as you, but either way it was very interesting).
Let's start with this: can we agree that the index of books we have in the Bible, the canon, is a tradition? It is traditional to include the the book of Revelation. Same with the four Gospels. This tradition has been handed down over the centuries. None of the the books of the Bible lists which books are infallible, but over generations a reliable list was formed and the tradition has been handed down generation after generation. Christians, over time, made a decision about what kinds of books would be in the Scriptures, and what kind will be left out, and we follow the tradition of their criteria. Again, it does not say in the Gospel of John, "Here is how you will know a book is inspired..." but at some point Christians made criteria, decided which books "fit," and have been following that tradition since. True?
Isn't it also true that the tradition of which books would be included was developed and articulated by a group of fallible men. Obviously third and forth century Christians have no claim to infallibility, right? So when they determine the valid secular proofs that will be used to decide, their choice of proofs is fallible. Perhaps they made a mistake, perhaps one of their proofs accidentally excluded certain texts that are infallible. Likewise, perhaps their fallible criteria was too lenient, and some books slipped in that were actually quite wrong (like James with all his talk about faith and works).
Yes, we can all agree that God inspired writers throughout time to write certain infallible books. But how do we, who are quite fallible (I prove myself fallible every day) know which are God-breathed, and which are just really interesting books? Can there be any conclusion other than this: we have a fallible list of infallible books? (this is an assertion that has been attributed to a certain Protestant author, but I can't confirm it so I won't give his name). Is that what we have? A fallible list of infallible books? How could it be otherwise, when fallible Christians many generations after the last apostle died, were the one's making the list?
If you read about the process by which the canon came to be, you cannot avoid the conclusion that many fallible people were voicing an opinion. After all, there was heated debate throughout the Church about which books should be included, and which should be excluded. Many did not want to include Hebrews, or Jude, or (especially) the Revelation of St. John. Others wanted to include the Revelation of St. Peter, or the Didache, or the letters of St. Clement. Different individual churches were reading different books, and excluding other books. There was absolutely no consensus on many books.
So, if you were to be transported back to the third century, how would you know which books were Scripture? After all, many different voices were giving conflicting accounts. And without a clear Bible to which you could refer, how would you know what to do when different heresies arose (and we know that there were dozens of deadly heresies prowling around at the time). What would you do? Who would you trust?
Well, St. Ignatius of Antioch was speaking to people who were mired in a situation just like yours (I'm still pretending you are a third century Christian). He said that if you want to know who is teaching the truth, look for the local bishop. The local bishop, you see, has teaching authority. From where does he get his authority? Well, he received his authority from the authority of another bishop, who received his from another, who, ultimately, received his from one of the Apostles (and, at that point, it really may have been just two or three steps back before you hit an Apostle). And the Apostles received their authority from Christ Jesus. Therefore, if you want to know who is teaching the orthodox, catholic faith, look for the apostolic bishop.
If you did anything else...if you choose to rely on your own understanding, or on your own canon of Scripture (remember, the canon will not be set for about another 200 years), well, then, you may have ended up believing in something resembling the DaVinci Code! Your only hope, if you wanted to maintain the Christian faith, would have been to seek the authority of the bishops, because it was they that maintained the authority of Christ (who gave authority to the Church).
Therefore, when the worldwide Church was confronted with the chaos of different books being read in different churches (and other books excluded), what did the Church do? Well, it called together the bishops--those with apostolic authority--and the bishops put their heads together and said, "Listen, Church, we know there has been lots of confusion out there about which books are infallible. Good news! We, the bishops, whose responsibility it is to shepherd the Church into all Truth, we who have teaching authority, we who have the authority to bind and loose, we've seen the problem, and we have come together. By our authority, granted to us from the Apostles themselves, we present to you...THE CANON." Trumpets blare, the crowd erupts in applause, everyone breaths a sigh of relief. "Glad that debate is over!" All in all, not a bad day for the catholic Church.
Okay, so, all of this, I'm sure, exhibits probably a third grade understanding of how it all went down. This is like learning about how a cell works in grade school. There is no question that by high school one of the teachers will say, "Well, its actually far more complicated than that..." I have no doubt. But that does not mean the picture book version is inaccurate.
My conclusion: the canon depends on the authority of the Church, made up of bishops, who get their authority from the apostles, who get their authority from Christ. We do not have a fallible list of infallible books because the Church has infallibly ruled which books are authoritative. Without the Church, the Bible becomes suspect. Without the Church, each individual would have to see whether the list of books they have is accurate, or just a incorrect tradition of men. Yes, at that point the Bible would indeed be suspect, and if the Bible is suspect, sola scriptura becomes a very hard sell.
Phew! All of this after Katherine McPhee lost. What a night!
Rick
Dear Bill,
Okay, I have many thoughts swirling around my head. I hope I can get them all out. First, thank you for a wonderful and thought-provoking email. You bring up some interesting ideas...some I had never heard before (I'm not sure whether that is because these ideas are original to you, or because I have not read as widely as you, but either way it was very interesting).
Let's start with this: can we agree that the index of books we have in the Bible, the canon, is a tradition? It is traditional to include the the book of Revelation. Same with the four Gospels. This tradition has been handed down over the centuries. None of the the books of the Bible lists which books are infallible, but over generations a reliable list was formed and the tradition has been handed down generation after generation. Christians, over time, made a decision about what kinds of books would be in the Scriptures, and what kind will be left out, and we follow the tradition of their criteria. Again, it does not say in the Gospel of John, "Here is how you will know a book is inspired..." but at some point Christians made criteria, decided which books "fit," and have been following that tradition since. True?
Isn't it also true that the tradition of which books would be included was developed and articulated by a group of fallible men. Obviously third and forth century Christians have no claim to infallibility, right? So when they determine the valid secular proofs that will be used to decide, their choice of proofs is fallible. Perhaps they made a mistake, perhaps one of their proofs accidentally excluded certain texts that are infallible. Likewise, perhaps their fallible criteria was too lenient, and some books slipped in that were actually quite wrong (like James with all his talk about faith and works).
Yes, we can all agree that God inspired writers throughout time to write certain infallible books. But how do we, who are quite fallible (I prove myself fallible every day) know which are God-breathed, and which are just really interesting books? Can there be any conclusion other than this: we have a fallible list of infallible books? (this is an assertion that has been attributed to a certain Protestant author, but I can't confirm it so I won't give his name). Is that what we have? A fallible list of infallible books? How could it be otherwise, when fallible Christians many generations after the last apostle died, were the one's making the list?
If you read about the process by which the canon came to be, you cannot avoid the conclusion that many fallible people were voicing an opinion. After all, there was heated debate throughout the Church about which books should be included, and which should be excluded. Many did not want to include Hebrews, or Jude, or (especially) the Revelation of St. John. Others wanted to include the Revelation of St. Peter, or the Didache, or the letters of St. Clement. Different individual churches were reading different books, and excluding other books. There was absolutely no consensus on many books.
So, if you were to be transported back to the third century, how would you know which books were Scripture? After all, many different voices were giving conflicting accounts. And without a clear Bible to which you could refer, how would you know what to do when different heresies arose (and we know that there were dozens of deadly heresies prowling around at the time). What would you do? Who would you trust?
Well, St. Ignatius of Antioch was speaking to people who were mired in a situation just like yours (I'm still pretending you are a third century Christian). He said that if you want to know who is teaching the truth, look for the local bishop. The local bishop, you see, has teaching authority. From where does he get his authority? Well, he received his authority from the authority of another bishop, who received his from another, who, ultimately, received his from one of the Apostles (and, at that point, it really may have been just two or three steps back before you hit an Apostle). And the Apostles received their authority from Christ Jesus. Therefore, if you want to know who is teaching the orthodox, catholic faith, look for the apostolic bishop.
If you did anything else...if you choose to rely on your own understanding, or on your own canon of Scripture (remember, the canon will not be set for about another 200 years), well, then, you may have ended up believing in something resembling the DaVinci Code! Your only hope, if you wanted to maintain the Christian faith, would have been to seek the authority of the bishops, because it was they that maintained the authority of Christ (who gave authority to the Church).
Therefore, when the worldwide Church was confronted with the chaos of different books being read in different churches (and other books excluded), what did the Church do? Well, it called together the bishops--those with apostolic authority--and the bishops put their heads together and said, "Listen, Church, we know there has been lots of confusion out there about which books are infallible. Good news! We, the bishops, whose responsibility it is to shepherd the Church into all Truth, we who have teaching authority, we who have the authority to bind and loose, we've seen the problem, and we have come together. By our authority, granted to us from the Apostles themselves, we present to you...THE CANON." Trumpets blare, the crowd erupts in applause, everyone breaths a sigh of relief. "Glad that debate is over!" All in all, not a bad day for the catholic Church.
Okay, so, all of this, I'm sure, exhibits probably a third grade understanding of how it all went down. This is like learning about how a cell works in grade school. There is no question that by high school one of the teachers will say, "Well, its actually far more complicated than that..." I have no doubt. But that does not mean the picture book version is inaccurate.
My conclusion: the canon depends on the authority of the Church, made up of bishops, who get their authority from the apostles, who get their authority from Christ. We do not have a fallible list of infallible books because the Church has infallibly ruled which books are authoritative. Without the Church, the Bible becomes suspect. Without the Church, each individual would have to see whether the list of books they have is accurate, or just a incorrect tradition of men. Yes, at that point the Bible would indeed be suspect, and if the Bible is suspect, sola scriptura becomes a very hard sell.
Phew! All of this after Katherine McPhee lost. What a night!
Rick
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Theology of Grace Notes from Class #1 (Father Pilon)
I've decided to post my notes from this class in case anyone out there is interested in learning more about the Church's teaching on the topic of grace. Understanding grace is essential to understanding the Christian life. It is also highly complex and often misunderstood. The development of theological and doctrinal explication of what is meant by grace has a long history.
The doctrine of grace is central to Catholic doctrine and to who we are as a result of baptism.
The text we are using in this course is John Hardon S.J.'s book History and Theology of Grace: The Catholic Teaching on Divine Grace. My professor Fr. Pilon is coming from a Thomistic background.
Here are some questions we are going to address in this class:
What is grace?
What does it do for us? What is its purpose and final end?
How does grace relate to human freedom?
How does justification take place?
What are the different types of graces?
What is the distinction between grace and nature? And how do they interact?
By nature, we are God's natural image. But this gift, which is grace, elevates human nature. We become the image of God on a supernatural level.
We can not understand the human person without a proper understanding of grace. What is needed to understand this is a theological anthropology of the human person.
For St. Thomas, grace is the beginning of the Beatific Vision.
What is grace?
Is it a thing? Is it a something? Another term for it (I believe according to theologian Henry de Lubac) is supernature. St. Thomas says that grace is not a substance but a quality. It is a dynamic quality that transforms a substance-- specifically the substance of the soul. It is more a form than a substance.
It is not an easy notion to define. ("We talk about grace too casually." -Fr. Pilon)
Is it an accident?
Grace is a supernatural quality greater than all natural substances. What is substantial in God is accidental for humans. It is our greatest gift. Grace is a kind of an dynamic act which God creates in us in order to transform the soul. It is a quality communicated to the soul which is greater than the soul itself. It allows the soul to participate in the divine nature. It enables man to become a child of God. It enables us to live the life of God's child by elevating the powers of the soul. (Grace is somewhat Trinitarian? It is a supernatural reflection of the image of the Trinity.)
Grace is not our human nature. This was the mistake Pelagius made. He believed that graces were only external (not an internal action of the soul) and that man's free-will was a grace. The Pelagian heresy also includes the belief that our free-will choices for the good is what saves us. Christ is only a good example. His example is an external grace but it's just a model to follow. Pelagianism is a sort of naturalism by which we are led to our natural end by virtue of our human nature. Catholicism teaches that God destined us for a SUPERnatural destiny of participation in His very life which is a supernatural end.
Man's true destiny and greatness is made known only by revelation. -Theologian Rudolph Schnackenberg
Grace does not destroy our nature, it perfects our nature. In Colossians 3:10, St. Paul speaks of a "new nature." It is not technically a new nature, but a transformed nature.
(Historical/Theological note: The term "supernatural" although implied does not appear in its final form until the Middle Ages. Very interesting!)
It's God's power that has granted to us the possibility of participating in the divine nature. (Peter 1:4) (The Eastern Fathers of the Church use the term divinization.)Without this grace, we cannot participate in His life.
Meanings of Grace
1. Complex notion: gift totally gratuitous, supernatural (a word the Synoptic gospels don't use at all, we get the word from St. Paul) (What about the above note on the final appearance of the word emerging from the Middle Ages? I'll check on this and get back to you, blog.)
2. God as the giver-source of this gift and as the gift
-Old Testament-
a. divine attitude toward/action toward/ or in creature:
I believe this means grace as a divine disposition toward the creature. The Greek root means to lean toward or incline toward someone.
Terms (Greek or Hebrew?) Hanan/Hen: Hanan means to lean toward/incline toward someone. Hen (from the same root) expresses a result in the person themselves or a quality in a person. This does not work theologically in a Christian perspective in which God is the protagonist. In the OT, God is Hanan toward the poor especially.
The Greek word Caris was chosen. This word means loving-kindness, favor. Thus, God is gracious to us, etc. The Old Testament translation regarding Mary is "Oh highly favored one!"
Whenever God loves, it produces an effect. (Not sure where this fits in, perhaps it means that the grace in us is the effect of God's loving action/loving-kindness.)
The term Hesed implies a kind of act on behalf of God, where God is loving someone.
This word is used in Covenantal language in the Old Testament to emphasize the bond of that faithful love. The grace is the act of granting the gift of love. The closest Latin word is pietas (piety)which is steadfast love/loving kindness. Man should respond in this way to God.
b. Grace as the effect in the creature:
-God's justice in man-
Sedeq/Mishpat-righteousness. The term Mishpat is the judgment itself of justification. (This is discovered in the prophets-God transforms man by making him just, declaring him just.)
(Luther's understanding of justification is a throwback to the declaration of righteousness in the Old Testament. His understanding is closer to the Old Testament concept. This is vastly different from the New Testament concept of justification which is that we are made really just--it's not just a declaration.)
-Communion with God-
Why does God bother make us just? He bothers to make us just because we can't have communion with Him in an unjust state. So he has to make us just. (Not by necessity of course...) The whole point of human life is ultimate communion with God, without that, life is meaningless. (Wisdom prophets?)
Everything we mean by grace is ultimately divine love.
St. Augustine sees grace as a moralist because he sees it as charity infused and transforming the will. Later, in St. Thomas' perspective on grace is that it transforms the very substance of the soul. The soul itself is transformed. (I'm failing to see a distinction...I'll check and get back to you, blog.)
Man, by his nature, is not capable of loving God. His nature has to be elevated. The powers (I'm assuming of his soul...) must be elevated a quantum leap in order to love God. This is what is meant by sanctifying grace.
Grace is fundamentally tied to divine love since it is its origin. Grace and nature are interacting at every moment. It's a cooperative adventure. God is with us and acting in us at all times.
-The Synoptic Gospels-
Grace is a saving gift related to the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is itself a saving gift. Membership means son ship.
a. Son ship/Membership into the Kingdom is created through the divine initiative.
b. Metanoia is pre-condition to entering the Kingdom.
c. Filial spirit is the result-this new life requires additional gifts to persevere
d. Two stages: now and the eschaton
e. Our participation in the Kingdom is provisional in this life
-Grace in the Gospel of John-
a. Light, Life, Love, (God is the origin) Sonship
b. The Incarnation is the capital grace
c. Jesus is the manifestation of:
1. Light-which guides man to Life (Father Pilon's favorite book in the Bible--also one of my favorites--is the book of Sirach. Read this book to understand Christ as the Light.)
2. Eternal life which is already now, but not yet
3. Sonship-which makes us God's children now
4. Parable of the Vine: organic gift (???)
Three profound effects of God's love:
1. God's love brings about a change from slavery into son ship.
2. It brings us out of darkness into the light of truth.
3. It resurrects man from death to life.
In St. John, the communication of grace is the communication of light, life, and love which makes us God's sons.
Grace is a supernatural gift communicated to a creature by God out of his benevolence.
1. Divine son ship
2. Children by divine adoption
a. Divine adoption (This is a NT concept, NOT an OT concept!)
b. The Adoption is by grace (which is God's favor upon us...which causes a change.)
c. Grace causes an essential regeneration of nature
d. Baptism is an essential means of this adoption and entrance into the life of grace
e. The critical notion of participation in the divine nature (Greek notion in Augustine and st. Thomas)
Grace according to St. Paul:
St. Paul had to deal with the question of justification contrary to the notion of the Pharisees that one is saved through his works. Thus, for St. Paul we get the word "caris" as the means of Justification.
(Need to check on the root meaning of this word--the word charism means a gift (and further grace) of the Holy Spirit whose root I'm sure is caris...once again, I'll get back to you!)
Grace and Justification: the new vision (No idea what this means...)
1. Justice is a gift of life (which is a power to act justly)
2. Christ is the capital grace. He is the source and exemplar:
a. New Adam: source of a New Humanity
b. Man is reconciled and recreated in Christ through the gift of His grace
c. Grace is participation in His Life and death
d. Faith and Baptism are preconditions to entry into His life and the Kingdom
3. Effects of Justification: negative and positive (?)
-contrast with and continuity with the Law (?)
Effect of divine love-which always is casual (?)
The doctrine of grace is central to Catholic doctrine and to who we are as a result of baptism.
The text we are using in this course is John Hardon S.J.'s book History and Theology of Grace: The Catholic Teaching on Divine Grace. My professor Fr. Pilon is coming from a Thomistic background.
Here are some questions we are going to address in this class:
What is grace?
What does it do for us? What is its purpose and final end?
How does grace relate to human freedom?
How does justification take place?
What are the different types of graces?
What is the distinction between grace and nature? And how do they interact?
By nature, we are God's natural image. But this gift, which is grace, elevates human nature. We become the image of God on a supernatural level.
We can not understand the human person without a proper understanding of grace. What is needed to understand this is a theological anthropology of the human person.
For St. Thomas, grace is the beginning of the Beatific Vision.
What is grace?
Is it a thing? Is it a something? Another term for it (I believe according to theologian Henry de Lubac) is supernature. St. Thomas says that grace is not a substance but a quality. It is a dynamic quality that transforms a substance-- specifically the substance of the soul. It is more a form than a substance.
It is not an easy notion to define. ("We talk about grace too casually." -Fr. Pilon)
Is it an accident?
Grace is a supernatural quality greater than all natural substances. What is substantial in God is accidental for humans. It is our greatest gift. Grace is a kind of an dynamic act which God creates in us in order to transform the soul. It is a quality communicated to the soul which is greater than the soul itself. It allows the soul to participate in the divine nature. It enables man to become a child of God. It enables us to live the life of God's child by elevating the powers of the soul. (Grace is somewhat Trinitarian? It is a supernatural reflection of the image of the Trinity.)
Grace is not our human nature. This was the mistake Pelagius made. He believed that graces were only external (not an internal action of the soul) and that man's free-will was a grace. The Pelagian heresy also includes the belief that our free-will choices for the good is what saves us. Christ is only a good example. His example is an external grace but it's just a model to follow. Pelagianism is a sort of naturalism by which we are led to our natural end by virtue of our human nature. Catholicism teaches that God destined us for a SUPERnatural destiny of participation in His very life which is a supernatural end.
Man's true destiny and greatness is made known only by revelation. -Theologian Rudolph Schnackenberg
Grace does not destroy our nature, it perfects our nature. In Colossians 3:10, St. Paul speaks of a "new nature." It is not technically a new nature, but a transformed nature.
(Historical/Theological note: The term "supernatural" although implied does not appear in its final form until the Middle Ages. Very interesting!)
It's God's power that has granted to us the possibility of participating in the divine nature. (Peter 1:4) (The Eastern Fathers of the Church use the term divinization.)Without this grace, we cannot participate in His life.
Meanings of Grace
1. Complex notion: gift totally gratuitous, supernatural (a word the Synoptic gospels don't use at all, we get the word from St. Paul) (What about the above note on the final appearance of the word emerging from the Middle Ages? I'll check on this and get back to you, blog.)
2. God as the giver-source of this gift and as the gift
-Old Testament-
a. divine attitude toward/action toward/ or in creature:
I believe this means grace as a divine disposition toward the creature. The Greek root means to lean toward or incline toward someone.
Terms (Greek or Hebrew?) Hanan/Hen: Hanan means to lean toward/incline toward someone. Hen (from the same root) expresses a result in the person themselves or a quality in a person. This does not work theologically in a Christian perspective in which God is the protagonist. In the OT, God is Hanan toward the poor especially.
The Greek word Caris was chosen. This word means loving-kindness, favor. Thus, God is gracious to us, etc. The Old Testament translation regarding Mary is "Oh highly favored one!"
Whenever God loves, it produces an effect. (Not sure where this fits in, perhaps it means that the grace in us is the effect of God's loving action/loving-kindness.)
The term Hesed implies a kind of act on behalf of God, where God is loving someone.
This word is used in Covenantal language in the Old Testament to emphasize the bond of that faithful love. The grace is the act of granting the gift of love. The closest Latin word is pietas (piety)which is steadfast love/loving kindness. Man should respond in this way to God.
b. Grace as the effect in the creature:
-God's justice in man-
Sedeq/Mishpat-righteousness. The term Mishpat is the judgment itself of justification. (This is discovered in the prophets-God transforms man by making him just, declaring him just.)
(Luther's understanding of justification is a throwback to the declaration of righteousness in the Old Testament. His understanding is closer to the Old Testament concept. This is vastly different from the New Testament concept of justification which is that we are made really just--it's not just a declaration.)
-Communion with God-
Why does God bother make us just? He bothers to make us just because we can't have communion with Him in an unjust state. So he has to make us just. (Not by necessity of course...) The whole point of human life is ultimate communion with God, without that, life is meaningless. (Wisdom prophets?)
Everything we mean by grace is ultimately divine love.
St. Augustine sees grace as a moralist because he sees it as charity infused and transforming the will. Later, in St. Thomas' perspective on grace is that it transforms the very substance of the soul. The soul itself is transformed. (I'm failing to see a distinction...I'll check and get back to you, blog.)
Man, by his nature, is not capable of loving God. His nature has to be elevated. The powers (I'm assuming of his soul...) must be elevated a quantum leap in order to love God. This is what is meant by sanctifying grace.
Grace is fundamentally tied to divine love since it is its origin. Grace and nature are interacting at every moment. It's a cooperative adventure. God is with us and acting in us at all times.
-The Synoptic Gospels-
Grace is a saving gift related to the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is itself a saving gift. Membership means son ship.
a. Son ship/Membership into the Kingdom is created through the divine initiative.
b. Metanoia is pre-condition to entering the Kingdom.
c. Filial spirit is the result-this new life requires additional gifts to persevere
d. Two stages: now and the eschaton
e. Our participation in the Kingdom is provisional in this life
-Grace in the Gospel of John-
a. Light, Life, Love, (God is the origin) Sonship
b. The Incarnation is the capital grace
c. Jesus is the manifestation of:
1. Light-which guides man to Life (Father Pilon's favorite book in the Bible--also one of my favorites--is the book of Sirach. Read this book to understand Christ as the Light.)
2. Eternal life which is already now, but not yet
3. Sonship-which makes us God's children now
4. Parable of the Vine: organic gift (???)
Three profound effects of God's love:
1. God's love brings about a change from slavery into son ship.
2. It brings us out of darkness into the light of truth.
3. It resurrects man from death to life.
In St. John, the communication of grace is the communication of light, life, and love which makes us God's sons.
Grace is a supernatural gift communicated to a creature by God out of his benevolence.
1. Divine son ship
2. Children by divine adoption
a. Divine adoption (This is a NT concept, NOT an OT concept!)
b. The Adoption is by grace (which is God's favor upon us...which causes a change.)
c. Grace causes an essential regeneration of nature
d. Baptism is an essential means of this adoption and entrance into the life of grace
e. The critical notion of participation in the divine nature (Greek notion in Augustine and st. Thomas)
Grace according to St. Paul:
St. Paul had to deal with the question of justification contrary to the notion of the Pharisees that one is saved through his works. Thus, for St. Paul we get the word "caris" as the means of Justification.
(Need to check on the root meaning of this word--the word charism means a gift (and further grace) of the Holy Spirit whose root I'm sure is caris...once again, I'll get back to you!)
Grace and Justification: the new vision (No idea what this means...)
1. Justice is a gift of life (which is a power to act justly)
2. Christ is the capital grace. He is the source and exemplar:
a. New Adam: source of a New Humanity
b. Man is reconciled and recreated in Christ through the gift of His grace
c. Grace is participation in His Life and death
d. Faith and Baptism are preconditions to entry into His life and the Kingdom
3. Effects of Justification: negative and positive (?)
-contrast with and continuity with the Law (?)
Effect of divine love-which always is casual (?)
Friday, November 20, 2009
Charism
1.Von Balthasar –“Charism” in “You Have Words of Eternal Life”, Ignatius, 1991.
a. Charism = a spiritual gift – with a view toward a mutual exchange where both members are strengthened – Romans 1:11-12.
b. Charis = the same thing –2 Cor. 1:15.
c. The “gift” God gave Paul in saving him from death, benefits the churches – 2 Corinthians 1:11.
d. Charism=a vocation to a particular status in the Church that benefits the entire community – 1 Cor. 7:7.
e. Charism= the equivalent of the word “Calling” [Klesis] – 1 Cor. 7:17-24.
f. Both words occur side by side in reference to Israel’s Election – “The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable –Romans 11:19, 29.
g. Charism also exists as a giving of “God’s grace” that contrasts with the human fall into sin, - Romans 5:15.
h. Charism=”God’s bestowing of eternal life” in contrast to “the wages of sin, which is death” – Romans 6:23.
i. Charis also refers to the charity inaugurated by the collection taken up for the Jerusalem church – 2 Cor. 8:4, 6-7, 19, described as “grace”, and “commonality” and “service” (2 Cor. 8:4).
j. The gift of grace (=charisma) can be a unique or repeated rescue from death where the Church assists only through prayer (2 Cor. 1:11).
k. Each member of the Church can receive various aptitudes of both a natural and supernatural character that presuppose an underlying grace (charisma) to be employed for the good of the whole community (Romans 12:3-8).
l. Among these aptitudes, service to the congregation (diakonia) receives specific mention.
m. The gifts listed in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10, based on the situation there, includes those that fall within the scope of common Christian experience (wisdom, Knowledge, discernment of spirits, faith) while others are more unusual and unique (healing, working miracles, tongues, and interpretation, prophecy (=the ability to describe the will of God in a specific situation-propheteia).
n. If one wishes to describe the charismatic life Christians encounter, one needs to keep in mind this entire range of meanings.
o. This colorful collection is delimited along two sides – they all come from God and they are for the Church, or put more broadly, for eternal life.
p. Graces given to an individual are never exclusive. Someone who can expound God’s word, can discern spirits as well. The same applies to teaching. The gift of leadership or pasturing also includes an ability to teach, and the latter involves knowledge and wisdom. Charisms are anything but specializations.
q. The Apostolate in the broad sense pre-supposes many gifts of grace –1 Corinthians 12:28.
r. In the Pastoral Epistles, when speaking of a church office,they mean the entire cluster of gifts needed to exercise the office properly. – 1 Timothy 4:12, 2 Timothy 1:6.
s. No vital Christian will attempt to tie himself down to a single charism. To do so would impede the Spirit who leads them.
a. Charism = a spiritual gift – with a view toward a mutual exchange where both members are strengthened – Romans 1:11-12.
b. Charis = the same thing –2 Cor. 1:15.
c. The “gift” God gave Paul in saving him from death, benefits the churches – 2 Corinthians 1:11.
d. Charism=a vocation to a particular status in the Church that benefits the entire community – 1 Cor. 7:7.
e. Charism= the equivalent of the word “Calling” [Klesis] – 1 Cor. 7:17-24.
f. Both words occur side by side in reference to Israel’s Election – “The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable –Romans 11:19, 29.
g. Charism also exists as a giving of “God’s grace” that contrasts with the human fall into sin, - Romans 5:15.
h. Charism=”God’s bestowing of eternal life” in contrast to “the wages of sin, which is death” – Romans 6:23.
i. Charis also refers to the charity inaugurated by the collection taken up for the Jerusalem church – 2 Cor. 8:4, 6-7, 19, described as “grace”, and “commonality” and “service” (2 Cor. 8:4).
j. The gift of grace (=charisma) can be a unique or repeated rescue from death where the Church assists only through prayer (2 Cor. 1:11).
k. Each member of the Church can receive various aptitudes of both a natural and supernatural character that presuppose an underlying grace (charisma) to be employed for the good of the whole community (Romans 12:3-8).
l. Among these aptitudes, service to the congregation (diakonia) receives specific mention.
m. The gifts listed in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10, based on the situation there, includes those that fall within the scope of common Christian experience (wisdom, Knowledge, discernment of spirits, faith) while others are more unusual and unique (healing, working miracles, tongues, and interpretation, prophecy (=the ability to describe the will of God in a specific situation-propheteia).
n. If one wishes to describe the charismatic life Christians encounter, one needs to keep in mind this entire range of meanings.
o. This colorful collection is delimited along two sides – they all come from God and they are for the Church, or put more broadly, for eternal life.
p. Graces given to an individual are never exclusive. Someone who can expound God’s word, can discern spirits as well. The same applies to teaching. The gift of leadership or pasturing also includes an ability to teach, and the latter involves knowledge and wisdom. Charisms are anything but specializations.
q. The Apostolate in the broad sense pre-supposes many gifts of grace –1 Corinthians 12:28.
r. In the Pastoral Epistles, when speaking of a church office,they mean the entire cluster of gifts needed to exercise the office properly. – 1 Timothy 4:12, 2 Timothy 1:6.
s. No vital Christian will attempt to tie himself down to a single charism. To do so would impede the Spirit who leads them.
Purgatory According to Rick Barry
Dear friends of Simone,
Greetings! I'm one of the members of Simone's Catholic posse, and I have resisted the temptation to inject myself into this conversation, especially as James has articulated the Catholic position so thoughtfully. But, alas, I through I might throw in a couple of cents worth of commentary.
Chris, it seems to me that you are fairly close to accepting the Christian doctrine of purgatory. We all agree that our sanctification needs to be completed before we can be fully in the presence of the Blessed Trinity. After all, our great calling as Christians is to partake of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), to be perfectly united to the Father, in the Son, through the Holy Spirit. Perfect unity with the Trinity is impossible insofar as we are partially turned away—and isn’t that exactly what sin is? Sin is that part of our will that resists unity with God, resists the love of our Perfect Father. We are called to be new creations in Christ, and this is the great work that God has begun in us and that He intends to bring to completion. And yet, to some extent we even now resist this work of love, this free gift of grace, and we hold fast to our petty ‘pleasures’ apart from God. We have not yet achieved the perfection toward which we are called; the process of sanctification is not complete.
In God's extravagant love for us, he hates to see us turned away from him, even slightly, because he knows that it is only in Him that we will find our true joy and rest. Therefore, our loving Father has promised to continue to heal us and elevate us so that we can, more and more, partake of his divine nature, that is, be united to the Trinity in everlasting love. He will not stop his work of redemption in each of our souls until we have achieved the perfection promised (and perfection must always be our aim—2 Cor. 13:11). One way in which God helps us toward perfection is through his loving punishment. Who would dare deny what is written in Proverbs, and quoted in Hebrews: “the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son.” Was the author of Hebrews ignorant of the fact that Christ’s work was perfect and complete? It would be heresy to slander the Biblical writer in this way. No, there can be no doubt about the perfect and complete work of Jesus Christ.
The thing is, God in his love has promised to graft us into Jesus Christ through his grace. This is a “now and not yet” process. It is a work that God has begun in us, and has promised to bring to completion. It is not our work, it is the Holy Spirit in us. Part of God’s love is that he punishes us, not to hurt us, but exactly the opposite. Every parent understands this. The inspired and blessed author of Hebrews: “God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it” (Heb. 12:10-11).
Again we say, the goal is to share in God’s holiness through the mediation (and only through the mediation) of the Incarnate One, our Lord and Savior, Christ Jesus. Only in Him is the gap bridged between God and man and our adoption into the divine family made possible. The promise God has given is that we will be new creations in Christ (which has begun, and will be made perfect on the last day), partakers of the divine nature.
The Catholic doctrine of purgatory intends only to say that God will complete the work he has begun in us. He will not abandon us, he will not leave us half way. He will make us holy. And even if we have not been fully sanctified at the hour of our death, He will complete the good work in us. This is a gift of grace.
Now, there seems to be some confusion about the role of time in purification (with the image of waiting around in a place, presumably like a waiting room in a doctor’s office, suggested). The truth is that the Catholic Church, so far as I know, does not have a teaching on whether purgatory is a temporal reality. She has used to analogy of time to try to convey how sins put us further from God. C.S. Lewis, in his brilliant The Great Divorce, uses the analogy of distance (the journey up the great mountain). These are ways of explaining a spiritual reality in physical terms (entirely appropriate, since we are physical beings). Yet we should not be mislead: purgatory, according to the Catholic teaching, may be an instant. As James points out (through the Pope’s beautiful words), it may be that wonderful instant when we come face to face with Christ and our sins are burned away through his love. If our souls are still very much attached to hatred and lust and envy and pride, it may seem like coming into the presence of our Almighty and HOLY Father is a long and horrible process. But it is (I repeat myself) a gift of grace, a profound blessing, that we are made capable of communion with Him.
Therefore, you need not believe that there is much ‘waiting’ involved. Presumably you believe that something happens to the soul after death and before final punishment. Do you think the soul is in perfect communion with God after the moment of death, and yet is waiting to be “cleansed”? How is this possible? How can we be with God and yet not cleansed? (Since I wrote this, Jip has made this point more cogently than I).
In conclusion, just like the doctrine of the Trinity, which is obviously biblical but required at least three centuries to be fully appreciated by the Church*, the doctrine of purgatory is just a word we give to that purification that is undoubtedly biblical, yet not described in those terms. It is a fairly modest idea: God will complete the work begun in us; our souls will be made pure. Purgatory itself is not a big, complicated doctrine. It is the obvious conclusion based on reflection on what the Bible says about human sanctification, God’ holiness, and our communion with Him.
Rick
*We must avoid historical naiveté when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity. The occasional suggestion that the doctrine as we currently understand it (that the Father, Son and Spirit are homoousios and yet three persons) leapt off the Biblical page and was easily accepted by all orthodox Christians is not a fair reading of what actually happened in the third and fourth centuries. The Arian party had a persuasive biblical argument; so persuasive that a majority of the Church in some areas was led astray. The only reason we think this is an easy issue today is that we benefit from the Nicene tradition. Give the Bible alone to someone who does not benefit from the rule of faith established at Nicaea and Constantinople and see how often they get the Trinity right on the first try.
Greetings! I'm one of the members of Simone's Catholic posse, and I have resisted the temptation to inject myself into this conversation, especially as James has articulated the Catholic position so thoughtfully. But, alas, I through I might throw in a couple of cents worth of commentary.
Chris, it seems to me that you are fairly close to accepting the Christian doctrine of purgatory. We all agree that our sanctification needs to be completed before we can be fully in the presence of the Blessed Trinity. After all, our great calling as Christians is to partake of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), to be perfectly united to the Father, in the Son, through the Holy Spirit. Perfect unity with the Trinity is impossible insofar as we are partially turned away—and isn’t that exactly what sin is? Sin is that part of our will that resists unity with God, resists the love of our Perfect Father. We are called to be new creations in Christ, and this is the great work that God has begun in us and that He intends to bring to completion. And yet, to some extent we even now resist this work of love, this free gift of grace, and we hold fast to our petty ‘pleasures’ apart from God. We have not yet achieved the perfection toward which we are called; the process of sanctification is not complete.
In God's extravagant love for us, he hates to see us turned away from him, even slightly, because he knows that it is only in Him that we will find our true joy and rest. Therefore, our loving Father has promised to continue to heal us and elevate us so that we can, more and more, partake of his divine nature, that is, be united to the Trinity in everlasting love. He will not stop his work of redemption in each of our souls until we have achieved the perfection promised (and perfection must always be our aim—2 Cor. 13:11). One way in which God helps us toward perfection is through his loving punishment. Who would dare deny what is written in Proverbs, and quoted in Hebrews: “the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son.” Was the author of Hebrews ignorant of the fact that Christ’s work was perfect and complete? It would be heresy to slander the Biblical writer in this way. No, there can be no doubt about the perfect and complete work of Jesus Christ.
The thing is, God in his love has promised to graft us into Jesus Christ through his grace. This is a “now and not yet” process. It is a work that God has begun in us, and has promised to bring to completion. It is not our work, it is the Holy Spirit in us. Part of God’s love is that he punishes us, not to hurt us, but exactly the opposite. Every parent understands this. The inspired and blessed author of Hebrews: “God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it” (Heb. 12:10-11).
Again we say, the goal is to share in God’s holiness through the mediation (and only through the mediation) of the Incarnate One, our Lord and Savior, Christ Jesus. Only in Him is the gap bridged between God and man and our adoption into the divine family made possible. The promise God has given is that we will be new creations in Christ (which has begun, and will be made perfect on the last day), partakers of the divine nature.
The Catholic doctrine of purgatory intends only to say that God will complete the work he has begun in us. He will not abandon us, he will not leave us half way. He will make us holy. And even if we have not been fully sanctified at the hour of our death, He will complete the good work in us. This is a gift of grace.
Now, there seems to be some confusion about the role of time in purification (with the image of waiting around in a place, presumably like a waiting room in a doctor’s office, suggested). The truth is that the Catholic Church, so far as I know, does not have a teaching on whether purgatory is a temporal reality. She has used to analogy of time to try to convey how sins put us further from God. C.S. Lewis, in his brilliant The Great Divorce, uses the analogy of distance (the journey up the great mountain). These are ways of explaining a spiritual reality in physical terms (entirely appropriate, since we are physical beings). Yet we should not be mislead: purgatory, according to the Catholic teaching, may be an instant. As James points out (through the Pope’s beautiful words), it may be that wonderful instant when we come face to face with Christ and our sins are burned away through his love. If our souls are still very much attached to hatred and lust and envy and pride, it may seem like coming into the presence of our Almighty and HOLY Father is a long and horrible process. But it is (I repeat myself) a gift of grace, a profound blessing, that we are made capable of communion with Him.
Therefore, you need not believe that there is much ‘waiting’ involved. Presumably you believe that something happens to the soul after death and before final punishment. Do you think the soul is in perfect communion with God after the moment of death, and yet is waiting to be “cleansed”? How is this possible? How can we be with God and yet not cleansed? (Since I wrote this, Jip has made this point more cogently than I).
In conclusion, just like the doctrine of the Trinity, which is obviously biblical but required at least three centuries to be fully appreciated by the Church*, the doctrine of purgatory is just a word we give to that purification that is undoubtedly biblical, yet not described in those terms. It is a fairly modest idea: God will complete the work begun in us; our souls will be made pure. Purgatory itself is not a big, complicated doctrine. It is the obvious conclusion based on reflection on what the Bible says about human sanctification, God’ holiness, and our communion with Him.
Rick
*We must avoid historical naiveté when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity. The occasional suggestion that the doctrine as we currently understand it (that the Father, Son and Spirit are homoousios and yet three persons) leapt off the Biblical page and was easily accepted by all orthodox Christians is not a fair reading of what actually happened in the third and fourth centuries. The Arian party had a persuasive biblical argument; so persuasive that a majority of the Church in some areas was led astray. The only reason we think this is an easy issue today is that we benefit from the Nicene tradition. Give the Bible alone to someone who does not benefit from the rule of faith established at Nicaea and Constantinople and see how often they get the Trinity right on the first try.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Eucharist-The First Four Centuries
Another question possibly for tomorrow: What doctrine of the Eucharist emerges from the first four centuries?
1st Century:
The Didache:
"Let no one eat or drink of the Eucharist with you except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord; for it was in reference to this that the Lord said: 'Do not give that which is holy to dogs.'"
St. Justin Martyr
"We call this food Eucharist, no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true...not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these...both flesh and blood of that incarnated Jesus." (The Real Presence)
2nd Century:
Ignatius of Antioch:
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire Bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood; which is love incorruptible." (The Real Presence)
"Use one Eucharist, so that what you do, you do according to God; for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His blood; one alter, as there is one bishop with the presbytery...the deacons."
"Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom He appoints." (Eucharist and Unity of the Church)
3rd Century:
St. Athanasius
"So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. After the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then bread is become Body, and the wine the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ."
4th Century:
St. John Chrysostom
"We have become one body...so that we may become this not by love only but even in every deed, let us be blended into that flesh..." (Eucharist and the Mystical Body of Christ)
"Reverence, therefore, reverence this table, of which we are all communicants! Christ, slain for us, the Sacrificial Victim, who is placed thereon!" (Sacrificial Nature of the Eucharist)
"Oblation is the same even if some common person offer it...which Christ gave to his disciples and which now the priests do..." (Christ the principal celebrant in Eucharist)
1st Century:
The Didache:
"Let no one eat or drink of the Eucharist with you except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord; for it was in reference to this that the Lord said: 'Do not give that which is holy to dogs.'"
St. Justin Martyr
"We call this food Eucharist, no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true...not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these...both flesh and blood of that incarnated Jesus." (The Real Presence)
2nd Century:
Ignatius of Antioch:
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire Bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood; which is love incorruptible." (The Real Presence)
"Use one Eucharist, so that what you do, you do according to God; for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His blood; one alter, as there is one bishop with the presbytery...the deacons."
"Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom He appoints." (Eucharist and Unity of the Church)
3rd Century:
St. Athanasius
"So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. After the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then bread is become Body, and the wine the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ."
4th Century:
St. John Chrysostom
"We have become one body...so that we may become this not by love only but even in every deed, let us be blended into that flesh..." (Eucharist and the Mystical Body of Christ)
"Reverence, therefore, reverence this table, of which we are all communicants! Christ, slain for us, the Sacrificial Victim, who is placed thereon!" (Sacrificial Nature of the Eucharist)
"Oblation is the same even if some common person offer it...which Christ gave to his disciples and which now the priests do..." (Christ the principal celebrant in Eucharist)
Arianism
Third possible essay question for tomorrow's final (Please God, don't let me fail!): What was the Arian heresy and what weakness in the second or third century paved a way for it.
Arianism ultimately taught that the three persons of the Trinity were wholly unlike each other both in essence and in glory. (Eunomianism) The is the logical conclusion following from an earlier version of Arianism which taught that the Son was a creature of God, not eternal with the Father, and not divine. He was created ex-nihilo, (out of nothing) and "there was a time when he was not." He was "God," but not a true God.
It has been said that Arianism is the worst heresy to ever plague the Church. It took 600 years for the Church to be finally rid of it!
St. Athanasius was exiled five times for fighting this heresy and it seemed as though Arianism would win the battle. Some Sees had one orthodox bishop among many Arian bishops. This history should compel schismatics to realize that it is the Church (not the Bible--first, it wasn't in existence as such and second, Arians like heretics today can use the Bible to "prove" their belief) which has preserved orthodox belief through the ages, not the least of which the most foundational belief in the Christian Faith-the Holy Trinity.
It can be argued that St. Justin Martyr's understanding of the Son is what "paved the way" to the Arian heresy. He mixed up the concept of the Word versus the spoken Word of God. He taught that the second person of the Trinity is co-eternal with the Father qua Word, but became Son through the spoken word at creation. Thus, the Word is co-eternal, but the Word as Son is not, only pre-creation since it was through the Son that all things came into being.
He was not an Arian, but had bad theology. The second person is eternally both Word and Son.
Tertullian later said, "the Word becomes Son when spoken at creation." He makes the same mistake that St. Justin makes.
Novatian also contributes to the confusion with his words, "From Him, when he willed it, the Word was born." Arius quotes this directly in defending his heresy. This implies that the Father had the Son by choice and in His utterance of the "Word," He began the creation of the world. Arius believed that Jesus was "God-like," in that He was able to create, but not a true God in that He was created or born of the Father.
St. Hippolytus of Rome uses clearer language than that of St. Justin Martyr, but it still was not good theology as he writes, "For when He was without flesh and as yet by Himself, the Word was not yet perfect Son, although He was already perfect Word, the Only-begotten."
Arianism ultimately taught that the three persons of the Trinity were wholly unlike each other both in essence and in glory. (Eunomianism) The is the logical conclusion following from an earlier version of Arianism which taught that the Son was a creature of God, not eternal with the Father, and not divine. He was created ex-nihilo, (out of nothing) and "there was a time when he was not." He was "God," but not a true God.
It has been said that Arianism is the worst heresy to ever plague the Church. It took 600 years for the Church to be finally rid of it!
St. Athanasius was exiled five times for fighting this heresy and it seemed as though Arianism would win the battle. Some Sees had one orthodox bishop among many Arian bishops. This history should compel schismatics to realize that it is the Church (not the Bible--first, it wasn't in existence as such and second, Arians like heretics today can use the Bible to "prove" their belief) which has preserved orthodox belief through the ages, not the least of which the most foundational belief in the Christian Faith-the Holy Trinity.
It can be argued that St. Justin Martyr's understanding of the Son is what "paved the way" to the Arian heresy. He mixed up the concept of the Word versus the spoken Word of God. He taught that the second person of the Trinity is co-eternal with the Father qua Word, but became Son through the spoken word at creation. Thus, the Word is co-eternal, but the Word as Son is not, only pre-creation since it was through the Son that all things came into being.
He was not an Arian, but had bad theology. The second person is eternally both Word and Son.
Tertullian later said, "the Word becomes Son when spoken at creation." He makes the same mistake that St. Justin makes.
Novatian also contributes to the confusion with his words, "From Him, when he willed it, the Word was born." Arius quotes this directly in defending his heresy. This implies that the Father had the Son by choice and in His utterance of the "Word," He began the creation of the world. Arius believed that Jesus was "God-like," in that He was able to create, but not a true God in that He was created or born of the Father.
St. Hippolytus of Rome uses clearer language than that of St. Justin Martyr, but it still was not good theology as he writes, "For when He was without flesh and as yet by Himself, the Word was not yet perfect Son, although He was already perfect Word, the Only-begotten."
Baptism: The First Two Centuries
Another potential essay question: What Doctrine of Baptism emerges from the Fathers of the first two centuries.
The Fathers of the Church in the first two centuries had expounded the Trinitarian formula found in Matthew's Gospel, Chapter 28: Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
Thus, if you are coming into full communion with the Catholic Church, it is not necessary to be "re-baptized" if you already had a legitimate baptism following the Trinitarian formula. Most Protestant communities baptize legitimately and therefore those coming in would not need to be re-baptized. It's not theologically possible. Baptism can only be done once. Even though Protestants have a different understanding of baptism, the baptism itself is valid. However, if a person is coming from a non-Trinitarian community such as Mormonism, the person has never been legitimately baptized and would require it.
In the first century document, the Didache (A.D. 80)re-affirms the Trinitarian formula. It also suggests that the baptism be in living water (Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River--I renewed my baptismal vows there this past May!), if there is no living water, then in other water, if neither are available it instructs to "pour water three times on the head" using the Trinitarian formula. It also exhorts the baptized to fast for one or two days. Thus, the sacrament is instituted by Christ and is a real expression of entering into the life of the Triune God in which water is essential. The exhortation to fast is more a discipinary, rather than doctrinal matter. I do not believe it is too much emphasized these days perhaps because most baptisms in the Church are infant baptisms.
In the second century, St. Ignatius of Antioch writes to the Smyrnaeans that baptism can not take place without the permission of the Bishop. Today, I am not sure how that works. But again, I do not think that is a doctrinal issue.
Also in the second century, the Letter of Barnabas beautifully expresses, "In this way He says that we descent into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our heart, having fear and hope in Jesus in the Spirit."
Doctrinally speaking, this seems to imply that there is a real change that accompanies baptism. It is not just an external expression of inward faith (it is that too), but a cleansing and remission of sin and a receiving of grace.
This real change is also expressed by St. Justin Martyr of the second century, "Their washing is called illumination, because it enlightens the intelligence of those who learn these things."
Lastly, this beautiful treatise on baptism of Tertullian's of the second/third century must be not be kept hidden: "The sins of our earlier blindness are washed away and we are released for eternal life will not be superfluous...Vipers and asps, as it is true of serpents in general, are found in dry and waterless places. But we little fishes, are born in water after the manner of our (insert the Greek word for FISH, which was the early Church's symbol for the Faith), Jesus Christ; nor can we be otherwise saved, except by abiding permanently in the water."
Tertullian's beautiful words imply that something supernatural does in fact happen during baptism and that it is necessary for salvation. (Of course, there is baptism of blood, desire, etc. but that is another subject entirely and they don't count if baptism by water/spirit is available...no lingering allowed; but I digress.)
A couple of issues regarding baptism in the first two centuries (and following) that have since been clarified by the Church regard the delaying of baptism (Tertullian discusses this)and the one time remission of sins in baptism (Hermas discusses this). Both are related. Since the early Church believed that remission of sins could only come once (or twice, sometimes personal confession was allowed one time after baptism)with baptism, it became a practice to delay baptism until adulthood or until "you got sin out of your system," in a sense. This is why Constatine delayed baptism and even St. Augustine in the fifth century.
The Fathers of the Church in the first two centuries had expounded the Trinitarian formula found in Matthew's Gospel, Chapter 28: Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
Thus, if you are coming into full communion with the Catholic Church, it is not necessary to be "re-baptized" if you already had a legitimate baptism following the Trinitarian formula. Most Protestant communities baptize legitimately and therefore those coming in would not need to be re-baptized. It's not theologically possible. Baptism can only be done once. Even though Protestants have a different understanding of baptism, the baptism itself is valid. However, if a person is coming from a non-Trinitarian community such as Mormonism, the person has never been legitimately baptized and would require it.
In the first century document, the Didache (A.D. 80)re-affirms the Trinitarian formula. It also suggests that the baptism be in living water (Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River--I renewed my baptismal vows there this past May!), if there is no living water, then in other water, if neither are available it instructs to "pour water three times on the head" using the Trinitarian formula. It also exhorts the baptized to fast for one or two days. Thus, the sacrament is instituted by Christ and is a real expression of entering into the life of the Triune God in which water is essential. The exhortation to fast is more a discipinary, rather than doctrinal matter. I do not believe it is too much emphasized these days perhaps because most baptisms in the Church are infant baptisms.
In the second century, St. Ignatius of Antioch writes to the Smyrnaeans that baptism can not take place without the permission of the Bishop. Today, I am not sure how that works. But again, I do not think that is a doctrinal issue.
Also in the second century, the Letter of Barnabas beautifully expresses, "In this way He says that we descent into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our heart, having fear and hope in Jesus in the Spirit."
Doctrinally speaking, this seems to imply that there is a real change that accompanies baptism. It is not just an external expression of inward faith (it is that too), but a cleansing and remission of sin and a receiving of grace.
This real change is also expressed by St. Justin Martyr of the second century, "Their washing is called illumination, because it enlightens the intelligence of those who learn these things."
Lastly, this beautiful treatise on baptism of Tertullian's of the second/third century must be not be kept hidden: "The sins of our earlier blindness are washed away and we are released for eternal life will not be superfluous...Vipers and asps, as it is true of serpents in general, are found in dry and waterless places. But we little fishes, are born in water after the manner of our (insert the Greek word for FISH, which was the early Church's symbol for the Faith), Jesus Christ; nor can we be otherwise saved, except by abiding permanently in the water."
Tertullian's beautiful words imply that something supernatural does in fact happen during baptism and that it is necessary for salvation. (Of course, there is baptism of blood, desire, etc. but that is another subject entirely and they don't count if baptism by water/spirit is available...no lingering allowed; but I digress.)
A couple of issues regarding baptism in the first two centuries (and following) that have since been clarified by the Church regard the delaying of baptism (Tertullian discusses this)and the one time remission of sins in baptism (Hermas discusses this). Both are related. Since the early Church believed that remission of sins could only come once (or twice, sometimes personal confession was allowed one time after baptism)with baptism, it became a practice to delay baptism until adulthood or until "you got sin out of your system," in a sense. This is why Constatine delayed baptism and even St. Augustine in the fifth century.
Natural Theology in the Fathers of the First Three Centuries
Here's a possible essay question for my Patristics final tomorrow: Discuss Natural Theology, its possibilities and limiatations, in the Fathers of the first three centuries.
This is actually a topic I am highly interested in--mainly out of my encounter with Protestant Christians who tell me that the study of philosophy or philosophy in general is contrary to the Bible, or even contrary to Jesus.
Where they got this idea from is beyond me. And it couldn't be further from the truth.
Philosophy, or natural theology, is the study of God (who is Truth and Wisdom), through the use of man's reason. It is study of what can be known naturally, while theology is the study of what is known supernaturally through revelation.
In his enyclical Fides et Ration, John Paul II writes, "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves."
It has also been said that philosophy is the handmaid of theology. This is true because philosophy serves theology. While philosophy is very important, it is limited. Where philosophy ends, theology begins. In fact, faith is the apex of reason. (Father Giussani) But the Faith and faith in general, must be reasonable or it is not true. It is, after all, our reason which makes us like God--we are made in His image and likeness. (Genesis 1:26)
Further, philsophy or natural theology is an excellent and persuasive way to evangelize to non-believers, especially to athiests. I do not mean to reduce its importance to merely evangelistic purposes, but it is worth mentioning.
The greatest pre-Christian minds, Aristotle and Plato, both believed in God. Through reason alone man can know that God exists and that if God exists what His attributes would be: omnipotent, infinite, spiritual, etc. We do not know these attributes through revelation or through the Bible, but through logical reasoning. In fact, one ignorant of philsophy or sound reasoning could very well read the Bible and deem God as fickle, jealous, and many other erred attributes.
St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans 1:19-20, writes, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature, namely, His eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made."
St. Paul is appealing here to natural theology. Of course, he is appealing to the pagans to go a step further and recognize the truth of the Gospel. In the first century, St. Justin Martyr argues that by means of the rational faculty (which is God's gift to us, no other material creature has an intellect of this kind), God leads us to faith. (Simply, life does not make any sense without God!) However, St. Justin rightly argues that reason is insufficient. Reason can lead you to belief in God, but it does not tell you WHO this God is.
In the second century, St. Irenaeus (the most important Father of the second century) writes "all do know this...there is one God and Lord of all, because the reason implanted in their minds moves them and reveals it to them." Reason then is a foundational preparation for revelation. The Bible alludes to this in the coming of Christ being "in the fullness of time." (Hence, when we had enough prep work!)
In the third century, Lactantius implores the believer to take seriously the inquiry into religious truth! (A.K.A. Just because your pastor says something doesn't mean you are exempt from using your brain!) If you are not serious about truth, you can easily be led into error, he writes, "It is necessary, therefore, especially in that matter on which hinges the whole plan of life, for each one to have confidence in himself, and to rely on his own judgment and individual capacity for investigating and weighing the truth, rather than to be deceived by believing the errors of others, as if he were utterly lacking in reason. God gives to every man a proportionate share of wisdom..."
There is so much to be said here. The point is, reason is a gift from God, the Faith is reasonable and while it has its limitations, it is precisely our reason which can and must lead us to faith, to the truth of the divine and wonderful things which have been revealed!
Amen!
This is actually a topic I am highly interested in--mainly out of my encounter with Protestant Christians who tell me that the study of philosophy or philosophy in general is contrary to the Bible, or even contrary to Jesus.
Where they got this idea from is beyond me. And it couldn't be further from the truth.
Philosophy, or natural theology, is the study of God (who is Truth and Wisdom), through the use of man's reason. It is study of what can be known naturally, while theology is the study of what is known supernaturally through revelation.
In his enyclical Fides et Ration, John Paul II writes, "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves."
It has also been said that philosophy is the handmaid of theology. This is true because philosophy serves theology. While philosophy is very important, it is limited. Where philosophy ends, theology begins. In fact, faith is the apex of reason. (Father Giussani) But the Faith and faith in general, must be reasonable or it is not true. It is, after all, our reason which makes us like God--we are made in His image and likeness. (Genesis 1:26)
Further, philsophy or natural theology is an excellent and persuasive way to evangelize to non-believers, especially to athiests. I do not mean to reduce its importance to merely evangelistic purposes, but it is worth mentioning.
The greatest pre-Christian minds, Aristotle and Plato, both believed in God. Through reason alone man can know that God exists and that if God exists what His attributes would be: omnipotent, infinite, spiritual, etc. We do not know these attributes through revelation or through the Bible, but through logical reasoning. In fact, one ignorant of philsophy or sound reasoning could very well read the Bible and deem God as fickle, jealous, and many other erred attributes.
St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans 1:19-20, writes, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature, namely, His eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made."
St. Paul is appealing here to natural theology. Of course, he is appealing to the pagans to go a step further and recognize the truth of the Gospel. In the first century, St. Justin Martyr argues that by means of the rational faculty (which is God's gift to us, no other material creature has an intellect of this kind), God leads us to faith. (Simply, life does not make any sense without God!) However, St. Justin rightly argues that reason is insufficient. Reason can lead you to belief in God, but it does not tell you WHO this God is.
In the second century, St. Irenaeus (the most important Father of the second century) writes "all do know this...there is one God and Lord of all, because the reason implanted in their minds moves them and reveals it to them." Reason then is a foundational preparation for revelation. The Bible alludes to this in the coming of Christ being "in the fullness of time." (Hence, when we had enough prep work!)
In the third century, Lactantius implores the believer to take seriously the inquiry into religious truth! (A.K.A. Just because your pastor says something doesn't mean you are exempt from using your brain!) If you are not serious about truth, you can easily be led into error, he writes, "It is necessary, therefore, especially in that matter on which hinges the whole plan of life, for each one to have confidence in himself, and to rely on his own judgment and individual capacity for investigating and weighing the truth, rather than to be deceived by believing the errors of others, as if he were utterly lacking in reason. God gives to every man a proportionate share of wisdom..."
There is so much to be said here. The point is, reason is a gift from God, the Faith is reasonable and while it has its limitations, it is precisely our reason which can and must lead us to faith, to the truth of the divine and wonderful things which have been revealed!
Amen!
Friday, July 24, 2009
Letter to Diognetus (Anonymous Author)
Time Period: 2nd Century (A.D. 125/200)
Here's a great passage from the text, a beautiful explanation of the paradox of the Christian life:
They live in the flesh, but they are not governed by the desires of the flesh. They pass their days upon earth, but they are citizens of heaven. Obedient to the laws, they yet live on a level that transcends the law. Christians love all men, but all men persecute them. Condemned because they are not understood, they are put to death, but raised to life again. They live in poverty, but enrich many; they are totally destitute, but possess an abundance of everything. They suffer dishonor, but that is their glory. They are defamed, but vindicated. A blessing is their answer to abuse, deference their response to insult. For the good they do they receive the punishment of malefactors, but even then they, rejoice, as though receiving the gift of life.
I also like this...
He sent Him for saving and persuading, but not for compelling. Compulsion, you see, is not an attribute of God.
In the Faith, faith and reason go hand in hand. It is not about "conversion or death," but about (as the Pope would say of late) love in truth.
As this unknown author writes, "Oh the magnitude of the kindness and love which God has for man!"
+
Here's a great passage from the text, a beautiful explanation of the paradox of the Christian life:
They live in the flesh, but they are not governed by the desires of the flesh. They pass their days upon earth, but they are citizens of heaven. Obedient to the laws, they yet live on a level that transcends the law. Christians love all men, but all men persecute them. Condemned because they are not understood, they are put to death, but raised to life again. They live in poverty, but enrich many; they are totally destitute, but possess an abundance of everything. They suffer dishonor, but that is their glory. They are defamed, but vindicated. A blessing is their answer to abuse, deference their response to insult. For the good they do they receive the punishment of malefactors, but even then they, rejoice, as though receiving the gift of life.
I also like this...
He sent Him for saving and persuading, but not for compelling. Compulsion, you see, is not an attribute of God.
In the Faith, faith and reason go hand in hand. It is not about "conversion or death," but about (as the Pope would say of late) love in truth.
As this unknown author writes, "Oh the magnitude of the kindness and love which God has for man!"
+
St. Papias
Time Period: 2nd Century (A.D. 130)
Position: Bishop of Hierapolis
Location: Asia Minor
Important works: Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord
Language: Greek
St. Papias received the doctrines of the faith through acquaintances of the Apostles.
Here's a brief selection...
When Mark became the interpreter of Peter, he wrote down accurately whatever he remembered, though not in order, of the words and deeds of the Lord. He was neither hearer nor follower of the Lord; but such he was afterwards, as I say, of Peter, who had no intention of giving a connected account of the sayings of the Lord, but adapted his instruction as was necessary.
Note: Mark is our earliest recorded gospel in Greek. (The Bible is out of order chronologically, it's true!) The earliest gospel then, being Peter's words. Peter, our first Pope! Cool, huh?
+
Position: Bishop of Hierapolis
Location: Asia Minor
Important works: Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord
Language: Greek
St. Papias received the doctrines of the faith through acquaintances of the Apostles.
Here's a brief selection...
When Mark became the interpreter of Peter, he wrote down accurately whatever he remembered, though not in order, of the words and deeds of the Lord. He was neither hearer nor follower of the Lord; but such he was afterwards, as I say, of Peter, who had no intention of giving a connected account of the sayings of the Lord, but adapted his instruction as was necessary.
Note: Mark is our earliest recorded gospel in Greek. (The Bible is out of order chronologically, it's true!) The earliest gospel then, being Peter's words. Peter, our first Pope! Cool, huh?
+
Hermas
Time Period: 2nd Century (A.D. 140/155)
Position: Layman, brother of Pope St. Pius I
Location: Rome?
Important works: The Shepherd
Language: Originally Greek (fragments), Complete extant texts in Latin and Ethiopic
The text deals with some great topics such as the nature of the Church, creation ex-nihilo (that God created the world out of nothing), repentance (at that time this could only happen one time, you could not go to confession over and over again they way that you can now), etc.
Here's a short passage...
As many as repent with their whole heart and purify themselves of all wickedness mentioned before, and no longer add anything to their former sins,-they shall receive from the Lord a healing for their former sins, provided they are not double-minded in regard to these commandments; and they shall live to God. But as many as add to their sins and live in the lusts of this world--they shall condemn themselves to death.
What I really appreciate about this writing is the seriousness by which repentance is taken. This whole "Sin-Confession-Sin-Confession" lifestyle some Christians live is just a tad overdone. Don't get me wrong. I go to confession at least twice a month and believe me, I have something to confess. But what makes absolution legitimate is that you are truly contrite and serious in your resolve to "go and sin no more." The early Church took baptism and repentance so seriously that many delayed baptism until the end of their life. Constantine is an example of this.
My professor makes a good point about the double-mindedness of some Christians. This see-saw of the Christian v. worldly life seems to imply that as he said in class, "you only half want the Kingdom."
Friends, you can't half want it. You either want it or you don't. But you are the one who chooses.
Position: Layman, brother of Pope St. Pius I
Location: Rome?
Important works: The Shepherd
Language: Originally Greek (fragments), Complete extant texts in Latin and Ethiopic
The text deals with some great topics such as the nature of the Church, creation ex-nihilo (that God created the world out of nothing), repentance (at that time this could only happen one time, you could not go to confession over and over again they way that you can now), etc.
Here's a short passage...
As many as repent with their whole heart and purify themselves of all wickedness mentioned before, and no longer add anything to their former sins,-they shall receive from the Lord a healing for their former sins, provided they are not double-minded in regard to these commandments; and they shall live to God. But as many as add to their sins and live in the lusts of this world--they shall condemn themselves to death.
What I really appreciate about this writing is the seriousness by which repentance is taken. This whole "Sin-Confession-Sin-Confession" lifestyle some Christians live is just a tad overdone. Don't get me wrong. I go to confession at least twice a month and believe me, I have something to confess. But what makes absolution legitimate is that you are truly contrite and serious in your resolve to "go and sin no more." The early Church took baptism and repentance so seriously that many delayed baptism until the end of their life. Constantine is an example of this.
My professor makes a good point about the double-mindedness of some Christians. This see-saw of the Christian v. worldly life seems to imply that as he said in class, "you only half want the Kingdom."
Friends, you can't half want it. You either want it or you don't. But you are the one who chooses.
St. Polycarp of Smyrna
Time Period: 2nd Century (A.D. 70-156)
Position: Bishop of Smyrna
Location: Smyrna
Important works: Letter to the Philippians
Language: Greek
St. Polycarp is considered one of the Apostolic Fathers having been a hearer of St. John the Apostle. He is a contemporary of St. Ignatius of Antioch. He died a martyr in 156 A.D.
If I ever have a son, his middle name is Polycarp. He is one of my favorite saints because he's got attitude. According to St. Irenaeus, Polycarp called the heretic Marcion to his FACE that he is the "first-born of Satan." Nice.
Marcion was a gnostic heretic who rejected the Old Testament and all the gospels except Luke. Plus, he pretty much edited the rest of the Scriptures to his liking.
This reminds me of what Martin Luther tried to do more than a thousand years later.
There is a work called The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp (A.D. 155/157); the author is unknown. Here's some selections from this treasure...
When the Proconsul urged him and said, "Take the oath and I will release you; revile Christ," Polycarp answered; "Eighty-six years I have served Him, and He has never done me wrong. How, then, should I be able to blaspheme my King who has saved me?"
So much, then, for the Blessed Polycarp. Although he was, together with those from Philadelphia, the twelfth martyr in Symrna, he alone is especially remembered by all, and is spoken of in every place, even by the heathen...Now with the Apostles and all the just he is glorifying God and the Father Almighty, and he is blessing our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior of our souls, the Helmsman of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world.
+++
Position: Bishop of Smyrna
Location: Smyrna
Important works: Letter to the Philippians
Language: Greek
St. Polycarp is considered one of the Apostolic Fathers having been a hearer of St. John the Apostle. He is a contemporary of St. Ignatius of Antioch. He died a martyr in 156 A.D.
If I ever have a son, his middle name is Polycarp. He is one of my favorite saints because he's got attitude. According to St. Irenaeus, Polycarp called the heretic Marcion to his FACE that he is the "first-born of Satan." Nice.
Marcion was a gnostic heretic who rejected the Old Testament and all the gospels except Luke. Plus, he pretty much edited the rest of the Scriptures to his liking.
This reminds me of what Martin Luther tried to do more than a thousand years later.
There is a work called The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp (A.D. 155/157); the author is unknown. Here's some selections from this treasure...
When the Proconsul urged him and said, "Take the oath and I will release you; revile Christ," Polycarp answered; "Eighty-six years I have served Him, and He has never done me wrong. How, then, should I be able to blaspheme my King who has saved me?"
So much, then, for the Blessed Polycarp. Although he was, together with those from Philadelphia, the twelfth martyr in Symrna, he alone is especially remembered by all, and is spoken of in every place, even by the heathen...Now with the Apostles and all the just he is glorifying God and the Father Almighty, and he is blessing our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior of our souls, the Helmsman of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world.
+++
Thursday, July 23, 2009
St. Ignatius of Antioch
Time Period: 2nd Century (A.D. 107)
Position: Third Patriarch/Bishop of Antioch
Location: Antioch
Important works: Letter to the Ephesians, Letter to the Magnesians, Letter to the Trallians, Letter to the Romans, Letter to the Philadelphians, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Letter to Polycarp
Language: Greek
St. Ignatius lived during the reign of Trajan. He is considered an Apostolic Father because he was a hearer of St. John the Apostle. On his way from Antioch to martyrdom in Rome (the beasts in the arena...fun), he wrote seven letters which are his only extant writings.
My professor pointed out to us that Ignatius was a grown man before Peter left Antioch--he was middle-aged when Peter was still alive! Striking!
It is in Antioch where the followers of Christ were first called Christians.
An Episcopal note: (Episcopal meaning "Bishop"--not having anything to do with the Episcopalian Church as such)Rome was not involved in the selection of bishops outside of the Roman diocese until after the Protestant movement. They were usually elected by priests at the Cathedral.
Here are some selections from each of the 7 Letters:
1. To the Ephesians...
For Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the will of the Father, just as the bishops, who have been appointed throughout the world, are at the will of Jesus Christ. It is fitting, therefore, that you should live in harmony with the will of the bishop--as, indeed, you do. Let us be careful, then, if we would be submissive to God, not to oppose the bishop.
It is clear, then, that we must look upon the bishop as the Lord Himself.
Here's another one, this I particularly enjoy...
There is one Physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and not born, who is God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first able to suffer and then unable to suffer, Jesus Christ our Lord.
Give ear to the bishop and to the presbytery with an undivided mind, break one Bread, which is the medicine of immortality, the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.
Note: This recalls John 6. The Eucharist and the Resurrection are bound together. Eating His flesh results in being raised up.
2. To the Magnesians...
Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and the Apostles, that in all things whatsoever you may prosper, in body and in soul, in faith and in love, in the Son and the Father and the Spirit, in the beginning and the end, together with your most reverend bishop and with your presbytery--that fittingly woven spiritual crown! --and with your deacons, men of God. Submit to the bishop and to each other's rights, just as did Jesus Christ in the flesh to the Father, and as the Apostles did to Christ and the Father and the Spirit, so that there may be unity both of flesh and of spirit.
3. To the Trallians...
It is necessary, therefore,--and such is your practice,-that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live with Him.
In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and the college of the Apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church.
Nota bene: I believe my friend James' conversion to the Church from Anglicanism was sped up after reading Ignatius if I remember correctly. I can see why. It's pretty clear. Also, this is why Catholics do not consider schismatics Churches but rather, ecclesial communities.
4. To the Romans... (considered his most important Letter)
I love this...
Only pray for me that I may have strength both inward and outward, that I may not merely speak, but have also the will; that I may not only be called a Christian but may also be found to be one. For if I be found to be one, I may also be called one, and be then deemed faithful, even when I am no longer visible. Nothing visible is eternal.
The Letter to the Romans is a treasure. If you had to pick one, this is it.
5. To the Philadelphians...
Those, indeed, who belong to God and to Jesus Christ--they are with the bishop.
And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion.
Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to show forth the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to the will of God.
6. To the Smyrneans...
Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
Nota bene: This is the first time the word Catholic is used in print!
7. Letter to Polycarp
This is helpful for me:
Become more diligent than you are. Observe well the times. Look for Him that is above seasons, timeless; invisible, yet, for our sakes, becoming visible; who cannot be touched; who cannot suffer, yet, for our sakes, accepted suffering, and who on our account endured everything.
(Beautiful, no?)
I end with this from his last letter...
Be long-suffering with one another and gentle, just as God is with you.
May I rejoice in you always.
+ + +
Position: Third Patriarch/Bishop of Antioch
Location: Antioch
Important works: Letter to the Ephesians, Letter to the Magnesians, Letter to the Trallians, Letter to the Romans, Letter to the Philadelphians, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Letter to Polycarp
Language: Greek
St. Ignatius lived during the reign of Trajan. He is considered an Apostolic Father because he was a hearer of St. John the Apostle. On his way from Antioch to martyrdom in Rome (the beasts in the arena...fun), he wrote seven letters which are his only extant writings.
My professor pointed out to us that Ignatius was a grown man before Peter left Antioch--he was middle-aged when Peter was still alive! Striking!
It is in Antioch where the followers of Christ were first called Christians.
An Episcopal note: (Episcopal meaning "Bishop"--not having anything to do with the Episcopalian Church as such)Rome was not involved in the selection of bishops outside of the Roman diocese until after the Protestant movement. They were usually elected by priests at the Cathedral.
Here are some selections from each of the 7 Letters:
1. To the Ephesians...
For Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the will of the Father, just as the bishops, who have been appointed throughout the world, are at the will of Jesus Christ. It is fitting, therefore, that you should live in harmony with the will of the bishop--as, indeed, you do. Let us be careful, then, if we would be submissive to God, not to oppose the bishop.
It is clear, then, that we must look upon the bishop as the Lord Himself.
Here's another one, this I particularly enjoy...
There is one Physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and not born, who is God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first able to suffer and then unable to suffer, Jesus Christ our Lord.
Give ear to the bishop and to the presbytery with an undivided mind, break one Bread, which is the medicine of immortality, the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.
Note: This recalls John 6. The Eucharist and the Resurrection are bound together. Eating His flesh results in being raised up.
2. To the Magnesians...
Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and the Apostles, that in all things whatsoever you may prosper, in body and in soul, in faith and in love, in the Son and the Father and the Spirit, in the beginning and the end, together with your most reverend bishop and with your presbytery--that fittingly woven spiritual crown! --and with your deacons, men of God. Submit to the bishop and to each other's rights, just as did Jesus Christ in the flesh to the Father, and as the Apostles did to Christ and the Father and the Spirit, so that there may be unity both of flesh and of spirit.
3. To the Trallians...
It is necessary, therefore,--and such is your practice,-that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live with Him.
In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and the college of the Apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church.
Nota bene: I believe my friend James' conversion to the Church from Anglicanism was sped up after reading Ignatius if I remember correctly. I can see why. It's pretty clear. Also, this is why Catholics do not consider schismatics Churches but rather, ecclesial communities.
4. To the Romans... (considered his most important Letter)
I love this...
Only pray for me that I may have strength both inward and outward, that I may not merely speak, but have also the will; that I may not only be called a Christian but may also be found to be one. For if I be found to be one, I may also be called one, and be then deemed faithful, even when I am no longer visible. Nothing visible is eternal.
The Letter to the Romans is a treasure. If you had to pick one, this is it.
5. To the Philadelphians...
Those, indeed, who belong to God and to Jesus Christ--they are with the bishop.
And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion.
Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to show forth the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to the will of God.
6. To the Smyrneans...
Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
Nota bene: This is the first time the word Catholic is used in print!
7. Letter to Polycarp
This is helpful for me:
Become more diligent than you are. Observe well the times. Look for Him that is above seasons, timeless; invisible, yet, for our sakes, becoming visible; who cannot be touched; who cannot suffer, yet, for our sakes, accepted suffering, and who on our account endured everything.
(Beautiful, no?)
I end with this from his last letter...
Be long-suffering with one another and gentle, just as God is with you.
May I rejoice in you always.
+ + +
Barnabas
Time Period: 1st Century
Position: Paul's companion on his 1st Missionary Journey
Location: Speculated to have an Alexandrian origin
Important works: Letter of Barnabas (either A.D. 70/79 or 117/132)
Language: Greek
The Letter is actually a theological tract and it does not give us information as to whether Barnabas is the authentic author.
Here are a couple of selections I would like to share with you:
And when He chose His own Apostles, who were about to preach His gospel, He chose men who were the worst kind of sinners in order to show that He came not to call the righteous but sinners (Mark 2:17)--and then He showed Himself to be the Son of God.
Check this out...I love this...
If He had not come in the flesh, there would be no way in which men could be saved by beholding Him: for even when they look at the sun, a work of His hands and a thing destined to perish, are they able to gaze straight into its rays?
For this reason, then, the Son of Man came in the flesh: to fill to the brim the measure of the sins of those who persecuted His prophets to death.
The author of this tract, like Clement, also gives the exhortation:
You shall not make a schism; but you shall pacify and bring together those who are quarreling. You shall confess your sins. You shall not go up to pray in the consciousness of having done evil. This is the way of light.
My notes:
It occurred to me in reading this that the method of by which our Lord educates us is through relationship. Relationship with Him and now relationship with Him through the Church: you and me. If the pillar of Protestantism, Sola Scriptura, were true, then I would think Jesus Christ would have spent His time writing, instead of hanging out with His disciples so much. Just a thought. Makes sense to me.
+
Position: Paul's companion on his 1st Missionary Journey
Location: Speculated to have an Alexandrian origin
Important works: Letter of Barnabas (either A.D. 70/79 or 117/132)
Language: Greek
The Letter is actually a theological tract and it does not give us information as to whether Barnabas is the authentic author.
Here are a couple of selections I would like to share with you:
And when He chose His own Apostles, who were about to preach His gospel, He chose men who were the worst kind of sinners in order to show that He came not to call the righteous but sinners (Mark 2:17)--and then He showed Himself to be the Son of God.
Check this out...I love this...
If He had not come in the flesh, there would be no way in which men could be saved by beholding Him: for even when they look at the sun, a work of His hands and a thing destined to perish, are they able to gaze straight into its rays?
For this reason, then, the Son of Man came in the flesh: to fill to the brim the measure of the sins of those who persecuted His prophets to death.
The author of this tract, like Clement, also gives the exhortation:
You shall not make a schism; but you shall pacify and bring together those who are quarreling. You shall confess your sins. You shall not go up to pray in the consciousness of having done evil. This is the way of light.
My notes:
It occurred to me in reading this that the method of by which our Lord educates us is through relationship. Relationship with Him and now relationship with Him through the Church: you and me. If the pillar of Protestantism, Sola Scriptura, were true, then I would think Jesus Christ would have spent His time writing, instead of hanging out with His disciples so much. Just a thought. Makes sense to me.
+
St. Clement of Rome
Whatever possessed me to take two summer school classes, I do not know. I already have finals next week (God help me). I'll be blogging on the Fathers as my method of studying. Happy reading!
Time Period:1st Century; cannot be later than the 90s
Position: Bishop of Rome (a.k.a. The Pope, third successor of St. Peter)
Location:Rome
Important works: Letter to the Corinthians (A.D. 80)
Language: Greek
This is the only surviving writing of Clement. He wrote the Letter as a response to the Bishop of Corinth being overthrown and the ensuing schism. It is interesting (as well as important) to note that when he wrote this, St. John the Apostle was still alive. But since Clement, not John, was the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, the appeal went to Rome.
He writes...
And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would
be strife over the name of the bishop's office. For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered without blame to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration.
(Translation: Apostolic Succession !)
He continues...
It is shameful, dearly beloved, yes, utterly shameful and unworthy of
your training in Christ, that it should be reported that the very
steadfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians, for the sake of one
or two persons, is in revolt against its presbyters.
(Translation: Schism: Bad ; Unity: Good !)
Further...
You, therefore, who laid the foundations of the rebellion, submit to the presbyters and be chastened to repentance, bending your knees in a spirit of humility.
Is there really anything more I can add to Clement? He makes it very clear that going against your bishop is a no-no, what gives legitimacy to the bishop is the unbroken apostolic succession (keep in mind, this is 80 A.D.--the Bible hadn't dropped from the sky yet!), and that you put yourself in danger when you create a schism. (He writes, "By your folly you heap blasphemies on the name of the Lord, and create a danger for yourselves.") Most significantly, this is coming from the authority of the Pope, who St. John himself submits to...because he submits to Christ who gave this instruction and power in the first place as recorded in the gospel of Matthew.
+
Time Period:1st Century; cannot be later than the 90s
Position: Bishop of Rome (a.k.a. The Pope, third successor of St. Peter)
Location:Rome
Important works: Letter to the Corinthians (A.D. 80)
Language: Greek
This is the only surviving writing of Clement. He wrote the Letter as a response to the Bishop of Corinth being overthrown and the ensuing schism. It is interesting (as well as important) to note that when he wrote this, St. John the Apostle was still alive. But since Clement, not John, was the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, the appeal went to Rome.
He writes...
And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would
be strife over the name of the bishop's office. For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered without blame to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration.
(Translation: Apostolic Succession !)
He continues...
It is shameful, dearly beloved, yes, utterly shameful and unworthy of
your training in Christ, that it should be reported that the very
steadfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians, for the sake of one
or two persons, is in revolt against its presbyters.
(Translation: Schism: Bad ; Unity: Good !)
Further...
You, therefore, who laid the foundations of the rebellion, submit to the presbyters and be chastened to repentance, bending your knees in a spirit of humility.
Is there really anything more I can add to Clement? He makes it very clear that going against your bishop is a no-no, what gives legitimacy to the bishop is the unbroken apostolic succession (keep in mind, this is 80 A.D.--the Bible hadn't dropped from the sky yet!), and that you put yourself in danger when you create a schism. (He writes, "By your folly you heap blasphemies on the name of the Lord, and create a danger for yourselves.") Most significantly, this is coming from the authority of the Pope, who St. John himself submits to...because he submits to Christ who gave this instruction and power in the first place as recorded in the gospel of Matthew.
+
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Patristics-The Didache
I'm also taking a Patristics (the early Church fathers' writings)class this summer. We are reading selections from William A. Jurgens book The Faith of the Early Fathers: Volume 1-3.
The first ancient text we discussed was the Didache, known as the "teaching of the twelve." The original was lost until 1883 and most likely written around 80 A.D. when the apostles were still alive and spreading the Gospel. (If you want to argue with this date, my professor recommends John A.T. Robinson's work, Redating the New Testament.)
Unlike today's evangelization techniques, the early Christians searched out the people who were morally serious to introduce and propose the Christian Faith. The first thing the Didache did was to confront morality. Catechesis was first on morals and then led to the sacraments. The sacraments were the end game, not the starting point.
I like how the Didache begins, it's very blunt:
There are two ways, one of life and one of death: and great is the difference between the two ways.
A really interesting point the Didache makes is to be intelligent in your charitable giving decisions:
Let your alms perspire in your hands, until you know to whom you are giving.
Try this on for size:
You shall not procure abortion, nor destroy a new-born child.
This is from the *earliest* non-canonical apostolic writing--in case you needed that. Otherwise, it should be so utterly morally obvious to oppose the intentional murdering of innocents.
The sentence right before:
You shall not use potions.
Potions for what, you ask?
In the very promiscuous Greek culture, there were two types of potions: love potions and (drum roll) contraceptive potions.
Interesting. All along the Catholic Church (and only only only the Catholic Church!) has related the widespread use of contraception to the increase in abortions. (Not to mention affairs, domestic violence, divorce, etc. etc. etc.) And here, this oldest document of the apostles, mentions them one after the other.
First comes contraception, then abortion.
(If you need more education/formation on this topic regarding the Catholic Church's teaching, I highly recommend Janet Smith's audio CD "Contraception: Why Not?" You can order it for FREE!)
The Didache is a treasure and there are many nuggets in the work, I leave you with one of them:
Whoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not.
I would find this troubling were I a Protestant today.
Our Lady, Seat of Wisdom, pray for us. +
The first ancient text we discussed was the Didache, known as the "teaching of the twelve." The original was lost until 1883 and most likely written around 80 A.D. when the apostles were still alive and spreading the Gospel. (If you want to argue with this date, my professor recommends John A.T. Robinson's work, Redating the New Testament.)
Unlike today's evangelization techniques, the early Christians searched out the people who were morally serious to introduce and propose the Christian Faith. The first thing the Didache did was to confront morality. Catechesis was first on morals and then led to the sacraments. The sacraments were the end game, not the starting point.
I like how the Didache begins, it's very blunt:
There are two ways, one of life and one of death: and great is the difference between the two ways.
A really interesting point the Didache makes is to be intelligent in your charitable giving decisions:
Let your alms perspire in your hands, until you know to whom you are giving.
Try this on for size:
You shall not procure abortion, nor destroy a new-born child.
This is from the *earliest* non-canonical apostolic writing--in case you needed that. Otherwise, it should be so utterly morally obvious to oppose the intentional murdering of innocents.
The sentence right before:
You shall not use potions.
Potions for what, you ask?
In the very promiscuous Greek culture, there were two types of potions: love potions and (drum roll) contraceptive potions.
Interesting. All along the Catholic Church (and only only only the Catholic Church!) has related the widespread use of contraception to the increase in abortions. (Not to mention affairs, domestic violence, divorce, etc. etc. etc.) And here, this oldest document of the apostles, mentions them one after the other.
First comes contraception, then abortion.
(If you need more education/formation on this topic regarding the Catholic Church's teaching, I highly recommend Janet Smith's audio CD "Contraception: Why Not?" You can order it for FREE!)
The Didache is a treasure and there are many nuggets in the work, I leave you with one of them:
Whoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not.
I would find this troubling were I a Protestant today.
Our Lady, Seat of Wisdom, pray for us. +
Monday, June 29, 2009
Old Testament Week I, Class I
I'm taking a class on the Old Testament this summer for six weeks. I'm going to be taking notes on this blog in case it will be of service to anyone reading.
Besides the Bible, we are also reading Scott Hahn's book A Father Who Keeps His Promises: God's Covenant Love in Scripture.
Recommended books for educators, or future educators (that's me, God-willing!) is Antonio Fuentes' Guide to the Bible and The Scripture Documents: An Anthology of Official Catholic Teaching. The latter is particularly interesting to me. As St. Jerome said, "Ignorance of Scriptures is ignorance of Christ." But also, ignorance of the Church is ignorance, or maybe even worse, misinterpretation of the Scriptures. Remember, the Universal Church gave us the Bible and the Bible is part of the Tradition of the Church. No Church, no Bible.
One last note, in my Bible (Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition--the best translation) are two inserts: The Bible Timeline: The Story of Salvation (Thank you, Mother!) and a Bible Map Insert (Thank you, Professor!).
The Bible contains 73 books, but if you are going to read the Bible with a chronological approach, there are 14 at the core.
Alright, back to my class. Since I've been pretty lazy about note-taking (I'd rather pay attention than labor for notes), here are some of my randomly selected notes from my first day:
1. Mosaic authorship of the first five books of the Bible. The "Torah" in Hebrew, the "Pentateuch" in Greek.
2. To understand Genesis, one must understand Exodus.
3. In Biblical numerology, seven is the number symbolizing perfection. The Hebrew word "Sheva" (Seven) is the word for "swear." When you swear in an oath (to God), you are "sevening" yourself.
4. St. Ephraim the Syrian's commentary is the most important on the Pentateuch.
5. Contrary to popular belief, there were two "special" trees in Eden: the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The latter's fruit was forbidden. Some theologians have surmised that eventually Adam and Eve would have been permitted to eat of its fruit, but disobeyed eating prematurely and against God's command.
6. The Hebrew word for "helper" is azar which translates into helper, counselor, adviser, partner, perfect match.
7. Eve is equal to Adam implied in his words, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh..."
Monday, April 20, 2009
Jesus Christ According to Benedict XVI-Conclusion
Descendit de caelis: He came down from heaven. Through Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, man has become certain of God. God is no longer an abstract being, "out there," a distant “first cause” of the world. The Incarnation allows all to confess: “I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave me for himself.” -Galatians 2:20
It is not science that redeems man, but love. No matter what man's circumstances, in the encounter with absolute love man begets absolute certainty. This is the meaning of redemption in Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is the God-man. This is a paradox. This is a mystery. It is almost unbelievable, but it is true. Benedict XVI emphasizes the relevancy of Christ and that what "makes Jesus important and irreplaceable in every age is precisely the fact that he was and is the Son, and that in him God has become man.” If, as the modern scholars often do, the attempt is made to remove "God" from the God-man, then the "man" is simultaneously obliterated. Jesus Christ does not make sense in any other way than as the God-man.
There are those today (much like the Arians of the past) who try to preserve the "purity" of the concept of God. They may believe in God, but he is not something accessible to man. But the Fathers of the Church regarded this as atheism: a God who is untouchable in human affairs is no God. Benedict XVI poses the question, “Do we not find it impossible that man can have a genuine relationship with God in the world?” Modernity has cowered from the God, has reduced his active role in the world, and has therefore retreated to the historical "man" Jesus.
"Pope Benedict has shown how a man of faith and reason, a Christian scholar, can find the face of Jesus in the canonical Gospels, and how others can do the same. Biblical scholars have been given a fine example of a pastoral hermeneutic capable of building up the life of the Church that is grounded in faith, reads Scripture canonically and theologically, and that draws both on the resources of critical exegesis and of the Christian tradition." -Peter S. Williamson
Benedict XVI's is a theologian as well as an evangelist. He enthusiastically invites those who read his writings to enter into that relationship with Jesus Christ which has prompted those reflections which is his personal testimony to the realities he describes. He invites us to sacrificially love others in union with Christ’s self-giving love for us revealed in the cross.
I leave you with these beautiful words of Benedict XVI, especially timely during these fifty days of Eastertide: “Christ summons us to find heaven in him, to discover him in others and thus to be heaven to each other. He calls us to let heaven shine into this world, to build heaven here. Jesus stretches out his hand to us in his Easter message, in the mystery of the sacraments, so that Easter may be now, so that the light of heaven may shine forth in this world and the doors may be opened. Let us take his hand! Amen.”
It is not science that redeems man, but love. No matter what man's circumstances, in the encounter with absolute love man begets absolute certainty. This is the meaning of redemption in Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is the God-man. This is a paradox. This is a mystery. It is almost unbelievable, but it is true. Benedict XVI emphasizes the relevancy of Christ and that what "makes Jesus important and irreplaceable in every age is precisely the fact that he was and is the Son, and that in him God has become man.” If, as the modern scholars often do, the attempt is made to remove "God" from the God-man, then the "man" is simultaneously obliterated. Jesus Christ does not make sense in any other way than as the God-man.
There are those today (much like the Arians of the past) who try to preserve the "purity" of the concept of God. They may believe in God, but he is not something accessible to man. But the Fathers of the Church regarded this as atheism: a God who is untouchable in human affairs is no God. Benedict XVI poses the question, “Do we not find it impossible that man can have a genuine relationship with God in the world?” Modernity has cowered from the God, has reduced his active role in the world, and has therefore retreated to the historical "man" Jesus.
"Pope Benedict has shown how a man of faith and reason, a Christian scholar, can find the face of Jesus in the canonical Gospels, and how others can do the same. Biblical scholars have been given a fine example of a pastoral hermeneutic capable of building up the life of the Church that is grounded in faith, reads Scripture canonically and theologically, and that draws both on the resources of critical exegesis and of the Christian tradition." -Peter S. Williamson
Benedict XVI's is a theologian as well as an evangelist. He enthusiastically invites those who read his writings to enter into that relationship with Jesus Christ which has prompted those reflections which is his personal testimony to the realities he describes. He invites us to sacrificially love others in union with Christ’s self-giving love for us revealed in the cross.
I leave you with these beautiful words of Benedict XVI, especially timely during these fifty days of Eastertide: “Christ summons us to find heaven in him, to discover him in others and thus to be heaven to each other. He calls us to let heaven shine into this world, to build heaven here. Jesus stretches out his hand to us in his Easter message, in the mystery of the sacraments, so that Easter may be now, so that the light of heaven may shine forth in this world and the doors may be opened. Let us take his hand! Amen.”
Jesus Christ According to Benedict XVI- Part IV.
The Christian Faith is not about being nice. It is not simply about the Golden Rule. And it it certainly not a philosophy. The Faith is an encounter with a person, with the Person.
“Christ tells us who man truly is and what man must do to be truly human. He shows us the way, and this way is the truth. He himself is both the way and the truth, and therefore he is also the life which all of us are seeking. He shows us the way beyond death; only someone able to do this is a true teacher of life. The true shepherd is one who knows even the path that passes through the valley of death…he himself has walked this path, he has descended into the kingdom of death, and he has returned to accompany us now and to give us the certainty that, together with him, we can find a way through.” -Benedict XVI
Benedict XVI clarifies that the reason Jesus Christ is so hard to figure out apart from revelation is because he did not leave behind a body of teaching which is separate from his “I.” He did not perform a work that could be distinguished from his “I.” His work is the giving of himself. This is the mystery and beauty of Jesus Christ: that he is not a mere teacher. He himself is simultaneously both teacher and the teaching. Since the person of Jesus is his teaching, the Christian Faith is truly the only personal faith in the form of an encounter. It is not limited to the affirmation or adherence of a particular system, but rather the acceptance of this "person who is his word, of the word as person and of the person as word.”
The Christian proposal is simply this in the words of Benedict XVI: "If we know this person and he knows us, then we are no longer slaves of the universe and its laws, but free."
Benedict XVI provides us with a beautiful meditation regarding the encounter with this person: “Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves."
“Christ tells us who man truly is and what man must do to be truly human. He shows us the way, and this way is the truth. He himself is both the way and the truth, and therefore he is also the life which all of us are seeking. He shows us the way beyond death; only someone able to do this is a true teacher of life. The true shepherd is one who knows even the path that passes through the valley of death…he himself has walked this path, he has descended into the kingdom of death, and he has returned to accompany us now and to give us the certainty that, together with him, we can find a way through.” -Benedict XVI
Benedict XVI clarifies that the reason Jesus Christ is so hard to figure out apart from revelation is because he did not leave behind a body of teaching which is separate from his “I.” He did not perform a work that could be distinguished from his “I.” His work is the giving of himself. This is the mystery and beauty of Jesus Christ: that he is not a mere teacher. He himself is simultaneously both teacher and the teaching. Since the person of Jesus is his teaching, the Christian Faith is truly the only personal faith in the form of an encounter. It is not limited to the affirmation or adherence of a particular system, but rather the acceptance of this "person who is his word, of the word as person and of the person as word.”
The Christian proposal is simply this in the words of Benedict XVI: "If we know this person and he knows us, then we are no longer slaves of the universe and its laws, but free."
Benedict XVI provides us with a beautiful meditation regarding the encounter with this person: “Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
