reflections on sola Scriptura

A response to this article on sola Scriptura, whose words appear in blue.

Both groups claim to be catholic, that is, part of the apostolic, universal church of Jesus Christ.

We both believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. The first, third and fourth mark of the Church, however, all have historical implications. For instance, a church which is both universal and one must also possess perpetuity. But where was the Protestant Church before the sixteenth-century?

Our Roman opponents maintain that the Scripture by itself is insufficient as the authority of the people of God, and that tradition and the teaching authority of the church must be added to the Scripture . . . . God has declared that whoever adds to or takes away from His Word is subject to His curse.

He assumes that the presence of an oral tradition or teaching authority is necessarily an addition to the Scriptures, which is false. For the gospel was first spread by word of mouth, by preachers. Even Paul says, "I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you," that is, he claims that he was a faithful organ of transmission for God's revelation. Moreover, the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15 is clear evidence that a teaching authority existed with the apostolic Church, for the council claimed that its own decision "seemed good" to the Holy Spirit. In other words, the conclusion they reached had Divine approval. Therefore, the oral tradition and the teaching authority of the Church were not "added to the Scripture," for they existed prior to the writing of the New Testament. If anything, the Church added the New Testament writings on to the oral tradition when they wrote them down for the instruction of later generations: though the Gospels and Epistles, by their inspired status, are now a focal point of that tradition.

Also, he misrepresents the Catholic position in saying that sacred Tradition is superior to sacred Scripture, for Tradition and Scripture are co-ordinate sources of faith (which seems to be the case in Acts 15, in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, and in the documents of Vatican II). As the Catechism says, "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal." Dr. Godfrey's implication, then, that the Catholic Church is cursed for adding onto the Scriptures doesn't follow.

As William Whitaker stated in his noble work: "For we also say that the church is the interpreter of Scripture, and that the gift of interpretation resides only in the church: but we deny that it pertains to particular persons, or is tied to any particular see or succession of men."

This is confusing. If it resides only in the church but does not pertain to particular persons, then to what does it pertain? How else would the church's interpretation of Scripture be expressed, by majority vote? The quote is somewhat enigmatic.

Moses declared to all Israel: 'Take to heart all the words I have solemnly declared to you this day, so that you may command your children to obey carefully all the words of this law. They are not just idle words for you, they are your life,' Deuteronomy 32:46, 47.

Notice the clear elements in these passages:

1. The Word of which Moses spoke was written.
2. The people can and must listen to it and learn it.
3. In this Word they can find life.

Correction on the first and third point: Moses wrote the words that God told him. The words written by Moses do indeed give life, in a relative sense, but those words are not the Word himself, i.e. the second person of the Blessed Trinity. Scripture is a collection of words about the Word, pointing towards the Word, longing for the Word: but they are not the Word who gives life everlasting.

The people do not need any additional institution to interpret the Word.

Then why did the Apostles set up churches everywhere they went and continue to write letters to these churches instructing them? Did they not give the full message to those pagans whom they converted, or were those thus converted in need of their letters to develop and elucidate the original message?

But the Word alone was sufficient for salvation.

Again, the confusion between the words which long for the Word and the Word himself. If I may be allowed this distinction, the Bible is not the Word of God but the word of God. Christ is sufficient for salvation, not the law of Moses. Though the law of Moses nonetheless does give life, as do all things that are true. But you cannot attain the Beatific Vision by following the law of Moses per se.

If this principle of the sufficiency and clarity of the Word is true in the Old Testament, we can assume that it is all the more true in the New. The New Testament gloriously fulfills what the Old Testament promises.

Was the Old Testament passage “I am the God of Abraham” clear to the Jews before Jesus suddenly explained to them one of its meanings? Jesus’ own exegesis looks suspicious, yet he can neither deceive nor be deceived. But if true meanings can be present under the surface of the letter, how can they be clear? Did not Paul have to dispute, again and again, with the Jews? And moreover, if the word of God is so clear, then how come Protestants are so disunited in their exegesis and theology?

Paul reminds Timothy that the Scriptures are able to make him wise unto salvation in Christ Jesus.

When Paul spoke of the Scriptures he meant the Hebrew Scriptures, not the New Testament, which was still incomplete at this time.

In spite of the rich oral teaching Timothy had, he is to preach the Scriptures because those Scriptures give him clearly all that he needs for wisdom and preparation to instruct the people of God in faith and all good works. The Scripture makes him wise for salvation, and equips him with everything he needs for doing every good work required of the preacher of God.

Again, this does not support his point about the sufficiency and clarity of the New Testament, for the argument does not use terms univocally. The word "Scripture" is being used by St. Paul to mean the Old Testament and by Dr. Godfrey to mean the Old and the New Testament. Furthermore, if all the Scriptures are clear what does he make of 2 Peter 3:15-16?

He did not appeal to the oral tradition of Israel; He did not appeal to the authority of the rabbis or Sanhedrin; He did not even appeal to His own divinity or the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Our Savior, in the face of temptation, turned again and again and again to the Scriptures. 'It is written,' He said.

So what? His tempter did the same. At which point He got tired of playing Bible-quoting games and told the devil to go away.

First, they will try to say that the phrase "the Word of God" can mean more than just the Bible. I have already granted that. The question before us is whether today anything other than the Scriptures is necessary to know the truth of God for salvation.

What is necessary for salvation under the Christian covenant does not change from age to age. So why the emphasis on 'today'? He stated from the beginning that the question was what was necessary to know for salvation. It seems to me that by 'necessary' he means what is the minimum requirement. Okay, but then what does it mean to say "Scripture is necessary to know the truth of God for salvation"? Notice: he does not say "The New Covenant is necessary to know," etc. but Scripture. Does he mean we have to read Scripture in order to be saved? The Christians in Acts did not read the New Testament; many uneducated Christians through out history did not read the Scriptures. And yet we have reason to believe and hope that they were saved. Until the printing press was invented the Gospel continued to be spread primarily by word of mouth, in sermons and such. Whole monastic orders were dedicated to being instructed in the faith and preaching the Good News to the people. What is necessary for salvation is the New Covenant, in which Christ poured out his blood for the salvation of many: for no one comes to the Father except through the Son. But again, why the emphasis on 'today'? Does he suggest that what was necessary for salvation in the early centuries – that is, hearing the Gospel preached, repenting and believing – is no longer necessary today because we have invented the printing press and so now everyone can read the Bible? Has the printing press changed our relationship with God and no longer made it possible for Him to save us unless we read the New Testament? By no means! But of course he cannot be saying this – it is sheer nonsense, and contradicts God's omnipotence. I don't think I understand what he is saying.

Furthermore, why does he want to know the bare minimum of truth we need to know in order to be saved? It is an important question certainly, but having read the New Testament is not a prerequisite for salvation. It is simply this: love God (and this I was learned before I could read). More interesting is the fullness of truth into which the Spirit has been leading us.

Our opponents need to show not that Paul referred to his preaching as well as his writing as the Word of God -- I grant that; they need to show that Paul taught that the oral teaching of the apostles would be needed to supplement the Scriptures for the Church through the ages. They cannot show that because Paul did not teach that, and the Scriptures as a whole do not teach that!

This is hardly a convincing argument. It is an argument from silence: because we have no record of Paul teaching that the oral tradition "would be needed to supplement the Scripture for the Church through the ages," therefore it is not the case. I could just as well say: because we have no record of Paul saying the New Testament (which was still coming into existence) "would be needed to supplement the oral tradition for the Church through the ages" therefore it is not the case. This argument is only valid if you assume that the Scriptures are sufficient, which is what he is trying to demonstrate and so, for the purposes of the argument, can't be assumed.

And why does it have to be one or the other. Why not both?

Our Roman opponents, while making much of tradition, will never really define tradition or tell you what its content is.

Actually, if he wants to understand it, he should read Dei Verbum carefully. Also, he could have looked in the Catholic Encyclopedia and found this article on Tradition, and also this article on the errors of "Traditionalism" - just to clarify what the Church is not saying. Then there is this and also this from the Catholic Catechism, both admittedly short but with reference to other works that could be read in their full contexts for greater understanding. Or again he could go to the Vatican homepage, do a search for "tradition," and learn how the word is actually used in church documents. Or again, there is Newman’s famous Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, which sheds much light on sacred Tradition.

Moreover, quick answers and explanations to profound questions often err. Can he tell me in one sentence exactly what the nature of the Church is, or explain what it means to say that God's essence and existence are one? Religious questions are often mysterious in their nature and cannot be answered with quick and easy answers.

But what do Roman apologists mean when they assert the authority of tradition? Historically, they have not agreed among themselves about the nature and content of tradition. For example, one has said that tradition does not add anything to Scripture. But almost all Roman apologists, for over three hundred years after the Council of Trent, argued that tradition does add to the Scriptures. Some Roman apologists believe that all binding tradition was taught by the apostles, while others believe that tradition evolves and develops through the centuries of the church so that there are traditions necessary for salvation that were never known to the apostles. It is impossible to know what the real Roman position is on this matter.

This is unconvincing scholarship. Cite specific authors, works, etc. As the previous link to the CE's article on tradition says, the distinction between Tradition and tradition is essential to understand the Catholic theology about this deep and subtle topic. If he wants to understand it he will have to read more, not just make shadow references to people who might have disagreed and say, "See, look, they don't even understand it!"

The Second Vatican Council expressed itself with deliberate ambiguity: "This tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. . . . For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her." What does that mean? It certainly does not give us any clear understanding of the character or content of tradition.

I get the sense he is not trying to understand what it means anymore. At times the Apostles did not understand everything Christ said to them, even after he explained it. Christ promised us the Spirit to lead us into all truth. What are we to say then, "Yep, we now know the full truth and the Holy Spirit doesn't need to lead us anymore"? All that the Council is saying here is that the apostolic tradition (what has been handed over by the Apostles) is not fully realized. It seems perfectly plausible that there was more to that morning of wind and tongues of fire than anyone has yet realized.

As Pope Pius IX said at the time of the First Vatican Council in 1870, "I am tradition." The overwhelming arrogance of such a statement is staggering.

The quote is taken out of the context of his life and person: when the Pope said la tradizione sono io he was actually making a joke and playing on the remark attributed to Louis XIV (1643-1715) l'etat c'est moi (I am the state). Pope Pius IX, beatified on 3 September 2000, was not actually as arrogant and wicked as he is made out to be by Dr. Godfrey – who could probably use a good laugh.

(1) The Bible teaches that the office of bishop and presbyter are the same office (Titus 1:5-7), but tradition says they are different offices.

This is a silly objection: in any living tradition, which the Christian tradition most emphatically is since it began with the Resurrection and has Life itself as its source, these offices are subject to a slow, natural and organic growth depending on the culture, time and circumstances of the people they have to minister to. (Cf. Aidan Nichols' "Holy Orders" for a development of this office.)

(3) The Bible teaches that Christ offered His sacrifice once for all (Hebrews 7:27, 9:28, 10:10), but tradition says that the priest sacrifices Christ on the altar at mass.

More bad scholarship. The following is taken from a long article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Sacrifice of the Mass:

Regarding the other aspect of the Sacrifice on the Cross, viz. the impossibility of its renewal, its singleness and its power, Paul again proclaimed with energy that Christ on the Cross definitively redeemed the whole world, in that he "by His own Blood, entered once into the holier having obtained eternal redemption" (Heb., ix 12). This does not mean that mankind is suddenly and without the action of its own will brought back to the state of innocence in Paradise and set above the necessity of working to secure for itself the fruits of redemption. Otherwise children would be in no need of baptism nor adults of justifying faith to win eternal happiness. The "completion" spoken of by Paul can therefore refer only to the objective side of redemption, which does not dispense with, but on the contrary requires, the proper subjective disposition. The sacrifice once offered on the Cross filled the infinite reservoirs to overflowing with healing waters but those who thirst after justice must come with their chalices and draw out what they need to quench their thirst. In this important distinction between objective and subjective redemption, which belongs to the essence of Christianity, lies not merely the possibility, but also the justification of the Mass. But here unfortunately Catholics and Protestants part company. The latter can see in the Mass only a "denial of the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ". This is a wrong view, for if the Mass can do and does no more than convey the merits of Christ to mankind by means of a sacrifice exactly as the sacraments do it without the use of sacrifice, it stands to reason that the Mass is neither a second independent sacrifice alongside of the sacrifice on the Cross, nor a substitute whereby the sacrifice on the Cross is completed or its value enhanced.

If Dr. Godfrey has studied the topic more carefully, he would have seen that the Catholic Church does teach that Christ's sacrifice was offered once and for all. As before, he is equivocating terms: the term 'sacrifice' as it is applied to Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, and as it is applied to the sacrifice of the Mass. Did he not know there was a distinction? He is, literally, confusing the issue. (Here is another interesting article about sacrifice in general.)

(4) The Bible says that we are not to bow down to statues (Exodus 20:4, 5), but tradition says that we should bow down to statues.

I don't know what I think about these one line over-simplified misinterpretations of Catholic theology. The following is a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia on "The Veneration of Images":

The Fathers of Nicaea II further distinguish between absolute and relative worship. Absolute worship is paid to any person for his own sake. Relative worship is paid to a sign, not at all for its own sake, but for the sake of the thing signified. The sign in itself is nothing, but it shares the honour of its prototype. An insult to the sign (a flag or statue) is an insult to the thing of which it is a sign; so also we honour the prototype by honouring the sign. In this case all the outward marks of reverence, visibly directed towards the sign, turn in intention towards the real object of our reverence -- the thing signified. The sign is only put up as a visible direction for our reverence, because the real thing is not physically present. Every one knows the use of such signs in ordinary life. People salute flags, bow to empty thrones, uncover to statues and so on, nor does any one think that this reverence is directed to coloured bunting or wood and stone.

It is difficult to image someone bowing before a statue (even a neo-pagan) who at the same time is able to give it absolute worship. It is no more idolatry than holding your hand over you heart and saying the Pledge of Allegiance in front of the American flag. Also, there is something odd about all of these. In researching this he must have come across distinctions, clarifications, and refutations of his misinterpretation. It sounds as if he read them and said, "What? Relative and absolute worship? I don't understand that: it sounds the same to me!" The sincerity of his inquiry is becoming suspicious.

(5) The Bible says that all Christians are saints and priests (Ephesians 1:1; 1 Peter 2:9), but tradition says that saints and priests are special castes within the Christian community.

First, as before, he is equivocating terms. "Saints" is used in Scripture to mean "a Christian," but in Catholic theology to refer to those blessed dead who have attained the glory of heaven. He seems to have completely failed to notice this glaring distinction. Second, he is not looking at the whole Bible, but only its parts: he is not taking into account the principle of diversity, that "there are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit". Again, see Aidan Nichols' "Holy Orders" for a development of the priestly office.)

(6) The Bible says that Jesus is the only Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), but tradition says Mary is co-mediator with Christ.

As we have become the adopted children of the Kingdom through the only-begotten Son of God, so Mary, the saints and all Christians can participate in the intercession of the sole Mediator between God and man. Moreover, just as you can rejoice in the beauty of a sunset without offending God, whose nature is supremely beautiful and makes possible the sunset, so you can use the mediation of Mary and the saints without offending the Mediator, who makes possible their mediation.

(7) The Bible says that all Christians should know that they have eternal life (1 John 5:13), but tradition says that all Christians cannot and should not know that they have eternal life.

Christ's death does not mean I am saved but that I can be saved. There are three elements of salvation: salvation as a past event (Rom 6:6, Rom 8:3), as a present reality (1 Jn 4:15, Lk 19:8-9), and as a future hope (1 Cor 1:18, Rom 13:11). All are essential. Unless we persevere in the grace of God, we shall not see God.

The Bible did prove dangerous in the sixteenth century; most who read it carefully became Protestants!

It seems then their decision was prudent.

Such discoveries about tradition led the Reformers back to the Bible. There they learned that the Scriptures must stand as judge of all teaching. The Scripture teaches that it is the revelation of God, and is therefore true in all that it teaches.

It would stand to reason, then, that with this revival of interest in the only infallible source of truth there would also be a return to the one faith which the Catholics had abandoned. But along with 'only Scripture' seems to come an implied 'only me' for interpretation of that Scripture; but once the individual mind is the absolute judge there will arise (and have arisen) as many contradictions in denominations as their are private interpretations.

In fact, it seems that sola Scriptura makes a Magisterium of the mind. Are not the multitudes of Protestant denominations evidence that each has become a Pope unto himself, that is, that the authority of the see of Peter has not been effectively resisted but merely exiled to a new location?

And remember that neither the Scriptures, nor the great majority of the fathers of the ancient church period, understand the authority of the church in the way they do.

The mistake he makes here is addressed in Newman's Development of Christian Doctrine.

At one point in his debate with the Pelagians, a bishop of Rome sided with Augustine, and Augustine declared, "Rome has spoken, the matter is settled." Later, however, another pope opposed Augustine on this subject, and Augustine responded by saying, "Christ has spoken, the matter is settled." Augustine did not bow to the authority of the bishop of Rome, but turned to the word of Christ to evaluate the teaching of Rome.

Not very convincing. He fails to take into account why Augustine said "Rome has spoken" in the first place, and whether his "Christ has spoken" was actually a denial of Rome's authority. He does a poor job of representing the situation. What was the first question about, what was the second question about?

If we do not accept the Scriptures as our standard and judge, there is indeed no hope for unity.

But, as he pointed out, all Protestants accept Scripture as the standard and judge; and, if anything, there has resulted less hope for unity than before.

Did he say that the Scriptures were not clear, and that only he as an apostle or the rabbis or the Sanhedrin could tell them what the Scriptures really meant?

But he was talking to a certain people at a certain time, the Jews well-educated in the Old Testament. His claim is not absolute for all cultures at all times. When he goes to Gentile countries and becomes "all things to all men," he does not appeal to the Scriptures at all (since it would be irrelevant in that context). If he concludes by the first example that we are to take Scripture as the sole determinate in matters of faith and morals than one could just as easily determine in the second that Scripture is never to be a determinate in matters of faith and morals (except in the rare case of converting Jewish people). Both of these conclusions seem to me to err on different sides.

Dr. Godfrey earlier remarked about the "contradiction" of Rome for teaching (at a certain time and place) that, for the sake of restraining errors, Scripture is not to be translated into the vulgar and (at a different time and place) encouraging the laity to read the sacred books. So the Church deemed one thing appropriate at one time and not at another time – so what? Why is it a big deal if matters of practice change? In both cases I see that the first priority of the Church is the salvation of souls (times being what they were then, and what they are now).

No! He did not say any of these things.

This is a weak argument. The Church is, in one sense, in a content state of reflection on the depositum. Therefore as the history of Christianity progresses we come to a fuller understanding of the truth, even as after the Council of Jerusalem Christians understood that the Gentiles are not bound by the law of Moses.

the chaste harlot

In the freedom of his faith, St. Ambrose said:

"Rehab—who as a type was a prostitute, but as a mystery is the Church—showed in her blood the future sign of Universal Salvation amid the world’s carnage; she does not refuse to unite herself with numerous fugitives, and is all the more chaste in the extent to which she is closely joined to the greater number of them; she is the immaculate virgin, without a wrinkle, uncontaminated in her modesty, plebeian in her love, a chaste whore, a barren widow, a fecund virgin."

In suo sanguine inter excidia mundi publicae futurum salutis insine Rehab illa, typo meretrix mysterio ecclesia, indicavit, quae multorum convenarum copulam non recusat et quo coniunctior pluribus eo castior, immaculata virgo, sine ruga, pudore integra, amore plebeia, casta meretrix, vidua sterilis, virgo fecunda. (In Lucam III:23)

Ambrose goes on to clarify this daring metaphor, saying that the Church is a "chaste whore, since many lovers frequent her because of the attractions of love; yet she is free from the contamination of sin."

Casta meretrix, quia a pluribus amatoribus frequentatur cum dilectionis illecebra et sine conluvione delicti.... (In Lucam III:23)

omnipresence and transcendence

"Neither do I deny that God is so deeply present to everything . . . that it would be impossible for him but for his infinity not to be identified with them or, from the other side, impossible but for his infinity so to be present to them."

Hopkins

infant baptism

Justin Martyr (b.100) speaks of baptism as "the washing for forgiveness of sins and rebirth" (First Apology 66).

St. Irenaeus (b.125) said, "Christ came to save all who are reborn through Him to God, infants, children, and youths" (CH II, 22).

Tertullian (b.160) spoke of baptism as "our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life" (On Baptism 1).

Origen (b.185) said: "There may be added to the aforementioned considerations the fact that in the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3); and later Origen writes: "The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. For the Apostles . . . knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentary on Romans 5:9).

St. Hippolytus of Rome (d.236) said: "Baptize first the children; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21).

St. Cyprian (c.246) wrote: "As to what pertains to the case of infants: you said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth . . . and that you did not think that one should be baptized . . . within the eighth day after his birth . . . we all judged that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letter to Fidus, 64(59):2).

And an anonymous treatise on baptism (c.255) speaks of sins which "were without doubt put away by the baptism of the Holy Spirit" (Treatise on Re-Baptism 6).

Also, Gregory Nazianzen (b.325) wrote: "Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the seal [of baptism] on account of the weakness of nature?" (Oration XL, On Holy Baptism, XVII); and again he wrote: "Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated. A proof of this is found in the Circumcision on the eighth day, which was a sort of typical seal, and was conferred on children before they had the use of reason. And so is the anointing of the doorposts, which preserved the firstborn, though applied to things which had no consciousness" (Oration XL, XXVIII).

St. John Chrysostom (b.347) said: "You see how many are the benefits of Baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins; but we have enumerated ten honors. For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by sin: so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be His members (qtd. by Augustine in Contra Iulianum 1:6:21).

And in a letter to a friend Augustine (b.354) refuted those who "refuse to believe that in infants original sin is remitted through baptism" (On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 9); and again St. Augustine wrote: "And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision... so in infants who die baptized, we must believe that the same grace of the Almighty supplies the want, that, not from perversity of will, but from insufficiency of age, they can neither believe with the heart unto righteousness, nor make confession with the mouth unto salvation. Therefore, when others take the vows for them, that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete in their behalf, it is unquestionably of avail for their dedication to God, because they cannot answer for themselves" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:32).

Not in herself, O daughters

"Not in herself, O daughters; not in herself, I repeat, O daughters; but in us is the Church wounded. Let us then take care that our lapses do not become wounds for the Church . . ." (St. Ambrose De virginitate 48).

the church and the new testament

I posted this question on my old journal and an acquaintance, whose comments are in blue, wrote back.

Which came first, the Church or the New Testament?

What do you mean, Theologos? The New Testament writings, or the New Testament / Covenant as in "This is the new testament" in my blood?

Oh, right, sorry about the confusion! :) I meant the New Testament writings.

The Church came first. The Church's birthday, if you will, was on Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles and all those people like Mary (those who were mentioned as praying with the apostles in Acts 1). Obviously there were no New Testament writings at this point. I hope this helps.

I guess the question was more a matter of ontology than chronology, though it was meant to suggest a connection between the two. It was really a question about sola Scriptura and how the Church relates to Scripture. Perhaps I should have said: which comes first, the Church or the New Testament? -- though that sounds as if it were an either-or option, which isn't the case because it was the Church, or rather the members of the body of Christ, who wrote the New Testament in the first place. But the Gospel was first preached by word of mouth, and weren't the four Gospels written as a supplement to what was told? A few of the epistles (I just finished reading First Corinthians) seem to suggest an oral tradition outside of themselves, e.g. "For what I received I passed on to you" (15:3) and the like. But oral traditions are sneaky; maybe they continue today, or maybe they died out. Any ideas?

These are GREAT questions and certainly fun to talk about. I'm going to have to think this one over, so don't be surprised if it is a day or two before you here back from me. ;-) I'm actually in 2 Corinthians myself. I just concluded 1 Corinthians before this. I LOVE those epistles.

[Later]

I'm so sorry that it has taken me so long to respond to this stimulating question. You are right. 1 Corinthians 15 is definitely a reiteration of oral tradition. I guess that is the way the Church really had to go about things throughout the first century. I don't know if the Gospels were "supplemental." I just know that they were written in order to instruct the faithful in the life and teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ (and all of course have a different perspective or point-of-view that they want to get across that makes them unique and wonderful). Sola scriptura is a very interesting concept, and I am sure you know is one that Protestants are very ardent about. I am wondering if you are making a reference to sola scriptura because at first the Church had to rely on oral traditions until, let's say, 60 or 70 A.D. for the first Gospels or ten to fifteen years before that for the epistles?

I definitely agree about the personal quality of the Gospels; each one is written in a distinctive voice. St. Luke is a good story-teller, and St. John has a nice touch here. On the question of sola Scriptura, it may be that I need some specific clarification about what sola Scriptura really is; do you know of a good site explaining it?

The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 is really interesting. First because the Hebrew Scriptures, specifically the prophets, are cited as relevant guidance on the issue of whether or not Gentiles require circumcision (vs. 16-18). The Apostles, in their time, were drawing in part on the Old Testament for the source and rule of their faith, just as the early Church fathers would draw on the age of the Apostles and the Old Testament, just as the later Church fathers and theologians would draw on the early Church fathers and the New Testament and the Old Testament, just as, etc. There seems to be an ever-deepening and ever-increasing source from which to draw instruction and guidance: all of which finds its meaning and origin in the passion, death and resurrection of our Lord. The action of the Christian tradition, then, seems to be a kind of perpetual recapitulation or sublimation, whose center is Christ but whose reach is the world, its present and its past.The second thing that draws my attention is that, after they have debated the question, they come to the conclusion that the Gentiles do not need to be circumcised. The initial objection that "some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees" made, that is, that Gentiles need to be circumcised, is no longer a valid objection. And in the letter they send to the Gentiles the council says, "it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you, etc." (28-29). It appears then that the Apostles and the other participants of the council (the "elders") had a sense that the Holy Spirit was guiding their decision. At the least, this seems to be one of the primitive seeds that grew into what later theologians and councils said about the authority of councils.

If sola Scriptura really means (which maybe it doesn't) that the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice is found in Scripture, wouldn't most Protestants have to rejection the Nicene Creed? Yet, as far as I know, mainline Protestant theology does accept the Nicene Creed -- which I find somewhat puzzling. If they accept the creed which the Council declared, do they accept that Council's excommunication and condemnation of the Arian heresy? If not, then why accept the creed? (And how separate is the creed from the anathemas?) If so, on what authority did the Council speak? If on their own authority, then why should they be followed; but if by the power of the Holy Spirit then what of the Council of Trent?

Those are more beautiful questions that you raise. Here are two websites (the first one is of much more importance in this topic...)http://www.sola-scriptura.ca/whatis.htm http://www.mbrem.com/bible/bible1.htm Regarding the Nicene Creed, I know I accept it because I believe it reflects the teaching of Scripture. I imagine that most Protestants feel the same.

[And David Talcott added]

Theologos--you run some interesting blogs. They're decent reading. Sola Scriptura does mean that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and morals. Yet many Protestant denominations utilize subordinate standards, standards which they believe to be faithful summaries of Scriptural truth. The Westminster Confession and the various Baptist Confessions are typical examples of these. Hence, the only final authority is Scripture (not Scripture + tradition or anything else). Yet, secondary standards can be used since they are based solely on Scripture. Scripture remains the sole source. Protestant churches (almost universally) accept the Nicene Creed and the early Ecumenical councils as secondary standards, believing them to be in entire conformity with Scripture and legitimate uses of the authority of the church. Hope this helps some,
David Talcott
talcott.blogspot.com

That ended the correspondence.

I certainly believe that the truths taught in the Nicene Creed are present in Scripture. But why do Protestants accept some parts of the council but not others? Why do they accept the creed but not the authority implicit in the anathemas? Because of sola Scriptura. This dictates that the creed is true, for it agrees with Scripture, and the authority of the church is non-existent, because it disagrees with Scripture. And yet Christ gave authority to his disciples (Jn 20:21-23), and especially to Peter (Mt 16:17-19).

I wonder what is meant by "legitimate uses of the authority of the church".

world as word

God's utterance of himself in himself is God the Word, outside himself is this world. This world then is word, expression, news of God. Therefore its end, its purpose, its purport, its meaning, is God and its life or work to name and praise him.

~Hopkins. "Further Notes on the Foundation" Sermons and Devotional Writings. Ed. Christopher Devlin. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959) p.129

revelation

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matt. 16:16).

This was the first teaching revealed to the Church: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. It is therefore at all times the first teaching of the Church and, with respect to mankind, the most important. And it was indeed revealed, for Jesus answered him saying, "Blessed art thou, Simon son of John: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" (16:17). Peter was blessed with the knowledge of who Christ is, which was given to him by the Father and therefore was infallible: for God does not lie.

the two natures of Christ

The Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon, from the fifth session, held 22 October 451.

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before all the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from the earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

I love the precision of the council: "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation."

perpetuity

The perpetuity of the Church follows from her catholicity, for if her Founder gave to the Church the mission of gathering all people to Christ, He must also have intended her to last "until the end of the age".

This is why Pascal could say, "There is some pleasure in being on board a ship battered by storms when one is certain of not perishing. The persecutions buffeting the Church are like this" (743).

"I believe in one God"

God must be eternal if he is one; that is, only the being of which unqualified unity can be predicated can be eternal, for it would not possess its being in a series of moments but in a single act.

the real presence

He told his disciples "This is my body," and said to them, "This is my blood." Was he serious? He often spoke in parables. But a parable is a story that embodies a teaching, e.g., once a farmer went out to sow, etc., so this is not a parable. Is it a simile? He did not say "This is like my body." Is it a metaphor? Are we to take it literally?

From John 6:48-60 (RSV):

I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum. Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"

He insisted on the necessity of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He said "truly, truly," which indicates that what follows is of grave importance. But many departed that day, and they left because they realized he was not speaking in parables any more. His flesh is real food, and his blood is real drink. This is a hard teaching, who can accept it? The apostles accepted it; they did not leave, for Peter replied, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" (68).

From 1 Cor 11:20-29 (RSV):

When you meet together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

Paul rebukes the Church of Corinth. They gathered to celebrate and remember the Lord's Supper, but as though it were a common meal like any other. They were eating and drinking in an unworthy manner: they did not discern the Lord's body. Notice the words of Christ he choses to quote: hoc est meum corpus. As if it were enough to rebuke them, he reminds them what is happening. As often as we do this, we proclaim the Lord's death; the mass is a reverberation of the sacrifice of Calvary.

forgiveness of sins

Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." (John 20:21-23)

The Holy Spirit it seems was necessary for this kind of forgiveness. Peter's earlier question about how many times he should forgive a brother was a question about one man sinning against another, and of one man forgiving another. But if the Holy Spirit is necessary to forgive sins in the way the apostles are now forgiving sins, then God himself is involved in this forgiveness; that is, the apostles are forgiving sins in the name of God and in the person of Christ.

De Sancti: Historical Summary

The following passage is from J. N. D. Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines, Ch. XVII “Mary and the Saints.” (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978. 490-91.) [1]

A phenomenon of great significance in the patristic period was the rise and gradual development of veneration for the saints, more particularly for the Blessed Virgin Mary. Its full flowering, and the formal definitions sanctioning it, belong to later ages, but the formative beginnings call for a brief treatment.

Earliest in the field was the cult of martyrs, the heroes of the faith whom Christians held to be already in God’s presence and glorious in His sight.[2] At first it took the form of the reverent preservation of their relics and the annual celebration of their “birthday”.[3] From this it was a short step, since they were now with Christ in glory, to seeking their help and prayers, and in the third century evidence for the belief in their intercessory power accumulates.[4] In arguing for it Origen appealed to the communion of saints, advancing the view that the Church in heaven assists the Church on earth with its prayers. With the cessation of persecution early in the fourth century the cult was extended to include, in addition to martyrs, other Christians (e.g. confessors, ascetics, virgins) who had been examples of heroic sanctity. By the middle of the same century, according to Cyril of Jerusalem, [5] the patriarchs, prophets, apostles and martyrs were commemorated in the liturgy “so that by their prayers and intercessions God may receive our supplications.” When God chastises men, Chrysostom remarked, [6] they should appeal to His saints since they have efficacious access to Him—more efficacious than when they were alive, as Gregory Nazianzen pointed out, [7] because they are now closer to Him. In the following century Leo the Great in the West extolled [8] the Church’s confidence in the prayers and patronage of the saints, whom God had appointed both as an example and as a defense to Christians.

As it steadily established itself, the devotion paid to saints and their relics could not fail to attract the citing censure of critics, pagan (e.g. Julian the Apostate) and Christian (e.g. Vigilantius). In defending it Jerome argued, [9] as other Christians since Origen had done, that if the apostles and martyrs prayed to their fellow-Christians when still alive, it was natural to believe that they would do so all the more now that they were crowned with heavenly glory. While the technical distinction between the latria due to God and the dulia permissible to the saints was only beginning to emerge [10] in the patristic epoch, the consistent teaching of the Church, voiced as much by Polycarp’s devotees [11] as by theologians like Augustine [12] and Cyril of Alexandria, [13] was that while the saints and martyrs deserved honor and devotion, only God could be worshipped. As Theodoret expressed it, [14] after listing benefits commonly sought from the martyrs, Christians do not invoke them as gods, but as godly men who can be their ambassadors and plead for them.

[1] All footnotes reproduced as found in text.
[2] 1 Clem. 5, 4; Hermas, vis. 3, 2, 1; sim. 9, 28, 3.
[3] Mart. Polyc. 18, 2; cf. Cyprian, epp. 12, 2; 39, 3.
[4] E.g. Origen, orat. 31, 5; Cyprian, ep. 60, 5; also funerary inscriptions.
[5] Esp. in Iesu nave hom. 16, 5.
[6] Cat. 23, 9.
[7] Orat. 18, 4.
[8] Serm. 85, 4.
[9] C. Vigil. 6: cf. Origen, exhort. ad mart. 38.
[10] For the distinction see Augustine, quaest. In Hept. 2, 94: cf. de civ. Dei 10, 1, 2; c. Faust. 20, 21
[11] Mart. Polyc. 17, 3.
[12] Serm. 273, 7; de vera rel. 108
[13] C. Iul. Imp. 6 (PG 76, 812).
[14] Graec. affect., cur. 8, 63.

De Sancti: Tradition

"Every pious and holy action done by one belongs and is profitable to all, through charity which seeks not her own" (Council of Trent).

The Testimony of the Fathers, Doctors, and other Christians

(The ealier quotes provide evidence of its practice; the later quotes its justification.)

In the Apostle’s Creed: "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting." [1]

St. Clement I (c. 96) (The Letter of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, Commonly Called Clements First Letter)

Let us set before our eyes the noble apostles: Peter, who by reason of wicked jealousy, not only once or twice but frequently endured suffering and thus, bearing his witness, went to the glorious place which he merited. . . . And so, released from this world, [Paul] was taken up into the holy place and became the greatest example of patient endurance.

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 100) (The Letter to the Ephesians)

You have been initiated in the [Christian] mysteries with Paul, a real saint and martyr, who deserves to be congratulated. When I come to meet God may I follow in his footsteps, who in all his letters mentions your union with Christ Jesus.

St. Justin Martyr (c.150) (First Apology)

For the oracles of the dead and the revelations of innocent children, the invoking of [departed] human souls, the dream senders and guardians of the magi, and what is done by those who know about such things—all this should convince you that souls are still conscious after death. [2]

Tertullian, (b.160) (The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity)

O most brave and blessed martyrs! O truly called and chosen unto the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ! whom whoever magnifies, and honors, and adores, assuredly ought to read these examples for the edification of the Church, not less than the ancient ones, so that new virtues also may testify that one and the same Holy Spirit is always operating even until now, and God the Father Omnipotent, and His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, whose is the glory and infinite power for ever and ever. Amen

Origen (d. 253) (Exhortation to Martyrdom)

In some such way must we suppose the death of the most holy martyrs to operate, many receiving benefit from it by an influence we cannot describe. . . . He calls martyrdom a chalice, as is evident against from the words: "Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from Me. Nevertheless not as I will but as You will." And again we learn that he who drinks the chalice that Jesus drank will sit, reign, and judge beside the King of Kings.

(Exhortation to Martyrdom 30. c.f. Rev 20:4)

The souls of the ones "hewn" for confessing their faith to Christ, do not stand by the heavenly altar in vain, serving the ones wishing for absolution of sins.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) (Myst. catech. 5; 9)

[The divine liturgy of the dead commemorates] patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, in order for God to accept our entreaty via their blessings and delegations. We then commemorate also our pre-deceased [brothers], believing that greatest benefit will come to our souls, for which the entreaty of the holy and fearful sacrifice is done before us.

St. Basil (330-379) (Letter CCCLX: Of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the invocation of Saints, and their Images)

According to the blameless faith of the Christians which we have obtained from God, I confess and agree that I believe in one God the Father Almighty; God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost; I adore and worship one God, the Three. I confess to the Œconomy of the Son in the flesh, and that the holy Mary, who gave birth to Him according to the flesh, was Mother of God. I acknowledge also the holy apostles, prophets, and martyrs; and I invoke them to supplication to God, that through them, that is, through their mediation, the merciful God may be propitious to me, and that a ransom may be made and given me for my sins. Wherefore also I honor and kiss the features of their images, inasmuch as they have been handed down from the holy apostles, and are not forbidden, but are in all our churches.

For reference to festivities that used to take place in remembrance of the saints, c.f. Epistle 227, to the bishops of Pontos. 8, 40.

St. Gregory the Theologian (329-390) (Speech 21; 37, to Athanasios the Great)

We beg of you [Athanasios] to watch over us good-naturedly from above.

(Speech 24; 3-4 to St. Cyprian)

We must celebrate all the martyrs.

(Speech 43; 80, to Basil the Great)

And now he [St. Basil] is up in heaven and offers his sacrifices for us.

St. John Chrysostom (344-407) (Homiliae in primam ad Corinthios)

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.

St. Ambrose (b.339) (The Holy Spirit, Bk. I, Ch. 14, P.150)

And just as there is the light of the divine countenance, so fire flashes forth from the countenance of God, for it is written: "A fire shall burn in His countenance." For the grace of the day of judgment shines forth, that absolution may follow, to reward the allegiance of the saints.

St. Gregory the Great (d. 604) (Dialogi)

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

St. Augustine (354-430) (Confessions, VI)

When, therefore, my mother had at one time—as was her custom in Africa—brought to the oratories built in the memory of the saints certain cakes, and bread, and wine, and was forbidden by the door-keeper, so soon as she learnt that it was the bishop who had forbidden it, she so piously and obediently acceded to it, that I myself marveled how readily she could bring herself to accuse her own custom, rather than question his prohibition. For wine-bibbing did not take possession of her spirit, nor did the love of wine stimulate her to hatred of the truth, as it doth too many, both male and female, who nauseate at a song of sobriety, as men well drunk at a draught of water. But she, when she had brought her basket with the festive meats, of which she would taste herself first and give the rest away, would never allow herself more than one little cup of wine, diluted according to her own temperate palate, which, out of courtesy, she would taste. And if there were many oratories of departed saints that ought to be honored in the same way, she still carried round with her the selfsame cup, to be used everywhere; and this, which was not only very much watered, but was also very tepid with carrying about, she would distribute by small sips to those around; for she sought their devotion, not pleasure. As soon, therefore, as she found this custom to be forbidden by that famous preacher and most pious prelate, even to those who would use it with moderation, lest thereby an occasion of excess might be given to such as were drunken, and because these, so to say, festivals in honor of the dead were very like unto the superstition of the Gentiles, she most willingly abstained from it. [3] And in lieu of a basket filled with fruits of the earth, she had learned to bring to the oratories of the martyrs a heart full of more purified petitions, and to give all that she could to the poor; that so the communion of the Lord's body might be rightly celebrated there, where, after the example of His passion, the martyrs had been sacrificed and crowned.

(Civitas Dei, Bk. XX)

For the souls of the pious dead are not separated from the Church, which even now is the kingdom of Christ; otherwise there would be no remembrance made of them at the altar of God in the partaking of the body of Christ, [4] nor would it do any good in danger to run to His baptism, that we might not pass from this life without it; nor to reconciliation, if by penitence or a bad conscience any one may be severed from His body. For why are these things practiced, if not because the faithful, even though dead, are His members?

(Civitas Dei, Bk. XXII, ch. 10)

Here perhaps our adversaries will say that their gods also have done some wonderful things, if now they begin to compare their gods to our dead men. Or will they also say that they have gods taken from among dead men, such as Hercules, Romulus, and many others whom they fancy to have been received into the number of the gods? But our martyrs are not our gods; for we know that the martyrs and we have both but one God, and that the same. Nor yet are the miracles which they maintain to have been done by means of their temples at all comparable to those which are done by the tombs of our martyrs. If they seem similar, their gods have been defeated by our martyrs as Pharaoh's magi were by Moses. In reality, the demons wrought these marvels with the same impure pride with which they aspired to be the gods of the nations; but the martyrs do these wonders, or rather God does them while they pray and assist, in order that an impulse may be given to the faith by which we believe that they are not our gods, but have, together with ourselves, one God. In fine, they built temples to these gods of theirs, and set up altars, and ordained priests, and appointed sacrifices; but to our martyrs we build, not temples as if they were gods, but monuments as to dead men whose spirits live with God. Neither do we erect altars at these monuments that we may sacrifice to the martyrs, but to the one God of the martyrs and of ourselves; and in this sacrifice they are named in their own place and rank as men of God who conquered the world by confessing Him, but they are not invoked by the sacrificing priest. For it is to God, not to them, he sacrifices, though he sacrifices at their monument; for he is God's priest, not theirs. The sacrifice itself, too, is the body of Christ, which is not offered to them, because they themselves are this body. Which then can more readily be believed to work miracles? They who wish themselves to be reckoned gods by those on whom they work miracles, or those whose sole object in working any miracle is to induce faith in God, and in Christ also as God? They who wished to turn even their crimes into sacred rites, or those who are unwilling that even their own praises be consecrated, and seek that everything for which they are justly praised be ascribed to the glory of Him in whom they are praised? For in the Lord their souls are praised. Let us therefore believe those who both speak the truth and work wonders. For by speaking the truth they suffered, and so won the power of working wonders. And the leading truth they professed is that Christ rose from the dead, and first showed in His own flesh the immortality of the resurrection which He promised should be ours, either in the beginning of the world to come, or in the end of this world.

St. John Damascene (c.676 - c.749), (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith)

But since some find fault with us for worshipping and honoring the image of our Savior and that of our Lady, and those, too, of the rest of the saints and servants of Christ, let them remember that in the beginning God created man after His own image. On what grounds, then, do we show reverence to each other unless because we are made after God's image? For as Basil, that much-versed expounder of divine things, says, the honor given to the image passes over to the prototype. Now a prototype is that which is imaged, from which the derivative is obtained. Why was it that the Mosaic people honored on all hands the tabernacle which bore an image and type of heavenly things, or rather of the whole creation? God indeed said to Moses, Look that thou make them after their pattern which was showed thee in the mount. The Cherubim, too, which o’er-shadowed the mercy seat, are they not the work of men's hands? What, further, is the celebrated temple at Jerusalem? Is it not hand-made and fashioned by the skill of men?

(An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith)

But besides this who can make an imitation of the invisible, incorporeal, un-circumscribed, formless God? Therefore to give form to the Deity is the height of folly and impiety. And hence it is that in the Old Testament the use of images was not common. But after God in His bowels of pity became in truth man for our salvation, not as He was seen by Abraham in the semblance of a man, nor as He was seen by the prophets, but in being truly man, and after He lived upon the earth and dwelt among men, worked miracles, suffered, was crucified, rose again and was taken back to Heaven, since all these things actually took place and were seen by men, they were written for the remembrance and instruction of us who were not alive at that time in order that though we saw not, we may still, hearing and believing, obtain the blessing of the Lord.[5] But seeing that not every one has a knowledge of letters nor time for reading, the Fathers gave their sanction to depicting these events on images as being acts of great heroism, in order that they should form a concise memorial of them. Often, doubtless, when we have not the Lord's passion in mind and see the image of Christ's crucifixion, His saving passion is brought back to remembrance, and we fall down and worship not the material but that which is imaged: just as we do not worship the material of which the Gospels are made, nor the material of the Cross, but that which these typify.

The Venerable Bede (731) (Ecclesiastical History of the English People, I. 18)

Once this abominable heresy [Pelagianism] had been put down, its authors refuted, and the people established in the pure faith of Christ, the bishops paid a visit to the tomb of the blessed martyr Alban to return thanks to God through him. Germanus, who had with him relics of all the Apostles and several martyrs, first offered prayer, and then directed the tomb to be opened, so that he could deposit these precious gifts within. For he thought it fitting that, as the equal merits of saints had won them a place in heaven, so their relics should be gathered together from different lands into a common resting-place. (The event recorded occurred around 429 a.d.)

St. Francis of Assisi (1182-1227) (Letter to the General Chapter and to all the Brothers)

Listen, my Brothers. If the Blessed Virgin Mary is justly honored for having carried the Lord in her most chaste womb, if St. John trembled at baptizing Him, not daring, as it were, to place his hand on God’s Chosen One; if the tomb wherein Jesus reposed for a few hours is the object of such veneration; then how worthy, virtuous, and holy ought he to be who touches with his fingers, receives in his mouth and in his heart, and administers to others, Christ, no longer mortal, but eternally triumphant and glorious! Let every man tremble, let the whole world shake and the heavens rejoice, when upon the altar the Son of the living God is in the hands of the priest!

St. Thomas Aquinas, (1225-1274), (Suppl., 72:2, ad 1)

Whether we ought to call upon the saints to pray for us?
Objection 1: It would seem that we ought not to call upon the saints to pray for us. For no man asks anyone's friends to pray for him, except in so far as he believes he will more easily find favor with them. But God is infinitely more merciful than any saint, and consequently His will is more easily inclined to give us a gracious hearing, than the will of a saint. Therefore it would seem unnecessary to make the saints mediators between us and God, that they may intercede for us.

Objection 2: Further, if we ought to beseech them to pray for us, this is only because we know their prayer to be acceptable to God. Now among the saints the holier a man is, the more is his prayer acceptable to God. Therefore we ought always to bespeak the greater saints to intercede for us with God, and never the lesser ones.

Objection 3: Further, Christ, even as man, is called the "Holy of Holies," and, as man, it is competent to Him to pray. Yet we never call upon Christ to pray for us. Therefore neither should we ask the other saints to do so.

Objection 4: Further, whenever one person intercedes for another at the latter's request, he presents his petition to the one with whom he intercedes for him. Now it is unnecessary to present anything to one to whom all things are present. Therefore it is unnecessary to make the saints our intercessors with God.

Objection 5: Further, it is unnecessary to do a thing if, without doing it, the purpose for which it is done would be achieved in the same way, or else not achieved at all. Now the saints would pray for us just the same, or would not pray for us at all, whether we pray to them or not: for if we be worthy of their prayers, they would pray for us even though we prayed not to them, while if we be unworthy they pray not for us even though we ask them to. Therefore it seems altogether unnecessary to call on them to pray for us.

On the contrary, It is written (Job 5:1): "Call . . . if there be any that will answer thee, and turn to some of the saints." Now, as Gregory says (Moral. v, 30) on this passage, "we call upon God when we beseech Him in humble prayer." Therefore when we wish to pray God, we should turn to the saints, that they may pray God for us.

Further, the saints who are in heaven are more acceptable to God than those who are on the way. Now we should make the saints, who are on the way, our intercessors with God, after the example of the Apostle, who said (Rm. 15:30): "I beseech you . . . brethren, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the charity of the Holy Ghost, that you help me in your prayers for me to God." Much more, therefore, should we ask the saints who are in heaven to help us by their prayers to God.

Further, an additional argument is provided by the common custom of the Church which asks for the prayers of the saints in the Litany.

I answer that, According to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) the order established by God among things is that "the last should be led to God by those that are midway between." Wherefore, since the saints who are in heaven are nearest to God, the order of the Divine law requires that we, who while we remain in the body are pilgrims from the Lord, should be brought back to God by the saints who are between us and Him: and this happens when the Divine goodness pours forth its effect into us through them. And since our return to God should correspond to the outflow of His boons upon us, just as the Divine favors reach us by means of the saints intercession, so should we, by their means, be brought back to God, that we may receive His favors again. Hence it is that we make them our intercessors with God, and our mediators as it were, when we ask them to pray for us.

Reply to Objection 1: It is not on account of any defect in God's power that He works by means of second causes, but it is for the perfection of the order of the universe, and the more manifold outpouring of His goodness on things, through His bestowing on them not only the goodness which is proper to them, but also the faculty of causing goodness in others. Even so it is not through any defect in His mercy, that we need to bespeak His clemency through the prayers of the saints, but to the end that the aforesaid order in things be observed.

Reply to Objection 2: Although the greater saints are more acceptable to God than the lesser, it is sometimes profitable to pray to the lesser; and this for five reasons. First, because sometimes one has greater devotion for a lesser saint than for a greater, and the effect of prayer depends very much on one's devotion. Secondly, in order to avoid tediousness, for continual attention to one thing makes a person weary; whereas by praying to different saints, the fervor of our devotion is aroused anew as it were. Thirdly, because it is granted to some saints to exercise their patronage in certain special cases, for instance to Saint Anthony against the fire of hell. Fourthly, that due honor be given by us to all. Fifthly, because the prayers of several sometimes obtain that which would not have been obtained by the prayers of one.

Reply to Objection 3: Prayer is an act, and acts belong to particular persons [supposita]. Hence, were we to say: "Christ, pray for us," except we added something, this would seem to refer to Christ's person, and consequently to agree with the error either of Nestorius, who distinguished in Christ the person of the son of man from the person of the Son of God, or of Arius, who asserted that the person of the Son is less than the Father. Wherefore to avoid these errors the Church says not: "Christ, pray for us," but "Christ, hear us," or "have mercy on us."

Reply to Objection 4: As we shall state further on the saints are said to present our prayers to God, not as though they notified things unknown to Him, but because they ask God to grant those prayers a gracious hearing, or because they seek the Divine truth about them, namely what ought to be done according to His providence.

Reply to Objection 5: A person is rendered worthy of a saint's prayers for him by the very fact that in his need he has recourse to him with pure devotion. Hence it is not unnecessary to pray to the saints.

Whether any kind of worship is due to the relics of the saints?
Objection 1: It would seem that the relics of the saints are not to be worshiped at all. For we should avoid doing what may be the occasion of error. But to worship the relics of the dead seems to savor of the error of the Gentiles, who gave honor to dead men. Therefore the relics of the saints are not to be honored.

Objection 2: Further, it seems absurd to venerate what is insensible. But the relics of the saints are insensible. Therefore it is absurd to venerate them.

Objection 3: Further, a dead body is not of the same species as a living body: consequently it does not seem to be identical with it. Therefore, after a saint's death, it seems that his body should not be worshiped.

On the contrary, It is written (De Eccles. Dogm. xl): "We believe that the bodies of the saints, above all the relics of the blessed martyrs, as being the members of Christ, should be worshiped in all sincerity": and further on: "If anyone holds a contrary opinion, he is not accounted a Christian, but a follower of Eunomius and Vigilantius."

I answer that, As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 13): "If a father's coat or ring, or anything else of that kind, is so much more cherished by his children, as love for one's parents is greater, in no way are the bodies themselves to be despised, which are much more intimately and closely united to us than any garment; for they belong to man's very nature." It is clear from this that he who has a certain affection for anyone, venerates whatever of his is left after his death, not only his body and the parts thereof, but even external things, such as his clothes, and such like. Now it is manifest that we should show honor to the saints of God, as being members of Christ, the children and friends of God, and our intercessors. Wherefore in memory of them we ought to honor any relics of theirs in a fitting manner: principally their bodies, which were temples, and organs of the Holy Ghost dwelling and operating in them, and are destined to be likened to the body of Christ by the glory of the Resurrection. Hence God Himself fittingly honors such relics by working miracles at their presence.

Reply to Objection 1: This was the argument of Vigilantius, whose words are quoted by Jerome in the book he wrote against him (ch. 2) as follows: "We see something like a pagan rite introduced under pretext of religion; they worship with kisses I know not what tiny heap of dust in a mean vase surrounded with precious linen." To him Jerome replies (Ep. ad Ripar. cix): "We do not adore, I will not say the relics of the martyrs, but either the sun or the moon or even the angels"--that is to say, with the worship of latria. "But we honor the martyrs' relics, so that thereby we give honor to Him Whose martyrs [The original meaning of the word 'martyr,' i.e. the Greek martys is 'a witness'] they are: we honor the servants, that the honor shown to them may reflect on their Master." Consequently, by honoring the martyrs' relics we do not fall into the error of the Gentiles, who gave the worship of latria to dead men.

Reply to Objection 2: We worship that insensible body, not for its own sake, but for the sake of the soul, which was once united thereto, and now enjoys God; and for God's sake, whose ministers the saints were.

Reply to Objection 3: The dead body of a saint is not identical with that which the saint had during life, on account of the difference of form, viz. the soul: but it is the same by identity of matter, which is destined to be reunited to its form.

[1] “The title Apostles’ Creed is found for the first time in a letter sent by the synod of Milan (390) to Pope St. Siricius (384-398). [Though probably not drafted by the Apostles, it] is a faithful summery of the truths taught from the earliest days of the Church.” (The Church Teaches: Documents of the Church, 1973)
[2] He is not here referring to the Christian practice, but arguing to the emperor that even pagans have some kind of knowledge that the soul continues after death.
[3] St. Monica’s attitude towards the veneration of relics is similar to St. Paul’s towards the eating of meat, where he says that he chooses not to partake not because it is sinful, but rather to avoid being a source of scandal to others.
[4] The liturgy of the Mass includes the remembrance of saints, both in Augustine’s time and today.
[5] The Incarnation and Christian art are closely bound.

De Sancti: Scripture

"The communion of saints is the spiritual solidarity which binds together the faithful on earth, the souls in purgatory, and the saints in heaven in the organic unity of the same mystical body under Christ its head, and in a constant interchange of supernatural offices." (CE)

The Argument from Holy Scripture

"But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (Matt. 22:31-32). Clearly, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob suffered death, but they must be, in some definite way, still living. Since God is not God of the dead, either He is not the God of men who have died, both saints and sinners alike—in which case death is freedom from God and likewise from His Judgment—or, although the patriarchs suffered the separation of body and soul, their souls are imperishable and continue after death with God: for to be without God is to be truly dead, whether or not the soul and body are united. The first conclusion is clearly impossible for the Christian. First, because it would mean that God's power could not redeem the souls of the faithful departed; but the Psalmist says, "You will not leave my soul in Sheol" (16:10). Furthermore, if God's power were limited by death then Christ could not have overcome death; but Scripture says, "Christ being raised from the dead dies no more; death hath no more dominion over him" (Rom 6:9). And finally, it would be derogatory to God's omnipotence to say that He could not bring all things to justice; for the Scripture says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom," and again, "The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment will ever touch them" (Ps. 45:6, Wis. 3:1). Thus the souls of the patriarchs must be still living, that is, must be with God.

Either one may ask those who died in faith to intercede for us, or the gap between the living and the dead is unbridgeable. Yet, the witch of Endor summoned the spirit of Samuel for Saul, which shows that the dead can be summoned by evil means for communication with the living (1 Sam. 28). But if such communication is possible, by what principle can there not exist a proper means of communion between the living and the departed? Since evil is a privation of or twisting of the good, there must exist some good that the witch was perverting. And in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the soul of Lazarus is already in the bosom of Abraham and the soul of the rich man already in torment, even while the rich man’s brothers are still living (Luke 16:19-31).[1] From these two examples it is clear the dead can converse with the living—as Samuel did—and with other departed souls—as the rich man did. [2] Yet the dead can also converse with God Himself, for at the transfiguration Moses and Elijah "appeared in glory" as they spoke with Christ (Luke 9:31). Most importantly, our Lord Himself said from the Cross: "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). The Lord tells the good thief that when he dies his soul will be present in paradise with God, on that very same day. For us who are living after that day, should we not ask the soul of the saved thief to appeal to our Savior for the conversion of all thieves?

Clearly then, the dead must have a life beyond death even now, for it is unlikely that these examples from Scripture are the exception. From these examples, it appears there is a period after the soul is separated from the body and before the body is resurrected on the last day. While the soul may be free from temporal and spatial limitations necessary to un-resurrected bodies, it has nevertheless a linear existence from the moment of conception. For after death the soul does not become eternal in the strict a-temporal sense—that is, never having been contained within the boundaries of time—for only God is eternal I AM. This suggests, I think, that the experience of time is not completely destroyed after death.[3] But however the soul might exist after death, it cannot exist in a void. And there are a limited number of places that take in souls after death.

In Christ's prayer for unity, he says, "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me" (John 17:20-21). Here Christ prays for unity within the entire body of Christian men. He does not pray for those present alone, but for all who will come to believe in Him through the Apostles' words. This communion of Christian men does not only extend to those who were present when Christ spoke these words, but to all Christians in all ages. He even prays for those who have not yet been born, for us. Therefore, as Christ's prayer is still relevant today, Christ prays for unity in the Church that extends between the living and the dead: those who died Christians, those who are Christians and those who will become Christians: "that they all may be one."

Unity then exists in the Church as the unity of its members exist in the whole body. For the Father "gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that fills all in all" (Eph. 1:22-23). According to this passage the Church is the body of Christ; and "no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it, even as the Lord the church: for we are members of his body, of his flesh, of his bones" (Eph. 5:30). Are we to believe that He ceases to nourish and cherish us once we die? Does death separate us from the Church and undo our baptism into the body of Christ? On the contrary, Paul says, "as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ" (1 Cor. 12:13). For whether Gentile or Jew, slave or free, even living or departed, the same Spirit baptized us into the Church. And if the eye cannot say unto the hand, "I have no need of thee," then the living cannot say to the dead, "I have no need of thee" (cf. 1 Cor. 12:21).

But if the mystical body of Christ only included the living, what would become of death? Indeed, death would be terrible; for if death were separation from the Church, death would also be separation from Christ who is the head of the Church. But Paul says, "I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8:38-39). If then death is not able to separate us from Christ, neither is it able to separate us from His body. For Paul says: "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundations of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together grows unto a holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are built together for a habitation of God through the Spirit" (Eph. 2:19-22). Clearly, this "temple" cannot be exclusively built of the living, for the cornerstone Himself suffered the separation of body and soul. Even the prophets who have already suffered death are mentioned. Thus this temple is not weakened by death; nor can the love within the mystical body of Christ be broken by death. For we are connected through Christ to all the other members of His body by the bonds of charity, which never fails.

But then, if the dead are still members of the Church, why should I not be able to ask them to pray for me? Paul asks the living members of the Church to pray for him: "Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me" (Rom 15:30). And this is not the only time that he asks for prayers (cf. Col 4:3; 1 Thess. 5:25). If I ask the living who do not see God to pray for me, why should I not ask those who see God face to face to likewise intercede on my behalf? Is there a reason to think those who died in faith would cease striving together with the living in their prayers to God for us? The angels certainly can pray for us, for Raphael even told Tobias, "I offered thy prayer to the Lord" (12:12). And if the angels who are not of the race of men pray for mortals how much more so would those of the seed of Adam offer their prayers for us as they stand before the Throne! For "we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses," that is, with the angels and saints of God (Heb 12:1). As Paul is not asking for their prayers in any way that weakens his dedication to Christ, so our own prayers to the saints do not weaken our dedication to Christ.[4] Nor are the prayers of the saints unnecessary mediation, for the miracle at the wedding feast of Cana happened through the intersession of Mary. In fact, there have always been human mediators—who are not also the Son of God—between God and man, such as Abraham pleading for Sodom (Gen. 18:23-33), Moses for Israel (Ex. 32:7-14) and Job for his comforters (Job 42:7-8). But the mediators of the Old Testament were only pre-figurations of Christ, who alone made possible true communion between God and sinful man by atoning for our sins. But by that same perfect mediation, He made possible the intercession of the saints. For just as we have become the adopted children of the Kingdom through the only-begotten Son of God, so the saints participate in the intercession of the sole Mediator between God and man. Likewise, just as you can rejoice in the beauty of a sunset without offending God, whose nature is supremely beautiful and makes possible the sunset, so you can use the mediation of the saints without offending the Mediator, who makes possible their mediation.

Finally there is the rather mysterious passage from Revelations where the prayers of the saints are presented to God: "And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odors, which are the prayers of the saints" (5:8).

A word must be said here about the difference between praying to a saint and praying to Christ, who is Lord of all. Christ is the head of the Church, and no honor and veneration permissible to any saint is a substitute for the worship and adoration due to God. The difference is not just in degree of the prayer, but in kind. The Christian ought to ask the dead to pray for him as he asks the living to pray for him. (And just as there is no necessary offense in the asking the living to pray for us, neither is there in asking the dead to pray for us.) For giving praise for the beauty of a single stone in the temple of God does not detract—either in reality or necessarily in the mind of the one rejoicing—from the supreme beauty of the cornerstone, that is Christ. Indeed, the proper veneration of saints is a holy rejoicing in the fullness of God manifested through the various members of His Body.[5]

[1] It might be objected that the story of Lazarus is just a parable and not meant to be a source of theological doctrine. But, on closer look, many doctrines are derived from parables, e.g. the Day of Judgment from Matthew 13:24-30.
[2] However, since some kind of communication with the dead is possible, another option becomes present: that it is nonetheless forbidden. Such two-way communication provided by the witch of Endor is certainly forbidden. But the invocation of saints is different in nature and method. While the medium has recourse to demonic spirits the Christian's prayer is a natural expression of his devotion. And while the end of the medium's activity is to speak directly with the dead, both the petitioner and the saints are ultimately oriented towards God in their prayer.
[3] Ecce! omnia nova facio may include time as well. (cf. Rev. 21:5)
[4] Christ is always the center of the Christian's life, but the saints make that center more fully imaginable by more fully imaging Him. The saints show us, among other things, that goodness is fresh and rare and precious in every age—while it is evil that (like bad poetry) is the same in all generations.
[5] Cf. “As Kingfishers Catch Fire” (Gerald Manley Hopkins) “For Christ plays in. . . .”

original sin

The sin wherewith we sinned in Adam is natural in me, personal in Adam. In Adam it is graver, in me less grave; for in him I sinned not as who I am but as what I am. It was not I that sinned in him, but what I am; I sinned in him as man, not as Odo; as substance, not as person. Because the substance does not exist save in the person, the sin of the substance is the sin of the person, yet not personal. That sin is personal which I commit as who I am, not as what I am; by which I sin as Odo, not as man; by which I sin as person, not as nature.

Odo of Cambrai "De Peccato Originali" (Migne, P.L. 160:1085)