Monday, April 30, 2007

complementary expressions

From Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine, p. 64:
The co-ordinating formula (filioque) and the subordinating formula (per filium) concur essentially, in so far as they both attest that both the Father and the Son are the Principle of the Holy Ghost and they also complement each other. While in the former the unicity and the indivisibility of the Principle are above all expressed, the latter effectively stresses that the Father is the Primitive Principle (cf. Augustine, De Trin. XV 17, 29: de quo procedit principlaliter), and that the Son as "God from God" is the Derived Principle, in so far as He, with His Essence, also receives the power of spiration from the Father. Cf. D 691.
Note to self: learn about the Filioque controversy.

Sunday, April 29, 2007

condemnations of the Holy See

In the censure of books, which offend against doctrine or discipline, it is a common rule to take sentences out of them in the author's own words, whether those are words in themselves good or bad, and to affix some note of condemnation to them in the sense in which they occur in the book in question. Thus it may happen that even what seems at first sight a true statement, is condemned for being made the shelter of an error; for instance: "Faith justifies when it works," or "There is no religion where there is no charity," may be taken in a good sense; but each proposition is condemned in Quesnell, because it is false as he uses it. (Newman Difficulties "The Syllabus")

Saturday, April 28, 2007

true origin

The word "priest" is the Anglo-Saxon translation of the Greek "presbyteros."

From the OED:

OE. préost = OHG. prêst, priast, ON. prest-r (Norw. prest, Sw. präst, Da. præst); app. shortened from the form seen in OS. prêstar, OHG. prêstar, priestar (MDu., Du., MHG., Ger. priester), OFris. prêstere; ultimately from L. presbyter (-biter), a. Gr. elder: see PRESBYTER; perh. immediately through a Com. Romanic *prester (whence OF. prestre, F. prêtre, Sp. preste, It. prete). The origin of éo in OE. préost, and the anterior phonetic history of this and the other monosyllabic forms, are obscure; see Pogatscher Lehnworte im Altengl. §142. The ON. may have been from OLG. or OE.

From this site:

O.E. preost, shortened from the older Gmc. form represented by O.S., O.H.G. prestar, O.Fris. prestere, from V.L. *prester "priest," from L.L. presbyter "presbyter, elder," from Gk. presbyteros (see Presbyterian). In O.T. sense, a transl. of Heb. kohen, Gk. hiereus, L. sacerdos. Priesthood is O.E. preosthad. Priestcraft originally was "the business of being a priest" (1483); after rise of Protestantism and the Enlightenment, it acquired a pejorative sense of "arts of ambitious priests for temporal power and social control" (1681).
So much for the theory that priests are not presbyters because they have different names.

Friday, April 27, 2007

more on inspiration and revelation

Thesis: Not every revelation is accompanied by inspiration.

Definition of Terms: Inspiration: the special positive Divine influence and assistance by which a human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is guided and controlled in such a way that what he says or writes is truly the word of God; that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance.

Revelation: the supernatural making known by God of some truth previously unknown (or at least not vouched for by Divine authority).

Argument: In every inspired utterance God is the chief author; therefore, every inspired utterance also falls under the province of revelation. When God inspires, He is making known some truth in a supernatural way. Inspiration then is a mode of revelation, a way in which God reveals Himself or some other truth. But there is nothing in the definitions above that calls for inspiration being the only mode of revelation. God can give a revelation without inspiring the person to whom it is given. For example, as Moses stood before the burning bush he received a revelation, though Moses was not at that moment inspired. Furthermore, Jesus taught the crowds; that is, they heard Christ reveal God, but the crowds were not inspired as they received that revelation. Finally, when we read Scripture we are reading a revelation given to mankind by God, although we are not inspired when we read it or talk about it. Therefore, not every revelation is accompanied by inspiration.

Thursday, April 26, 2007

original sin and the blessed virgin

Recently I read Newman's Letter to Pusey, where he writes on the Blessed Virgin. I was surprised when I came across his explanation of original sin. Newman says that Catholics (along with the Fathers) define original sin as "the deprivation of that supernatural unmerited grace which Adam and Eve had on their first formation - deprivation and the consequences of deprivation." He makes the point that original sin is not something positive (like actual sin) but something negative. It is not "a disease, a radical change of nature, an active poison internally corrupting the soul, infecting its primary elements and disorganizing it."

This came as a surprise because it means that, for whatever reason, I have misunderstood this Catholic teaching for most of my life. I had always thought of it as an active principle in the soul, though apparently I was mistaken. The Catechism agrees with Newman saying that original sin is "a deprivation of original holiness and justice" (405). For this reason, "original sin is called 'sin' only in an analogical sense: it is a sin 'contracted' and not 'committed' -- a state and not an act" (404).

From here Newman explains why, although immaculately conceived, Mary still needed redemption: "We consider that in Adam she died, as others; that she was included, together with the whole race, in Adam's sentence; that she incurred his debt, as we do; but that, for the sake of Him who was to redeem her and us upon the Cross, to her the debt was remitted by anticipation, on her the sentence was not carried out."

"Mary could not merit, any more than [Adam and Eve], the restoration of that grace; but it was restored to her by God's free bounty, from the very first moment of her existence, and thereby, in fact, she never came under the original curse, which consisted in the loss of it. And she had this special privilege, in order to fit her to become the Mother of her and our Redeemer, to fit her mentally, spiritually for it; so that, by the aid of the first grace, she might so grow in grace, that, when the Angel came and her Lord was at hand, she might be 'full of grace,' prepared as far as a creature could be prepared, to receive Him into her bosom."

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

private judgment and revelation

The intellect of man is active and independent: he forms opinions about everything; he feels no deference for another's opinion, except in proportion as he thinks that that other is more likely than he to be right; and he never absolutely sacrifices his own opinion, except when he is sure that that other knows for certain. He is sure that God knows; therefore, if he is a Catholic, he sacrifices his opinion to the Word of God, speaking through His Church. But, from the nature of the case, there is nothing to hinder his having his own opinion, and expressing it, whenever, and so far as, the Church, the oracle of Revelation, does not speak. (Newman Differences Among Catholics No Prejudice to the Unity of the Church)

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

two reactions

"She bears her unearthly character on her brow, as her enemies confess, by imputing her miracles to Beelzebub" (vii).

"The babe leaps in Elizabeth's womb, at the voice of her in whom is enshrined and lives the Incarnate Word" (viii).

from Newman's Difficulties Preface

Monday, April 23, 2007

public worship

Can. 214 -- The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescriptions of their own rite approved by the legitimate pastors of the Church, and to follow their own form of spiritual life consonant with the teaching of the Church. (CIC)

Sunday, April 22, 2007

inspiration and revelation

Preliminary: All truths known by the human mind fall into one of three categories: (1) truths known only by revelation (e.g., the Trinity), (2) truths known by both revelation and reason (e.g., the existence of God, the historical existence of Jesus), and (3) truths known only by reason (e.g., the Pythagorean theorem, the color of my shoe, the bitterness of my Czech beer last night). Even though human reason, after much labor and possibility of error, can find truths which are highly important and ought to be believed, God includes these truths in His revelation so that we may more readily believe them (since few have the genius of a Plato or an Aristotle).

Definitions: Inspiration is that special positive Divine influence and assistance by reason of which a human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is guided and controlled in such a way that what he says or writes is truly the word of God. God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance. Revelation on the other hand is the supernatural making known by God of some truth previously unknown (or at least not vouched for by Divine authority).

Reflections: By virtue of being a word of God, then, every inspired utterance is a revelation. And yet not every revelation is accompanied by inspiration. For example, when Moses stood before the imperishable bush he received a revelation of the Divine Essence, though he was not at that moment inspired; but when the author of Exodus told the story of Moses that author was inspired, whether or not he wrote of that history with an immediate communication from heaven. In fact, the historical books of the Old and New Testament seem to be written without any awareness of a supernatural dictation. How do we explain this? Of course they could be revealed without being inspired (as St. Francis received a divine message without being inspired), but we say they are inspired and therefore certainly revealed. So what accounts for their inspiration?

The definition of revelation given above is broad enough to include what, at first glace, does not appear to be revelation, namely the historical books in the Old and New Testament. The prophetic works fall into the first half of the definition, truths not previously known (e.g., "a virgin shall conceive and bear a son" etc.) and the historical works fall into the second half, truths not previously vouched for by Divine authority. Human reason unaided by revelation would later discover the truth of monotheism, but the Divine had already revealed Itself as One; historians could have pieced together the story of the early Church, but the Divine has already prepared for us an account of it. In Acts Luke may only have been telling the story of the early Church as it happened to him or as he heard it reported, but the narrative remains a revelation because it is inspired. And it can be called revelation, not because Luke supernaturally received knowledge of the events recorded (though that is possible), but because, granting its inspiration, the mode of the story's composition bears the stamp of Divine approval.

But the question remains, why do we say the New Testament is inspired? Because it was incorporated into the canon of Scripture and all Scripture is inspired. So why and by what authority was it incorporated into the canon of Scripture?

In general, because in those books the flock of God heard the voice of their Shepherd. This is the authority of the beloved who knows the call of her Lover.

Saturday, April 21, 2007

the development of an idea

When an idea, whether real or not, is of a nature to arrest and possess the mind, it may be said to have life, that is, to live in the mind which is its recipient. Thus mathematical ideas, real as they are, can hardly properly be called living, at least ordinarily. But, when some great enunciation, whether true or false, about human nature, or present good, or government, or duty, or religion, is carried forward into the public throng of men and draws attention, then it is not merely received passively in this or that form into many minds, but it becomes an active principle within them, leading them to an ever-new contemplation of itself, to an application of it in various directions, and a propagation of it on every side. Such is the doctrine of the divine right of kings, or of the rights of man, or of the anti-social bearings of a priesthood, or utilitarianism, or free trade, or the duty of benevolent enterprises, or the philosophy of Zeno or Epicurus, doctrines which are of a nature to attract and influence, and have so far a primâ facie reality, that they may be looked at on many sides and strike various minds very variously. Let one such idea get possession of the popular mind, or the mind of any portion of the community, and it is not difficult to understand what will be the result. At first men will not fully realise what it is that moves them, and will express and explain themselves inadequately. There will be a general agitation of thought, and an action of mind upon mind. There will be a time of confusion, when conceptions and misconceptions are in conflict, and it is uncertain whether anything is to come of the idea at all, or which view of it is to get the start of the others. New lights will be brought to bear upon the original statements of the doctrine put forward; judgments and aspects will accumulate. After a while some definite teaching emerges; and, as time proceeds, one view will be modified or expanded by another, and then combined with a third; till the idea to which these various aspects belong, will be to each mind separately what at first it was only to all together. It will be surveyed too in its relation to other doctrines or facts, to other natural laws or established customs, to the varying circumstances of times and places, to other religions, polities, philosophies, as the case may be. How it stands affected towards other systems, how it affects them, how far it may be made to combine with them, how far it tolerates them, when it interferes with them, will be gradually wrought out. It will be interrogated and criticized by enemies, and defended by well-wishers. The multitude of opinions formed concerning it in these respects and many others will be collected, compared, sorted, sifted, selected, rejected, gradually attached to it, separated from it, in the minds of individuals and of the community. It will, in proportion to its native vigour and subtlety, introduce itself into the framework and details of social life, changing public opinion, and strengthening or undermining the foundations of established order. Thus in time it will have grown into an ethical code, or into a system of government, or into a theology, or into a ritual, according to its capabilities: and this body of thought, thus laboriously gained, will after all be little more than the proper representative of one idea, being in substance what that idea meant from the first, its complete image as seen in a combination of diversified aspects, with the suggestions and corrections of many minds, and the illustration of many experiences. (John Henry Newman, Development of Doctrine, 36-38)

Friday, April 20, 2007

Christian doctrine

What the church of Jesus Christ believes, teaches, and confesses on the basis of the word of God: this is Christian doctrine. Doctrine is not the only, not even the primary, activity of the church. The church worships God and serves mankind, it works for the transformation of this world and awaits the consummation of its hope in the next. "Faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love" -- love, not faith, and certainly not doctrine. The church is always more than a school; not even the Enlightenment managed to restrict or reduce it to its teaching function. But the church cannot be less than a school. It's faith, hope and love all express themselves in teaching and confession. Liturgy is distinguished from ceremonial by a content that is declared in the Credo; polity transcends organization because of the way the church defines itself and its structure in its dogma; preaching is set apart from other rhetoric by its proclamation of the word of God; biblical exegesis avoids antiquarianism because it is intent on discovering what the text teaches, not merely what is taught. The Christian church would not be the church as we know it without Christian doctrine. (Jaroslav Pelikan The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971] 1)

Thursday, April 19, 2007

confession

If you forgive anyone, I also forgive him. And what I have forgiven - if there was anything to forgive - I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes. (2 Cor 2:10-11)

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Evidences for Christianity

The object of love informs the love of the lover. And it informs the lover in his loving. The beloved, in being loved, shapes the love given. This is true in marriage, and everywhere in the world. This is true for every mortal relationship.

The virtuous pagans did not worship matter itself. They loved the Incomprehensible Deity, although they did not always know it. As for the wicked pagans, however, whether they worshiped gods or gold, spirits or stone, it does not matter: the object of their latria was the created, not The Uncreated. And we become holy only by loving the Holy One, only by letting the Object of our adoration shape us into His image. "Since it was the will of God's only-begotten Son that men should share in his divinity, he assumed our nature in order that by becoming man he might make men gods."

The strongest evidence I can think of for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Eucharist. If the object Catholics adore is not the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ Jesus, really Present under the appearance of bread and wine, than countless saints would have been informed and degraded by prostrating themselves, body and soul, before the Host in absolute and supreme worship. That sinners have done the same and remained unchanged is not an argument against this: it is not the submission of the body but of the person that is needed. And the saints are precisely those who have done this most of all, who surpassed all others in holiness because they lowered themselves before all others in prayer.

I promise you, in adoration you will find the Lover of your soul.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Open Letter to Protestants

I recently came upon an idea - and though I am not entirely convinced by it, I am partially persuaded - that the sacred text was never intended to teach doctrine, but only to prove it, and that, if we would learn doctrine, we must, as Newman says, have recourse to the formularies of the Church (for instance to the Catechism, and to the Creeds).

What begins to persuade me even more of this is that neither the doctrine of the Trinity nor the Incarnation is explicit in Scripture, or at least the doctrine as explained in the Nicene Creed, though it is present and suggested in many statements which were only more fully understood after the Council defined the doctrine. And not only is the Council's declarations inferred from Scripture, even the Arian doctrine is inferred from Scripture - and what standard is there to determine and judge between conflicting interpretations, between inferences which arrive at contradicting conclusions, between true developments and corruptions? And if Christianity professes to be a revealed religion, to be given from above, and it is a duty for men to learn its message, then how has Providence, who knows how men are weak and easily error morally and intellectually, insured that the message He revealed will not become forever corrupt?

Since I hope to make a formal argument against sola Scriptura, I will begin with its definition, given by A. A. Hodge: "The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, having been given by Inspiration of God, are the All-Sufficient and Only Rule of Faith and Practice, and Judge of Controversies."

(1) The first objection that presents itself to my mind is that this doctrine is not itself found in Scripture. If one is going to claim that Scripture is the "Judge of Controversies," then in the controversy of whether or not Scripture fulfills this role, Scripture itself must have a say. Hodge maintains they do, and gives four reasons (question 6); but I maintain no clear evidence for sola Scriptura is found in Scripture.

(a) The first reason, Hodge says, is that "the Scriptures always speak in the name of God, and command faith and obedience." Granted; but here we need to make some observations and distinctions. The Scriptures as a whole speak in the name of God, and so rightly deserve the title Word of God (since no one confuses it with the Word of God who became flesh). For any Word, whether it be prophetic or Scriptural, by the very fact of being "of God," demands our faith and obedience; indeed, all Revelation implies the imperative to believe it. And while all Scripture is given by the inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, yet even so Paul says that on some topics he has no command from the Lord but is giving his own opinion ("as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy"). Paul's advice that follows certainly is not spoken in the name of God; he makes that much clear. Nonetheless, while individual passages may not be speaking directly in the name of God, I agree that Scripture considered as a whole, that is, considered as a Divine Message, is spoken in the name of God and commands our faith and obedience. The question, however, is whether Scripture is the only authority, the only rule of faith and practice, and the only judge of controversies; this only proves that Scripture is an authority, rule and judge, not that it is the only one. Any organ that speaks (not just claims but in fact speaks) in the name of God ought to command our faith and obedience.

(b) Second, says Hodge, "Christ and his apostles always refer to the written Scriptures, then existing, as authority, and to no other rule of faith whatsoever." Honestly, this objection always confuses me. Not only is it inaccurate, it is also impossible. If Christ and his apostles held the Old Testament (which were the Scriptures "then existing") and nothing else to be the rule of faith, then the proclamation of the Gospel is nothing more than the propagation of Judaism. Is Hodge suggesting the Old Testament is the only valid authority and rule of faith? By no means! No Christian of course confuses Christianity with the Jewish religion. The objection, then, seems to mean that since Christ always appealed to Scripture, we should always appeal to Scripture -- but here the argument is based on an equivocation in the word "Scripture," in one case meaning the Old Testament, and in the other meaning both the Old and New Testaments. Consequently, because the terms aren't equal, and even Hodge does not consider Scripture what the Apostles considered Scripture, all that can be concluded (to my mind) is that Christ and His Apostles appealed to the written word of God because it is an authority, rule and judge in controversies - not necessarily because it was the only one.

Furthermore, Christ and the Apostles did not always appeal only to the Old Testament. While Christ appealed to the Jewish Testament primarily because His mission was to the lost house of Israel, though He constantly taught with an authority higher than the scribes and Pharisees knew or could conceive of, this practice of referencing the Law broadened when Christianity spread beyond Palestine to make disciples of all nations. Paul says to the Corinthians:
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.
Here of course is the appeal to the Old Testament. But what I deny to Hodge is that there is "no other rule of faith whatsoever" Paul appeals to. On the contrary, he appeals first to the gospel he preached to them (which obviously is not the message of the Old Testament); and then he further declares that he preached the same message he received, that is, that he was a faithful organ of transmission. Only after this does he speak of Christ's death, burial and resurrection "according to the Scriptures" - which I take to mean not the Gospels but the Law and the Prophets, not the New but the Old Testament (for except in a few cases when Christ and the Apostles speak of Scripture they mean the sacred Hebrew writings). Thus while the appeal to the Old Testament is preserved, something more important is appealed to: the gospel message itself of Jesus Christ who fulfilled the prophecies by his death and resurrection.

And while Paul's letters to Gentile Christians often quote from the Law and Prophets, it need not be because he believed in sola Scriptura. (Indeed, that a Scripture writer would believe in sola Scriptura , when no collection of apostolic writings existed, strikes me as extremely improbably, if not impossible; since how could they believe in the sole authority of a letter or narrative unwritten, half-written, or just written as the case may be?) Being himself a Jew and well-studied in the Old Testament, Paul would recall verses and passages of the Law by the natural processes of the mind in composition (just as, being a literature student, lines of poetry return to me when I write); or, at least in some cases, he could have had in mind the converted Jews of that community, since Jews constituted the Church at Rome, Alexandria, and elsewhere; or, perhaps, because he means to show the continuity and fulfillment of Judaism in Christianity during these last days. But it was certainly not because he believed that the Old Testament (again, what Christ and, for the most part, the Apostles mean when they say Scripture) was the "all-sufficient and only rule of faith and practice"! This much is clear, for when Paul went to convert those without the Law he had no problem becoming like those without the Law "for the sake of the Gospel." His faith was not circumscribed by the Law. Also, the Council of Jerusalem ordained the rule of faith for the Gentiles which, even as it fulfilled the prophecy, went beyond the boundaries of the Old Covenant; for here in the Church is one greater than Moses and the Prophets, one who is the source of all authority. And it was by this Authority the Council's decision was promulgated: "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us," etc. (15:28).

(c) Third, says Hodge, "The Bereans are commended for bringing all questions, even apostolic teaching, to this test." It is true that when the Bereans heard the Gospel they "received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." But again, the terms of the objection contain an equivocation: the Scriptures the Bereans examined were the books of the Old Testament, but the subject of Hodge's definition is "the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament." As a result, this illustration from history only argues for sola Scriptura if apostolic teaching were subservient to the Old Testament. Since that is not what Hodge is maintaining, and all Christians agree the proclamation of the Gospel transcends and fulfills the Law, even as Christ said it would, then in this context the only thing the passage proves is that when the Old Testament is devoutly studied in the light of apostolic teaching, its truth will be revealed - for it would be absurd to say that the Bereans could have found the fullness of the Gospel without apostolic preaching; and it would be strange to say that, amid their eagerness, the Bereans were not reading the Law and the Prophets in the light of Paul's message. The Bereans continue the precedent of seeing Christ as the fulfillment of what the Old Law suggests, hints, and points to - but I fail to see how this supports the thesis that Scripture is the " All-Sufficient and Only Rule of Faith and Practice, and Judge of Controversies."

(d) Fourth, says Hodge, "Christ rebukes the Pharisees for adding to and perverting the Scriptures." The charge of Scriptural addition is a frequent objection by Protestants. The objection, however, presupposes the doctrine itself: the existence of a living tradition which predates Scripture and faithfully develops doctrines, drawing out explicitly what previous generations held implicitly, is only an "addition" to Scripture if the doctrine of sola Scriptura is true. If the doctrine is not true, then such a divinely guided tradition is no threat to Scripture. The objection, then, begs the question; it assumes the doctrine in question is true. The oral tradition and the teaching authority of the Church are not added to the Scripture, for they existed prior to the writing and collection of the New Testament into the canon of Scripture - for the Apostles were given the directive by Christ to preach and make disciples of all nations, and with authority and power they preached primarily by word of mouth, and only later wrote letters and the Gospels. If anything then, 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 inclusion in the canon of Scripture, are now a focal point of that tradition.

Furthermore, Christ did not object to tradition per se, but traditions of human origin being treated as traditions of divine origin. And since the claim of the Catholic Church is that her tradition is of divine origin, her claim is not refuted by the charge that the tradition "added" to the Scriptures is of human origin. The objector must first prove that the sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church is of human origin, and only after that has been done, accuse Catholics of adding to the Word of God. One might add here that all Christianity began with certain "additions" or developments of the Jewish Scriptures then existing.

As an example illustrating how a living tradition can explain what was not initially expressed with clarity, take the question of infant baptism. Origen (b.185 ) says: "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 he writes: "The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants." (Commentary on Romans 5:9). If we are to take as true the testimony of a man who lived just over one hundred years after the new Dispensation, can we not read Scripture in light of this? And, though some Protestants like James McCarthy object to infant baptism on grounds of sola Scriptura, when Acts mentions the baptism of households, it is conceivable infants were included, though the text makes no mention of them directly (cf. 16:15). (Note: I do not mean to use Mr. McCarthy as a representative of all Protestants who believe in sola Scriptura, or any group of them, but instead as an example of an individual using the doctrine in question to contradict an apostolic practice.)

(2) The second problem I see in this is that Scripture is not complete - or rather not in the sense that Hodge maintains it is (question 7-9). He begins saying that by completeness he does not mean that "the Scriptures contain every revelation which God has ever made to man," which is clearly not the case since John 20:30 affirms as much. Rather he means that "their contents are the only supernatural revelation that God does now make to man, and that this revelation is abundantly sufficient for man's guidance in all questions of faith, practice, and modes of worship, and excludes the necessity and the right of any human inventions." Here he is not arguing for but only restating the doctrine of sola Scriptura; but after this he gives reasons for it, though I maintain his conclusion does not follow from the evidence.

(a) First, appealing to the design of Scripture, Hodge says: "The Scriptures profess to lead us to God. Whatever is necessary to that end they must teach us. If any supplementary rule, as tradition, is necessary to that end, they must refer us to it." As I read this, three objections immediately come to mind. First, while the Scriptures profess to lead us to God, they do not profess to be the only thing that leads us to God. Consequently, it does not follow that whatever is necessary to that end is taught in Scripture. (For Christ himself continually leads Christians to the Father, whether or not they have read or do read Scripture; as the Apostles and the Church today, continuing her apostolic mission, convert people to Christ with the assistance of the Scriptures, whether Old or New.) Second, it may be noted that appealing to the "design of Scripture," when most of the books of the New Testament are letters and epistles, by itself argues for the existence a living community with beliefs necessarily larger and more extensive than what can be recorded in a few brief correspondences. I cannot trace every principle I hold, in detail or in full, in the letters I write to friends; much less could every teaching of Christ, whose three years of preaching contains more than my 23 years of living, be set down in a few hundred pages - or, for that matter, in a few hundred years by those reflecting on the content of Revelation. For Revelation was given not to a book, but to a people who subsequently, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote their impressions down in the Book. And third, the Scriptures do in fact refer to another rule of faith: the gospel of Jesus Christ which was preached by the Apostles (as I pointed out above).

(b) Hodge continues, "But while one sacred writer constantly refers us to the writings of another, not one of them ever intimates to us either the necessity or the existence of any other rule.--John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:15-17." Not all writers refer to other sacred authors; Jude refers to the book of Enoch, and it is not clear from the text whether that is because he thinks Enoch part of the canon of Scripture, or because it was part of the local culture of his audience, or for some other reason. Also, the verse Hodge cites, especially the prior verse John 20:30, argues for the existence of something broader than a sacred book, namely a new people of God, that is, the Church. And even granting the point that no other tradition is appealed to (which I do not), even then, it is merely an argument from silence. Hodge feels that silence, but here incompleteness would only be falsehood if sola Scriptura were true, which can't be assumed in the argument for sola Scriptura - thus Hodge is again begging the question and assuming what he sets out to prove. If, on the contrary, sola Scriptura were false, nothing can be "certainly deduced" from the silence of Scripture.

(3) Another problem I see in this, related to the previous one, is that the Scriptures are not, as Hodge maintained (questions 10-13), perspicuous, that is, clear to the Christian that would but open the Book. Here, however, Hodge makes an important distinction in sense, saying (in question 10) that by affirming the clarity of Scripture Protestants do not mean that "the Scriptures are level to man's powers of understanding," since many are beyond understanding, nor that "every part of Scripture can be certainly and perspicuously expounded." Instead, what is meant is that "every essential article of faith and rule of practice is clearly revealed in Scripture, or may certainly be deduced therefrom." The Protestant claim then, according to Hodge, is that the essential articles of faith and rules of practice are clearly revealed in Scripture, or may be certainly deduced from Scripture. And yet, if this were true, how come the full orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation and the Trinity are not explicit in Scripture, but required the Arian heresy to bring about, after many years, a formal declaration? I agree that both are implicit - yet only doctrines explicitly stated are "clearly revealed", all the rest require inference and development.

(4) The last problem I see with this is that the Scriptures are not accessible, as Hodge maintains (question 14). Accessibility is not the "pre-eminent characteristic of the Scriptures" in any sense, but, as I see it, a material cause of the doctrine of sola Scriptura. If God had meant sola Scriptura to be the principle by which all Christians lived, then it is reasonable to apply this doctrine to all ages of Christianity. But there are a few necessary conditions which make this doctrine impossible on a practical level - not just to the early Church (when it was not clear what was in the canon of Scripture and what was not) but also to most of Christian history. If every Christian is to base their faith and practice solely on the Scriptures, then some necessary conditions are: universal Biblical availability (which was only made possible by the printing press), universal distribution (which still hasn't happened), universal literacy (at least in the vernacular if not Hebrew and Greek), universal leisure (once a week on Sunday probably will not be enough), and universal education (to learn how to discern good arguments). As none of these have been the case for the average Christian in world history, and as God does not ask of us something we are incapable of, I conclude that God does not expect the average Christian to use Scripture as "the All-Sufficient and Only Rule of Faith and Practice, and Judge of Controversies." Rather He expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain his knowledge of theology in another way, not through reading (though that is an essential part wherever and whenever possible) but through a living community of Christians tracing their origins back to Christ through the Apostles, back to that first generation which continued in the Apostles' doctrines, prayers, and fellowship.

Monday, April 16, 2007

the development of the canon of Scripture

The following quote is found in Newman's Development of Christian Doctrine (for the full text, with notes, click here):

As regards the New Testament, Catholics and Protestants receive the same books as canonical and inspired; yet among those books some are to be found, which certainly have no right there if, following the rule of Vincentius, we receive nothing as of divine authority but what has been received always and everywhere. The degrees of evidence are very various for one book and another. "It is confessed," says Less, "that not all the Scriptures of our New Testament have been received with universal consent as genuine works of the Evangelists and Apostles. But that man must have predetermined to oppose the most palpable truths, and must reject all history, who will not confess that the greater part of the New Testament has been universally received as authentic, and that the remaining books have been acknowledged as such by the majority of the ancients."

For instance, as to the Epistle of St. James. It is true, it is contained in the old Syriac version in the second century; but Origen, in the third century, is the first writer who distinctly mentions it among the Greeks; and it is not quoted by name by any Latin till the fourth. St. Jerome speaks of its gaining credit "by degrees, in process of time." Eusebius says no more than that it had been, up to his time, acknowledged by the majority; and he classes it with the Shepherd of St. Hermas and the Epistle of St. Barnabas.

Again: "The Epistle to the Hebrews, though received in the East, was not received in the Latin Churches till St. Jerome's time. St. Irenæus either does not affirm, or denies that it is St. Paul's. Tertullian ascribes it to St. Barnabas. Caius excludes it from his list. St. Hippolytus does not receive it. St. Cyprian is silent about it. It is doubtful whether St. Optatus received it."

Again, St. Jerome tells us, that in his day, towards A.D. 400, the Greek Church rejected the Apocalypse, but the Latin received it.

Again: "The New Testament consists of twenty-seven books in all, though of varying importance. Of these, fourteen are not mentioned at all till from eighty to one hundred years after St. John's death, in which number are the Acts, the Second to the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Colossians, the Two to the Thessalonians, and St. James. Of the other thirteen, five, viz. St. John's Gospel, the Philippians, the First to Timothy, the Hebrews, and the First of St. John are quoted but by one writer during the same period."

On what ground, then, do we receive the Canon as it comes to us, but on the authority of the Church of the fourth and fifth centuries? The Church at that era decided,—not merely bore testimony, but passed a judgment on former testimony,—decided, that certain books were of authority. And on what ground did she so decide? on the ground that hitherto a decision had been impossible, in an age of persecution, from want of opportunities for research, discussion, and testimony, from the private or the local character of some of the books, and from misapprehension of the doctrine contained in others. Now, however, facilities were at length given for deciding once for all on what had been in suspense and doubt for three centuries. On this subject I will quote another passage from the same Tract: "We depend upon the fourth and fifth centuries thus:—As to Scripture, former centuries do not speak distinctly, frequently, or unanimously, except of some chief books, as the Gospels; but we see in them, as we believe, an ever-growing tendency and approximation to that full agreement which we find in the fifth. The testimony given at the latter date is the limit to which all that has been before said converges. For instance, it is commonly said, Exceptio probat regulam; when we have reason to think that a writer or an age would have witnessed so and so, but for this or that, and that this or that were mere accidents of his position, then he or it may be said to tend toward such testimony. In this way the first centuries tend towards the fifth. Viewing the matter as one of moral evidence, we seem to see in the testimony of the fifth the very testimony which every preceding century gave, accidents excepted, such as the present loss of documents once extant, or the then existing misconceptions which want of intercourse between the Churches occasioned. The fifth century acts as a comment on the obscure text of the centuries before it, and brings out a meaning, which with the help of the comment any candid person sees really to be theirs."

To accept the canon and reject the apostolic community which gathered the canon - this is the result of the practical application of sola Scriptura.

Sunday, April 15, 2007

revelation and philosophy

Jerusalem has plundered Athens. And she will plunder the world.

Saturday, April 14, 2007

the divinity of Christ

Taken from Adib Taherzadeh's "Revelation of Baha'u'llah," by way of explanation that Christ is not divine:
Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: 'I am God!' He verily speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His name and His attributes, are made manifest in the world... And were they to say: 'We are the servants of God,' this also is a manifest and indisputable fact. For they have been made manifest in the uttermost state of servitude, a servitude the like of which no man can possibly attain. (33)
So, to rephrase this, were a Prophet to say, "I am God," he speaks in the person of God; even Isaiah writes "I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats," telling not what he - Isaiah - has no pleasure in, but what God has no pleasure in. And were a Prophet to say, "I am a servant of God," he speaks in his own person.

(1) I agree that Prophets speak both in their own name and also in the name of God. But the situation with Christ is somewhat different, for here we have a man who says, "the Father and I are one." This sentence of Christ admits both distinction and unity. The compound subject admits the distinction between Christ and God the Father; therefore, since Christ admits the distinction between himself and the Father, he cannot be speaking in the person of God the Father. Yet he says that they "are one," that is, unity is predicated without qualification of God and Christ (but "one" has many senses, as many as "is" has). (2) However, when Christ appears after the Resurrection to the Apostles, he accepts without rebuke Thomas' worship: "My Lord and my God!" The statement is directed to Christ when Thomas finally sees and believes in His resurrection. To adore Christ as God, if he were not God, would be idolatry, yet Christ has no recorded condemnation or correction for Thomas' adoration (though he does for his sluggish faith). (3) To the question of whether or not he was greater than the Jewish patriarchs, Christ says "before Abraham was, I AM." If he had been speaking in the person of God the Father, his answer would have been irrelevant to the question at hand (since the Jews already knew God was greater than the patriarchs); and Christ's answer clearly claims divinity, naming himself with the name that God revealed as His own (cf. Ex 3:14). (4) Also, while Christ was on earth, he forgave sins -- not only of those who appeared to offend him, but who appeared not to have offended him (e.g. Mk 2:5, Lk 7:48). If Christ was not God, he would have been either mocking or fooling those to whom he said, "Your sins are forgiven." (5) And last, the Resurrection, which is unparalleled in history.

Friday, April 13, 2007

the immortal mind

Observation of the sense-organs and their employment reveals a distinction between the impassibility of the sensitive and that of the intellective faculty. After strong stimulation of a sense we are less able to exercise it than before, as e.g. in the case of a loud sound we cannot hear easily immediately after, or in the case of a bright colour or a powerful odour we cannot see or smell, but in the case of mind thought about an object that is highly intelligible renders it more and not less able afterwards to think objects that are less intelligible: the reason is that while the faculty of sensation is dependent upon the body, mind is separable from it. (Ari. De Anima III.4)

Thursday, April 12, 2007

the Incarnation

Invocat te, Domine, fides mea quam dedisti mihi, quam inspirasti mihi per humanitatem Filii tui, per ministerium praedicatoris tui. (Aug. Conf. 1.1)

It was an act of divine courtesy.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

development

There is a sense in which the doctrine of the Incarnation stands behind the doctrine of the Atonement; that is, if you bring the truth of Atonement before your contemplation, you will be led to acknowledge the truth of the Incarnation, for the sacrifice of a perfectly just man - who was also only a man - could not atone for anyone but himself.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

creeds

"Christ, in His Divine innocence, said to the Woman of Samaria, 'Ye worship ye know not what' - being apparently under the impression that it might be desirable, on the whole, to know what one was worshiping. He thus showed Himself sadly out of touch with the twentieth-century mind, for the cry today is: 'Away with the tedious complexities of dogma - let us have the simple spirit of worship; just worship, no matter of what!' The only drawback to this demand for a generalized and undirected worship is the practical difficulty of arousing any sort of enthusiasm for the worship of nothing in particular." (Dorothy Sayers Creed or Chaos? 29-30)

Monday, April 9, 2007

Credo of the People of God

WE BELIEVE in one only God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, creator of things visible such as this world in which our transient life passes, of things invisible such as the pure spirits which are also called angels,[3] and creator in each man of his spiritual and immortal soul.

We believe that this only God is absolutely one in His infinitely holy essence as also in all His perfections, in His omnipotence, His infinite knowledge, His providence, His will and His love. He is He who is, as He revealed to Moses,[4] and He is love, as the apostle John teaches us:[5] so that these two names, being and love, express ineffably the same divine reality of Him who has wished to make Himself known to us, and who, "dwelling in light inaccessible"[6] is in Himself above every name, above every thing and above every created intellect. God alone can give us right and full knowledge of this reality by revealing Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose eternal life we are by grace called to share, here below in the obscurity of faith and after death in eternal light. The mutual bonds which eternally constitute the Three Persons, who are each one and the same divine being, are the blessed inmost life of God thrice holy, infinitely beyond all that we can conceive in human measure.[7] We give thanks, however, to the divine goodness that very many believers can testify with us before men to the unity of God, even though they know not the mystery of the most holy Trinity.

We believe then in the Father who eternally begets the Son, in the Son, the Word of God, who is eternally begotten; in the Holy Spirit, the uncreated Person who proceeds from the Father and the Son as their eternal love. Thus in the Three Divine Persons, coaeternae sibi et coaequales,[8] the life and beatitude of God perfectly one superabound and are consummated in the supreme excellence and glory proper to uncreated being, and always "there should be venerated unity in the Trinity and Trinity in the unity."[9]

We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God. He is the Eternal Word, born of the Father before time began, and one in substance with the Father, homoousios to Patri,[10] and through Him all things were made. He was incarnate of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit, and was made man: equal therefore to the Father according to His divinity, and inferior to the Father according to His humanity;[11] and Himself one, not by some impossible confusion of His natures, but by the unity of His person.[12]

He dwelt among us, full of grace and truth. He proclaimed and established the Kingdom of God and made us know in Himself the Father. He gave us His new commandment to love one another as He loved us. He taught us the way of the beatitudes of the Gospel: poverty in spirit, meekness, suffering borne with patience, thirst after justice, mercy, purity of heart, will for peace, persecution suffered for justice sake. Under Pontius Pilate He suffered --the Lamb of God bearing on Himself the sins of the world, and He died for us on the cross, saving us by His redeeming blood. He was buried, and, of His own power, rose on the third day, raising us by His resurrection to that sharing in the divine life which is the life of grace. He ascended to heaven, and He will come again, this time in glory, to judge the living and the dead: each according to his merits--those who have responded to the love and piety of God going to eternal life, those who have refused them to the end going to the fire that is not extinguished.

And His Kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, who is Lord, and Giver of life, who is adored and glorified together with the Father and the Son. He spoke to us by the prophets; He was sent by Christ after His resurrection and His ascension to the Father; He illuminates, vivifies, protects and guides the Church; He purifies the Church's members if they do not shun His grace. His action, which penetrates to the inmost of the soul, enables man to respond to the call of Jesus: Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect (Mt. 5:48).

We believe that Mary is the Mother, who remained ever a Virgin, of the Incarnate Word, our God and Savior Jesus Christ,[13] and that by reason of this singular election, she was, in consideration of the merits of her Son, redeemed in a more eminent manner,[14] preserved from all stain of original sin[15] and filled with the gift of grace more than all other creatures.[16]

Joined by a close and indissoluble bond to the Mysteries of the Incarnation and Redemption,[17] the Blessed Virgin, the Immaculate, was at the end of her earthly life raised body and soul to heavenly glory[18] and likened to her risen Son in anticipation of the future lot of all the just; and we believe that the Blessed Mother of God, the New Eve, Mother of the Church,[19] continues in heaven her maternal role with regard to Christ's members, cooperating with the birth and growth of divine life in the souls of the redeemed.[20]

We believe that in Adam all have sinned, which means that the original offense committed by him caused human nature, common to all men, to fall to a state in which it bears the consequences of that offense, and which is not the state in which it was at first in our first parents--established as they were in holiness and justice, and in which man knew neither evil nor death. It is human nature so fallen stripped of the grace that clothed it, injured in its own natural powers and subjected to the dominion of death, that is transmitted to all men, and it is in this sense that every man is born in sin. We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin, is transmitted with human nature, "not by imitation, but by propagation" and that it is thus "proper to everyone."[21]

We believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ, by the sacrifice of the cross redeemed us from original sin and all the personal sins committed by each one of us, so that, in accordance with the word of the apostle, "where sin abounded grace did more abound."[22] We believe in one Baptism instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Baptism should be administered even to little children who have not yet been able to be guilty of any personal sin, in order that, though born deprived of supernatural grace, they may be reborn "of water and the Holy Spirit" to the divine life in Christ Jesus.[23]

We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church built by Jesus Christ on that rock which is Peter. She is the Mystical Body of Christ; at the same time a visible society instituted with hierarchical organs, and a spiritual community; the Church on earth, the pilgrim People of God here below, and the Church filled with heavenly blessings; the germ and the first fruits of the Kingdom of God, through which the work and the sufferings of Redemption are continued throughout human history, and which looks for its perfect accomplishment beyond time in glory.[24] In the course of time, the Lord Jesus forms His Church by means of the sacraments emanating from His plenitude.[25] By these she makes her members participants in the Mystery of the Death and Resurrection of Christ, in the grace of the Holy Spirit who gives her life and movement.[26] She is therefore holy, though she has sinners in her bosom, because she herself has no other life but that of grace: it is by living by her life that her members are sanctified; it is by removing themselves from her life that they fall into sins and disorders that prevent the radiation of her sanctity. This is why she suffers and does penance for these offenses, of which she has the power to heal her children through the blood of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Heiress of the divine promises and daughter of Abraham according to the Spirit, through that Israel whose scriptures she lovingly guards, and whose patriarchs and prophets she venerates; founded upon the apostles and handing on from century to century their ever-living word and their powers as pastors in the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him; perpetually assisted by the Holy Spirit, she has the charge of guarding, teaching, explaining and spreading the Truth which God revealed in a then veiled manner by the prophets, and fully by the Lord Jesus. We believe all that is contained in the word of God written or handed down, and that the Church proposes for belief as divinely revealed, whether by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal magisterium.[27] We believe in the infallibility enjoyed by the successor of Peter when he teaches ex cathedra as pastor and teacher of all the faithful,[28] and which is assured also to the episcopal body when it exercises with him the supreme magisterium.[29]

We believe that the Church founded by Jesus Christ and for which He prayed is indefectibly one in faith, worship and the bond of hierarchical communion. In the bosom of this Church, the rich variety of liturgical rites and the legitimate diversity of theological and spiritual heritages and special disciplines, far from injuring her unity, make it more manifest.[30]

Recognizing also the existence, outside the organism of the Church of Christ of numerous elements of truth and sanctification which belong to her as her own and tend to Catholic unity,[31] and believing in the action of the Holy Spirit who stirs up in the heart of the disciples of Christ love of this unity,[32] we entertain the hope that the Christians who are not yet in the full communion of the one only Church will one day be reunited in one flock with one only shepherd.

We believe that the Church is necessary for salvation, because Christ, who is the sole mediator and way of salvation, renders Himself present for us in His body which is the Church.[33] But the divine design of salvation embraces all men, and those who without fault on their part do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but seek God sincerely, and under the influence of grace endeavor to do His will as recognized through the promptings of their conscience, they, in a number known only to God, can obtain salvation.[34]

We believe that the Mass, celebrated by the priest representing the person of Christ by virtue of the power received through the Sacrament of Orders, and offered by him in the name of Christ and the members of His Mystical Body, is the sacrifice of Calvary rendered sacramentally present on our altars. We believe that as the bread and wine consecrated by the Lord at the Last Supper were changed into His body and His blood which were to be offered for us on the cross, likewise the bread and wine consecrated by the priest are changed into the body and blood of Christ enthroned gloriously in heaven, and we believe that the mysterious presence of the Lord, under what continues to appear to our senses as before, is a true, real and substantial presence.[35]

Christ cannot be thus present in this sacrament except by the change into His body of the reality itself of the bread and the change into His blood of the reality itself of the wine, leaving unchanged only the properties of the bread and wine which our senses perceive. This mysterious change is very appropriately called by the Church transubstantiation. Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery must, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, maintain that in the reality itself, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the Consecration, so that it is the adorable body and blood of the Lord Jesus that from then on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine,[36] as the Lord willed it, in order to give Himself to us as food and to associate us with the unity of His Mystical Body.[37]

The unique and indivisible existence of the Lord glorious in heaven is not multiplied, but is rendered present by the sacrament in the many places on earth where Mass is celebrated. And this existence remains present, after the sacrifice, in the Blessed Sacrament which is, in the tabernacle, the living heart of each of our churches. And it is our very sweet duty to honor and adore in the blessed Host which our eyes see, the Incarnate Word whom they cannot see, and who, without leaving heaven, is made present before us.

We confess that the Kingdom of God begun here below in the Church of Christ is not of this world whose form is passing, and that its proper growth cannot be confounded with the progress of civilization, of science or of human technology, but that it consists in an ever more profound knowledge of the unfathomable riches of Christ, an ever stronger hope in eternal blessings, an ever more ardent response to the love of God, and an ever more generous bestowal of grace and holiness among men. But it is this same love which induces the Church to concern herself constantly about the true temporal welfare of men. Without ceasing to recall to her children that they have not here a lasting dwelling, she also urges them to contribute, each according to his vocation and his means, to the welfare of their earthly city, to promote justice, peace and brotherhood among men, to give their aid freely to their brothers, especially to the poorest and most unfortunate. The deep solicitude of the Church, the Spouse of Christ, for the needs of men, for their joys and hopes, their griefs and efforts, is therefore nothing other than her great desire to be present to them, in order to illuminate them with the light of Christ and to gather them all in Him, their only Savior. This solicitude can never mean that the Church conform herself to the things of this world, or that she lessen the ardor of her expectation of her Lord and of the eternal Kingdom.

We believe in the life eternal. We believe that the souls of all those who die in the grace of Christ--whether they must still be purified in purgatory, or whether from the moment they leave their bodies Jesus takes them to paradise as He did for the Good Thief--are the People of God in the eternity beyond death, which will be finally conquered on the day of the Resurrection when these souls will be reunited with their bodies.

We believe that the multitude of those gathered around Jesus and Mary in paradise forms the Church of Heaven, where in eternal beatitude they see God as He is,[38] and where they also, in different degrees, are associated with the holy angels in the divine rule exercised by Christ in glory, interceding for us and helping our weakness by their brotherly care.[39]

We believe in the communion of all the faithful of Christ, those who are pilgrims on earth, the dead who are attaining their purification, and the blessed in heaven, all together forming one Church; and we believe that in this communion the merciful love of God and His saints is ever listening to our prayers, as Jesus told us: Ask and you will receive.[40] Thus it is with faith and in hope that we look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

Blessed be God Thrice Holy.

Amen.

(click here for footnotes)

Sunday, April 8, 2007

Creed of Pope Pius IV

I, N, with a firm faith believe and profess each and everything which is contained in the Creed which the Holy Roman Church maketh use of. To wit:

I believe in one God, The Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God. Born of the Father before all ages. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God. Begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And became incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary: and was made man. He was also crucified for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was buried. And on the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and His kingdom will have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son. Who together with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, and who spoke through the prophets. And one holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I await the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I also admit the Holy Scripture according to that sense which our holy mother the Church hath held, and doth hold, to whom it belongeth to judge of the true sense and interpretations of the Scriptures. Neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

I also profess that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, though not all for every one; to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony; and that they confer grace; and that of these, Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders cannot be reiterated without sacrilege.

I also receive and admit the received and approved ceremonies of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of the aforesaid sacraments.

I embrace and receive all and every one of the things which have been defined and declared in the holy Council of Trent concerning original sin and justification.

I profess, likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially, the Body and Blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation. I also confess that under either kind alone Christ is received whole and entire, and a true sacrament.

I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls therein detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful. Likewise, that the saints, reigning together with Christ, are to be honoured and invoked, and that they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics are to be venerated.

I most firmly assert that the images of Christ, of the Mother of God, ever virgin, and also of other Saints, ought to be had and retained, and that due honour and veneration is to be given them.

I also affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the Church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people.

I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church as the mother and mistress of all churches; and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ.

I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred Canons, and general Councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent, and by the ecumenical Council of the Vatican, particularly concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching. I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies which the Church hath condemned, rejected, and anathematized.

This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved, which I now freely profess and to which I truly adhere, inviolate and with firm constancy until the last breath of life, I do so profess and swear to maintain with the help of God. And I shall strive, as far as possible, that this same faith shall be held, taught, and professed by all those over whom I have charge. I N. do so pledge, promise, and swear, so help me God and these Holy Gospels.

Saturday, April 7, 2007

The Athanasian Creed cir. fifth or sixth century

Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith; for unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire he will undoubtedly be lost forever.

This is what the Catholic faith teaches. We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity; we distinguish among the persons, but we do not divide the substance. For the Father is a distinct person; the Son is a distinct person;1 and the Holy Spirit is a distinct person. Still, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have one divinity, equal glory and coeternal majesty. What the Father is, the Son is, and the Holy Spirit is. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The Father has immensity, the Son has immensity, and the Holy Spirit has immensity. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal. Nevertheless, there are not three eternal beings, but one eternal being. Thus there are not three uncreated beings, nor three beings having immensity, but one uncreated being and one being that has immensity.

Likewise, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. Yet there are not three omnipotent beings, but one omnipotent being. Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But there are not three gods, but one God. The Father is lord, the Son is lord, and the Holy Spirit is lord. There are not three lords, but one Lord. For according to Christian truth, we much profess that each of the persons individually is God; and according to the Christian religion we are forbidden to say that there are three gods or three lords. The Father is not made by anyone. The Son is not made nor created, but he is generated by the Father alone. The Holy Spirit is not made nor created nor generated, but proceeds from the Father and the Son.

There is, then, one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits. In this Trinity, there is nothing that precedes, nothing subsequent to anything else. There is nothing greater, nothing lesser than anything else. But the entire three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that, as we have said, we worship complete unity in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity. This, then, is what he who wishes to be saved must believe about the Trinity.

It is also necessary for eternal salvation that he believe steadfastly in the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. The true faith is: we believe and profess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and man. As God he was begotten of the substance of the Father before time; as man he was born in time of the substance of his Mother. He is perfect God; and he is perfect man, with a rational soul and human flesh. He is equal to the Father in his divinity but he is inferior to the Father in his humanity. Although he is God and man, he is not two but one Christ. And he is one, not because his divinity was changed into flesh, but because his humanity was assumed to God. He is one, not at all because of a mingling of substances, but because he is one person. As a rational soul and flesh are one man, so God and man are one Christ. He died for our salvation, descended to hell, arose from the dead on the third day, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty, and from there he shall come to judge the living and the dead. At his coming, all men are to arise with their own bodies; and they are to give an account of their lives. Those who have done good deeds will go into eternal life; those who have done evil will go into everlasting fire.

This is the Catholic faith. Everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly; otherwise, he cannot be saved.

[Another translation reads:]

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are forbidden by the Catholic Religion, to say, there be three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father [and of the Son], neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other; none is greater, or less than another; but the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance of His Mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul in human flesh subsisting; Equal to the Father, as touching His Godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ; One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

Amen.

Friday, April 6, 2007

The long form of the Creed of Epiphanius, cir. 374

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, creator of all things both invisible and visible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, only-begotten, born of God the Father; born, that is, of the substance of the Father; God from God, light from light, true God from true God; begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father. Through him all things were made, both those in heaven and those on earth, visible and invisible. He came down and was made flesh for us men and for our salvation; that is, he was in the full sense of the word born of the holy, ever-Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. He was made man, that is, he assumed full humanity; soul, body, mind, and whatever constitutes man, excepting sin. He was not born of male seed nor was he within a man; but he fashioned human flesh into himself in a single holy unity -- not in the way he breathed upon the prophets and spoke and worked in them, but in the full sense of the word he became man (for "the Word was made flesh" without undergoing any change or turning his divinity into humanity). He united his divinity and his humanity in the single holy perfection of his divinity (for the Lord Jesus Christ is one and not two, the same person being God and lord and king). The same Christ also suffered in his flesh; and he arose and ascended into heaven in that very body, and took his seat in glory at the right hand of the Father. He is going to come in glory in that very body to judge the living and the dead. His reign will have no end. And we believe in the Holy Spirit who spoke by the Law, who preached through the prophets, and who descended on the Jordan; he speaks in the apostles and dwells in the saints. What we believe about him is this: that he is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, a perfect spirit, a spirit of consolation, uncreated, who proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son; in him we believe.

We believe in the one catholic and apostolic Church, in one baptism of repentance, in the resurrection of the dead, in the just judgment of souls with their bodies, in the kingdom of heaven, and in life everlasting.

And the catholic and apostolic Church, your mother and our mother, condemns those who say that "there was a time when the Son did not exist, nor the Holy Spirit"; or that [either] was made out of nothing or out of a pre-existing substance or being; and who say that the Son of God or Holy Spirit is mutable or subject to change. Further, we condemn all those who do not admit the resurrection of the dead; and we condemn all heresies, which are alien to this orthodox faith.

Thursday, April 5, 2007

The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, 381

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth, of all things both visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all time; light from light, true God from true God; begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For the sake of us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven, was made flesh by the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary, and became man; and he was crucified for our sake under Pontius Pilate, suffered, and was buried. And on the third day he arose, according to the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and is going to come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. His reign will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life; he proceeds from the Father, is adorned and honored together with the Father and the Son; he spoke through the prophets. We believe in only, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We profess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We expect the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Wednesday, April 4, 2007

The Nicene Creed, 325

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, creator of all things both visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten born of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father; God from God, light from light, true God from true God; begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made, those in heaven and those on earth as well. For the sake of us men and for our salvation, he came down, was made flesh, and became man; he suffered and on the third day arose; he ascended into heaven and is going to come to judge the living and the dead. And we believe in the Holy Spirit.

As for those who say: "There was a time when he did not exist"; and, "Before he was begotten, he did not exist"; and, "He was made from nothing, or from another hypostasis or essence," alleging that the Son of God is mutable or subject to change -- such persons the catholic and apostolic Church condemns.

Tuesday, April 3, 2007

the apostles creed

I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, his only Son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from there he shall come to judge the living and the dead. 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.

Monday, April 2, 2007

justin martyr on baptism

Here is an interesting passage on baptism by Justin Martyr:

CHAPTER LXI -- CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it."

And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.

Taken from Chapter LXI of The First Apology.

Sunday, April 1, 2007

practical sublation

"Therefore, when by God's help you reach our most reverend brother, Bishop Augustine, we wish you to inform him that we have been giving careful thought to the affairs of the English, and have come to the conclusion that the temples of the idols among that people should on no account be destroyed. The idols are to be destroyed, but the temples themselves are to be aspersed with holy water, altars set up in them, and relics deposited there. For if these temples are well-built, they must be purified from the worship of demons and dedicated to the service of the true God. In this way, we hope that the people, seeing that their temples are not destroyed, may abandon their error and, flocking more readily to their accustomed resorts, may come to know and adore the true God. And since they have a custom of sacrificing many oxen to demons, let some other solemnity be substituted in its place, such as a day of Dedication or the Festivals of the holy martyrs whose relics are enshrined there." (Letter from Pope St Gregory the Great to Abbot Mellitus, A.D. 601, recorded in Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People I. 30.)