impeccability and infallibility

Often discussions of the papacy confuse impeccability with infallibility. But when the Church teaches that according to Christ’s promise she has been preserved from error in matters of faith and morals, she does not also claim that either her children or her pastors are free from sin. In fact, she expressly and explicitly denies it. Cardinal Newman writes in his Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics:

I allow there are true charges which can be brought against us; certainly, not only do I not deny it, but I hardly could deny it without heresy. I say distinctly, did I take upon me to deny everything which could be said against us, I should be proving too much, I should startle the Catholic theologian as well as Protestants; for what would it be but implying that the Church contains none within her pale but the just and holy? This was the heresy of the Novatians and Donatists of old time; it was the heresy of our Lollards, and others, such as Luther, who maintained that bad men are not members of the Church, that none but the predestinate are her members. But this no Catholic asserts, every Catholic denies. Every Catholic has ever denied it, back to the very time of the Apostles and their Divine Master; and He and they deny it. Christ denies it, St. Paul denies it, the Catholic Church denies it; our Lord expressly said that the Church was to be like a net, which gathered of every kind, not only of the good, but of the bad too. Such was His Church; it does not prove then that we are not His Church, because we are like His Church; rather our being like the Primitive Christian body, is a reason for concluding that we are one with it. We cannot make His Church better than He made her; we must be content with her as He made her, or not pretend to follow Him. He said, "Many are called, few are chosen;" men come into the Church, and then they fall. They are not indeed sinning at the very time when they are brought into His family, at the time they are new born; but as children grow up, and converts live on, the time too frequently comes, when they fall under the power of one kind of temptation or other, and fall from grace, either for a while or for good. Thus, not indeed by the divine wish and intention, but by the divine permission, and man's perverseness, there is a vast load of moral evil existing in the Church; an enemy has sown weeds there, and those weeds remain among the wheat till the harvest. And this evil in the Church is not found only in the laity, but among the clergy too; there have been bad priests, bad bishops, bad monks, bad nuns, and bad Popes. If this, then, is the charge made against us, that we do not all live up to our calling, but that there are Catholics, lay and clerical, who may be proved to be worldly, revengeful, licentious, slothful, cruel, nay, may be unbelievers, we grant it at once. We not only grant it but we zealously maintain it. "In a great house," says St. Paul, "there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some indeed unto honour, but some unto dishonour." There are, alas, plenty of children of the Church, who by their bad lives insult and disgrace their Mother.

commentary upon his post

The subject of the post is introduced by a quotation and a link to the source from which the quotation was drawn.

The Vatican issued a document Tuesday ratified and confirmed by Pope Benedict reasserting that the Roman Catholic Church is the only "true" church and that other denominations do not hold "the means to salvation." [article]

Next is his immediate reaction to Benedict’s statement—or rather, since he gives no sign of having read the document itself, to the article about Benedict’s statement.

Well isn't that precious.

Notice the ironic use of the word “precious.” The word does not mean “of high value” but the opposite. Yet as amusing and effective as irony can be, it is not a substitute for thinking or reasoning. For example, rather than critiquing this post I could have said, “Gee, your profound insights, thoughtful reactions, and well-informed opinions in this post are precious.” But I would rather use reason than irony since the calm, passionate defense of a belief more easily opens the way for response or even refutation. In the next sentence, he clarifies his personal reaction.

And by precious I mean sad—divorced from both the message of Jesus [Matthew 25:31-46] and from world history since then.

Here are two implied arguments. The first is that Matthew 25:31-46 somehow refutes or speaks against Catholicism in general and the papacy in particular. The second is that the history of the papacy somehow refutes or speaks against Catholicism in general and the papacy in particular. Neither argument, however, can be refuted because neither argument is clearly presented.

I can fairly quickly skip past the fury and right on to the bewilderment and pity.

Here the author lets us know which emotional states he passed through in the moments immediately after reading the news article.

It's just quite the mind-blow to see otherwise reasonably intelligent people—people talking into cell phones, for instance; these aren't jungle people—casually mention their assent to the exclusivist and [quite literally] self-righteous nature of the Roman bishop.

This is the second most interesting part of the whole post because he manages to use two logical fallacies in the same sentence. The first is the Appeal to Incredulity (e.g., “I don’t understand how anyone could argue from an appeal to incredulity”) and the second is the Appeal to Vanity (e.g., “You are far too intelligent to accept an argument based on an appeal to vanity”) [SOURCE]. Interestingly, the author manages to blend both of them into a single appeal that we can, for the sake of accuracy, call the Incredulity-Vanity Appeal. However, no honest thinker can accept the argument that because this writer does not understand how intelligent Catholics assent to their faith, that faith must therefore be wrong.

Also, according to this author, the “nature of the Roman bishop” is “[quite literally] self-righteous.” Due to an ambiguity, this charge may be taken in two ways. The first way is if Roman bishop, which properly denotes the pope’s person, is a metonym for Roman bishopric, which denotes his office. Or, if the words are taken as they stand, that the any pope is, presumably in the exercise of his office, self-righteous. What then is meant by “quite literally” self-righteous? The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language defines “self-righteous” as “piously sure of one's own righteousness” [SOURCE]. The word “piously” here is pejorative, meaning not “marked by earnest devoutness” but “marked by false devoutness” [2b]. The question at hand then is whether the papal office as such is sure of its own righteousness in a manner marked by false devoutness, or whether every pope as a pope has been sure of his own righteousness in a manner marked by false devoutness. And the second sense must be universal to every bishop of Rome, for a flaw in the nature of a thing must be universal to all instances of that thing.

The first sense, while supported by a later correspondence in which the author said “the papacy in and of itself is a self-righteous post,” is quite literally impossible since an office, having no consciousness, cannot be sure of anything. And the second sense—that in the exercise of his office the pope acts in a manner marked by false devoutness—begs the question, assuming that the bishop of Rome has not been granted his office by Christ.

Now we come to the most interesting part of post, the imaginary conversation between a Protestant and the pope.

Protestant: "And, why are you infallible again?"
Pope: "Because I said I was!"

In this passage the author has the pope claim that the ground of papal infallibility is the pope’s own assertion rather than, as Catholic’s believe, Christ’s promise to his Church. This is distortion number one.

Protestant: "Well, I happen to disagree. So there."
Pope: "Take it back!"

Here the author implies that every pope is merely a petty, power-hungry person incensed by disagreement. A more intimate acquaintance with the history of the popes, however, easily refutes this notion (vid. J. N. D. Kelly’s Dictionary of Popes). Distortion number two.

Protestant: "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason—for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves—I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me."
Pope: "Sorry, God's going to light you on fire forever."

Finally, in his third distortion, the author suggests that in his condemnation of error every pope secretly wishes that those in error burn forever in hell. There is no evidence, however, to support such a wild claim.

Thus we have three distortions of Catholicism, two fallacious appeals, and two implied arguments. (Apparently, I miscounted the number of appeals earlier.)

reactions

I've been thinking about the reaction that a Protestant acquaintance had to the recent statement on Catholic ecclesiology. He writes,

Well isn't that precious. And by precious I mean sad—divorced from both the message of Jesus [Matthew 25:31-46] and from world history since then. I can fairly quickly skip past the fury and right on to the bewilderment and pity. It's just quite the mind-blow to see otherwise reasonably intelligent people—people talking into cell phones, for instance; these aren't jungle people—casually mention their assent to the exclusivist and [quite literally] self-righteous nature of the Roman bishop.

Protestant: "And, why are you infallible again?"

Pope: "Because I said I was!"

Protestant: "Well, I happen to disagree. So there."

Pope: "Take it back!"

Protestant: "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason—for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves—I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me."

Pope: "Sorry, God's going to light you on fire forever."

I am not sure whether or not he has read the document itself—rather than its presentation in the media—and perhaps, even if he had, his reaction would be the same. Nevertheless, this seems to me to be a classic case in which someone outside the Catholic Church hears a statement made by the pope or one of the bishops and, without trying to understand the context in which it was made, reacts to the declaration in that sense by which he immediately understands it.

A quick read of the introduction, however, tells the reader that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has in mind those Catholic theologians whose "new contributions to the field" of Catholic theology "are not immune from erroneous interpretation" when it comes to "the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions." In other words, the magisterium is telling Catholic theologians, especially those writing today, to interpret Vatican II honestly and without equivocation—and telling them this by clarifying the meaning of the Council's words.

Magisterium [to Catholic theologians]: Don't misrepresent Vatican II.

Protestant: What! You think you're infallible! You're just a bunch of pitiable, self-righteous, stupid snobs!

Two things come to mind. The first is Newman's delightful parody of this kind of reaction in The Present Position of Catholics in England, the second these lines from Robert Frost's "Woodpile":

A small bird flew before me. He was careful
To put a tree between us when he lighted,
And say no word to tell me who he was
Who was so foolish as to think what he thought.
He thought that I was after him for a feather—
The white one in his tail; like one who takes
Everything said as personal to himself.
One flight out sideways would have undeceived him.

Open Letter to a Protestant: On "nulla salus extra ecclesiam"

A---,

Thank you for responding. My answer will be shorter than I planned. I believe the Catechism may have an answer for your objection, but if you disagree or find the answer insufficient in any way, please let me know where and why.

"Outside the Church there is no Salvation" [from the Catechism of the Catholic Church]:

846. How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? [cf. St. Cyprian, Ep 73:21; PL 3:1169; De Unit PL 4:509-536] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." [Vatican II LG 14]

847. This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience -- those too may achieve eternal salvation." [Vatican II LG 16]

Let me say this in my own words. As Catholics we believe that Christ established one church which would be and is united in spirit and love, in faith and teaching, in its mission and its government. As Catholics we believe our bishops are the true successors of the apostles, the representatives of the twelve on earth, and that the pope is by the will of God set up as the head of the visible church on earth.

In regard to other denominations then the Church's comments (especially the doctrine of "nulla salus extra ecclesiam"), should be seen in this light - since the conclusion follows from the premise. I mean if you think the Catholic Church is set up by Jesus Christ, then to reject the Catholic Church is to reject Christ; and to reject Christ is to reject the One who sent Him. But on this note, Vatican II clarified the doctrine by clarifying its application: "Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ , would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." And again: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church [i.e., the Catholic Church], but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart..." etc. As I said before, if you grant that the Catholic Church is the true successor to the Church of the Apostles, the conclusion follows.

Those born into Protestant and Orthodox churches, however, do not grant the premise; therefore, the conclusion does not follow. I doubt that any honest Protestant or Orthodox could say in good conscience, "Yes, I truly believe that the Catholic Church - as it exists today - is that very same church which Christ establish on the rock of Peter and built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets." Were such a man or woman to say that, he or she would convert; and until such a person says that, the various statements made in the Catholic Church about salvation outside the Church do not apply to that individual.

Does that make sense?

Peace, etc.

p.s. I agree that there is a lot being said in Matt 16, of which I think Christians have only begun to understand.

Open Letter in Response to a Letter on John Calvin and the Church

A---,

Here is my first response. I've gone point by point on this one, trying not to miss anything, but if you find this format too choppy and difficult to read, let me know and I can go back to paragraph form.

With the reformers though, I say that the Bible is the ultimate and authoritative rule of faith - and that any tradition that we find in accordance with that is useful and beneficial.

From what source of faith do you receive the teaching that Scripture is the ultimate and authoritative rule of faith?

I find these things to be useful and valid, but must be checked by Scripture, the testimony of the apostles and prophets and the Lord Christ himself.

Hmm. The church does not receive every teaching advanced by the Fathers, nor does she hold any Father or even the consensus patrum as superior to Scripture -- since the Bible is the inspired word of God while the early writers obviously are not. As a Catholic I would say that sacred tradition (which includes but is not synonymous with the Fathers) is coordinate with Scripture, since they both derive from the one deposit of faith and revelation which Christ delivered to His church. But without defending that assertion yet (which has its fullest exposition in Dei Verbum), can you tell me whether you think there are divinely revealed truths outside of Scripture? Or, to ask that another way, does the Bible contain the whole revelation of God in Christ? Are there truths or words which Christ delivered that are not recorded in Scripture but which still shall never fail?

Nor is there any room for the cavil, that though the Church derives her first beginning from thence, it still remains doubtful what writings are to be attributed to the apostles and prophets, until her judgment is imposed.

It is one thing for a scholar or theologian, after research, to be certain of this or that point; it is quite another for the average lay person to be certain. I think the argument here is that the certainty found in the mind of the laity is and ought to be derived from the judgment of the church, which in turn is supported but not determined by the decisions of her theologians and scholars. For most of human history - and today is no exception - the average Christian does not have the resources available (education, libraries, time, etc.) to make an informed decision about which books are inspired and which not. We rely instead on the authority of the church. God could hardly expect every Christian to do years of research to answer this question for himself or herself (not to mention all the other theological questions); so instead He provided for His people an authority on which they could rely. (Also, I do not see how this is a trivial objection, as Calvin claims.)

Nothing, therefore, can be more absurd than the fiction, that the power of judging Scripture is in the Church, and that on her nod its certainty depends.

Of course, the church did not create the Scriptures - as if the same texts were at one moment not inspired and then (after the judgment of the church) inspired! Rather, the same Spirit who inspired Scripture lead the church, according to Christ's promise, into the truth of which books were canonical, causing her to recognize and approve only what He had already inspired.

"On her nod its certainty depends." I cannot understand what Calvin means by "its certainty." When Calvin speaks of Scripture's certainty, does he mean the certainty of people about Scripture or does he mean the certainty of the book itself? Certainty can only exist within the human mind, not within a book. Once we know which books constitute Scripture, we may accept those books without any uncertainty as divinely inspired - but isn't the question, "Which ones do we accept?"

When the Church receives it, and gives it the stamp of her authority, she does not make that authentic which was otherwise doubtful or controverted, but acknowledging it as the truth of God, she, as in duty bound, shows her reverence by an unhesitating assent.

I agree! The church did not make Scripture authentic; instead, she removes doubts and uncertainties by testifying to the truth of what God revealed.

As to the question, How shall we be persuaded that it came from God without recurring to a decree of the Church? it is just the same as if it were asked, How shall we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black do of their colour, sweet and bitter of their taste"

A thing can be self-evident in two ways: first in itself, and then to us. A proposition is self-evident in itself when the predicate is contained in the subject. For example, the propositions "God exists" and "An angel is an immaterial substance" are self-evident in themselves since each predicate is contained within the subject. But neither proposition is self-evident to every man and woman on this planet, since some deny it. If I were to say "Scripture is the word of God," that would be a self-evident statement, and once someone understood the subject they would grant the predicate. Or again if I said "All Scripture comes from God," that too would be a self-evident statement. And once we understand what is Scripture we can acknowledge that it comes from God.

But Calvin changes the sense of the question "How shall we be persuaded that it came from God without recurring to a decree of the Church?" The question here is not about the predicate but about the subject. The question is not "Does Scripture come from God?" but "how shall we be persuaded that this or that book (considered individually) is Scripture without the judgment of the church?" Obviously all Scripture is from God but the question is "Which books constitute Scripture?"

And which books constitute Scripture is a question that is not self-evident, either in itself or to all Christians. (Although we may be certain at least of the New Testament). Since there is no inspired list of canonical books, what constitutes Scripture is not self-evident in itself. Since there is still disagreement about the canon, what constitutes Scripture is not self-evident to Christians. Origen and Eusebius list the Epistle of James, Second and Third John, Second Peter, and the Epistle of Jude as disputed books. If only the Protestant canon is inspired, then the whole Scriptures were not self-evident to Augustine, who receives that those books and more as canonical. Furthermore, the question "Has it always been self-evident?" is a question of history not of theory. It does not answer the question, then, to assert they have always been self-evident -- especially when the historical fact of disagreements, uncertainties, and controversies directly refutes that assertion. Disputed questions are not self-evident (in the second sense).

Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit.

So because Augustine accepts different books as canonical he did not receive Scripture with the testimony of the Spirit? That seems to be the necessary conclusion of Calvin's bold statement, but I may not be understanding what he means.

To gather everything together, I think we agree on the following points:

1. The inspired books were in fact Scripture before the church determined the canon;
2. The Holy Spirit lead the church to gather into the canon only the inspired books;
3. The apostles and prophets are the foundation of the church.
   

And I think we may disagree on the following points:

1. The certainty in the mind of the lay person rests on the judgment of the church; (me for, you against)
2. The Bible contains the complete revelation of God in Christ and there is no such thing as extra-Biblical truths which are divinely revealed; (me against, you for)
3. Which books constitute Scripture is not self-evident, either in itself or to all Christians; (me for, you and Calvin against)

My reflections on the first, questions about the second, and arguments for the third are found above, and I await your thoughts.

Peace, etc.

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)

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

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)

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.

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.

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.)

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)

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".

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).