St. John Chrysostom on Faith Alone - A.D. 391

"He that believes in the Son has everlasting life" . . "Is it enough, then to believe in the Son," someone will say, "in order to have everlasting life?" By no means! Listen to Christ declare this Himself when He says, "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord! Lord!' shall enter into the kingdom of heaven", and the blasphemy against the Spirit is alone sufficient to cast him into hell. But why should I speak of a part of our teaching? For if a man believe rightly in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but does not live rightly, his faith will avail him nothing toward salvation.

[1] St. John Chrysostom. Homilies on the Gospel of John {ca. A.D. 391}. The Faith of the Early Fathers. Volume II. Pg 108. William A. Jurgens

Tertullian On the Sanctity of Human Life

Here's a few quotes from Tertullian, an Early Church Father, written sometime between 160-240 A.D.

"For us [Christians] we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter when you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one: you have the fruit already in the seed." -Apology 9:6

"They [John and Jesus] were both alive while still in the womb. Elizabeth rejoiced as the infant leaped in her womb; Mary glorifies the Lord because Christ within inspired her. Each mother recognizes her child and is known by her child who is alive, being not merely souls but also spirits." -De A ninta 26:4

__________________________________________________________

"For those who would say that the early Church was silent on the question of abortion, even the few select quotations quoted above from the Church Fathers give witness to the contrary."

[1] Quotations from the early Church Fathers on the Sanctity of Human Life

St. Augustine on Sin

There was very little that the mind of St. Augustine did not touch upon during his career as bishop of Hippo. Indeed Augustine had an intimate knowledge not only of the actions and results of sin, but of the motivations that were behind a sin. His approach of always being more patient and forgiving toward the sinner is all that much more remarkable.

Fr. John Vidmar shares with us some of St. Augustine’s thoughts on sin:

“No one, perhaps, understood the psychology of sin better than St. Augustine. He knew intimately the forces that played on people and the need to have compassion on the sinner. Hence, he instinctively hesitated to condemn those who did not measure up. He wrote: “Many sins are committed through pride, but not all happen proudly . . . They happen so often by ignorance, by human weakness; many are committed by men weeping and groaning in their distress.”

This sympathy for the sinner presented the church with a legacy of Christian forgiveness and a greater awareness of its mission in distinguishing hatred for sin from love for the sinner. Had St. Augustine done nothing else, this alone would have earned him the gratitude of future generations.”

[1] Father John Vidmar, OP. The Catholic Church Through the Ages. History. P. 72

The Donatist Controversy

A few months ago, while browsing through our local library (specifically in the theology section), an elder man happened to approach me to discuss a little about my religious background. As soon as I advised him that I was Catholic, you could easily tell that our discussion began to, ‘pick up.’ Of course, The Pope was brought up, then questions about Mary arose, however, these were nothing new to me. It wasn't until he brought up a concern about the Sacraments, specifically the Eucharist, that I felt unprepared. His concern about the Eucharist wasn’t about transfiguration and the Real Presence, but about those who administer the Sacrament and whether or not a notorious sinner could validly administer the sacraments. This man informed me that, according to scripture, only those that are pure and free from sin are eligible to administer the sacraments, and that all the other sacraments that are being administered by everybody else, are tainted.

Now I have to be honest, I didn’t have an answer for him that day. In fact, I didn’t have an answer at all until last week. But I did find someone who did have an answer for him. And he happens to be one of my favorite early church fathers, St. Augustine. One of the greatest theologians who ever lived had an answer for him sixteen hundred years ago! This issue was known early in the 3rd Century as Donatism, and Augustine had just a few words to say about it. .

“Augustine saw the danger of elitism in this (Donatism), . . Augustine taught that the church is holy, not because its members are holy but because its founder and its purposes are holy. Sacraments are valid because of their inner purity and sanctity, not because of the sanctity of the Minster. Thus baptism, if administered according to the proper form and intention (however minimal that intention might be), is valid whether the minister is “worthy” or not. Its is not Peter who baptizes, it is Christ. Sacraments, as a result, are available to all, and not merely to an elect group.”

[1] The Catholic Church Through the Ages. John Vidmar, OP. Paulist Press. pg. 69-70

Four Witnesses

As I begin to wrap up Rod Bennett’s historical work on our early Church Fathers, I have to admit how amazing it is to read through the writings and experiences of these four courageous men. Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus of Lyon, also referred to as the, “Four Witnesses” enlightened me with knowledge and truth that I have been searching for in my studies of the early church.

When I speak of the early church, I’m going beyond the 15th century (where most people believe is a good place to start), I’m talking about the 1st and 2nd century early church. These Four Witnesses do not have a single word in their writings later than A.D. 200. They fill ‘the gap’ between apostolic and post apostolic Christianity. For example, Bennett’s work provides five certified epistles of Ignatius, all of them composed in or about A.D 107, which date them to within a decade of the close of the Apostolic age.

Their writings are clear, plain, and substantive instruction about what the early Church actually believed, and much of it on major topics that have become hopelessly controversial in our time. These four witnesses were not a bit shy about interpreting the Holy Scriptures written so recently by the Apostles in whose steps they followed. They interpreted them vigorously, boldly, and with authority!

We have to ask those who want to interpret scripture on their own, what are you to do when you get into a theological disagreement with the four men who got their bible training more or less directly from the Apostles? Turn to those writers in the 15th century, because their knowledge is much more advanced than those in the 1st century? Or turn to the 20th century, where you have hundreds of different yet ‘validated’ sources of information from the Internet or other modern day theological writers, including yourself?

I guess what it comes down to is, Who’s to say? Is there ever going to be any certainty anywhere in matters of faith? Is there any evidence that such an answer was given? Well, the early Christians believed there was. Cyprian of Carthage A.D. 251, a bishop and martyr in Africa, summarizes the ancient understanding of the Church in a few elegant words:

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” He says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven” [Mt16:18 – 19]. And again he says to him after His resurrection: “Feed my sheep” [Jn 21:17]. On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also what Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds that faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?

There are many others writings of these four witnesses that I would love to have shared with you. I can only recommend that you pick up a copy of Bennet’s, Four Witnesses, so that you can experience and live for a while, in the Church’s holiest and most Spirit-filled age.

[1] Four Witnesses. Rod Bennett. Publisher: Ignatius

Justin Martyr: A Letter of Defense

A.D. 153, Justin Martyr, often referred to as our first Christian Apologist, believed that it was time for him to prepare a letter for the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius. Of course, an interview would be his death sentence, so Justin decided to pick up his pen, and prepare one of his greatest works for the emperor. His letter would set the record straight about Christians, and refute all the slanders and lies of Christianity. This letter would assure the emperor that he had nothing to fear from the followers of Jesus and appealing for peace. Of course, Justin knew it was a long shot, he didn’t really imagine that anything might actually change in response. But of course, that’s our flesh that speaks that way, not the Spirit. Is not our God still the God of miracles, who holds the hearts of kings in His hand?

And so, sometime in A.D. 153, Justin Martyr composed the work that is known to us today as his Apologia – his First Apology. Now, I’m not going to share the entire letter with you, but I want to share Justin’s account on the ordinary weekly meetings among Christians. So enjoy his letter, and don’t be surprised if some of you find it very, very familiar. :)

Justin Martyr to the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius. A.D. 153

“And on the day called Sunday all who live in cities or in the country gather together in one place, and the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. .

Then when the reader has finished, the Ruler (of the Brethren) in a discourse instructs and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all stand up together and offer prayers. .

Then there is brought to the Ruler of the Brethren bread and a cup of water and (a cup of) wine mixed with water, and he taking them sends up praise and glory to the Father of the Universe through the name of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and offers thanksgiving at some length for our being accounted worthy to receive these things for Him.”

How familiar is this to some of us! Notice that the Gospels are still new enough to be referred to, rather charmingly, as “the memoirs of the Apostles,” and that even the Old Testament books are still a loose collection of sacred scrolls. Even though, the final authoritative Christian Bible will not before formed for nearly 250 more years. (remember this is A.D. 153). Nevertheless, the Scriptures still play a vital part here in Justin’s Church, and of course, ours.

"Christ Yes, Church Yes!"

The last few months I've run into a lot of people who are focused on the idea that going to church is unnecessary. Asserting that each time the word ‘church’ is mentioned in the Gospels and the New Testament it refers to a ‘spiritual church,’ rather than an actual ‘church’ or a gathering of Christian members in worship. Well I want to try and explain how unbiblical and unhistorical this claim of ‘no church’ really is.

First of all, In Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians, He presents the Church to us as a structure, “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornertstone.”[1] Paul literally founded many Churches in the various cities where he went as an evangelizer. In fact, we can see in most of Paul’s Letters how the Church is so present in his thoughts, heart and activity. Lets try and look why this might be.

Having met the new group of believers, the Christian community, Paul immediately became a fierce persecutor of it. Paul acknowledged at least three times in as many of his Letters: “I persecuted the Church of God,”[2] as if to describe his behavior as the worst possible crime. What brought Paul into the Church was a direct intervention of Christ, who in revealing himself on the road to Damascus identified himself with the Church and made Paul realize that
persecution of the Church as persecution of himself, the Lord. We find in Acts Chapter 9, Our Lord said to Paul, persecutor of the Church: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”[3] In persecuting the Church, he was persecuting Christ. Paul, therefore, was at the same time converted to Christ and to the Church.

As Paul explains how the Church is, “built upon the foundation of the apostles. . ,” we should understand that the Twelve Apostles are the most evident sign of Jesus’ will regarding the existence and mission of his Church. There is no opposition between Christ and the Church, Christ and the Church are inseparable. How can we be loyal to the King, and not His Kingdom? A slogan that was popular some years back and again rising today, “Jesus yes, Church no,” is totally inconceivable with the intention of Christ. This individualistically chosen Jesus is an imaginary Jesus.

Jesus is always present with us, he is always present with the Church, built on the foundation of the Apostles and alive in the succession of the Apostles. His very presence in the community, in which he himself is always with us, is the reason for our joy.

[1] Letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 2:20
[2] Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 15:9, Gal 1:13, Phil 3:6
[3] Book of Acts, Chapter 9:4
[4] The Apostles. Pope Benedict XVI

The Assumption

Last Wednesday, we celebrated The Assumption of Our Blessed Lady. Anxious as I was, I found no difficulty waking up at 6 am so that I wouldn’t miss the 7 o’clock service (Yes, I was that anxious!). Here’s a brief summary of some of the simple facts I’ve recently learned about The Assumption.

In the dogma, the word assumption means the taking of Our Lady, body and soul, into heaven. Some of you might even be a little surprise (just as I was) to learn that The Assumption is earlier than the belief that she was conceived immaculate. Now, I may not have a lot of books on The Assumption, or claim that The Assumption is explicitly taught in the Bible, but one thing that I think is clear to all of us, is the relationship between The Assumption and Church history. Churches have been named after the Assumption for the past millennium and a half. In fact, for 1500 years The Assumption never raised any serious questions, problem, or doubt, among Catholics. Neither Jerome, Origen, Athanasius, Ambrose, nor Augustine contested Epiphanius in what he had written regarding Mary's miraculous passing, and Ephraem described Mary as having been glorified by Christ and carried through the air to heaven [1]. You can’t ignore the beauty of Church History.

To truly understand Our Blessed Lady we must depend totally on our understanding of her Son. When we achieve that, I myself can’t help but notice that everything which flows from her, comes from her being Christ’s mother. So, as our understanding of him grows, our understanding of her grows. Understanding Christ makes it simple to recognize that Christ would want his mother with him in heaven, and not just her soul alone, but body and soul.

In heaven, she represents the human race redeemed; she alone is body and soul, where all the saved will one day be. It is a doctrine of the Church that all men would receive back the bodies from which their souls had been separate at death. That gap between was a result of sin, and Our Lady was sinless [2].

[1] Cf. Ephraem, De nativitate domini sermo 12, sermo 11, sermo 4; Opera omni syriace at latine, Vol. 2, 415
[2] Sheed, Theology for Beginners. pgs 130-131

Scott Hahn: The Ecclesial Locus of Theology and Exegesis

In his article, The Authority of Mystery: The Biblical Theology of Pope Benedict XVI [1], Dr. Scott Hahn discusses Pope Benedicts central teachings on biblical theology. Hahn recognizes the fundamentals of Benedicts approach to Biblical text, 1) that the Word of God cannot be separated from the people of God in which the scriptures are revered 2) that Scripture must be read in lightof the living faith of the Church. I've attached the text below to clarify more on these fundamentals. . .

"Benedict does not base his hermeneutic of faith and biblical theology on philo­sophical or methodological preconceptions of his own. Indeed, his approach to the biblical text grows organically from the historical structure of revelation, that is, from the actual manner in which the Word of God was created and handed on.

As Benedict notes, the clear finding of critical exegesis (the interpretation of text/scripture) is that Scripture is the product of the Church, that its contents originated in an ecclesial context and were shaped over long years by the Church’s proclamation, confession, catechesis, and liturgical worship. Considered historically, then, there is an obvious and undeni­able “interwoven relationship between Church and Bible, between the people of God and the Word of God.”

Benedict bids us to pay close attention to the history of the early Church and the original inner unity of Word, sacrament, and Church order and authority. That history demonstrates that the institutions and practices of the Church are not artificial or arbitrary later constructs, but organic developments of the people of God’s encounter with the Word of God. Put another way, the structure of revela­tion and of the faith—how the early Church heard the Word and responded to it—is itself the source of the Church’s sacramental worship, its teaching office, and its principles of governance.

As Benedict notes, the criteria for determining which books were truly the Word of God were primarily liturgical:

"A book was recognized as “canonical” if it was sanctioned by the Church for use in public worship. . . . In the ancient Church, the reading of Scripture and the confession of faith were primarily liturgical acts of the whole assembly gathered around the risen Lord."

The Church, then, from the beginning, was understood as the viva vox, the living voice of Scripture, proclaiming the Word but also protecting the Word from manipulation and distortion. As the confessional and sacramental life of the Church were the criterion by which the canon was formed, the Scriptures were intended from the beginning to be interpreted according to the rule of faith or the Creed, under the authority of the apostles’ successors. And again, historically speaking, the Church’s proclamation and interpretation of the Word was ordered to a liturgical or sacramental end—the profession of faith and baptism."

"The original sphere of existence of the Christian profession of faith. . . . was
the Sacramental life of the Church. It is by this criterion that the canon was
shaped, and that is why the Creed is the primary authority for the
interpretation of the Bible. . . . Thus the authority of the Church that speaks
out, the author­ity of apostolic succession, is written into Scripture
through the Creed and is indivisible from it. The teaching office of the
apostles’ successors does not represent a secondary authority alongside
Scripture but is inwardly a part of it. This viva vox is not there to restrict
the authority of Scripture or to limit it or even replace it by the existence of
another—on the contrary, it is its task to ensure that Scripture is not
disposable, cannot be manipulated, to preserve its proper perspicuitas, its
clear meaning, from the conflict of hypotheses. Thus, there is a secret
relationship of reciprocity. Scripture sets limits and a standard for the viva
vox; the living voice guarantees that it cannot be manipulated."

[1] Hahn, Scott. The Authority of Mystery: The Biblical Theology of Pope Benedict XVI. Pg 12-14

'Thoughts on Church' - Josh McManaway

Josh McManaway, a young and bright student of biblical studies, has recently provided us his thoughts on Ecclesiology. He asked some very good questions concerning the study of the church in his opening post, "Some thoughts on church." . . .

"For whatever reason, I've been suckered into Ecclesiology. I enjoy figuring out
what exactly the "Church" is. There are a great many blogs out there
dedicated to this topic. However, something I'm noticing is that they
stay only within the New Testament for their views on the Church. Is this proper?
Is the New Testament the handbook on ekklesia? My answer: It's not *the*
handbook. We have to look not only at the New Testament, but also at the history
of the Church and how the Apostolic Fathers viewed Church, etc. How did the
earliest Christians do it after the New Testament period?”

His follow up post has already sparked a great discussion among other readers/bloggers on his site. (A New Testament Student). If you are interested in learning a bit more on the early church and its history, I recommend that you check out his blog.

[1] Josh McManaway / http://ntstudent.blogspot.com/

Historical Study

Most people come to find that the New Testament documents afford little historical information about the apostles and the early years of the Church. The details of Peter’s life, especially his later life, are sketchy, for no detailed record has been passed down through the centuries. Luke, on the other hand, one of Paul’s traveling companions, wrote an account of Jesus’ life and also chronicled select portions of Paul’s ministry. Even with Paul’s life, there are long periods of activity about which we are told nothing. Take, for example, the fourteen year period before his return to Jerusalem after his conversion (Gal 2:1)¹, or his two years of house arrest in Rome, or his trip to Spain, or his second journey to Rome, or, of course, his martyrdom. We have precious little information about the other apostles after the day of Pentecost.

To illustrate the point further, what do we know with certainty from the Scriptures, about the life and ministry of Thomas, who preached in India, Matthew, who traveled widely, or John, who cared for the Blessed Virgin Mary and oversaw the Churches of Asia? And what of Bartholomew, Philip, Andrew, Matthias, or James the son of Alphaeus? What happened to Lazarus, Jesus’ friend? The New Testament documents afford little historical information about the apostles and the early years of the Church. And consider the whole twelve chapters of Acts cover a whole decade!

The apostles were too busy making history to write about it. Most of the New Testament were written, not to give us a detailed account of the early Church or a manual for Church polity, but to defend the fledgling gospel, to correct a faulty practice, or to commend or rebuke local Churches. Luke informs Theophilus that he compiled his Gospel “so that you [Theophilus] might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught” (Lk 1:4)². Those who accept the doctrine of sola Spriptura and have the attitude that nothing can be known, and nothing matters, outside the text of the New Testament are deprived of much understanding and knowledge about the continuing work of the Holy Spirit among Christ’s flock.

We cannot assume that the silence of the New Testament is an indication that the seldom-mentioned apostles ceased their apostolic ministries after the Ascension of Christ, or that they were not important in the first century and beyond. Of course not. Again, the New Testament was never intended as a complete history of, or manual for, the primitive Church. The Church herself has kept the tradition of the apostles alive and intact, and she has pondered and celebrated it through the centuries.³

[1] Luke 1:4
[2] Galations 2:1
[3] Stephen K. Ray, Author of Upon This Rock