Monday, October 13, 2008

St. Augustine on Baptism and Schism


I'm reading (actually re-reading, since I don't remember reading it before, but have a lot of sections underlined) St. Augustine's On Baptism, Against the Donatists. In the rejection of Donatism, the Church insists that baptism is valid even when administered by wicked men, heretics, or traditores. Anyone who has ever heard of Donatism probably knows that. What they may not know, is that while a person may still possess or receive a true baptism while outside the pale of the Church, that baptism will be of no benefit to those who remain in separation from the Catholic Church. It is not so because of any deficency in baptism, rather the person cleansed from sin in Baptism, is made dirty again by virture of the schism, the person clothed in Christ is baptism, is striped of Him by schism, and the person enlightened by baptism, returned to darkness by virtue of the schism.

Anyway, here's the Bishop of Hippo:


And so the Donatists in some matters are with us; in some matters have gone out from us. Accordingly, those things wherein they agree with us we do not forbid them to do; but in those things in which they differ from us, we earnestly encourage them to come and receive them from us, or return and recover them, as the case may be; and with whatever means we can, we lovingly busy ourselves, that they, freed from faults and corrected, may choose this course. We do not therefore say to them, "Abstain from giving baptism," but "Abstain from giving it in schism." Nor do we say to those whom we see them on the point of baptizing, "Do not receive the baptism," but "Do not receive it in schism." For if any one were compelled by urgent necessity, being unable to find a Catholic from whom to receive baptism, and so, while preserving Catholic peace in his heart, should receive from one without the pale of Catholic unity the sacrament which he was intending to receive within its pale, this man, should he forthwith depart this life, we deem to be none other than a Catholic. But if he should be delivered from the death of the body, on his restoring himself in bodily presence to that Catholic congregation from which in heart he had never departed, so far from blaming his conduct, we should praise it with the greatest truth and confidence; because he trusted that God was present to his heart, while he was striving to preserve unity, and was unwilling to depart this life without the sacrament of holy baptism, which he knew to be of God, and not of men; wherever he might find it. But if any one who has it in his power to receive baptism within the Catholic Church prefers, from some perversity of mind, to be baptized in schism, even if he afterwards bethinks himself to come to the Catholic Church, because he is assured that there that sacrament will profit him, which can indeed be received but cannot profit elsewhere, beyond all question he is perverse, and guilty of sin, and that the more flagrant in proportion as it was committed wilfully. For that he entertains no doubt that the sacrament is rightly received in the Church, is proved by his conviction that it is there that he must look for profit even from what he has received elsewhere." (Book I, Ch. 2)



...And so let them understand that men may be baptized in communions severed from the Church, in which Christ’s baptism is given and received in the said celebration of the sacrament, but that it will only then be of avail for the remission of sins, when the recipient, being reconciled to the unity of the Church, is purged from the sacrilege of deceit, by which his sins were retained, and their remission prevented. For, as in the case of him who had approached the sacrament in deceit there is no second baptism, but he is purged by faithful discipline and truthful confession, which he could not be without baptism, so that what was given before becomes then powerful to work his salvation, when the former deceit is done away by the truthful confession; so also in the case of the man who, while an enemy to the peace and love of Christ, received in any heresy or schism the baptism of Christ, which the schismatics in question had not lost from among them, though by his sacrilege his sins were not remitted, yet, when he corrects his error, and comes over to the communion and unity of the Church, he ought not to be again baptized: because by his very reconciliation to the peace of the Church he receives this benefit, that the sacrament now begins in unity to be of avail for the remission of his sins, which could not so avail him as received in schism. (Book 1, Ch. 12)

Posted by Dan Woodring at 10:55 AM | 0 comments  

Labels: , ,

Thursday, October 2, 2008

If faith is never alone...

Lest it be lost in the combox of a post that is a couple of months old (which is moving at about my speed), I wanted to bring to the top a response to my post about Cyprian on Justification.

This quote from Cyprian is similar to what we find in the Common Responsory in Matins (LSB, p. 221). The sung verse is: "Blessed are those who hear the Word of God and keep it." (Luke 11:28)

Or as Cyprian writes, "We ought therefore to stand fast on His words, to learn and do whatever He both taught and did. But how can a man say that he believes in Christ, who does not do what Christ commanded him to do? Or whence shall he attain to the reward of faith, who will not keep the faith of the commandment?"

The Scriptures are clear -- faith and works go together.

Interesting that you bring up the responsory which quotes Luke 11:28. While I would not have disagreed with your conclusion that faith and works go together (nor do I now), as a Lutheran I would have always argued that this verse is speaking about faith and not works. "Keep" is used in the sense not of obedience, but possession. That seems to be the sense of phulasso, or tēreo in similar passages.

Still I would not have denied that the faith with which we are blessed produces obedience. So I am not sure the exegetical distinction matters.

But lets assume for a minute that your interpretation of the verse is correct. It well may be. Then the blessing of God consists in this that we hear the Word of God and obey it, and that faith is in there as well. In other words, Faith is a blessing, a gift. In the same way, obedience is a blessing from God, a gift.

This is perfectly in line with what I believe as a Catholic. My obedience is not the cause of God's blessing or grace, it is the result. In the saying of Augustine Da quod jubes, God gives what he commands of us. I think the particular concern of Lutherans is to clearing maintain that we do not earn our salvation. That is a valid concern. And to set your mind at ease, Catholics do not believe that we earn our way into heaven. We are saved by Christ alone.

So faith alone seems to have been invented in order to exclude the notion that we earn our way into heaven. But it should be enough to emphasis Christ alone. Faith alone has the unfortunate tendency to lead one into the equal but opposite error of the antinomians or at least of a degree of moral laxitude. I know that true Lutherans do not approve of these errors, but the reality is that they are hard to avoid, which is evidenced by the fact that the antinomian error has never ceased to be a problem. It just won't die and stay buried for long.

But here's the deal. If "Faith alone saves, but faith is never alone." What is the point in saying that faith alone saves? In other words, a faith existing by itself doesn't exist, faith is never alone, and yet this thing which doesn't exist (faith standing alone) saves. Doesn't that seem a little absurd to you? It's like saying "Ducks with three legs are good swimmers. But ducks never have three legs."

Let me put it another way. If the intention of that slogan is to say that God saves us by putting in us a faith that always exists together with love, what is the problem in saying it this way. God saves us by putting into us both faith and love?

Or to put in still another way: If "faith and works go together", why do you separate them when it comes to soteriology?

Posted by Dan Woodring at 10:16 AM | 1 comments  

Labels:

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

On the Invocation of the Saints

Former Lutheran pastor Paul V. Abbe was interviewed during this week's Journey Home on EWTN. Abbe pointed out that while a Lutheran pastor, he started to pray the rosary. He said nothing to suggest that he modified it to exclude the second half of the Ave Maria (the "pray for us sinners" part). I found that rather interesting.

I have to admit that while the invocation of saints was not something that I had to struggle with in my conversion, I never, prior to my conversion invoked the saints or desired to do so. I knew the practice was rejected by the Lutheran Confessions on the ground that there is no command or example in Scripture to do so, and that there is no promise attached to it, while I certainly believed that the saints (and angels) do pray for us, as the confessions also admit.

For me the issue was why should I go to the saints when I can go "straight to the top" without any middle men (or woman.) Still, I don't think I would have said that the practice was idolatrous. It just seemed inefficient. I guess that is why the Roman Catholic practice was not a huge deal for me, although at first, I never thought I would invoke the saints in my private prayers. However, it didn't take long before I realized I was really missing out on something.

One of the things that continues to amaze me is that when protestants learn of my conversion, I am usually always asked about the invocation of saints. "Don't Catholics worship Mary?" (No, in fact, they don't). "How can you put the saints on the same level of God" (We don't). And so on. It's strange because what was actually a very small thing for me to consider, for many protestants, it's a big deal.

Here is my defense of the practice and answer to the objections I commonly come across.

1. No Command or Example or Attached Promise in Holy Scripture
In retrospect, I find this objection the most puzzling and anemic. In truth, the Christian Congregation does many things which have no command in Scripture. There is no command in Scripture to use candles, vestments, recite the creed, or have a parking lot. Are these things wrong because there is no command in Scripture? Since when does the lack of a command mean that something is forbidden? Notice that the objection is not that the invocation of saints is forbidden in Scripture. The Lutheran Confessions never make this claim. Rather, it is said that there is no command or example of it in Scripture. The claim is that it is not commanded, but not that it is forbidden.

So why, then, is the invocation of saints not considered an adiaphoron? (An "adiaphoron" is defined as something which is neither commanded or forbidden in Scripture.) Having candles, vestments, the apostle's creed, and parking lots are all adiaphora.

The same is true when it comes to example. We have no biblical example of confirmation, no command either. Is it therefore wrong to have a rite of confirmation in the Lutheran Church? What about anointed the newly baptized with oil. No command or example in Scripture. Does this make it wrong? Of course not.

That said, is it really true that there is no example of the invocation of saints in Scripture? In the Psalms, angels and saints are invoked to "Bless the Lord?" Is this merely rhetorical? I don't believe so. But even so, the Lutheran argument is weak.

What about "no attached promise"? Is there an attached promise to confirmation? Or candles and vestments? Or reciting the creed?

What about having a cross, or daresay, a crucifix in the front of the chancel? No command. No example. No attached promise. Three strikes you're out? Where's an iconoclast when you need him?

The point is that nearly every adiaphoron which is practiced in Lutheran Church also fails these three criteria. Still they are allowed on the basis that they are not forbidden.

2. Example of the Early Church
I know of very little evidence that that Church in the first few centuries practiced the invocation of saints. There are a few things, here and there, inscriptions on graves asking the deceased to pray for them, a somewhat obscure line in the Shepherd of Hermes, and perhaps a couple of things I am forgetting. Then you have some patristic witness in figures such as Ephraim the Syrian, John Chrysostom, Augustine and others. Of course, these all come centuries after the Apostles, and it is easy to claim, as protestants are wont to do, that the "Church got off track" during that time. If one is looking for a clear line of practice that can be traced to the 1st century, it is hard to find (at least, I haven't found it, which isn't saying that much). Nor does one find any evidence of development through these
That is not to suggest that the early Christians of the 1st and 2nd centuries did not pray to the saints. We just really don't have a lot of proof that they did. But neither do we have proof that they didn't.

But here's the thing. If the invocation of saints is the idolatous affront to God that non-Catholics suggest, how is it that the practice appears in the Church with absolutely no controversy or contradiction. I know that if I had tried to start something like this in my parish, there would have been an uproar. We find the practice in both East and West, in multiple episcopacies. It is much more likely that it had been practiced from the start, than that it appeared latter on with objection of the faithful.

When it comes to the practice of praying for the dead at mass, which has stronger evidence from antiquity, even that was spoken against by at least one group. In the fourth century, centuries. The invocation of Saints just rather appears, almost out of nowhere--at least according to written evidence. The few references are not hard to dismiss as exceptional or incidental and far from universal.


Aereus (the heretical bishop of Sebaste in Pontus -- not the Allergy medicine) taught that prayers for the dead were useless. An interest reference to this is found in the Apology of the Augustana "Epiphanius declares that Aerius maintained that prayers for the dead are useless. He finds fault with this. We do not favor Aerius either..." (24:96) " Of course, nobody ever told me that as a Lutheran I could pray for the dead at mass. Yet according to the Apology it's okay. I wonder where Melancthon finds the Scriptural command, example, and promise. I also wonder why Lutheran's might do this since they don't believe in purgatory, but come to think of it, off the top of my head I can't think of any reference in the Confessions that rejects purgatory either, but if it is in there, I'm sure someone will point it out without me checking into it.

The point is, while one does find a contradictory view on praying for the dead in history, there is no contradictory view about invoking the saints. It's hard to fathom how this practice could have been started without an uproar of the faithful.

3. Praying "to the saints" makes them equal with God.
When Catholics say they pray to saints, this is using an expression which is archaic to today's people. We don't usually use the words "pray" to mean anything but a supplication to God. When Catholics "pray to Mary" the mean to say that they "ask, or make a request of, Mary." It is more correct to say that Catholics ask the saints to pray for them, or to help them through their prayers, in the same way that you may ask a friend or relative to pray for you.

How that makes a saint equal to God is beyond me. In fact, it logically suggests they are not equal with God, because they have no power of their own to help us. If asking a saint in heaven to pray for you makes that saint equal to God, does asking your pastor to pray for you making him equal to God? Of course not.

Similar to this is the claim that praying to the saints gives them undue glory. It has been suggested to me that the verse "Call upon me in the day of trouble, and I will answer you, and you will glorify me," Means that we should call upon God alone, just as we glorify him alone. But call upon me, doesn't carry this kind of exclusivity. If I tell you, "Read St. Augustine" that doesn't mean that I mean you can only read Augustine, and not Basil, or Athanasius, etc.

I also want to share this thought from Thomas Howard in which he points out that God doesn't hoard His glory like some dragon sitting upon his treasure of Gold. In the same way, a king having an entourage of nobles does not diminish his majesty, but increases it all the more.

The saints are glorified. Romans 8:30. They share in His Glory as "partakers of the divine nature."

Be that as it may, if asking the saints triumphant to pray for us is wrong because we should go directly to God, it is equally wrong to ask living Christians (the saints militant) to pray for us. If asking the saints triumphant to pray for us is idolatrous, so is asking saints militant. I can think of no objection of this nature to asking for the intercession of departed saints that would logically preclude the intercession of one Christian for another.

4. The Unity of the Church.
And that leads to this next point. There is a grave theological problem with that line of argument. The Church is one, and to suggest that the how I interact with one member of the communion of saints differs with how I interact with other members inplies a division that is theologically intenable. There are not two Churches, one of whose members you may ask for intercessions, but the other not. Christ is not divided, and so neither can those who are in Christ. That beautiful prayer for all saints day says that God has knit together His elect in one communion and fellowship in the mystical body of Christ. To reject the invocation of saints, to say that I have no access to those who are with me in Christ, is putting asunder what God hath put together.

This really has to be the chief point. How does the doctrine of the Church, her unity and fellowship shape our thinking when it comes to the invocation of the saints? This has to be our primary consideration. Unfortunately, I am going to move on to lesser points that I don't want to leave out before I go to bed.

5. "The dead can't hear us."
Briefly, if the blessed departed (they are not dead) can not hear the living, then how did call out "Tabitha, arise!"? She heard him, and arose. I need no further proof than this.

6. The witness of the faithful.
Finally, I don't think this little (or not so little) apologetic would be complete without pointing out that thousands of Christians the world over claim healings, miracles, and answers to prayers when they have asked for the intercession of the saints. Many of these claims have been put to intense scrutiny during the canonization process. It would seem that if the saints in perfected glory believed that the invocation of saints was wrong, prayers addressed to them would be rejected. I know that requests that I have made through the saints have been answered, just as I know that requests that I have made directly to God have been answered. I don't think that it is possible that this many people are lying or are deluded. Terese of the Child Jesus (whose day it is today) was healed through the invocation of Mary when she was a little child. I don't think you can easily dismiss testimonies such as these!

7. Why pray to the saints, when you can go directly to God?
For the same reason (and more) why ask a fellow Christian to pray for you when you can take the matter directly to God. Because we, the members of Christ, live in a bond of love that should never be ignored or considered lightly. I have always had a great respect and honor toward the saints, now that I am Catholic, I know them as my friends and companions. I have never failed to love Mary, my mother most holy, but as a Catholic I experience her love on a daily basis. I have a relationship with her, in a way that as a protestant, i would have never understood or imagined.

And when it comes to asking fellow Christians (on earth) to pray for you, they sometimes forget. I know I have when it has been asked of me, and sometimes, perhaps always, I have remembered but prayed less fervently than I ought. The prayer of a righteous man availeth much. So the prayers of the heavenly saints, in perfected righteous, availeth much. They pray for you better than I can, or your friend, or even your pastor or priest. They pray for you better than you can pray for yourself. So why not ask them to do so. Let rugged American individualism be dispensed with, and let them shoulder your burdens. This is what it means to be Church.

Finally, a word about Mary. She is not God. She is His mother. It is arrogant to assume that Jesus will listen to you like He does his own Mother. More than that, while we are worthy of none of the things for which we pray because of our sin, our Lord, who perfectly obeys the law, including the fourth commandment, is required to give honor, service and obedience to his mother. Every Lutheran should recall Luther's explanation of the fourth commandment in the Small Catechism, and think of what it means for Christ in relation to Mary. On account of His mercy, He subjects himself to Mary for your sake, so that through Her we may recieve His every blessing.

Posted by Dan Woodring at 6:57 PM | 0 comments  

Labels:

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Blogger Template by Blogcrowds