Bringing you the
"Good News" of Jesus Christ
and His Church While PROMOTING CATHOLIC
Apologetic Support groups loyal to the Holy Father and Church's
magisterium
I am 57 year old man. I live in the USA,
and have an evangelical background.
My question fundamentally regards the nature
and validity of sacraments.
A generation or two ago, Pierre Telihard
de Chardin got into trouble with the Church. From
what I understand he may have been declared
a heretic. Was this due to his view that
the entire created earth was in some sense
sacramental or at least could be seen as
such?
From what I understand, he performed a communion
rite in Mongolia using matter other than the
scripturally and ecclesiastically sanctioned
bread and wine.
Were the views of a French theologian
(Dominican?) Pere Chenu similar to those
of de Chardin?
Second, I understand that Roman Catholics
believe that sacraments operate independently
of the cleric or of the faith of the recipient.
How does this differ from simple, pagan
magic?
I would think that faith would have to be
involved, at least on the recipient's part,
and also on the part of the cleric or the
person performing the rite.
Thanks,
J.D.
{
Can you help me understand the sacraments, the Church and
its theology?
Mary
Ann replied:
Dear J.D.,
Re: Your more important question,
about the sacraments:
Yes, the sacraments operate regardless
of the faith of the cleric or of
the recipient. However, the cleric
must intend what the Church intends,
and the recipient, in order to receive
grace from the sacrament, must be
properly disposed, i.e., not in a
state of serious sin. Otherwise,
as St. Paul says, he eats and drinks
condemnation.
This ex opere operatu aspect
of the sacraments is not magic. Magic
is the manipulation of occult forces
through word or deed performed by
the will of man. The sacraments are
acts of God in Christ, in response
to our obedience as Church in administering
them.
As to Teilhard: His problem was not
the sacramentality of the universe,
loosely understood, but his near-pantheistic
identification of Christ with the
evolving cosmos.
As for using non-sacramental elements,
that was a common abuse at one time,
and it renders the sacrament invalid.
Jesus used bread and wine. Since
the sacrament is an extension in
time and space of the acts of Christ,
we act as Christ did.
Of course, Baptism doesn't require
a state of grace in the recipient,
but it does require faith, on the
recipient's part or on the behalf
of others, if an infant.
Sorry, I don't know about Chenu.
Hope this helps,
Mary Ann
John
replied:
Just to add to what Mary Ann has
said:
The sacraments are a work of Christ
and not celebrant or recipient, as
Mary Ann has pointed out.
That said, a sacrament is not totally
independent of the cleric. If the
priest is in sin, or if his faith
is lacking, the sacrament is still
valid SO LONG AS he INTENDS to allow
Christ to work through him. Whatever
is lacking in him personally, is
covered by the faith of the Church,
which is the Mystical Body of Christ.
Hence, if a priest is struggling
in his faith, but still intends do
what Christ and His Church intend
to do through the sacrament, then
the sacrament is valid. If however,
the priest does not share the intention
of Christ and His Church, then the
sacrament is not valid.
John
J.D.
replied:
Thank you, John, for your prompt
response. May I take this a step
further?
Generally speaking, sacraments are
still not needed as I understand
Roman Catholic doctrine.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
For example, if someone in RCIA waiting
for the Easter Vigil, dies suddenly,
then the concept of "baptism
of desire" becomes operative.
So in the end, water baptism was
not really necessary.
Likewise, if someone who has committed
a mortal sin is driving to the church
for absolution and has a fatal auto
accident, I would assume that the
Church does not teach that the penitent
person is consigned to Hell. Would
not the same principle: "baptism
of desire" come into play? Here
again, the sacrament was not really
necessary. God instead has viewed
the heart of the individual and not
the outward forms of visible sacraments.
It gets a little more sticky when
we talk about final unction. If a
guy has lived like the devil, then
has a stroke, rendering him unconscious,
would not the family still call for
the priest to perform final unction?
In this situation, there has been
no personal act or thought of contrition
on the part of dying man.
This is why I asked that third question
about the distinction between magic
and some sacramental acts. A mere
formula spoken by a cleric cannot
do what a repentant sinner is scripturally
required to do, can it?
John, I am not trying to argue. I've
done enough of that in my life. I
just want to try to understand the
sacramental system.
Thanks,
J.D.
John
replied:
J.D.,
Thanks for your questions. I don't
see you as arguing, rather you are
genuine in your pursuit.
Before I reply to your last response,
I'd ask that you hit the "Reply
All" feature in the future.
That way my fellow apologists can
follow the thread and add their insight.
Now to your questions. First, I understand
where you are coming from. I had
very similar questions as I was returning
to the Church.
The exception does not make the rule.
Obviously we have examples in the
Bible that are exceptions. The thief
on the cross was not baptized. But
with Baptism, Confession, or any
sacraments, comes an outpouring of
grace. As we've discussed, it is
Christ who acts through the ministry
of the Church (His Body). With baptism
and confession, not only is there
remittance of sin, but an empowering
infusion of grace to assist us to
overcome our tendency to sin.
Protestants tend to look at salvation
and justification as forensic and
static. Whereas, before the Luther,
the entire Church always understood
(as the Catholic and Orthodox still
understand to this day) that both
salvation and justification are intrinsic
and dynamic. When we are born again
in baptism. We are not simply declared
righteous; having Christ's righteousness
imputed. To the contrary, we are
infused with the righteousness of
Christ who makes (not simply declares)
us righteous. From the moment of
our baptism till we see Him in glory,
we begin a journey in which we partake
and participate in the Divine nature
of Christ.
Sacraments, are an external physical
sign, of what is spiritually happening.
We are both flesh and spirit, hence
Christ gave us a sacramental system
because we have senses. The bottom
line is, God can save whomever He
wants, however He wants and He established
Baptism as the normative way to be
born again.
Reread Roman 6 carefully. Does Paul
say anywhere "accept Jesus as
Lord and Savior"?
No, He talks about being baptized
into Christ. Accepting the Lord is
wonderful. We should do it every
day of our lives. We are called to
constantly yield to Holy Spirit.
We are called to an ongoing conversion
and the sacraments are the normative
way in which Christians receive empowering
grace. That doesn't mean they are
the only source of grace. Sacraments
received in faith open us up more
to those other means of grace.
I'll leave our Extreme Unction for
a later time. I want to continue
this dialogue, but before we can
deal with too many specifics, we
need to get you understand our paradigm.
If you have couple of extra bucks
you should order this DVD. It will
be helpful.
Please continue asking questions.
Under His Mercy,
John DiMascio
Mary
Ann replied:
Hi J.D.,
In the Catholic faith, the desire
is oriented TO the sacrament, even
if implicitly. For instance, since "the
Light enlightens every man who comes
into the world" (John 1), any
man who follows the light that he
is given, which is a participation
in Christ, even if he does not know
Christ, can be saved. Because he
is following the way, the Logos,
the Word, Christ, toward the fullness
of Christ, which is His Body, which
is the Church, and entering the Body
comes with Baptism. So all can be
saved, even if not Christian.
As for someone driving to confess
a mortal sin, the person has repented
and has chosen to confess. Even if
he were not driving to the Church,
he would be saved, because grace
comes with repentance, and Confession
reconciles one with the Church, gives
the assurance of forgiveness, and
further medicinal grace. A Catholic
who doesn't INTEND to confess is
not repentant, or is not Catholic.
As for a person who is unconscious,
this sacrament is administered in
the knowledge that often the person
can still hear and respond or make
a choice to repent, if necessary,
or that he had an instant to make
a good choice at the time of the
stroke. The sacrament of Anointing
is not necessary for salvation, but
it does take away sin and strengthen
us physically and spiritually.
Mary Ann
Mike
replied:
Hi J.D.,
Beyond John and Mary Ann's replies
and John recommendation, I'd ask
you to prayerful think about studying
the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Our previous Pope has told Catholics, "It
is a sure norm for the faith."
If you want to understand Our Lord's
sacramental system in total, check
out my Catechism program here: http://www.askacatholic.com/CCCFPP
It's a FREE program for non-Catholics.
If you feel uncomfortable doing so
at the present time, I've appended
some of my favorite set of definitions
and question/answer combos from a
previous Catechism: the
Baltimore Catechism.
In my opinion, they will give you
a good foundation for understanding
the sacraments of the Church.
If you have any other questions about
the Church and what Catholics believe,
just come back to our site.
Your brother,
Mike
Lesson 13: ON THE SACRAMENTS IN
GENERAL
This lesson
does not speak of any Sacrament in
particular, but upon all the Sacraments
taken together. It explains what
we find in all the Sacraments.
136 Q. What
is a Sacrament?
A. A Sacrament
is an outward sign instituted
by Christ to give grace.
Three things
are necessary to make a Sacrament.
There must be:
"An
outward," that is, a visible, "sign";
this
sign must have been instituted
or given by Our Lord;
it must
give grace.
Now, a sign
is that which tells us that something
else exists. Smoke indicates the
presence of fire.
A red light
on a railroad tells that there
is danger at the spot. Therefore,
the outward signs in the Sacraments
tell us that there is in the Sacraments
something we do not see and which
they signify and impart. For example,
the outward sign in Baptism is
the pouring of the water on the
head of the person to be baptized,
and the saying of the words. Water
is generally used for cleaning
purposes. Water, therefore, is
used in Baptism as an outward
sign to show that as the water
cleans the body, so the grace
given in Baptism cleans the soul.
It is not a mere sign, for at
the very moment that the priest
pours the water and says the words
of Baptism, by the pouring of
the water and saying of the words
with the proper intention the
soul is cleansed from Original
Sin; that is, the inward grace
is given by the application of
the outward sign.
Again, in
Confirmation the outward sign
is the anointing with oil, the
Bishop's prayer, and the placing
of his hands upon us. Now what
inward grace is given in Confirmation?
A grace which strengthens us in
our faith. Oil, therefore, is
used for the outward sign in this
Sacrament, because oil gives strength
and light.
In olden
times the gladiators-men who fought
with swords as prize-fighters
do now with their hands-used oil
upon their bodies to make them
strong. Oil was used also to heal
wounds. Thus in Confirmation the
application of this outward sign
of strength gives the inward grace
of light and strength. Moreover,
oil easily spreads itself over
anything and remains on it. A
drop of water falling on paper
dries up quickly; but a drop of
oil soaks in and spreads over
it. So oil is used to show also
that the grace of Confirmation
spreads out over our whole lives,
and strengthens us in our faith
at all times.
Again, in
Penance we have the outward sign
when the priest raises his hand
and pronounces over us the words
of absolution.
If we did
not have these outward signs how
could anyone know just at what
time the graces are given? We
can know now, for at the very
moment the outward sign is applied
the grace is given; because it
is the application of the sign
that by divine institution gives
the grace, and thus the two must
take place together.
"Institution
by Christ" is absolutely
necessary because He gives all
grace, and He alone can determine
the manner in which He wishes
it distributed. The Church can
distribute His grace, but only
in the way He wishes. Hence it
cannot make new Sacraments or
abolish old ones.
137. Q. How
many Sacraments are there?
A. There
are seven Sacraments: Baptism,
Confirmation, Holy Eucharist,
Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy
Orders, and Matrimony.
The life
of our soul is in many ways similar
to the life of our body. Our bodies
must first be born, then strengthened,
then fed. When sick, we must be
cured: and when about to die,
we must be taken care of. Then
there must be someone to rule
others, and there must be persons
to be governed. In like manner,
we are spiritually born into a
new life by Baptism, we are strengthened
by Confirmation, fed with the
Holy Eucharist, and cured of the
maladies of our souls by Penance.
By Extreme Unction we are helped
at the hour of death; by Holy
Orders our spiritual rulers are
appointed by God; and by Matrimony
families, with a father at the
head and children to be ruled,
are established. Thus we have
our spiritual life similar in
many things to our physical or
bodily life.
138. Q. From
what source do the Sacraments have
the power of giving grace?
A. The Sacraments
have the power of giving grace
from the merits of Jesus Christ.
Our Lord
died to merit grace for us, and
appointed the Sacraments as the
chief means by which it was to
be given.
139. Q. What
grace do the Sacraments give?
A. Some
of the Sacraments give sanctifying
grace, and others increase it
in our souls.
Baptism
and Penance give this sanctifying
grace when there is not any of
it in the soul. But the other
Sacraments are received while
we are in a state of grace, and
they therefore increase the quantity
of it in our souls.
140. Q. Which
are the Sacraments that give sanctifying
grace?
A. The Sacraments
that give sanctifying grace are
Baptism and Penance; and they
are called Sacraments of the dead.
"Of
the dead," Not of a dead
person; for when a person is dead
he cannot receive any of the Sacraments.
It is only while we live upon
earth that we are on trial, and
can do good or evil, and merit
grace. At death we receive simply
our reward or punishment for what
we have done while living. Therefore,
Sacraments of the dead mean Sacraments
given to a dead soul, that is,
to a soul in mortal sin. When
grace--its life--is all out of
the soul it can do nothing to
merit Heaven; and we say it is
dead, because the dead can do
nothing for themselves. If a person
receives--as many do--the Sacrament
of Penance while his soul is not
in a state of mortal sin, what
then? Then the soul--already living--receives
an increase of sanctifying grace,
that is, greater spiritual life
and strength.
141. Q. Why
are Baptism and Penance called Sacraments
of the dead?
A. Baptism
and Penance are called Sacraments
of the dead because they take
away sin, which is the death of
the soul, and give grace, which
is its life.
142. Q. Which
are the Sacraments that increase
sanctifying grace in the soul?
A. The Sacraments
that increase sanctifying grace
in the soul are: Confirmation,
Holy Eucharist, Extreme Unction,
Holy Orders, and Matrimony; and
they are called Sacraments of
the living.
143. Q. Why
are Confirmation, Holy Eucharist,
Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and
Matrimony called Sacraments of the
living?
A. Confirmation,
Holy Eucharist, Extreme Unction,
Holy Orders, and Matrimony are
called the Sacraments of the living
because those who receive them
worthily are already living the
life of grace.
144. Q. What
sin does he commit who receives the
Sacraments of the living in mortal
sin?
A. He who
receives the Sacraments of the
living in mortal sin commits a
sacrilege, which is a great sin,
because it is an abuse of a sacred
thing.
"Sacrilege," There
are other ways besides the unworthy
reception of the Sacraments in
which a person may commit sacrilege.
You could commit it by treating
any sacred thing with great disrespect.
For example, by making common
use of the sacred vessels used
at the altar; by stealing from
the church; by turning the church
into a market, etc. You could
commit it also by willfully killing
or wounding persons consecrated
to God, such as nuns, priests,
bishops, etc. Therefore sacrilege
can be committed by willfully
abusing or treating with great
irreverence any sacred person,
sacred place, or sacred thing.
145. Q. Besides
sanctifying grace, do the Sacraments
give any other grace?
A. Besides
sanctifying grace, the Sacraments
give another grace, called sacramental.
146. Q. What
is sacramental grace?
A. Sacramental
grace is a special help which
God gives to attain the end for
which He instituted each Sacrament.
For example,
what was the end for which Penance
was instituted? To forgive sins
and keep us out of sin. Therefore
-the sacramental grace given in
Penance is a grace that will enable
us to overcome temptation and
avoid the sins we have been in
the habit of committing. When
a person is ill the doctor's medicine
generally produces two effects:
one is to cure the disease and
the other to strengthen the person
so that he may not fall back into
the old condition. Well, it is
just the same in the Sacraments;
the grace given produces two effects:
one is to sanctify us and the
other to prevent us from falling
into the same sins.
Again, Confirmation
was instituted that we might become
more perfect Christians, stronger
in our faith. Therefore the sacramental
grace of Confirmation will strengthen
us to profess our faith when circumstances
require it; or when we are tempted
to doubt any revealed truth, it
will help us to overcome the temptation.
So in all the Sacraments we receive
the sacramental grace or special
help given to attain the end for
which the Sacraments were separately
instituted.
147. Q. Do
the Sacraments always give grace?
A. The Sacraments
always give grace, if we receive
them with the right dispositions.
"Right
dispositions"; that is, if
we do all that God and the Church
require us to do when we receive
them. For instance, in Penance
the right disposition is to confess
all our mortal sins as we know
them, to be sorry for them, and
have the determination never to
commit them again. The right disposition
for the Holy Eucharist is to be
in a state of grace, and-except
in special cases of sickness-fasting
for one hour.
148. Q. Can
we receive the Sacraments more than
once?
A. We can
receive the Sacraments more than
once, except Baptism, Confirmation,
and Holy Orders.
Baptism
is so important that if we do
not receive it we cannot receive
any other of the Sacraments. Now,
to administer Baptism validly,
that is, properly, everything
must be done exactly as Our Lord
intended and the Church teaches.
The proper kind of water and all
the exact words must be used.
Also, the water must touch the
body, that is, the head if possible.
Now persons not knowing well how
to baptize might neglect some
of these things, and thus the
person would not e baptized. The
Church wishes to be certain that
all its children are baptized;
so when there is any doubt about
the first Baptism, it baptizes
again conditionally, that is,
the priest says in giving the
Baptism over again: If you are
not baptized already, I baptize
you now. Therefore if the person
was rightly baptized the first
time, the second ceremony has
no effect, because the priest
does not intend to give Baptism
a second time. But if the first
Baptism was not rightly given,
then the second takes effect.
In either case Baptism is given
only once; for if the first was
valid, the second is not given;
and if the first was invalid,
the second is given.
Converts
to the Church are generally baptized
conditionally, because there is
doubt about the validity of the
Baptism they received.
The Sacraments
may be given conditionally when
we doubt if they were or can be
validly given.
149. Q. Why
can we not receive Baptism, Confirmation,
and Holy Orders more than once?
A. We cannot
receive Baptism, Confirmation,
and Holy Orders more than once,
because they imprint a character
in the soul.
"A
character," It is a spiritual
character, and remains forever,
so that whether the person is
in Heaven or Hell this mark will
be seen. It will show that those
having it were Christians, who
received Baptism, Confirmation,
or Holy Orders. If they are in
Heaven, these characters will
shine out to their honor, and
will show how well they used the
grace God gave them. If they are
in Hell, these characters will
be to their disgrace, and show
how many gifts and graces God
bestowed upon them, and how shamefully
they abused all.
150. Q. What
is the character which these Sacraments
imprint in the soul?
A. The character
which these Sacraments imprint
in the soul is a spiritual mark
which remains forever.
151. Q. Does
this character remain in the soul
even after death?
A. This
character remains in the soul
even after death: for the honor
and glory of those who are saved;
for the shame and punishment of
those who are lost.
J.D.
replied:
Thanks Mike,
I appreciate you allowing me to
start this dialogue. I found about
your web site while I was waiting
for my wife to have a procedure at
hospital. I had a bit of time to
kill so I wandered to the Chapel. There
were free copies of Our Sunday Visitor
(OSV) on the table, and one particular
issue had your web site listed. These
questions had been pent up for some
time.
John gave me the address of a place
to order some other material, and
I appreciate that. The Baltimore
Catechism was very instructive but
still raises as many questions as
it answers.
I checked out your
program on the link you gave
me. I already bought a CCC a couple
of years ago. I noted that the one
you offer has a green cover, while
mine has a white cover.
Can I assume they still have
the same content?
I have read it from time to time
but it really never answered the
pointed questions I have been able
to ask you and your colleagues in
the last two days. While I like the
CCC, as a general resource, it often
lacks the specificity and the underlying
rationales I am seeking.
My past studies have been helped
by several Roman Catholic authors
and I watch a good bit of EWTN. My
favorites are Father Groeschel and
some of the call-in shows like "Open
Line" on Catholic Radio. I have
read two or three of the Pope's books
and have some more in the queue. I
really like him as a man,
a Godly witness, and a deep thinker
but I don't see him as infallible. I
tend to think that the doctrine
of Papal Infallibility was formulated
as an answer to the Protestant doctrine
of Biblical Inerrancy which came
to the fore in the 19th Century.
All of that is a matter for another
discussion.
You said: I noted that
the one you offer has a green cover,
while mine has a white cover.
Can I assume they still have the
same content?
The only white I know is the pocket-sized
one.
RE: the Tan:
Yes, the tan is the first edition
of the Catechism.
After that they, the publishers sent
out a mini-phamplet of editorial
corrections.
The green one you saw on my web page
combines the two and is the "Vatican
approved" version.
The choice is your on your end. This
year alone I have sent 83 FREE Catechisms
to Protestants
who have asked.
RE: Papal Infallibility . These postings
may help:
I will examine those links you cited
on Papal Infallibility.
My CCC is published by Image Book,
Doubleday with a 1994 Copyright and
it has an ISBN of 0-385-47967-0 There
is also a preface by John Paul II
dated 11 Oct, 92. As I mentioned,
the cover is white. Do I have the
current issue?
If not, I will be happy to send you
a contribution to get the right copy.
J.D.
Mike
replied:
Hi J.D.,
YES, that one is the second edition
pocket-size Catechism (6.9 x 4.2
inches). It does have it all, but
it is pretty small print.
On Amazon, they refer to it as the "Mass
Market Paperback" version with
846pp,
Publisher: Image: 2nd edition: Published:
April 15, 1995
The Catechisms I send out are 920
pages published by the
<USCCB (United States Conference
of Catholic Bishops) Publishing> and
are Vatican approved.
Published: April 16, 2000
I don't know about yours, but the
2000 edition has and index of citations
and a pretty good glossary of terms
at the very end.
The Hard cover is (9" x 6.7
inches)
The Soft cover is (9.1" x 6.1
inches)
I have a good stock of both. It's
your choice. I've been carrying on
this apostolate for 4 years now.
Don't worry about any donations,
that's not the primary purpose any
of the work we do on this site. I
also throw in a few extras with each
Catechism as well. : )
You can read about the apostolate
below.
If you are interested just go
here, click on the Catechism
and fill in the appropriate fields.
In a reply to Mary Ann you said: The CCC is a
great resource, but it is often so
general and appears to take a "one
size fits all" approach that
I end up becoming frustrated when
I tried to determine some of the
secondary and tertiary doctrinal
implications of the work.
What you may need to ultimately satisfy
the hunger of your queries is an
entry level theology book for Catholics.
The two that come to mind are:
I think John understands where you
are coming from more then any of
us, so I'd take his advice on whether
my suggestion makes sense or not.
I've read Theology for beginners
and thought it was great! "By
What Authority" by Mark
Shea is another good book.
The Catechism WAS intended to be "one
size fits all" in the sense
that it will give the non-Christian a
basic understanding of what it means
to be a Catholic and what Catholics
believe..... or should believe :)
Mike
J.D.
replied:
Dear Mary Ann:
I value you taking the time for such
a long answer.
Are you then saying that if a person
is not baptized by water that he/she
will not have the ability to overcome
the disorder wrought by original
sin? I can't find that in scripture
and I have known some very Godly
Christians who have not been baptized
and some ungodly ones who have.
Romans Six seems to be pointing toward
faith in the finished work of Christ
as opposed to the operation of water
and the baptismal formula.
As far as Confirmation, I have nothing
against doing it but I just cannot
see where it was ever instituted
by Christ. There are some Roman Catholic
Doctrines which are implicitly
defensible based on hints in scripture
but I can't even find a scintilla
about Confirmation.
On the issue of Anointing the Sick,
that was indeed done by Christ and
his disciples during his earthly
ministry, but to relegate it to those
who are dying has no scriptural warrant.
Marriage ......Christ's presence
at the wedding at Cana is an historical
fact, but I can't see that He spoke
doctrinally about marriage thou He
did attend numerous events, dinners,
festivals, meetings, etc.
Mary Ann, please don't think I am
being disputatious; I just have to
be honest about the way my mind works.
I have a lot of respect for the RCC
and especially the current Pope,
but I still cannot just accept certain
doctrines and dogmas without understanding
the logic or the basis behind them.
J.D.
Mary
Ann replied:
Hi J.D.,
You said: Are you then
saying that if a person is not baptized
by water that he/she will not have
the ability to overcome the disorder
wrought by original sin?
No, I am not saying that. I suggest
you look up the Catechism of the
Catholic Church, available online
in a number of places, especially, www.vatican.va
I also wanted to comment on your
reply to Mike. First, the Baltimore
Catechism is not the Catechism. It
is a "Q and A" for kids
developed by the bishops of the US
in council a very long time ago.
Christ instituted Confirmation when
he gave the Holy Spirit to the Apostles
after the Resurrection, and this
practice was continued by them from
the beginning.
He instituted the Anointing of the
Sick by doing it himself and telling
the apostles to heal the sick, and
they continued doing this as is attested
in the New Testament record.
Matrimony, an institution of divine
origin, was raised to the level of
a sacrament at the time of the wedding
feast of Cana and by His teaching.
(Remember, a sacrament by definition
is an act of Christ through the Church,
whereby His life is communicated
- so before Christ there were no
sacraments.) Circumcision and marriage
were sort of proto-sacraments, in
that they prefigured the realities
to come.
We say that it is Christ's will that
ordained the sacraments, not that
He stopped and said, "I
am instituting this." Christ's
will is shown by what the apostles
immediately did and taught and passed
on to the next generation, not all,
of which, is in Scripture.
Baptism does not remove concupiscence,
the inclination to sin; but the divine
life communicated helps us overcome
it. Baptism inserts us into the new
humanity of Christ. It takes away
the state of original sin - the state
being, "the state of affairs
between a person and God", in
this case, the state of alienation.
We become adopted in the Son.
A baby relies on the faith of the
Church and of his parents. An unconscious
or dying man is baptized/anointed
conditionally upon the faith he may
have had in his life. Faith is not
a static one time act, whereby I
stand up and say something. It is
an act of the soul, and the person
unconscious or dying may have faith
- we just may not know it. If the
person has never been Christian nor
wanted to be, of course he is not
baptized or anointed, but if someone
has expressed a desire in the past,
and that is attested to, then he
can be. A disposition of soul is
not a passing mood. It is a basic
attitude.
The mark means that your soul was
configured to Christ, as a child
of God in Him. You received a share
of the life of God Himself. You were
claimed with an eternal claim by
God. You received the power to believe
and hope and love, the effects in
you of the Holy Spirit indwelling.
The potential for receiving grace
and growing in it, was there, and
powerful in you. God abided, protecting
you, shepherding you, waiting until
you found the way to actualize what
was planted in you.
Mary Ann
J.D.
replied:
Dear Mary Ann:
I value you taking the time for such
a long answer.
Are you then saying that if a person
is not baptized by water that he/she
will not have the ability to overcome
the disorder wrought by original
sin? I can't find that in scripture
and I have known some very Godly
Christians who have not been baptized
and some ungodly ones who have. Romans
Six seems to be pointing toward faith
in the finished work of Christ as
opposed to the operation of water
and the baptismal formula.
As far as Confirmation, I have nothing
against doing it but I just cannot
see where it was ever instituted
by Christ. There are some Roman Catholic
Doctrines which are implicitly defensible
based on hints in scripture but I
can't even find a scintilla about
Confirmation.
On the issue of anointing the sick,
that was indeed done by Christ and
his disciples during his earthly
ministry, but the relegate it to
those who are dying has no scriptural
warrant.
Marriage ......Christ's presence
at the wedding at Cana is an historical
fact, but I can't see that he spoke
doctrinally about marriage then He
attended numerous events, dinners,
festivals, meetings, etc.
Mary Ann, please don't think I am
being disputatious; I just have to
be honest about the way my mind works.
I have a lot of respect for the RCC
and especially the current Pope,
but I still cannot just accept certain
doctrines and dogmas without understanding
the logic or the basis behind them.
J.D.
J.D.
replied:
Hello again, John.
At the risk of sounding like a broken
CD, thank you again for your thoughtful
and detailed response.
I appreciate you going into the difference
between a forensic declaration of
righteousness and an actual infused
righteousness. This concept was new
to me but was rather clearly discussed
in two books I read on the Reformation,
one by Karl Adam and one by Louis
Boyer. I just read these two earlier
this year, but as I recall, neither
of these two Catholic authors went
into the resulting water baptism
discussion.
As far as sacraments in general (we
will leave final unction until later),
are you saying that sacraments are
God's COVENANTED means of Grace but
that He does not necessarily limit
himself to these covenanted methods?
In other words, God may look solely
upon the personal faith of an individual.
On the issue of Romans 6, there are
two ways to look at that. One is
that Romans Six is not talking about
water baptism but rather baptism
in the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 12:13)
which occurs at the time of salvation
and places a believer within the
Body of Christ. It is an invisible
action of the Holy Ghost independent
of water. (By the way, I am not coming
from a Pentecostal perspective here
and cannot accept their experiential
definitions in this area.)
Second, one could argue that Romans
Six was written to the early, first-generation
Church in which Paul's recipients
in Rome had all been converted as
adults and, as such, had been subject
to adult believer's baptism which
immediately followed their acceptance
of Christ. (Based on examples in
Acts.)
John, your offer to continue answering
questions is very kind. There is
an old Bob Dylan song from the middle
1960s called, "Maggie's Farm" in
which the singer has a line, "I've
got a head full of ideas/They are
driving me insane." Perhaps
the "insane" part is a
bit of hyperbole in my case, but
if you substitute the words "questions" for "ideas",
it give a pretty good description
of my mind on some of these issues.
J.D.
John
replied:
John replied:
J.D. wrote: "As far
as sacraments in general (we will
leave final unction until later),
are you saying that sacraments are
God's COVENANTED means of Grace but
that He does not necessarily limit
himself to these covenanted methods?
In other words, God may look solely
upon the personal faith of an individual."
To use official Ecclessial Language:
BINGO ! :>) You hit the nail on
the head.
I'd put it this way, God may look
how each individual responds to whatever
grace is given.
Remember, the judgment described
at the end of Matthew's Gospel. The
angels will gather the nations; not
the Church mind you — the nations
and Christ will say: when I was hungry,
you gave me to eat .... etc, etc,
etc, and the sheep respond when did
we give you to eat? Now think about
it. Is any Christian going ask Christ:
When did we feed you Lord? Of course
not, we all should know that whatsoever
we do to others, we do unto Christ,
hence, here we see the final judgment
of the non-Christians, perhaps even
total unbelievers. Those responded
to whatever grace given to them,
in positive way, are therefore saved
by grace. Now, obviously, this is
not to be taken as universalism,
but it speaks to the issue of what
happens to those who never heard
or understood the Gospel.
Now respecting you exegesis of Romans
6, you are operating under mistaken
supposition.
While it is true that adults professed
Christ first, they still were baptized.
The problem is you are not thinking
like a first century Jew, which is
imperative, if you are going to make
heads or tails out most Pauline literature.
Jews circumcised boys 8 days old.
This brought them into the covenant.
Paul strongly implies baptism is
the New Testament replacement for
circumcision. The difference being
that circumcision was a work of man,
by which man swore an oath in blood.
Baptism, on the other hand, is a
work of God (and thus pure grace) which
accomplishes that which circumcision
could not.
Having all these questions, I understand
your frustration, but it's a good
frustration. God is doing a work
in you J.D.. You ask good questions.
More Catholics should ask these questions
themselves. This is how we learn.
J.D. replied in one of Mary Ann's
comments: As far as Confirmation,
I have nothing against doing it but
I just cannot see where it was ever
instituted by Christ. There are some
Roman Catholic Doctrines which are
implicitly defensible based on hints
in scripture but I can't even find
a scintilla about Confirmation.
J.D.,
You are making this way to easy on
us!!!
This may be difficult for you to
accept, but you are blinded by your
tradition when you read scripture,
so sit back because I'm about to
blow you out of the water in Christian
charity.
True, the word "confirmation" does
not appear in scripture. Of course,
neither does the word "Trinity",
nor do we see a Christological definition,
which states that Christ was one
Person with two distinct natures
— one human and one Divine
and finally (a point which we
will eventually have to discuss at
length) the Bible itself does
not give us a list of books that
are inspired.
For now, let’s get back to
Confirmation. Let's start with what
the sacrament is. Baptism is the
New Birth. Confirmation is the outpouring
of the Holy Spirit. We read about
it in Acts Chapter 2. We then read
about it again in Acts, Chapter 8.
In Chapter 8, we see the outpouring
of the Holy Spirit as a distinct
and separate Sacrament:
Acts 8:12-17
12 But when they believed Philip
as he preached the things concerning
the kingdom of God and the
name of Jesus Christ, both
men and women were baptized.
13 Then Simon himself also believed;
and when he was baptized he continued
with Philip, and was amazed, seeing
the miracles and signs which were
done.
14 Now when the apostles who were
at Jerusalem heard that Samaria
had received the word of God,
they sent Peter and John to them,
15 who, when they had come down,
prayed for them that they might
receive the Holy Spirit.
16 For as yet He had fallen upon
none of them. They had only been
baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus.
17 Then they laid hands on them,
and they received the Holy Spirit.
Phillip was a deacon. As such he
was authorized to, serve, preach
the Gospel authoritatively, and baptize.
We see in Acts Chapter 8 that he
does just that, but notice that he
falls short of laying hands on the
new believers so that they might
receive the outpouring of the Holy
Spirit.
It was only after Peter and John
arrived that this second sacrament
of initiation was administered. It’s
crystal clear in the text J.D.; these
are two distinct sacraments. The
problem is you are reading the text
through Protestant spectacles. Also
notice that they received the Holy
Spirit after hands were imposed.
That is a clear reference to normative
sacramental rubrics. Moreover, we
see a tradition which is still practiced
today in the Latin Rite of the Catholic
Church. Under normal circumstances,
bishops and not priests administer
the sacrament of Confirmation. It's
not that priests can't, it's that
we follow the example provided in
Acts Chapter 8. Bishops are successors
of the Apostles, so in most parishes,
whenever possible, a bishop comes
to administer this sacrament.
So J.D., Is this a little bit more
than a scintilla??? :>)
Granted, in Acts Chapter 10, we see
the Holy Spirit falling on the Cornelius
and his household as Peter preached,
even before they were baptized, but
that is a clear exception. Why this
exception to the norm? Well, think
about it, up until then only Jews
had been welcomed into the Church.
The exception was a sign of “those
of the circumcision” who had
accompanied Peter; so that they might
understand salvation was for the
gentiles as well as the Jews.
As I’ve shown you, Confirmation
as we call it, is biblical. Moreover,
Christ, in the Gospels, promised
the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
Yes, it’s true; nowhere in
the Gospel do we read instructions
to the Apostles to lay hands on new
believers after their baptism but
we do see in the book of Acts, that
the early Church understood the normative
way by which new believers were to
receive this outpouring.
J.D., at some point you are going
to have to come to terms with the
fact, that everything Christ taught
the Apostles was not written in the
Gospels. You will come to realize
that, nowhere in the Gospel, does
Christ instruct His Apostles and
Disciples to write a single sentence.
He does tell them to preach, teach,
heal, baptize, bind and loose etc.
etc. etc. He gives His Apostles and
successors His Church authority.
As you reread the New Testament,
take your Protestant spectacles off,
and you’ll begin to see the
development of doctrine, the role
of Church Councils, and their authority
to impose temporary pastoral disciplines
as they made dogmatic pronouncements
in the area of faith and morals.
You will eventually come across some
verses that should jolt your Evangelical
mind.
2 Pet 1:20
20: knowing this first, that no
prophecy of Scripture is of any
private interpretation,
II Th 2:15
15: Therefore, brethren, stand
fast and hold the traditions which
you were taught, whether by word
or our epistle.
1 Tim 3:15
15: but if I am delayed, I write
so that you may know how you ought
to conduct yourself in the house
of God, which is the church of
the living God, the pillar and
ground of the truth.
Study these verses and you’ll
eventually realize that although “all
scripture is inspired”, scripture
does not tell you what the canon
of scripture is, hence, were it not
for the Roman Catholic Church, you
would not know what Scripture is.
Soon after, you'll conclude that
the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is
nothing more than a heretical tradition
of man; upon which all Protestantism
stands or falls.
My dear brother, let me break the
news to you now. Whether you are
ready to admit it yet or not, your
questions are not rooted in your
intellect.
You are being lead by the Holy Spirit
to seek the fullness of truth. That
journey can only lead you one place.
I've been where you are and I've
seen others in the same place.
You are at the tipping point J.D..
Now the question remains: Are you
willing continue to ask these questions?,
because the answers will eventually
demolish any Protestant preconceptions
you have.
Under His Mercy,
John
J.D.
replied:
Hello John!
I enjoy your manner and the spirit
in which you dialogue. It could probably
keep us occupied for an entire week
at a retreat center or some other
place without interruptions.
You are correct in stating that,
we all come to scripture with some
type of traditions and doctrinal
presuppositions. While the Holy Spirit
does guide us, we are still fallen
creatures and cannot grasp all of
God's truth or filter out the conditioning
life has brought to us.
In this note I may be a bit pressed
for time to specifically discuss
all of the passages you cited in
Acts regarding the laying on of hands.
If you want me to do so in a second
email, please advise me. I
am not trying to dodge your interpretations
of the passages you cited.
For the time being, just let me say
this about reading Acts. It is a
history of the early Church and contains
an accurate account of events in
the early Church. There were many
things which did occur in Acts which
are not to be viewed as normative
for Christians today.
For example, the Bible does not teach
communism as normative.
See Acts 2:44, 45
"And all that believed were
together, and had all things in
common; And sold their possessions
and goods, and parted them to
all men, as every man had need."
The Bible does not teach that it
is normative for Christians to survive
snake bites without medical attention.
(Acts 28:3-6). It does not teach
that today males in ministry need
to be circumcised.
"Him [Timothy] would Paul
have to go forth with him; and
took and circumcised him because
of the Jews which were in those
quarters:..." Acts 16:3
Christian belief does not teach
that we need to speak in tongues
as evidence of receiving of the Holy
Spirit. (See Acts 10:45, 46) There
are scores of other examples, John.
Each of us has to have a consistent
hermeneutic, yet this "science" has
probably been more developed by Protestants
because they do not have Tradition
to act hermeneutically in the same
way that Catholics do.
The Book of Acts has caused many
Protestant groups to go off in some
strange directions because they did
not view it as a history with doctrinal
import; instead, they viewed many
of the passages as normative for
doctrine.
This brings us back to confirmation
and the Bible. You cited the concept
of the Trinity and the two natures
of Christ. I can clearly make a case
for each of them from the Gospels,
Acts, and the Epistles. I cannot
do the same for Confirmation.
Again, John, please do not take me
wrong. I have nothing against a Church
performing a Confirmation rite, I
just cannot see that it was established
by Christ, and is this not one of
the criteria for establishing the
sacramentality of a rite?
More to come. I value your patience
with my queries.
Sincerely in Christ,
J.D.
John
replied:
Ah, J.D. my brother in Christ,
You have made fatal mistake for Protestant.
You have admitted that we all have
a tradition when we look at scripture.
In fact, for 400 years, Protestants
have been reading Paul through the
eyes of Luther.
Now that you've owned up to having
a tradition, you have to ask yourself
what makes your tradition more accurate
than the tradition of the Early Church.
Every single Church which has maintained
Apostolic Succession, has the same
7 Sacraments. Even those early communities
that went into schism over Christological
definitions (the Nestorians and Monophysites)
share the same sacraments with the
Catholic and Orthodox Church.
Now this is important, because these
Churches went into schism in the
early 5th century, shortly after
the canon of scripture was set in
stone. Hence, we see that all the
Ancient Churches which predate the
canon, all understood that there
were 7 sacraments through which Christ
dispenses particular graces.
But lets go further back and read
first, second and third century sources.
Let’s see let’s start
with Clement of Rome, fourth in line
from Peter, or Polycarp a direct
disciple of the Apostle John, or
Polycarp’s spiritual son Irenaeus.
These are the guys who, despite persecution,
maintained the tradition against
which the various New Testament scriptures
were measured and later canonized.
So you have to ask yourself:
What makes Evangelical tradition
more authoritative than that of
Ignatius of Antioch (circa 90
AD) and Justin Martyr (circa 150
AD), just to two, of many, other
apostolic sources?
All these guys I’ve mentioned,
(and there are many others) all taught,
in essence, the same thing the Catholic
Church teaches today about the nature
of the Church, the Sacraments, the
Communion of Saints, and purification
after death. These are the guys who
protected scripture, handed down
to their successors, who canonized
it. Would they have handed down and
protected scripture if it taught
something, other than, they themselves
believed? I think not.
So I’ll challenge you my brother.
If you readily admit to having a
tradition, then start studying the
tradition of the Early
Church.
John
J.D.
replied:
Well,
I hope it was not a "fatal mistake" to
say that we all have a tradition
through which we read the Bible;
rather I hope you see it as an honest
statement of fact in any area. For
example, judges all have the same
Constitution but they interpret it
according to various presuppositions.
I would not say that my basic model
was Martin Luther. He was a dynamic
figure but my hermeneutic sense would
go back more to someone like J.N.
Darby and some of those who followed
in his wake. I realize that any school
of thinking on these matters has
its detractors, but in the end we
have to take our conscience and stand
before God on what we think He is
saying on some of the finer points
of belief.
I realize that you will feel that
chaos is the result of that, but
perhaps that is the price we have
to pay. That is what I am attempting
to discover.
As far as the Early Church, I have
read a few of the secondary materials
by Catholic authors and I really
cannot find 7 Sacraments detailed
in the early years. Perhaps you can
suggest a book.
What I have read mainly argues for
a high view of the Eucharist but
as far as Marriage, Confirmation,
and Final Unction being sacraments,
I have never seen that material clearly
enough to know what the position
of the early believers was.
J.D.
John
replied:
OK, let me first qualify my "fatal
mistake" remark.
It was, first and foremost, tongue
in cheek. My point is that when an
Evangelical finally comes to the
understanding that he/she is looking
at the scripture through the prism
of his or her tradition, than they
are well on their way to the inevitable
conclusion that Sola Scriptura is
nothing more than an unbiblical tradition.
At best, Sola Scriptura is intellectually
and philosophically bankrupt; at
worst it is an obstinate heresy devised
to justify rebellion against the
Church Christ establish. Since you
are far from being intellectually
and philosophically bankrupt, and
you are not obstinately avoiding
the pursuit of truth, you are closer
to becoming a Catholic than you might
be comfortable admitting, but don't
worry, we'll keep it our secret for
now ;>)
As you read more of the Church
Fathers you'll also begin to
see the authority of Church, especially
as it relates to the Bishop of Rome.
Since you brought up Matrimony, let's
discuss it. If anything is a sacrament,
Christian marriage is a Sacrament.
Maybe once you understand this, you'll
understand what a Sacrament is. Sacrament
comes from the Latin word Sacramentum.
It is the Latin word for OATH!!
When a couple gets married, they
exchange VOWS or swear an OATH. In
fact, the Priest isn't the minister
of the Sacrament. He's the witness.
The Bride and Groom are ministers
of the Sacrament. Oath is just another
way of saying covenant. Marriage
is a covenant relationship not just
a contract.
In a contract, promises and
goods are exchanged.
In a covenant, people give themselves
to one another. With their vows,
they call upon God to assist them
in fulfilling the covenant. So
Christian marriage is covenant
involving a man, a woman, and
GOD!
If that is not a covenant, what is?
If it is a covenant, than by definition
it is a Sacrament. Sacrament is simply
the Latin word for Covenant.
All the Sacraments are based on God’s
Oath to work through His Church,
the Body of Christ. Jesus said, whenever
you do this, I will do that. Whose
sins you forgive; I forgive. Whatsoever
you bind on earth, shall be bound
in heaven. Whatever you ask in my
name (or in my stead, according to
my will, in my authority) will be
done.
That is why we can say; the normative
means for the Church to distribute
grace is through the Sacrament. At
the same time, we say this Oath to
act through the ministry of the Church
in no way limits God from dispensing
grace according to His good pleasure.
We know for sure, that when a sacrament
is administered according to proper
form, and with the proper intention,
a grace is transmitted. How efficacious
the grace is to recipient, is up
the individual receiving. All you
have to do is read the warning in
1 Corinthians 11:23-30 regarding
the sacrilegious reception of the
Eucharist, to realize that.
That’s why the Church denies
baptism to the children of parents
who show no intention of raising
the children in the faith.
Now let’s go back to confirmation.
Forget the sacramental nature, for
the time being, and lets talk about
the apparent experience of the Apostles.
I think we’d both agree that
Apostles had saving faith prior to
Pentecost. Right?? So, what happened
at Pentecost?
They received a second outpouring,
which empowered them supernaturally
to preach the Gospel. These were
two distinct and separate experiences
and events.
Clearly, the Gospel of John shows
Jesus “breathing” the
Holy Spirit “into” the
Apostles in the upper room. I would
hope you see that as a separate event
from Pentecost. (I ask, because
certain Historical Critics would
hold, they are not). If he breathes
the Holy Spirit into the Apostles
in the upper room on Easter, what
the heck was Pentecost about?
The idea of two “experiences” is
not only found in sacramental Churches;
go up the street to your local Pentecostal
or Charismatic Church. They distinguish
between:
coming to a saving knowledge
of Jesus Christ, and
being “Baptized in the
Holy Spirit” as they would
put it.
Now, because you’ve asked a
couple of times, let’s talk
about Extreme Unction briefly.
First of all, it’s actually
called the Anointing of the Sick.
The first reference I’ll point
to is James 5:14-16. I’ll
let you play with that verse for
a while and we can do some exegesis
later.
One last note on the Sacraments for
now. I’d recommend a tape series
by Scott Hahn called “Growth
by Oath”. You can get it on audio
tape or CD.
But since my fellow apologists and
myself have in Christian charity
taken much time to answer your questions
I would ask you to answer the following
for us:
The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura
holds that if Scripture doesn’t
explicitly teach a Doctrine, then
the Doctrine cannot be a binding
article of faith, hence that doctrine
is relegated to a non-essential
theological opinion.
So using Scripture alone please
definitively prove the doctrine
of monogamy.
When you’ve done that prove
commonly accepted Christological
definition, including the hypostatic
union.
When you are done with that please
prove the Trinitarian formula
which defines the Trinity as 3
consubstantial persons and one
God; all being distinct fully
God, and yet distinct and separate
persons, co-equal in the Godhead.
After you accomplish that, please
definitively prove Sola Scriptura,
using only the Scripture.
And finally, using the Bible alone
(minus the table of contents),
establish the canon of scripture.
Once you fail at that, and we’ll
help you demolish that other heresy
Luther started called, "Sola
Fide". and anyone of
us can do that using Scripture Alone.
The next step will be pretty simple.
Since you will clearly see that both
the “pillars” on which
the Reformation stands or falls,
are blatant heresy, the only thing
left for you do will be invite us
to Virginia to attend your reception
into the Church at next years Easter
Vigil.
I hear Virginia is nice in the spring
;>)
J.D., you are too intellectually
honest to buy into a system that
is build on two lies.
I’m not condemning the Reformers.
They were probably all very well
intentioned and devout. The Church
hierarchy, at the time, was also
corrupt and implemented practices
that abused perfectly orthodox doctrines
for profit. I don't stand in judgment
of my fellow Christians that sincerely
follow the Gospel according to their
understanding. But J.D., my brother,
those wars are over. The Church is
One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
It’s time you get off the front
porch and join us in the family room.
Under His Mercy,
John
J.D.
replied:
Good Morning, John!
You and I have bitten off quite a
bit of material here, so if I do
not address all of your points adequately
or fairly, please let me know.
--Both/And vs. Either/Or — I
see that whole matter as being concurrently
one of the strengths and one of the
weaknesses of the entire Roman Catholic
position. As Protestants we do sometimes
try to reduce things to a mathematical
formula reflecting a post-Enlightenment
bias. (As far as it being Socratic,
there may be a bit of that, but I
would not paint Roman Catholicism
as an enemy of simple logic.)
---Mark 2. The reason I went off
into the whole thing about the paralytic
being under the Mosaic Law, and his
sins being addresses in a different
way, was to show that passages from
the Gospels contain much more ambiguity
than we can handle if we simply isolate
them. The Levitical system required
sacrifice either in the Temple or
the Tabernacle if sins were to be
forgiven. See Leviticus 4:20 for
an example. That was what the ancient
Jewish believer understood. Now,
the Book of Hebrews tells us that
the blood of bulls and goats cannot
take away sin, so we have to understand
that the animal sacrifices were some
sort of down payment, but I am not
sure that the ancient Jew fully understood
that. He felt that he had to go through
the whole Levitical system. (Philippians
3:5,6) Furthermore Hebrews
tells us that for a testament to
be in effect, there must be the death
of a testator. Hebrews 9:16. So technically,
speaking the paralytic was under
the Mosaic economy in Mark 2, yet
Christ pronounced his sins forgiven.
Did Christ tell the man after being
healed to go to the Temple and offer
of the prescribed sacrifice? The
text is silent on that.
My only point is that when the text
says that Christ saw the faith of
the paralytic's friends, it leaves
a bit of uncertainty as to what was
going on in the heart of the paralytic.
It is difficult to draw full dogmatic
implications from simply one passage
when many others lead one to see
other factors at work.
J.D.
John
replied:
Ok, maybe we are talking past each
other here a bit.
Everyman is indeed accountable to
God, individually. We don't dispute
that, but salvation is both individual
and corporate. It's not an “either
or” proposition. It's a “both
and” proposition. To be honest,
it’s a Mystery which no one
can fully explain or comprehend.
I mean really, when you think about
it, how do we reconcile the fact
that God in His Sovereignty predestines
us, but at the same time, He does
not override our God given free will?
It’s paradox. Calvin went to
one extreme; Arminius and Pelagius
went to the other extreme.
But let’s get back to baptism
for the moment:
Salvation is a work of grace, is
it not? Grace therefore must precede
both faith and repentance, otherwise,
my friend, your preaching salvation
by works!!
Hello!!
The message to adults is repent,
believe the Gospel, and be baptized.
So, leaving aside infants, tell me:
How does a mentally retarded person
repent??
St. Paul instructed the Thessalonians
that those that would not work should
not eat. Now does that mean if a
baby or a 90-year-old man refuse
to put in a 40-hour week, the Thessalonians
should let them both starve? No,
of course not.
Implicit in Paul's admonition is
that it applies to those that can
work. Likewise, implicit in the command
to repent is that notion that one
can repent.
See, salvation and justification
are dynamic. They are not a static
event. In baptism, we are objectively
saved. Amen!!! Hallelujah!!! Bless
God!!! Thank You Jesus!!!!
Great, but that’s only the
beginning. He who began a work in
us, is faithful to complete it.
Does God need the sacraments to perfect
us? No, but He chose to institute
them for our benefit. We are both
body and spirit. We can’t separate
the two. We live in a physical world
as sensual beings, hence, God uses
our senses in His plan of redemption,
just as He uses each member of His
Body in the work of redemption.
Now all that said, you’ve raised
some other interesting points which
I’ll try to address.
Quickly.
In Mark 2, Jesus responded to “their” faith.
Whether or not the paralytics had
faith, or whether or not the paralytic’s
faith is included in the “their” is
not relevant to my point.
My point is that: we see Christ responding
to a particular individual’s
need on the basis of more than just
the individual faith.
As for paralytic being under the
Mosaic Law, that’s also not
relevant, all those forgiven under
the requisites of the Law were saved
by grace through faith on the basis
of Christ’s sacrifice. Paul
and the author of Hebrews make it
clear that the Law was powerless
to save; it was simply a teacher.
Again, J.D., you are going around
in circles with these questions.
Sooner or later you can only come
to one conclusion. Scripture Alone
or Sola Scriptura is untenable, not
to mention a heresy. This 400 year
old little experiment has done nothing
but produce 30,000 denominations
and an innumerable number of cults.
You said it before: You get a couple
guys together reading the book of
Acts and the next thing you know,
you’ve got Christians who still
won’t eat the meat of strangled
animals.
At some point, you are going to have
to realize that soteriology is corollary
Christian Doctrine, secondary to
Christology. Christians are called
first and foremost to worship and
enter into the Mysteries of faith;
the Trinity, the Incarnation, becoming
partakers in the Divine nature.
The problem, especially in Western
Church is that we’ve all become
Socratic rationalists. We want an
equation that answers the Philippian
Jailor’s question: What must
I do to be saved?
To steal a phrase from the beautiful
Catholic convert Laura Ingram, maybe
we ought to just "Shut Up and
Sing".
Put more reverently. we need embrace
the message of Divine Mercy as promulgated
by Saint Faustina. Jesus I trust
in You.
Don't get me wrong, soteriology is
an important doctrine, but we can't
treat it or any other Mystery of
Faith like Algebra.
The Catholic experience is to receive
Christ in manner in which He comes
to us.
In the Sacraments, we trust His promise,
or better, His oath, that He will
act. When receiving a Sacrament,
we know objectively, in spite of
our feelings, that Christ has regenerated
us, forgiven us, filled us with the
Holy Spirit, and made Himself present
under what now appears to be bread
and wine. This does not exclude any
other subjective experience, nor
does it limit God to act only in
the Sacraments.
John
J.D.
replied:
Back to this matter about God's grace
and people's understanding, here
is my problem.
Like you, I do believe that God is
gracious and saves individual men
on that basis. I don't know if your
theology would use the term "prevalent
Grace", but that is something
John Wesley stressed. While I am
not a Methodist, formally, I think
that Wesley was getting at a truth
you seem to be also expressing.
My only point is that the concept
of pouring water on a person seems
to be superfluous since God is going
to act in Grace anyway. The fact
that a cleric may or may not have
an opportunity to baptize an infant
is not going to have any effect upon
God's gracious dealing if it is his
purpose to exhibit Grace to that
baby anyway. By the same token, pouring
water on the head of a baby is not
going to necessarily do any good.
The two poster boys for this are
Hitler and Stalin but there are millions
of other people for whom a simple
application of water did nothing
more than please the doting parents
and grandparents. Sadly, this may
also have given the child a false
sense of security as he grew and
up and was told that his baptism
gave him some sort of right standing
with God.
I think you also may have run together
two aspects of Grace: "justifying" Grace
and "growing" Grace. The
first one places a person in Christ.
The second one causes him to grow
in Christ likeness.
I can see the fact that the sacrament
of the Eucharist increases "growing
Grace", but my difficulty is
accepting the fact that any of the
sacraments are needed for "justifying" Grace.
The reason for that is that they
are not mixed with faith. (Hebrews
4:2). Man who has light, still has
a responsibility to act upon that
light. I will leave the mentally
incapacitated and the heathen in
the darkest jungles to God's mercy.
I can develop this sculpturally,
but for now, my only point is that
a simple rite performed upon a baby
who has no faith does not make a
lot of difference in that child's
life. As I have discussed with Mary
Ann, the fact that baptism of desire
or baptism of blood will also bring
a person to God, points more to faith
alone.
The scriptures, in both testaments,
clearly teach that God will judge
based on the Light a person has received.
Mary Ann and I have been discussing
this concept a bit.
J.D.
John
replied:
Ok, you just said something which
brings us to Justification, so I'm
going to begin to process of addressing
that.
Justifying grace, as you put it,
is not received simply once, because
Justification is not a one-time declaration
of “not guilty”. It is
dynamic and increases.
Paul tells us in Romans that Abraham
believed God and it was accounted
to him as righteousness. But In Romans
4 Paul is quoting Genesis 15, so
if Paul understands Justification
according to Protestant Theology,
Abraham was not did not have believing
faith and was not saved until Genesis
15. That would mean that everything
recorded about Abraham in Genesis
12 through 14 all occurred before
he was “Justified”.
See you can’t properly understand
Paul without understanding the context
of the Old Testament quotes he uses.
When Paul quotes the Old Testament,
he is recalling the entire context
by quoting the poignant part of the
text. It would be the same thing
as you or I saying 9/11; we both
recall the horrible events of that
day just by mentioning the date.
In Romans, Paul was arguing with
Jewish Christians, against their
belief that circumcision and other “works
of the Law” were requisite
to becoming a Christian. Paul’s
point in quoting Genesis 15 is
that Abraham was justified aside
from circumcision, let alone the
other rituals prescribes in the Mosaic
Law.
James points to Abraham as well.
James 2:21-24
21 Was not Abraham our father
justified by works when he offered
Isaac his son on the altar?
22 Do you see that faith was working
together with his works, and by
works faith was made perfect?
23 And the Scripture was fulfilled
which says, "Abraham believed
God, and it was accounted to him
for righteousness." And he
was called the friend of God.
24 You see then that a man is
justified by works, and not by
faith only.
Leaving the issue of “faith
alone” aside for now, let’s
look at what James says about when
Abraham was justified.
If we are going to read James the
way Protestants have traditionally
read Romans, must conclude the following.
According to James, Abraham was justified
by his obedience in Genesis 22 when
he offered up Isaac and not back
in Genesis 15 as Paul claimed. Hello???
And what about Hebrews Chapter 11?
According to the author, Abraham
was justified (or exercised faith,
which according to “you all” is
the only thing necessary for salvation)
back in Genesis 12 when he left his
homeland. Ah, but when we read on
in Hebrews 11, we see that his justification
grows and matures and is dynamic
and that Abraham was justified more
than once, because he obeyed God,
as he believed God.
So, now let’s go back to Baptism.
You brought up Hitler and Stalin
as men who when baptized just got
their heads wet and nothing else
happened. WRONG!!!!
Go to directly to Jail---
do not pass go –
do not collect $200.00!!!!!!!
When we are baptized we are objectively
the recipients of justifying grace.
That fact, in know way, is a guarantee
that we will live our lives in obedient
saving faith. Being “born again” does
not mean that we will persevere in
faith, despite the fact we’ve
received the grace for initial justification.
That is the model that holds true
for each and every sacrament, just
as it does respecting the atonement
of Christ. The sufficiency of grace
is objectively there for all who
receive the sacrament, just as the
atonement of Christ is sufficient
for all men. However, the efficiency
of grace in the sacraments, like
the efficiency of the Christ’s
atonement, is up to the response
of the individual.
To be continued.... :>)
God Bless,
John
J.D.
replied:
Brother John:
I do appreciate the time you all
have taken, and find all of you to
be much more responsive than others
whom I have honestly questioned.
Scripture alone on these:
Monogamy: Matthew 19:8 in concert
with Genesis 3:20-25 and other verses.
Trinity: Would take longer but is
clearly evident using 10 or 12 verses
in both testaments in concert with
monotheistic logic. I can do it later
this week when I have more time.
I don't see Sola Scriptura as failing
on the basics of orthodox Christian
Theology but rather on the secondary
and tertiary issues. The question
on my mind, however, is this:
Are these latter issues important
enough that they must be entrusted
to a magisterial body, and furthermore,
what drawbacks accrue from having
such a body?
Right now, I could write a dictionary-sized
book on each of the two above-mentioned
questions.
Sincerely in Christ,
J.D.
John
replied:
J.D.,
I asked you prove monogamy using
scripture alone. Mathew 19 refers
to divorce. It could just as easily
mean that a man is able to have many
wives but can't divorce any of them.
In fact, the selected bible verses
could be just as easily used to support
the freedom to have more than one
wife.
2 Sam 12:7-8
7 Then Nathan said to David, "You
are the man! Thus says the LORD
God of Israel: 'I anointed you
king over Israel, and I delivered
you from the hand of Saul.
8 I gave you your master's house
and your master's wives into your
keeping, and gave you the house
of Israel and Judah. And if that
had been too little, I also would
have given you much more! (NKJ)
SAY WHAT, God gave David more than
one wife??? Hello!!!
Now read 1 Timothy 3:2 carefully.
1 Tim 3:2
2 A bishop then must be blameless,
the husband of one wife, temperate,
sober-minded, of good behavior,
hospitable, able to teach;
Here Paul is forbidding the ordination
of polygamist Christian men, but
using Scripture alone, without the
Tradition, one can surmise the implication
that if a Christian man doesn't want
to be a bishop, he is free to have
multiple wives.
The only reason Christians universally
accept monogamy is because of Tradition.
The Bible, at best, is ambiguous
on the subject.
Because you don't see Sola Scriptura
as unorthodox, doesn’t make
it orthodox. If Sola Scriptura demands
that all doctrines be proved by scripture,
than Sola Scriptura must proved by
scripture alone! Logic dictates that.
And logic further dictates that the
canon of Scripture itself be proved
by scripture alone, otherwise you
are already breaking the doctrine
of Sola Scriptura from the get go.
Period, end of story, exclamation
point!!!!
John
J.D.
replied:
John,
As far as final unction, the passage
in James 5 speaks of healing the
sick and the fact that the RCC sees
it as a final rite as opposed to
a way for the church to pray for
the healing a sick person seems to
fly clearly in the face of an honest
interpretation of the passage.
From what I understand, final unction
is generally limited to the dying,
whereas the James 5 passage does
not say that at all.
On marriage being a sacrament, I
still cannot see where Christ instituted
it, as such, as a sacrament during
his earthly ministry. It existed
in Eden and most pagan cultures have
also seen the value of having marriage
as an institution.
The problem you get into with making
it a sacrament is that the dissolution
of it then becomes artificial and
contrived. I once read a book by
the former wife of a prominent Roman
Catholic politician. He wanted to
leave her and marry another lady,
but he could not do it unless he
had his sacramental marriage dissolved
by the Church. These people had been
married for several years and had
more than one child as I recall.
The word on the street in their home
town was this: Whoever gets the best
canon lawyer is the one who wins
the contest. Henry VIII notwithstanding,
the ecclesiastical dissolution of
marriage is just like any other court
case and it helps to have enough
money to hire the right lawyer. I
simply think that involving the Church
in this process makes a mockery of
the institution of marriage. This
is sad, in view of all of the other
noble things the RCC does to support
and defend marriage.
J.D.
John
replied:
J.D. Wrote: John,
From what I understand, final unction
is generally limited to the dying,
whereas the James 5 passage does
not say that at all.
In the words of Mark Twain, "the
reports of my death have been
greatly exaggerated!!!"!
;>)
Brother, I received the “anointing
of the sick” 6 weeks ago when
the priest offered to any and all
in the congregation after Mass.
While in the past, the Latin Rite
of the Church usually administered
the sacrament to those near death
(as a matter of practice), it has
never limited it to dying. In fact,
in the Eastern Catholic Rites has
always been a fairly frequently offered
sacrament.
You’ve fallen into the typical
trap of confusing {practice or discipline}
with doctrine. To understand the
difference read Acts Chapter 15.
The Jerusalem Council made a dogmatic
pronouncement, that gentiles don't
need to be circumcised and observe
the prescriptions of the Mosaic Law
in order to become Christians. They
added a Pastoral discipline for the
sake of the Jews. That being, the
admonishment to new gentile believers
to refrain eating certain meat. This
was to avoid causing Jewish believers
to stumble. Then they added a moral
teaching about sexual morality.
So, the first Dogmatic statement
still holds today, as does the moral
teaching, but the ban on eating the
meat of strangled animals has long
been dispensed with.
Dogmas,
Doctrines, and
Moral Teaching are part of the
deposit of faith.
Hence they are irrevocable.
Disciplines and practice, such
as abstaining from meat of Friday,
only ordaining single men, and
what liturgical colors are used
during a liturgical season,
are provisions established for pastoral
reasons. They are subject to change,
if and when, the pastoral circumstances
change.
Now let’s go back to something
else you said about the Sacraments.
You wrote: "On marriage
being a sacrament, I still cannot
see where Christ instituted it, as
such, as a sacrament during his earthly
ministry."
There in lies the problem. Where
exactly does the Bible define a sacrament?
A sacrament is not an ordinance,
otherwise, it would be a work of
the Law! Yes, we do certain things
including administering sacraments
out of obedience to Christ, but reducing
a Sacrament to an ordinance instituted
by Christ in Scripture misses the
point of what a Sacrament is.
As it relates to Marriage, it’s
not just the ceremony that’s
a sacrament; it’s the entire
relationship from the moment of marriage
to death. As St. Paul implies, in
Ephesians 5, marriage mirrors the
covenantal relationship between Christ
and the Church. We’d go further
and say that it mirrors the life
and love of the Trinity.
Now, about this nonsense of a sacramental
marriage being dissolved.
That is impossible. The annulment
process determines whether or not
a sacramental marriage was actually
entered into.
In other words, were their impediments
to the couple entering into a covenant
of their own free will? For instance:
Was their coercion?
Did the couple marry simply because
the woman was pregnant?
Was either party already married?
Were they both of sound mind?
Etc, etc, etc.
A covenant is irrevocable. Unlike
a contract, wherein, if the promises
are broken, the contract is broken;
in a covenant, when the promises
are broken, the covenant remains,
but the people are broken.
Just look at Deuteronomy. Israel
was brought into a covenant relationship
with God. So long as Israel followed
the prescription of the covenant,
they would experience covenant blessings,
but if they abandoned covenant prescriptions
they would experience covenant curses.
So the subsequent chastisement of
Israel (the Assyrian and Babylonian
captivities) were not because the
Israelites broke the covenant, it
was because the prescriptions of
the covenant were broken. As a result
the negative part of covenant was
enforced! But the covenant relationship
remained nonetheless. In fact, it
is only because of the covenant relationship,
that Israel is justly chastised.
You see there is the Covenant, which
contains the Law and then, in addition
to the Law itself, there are the
works of the Law. The Law is only
there because of a Covenant relationship
between God and Israel.
In like manner the natural law exists
only because God made a covenant
with creation itself in Genesis.
Why do you think the Creation story
in Genesis 1 recounts 7 days? Because
the Hebrew word for covenant or oath is
the same word for seven!
J.D. the problem appears to be that
you are imposing your traditional,
and I must say extremely limited,
definition of sacrament on what the
Church calls a sacrament. Bro, the
Church itself is a sacrament, the
Body of Christ, through which all
Sacraments and graces flow. See,
you define the visible Church as
an institution or organization. You
seek to separate the visible Church
from “invisible Body of Christ”.
That’s like trying to separate
Christ’s human nature from
his Divine nature. While the Elect
are part of the Church, the Church
is not just the Elect. In fact, my
dear brother, all those who will
be ultimately saved, be they fully
Catholic, Protestant or what no,
are somehow Mystically part of the
Roman Catholic Church. Hence, “outside
the Church there is no salvation”.
Whether you want to admit it or not,
you are an imperfect manner a Catholic,
because the Church by definition
is one.
More later.
God Bless,
John D.
J.D.
replied:
You are a good man, John, and if
you ever are in Virginia, lunch or
dinner is on me!
We essentially agree on Matt 25 and
I understand now the point you are
making about COVENENTAL vs. EXTRACOVENENTAL
means of Grace as relates to the
sacraments. (I am not sure if I agree
with it, but I now understand it.)
But on Romans 6, I was never one
of those Protestants who equated
circumcision and baptism. From my
study of the Bible, those are apples
and oranges and most of the Reformers
(esp. those of Calvinistic bent)
never were able to "rightly
divide the word of truth." (II
Tim 2:15).
Circumcision was a covenantal rite
to show God's mark upon national
Israel and was only done to men.
Baptism is a rite/ordinance/sacrament
of the Christian church done to males
and females alike to show identification
with the death, burial, and resurrection
of Christ. The former is corporate
while the latter is individual. The
former is ethnically oriented and
sexually restricted while the latter
is universal. The former showed visible
membership in a nation while the
latter speaks of a finished work
done by Another.
But getting down to our more fundamental
discussion, John: Circumcision never
conferred righteousness upon the
recipient. The CCC seems to be saying
that some type of righteousness is
transmitted or conferred in the sacrament
of baptism.
This gets back to my original point,
as you have seen in my discussions
with Mary Ann. It can be replaced
by "baptism of desire or blood" according
to the CCC. These operate by faith.
Does this not make the point that
ontologically we are saved by faith?
Perhaps we are exhausting this topic
and I need to re-read the notes and
the web site references.
After you answer me, would you mind
if we move on the either Mary, Communion
of the Saints, or Purgatory?
Thanks,
J.D.
John
replied:
You said: Circumcision
was a covental rite to show God's
mark upon national Israel and was
only done to men. Baptism is a rite/ordinance/sacrament
of the Christian church done to males
and females alike to show identification
with the death, burial, and resurrection
of Christ. The former is corporate
while the latter is individual.
Say WHAT???
Salvation is, as much, corporate
as it is individual. That's were
Evangelicals always blow it!!
Ever hear of a book called Ephesians
???
Salvation is so much more than me,
my bible, and Jesus. By His Incarnation,
the Eternal Word united Himself to
Mankind reconciling us the Father.
In becoming a man, Jesus demonstrated
humanity's own role in redemption.
Yes, Salvation is a complete work
of Christ, but Christians are "In
Christ" and therefore participate
in the redemptive work of Christ.
You do that every time you pray for
someone or preach the gospel.
J.D., salvation is not just a "Get
of Jail Free" card. It's adoption,
divine sonship. It takes place in
the family room as much as it does
in the court room!!!
Let's take an example from the Gospels.
Mark 2:1-5
1 And again He entered Capernaum
after some days, and it was
heard that He was in the house.
2 Immediately many gathered together,
so that there was no longer room
to receive them, not even near
the door. And He preached the
word to them.
3 Then they came to Him, bringing
a paralytic who was carried by
four men.
4 And when they could not come
near Him because of the crowd,
they uncovered the roof where
He was. So when they had broken
through, they let down the bed
on which the paralytic was lying.
5 When Jesus saw their faith,
He said to the paralytic, "Son,
your sins are forgiven you."
Now notice, Jesus didn't respond
to one repentant man. It says Jesus
saw THEIR faith. We don't even know
if the paralytic had any faith and
is included in the plural pronoun "they".
For all we know it could have been
the faith of his friends that Jesus
was responding to. Hello !!!!
Read the text again.
See J.D., it boils down to this.
Evangelicals start with the question:
What must I do to be saved?
This reduces Christianity to level
of appealing a parking ticket before
the Clerk Magistrate.
Whereas, prior to Luther, the Church
historically always started with
Christ's question to Peter:
"Who do you say that I am?"
When we ponder the that question,
we begin to see the organic unity
which exists in the Church because
it is the Body of Christ. You can't
separate the Head from the Body.
See, we can't just talk about faith
in strictly an individual context.
In other words, if you believe, you
can be healed, if you believe you
can be saved.
If that premise is true, then explain
Peter and Paul raising people from
the dead ! Hello!!! How did the dead
person have enough faith to receive
the resurrection???
No, it was Peter and Paul's faith,
together with the faith of Church
(which is nothing less than the Body
of Christ) that brought about that
miracle by the will of Christ and
the power of the Holy Spirit.
It's the same thing with Baptism
or any other Sacrament: they are
in one sense an act of God; In another
sense, the rely on the faith of Mystical
Body of Christ. In fact, the Church
teaches that faith of the Church
can make up for what is lacking in
our personal faith when receiving
a sacrament.
In Him,
John
J.D.
replied:
Hello John,
I was just getting ready to log out
when I noticed your reply.
You mentioned Ephesians but did not
give any specific verses. Can you
give one or two which you believe
support your claim than man is not
fundamentally accountable as an individual
before God? I realize that Ephesians
deals, in large part, with the existing
Church, but how one enters the Church
is pretty clearly discussed in verses
1:12,13,
"that we should be to the
praise of his glory, who first
TRUSTED in Christ. In whom ye
also TRUSTED, after that ye heard
the word of truth, the gospel
of salvation: in whom also after
that ye BELIEVED, ye were sealed
with that holy Spirit of promise."
That passage seems to be very individually
oriented and speaks not of baptism
or joining an institutional church
but rather trusting and believing
after hearing the Gospel.
The passage in Mark 2 is very inspirational
and I think that Christ was honoring
the faith that these men showed in
Him. On the other hand, we are not
told about the faith of the paralytic.
Did he have it or not? Maybe yes;
maybe no. Scripture is silent and
that is one of the strengths of Roman
Catholicism.
It seeks to fill in the blanks where
there are scriptural ambiguities
but this passage also has other ambiguities
which are beyond the scope of Roman
Catholic or Protestant reasoning.
Specifically, in verse 5, Jesus says,
"Son, thy sins be forgiven
thee."
He made this statement prior to the
Cross when the full payment was made.
(Hebrews 9:16, 22) The paralytic
was under the Mosaic Law at the time
and there is no evidence that he
had been to the Temple to offer up
any of the prescribed animal sacrifices.
On what basis did Christ forgive
him? I am not sure any Roman Catholic
or Protestant theologian or Bible
student could answer that one with
certainty.
What I am saying John, is that we
take the clear understandings and
go to the ambiguous in scripture.
This passage is indeed ambiguous
yet there is a wealth of scriptural
evidence stressing individual responsibility.
I don't have all of the answers.
J.D.
Please
report any and all typos or grammatical errors.
Suggestions for this web page and the web site can be sent to Mike Humphrey
