Per Christum

Brendan and I interacting first thing in the morning (before my shower and coffee as you can tell!)

Yes this is the cutest kid on the planet.

Proud dad Chad and son Brendan in front of a fountain in KC.

Chad, Brendan, and I playing in a fountain (yes, all of us).

I was in Kansas City over the weekend for a job interview, and I got a chance to meet Chad and Charles (operator of the now-defunct “Land of Hope and Glory” blog). I also got to meet Chad’s wife and his son, Brendan. We had an awesome weekend. We had some great discussions, some good food and drink, and Chad and I played Halo 2 until 2 AM on Friday night! Chad introduced me to the British version of “The Office,” so now I have another distraction I don’t need! I also got a chance to go to a traditional Novus Ordo Catholic parish, where the worship is done right.

And truly great and unspeakable was their cause for joy, when in the sight of the holy multitude [i.e. at the Ascension], above the dignity of all heavenly creatures, the Nature of mankind went up, to pass above the angels’ ranks and to rise beyond the archangels’ heights, and to have Its uplifting limited by no elevation until, received to sit with the Eternal Father, It should be associated on the throne with His glory, to Whose Nature It was united in the Son.

Since then Christ’s Ascension is our uplifting, and the hope of the Body is raised, whither the glory of the Head has gone before, let us exult, dearly-beloved, with worthy joy and delight in the loyal paying of thanks. For today not only are we confirmed as possessors of paradise, but have also in Christ penetrated the heights of heaven, and have gained still greater things through Christ’s unspeakable grace than we had lost through the devil’s malice. For us, whom our virulent enemy had driven out from the bliss of our first abode, the Son of God has made members of Himself and placed at the right hand of the Father, with Whom He lives and reigns in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God for ever and ever. Amen.

Pope St. Leo the Great, On the Lord’s Ascension I:IV (Sermon 73)

Photo from Shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes, Euclid, Ohio; taken by Jonathan Bennett

I just found this today: http://www.earlychurchfathers.org/. It looks pretty cool. I was looking for some quotes on baptism in the early Church and came across the site. Here is the quote I found from St. Justin (First Apology, 61, AD 150), whose writings I have read many times:

As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

I am not for censoring the Da Vinci Code, and I never have been. Read it if you want, and see the movie if you feel like it. However, I have stood up for Christianity’s right to defend itself against the book’s claims. Of course, I have been reminded that”everybody knows knows this book is just fiction,” and “don’t take it too seriously,” and so forth. My response has been, “yes, everybody should know this, but a historically illiterate population such as ours may not respond exactly as they should.” Plus, humans love a good conspiracy theory!

Apparently, I am right. This article suggests that of those who have read the Da Vinci Code, 60% believe that Jesus had children by Mary Magdalene, compared with only 30% who have not read the book. Additionally, 17% of Da Vinci Code readers believe that Opus Dei has carried out a murder, as opposed to 4% of non-readers. In other words, reading this work of fiction has convinced some people to believe the claims of the book as historical facts. This poll was a scientific poll of 1,000 people conduced by a major polling firm. Why is this? Probably because a lot of people, including Dan Brown himself, have hinted around that all of this stuff may indeed be true. In fact, the book that Brown stole most of his ideas from, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, suggests a lot of the Da Vinci Code claims are true-blue historical facts.

I guess I feel a little vindicated here, and hope that Christians do their best, in a sane manner, to rebut the claims of the Da Vinci Code, and to provide a lesson in basic history, as opposed to lessons in wild conspiracy theories that truly are fiction.

Jaroslav Pelikan, the great Church Church History Scholar, passed away this weekend at the age of 82. I read this over at Pontifications just today. I will miss Dr. Pelikan. I read his entire History of Doctrine series, and had the blessing of seeing him in person when I was a graduate student. His writings positively influenced my decision to become Catholic. Pelikan was a Lutheran until 1998, when he joined the Orthodox Church. Thank you Dr. Pelikan for all your work.

Eternal Rest grant to him O Lord,
and let perpetual light shine upon him.
May he rest in peace.

Dr. Pelikan’s fine works are still available, and I commend then to all serious students of Church History. Here are links to the books in his The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine series:

Volume 1: The Emergence of Catholic Tradition
Volume 2: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom
Volume 3: The Growth of Medieval Theology
Volume 4: Reformation of Church and Dogma
Volume 5: Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture

1. What is the Plan of God for Man?
God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness, freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. In the fullness of time, God the Father sent his Son as the Redeemer and Savior of mankind, fallen into sin, thus calling all into his Church and, through the work of the Holy Spirit, making them adopted children and heirs of his eternal happiness.

From the Compendium: Catechism of the Catholic Church

Yes, I’m finally going to read the DaVinci Code. I checked it out of the library so as not to feed the beast. It’s not that I suddenly feel the need to read it or am actually interested. Rather, I know with the movie coming out, it’s important to be aware of the content, especially being a religion teacher and considering kids tend to watch movies more than read books. I’m ordering some books that “debunk” the code as well. Now, some people would say this is a bit like ordering a book debunking the “Lord of the Rings” since the DaVinci Code is fiction, right? Well, yes. But there are some quasi-scholars and conspiracy theorists who try to point out the vague truthfulness of the work. And naturally Dan Brown is happy to play along or at least look the other way while the whole thing brings him wads of cash. My goal is simply to be able to answer the questions of students while hopefully using the book as a springboard to learn about real history and the genuine traditions of the Church. Big task indeed.

There is some debate about what we should do about the DaVinci code movie. Although I will not be seeing it, I recognize that a lot of people will. I think we will need to be ready to provide accurate accounts of our faith to those who don’t quite realize the work is fiction and not some long suppressed series of impossible conspiracies (or who may be led to explore Gnosticism or other heresies). Many wonder what the whole DaVinci Code phenomenon means. Spiritual hunger? Interest in religion? I would say that America has had these phenomena for ages and perhaps some of that comes into play. I’d rather say the book plays to people’s tendency towards conspiracy theories and distrust of institutions. However, most people are probably astute enough to recognize the story is, as my old Greek professor liked to say of the concept of the rapture, “hokum.” Those who do believe the Code is true and the Vatican is caught up in some big conspiracy (I’m surprised it involves Opus Dei and not the Jesuits), probably have far bigger issues than I can deal with.

Many evangelicals believe that Catholics either out-and-out embrace a salvation by works system, or at least get dangerously close to such a system. One major reason is that Catholics (and Orthodox) speak of grace being given through the sacraments. So Catholics will speak of God’s free grace and grace being given through the sacraments in the same sentence, confusing many evangelicals who think the two are mutually exclusive. How can free grace be given through anything and yet still remain free? How can Christ’s sacrifice, in which he paid for our sins once and for all at one time, be applied in the future through any physical act without detracting from the free sacrifice?

First, I think all Christians are sacramental without knowing it. Unless God magically implants metaphysical knowledge into your head, there has to be some physical mediation involved in salvation. For instance, mentally accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior is a physical act (since the working of the brain is physical), as is walking to the prayer rail and praying with a pastor. So is hearing a sermon spoken by a physical mouth with your physical ears and being stirred to accept Jesus using your physical brain. So if mentally assenting and vocally accepting Jesus are not counted as works, then I don’t see how baptism and communion must necessarily be works.

Second, the evidence for sacraments being the vehicles of salvation is well-attested, if not universally attested, in early Christian literature. I have yet to find one Church Father who understands the new birth as being anything other than baptism. I have not read every single Church Father, but I have read a great number of them, so I could be proven wrong I guess. In the early days, it was actually the Gnostics and Docetists who saw salvation as occurring outside the physical sacraments. Is it any wonder that these sects denied the reality of the Incarnation, from which the reality of sacramentality flows? This is not to say that the early Church did not believe that God could save outside of the sacraments, but they believed that he established the sacraments as the normative means of receiving salvation.

Third, not all Protestants view sacraments as works. Lutherans, Anglicans, and to some degree Methodists and Presbyterians, think and act sacramentally. Now I have to preface what I am about to say with this caveat: I am no Luther scholar, but I have read some of his works. However, it seems that Martin Luther, the first Protestant reformer, had no issue with the idea of grace being given through the sacraments, since he obviously believed in justification by faith alone, but also believed in baptismal regeneration. From Luther’s Small Catechism we read:

What does Baptism give or profit?
It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.

Luther goes on to say that the water does such great things because the Word of God renders ordinary water baptismal water. Here we see a sacramental outlook in action. God’s Word makes simple water holy water. The water doesn’t detract from God’s Word, but acts as a physical vehicle for God’s grace and promises.

Now, referring to Communion Luther writes:

What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?
That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and
salvation.

So we continue to see that for Luther, forgiveness of sins and salvation are provided through the sacraments. Luther does not account these sacraments as mere physical things but sacraments that God makes holy on account of his Word. Thus, not all Protestants see sacraments and free grace as opposed to one another. This could be because many early reformers lived before the rational Enlightenment time period. Enlightenment principles have fostered within the modern mind a divide between symbol and reality, thus creating a (false) dichotomy between sacrament and reality, a dichotomy not seen in the early Church.

To end on, I think a real life example may be in order. It is not perfect, but it does show why we don’t see sacraments as adding to or detracting from grace. Here goes: A father volunteers to pay for all of his daughter’s college education and college expenses, no questions asked. He tells his daughter, “it is all paid for; you don’t owe a thing.” Now, if the father gives his daughter cash on a regular basis to pay for these expenses, does the physical cash take away from his original promise? Does the physical use of cash (or checks/direct deposits) somehow negate the grace (free gift) the father has given his daughter? No. In fact, the father’s original promise makes little sense unless it can be somehow applied physically, since we live in a physical world.

This post shows one issue where I think sacramentality divides us, but the sacramental divide goes beyond issues of grace and salvation. I hope to discuss more reasons why sacramentality is the biggest reason (or darn near the biggest) Catholics and evangelicals often often have trouble understanding each other. I invite other contributors to join me in exploring this idea.

[I think I should define what I mean by "sacramentality." I mean that God uses the physical, created world for his purposes. This, of course, includes the sacraments, but also touches on the visible Church, relics, sacramentals, the saints, and all sorts of doctrines and practices. These other points are what I want to touch on in the future. As some commenters have mentioned, sacramentality is really an incarnational issue, since the redemption of the created order for God's purposes comes directly from the Incarnation. However, evangelicals believe in the incarnation, but often fail to understand its application and consequences in the way Catholics, Orthodox, and the early Church have understood them. This is why I decided to discuss "sacramentality" as a major dividing point as opposed to the incarnation, although it all goes back to that.]

sacramentality

Thoughts?