 |
|
The Mass of
the Catholic Church is the center of its members lives. In the Mass the people
of God first hear the Word of God, and then each member becomes physically
united with Christ. The Word of God is read from the Bible. After this is done,
The Lord's Supper is celebrated. The Lord's Supper is a reenactment of the Last
Supper of Jesus as he commanded his Church to do. This is related to us in three
of the four Gospels: Matthew 26:26-30, Mark 14:22-26, and Luke 22:14-20, which I
will now recount to you:
When the hour came, he took his place at table with the apostles.
He said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you
before I suffer, for, I tell you, I shall not eat it again until there is
fulfillment in the kingdom of God." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and
said, "Take this and share it among yourselves; for I tell you that from
this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God
comes." Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it and gave it to
them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in
memory of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying,
"This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for
you."
When the
Church celebrates the Lord's Supper, they fulfill Christ's command to "do
this in memory of me." When the blessing is said over the bread and wine,
Christ's words are fulfilled, "This is my body," and "This is my
blood." Christ performs a miracle and the bread and wine, although they
retain the physical characteristics of bread and wine, are no longer bread and
wine, but the Holy Body and Blood of Christ. When Christ's members eat his Holy
Body, and drink his Holy Blood, they become physically united with Christ. This
is the most beautiful communion we have with Christ, until we are with him in
heaven, where we will be in perfect communion with Christ forever.
Christ was
crucified once and for all, in the place of Golgotha. This was the universal,
absolute Sacrifice for the salvation of the world. Christ commanded that His
bloody sacrifice on the Cross should be daily renewed by an unbloody sacrifice
of His Body and Blood in the Mass under the simple elements of bread and wine.
In the Mass, Christ eats of the Passover again, and drinks of the fruit of the
vine because by him there was "fulfillment in the kingdom of God."
This alone is the origin and nature of the Mass. Christ is not crucified again,
but his one crucifixion is renewed every day in the Catholic Mass.
The
sacrifices of the Old Testament, by their figurative forms and prophetic
significance, point to the sacrifice of the Cross as their eventual fulfillment.
The Sacrifice of the Mass is an anticipated commemoration of the sacrifice of
the Cross. We do not offer the bread and wine on the altar as a sacrifice for
our sins, as in the old covenant Jewish sacrifices. Christ miraculously changes
the physical nature of the bread and wine into his Body and Blood which he
sacrificed for the salvation of the world.
Understanding
original sin and salvation is important in understand man's fall from grace and
Christ's redemption of man. The original sin was the one that Adam committed.
The consequence of this first sin, is original sin, which is the hereditary
stain we are born with on account of our descent from Adam. With sin, Adam
introduced death to the human race, not just death of the body, but also death
of the soul. Original sin is not an act, but a state of privation of grace. Sin,
however, is a voluntary act made possible by our state of original sin. No one
ever consents to original sin, original sin is in the soul at the time of
conception. Baptism puts an end to the privation of grace, and takes away
original sin, allowing us to receive God's grace. This, however, does not
prevent temptation or remove the possibility of future sin.
The Catholic
Church is very old and very large; this allows its member to sometimes become
too comfortable, and even lazy. Many think that their only responsibility is to
attend Mass, and some only do this once or twice a year. Far too often, much of
the work done in the Church has been left to the clergy. This is sad; however,
there are a number of very devout members of the laity that do carry on some of
the Church's works. It would be nice if the member of the Catholic Church were
to act as zealously as some of their Protestant and Fundamentalist brethren.I
realize that this is not the same throughout the world, and that this is only my
opinion of what I see. Many of the people I know are very active in the Church,
which is why I know them. Not all Catholics take action in the Church, but there
are some that do.
From the
first century, the Catholic Church has been extremely active in evangelization.
This is the reason why the Catholic Church has spread over almost the entire
globe. Since the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church has also been
actively evangelizing the Protestants. It was actually the Jesuits that did most
of this work, and succeeded in bring many Protestants back to the Catholic
Church. This work is now done by Catholic delegates meeting with Protestant
delegates in an attempt to attain greater unity. There is also a large literary
evangelistic movement within the Catholic Church. There are many books,
pamphlets, and web sites that contain Catholic apologetic, which is the defense
of Catholic doctrine against non-Catholics. As well many Catholic books, such as
the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the Bible, are bringing many people to
the Catholic faith. There is also the quiet evangelization of people who live
their faith, and other recognize it and begin to ask questions.
There is
actually a growing movement of non-Catholic pastors and laymen, that are
converting to Catholicism, solely on their study of the Bible and other
historical documents of the Church. Here is a list of some of the more well
known ones: Scott Hahn, Steve Wood, Bob Sungenis, Paul Thigpen, Marcus Grodi,
James Akin, Rick Conason, T.L.Frazier, Tim Staples, Dave Armstrong, and Al
Kresta.
At every
Mass, the Bible is read, for this reason the Catholic Church is spreading the
Word of God. For this reason every church needed a Bible, and before the
invention of the printing press in the sixteenth century, Bibles were very rare
and expensive. Often the Bible of a church was chained to the church, not to
keep people from reading it, but to keep people from stealing it. Once the
printing press was invented, the Church was almost scared of its member reading
the Bible. It seemed that men with little or no theological training would read
the Bible and form yet another new church. With continued teaching of the
faithful, soon the Church began to trust and encourage personal reading of the
Bible.
Catholic
communities enjoy many public activities that often do not have a priest
present. Such activities include Bible studies, prayer meetings, communal meals,
parties, and many others. Any of these activities may or may not have a priest
present. A priest is need for some very special activities, such as the Mass and
confession. A bishop is required for other activities, such as confirmation, the
final rite of Christian initiation, ordination, and the solemn consecration of
new temples to God. Beyond these activities, the presence of a priest or a
bishop is not required.
Corinthians
15:21.
It would be
unthinkable that God would send a child to hell, not for the sake of the child's
sin, but for the sake of Adam's sin. This is unthinkable, and likewise the
Catholic Church does not teach this. A child that dies before baptism has no
sin, but is in the state of original sin. This means that they have no sins that
would condemn them, but they are in a state of privation of grace. Therefore,
there is no reason why God would not except these children into heaven.
In today's
world there are many children who die before they are baptized. They die shortly
after they are conceived. They are murdered by people that do not even recognize
them as humans with immortal souls. These are the martyrs of abortion, and God
accepts each one into heaven.
Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church’s practice of baptizing
infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it
is to be administered only after one has undergone a "born again"
experience—that is, after one has "accepted Jesus Christ as his personal
Lord and Savior." At the instant of acceptance, when he is "born
again," the adult becomes a Christian, one of the elect, and his salvation
is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In
fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after "being saved,"
goes to heaven anyway.
As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the
word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes;
rather, it is merely a public manifestation of the person’s conversion. Since
only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for
infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally
considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years
before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically
saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to "accept
Jesus" in order to reach heaven.
Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism
differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things,
the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual
sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they
are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of
older persons.
Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of
your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).
But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise
is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one
whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be
baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These
commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make
clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you,
not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear
conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Christ Calls All to Baptism
Although Fundamentalists are the most recent critics of infant baptism,
opposition to infant baptism is not a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages, some
groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and
Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists ("re-baptizers") echoed them,
claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly. But the historic
Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well
as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born
again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply
to anyone capable of having a right to his kingdom. He asserted such a right
even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them;
for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).
More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: "Now
they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the
disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying,
‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the
kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).
Now Fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or infants
since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to
approach him on their own. (Older translations have, "Suffer the little
children to come unto me," which seems to suggest they could do so under
their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children
old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke
18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him"
(Greek, Proseferon de auto kai ta brephe). The Greek word brephe means
"infants"—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their
own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." And that
is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of
infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a
conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to
the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs
the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious
decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come
to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be
asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism?
If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to say
"no," and withhold baptism from them?
In Place of Circumcision
Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12).
In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"
and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only
infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare,
since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he
would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.
This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an
appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had
to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one
wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized.
In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in
anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New
Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of
the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If
one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if
one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership
in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of
Paul’s reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"—that
is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.
Were Only Adults Baptized?
Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to
be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is
what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support
such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in
Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were
converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just
beginning—there were no "cradle Christians," people brought up from
childhood in Christian homes.
Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first
century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes,
we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home
who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Rather, it
is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians,
that they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If
infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children
of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of
reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.
Specific Biblical References?
But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can
be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia
was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her
household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had
converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are
told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his
family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul
recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor.
1:16).
In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more
than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts
referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that
"he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must
have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household
baptism in Scripture.
Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past
the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes
in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly
there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households
that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no
reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of
household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as
infants), they would be explicit.
Catholics From the First
The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices.
Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that "according to the
usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants" (Holilies on
Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned
the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day
after birth. Later, Augustine taught, "The custom of Mother Church in
baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed
that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (Literal Interpretation
of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
No Cry of "Invention!"
None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice was
contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing
infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early
Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be when—exactly—an infant should be
baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the
early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the
religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early
Christian writers condemning it?
But Fundamentalists try to ignore the historical writings from the early Church
which clearly indicate the legitimacy of infant baptism. They attempt to
sidestep appeals to history by saying baptism requires faith and, since children
are incapable of having faith, they cannot be baptized. It is true that Christ
prescribed instruction and actual faith for adult converts (Matt. 28:19–20),
but his general law on the necessity of baptism (John 3:5) puts no restriction
on the subjects of baptism. Although infants are included in the law he
establishes, requirements of that law that are impossible to meet because of
their age are not applicable to them. They cannot be expected to be instructed
and have faith when they are incapable of receiving instruction or manifesting
faith. The same was true of circumcision; faith in the Lord was necessary for an
adult convert to receive it, but it was not necessary for the children of
believers.
Furthermore, the Bible never says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for
salvation except for infants"; it simply says, "Faith in Christ is
necessary for salvation." Yet Fundamentalists must admit there is an
exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously all infants to
hell. Therefore, the Fundamentalist himself makes an exception for infants
regarding the necessity of faith for salvation. He can thus scarcely criticize
the Catholic for making the exact same exception for baptism, especially if, as
Catholics believe, baptism is an instrument of salvation.
It becomes apparent, then, that the Fundamentalist position on infant baptism is
not really a consequence of the Bible’s strictures, but of the demands of
Fundamentalism’s idea of salvation. In reality, the Bible indicates that
infants are to be baptized, that they too are meant to inherit the kingdom of
heaven. Further, the witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings
must once and for all silence those who criticize the Catholic Church’s
teaching on infant baptism. The Catholic Church is merely continuing the
tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ:
"Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs
the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).
Although many Protestant traditions baptize babies, Baptists—and "Bible
churches" in the Baptist tradition—insist that baptism is only for those
who have come to faith. Nowhere in the New Testament, they point out, do we read
of infants being baptized.
On the other hand, nowhere do we read of children raised in believing households
reaching the age of reason and then being baptized. The only explicit
baptism accounts in the Bible involve converts from Judaism or paganism.
For children of believers there is no explicit mention of baptism—either in
infancy or later.
This is especially striking in view of what "baptism" meant to
first-century Jews. Water baptism was not invented by Jesus or John the Baptist;
Gentile converts to Judaism had long been "baptized" as well as
circumcised. But this baptism was only for the first generation of converts;
subsequent children and grandchildren were considered Jews and only circumcised,
not baptized.
"Baptism," to Jews, was a rite of conversion for those raised outside
the faith—not for children of believing households. (That’s why
John’s "baptism of repentance" was so controversial: It implied even
lifelong Jews had come to need "conversion" like pagans!)
This poses a problem for Baptists and Bible Christians: On what basis do they
require children of believers to be baptized at all? Given the silence of
the New Testament regarding any divergence from the historic Jewish practice,
why not assume Christian baptism is only for adult converts?
This, of course, would be utterly contrary to all historical Christian practice.
But so is rejecting infant baptism. As we will see, there is no doubt that the
early Church practiced infant baptism; and no Christian objections to this
practice were ever voiced until the Reformation.
The New Testament itself, while it does not explicitly say when (or whether)
believers should have their children baptized, is not silent on the subject.
Luke 18:15–16 tells us that "they were bringing even infants" to
Jesus; and he himself related this to the kingdom of God: "Let the children
come to me
. . . for to such belongs the kingdom of God."
When Baptists speak of "bringing someone to Jesus," they mean leading
him to faith. But Jesus says "even infants" can be
"brought" to him. Even Baptists don’t claim their practice of
"dedicating" babies does this. The fact is, the Bible gives us no way
of bringing anyone to Jesus apart from baptism.
Thus Peter declared, "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the
name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the
gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children"
(Acts 2:38–39).
The apostolic Church baptized whole "households" (Acts 16:33; 1 Cor.
1:16), a term encompassing children and infants as well as servants. While these
texts do not specifically mention—nor exclude—infants, the very use of the
term "households" indicates an understanding of the family as a unit.
Even one believing parent in a household makes the children and even the
unbelieving spouse "holy" (1 Cor. 7:14).
Does this mean unbelieving spouses should be baptized? Of course not. The
kingdom of God is not theirs; they cannot be "brought to Christ" in
their unbelief. But infants have no such impediment. The kingdom is theirs,
Jesus says, and they should be brought to him; and this means baptism.
Baptism is the Christian equivalent of circumcision, or "the circumcision
of Christ": "In him you were also circumcised with . . . the
circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with
him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead"
(Col. 2:11–12). Thus, like circumcision, baptism can be given to children as
well as adults. The difference is that circumcision was powerless to save (Gal.
5:6, 6:15), but "[b]aptism . . . now saves you" (1 Pet. 3:21).
The first explicit evidence of children of believing households being
baptized comes from the early Church—where infant baptism was uniformly
upheld and regarded as apostolic. In fact, the only reported controversy on the
subject was a third-century debate whether or not to delay baptism until the
eighth day after birth, like its Old Testament equivalent, circumcision! (See
quotation from Cyprian, below; compare Leviticus 12:2–3.)
Consider, too, that Fathers raised in Christian homes (such as Irenaeus) would
hardly have upheld infant baptism as apostolic if their own baptisms had been
deferred until the age of reason.
For example, infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus’ writings below (since he
affirms both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also that Jesus came so
even infants could be regenerated). Since he was born in a Christian home in
Smyrna around the year 140, this means he was probably baptized around 140. He
was also probably baptized by the bishop of Smyrna at that time—Polycarp, a
personal disciple of the apostle John, who had died only a few decades before.
Irenaeus
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him
are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he
passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a
child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he
might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the
setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against
Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs.
5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy,
was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us.
For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and
the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually
regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be
born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of
heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).
Hippolytus
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them
do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The
Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Origen
"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness
and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and,
according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there
were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them
pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies
on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even
to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine
sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which
must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on
Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they
ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that
the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did
not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after
his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the
course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy
and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2
[A.D. 253]).
"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much
against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is
granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then,
should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done
no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the
contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does
he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because
the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).
Gregory of Nazianz
"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the
infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be
consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the
weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little
faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).
"‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but
what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of
loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there
is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they
depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28).
John Chrysostom
"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly
grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors
[it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not
defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness,
righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may
be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against
Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).
Augustine
"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils
but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed
down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the
celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing
to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to
respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).
"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be
scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be
believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal
Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
"Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid
belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not
be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with
certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon
as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).
"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s]
body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom
all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to
believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an
excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation
and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this
derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which
the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at
the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the
kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of
Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should
themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of
baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness
and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34;
2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).
Council of Carthage V
"Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable
witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children]
were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their
tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all
such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should
deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North
African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children]
from the barbarians" (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).
Council of Mileum II
"[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to
be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins,
but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the
bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the
apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death
through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12],
must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has
always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in
themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly
baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted
from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (Canon 3 [A.D.
416]).
Although Latin-rite Catholics are usually baptized by infusion (pouring), they
know that immersion (dunking) and sprinkling are also valid ways to baptize.
Fundamentalists, however, regard only baptism by immersion as true baptism,
concluding that most Catholics are not validly baptized at all.
Although the New Testament contains no explicit instructions on how physically
to administer the water of baptism, Fundamentalists argue that the Greek word baptizo
found in the New Testament means "to immerse." They also maintain that
only immersion reflects the symbolic significance of being "buried"
and "raised" with Christ (see Romans 6:3-4).
It is true that baptizo often means immersion. For example, the Greek
version of the Old Testament tells us that Naaman, at Elisha’s direction,
"went down and dipped himself [the Greek word here is baptizo]
seven times in the Jordan" (2 Kgs. 5:14, Septuagint, emphasis
added).
But immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means
washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s
house, "[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo]
before dinner." No one in ancient Israel practiced immersion before dinner,
but the Pharisees "do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands,
observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place,
they do not eat unless they wash themselves [baptizo]" (Mark
7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual
washing as well as immersion.
A similar range of meanings can be seen when baptizo is used
metaphorically. Sometimes a figurative "baptism" is a sort of
"immersion"; but not always. For example, speaking of his future
suffering and death, Jesus said, "I have a baptism [baptisma] to be
baptized [baptizo] with; and how I am constrained until it is
accomplished!" (Luke 12:50) This might suggest that Christ would be
"immersed" in suffering. On the other hand, consider the case of being
"baptized with the Holy Spirit."
In Acts 1:4–5 Jesus charged his disciples "not to depart from Jerusalem,
but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, ‘you heard from me,
for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with
the Holy Spirit.’" Did this mean they would be "immersed" in
the Spirit? No: three times Acts 2 states that the Holy Spirit was poured out
on them when Pentecost came (2:17, 18, 33, emphasis added). Later Peter referred
to the Spirit falling upon them, and also on others after Pentecost,
explicitly identifying these events with the promise of being "baptized
with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 11:15–17). These passages demonstrate that
the meaning of baptizo is broad enough to include "pouring."
Christian Baptism
The Fundamentalist contention that baptizo always means immersion is an
oversimplification. This is especially true because in Christian usage the word
had a highly particular meaning distinct from the term’s ordinary, everyday
usage.
The same principle can be seen with other special Christian terms, such as
"Trinity" and "agape" (divine love), that were
originally ordinary Greek words with no special religious significance. The
earliest evidence of anyone referring to God as a "Trinity" is a
letter by Theophilus of Antioch (Ad Autolycum [A.D. 181]). Before
the Christian usage, a "trinity" (triad in Greek) was simply
any group of three things.
However, as Christians made theological use of the term, it quickly gained a
new, technical sense, referring specifically to the three persons of the
Godhead. When Christians professed that God is a "Triad," they did not
mean a group of three gods, but one God in three persons. Here, an everyday word
was being used in a special, theological sense.
The same is true of agape, originally a general term for any sort of
"love" very much like the English word. Greek had other, more specific
terms for particular kinds of love, such as philia (friendship), eros
(sexual love), and storge (affection); but early Christians quickly found
that there was no adequate term for the divine love revealed by Jesus and
infused into their own hearts. By default they began using agape, which
then came to mean divine love specifically and lost its original sense of love
generally.
In the same way, baptizo acquired a specialized Christian usage distinct
from its original meaning. In fact, it already had a complex history of
specifically religious usages even before Christians adopted it. Long before
Jesus’ day, Gentile converts to Judaism were "baptized" as well as
circumcised. Then John the Baptist performed a "baptism of repentance"
for Jews as a dramatic prophetic gesture indicating that they were as much in
need of conversion as pagans. Through these usages baptizo acquired
associations of initiation, conversion, and repentance.
Given this history, it was natural for Jesus and his followers to use the same
word for Christian baptism, though it was not identical either to the Jewish
baptism or to that of John. But it is completely misguided to try to determine
the meaning of the word in its Christian sense merely on the basis of ordinary
secular usage. It would be like thinking that the doctrine of the Trinity is
polytheism or that the New Testament exhortation to "love one another"
means only to be fond of each other. To understand what Christian baptism
entailed, we must examine not what the word meant in other contexts, but what it
meant and how it was practiced in a Christian context.
Inner and Outer Baptism
One important aspect of Christian baptism in the New Testament is the clear
relationship between being baptized with water and being "baptized with the
Holy Spirit", or "born again." This tract is primarily concerned
with the mode of baptism, not its effects [Footnote: For more on
the relationship between baptism and rebirth, see John 3:5; Acts 2:38, 19:2–3,
22:16; Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:11–12; Titus 3:5; and 1 Peter 3:21; and also
the Catholic Answers tract Baptismal Grace.]; but even non-Catholic
Christians must admit that the New Testament clearly associates water baptism
with Spirit baptism and rebirth (even if they do not interpret this relationship
as cause and effect).
Right from the beginning, as soon as the Holy Spirit was given on Pentecost,
water and Spirit went hand in hand: "Repent, and be baptized every one of
you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). (Before that time, the
Spirit had not yet been given; that is why the apostles themselves did not
receive Spirit baptism at the time of their water baptism.)
In Acts 10:44, the first Gentiles to whom Peter preached received the Holy
Spirit even before their water baptism. This is always possible, for God is free
to operate outside the sacraments as well as within them. In this case it was
fitting for the Spirit to be given before baptism, in order to show God’s
acceptance of believing Gentiles. Even under these circumstances, however, the
connection to water baptism is still evident from Peter’s response: "Can
anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy
Spirit just as we have?" (Acts 10:47).
Still later in Acts, when Paul found people who did not have the Spirit, he
immediately questioned whether they had received Christian water baptism. Upon
learning that they had not, he baptized them and laid hands on them, and they
received the Spirit (Acts 19:1–6).
These passages illustrate the connection between water and Spirit first made by
Jesus himself: "Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot
enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).
Earlier we saw that the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" was depicted as
"pouring." But these passages show that the "baptism" or
"pouring" of the Spirit is itself closely related to water baptism.
This provides some balance to the Fundamentalist argument that only baptism by
immersion adequately symbolizes death and resurrection with Jesus. It is true
that immersion best represents death and resurrection, bringing out more
fully the meaning of the sacrament than pouring or sprinkling (cf. Catechism
of the Catholic Church 1239). (Immersion is actually the usual mode of
baptizing in the Catholic Church’s Eastern rites.) On the other hand, pouring
best represents the infusion of the Holy Spirit also associated with
water baptism. And all three modes adequately suggest the sense of cleansing
signified by baptism. No one mode has exclusive symbolical validity over the
others.
Physical Difficulties
Paul was baptized in a house. In fact, he was baptized standing up (Acts
9:17–18). When Ananias came to baptize him, he said, "And now why do you
wait? Rise [literally, "stand up"] and be baptized, and wash away your
sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16).
After Peter’s first sermon, three thousand people were baptized in Jerusalem
(Acts 2:41). Archaeologists have demonstrated there was no sufficient water
supply for so many to have been immersed. Even if there had been, the natives of
Jerusalem would scarcely have let their city’s water supply be polluted by
three thousand unwashed bodies plunging into it. These people must have been
baptized by pouring or sprinkling.
Even today practical difficulties can render immersion nearly or entirely
impossible for some individuals: for example, people with certain medical
conditions—the bedridden; quadriplegics; individuals with tracheotomies (an
opening into the airway in the throat) or in negative pressure ventilators (iron
lungs). Again, those who have recently undergone certain procedures (such as
open-heart surgery) cannot be immersed, and may not wish to defer baptism until
their recovery (for example, if they are to undergo further procedures).
Other difficulties arise in certain environments. For example, immersion may be
nearly or entirely impossible for desert nomads or Eskimos. Or consider those in
prison—not in America, where religious freedom gives prisoners the right to be
immersed if they desire—but in a more hostile setting, such as a Muslim
regime, where baptisms must be done in secret, without adequate water for
immersion.
What are we to do in these and similar cases? Shall we deny people the sacrament
because immersion is impractical or impossible for them? Ironically, the
Fundamentalist, who acknowledges that baptism is commanded but thinks it isn’t
essential for salvation, may make it impossible for many people to be baptized
at all in obedience to God’s command. The Catholic, who believes baptism
confers grace and is normatively necessary for salvation, maintains that God
wouldn’t require a form of baptism that, for some people, is impossible.
Baptism in the Early Church
That the early Church permitted pouring instead of immersion is demonstrated by
the Didache, a Syrian liturgical manual that was widely circulated among
the churches in the first few centuries of Christianity, perhaps the earliest
Christian writing outside the New Testament.
The Didache was written around A.D. 70 and, though not inspired, is a
strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age.
In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, "Concerning baptism,
baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that
is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in
other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have
neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit." These instructions were composed either while some of the
apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of
Christians, and they represent an already established custom.
The testimony of the Didache is seconded by other early Christian
writings. Hippolytus of Rome said, "If water is scarce, whether as a
constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available" (The
Apostolic Tradition, 21 [A.D. 215]). Pope Cornelius I wrote that as Novatian
was about to die, "he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by
pouring" (Letter to Fabius of Antioch [A.D. 251]; cited in Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History, 6:4311).
Cyprian advised that no one should be "disturbed because the sick are
poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace" (Letter
to a Certain Magnus 69:12 [A.D. 255]). Tertullian described baptism by
saying that it is done "with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any
considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is
baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and
then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner" (On Baptism,
2 [A.D. 203]). Obviously, Tertullian did not consider baptism by immersion the
only valid form, since he says one is only sprinkled and thus comes up from the
water "not much (or not at all) the cleaner."
Ancient Christian Mosaics Show Pouring
Then there is the artistic evidence. Much of the earliest Christian artwork
depicts baptism—but not baptism by immersion! If the recipient of the
sacrament is in a river, he is always shown standing in the river while water is
poured over his head from a cup or shell. Tile mosaics in ancient churches,
paintings in the catacombs, designs on ordinary household objects like cups and
spoons, engravings on marble—it is always baptism by pouring. Baptisteries in
early cemeteries are clear witnesses to baptisms by infusion. The entire record
of the early Church—as shown in the New Testament, in other writings, and in
monumental evidence—indicates the mode of baptism was not restricted to
immersion.
Other archaeological evidence confirms the same thing. An early Christian
baptistery was found in a church in Jesus’ hometown of Nazareth, yet this
baptistery, which dates from the second century, was too small and narrow in
which to immerse a person.
Few truths are so clearly taught in the New Testament as the doctrine that in
baptism God gives us grace. Again and again the sacred writers tell us that it
is in baptism that we are saved, buried with Christ, incorporated into his body,
washed of our sins, regenerated, cleansed, and so on (see Acts 2:38, 22:16; Rom.
6:1–4; 1 Cor. 6:11, 12:13; Gal. 3:26–27; Eph. 5:25-27; Col. 2:11–12; Titus
3:5; 1 Pet. 3:18–22). They are unanimous in speaking of baptism in invariably efficient
terms, as really bringing about a spiritual effect.
Despite this wealth of evidence, Protestants are almost equally unanimous in
rejecting this truth. In general Protestants regard baptism as something like an
ordinance: an observance that does not itself bring about any spiritual effect
but merely represents that effect. Its observance may be required by obedience,
but it is not necessary in any further sense—certainly not for salvation.
This view requires Protestants to explain away all the New Testament
passages on the nature of baptism as figurative language. It is not baptism
itself, they assert, but what baptism represents, that really saves us.
Yet the language of the New Testament on this point is so uniform that they
cannot even dredge up a couple of "proof-texts" on baptism to support
this view or their figurative reading of all the other passages.
There is one text that Protestants occasionally mention. In 1 Corinthians
1:14–17 Paul wrote that he was glad that he himself had baptized so few of the
Corinthians, since they could not say that they were baptized in his name; and
he went on to say, "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the
gospel. . . ."
Needless to say, this passage doesn’t say anything about baptism only
representing spiritual realities, or not really saving. It doesn’t say
anything about how those who accepted Paul’s preaching of the gospel were then
saved. Paul didn’t write, "For I was not sent to baptize but to pray with
people to accept Jesus as their personal Savior" (or even "to lead
people to faith"). Paul didn’t pit faith against baptism.
Nor did he pit preaching against baptism. He would hardly have contradicted the
great commission in Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit." Paul’s point was not that God didn’t want him to baptize, only
that preaching was the driving force of his evangelistic ministry.
In short, Paul’s remark doesn’t remotely support the Protestant view of
baptism, or justify a figurative interpretation of all the other passages. Yet
this is the closest thing to a Protestant proof-text!
The early Fathers were equally unanimous in affirming baptism as a means of
grace. They all recognized the Bible’s teaching that "[In the ark] a few,
that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which
corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the
body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of
Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:20–21, emphasis added).
Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, "From the
beginning baptism was the
universally accepted rite of admission to the Church. . . . As regards its
significance, it was always held to convey the remission of sins . . . we
descend into the water ‘dead’ and come out again ‘alive’; we receive a
white robe which symbolizes the Spirit . . .the Spirit is God himself dwelling
in the believer, and the resulting life is a re-creation. Prior to baptism . . .
our heart was the abode of demons . . . [but] baptism supplies us with the
weapons for our spiritual warfare" (Early Christian Doctrines,
193–4).
The Letter of Barnabas
"Regarding [baptism], we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would
refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set
up a substitution of their own instead [Ps. 1:3–6]. Observe there how he
describes both the water and the cross in the same figure. His meaning is,
‘Blessed are those who go down into the water with their hopes set on the
cross.’ Here he is saying that after we have stepped down into the water,
burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it bearing fruit, with
reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls" (Letter of
Barnabas 11:1–10 [A.D. 74]).
Hermas
"‘I have heard, sir,’ said I, ‘from some teacher, that there is no
other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water
and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have
heard rightly, for so it is’" (The Shepherd 4:3:1–2 [A.D. 80]).
Ignatius of Antioch
"Let none of you turn deserter. Let your baptism be your armor; your faith,
your helmet; your love, your spear; your patient endurance, your panoply" (Letter
to Polycarp 6 [A.D. 110]).
Second Clement
"For, if we do the will of Christ, we shall find rest; but if otherwise,
then nothing shall deliver us from eternal punishment, if we should disobey his
commandments. . . . [W]ith what confidence shall we, if we keep not our baptism
pure and undefiled, enter into the kingdom of God? Or who shall be our advocate,
unless we be found having holy and righteous works?’ (Second Clement
6:7–9 [A.D. 150]).
Justin Martyr
"Whoever are convinced and believe that what they are taught and told by us
is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to
pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while
we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is
water, and they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves
were reborn: ‘In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our
Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit,’ they receive the washing of
water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter the kingdom
of heaven’" (First Apology 61:14–17 [A.D. 151]).
Theophilus of Antioch
"Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed by
God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time receive
repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of
regeneration—all who proceed to the truth and are born again and receive a
blessing from God" (To Autolycus 12:16 [A.D. 181]).
Clement of Alexandria
"When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are
adopted as sons. Adopted as sons, we are made perfect. Made perfect, we become
immortal . . . ‘and sons of the Most High’ [Ps. 82:6]. This work is
variously called grace, illumination, perfection, and washing. It is a washing
by which we are cleansed of sins, a gift of grace by which the punishments due
our sins are remitted, an illumination by which we behold that holy light of
salvation" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:26:1 [A.D. 191]).
Tertullian
"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our
early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [But] a
viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has
carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first
aim to destroy baptism—which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers
and asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But
we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born
in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in
water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound
doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes—by taking them away
from the water!" (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).
...
"Baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged into the water,
while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from our sins" (ibid.,
7:2).
Hippolytus
"And the bishop shall lay his hand upon them [the newly baptized], invoking
and saying: ‘O Lord God, who did count these worthy of deserving the
forgiveness of sins by the laver of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled
with your Holy Spirit and send upon them thy grace [in confirmation], that they
may serve you according to your will" (The Apostolic Tradition 22:1
[A.D. 215]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"While I was lying in darkness . . . I thought it indeed difficult and hard
to believe . . . that divine mercy was promised for my salvation, so that anyone
might be born again and quickened unto a new life by the laver of the saving
water, he might put off what he had been before, and, although the structure of
the body remained, he might change himself in soul and mind. . . . But
afterwards, when the stain of my past life had been washed away by means of the
water of rebirth, a light from above poured itself upon my chastened and now
pure heart; afterwards, through the Spirit which is breathed from heaven, a
second birth made of me a new man" (To Donatus 3–4 [A.D. 246]).
Aphraahat the Persian Sage
"From baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ. At that same moment in which
the priests invoke the Spirit, heaven opens, and he descends and rests upon the
waters, and those who are baptized are clothed in him. The Spirit is absent from
all those who are born of the flesh, until they come to the water of rebirth,
and then they receive the Holy Spirit. . . . [I]n the second birth, that through
baptism, they receive the Holy Spirit" (Treatises 6:14:4 [A.D.
340]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only
exception is the martyrs, who, even without water, will receive baptism, for the
Savior calls martyrdom a baptism [Mark 10:38]. . . . Bearing your sins, you go
down into the water; but the calling down of grace seals your soul and does not
permit that you afterwards be swallowed up by the fearsome dragon. You go down
dead in your sins, and you come up made alive in righteousness" (Catechetical
Lectures 3:10, 12 [A.D. 350]).
Basil the Great
"For prisoners, baptism is ransom, forgiveness of debts, the death of sin,
regeneration of the soul, a resplendent garment, an unbreakable seal, a chariot
to heaven, a royal protector, a gift of adoption" (Sermons on Moral and
Practical Subjects 13:5 [A.D. 379]).
Council of Constantinople I
"We believe . . . in one baptism for the remission of sins" (Nicene
Creed [A.D. 381]).
Ambrose of Milan
"The Lord was baptized, not to be cleansed himself but to cleanse the
waters, so that those waters, cleansed by the flesh of Christ which knew no sin,
might have the power of baptism. Whoever comes, therefore, to the washing of
Christ lays aside his sins" (Commentary on Luke 2:83 [A.D. 389]).
Augustine
"It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call
baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s body nothing else than life.
Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic
tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism
and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to
attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is
the witness of Scripture too" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin,
and the Baptism of Infants 1:24:34 [A.D. 412]).
"The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of
regeneration" (ibid., 2:27:43).
"Baptism washes away all, absolutely all, our sins, whether of deed, word,
or thought, whether sins original or added, whether knowingly or unknowingly
contracted" (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 3:3:5 [A.D. 420]).
"This is the meaning of the great sacrament of baptism, which is celebrated
among us: all who attain to this grace die thereby to sin—as he himself
[Jesus] is said to have died to sin because he died in the flesh (that is, ‘in
the likeness of sin’)—and they are thereby alive by being reborn in the
baptismal font, just as he rose again from the sepulcher. This is the case no
matter what the age of the body. For whether it be a newborn infant or a
decrepit old man—since no one should be barred from baptism—just so, there
is no one who does not die to sin in baptism. Infants die to original sin only;
adults, to all those sins which they have added, through their evil living, to
the burden they brought with them at birth" (Handbook on Faith, Hope,
and Love 13[41] [A.D. 421]).
One key Scripture reference to being "born again" or
"regenerated" is John 3:5, where Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say
to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom
of God."
This verse is so important that those who say baptism is just a symbol must deny
that Jesus here refers to baptism. "Born again" Christians claim the
"water" is the preached word of God.
But the early Christians uniformly identified this verse with baptism. Water
baptism is the way, they said, that we are born again and receive new life—a
fact that is supported elsewhere in Scripture (Rom. 6:3–4; Col. 2:12–13;
Titus 3:5).
No Church Father referred to John 3:5 as anything other than water baptism.
Justin Martyr
"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and
say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and 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 of our Savior Jesus
Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with
water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter
into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D.
151]).
Irenaeus
"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs.
5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy,
was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us.
For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and
the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually
regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be
born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of
heaven’" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).
Tertullian
"[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the
declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he
shall not have life’" (Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).
Hippolytus
"The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world,
who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and he,
begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the Spirit
of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has
become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the
Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also
joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. Wherefore I preach
to this effect: Come, all ye kindreds of the nations, to the immortality of the
baptism" (Discourse on the Holy Theophany 8 [A.D. 217]).
The Recognitions of Clement
"But you will perhaps say, ‘What does the baptism of water contribute
toward the worship of God?’ In the first place, because that which has pleased
God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born
again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have
through men, is cut off, and so . . . you shall be able to attain salvation; but
otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true prophet [Jesus] testified to
us with an oath: ‘Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of
water . . . he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (The
Recognitions of Clement 6:9 [A.D. 221]).
Testimonies Concerning the Jews
"That unless a man have been baptized and born again, he cannot attain unto
the kingdom of God. In the Gospel according to John: ‘Except a man be born
again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ [John
3:5]. . . . Also in the same place: ‘Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of
man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you’ [John 6:53]. That it
is of small account to be baptized and to receive the Eucharist, unless one
profit by it both in deeds and works" (Testimonies Concerning the Jews 3:2:25–26
[A.D. 240]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"[When] they receive also the baptism of the Church . . . then finally can
they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God . . . since it is written,
‘Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into
the kingdom of God’" (Letters 71[72]:1 [A.D. 253]).
Council of Carthage VII
"And in the gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with his divine voice,
saying, ‘Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter
the kingdom of God.’ . . . Unless therefore they receive saving baptism in the
Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with
the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ" (Seventh Carthage [A.D.
256]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"Since man is of a twofold nature, composed of body and soul, the
purification also is twofold: the corporeal for the corporeal and the
incorporeal for the incorporeal. The water cleanses the body, and the Spirit
seals the soul. . . . When you go down into the water, then, regard not simply
the water, but look for salvation through the power of the Spirit. For without
both you cannot attain to perfection. It is not I who says this, but the Lord
Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter. And he says, ‘Unless a man be
born again,’ and he adds the words ‘of water and of the Spirit,’ ‘he
cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ He that is baptized with water, but is not
found worthy of the Spirit, does not receive the grace in perfection. Nor, if a
man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the
water, shall he enter the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine; for it
is Jesus who has declared it" (Catechetical Lectures 3:4 [A.D.
350]).
Athanasius
"[A]s we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being regenerated from
above of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all quickened" (Four
Discourses Against the Arians 3:26[33] [A.D. 360]).
Basil the Great
"This then is what it means to be ‘born again of water and Spirit’:
Just as our dying is effected in the water [Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:12–13], our
living is wrought through the Spirit. In three immersions and an equal number of
invocations the great mystery of baptism is completed in such a way that the
type of death may be shown figuratively, and that by the handing on of divine
knowledge the souls of the baptized may be illuminated. If, therefore, there is
any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water, but from the
Spirit’s presence there" (The Holy Spirit 15:35 [A.D. 375]).
Ambrose of Milan
"Although we are baptized with water and the Spirit, the latter is much
superior to the former, and is not therefore to be separated from the Father and
the Son. There are, however, many who, because we are baptized with water and
the Spirit, think that there is no difference in the offices of water and the
Spirit, and therefore think that they do not differ in nature. Nor do they
observe that we are buried in the element of water that we may rise again
renewed by the Spirit. For in the water is the representation of death, in the
Spirit is the pledge of life, that the body of sin may die through the water,
which encloses the body as it were in a kind of tomb, that we, by the power of
the Spirit, may be renewed from the death of sin, being born again in God"
(The Holy Spirit 1:6[75–76] [A.D. 381]).
"The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it
makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his
sins [in baptism (Col. 2:11–12)] so that he can be saved . . . for no one
ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism.
. . . ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot
enter the kingdom of God’" (Abraham 2:11:79–84 [A.D. 387]).
"You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in baptism are one:
water, blood, and the Spirit (1 John 5:8): And if you withdraw any one of these,
the sacrament of baptism is not valid. For what is the water without the cross
of Christ? A common element with no sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is
there any mystery of regeneration without water, for ‘unless a man be born
again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’" (The
Mysteries 4:20 [A.D. 390]).
Gregory of Nyssa
"[In] the birth by water and the Spirit, [Jesus] himself led the way in
this birth, drawing down upon the water, by his own baptism, the Holy Spirit; so
that in all things he became the firstborn of those who are spiritually born
again, and gave the name of brethren to those who partook in a birth like to his
own by water and the Spirit" (Against Eunomius 2:8 [A.D. 382]).
John Chrysostom
"[N]o one can enter into the kingdom of heaven except he be regenerated
through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and
drink his blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are
accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest,
how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win
those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? These [priests] truly are
they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth which
comes through baptism: by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the
Son of God, and become members of that blessed head [the Mystical Body of
Christ]" (The Priesthood 3:5–6 [A.D. 387]).
Gregory of Nazianz
"Such is the grace and power of baptism; not an overwhelming of the world
as of old, but a purification of the sins of each individual, and a complete
cleansing from all the bruises and stains of sin. And since we are double-made,
I mean of body and soul, and the one part is visible, the other invisible, so
the cleansing also is twofold, by water and the Spirit; the one received visibly
in the body, the other concurring with it invisibly and apart from the body; the
one typical, the other real and cleansing the depths" (Oration on Holy
Baptism 7–8 [A.D. 388]).
The Apostolic Constitutions
"Be ye likewise contented with one baptism alone, that which is into the
death of the Lord [Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:12–13]. . . . [H]e that out of contempt
will not be baptized shall be condemned as an unbeliever and shall be reproached
as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says, ‘Except a man be baptized of
water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of
heaven.’ And again, ‘He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he
that believes not shall be damned’" [Mark 16:16] (Apostolic
Constitutions 6:3:15 [A.D. 400]).
Augustine
"It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be
regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this
one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written,
‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or ‘by the faith
of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but, ‘Unless a man be born
again of water and the Holy Spirit.’ The water, therefore, manifesting
exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the
benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in
Adam" (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 412]).
"Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die
for the confession of Christ—it avails them just as much for the forgiveness
of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism. For he
that said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter
the kingdom of heaven,’ made an exception for them in that other statement in
which he says no less generally, ‘Whoever confesses me before men, I too will
confess him before my Father, who is in heaven’" [Matt. 10:32] (The
City of God 13:7 [A.D. 419]).
For a sacrament to be valid, three things have to be present: the correct form,
the correct matter, and the correct intention. With baptism, the correct
intention is to do what the Church does, the correct matter is water, and the
correct form is the baptizing "in the name of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).
Unfortunately, not all religious organizations use this form. In fact,
Jehovah’s Witnesses sometimes use no formula at all in their baptisms, and an
even larger group, the "Jesus Only" Pentecostals, baptize "in the
name of Jesus." As a result, the baptisms of these groups are invalid;
thus, they are not Christian, but pseudo-Christian.
Both groups also reject the Trinity. Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that Jesus is
not God, a heresy known as Arianism (after its fourth-century founder), and the
"Jesus Only" Pentecostals claim that there is only a single person,
Jesus, in the Godhead, a heresy known as Sabellianism (after its inventor in the
third century; see the Catholic Answers tract, God in Three Persons).
"Jesus Only" Pentecostals note that Jesus told the apostles to baptize
in "the name" (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the
Spirit, but they make the mistake of assuming that name is Jesus. In
reality, the single name shared by the three is almost certainly Yahweh (the
personal name of God in the Bible).
This name is applied to both the Father and the Son in the New Testament. In
Acts 2:34–36, Peter quotes Psalm 110:1, applying the term "Lord" to
the Father, but in the Old Testament original, the term "Lord" is
actually Yahweh.
In Philippians 2:10–11, Paul quotes Isaiah 45:19–24, applying a prophecy
about the Lord to the Son. And in the Old Testament original, the term
"Lord" in this passage is actually Yahweh. Jesus also applied
the name Yahweh ("I Am") to himself in John 8:58, and his
audience understood exactly what he meant and tried to stone him for claiming
equality with God.
Since the Bible applies the name Yahweh to the Father and the Son, it is
almost certainly possessed by the Spirit, and thus is a name of all three
persons of the Trinity.
"Jesus Only" Pentecostals also argue that the New Testament talks
about people being baptized "in the name of Jesus," but there are only
four such passages (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5). Further, these passages
do not use the same designation in each place (some say "Lord Jesus,"
other say "Jesus Christ"), indicating that they were not technical
formulas used in the baptism but simply descriptions by Luke. These four
descriptions are not to be considered as a substitute for or contradiction of
the divine command of the Lord Jesus Christ to: "make disciples of all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).
Rather, the phrase "baptized in the name of Jesus" is simply Luke’s
way to distinguish Christian baptism from other baptisms of the period, such as
John’s baptism (which Luke mentions in Acts 1:5, 22, 10:37, 11:16, 13:24,
18:25, 19:4), Jewish proselyte baptism, and the baptisms of pagan cults (such as
Mithraism). It also indicates the person into whose Mystical Body baptism
incorporates us (Rom. 6:3).
The early Church Fathers, of course, agreed. As the following quotes illustrate,
Christians have from the beginning recognized that the correct form of baptism
requires one to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Spirit."
The Didache
"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no
living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then
in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one
baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able.
Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two
days" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).
Tatian the Syrian
"Then said Jesus unto them, ‘I have been given all authority in heaven
and earth; and as my Father has sent me, so I also send you. Go now into all the
world, and preach my gospel in all the creation; and teach all the peoples, and
baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and
teach them to keep all whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you all the
days, unto the end of the world’ [Matt. 28:18-20]" (The Diatesseron 55
[A.D. 170]).
Hippolytus
"When the one being baptized goes down into the water, the one baptizing
him shall put his hand on him and speak thus: ‘Do you believe in God, the
Father Almighty?’ And he that is being baptized shall say: ‘I believe.’
Then, having his hand imposed upon the head of the one to be baptized, he shall
baptize him once. Then he shall say: ‘Do you believe in Christ Jesus . . .
?’ And when he says: ‘I believe,’ he is baptized again. Again shall he
say: ‘Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the holy Church and the
resurrection of the flesh?’ The one being baptized then says: ‘I believe.’
And so he is baptized a third time" (The Apostolic Tradition 21
[A.D. 215]).
Tertullian
"After his resurrection he promises in a pledge to his disciples that he
will send them the promise of his Father; and lastly, he commands them to
baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal
God. And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into
the three persons, at each several mention of their names" (Against
Praxeas 26 [A.D. 216]).
Origen
"Why, when the Lord himself told his disciples that they should baptize all
peoples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, does
this apostle [Paul] employ the name of Christ alone in baptism, saying, ‘We
who have been baptized into Christ’; for indeed, legitimate baptism is had
only in the name of the Trinity" (Commentary on Romans 5:8 [A.D.
248]).
The Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena
"Then Probus . . . leapt into the water, saying, ‘Jesus Christ, Son of
God, and everlasting God, let all my sins be taken away by this water.’ And
Paul said, ‘We baptize thee in the name of the Father and Son and Holy
Ghost.’ After this he made him to receive the Eucharist of Christ" (Acts
of Xantippe and Polyxena 21 [A.D. 250]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"He [Jesus] commanded them to baptize the Gentiles in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. How then do some say that though a
Gentile be baptized . . . never mind how or of whom, so long as it be done in
the name of Jesus Christ, the remission of sins can follow—when Christ himself
commands the nations to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?" (Letters
73:18 [A.D. 253]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
"We believe . . . each of these to be and to exist: the Father, truly
Father, and the Son, truly Son, and the Holy Ghost, truly Holy Ghost, as also
our Lord, sending forth his disciples for the preaching, said, ‘Go teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost.’ Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we
think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death,
anathematizing every godless heresy" (Letter to the People of His
Diocese 3 [A.D. 323]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"You were led by the hand to the holy pool of divine baptism, as Christ was
carried from the cross to this sepulcher here before us [the tomb of Jesus at
Jerusalem]. And each of you was asked if he believed in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And you confessed that saving
confession, and descended three times into the water, and again ascended, and in
this there was suggested by a symbol the three days of Christ’s burial" (Catechetical
Lectures 20:4 [A.D. 350]).
Athanasius
"And the whole faith is summed up, and secured in this, that a Trinity
should ever be preserved, as we read in the Gospel, ‘Go ye and baptize all the
nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost’ (Matt.
28:19). And entire and perfect is the number of the Trinity (On the Councils
of Arminum and Seleucia 2:28 [A.D. 361]).
Basil the Great
"The Holy Spirit, too, is numbered with the Father and the Son, because he
is above creation, and is ranked as we are taught by the words of the Lord in
the Gospel, ‘Go and baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Ghost.’ He who, on the contrary, places the Spirit before the Son, or
alleges him to be older than the Father, resists the ordinance of God, and is a
stranger to the sound faith, since he fails to preserve the form of doxology
which he has received, but adopts some newfangled device in order to be pleasing
to men" (Letters 52:4 [A.D. 367]).
Ambrose of Milan
"Moreover, Christ himself says: ‘I and the Father are one.’ ‘One,’
said he, that there be no separation of power and nature; but again, ‘We
are,’ that you may recognize Father and Son, forasmuch as the perfect Father
is believed to have begotten the perfect Son, and the Father and the Son are
one, not by confusion of person, but by unity of nature. We say, then, that
there is one God, not two or three gods" (The Faith 1:1[9–10]
[A.D. 379]).
Gregory of Nazianz
"But not yet perhaps is there formed upon your soul any writing good or
bad; and you want to be written upon today. . . . I will baptize you and make
you a disciple in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost;
and these three have one common name, the Godhead. And you shall know, both by
appearances and by words that you reject all ungodliness, and are united to all
the Godhead" (Orations 40:45 [A.D. 380]).
Jerome
"[S]eeing that a man, baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and
the Holy Ghost, becomes a temple of the Lord, and that while the old abode is
destroyed a new shrine is built for the Trinity, how can you say that sins can
be remitted among the Arians without the coming of the Holy Ghost? How is a soul
purged from its former stains which has not the Holy Ghost?" (Dialogue
Against the Luciferians 6 [A.D. 382]).
Gregory of Nyssa
"And we, in receiving baptism . . . conceal ourselves in [the water] as the
Savior did in the earth: and by doing this thrice we represent for ourselves
that grace of the resurrection which was wrought in three days. And this we do,
not receiving the sacrament in silence, but while there are spoken over us the
names of the three sacred persons on whom we believed, in whom we also hope,
from whom comes to us both the fact of our present and the fact of our future
existence" (Sermon For the Day of Lights [A.D. 383]).
Augustine
"Baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost has
Christ for its authority, not any man, whoever he may be; and Christ is the
truth, not any man" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24 [57]
[A.D. 400]).
"O Lord our God, we believe in you, the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit. For the truth would not say, ‘Go, baptize all nations in the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,’ unless you were a
Trinity" (The Trinity 15:28[51] [A.D. 408]).
Theodoret of Cyr
"And what need is there of many words, when it is possible to refute
falsehood in few? We provide that those who year by year come up for holy
baptism should carefully learn the faith set forth at Nicaea by the holy and
blessed Fathers; and initiating them as we have been bidden, we baptize them in
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, pronouncing each
name singly" (Letters 145 [A.D. 444]).
Christians have always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares,
"Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but
as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus
Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).
Thus the early Church Fathers wrote in the Nicene Creed (A.D. 381), "We
believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."
And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The Lord himself
affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . Baptism is
necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who
have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament [Mark 16:16]" (CCC
1257).
The Christian belief that baptism is necessary for salvation is so unshakable
that even the Protestant Martin Luther affirmed the necessity of baptism. He
wrote: "Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself.
Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we
shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like
putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard
baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted" (Large Catechism 4:6).
Yet Christians have also always realized that the necessity of water baptism is
a normative rather than an absolute necessity. There are
exceptions to water baptism: It is possible to be saved through "baptism of
blood," martyrdom for Christ, or through "baptism of desire",
that is, a conscious or even unconscious desire for baptism.
Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Those who die for
the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the
Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive
to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" (CCC
1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system;
cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283).
As the following passages from the works of the Church Fathers illustrate,
Christians have always believed in the normative necessity of water baptism,
while also acknowledging the legitimacy of baptism by desire or blood.
Hermas
"‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher,
that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down
into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me,
‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’" (The Shepherd 4:3:1–2
[A.D. 80]).
Justin Martyr
"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and
say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . 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 Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then
receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Except you be born
again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]" (First
Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).
Tertullian
"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our
early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [But] a
viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has
carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first
aim to destroy baptism—which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers
and asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But
we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born
in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in
water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound
doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes—by taking them away
from the water!" (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).
"Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (ibid., 12).
"We have, indeed, a second [baptismal] font which is one with the former
[water baptism]: namely, that of blood, of which the Lord says: ‘I am to be
baptized with a baptism’ [Luke 12:50], when he had already been baptized. He
had come through water and blood, as John wrote [1 John 5:6], so that he might
be baptized with water and glorified with blood. . . . This is the baptism which
replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it
when it has been lost" (ibid., 16).
Hippolytus
"[P]erhaps someone will ask, ‘What does it conduce unto piety to be
baptized?’ In the first place, that you may do what has seemed good to God; in
the next place, being born again by water unto God so that you change your first
birth, which was from concupiscence, and are able to attain salvation, which
would otherwise be impossible. For thus the [prophet] has sworn to us: ‘Amen,
I say to you, unless you are born again with living water, into the name of the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’
Therefore, fly to the water, for this alone can extinguish the fire. He who will
not come to the water still carries around with him the spirit of insanity for
the sake of which he will not come to the living water for his own
salvation" (Homilies 11:26 [A.D. 217]).
Origen
"It is not possible to receive forgiveness of sins without baptism" (Exhortation
to the Martyrs 30 [A.D. 235]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"[T]he baptism of public witness [desire] and of blood cannot profit a
heretic unto salvation, because there is no salvation outside the Church."
(Letters 72[73]:21 [A.D. 253]).
"[Catechumens who suffer martyrdom] are not deprived of the sacrament of
baptism. Rather, they are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism
of blood, concerning which the Lord said that he had another baptism with which
he himself was to be baptized [Luke 12:50]" (ibid., 72[73]:22).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only
exception is the martyrs, who even without water will receive the kingdom.
. . . For the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism, saying, ‘Can you drink the cup
which I drink and be baptized with the baptism with which I am to be baptized
[Mark 10:38]?’ Indeed, the martyrs too confess, by being made a spectacle to
the world, both to angels and to men [1 Cor. 4:9]" (Catechetical
Lectures 3:10 [A.D. 350]).
Gregory Nazianz
"[Besides the baptisms associated with Moses, John, and Jesus] I know also
a fourth baptism, that by martyrdom and blood, by which also Christ himself was
baptized. This one is far more august than the others, since it cannot be
defiled by later sins" (Oration on the Holy Lights 39:17 [A.D.
381]).
Pope Siricius
"It would tend to the ruin of our souls if, from our refusal of the saving
font of baptism to those who seek it, any of them should depart this life and
lose the kingdom and eternal life" (Letter to Himerius 3 [A.D.
385]).
John Chrysostom
"Do not be surprised that I call martyrdom a baptism, for here too the
Spirit comes in great haste and there is the taking away of sins and a wonderful
and marvelous cleansing of the soul, and just as those being baptized are washed
in water, so too those being martyred are washed in their own blood" (Panegyric
on St. Lucian 2 [A.D. 387]).
Ambrose of Milan
"But I hear you lamenting because he [the Emperor Valentinian] had not
received the sacraments of baptism. Tell me, what else could we have, except the
will to it, the asking for it? He too had just now this desire, and after he
came into Italy it was begun, and a short time ago he signified that he wished
to be baptized by me. Did he, then, not have the grace which he desired? Did he
not have what he eagerly sought? Certainly, because he sought it, he received
it. What else does it mean: ‘Whatever just man shall be overtaken by death,
his soul shall be at rest [Wis. 4:7]’?" (Sympathy at the Death of
Valentinian [A.D. 392]).
Augustine
"There are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptism, in prayer,
and in the greater humility of penance; yet God does not forgive sins except to
the baptized" (Sermons to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15 [A.D. 395]).
"I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine
love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put
the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person. . . . For Cornelius,
even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44–48],
while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean
spirit [Acts 8:13–19]" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:21:28
[A.D. 400]).
"That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported
by a substantial argument which the same blessed Cyprian draws from the
circumstance of the thief, to whom, although not baptized, it was said, ‘Today
you shall be with me in paradise’ [Luke 23:43]. Considering this over and over
again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for that
which is lacking by way of baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart
[i.e., baptism of desire] if, perhaps, because of the circumstances of the time,
recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism"
(ibid., 4:22:29).
"When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the
position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body. . . . All who
are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark [by baptism
of desire]" (ibid., 5:28:39).
"[According to] apostolic tradition . . . the churches of Christ hold
inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is
impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation
and life eternal. This is the witness of Scripture too" (Forgiveness and
the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:24:34 [A.D. 412]).
"Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die
for the confession of Christ—it avails them just as much for the forgiveness
of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism. For he
that said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter
the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5], made an exception for them in that other
statement in which he says no less generally, ‘Whoever confesses me before
men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven’ [Matt.
10:32]" (The City of God 13:7 [A.D. 419]).
Pope Leo I
"And because of the transgression of the first man, the whole stock of the
human race was tainted; no one can be set free from the state of the old Adam
save through Christ’s sacrament of baptism, in which there are no distinctions
between the reborn, as the apostle [Paul] says, ‘For as many of you as were
baptized in Christ did put on Christ; there is neither Jew nor Greek . . . ‘
[Gal. 3:27–28]" (Letters 15:10[11] [A.D. 445]).
Fulgentius of Ruspe
"From that time at which our Savior said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of
water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5],
no one can, without the sacrament of baptism, except those who, in the Catholic
Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of
heaven and life eternal" (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).
Are all of our sins—past, present, and future—forgiven once and for all when
we become Christians? Not according to the Bible or the early Church Fathers.
Scripture nowhere states that our future sins are forgiven; instead, it teaches
us to pray, "And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our
debtors" (Matt. 6:12).
The means by which God forgives sins after baptism is confession: "If we
confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse
us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Minor or venial sins can be
confessed directly to God, but for grave or mortal sins, which crush the
spiritual life out of the soul, God has instituted a different means for
obtaining forgiveness—the sacrament known popularly as confession, penance, or
reconciliation.
This sacrament is rooted in the mission God gave to Christ in his capacity as
the Son of man on earth to go and forgive sins (cf. Matt. 9:6). Thus, the crowds
who witnessed this new power "glorified God, who had given such authority
to men" (Matt. 9:8; note the plural "men"). After his
resurrection, Jesus passed on his mission to forgive sins to his ministers,
telling them, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive
the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you
retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:21–23).
Since it is not possible to confess all of our many daily faults, we know that
sacramental reconciliation is required only for grave or mortal sins—but it is
required, or Christ would not have commanded it.
Over time, the forms in which the sacrament has been administered have changed.
In the early Church, publicly known sins (such as apostasy) were often confessed
openly in church, though private confession to a priest was always an option for
privately committed sins. Still, confession was not just something done in
silence to God alone, but something done "in church," as the Didache
(A.D. 70) indicates.
Penances also tended to be performed before rather than after absolution, and
they were much more strict than those of today (ten years’ penance for
abortion, for example, was common in the early Church).
But the basics of the sacrament have always been there, as the following
quotations reveal. Of special significance is their recognition that confession
and absolution must be received by a sinner before receiving Holy Communion, for
"[w]hoever . . . eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an
unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord"
(1 Cor. 11:27).
The Didache
"Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil
conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together,
break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your
sacrifice may be pure" (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).
The Letter of Barnabas
"You shall judge righteously. You shall not make a schism, but you shall
pacify those that contend by bringing them together. You shall confess your
sins. You shall not go to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of
light" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).
Ignatius of Antioch
"For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop.
And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the
Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus
Christ" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]).
"For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them
that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity
of God, and to communion with the bishop" (ibid., 8).
Irenaeus
"[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women. . . . Their
consciences have been branded as with a hot iron. Some of these women make a
public confession, but others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if
withdrawing from themselves the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize
entirely or hesitate between the two courses" (Against Heresies 1:22
[A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
"[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of
themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful
of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more
shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians;
and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness" (Repentance
10:1 [A.D. 203]).
Hippolytus
"[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Pour forth now that power which comes
from you, from your royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus
Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your
servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy
flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day
to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your
holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to
forgive sins, in accord with your command" (Apostolic Tradition 3
[A.D. 215]).
Origen
"[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the
remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from
declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the
manner of him who say, ‘I said, "To the Lord I will accuse myself of my
iniquity"’" (Homilies on Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"The apostle [Paul] likewise bears witness and says: ‘ . . . Whoever eats
the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body
and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. But [the impenitent] spurn and despise
all these warnings; before their sins are expiated, before they have made a
confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the
ceremony and at the hand of the priest . . . they do violence to [the Lord’s]
body and blood, and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more
than when they denied him" (The Lapsed 15:1–3 (A.D. 251]).
"Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who . . . confess
their sins to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow,
making an open declaration of conscience. . . . I beseech you, brethren, let
everyone who has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while
his confession is still admissible, while the satisfaction and remission made
through the priests are still pleasing before the Lord" (ibid., 28).
"[S]inners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of
discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the
bishop and clergy receive the right of Communion. [But now some] with their time
[of penance] still unfulfilled . . . they are admitted to Communion, and their
name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is
not yet made, the hands of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the
Eucharist is given to them; although it is written, ‘Whosoever shall eat the
bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and
blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]" (Letters 9:2 [A.D. 253]).
"And do not think, dearest brother, that either the courage of the brethren
will be lessened, or that martyrdoms will fail for this cause, that penance is
relaxed to the lapsed, and that the hope of peace [i.e., absolution] is offered
to the penitent. . . . For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by
us, and peace is given" (ibid., 51[55]:20).
"But I wonder that some are so obstinate as to think that repentance is not
to be granted to the lapsed, or to suppose that pardon is to be denied to the
penitent, when it is written, ‘Remember whence thou art fallen, and repent,
and do the first works’ [Rev. 2:5], which certainly is said to him who
evidently has fallen, and whom the Lord exhorts to rise up again by his deeds
[of penance], because it is written, ‘Alms deliver from death’ [Tob.
12:9]" (ibid., 51[55]:22).
Aphraahat the Persian Sage
"You [priests], then, who are disciples of our illustrious physician
[Christ], you ought not deny a curative to those in need of healing. And if
anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance. And he
that is ashamed to make known his weakness, encourage him so that he will not
hide it from you. And when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public,
lest because of it the innocent might be reckoned as guilty by our enemies and
by those who hate us" (Treatises 7:3 [A.D. 340]).
Basil the Great
"It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of
God’s mysteries is entrusted. Those doing penance of old are found to have
done it before the saints. It is written in the Gospel that they confessed their
sins to John the Baptist [Matt. 3:6], but in Acts [19:18] they confessed to the
apostles" (Rules Briefly Treated 288 [A.D. 374]).
John Chrysostom
"Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to
archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal
rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body.
Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and
transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven?
‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose
sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than
this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son
placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21–23]. They
are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven" (The
Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387]).
Ambrose of Milan
"For those to whom [the right of binding and loosing] has been given, it is
plain that either both are allowed, or it is clear that neither is allowed. Both
are allowed to the Church, neither is allowed to heresy. For this right has been
granted to priests only" (Penance 1:1 [A.D. 388]).
Jerome
"If the serpent, the devil, bites someone secretly, he infects that person
with the venom of sin. And if the one who has been bitten keeps silence and does
not do penance, and does not want to confess his wound . . . then his brother
and his master, who have the word [of absolution] that will cure him, cannot
very well assist him" (Commentary on Ecclesiastes 10:11 [A.D. 388]).
"We read in Leviticus about lepers, where they are ordered to show
themselves to the priests, and if they have leprosy, then they are to be
declared unclean by the priest. . . . Just as in the Old Testament the priest
makes the leper clean or unclean, so in the New Testament the bishop or
presbyter binds or looses not those who are innocent or guilty, but by reason of
their office, when they have heard various kinds of sins, they know who is to be
bound and who is to be loosed" (Commentary on Matthew 3:16:19 [A.D.
398]).
Augustine
"When you shall have been baptized, keep to a good life in the commandments
of God so that you may preserve your baptism to the very end. I do not tell you
that you will live here without sin, but they are venial sins which this life is
never without. Baptism was instituted for all sins. For light sins, without
which we cannot live, prayer was instituted. . . . But do not commit those sins
on account of which you would have to be separated from the body of Christ.
Perish the thought! For those whom you see doing penance have committed crimes,
either adultery or some other enormities. That is why they are doing penance. If
their sins were light, daily prayer would suffice to blot them out. . . . In the
Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptisms,
in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance" (Sermon to
Catechumens on the Creed 7:15, 8:16 [A.D. 395]).
All pardon for sins ultimately comes from Christ’s finished work on Calvary,
but how is this pardon received by individuals? Did Christ leave us any means
within the Church to take away sin? The Bible says he gave us two means.
Baptism was given to take away the sin inherited from Adam (original sin) and
any sins we personally committed before baptism—sins we personally commit are
called actual sins, because they come from our own acts. Thus on the day of
Pentecost, Peter told the crowds, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you
in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38), and when Paul was
baptized he was told, "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and
wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). And so Peter later
wrote, "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body
but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of
Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21).
For sins committed after baptism, a different sacrament is needed. It has been
called penance, confession, and reconciliation, each word emphasizing one of its
aspects. During his life, Christ forgave sins, as in the case of the woman
caught in adultery (John 8:1–11) and the woman who anointed his feet (Luke
7:48). He exercised this power in his human capacity as the Messiah or Son of
man, telling us, "the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive
sins" (Matt. 8:6), which is why the Gospel writer himself explains that God
"had given such authority to men" (Matt. 9:8).
Since he would not always be with the Church visibly, Christ gave this power to
other men so the Church, which is the continuation of his presence throughout
time (Matt. 28:20), would be able to offer forgiveness to future generations. He
gave his power to the apostles, and it was a power that could be passed on to
their successors and agents, since the apostles wouldn’t always be on earth
either, but people would still be sinning.
God had sent Jesus to forgive sins, but after his resurrection Jesus told the
apostles, "‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he
had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy
Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the
sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23). (This is one of only
two times we are told that God breathed on man, the other being in Genesis 2:7,
when he made man a living soul. It emphasizes how important the establishment of
the sacrament of penance was.)
The Commission
Christ told the apostles to follow his example: "As the Father has sent me,
even so I send you" (John 20:21). Just as the apostles were to carry
Christ’s message to the whole world, so they were to carry his forgiveness:
"Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).
This power was understood as coming from God: "All this is from God, who
through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of
reconciliation" (2 Cor. 5:18). Indeed, confirms Paul, "So we are
ambassadors for Christ" (2 Cor. 5:20).
Some say that any power given to the apostles died with them. Not so. Some
powers must have, such as the ability to write Scripture. But the powers
necessary to maintain the Church as a living, spiritual society had to be passed
down from generation to generation. If they ceased, the Church would cease,
except as a quaint abstraction. Christ ordered the apostles to, "Go
therefore and make disciples of all nations." It would take much time. And
he promised them assistance: "Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the
age" (Matt. 28:19–20).
If the disciples believed that Christ instituted the power to sacramentally
forgive sins in his stead, we would expect the apostles’ successors—the
bishops—and Christians of later years to act as though such power was
legitimately and habitually exercised. If, on the other hand, the sacramental
forgiveness of sins was what Fundamentalists term it, an "invention,"
and if it was something foisted upon the young Church by ecclesiastical or
political leaders, we’d expect to find records of protest. In fact, in early
Christian writings we find no sign of protests concerning sacramental
forgiveness of sins. Quite the contrary. We find confessing to a priest was
accepted as part of the original deposit of faith handed down from the apostles.
What’s more, if the Catholic Church instituted confession (or "auricular
confession," as some like to emphasize: private confession "to the
ear" of a priest), and if the sacrament did not stem directly from Christ,
it should be possible to point to a date for its "invention." Some
opponents of the Catholic position think they can do that.
Lots of Gumption
Loraine Boettner, in his book Roman Catholicism, claims "auricular
confession to a priest instead of to God" was instituted in 1215 at the
Fourth Lateran Council. This is an extreme example, even for a committed
anti-Catholic. Few people have the gumption to place the "invention"
of confession so late, since there is so much early Christian writing—a good
portion of it one thousand or more years before that council—that refers to
the practice of confession as something already long-established.
Actually, the Fourth Lateran Council did discuss confession. To combat the lax
morals of the time, the council regulated the already-existing duty to confess
one’s sins by saying that Catholics should confess any mortal sins at least
once a year. To issue an official decree about how frequently a sacrament must
be celebrated is hardly the same as "inventing" that sacrament.
The earliest Christian writings, such as the first-century Didache, are
indefinite on the procedure for confession to be used in the forgiveness of
sins, but a verbal confession is listed as part of the Church’s requirement by
the time of Irenaeus (A.D. 180). He wrote that the disciples of the Gnostic
heretic Marcus "have deluded many women. . . . Their consciences have been
branded as with a hot iron. Some of these women make a public confession, but
others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing themselves from
the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between
the two courses" (Against Heresies 1:22).
The sacrament of penance is clearly in use, for Irenaeus speaks of making an
outward confession (versus remaining silent) upon which the hope of eternal life
hangs, but it is not yet clear from Irenaeus just how, or to whom, confession is
to be made. Is it privately, to the priest, or before the whole congregation,
with the priest presiding? The one thing we can say for sure is that the
sacrament is understood by Irenaeus as having originated in the infant Church.
Later writers, such as Origen (241), Cyprian (251), and Aphraates (337), are
clear in saying confession is to be made to a priest. (In their writings the
whole process of penance is termed exomologesis, which means
confession—the confession was seen as the main part of the sacrament.) Cyprian
writes that the forgiveness of sins can take place only "through the
priests." Ambrose says "this right is given to priests only."
Pope Leo I says absolution can be obtained only through the prayers of the
priests. These utterances are not taken as novel, but as reminders of accepted
belief. We have no record of anyone objecting, of anyone claiming these men were
pushing an "invention." (See the Catholic Answers tract Confession
for full quotes from the early Church Fathers on the sacrament of penance.)
Confession Implied
Note that the power Christ gave the apostles was twofold: to forgive sins or to
hold them bound, which means to retain them unforgiven. Several things follow
from this. First, the apostles could not know what sins to forgive and what not
to forgive unless they were first told the sins by the sinner. This implies
confession. Second, their authority was not merely to proclaim that God had
already forgiven sins or that he would forgive sins if there were proper
repentance.
Such interpretations don’t account for the distinction between forgiving and
retaining—nor do they account for the importance given to the utterance in
John 20:21–23. If God has already forgiven all of a man’s sins, or will
forgive them all (past and future) upon a single act of repentance, then it
makes little sense to tell the apostles they have been given the power to
"retain" sins, since forgiveness would be all-or-nothing and nothing
could be "retained."
Furthermore, if at conversion we were forgiven all sins, past, present, and
future, it would make no sense for Christ to require us to pray, "And
forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors," which he
explained is required because "if you forgive men their trespasses, your
heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their
trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Matt.
6:12–15).
If forgiveness really can be partial—not a once-for-all thing—how is one to
tell which sins have been forgiven, which not, in the absence of a priestly
decision? You can’t very well rely on your own gut feelings. No, the biblical
passages make sense only if the apostles and their successors were given a real
authority.
Still, some people are not convinced. One is Paul Juris, a former priest, now a
Fundamentalist, who has written a pamphlet on this subject. The pamphlet is
widely distributed by organizations opposed to Catholicism. The cover describes
the work as "a study of John 20:23, a much misunderstood and misused
portion of Scripture pertaining to the forgiveness of sins." Juris mentions
"two main schools of thought," the Catholic and the Fundamentalist
positions.
He correctly notes that "among Christians, it is generally agreed that
regular confession of one’s sins is obviously necessary to remain in good
relationship with God. So the issue is not whether we should or should not
confess our sins. Rather, the real issue is, How does God say that our sins are
forgiven or retained?"
Verse Slinging
This sounds fine, on the surface, but this apparently reasonable approach masks
what really happens next. Juris engages in verse slinging, listing as many
verses as he can find that refer to God forgiving sins, in hopes that the sheer
mass of verses will settle the question. But none of the verses he lists
specifically interprets John 20:23, and none contradicts the Catholic
interpretation.
For instance, he cites verses like these: "Let it be known to you
therefore, brethren, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to
you, and by him every one that believes is freed from everything from which you
could not be freed by the law of Moses" (Acts 13:38–39); "And he
said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole
creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not
believe will be condemned’" (Mark 16:15–16).
Juris says that verses like these demonstrate that "all that was left for
the disciples to do was to ‘go’ and ‘proclaim’ this wonderful good news
(the gospel) to all men. As they proclaimed this good news of the gospel, those
who believed the gospel, their sins would be forgiven. Those who rejected (did
not believe) the gospel, their sins would be retained." Juris does nothing
more than show that the Bible says God will forgive sins and that it is through
Jesus that our sins are forgiven—things no one doubts. He does not remotely
prove that John 20:23 is equivalent to a command to "go" and to
"preach," merely that going and preaching are part of God’s plan for
saving people. He also sidesteps the evident problems in the Fundamentalist
interpretation.
The passage says nothing about preaching the good news. Instead, Jesus is
telling the apostles that they have been empowered to do something. He does not
say, "When God forgives men’s sins, they are forgiven." He uses the
second person plural: "you." And he talks about the apostles
forgiving, not preaching. When he refers to retaining sins, he uses the same
form: "When you hold them bound, they are held bound."
The best Juris can do is assert that John 20:23 means the apostles were given
authority only to proclaim the forgiveness of sins—but asserting this is not
proving it.
His is a technique that often works because many readers believe that the
Fundamentalist interpretation has been proven true. After all, if you propose to
interpret one verse and accomplish that by listing irrelevant verses that refer
to something other than the specific point in controversy, lazy readers will
conclude that you have marshalled an impressive array of evidence. All they have
to do is count the citations. Here’s one for the Catholics, they say, looking
at John 20:21–23, but ten or twenty for the Fundamentalists. The
Fundamentalists must be right!
The Advantages
Is the Catholic who confesses his sins to a priest any better off than the
non-Catholic who confesses directly to God? Yes. First, he seeks forgiveness the
way Christ intended. Second, by confessing to a priest, the Catholic learns a
lesson in humility, which is avoided when one confesses only through private
prayer. Third, the Catholic receives sacramental graces the non-Catholic
doesn’t get; through the sacrament of penance sins are forgiven and graces are
obtained. Fourth, the Catholic is assured that his sins are forgiven; he does
not have to rely on a subjective "feeling." Lastly, the Catholic can
also obtain sound advice on avoiding sin in the future.
During his lifetime Christ sent out his followers to do his work. Just before he
left this world, he gave the apostles special authority, commissioning them to
make God’s forgiveness present to all people, and the whole Christian world
accepted this, until just a few centuries ago. If there is an
"invention" here, it is not the sacrament of penance, but the notion
that the sacramental forgiveness of sins is not to be found in the Bible or in
early Christian history.
The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is
literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the
appearances of bread and wine. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists frequently
attack this doctrine as "unbiblical," but the Bible is forthright in
declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John
6:32–71).
The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing
the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant
historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: "Eucharistic
teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly
realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated
and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Early Christian
Doctrines, 440).
From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in
the Eucharist. Kelly writes: "Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he
bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism
to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the
Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches
that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is,
indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while
refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity"
(ibid., 197–98).
"Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church
is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s
body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the
Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes
to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that
just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be
cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood
so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the
Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s
attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing
penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous
against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later
he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the
stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally" (ibid.,
211–12).
Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I
desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed
of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter
to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus
Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind
of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do
not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh
which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up
again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter
to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of
it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in
the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has
received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common
bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior
was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our
salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the
Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which
our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that
incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take
bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body
and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32
[A.D. 189]).
"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from
which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has
established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When,
therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word
of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the
substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the
flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh
which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of
him?" (ibid., 5:2).
Clement of Alexandria
"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord
supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours
out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The
Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Tertullian
"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe
whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on
which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation,
chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable
of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the
soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands
[in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the
flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul
likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8
[A.D. 210]).
Hippolytus
"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to
his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are
administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a
memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper
[i.e.,
the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).
Origen
"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full
view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an
obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the
true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true
food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:56]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2
[A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces
them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord
unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All
these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take
Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of
their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the
hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been
appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now
against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their
Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).
Council of Nicaea I
"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some
districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters
[i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no
right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to
them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).
Aphraahat the Persian Sage
"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the
place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his
blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be
arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was
pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be
eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises
12:6 [A.D. 340]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the
adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been
made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of
Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are,
according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even
though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not
judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting
that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since
you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is
sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not
wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as
something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6,
9).
Ambrose of Milan
"Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me
that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it.
And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament,
because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D.
390]).
Theodore of Mopsuestia
"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my
body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of
his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is
my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after
their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to
their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We
ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body
and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the
Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).
Augustine
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he
said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his
hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in
which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread
which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the
body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been
sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227
[A.D. 411]).
...
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes
report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is
the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said
very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not
desire instruction" (ibid., 272).
Council of Ephesus
"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the
flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his
resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody
sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are
sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the
Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as
of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of
worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very
flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God,
and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving"
(Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).
Protestant attacks on the Catholic Church often focus on the Eucharist. This
demonstrates that opponents of the Church—mainly Evangelicals and
Fundamentalists—recognize one of Catholicism’s core devotional doctrines.
What’s more, the attacks show that Fundamentalists are not always literalists.
This is seen in their interpretation of the key biblical passage, chapter six of
John’s Gospel, in which Christ speaks about the sacrament that will be
instituted at the Last Supper. This tract examines the last half of that
chapter.
John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The
Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him.
As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the
desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven
comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus
replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger,
and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews
understood him to be speaking metaphorically.
Again and Again
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living
bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live
for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my
flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man
give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and
correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and
introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to
you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no
life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is
drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in
him" (John 6:53–56).
No Corrections
Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct
"misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners
understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking
metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no
correction?
On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant
(cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there
was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater
emphasis.
In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said,
‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his
disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think
carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is
of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John
6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).
But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the
Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of
his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).
This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for
purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred
in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and
straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his
disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained
with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.
But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread
that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my
flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be
instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more
explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do Fundamentalists say?
Merely Figurative?
They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but
about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: "Jesus said to them,
‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who
believes in me shall never thirst.’" They claim that coming to him is
bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely
means believing in Christ.
But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien
explains, "The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used
figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon
a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To
interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life
everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the
whole passage to utter nonsense" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions,
215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.
Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show
Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9
("I am the door") and John 15:1 ("I am the true vine"). The
problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, "I am the bread of
life." "I am the door" and "I am the vine" make sense
as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and
he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes
John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and
my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).
He continues: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the
Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek
word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense
of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of
metaphor.
Their Main Argument
For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to
John 6:63: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the
words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." They say this means
that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?
Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his
flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what "the flesh
is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste
of time"—is that what he was saying? Hardly.
The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the
Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the
dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the
world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and
resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then "your faith is futile and you
are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have
perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).
In John 6:63 "flesh profits nothing" refers to mankind’s inclination
to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than
what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents:
"You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge,
my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent
me." So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable;
but God’s judgment is always true.
And were the disciples to understand the line "The words I have spoken to
you are spirit and life" as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy
one at that) for "symbolic"? No one can come up with such
interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks
it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic
interpretation. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to Christ’s own
flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think
on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit"
does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word
"spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means
that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the
power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).
Paul Confirms This
Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it
not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not
a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive
Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat
symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and
drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood
of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body,
eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer
for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious
as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so
serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real
body and blood of Christ.
What Did the First Christians Say?
Anti-Catholics also claim the early Church took this chapter symbolically. Is
that so? Let’s see what some early Christians thought, keeping in mind that we
can learn much about how Scripture should be interpreted by examining the
writings of early Christians.
Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a
letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold
heterodox opinions," that "they abstain from the Eucharist and from
prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our
Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in
his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1).
Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or common
drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate
by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we
have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the
Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and
flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated
Jesus" (First Apology 66:1–20).
Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real
Presence. "I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are
accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have
received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a
particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You
account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost
through negligence" (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).
Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said,
"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are,
according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even
though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not
judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that
you have been deemed worthy
of the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic
4:22:9).
In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to
today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: "When [Christ] gave the bread
he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my
body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say,
‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’
for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception
of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but
to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord" (Catechetical
Homilies 5:1).
Unanimous Testimony
Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact,
there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the
constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal
interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.
Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation
of John 6? For them, Catholic sacraments are out because they imply a spiritual
reality—grace—being conveyed by means of matter. This seems to them to be a
violation of the divine plan. For many Protestants, matter is not to be used,
but overcome or avoided.
One suspects, had they been asked by the Creator their opinion of how to bring
about mankind’s salvation, Fundamentalists would have advised him to adopt a
different approach. How much cleaner things would be if spirit never dirtied
itself with matter! But God approves of matter—he approves of it because he
created it—and he approves of it so much that he comes to us under the
appearances of bread and wine, just as he does in the physical form of the
Incarnate Christ.
The Holy Eucharist is the most important of the seven sacraments because, in
this and in no other sacrament, we receive the very body and blood, soul and
divinity of Jesus Christ. Innumerable, precious graces come to us through the
reception of Holy Communion.
Communion is an intimate encounter with Christ, in which we sacramentally
receive Christ into our bodies, that we may be more completely assimilated into
his. "The Eucharist builds the Church," as Pope John Paul II said (Redemptor
Hominis 20). It deepens unity with the Church, more fully assimilating us
into Christ (1 Cor. 12:13; CCC 1396).
The Eucharist also strengthens the individual because in it Jesus himself, the
Word made flesh, forgives our venial sins and gives us the strength to resist
mortal sin. It is also the very channel of eternal life: Jesus himself.
In John’s gospel, Jesus summarized the reasons for receiving Communion when he
said:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and
drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my
blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is
real food, and my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood
abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of
the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which
came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this
bread will live forever" (John 6:53–58).
Because of the gravity of Jesus’ teaching on receiving the Eucharist, the
Church encourages Catholics to receive frequent Communion, even daily Communion
if possible, and mandates reception of the Eucharist at least once a year during
the Easter season. Before going to Communion, however, there are several things
one needs to know.
Catholics and Communion
The Church sets out specific guidelines regarding how we should prepare
ourselves to receive the Lord’s body and blood in Communion. To receive
Communion worthily, you must be in a state of grace, have made a good confession
since your last mortal sin, believe in transubstantiation, observe the
Eucharistic fast, and, finally, not be under an ecclesiastical censure such as
excommunication.
First, you must be in a state of grace. "Whoever, therefore, eats
the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of
profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat
of the bread and drink of the cup" (1 Cor. 11:27–28). This is an absolute
requirement which can never be dispensed. To receive the Eucharist without
sanctifying grace in your soul profanes the Eucharist in the most grievous
manner.
A mortal sin is any sin whose matter is grave and which has been
committed willfully and with knowledge of its seriousness. Grave matter
includes, but is not limited to, murder, receiving or participating in an
abortion, homosexual acts, having sexual intercourse outside of marriage or in
an invalid marriage, and deliberately engaging in impure thoughts (Matt.
5:28–29). Scripture contains lists of mortal sins (for example, 1 Cor.
6:9–10 and Gal. 5:19–21). For further information on what constitutes a
mortal sin, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Out of habit and out of fear of what those around them will think if they do not
receive Communion, some Catholics, in a state of mortal sin, choose to go
forward and offend God rather than stay in the pew while others receive the
Eucharist. The Church’s ancient teaching on this particular matter is
expressed in the Didache, an early Christian document written around A.D.
70, which states: "Whosoever is holy [i.e., in a state of sanctifying
grace], let him approach. Whosoever is not, let him repent" (Didache
10).
Second, you must have been to confession since your last mortal sin. The Didache
witnesses to this practice of the early Church. "But first make confession
of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one" (Didache
14).
The 1983 Code of Canon Law indicates that the same requirement applies
today. "A person who is conscious of a grave sin is not to . . . receive
the body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a grave reason
is present and there is no opportunity of confessing; in this case the person is
to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including
the intention of confessing as soon as possible" (CIC 916).
The requirement for sacramental confession can be dispensed if four conditions
are fulfilled: (1) there must be a grave reason to receive Communion (for
example, danger of death), (2) it must be physically or morally impossible to go
to confession first, (3) the person must already be in a state of grace through
perfect contrition, and (4) he must resolve to go to confession as soon as
possible.
Third, you must believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation. "For
anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment
upon himself" (1 Cor. 11:29). Transubstantiation means more than the Real
Presence. According to transubstantiation, the bread and wine are actually
transformed into the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, with only
the appearances of bread and wine remaining. This is why, at the Last Supper,
Jesus held what appeared to be bread and wine, yet said: "This is
my body. . . . This is my blood" (Mark 14:22-24, cf. Luke 22:14-20).
If Christ were merely present along side bread and wine, he would have said
"This contains my body. . . . This contains my blood,"
which he did not say.
Fourth, you must observe the Eucharistic fast. Canon law states,
"One who is to receive the most Holy Eucharist is to abstain from any food
or drink, with the exception only of water and medicine, for at least the period
of one hour before Holy Communion" (CIC 919 §1). Elderly people, those who
are ill, and their caretakers are excused from the Eucharistic fast (CIC 191 §3).
Priests and deacons may not dispense one obligated by the Eucharistic fast
unless the bishop has expressly granted such power to them (cf. CIC 89).
Finally, one must not be under an ecclesiastical censure. Canon law
mandates, "Those who are excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition
or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persist in manifest
grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion" (CIC 915).
Provided they are in a state of grace and have met the above requirements,
Catholics should receive the Eucharist frequently (cic 898).
Other Christians and Communion
The guidelines for receiving Communion, which are issued by the U.S. bishops and
published in many missalettes, explain, "We welcome our fellow Christians
to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that
our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw
us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate
us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with
Christ’s prayer for us ‘that they may all be one’ (John 17:21).
"Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign
of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those
churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to
Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians
requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the
provisions of canon law. . . . "
Scripture is clear that partaking of the Eucharist is among the highest signs of
Christian unity: "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body,
for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17). For this reason, it is
normally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion, for
to do so would be to proclaim a unity to exist that, regrettably, does not.
Another reason that many non-Catholics may not ordinarily receive Communion is
for their own protection, since many reject the doctrine of the Real Presence of
Christ in the Eucharist. Scripture warns that it is very dangerous for one not
believing in the Real Presence to receive Communion: "For any one who eats
and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died" (1 Cor.
11:29–30).
Possible exceptions
However, there are circumstances when non-Catholics may receive Communion from a
Catholic priest. This is especially the case when it comes to Eastern Orthodox
Christians, who share the same faith concerning the nature of the sacraments:
"Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance,
Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do
not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for
the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other
churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition
as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned" (CIC 844
§ 3).
Christians in these churches should, of course, respect their own church’s
guidelines regarding when it would be permissible for them to receive Communion
in a Catholic church.
The circumstances in which Protestants are permitted to receive Communion are
more limited, though it is still possible for them to do so under certain
specifically defined circumstances.
Canon law explains the parameters: "If the danger of death is present or
other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference
of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other
Christians who do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot
approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided
they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed"
(CIC 844 § 4).
It is important to remember that, under the rubrics specified above, even in
those rare circumstances when non-Catholics are able to receive Communion, the
same requirements apply to them as to Catholics.
Non-Christians and Communion
The U.S. bishops’ guidelines for receiving Communion state, "We also
welcome to this celebration those who do not share our faith in Jesus Christ.
While we cannot admit them to Communion, we ask them to offer their prayers for
the peace and the unity of the human family."
Because they have not received baptism, the gateway to the other sacraments,
non-Christians cannot receive Communion. However, in emergency situations, they
can be received into the Church via
baptism, even if no priest is present, and an extraordinary minister of Holy
Communion may bring them Communion as Viaticum.
How to receive Communion
Communicants may receive Communion either standing or kneeling. "With
regard to the manner of going to Communion the faithful can receive it either
kneeling or standing, in accordance with the norms laid down by the episcopal
conference: ‘When the faithful communicate kneeling, no other sign of
reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament is required, since kneeling is itself a
sign of adoration. When they receive Communion standing, it is strongly
recommended that, coming up in procession, they should make a sign of reverence
before
receiving the Sacrament" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Inaestimabile
Donum 11).
Communion may be received either in the hand or on the tongue. Around the year
A.D. 390, Cyril of Jerusalem indicated that the early Church practiced Communion
in the hand when he instructed his audience: "Approaching, therefore, come
not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers open; but make thy left hand as if
a throne for thy right, which is on the eve of receiving the King. And having
hallowed thy palm, receive the body of Christ, saying after it, ‘Amen.’ Then
after thou hast with carefulness hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the holy
body, partake thereof; giving heed lest thou lose any of it; for what thou
losest is a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me,
if anyone gave thee gold dust, wouldst thou not with all precaution keep it
fast, being on thy guard against losing any of it, and suffering loss?" (Catechetical
Lectures 23:22).
The Congregation of the Sacraments and Divine Worship permitted the U.S.
Bishops’ Conference to authorize reception of Communion in the hand on July
25, 1977, provided the local bishop implements the practice in his diocese. Once
implemented, the option to receive Communion either in the hand or on the tongue
always remains with the communicant. No priest, deacon, acolyte, or
extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may refuse a communicant Communion on
the tongue. Likewise, once the local bishop has introduced Communion in the
hand, none may refuse a communicant Communion in the hand (except when Communion
is being given by intinction, in which case it must be given on the tongue).
Finally, after you have received Communion, it is appropriate to stay after Mass
and thank Jesus for coming to you in the Holy Eucharist. The Church mandates
that: "The faithful are to be recommended not to omit to make a proper
thanksgiving after Communion. They may do this during the celebration with a
period of silence, with a hymn, psalm or other song of praise, or also after the
celebration, if possible by staying behind to pray for a suitable time" (Inaestimabile
Donum 17).
After receiving Jesus into one’s own body and being drawn more closely into
his, how could one do any less?
The Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal, as "Bible
Christians" insist. The first Christians knew that it was a sacrifice and
proclaimed this in their writings. They recognized the sacrificial character of
Jesus’ instruction, "Do this in remembrance of me" (Touto poieite
tan eman anamnasin; Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24–25) which is better
translated "Offer this as my memorial offering."
Thus, Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes that in the early
Church "the Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian
sacrifice. . . . Malachi’s prediction (1:10–11) that the Lord would reject
Jewish sacrifices and instead would have "a pure offering" made to him
by the Gentiles in every place was seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of
the Eucharist. The Didache indeed actually applies the term thusia,
or sacrifice, to the Eucharist. . . .
"It was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a
sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and
the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord
invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto
poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for
second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, ‘Offer
this.’ . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis
anamnasin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification
of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely
spiritual recollection" (Early Christian Doctrines [Full Reference],
196–7).
The Didache
"Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but
first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one.
Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until
he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt.
5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere
and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says
the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache
14 [A.D. 70]).
Pope Clement I
"Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who
blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters
who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and
perfect release" (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4–5 [A.D. 80]).
Ignatius of Antioch
"Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for
there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with
his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one
bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will
ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God" (Letter
to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
"God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as
I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no
pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your
hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has
been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my
name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal.
1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in
every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and
also the cup of the Eucharist" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41
[A.D. 155]).
Irenaeus
"He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying,
‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to
which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of
the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had
signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I
will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its
setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is
offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the
Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it
plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in
every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his
name is glorified among the Gentiles" (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D.
189]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"If Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, is himself the high priest of God the
Father; and if he offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father; and if he
commanded that this be done in commemoration of himself, then certainly the
priest, who imitates that which Christ did, truly functions in place of
Christ" (Letters 63:14 [A.D. 253]).
Serapion
"Accept therewith our hallowing too, as we say, ‘Holy, holy, holy Lord
Sabaoth, heaven and earth is full of your glory.’ Heaven is full, and full is
the earth, with your magnificent glory, Lord of virtues. Full also is this
sacrifice, with your strength and your communion; for to you we offer this
living sacrifice, this unbloody oblation" (Prayer of the Eucharistic
Sacrifice 13:12–16 [A.D. 350]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"Then, having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual hymns, we beseech the
merciful God to send forth his Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before him, that
he may make the bread the Body of Christ and the wine the Blood of Christ, for
whatsoever the Holy Spirit has touched is surely sanctified and changed. Then,
upon the completion of the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over that
propitiatory victim we call upon God for the common peace of the churches, for
the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for
the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and offer this sacrifice for all who
are in need" (Catechetical Lectures 23:7–8 [A.D. 350]).
Gregory Nazianzen
"Cease not to pray and plead for me when you draw down the Word by your
word, when in an unbloody cutting you cut the Body and Blood of the Lord, using
your voice for a sword" (Letter to Amphilochius 171 [A.D. 383]).
Ambrose of Milan
"We saw the prince of priests coming to us, we saw and heard him offering
his blood for us. We follow, inasmuch as we are able, being priests, and we
offer the sacrifice on behalf of the people. Even if we are of but little merit,
still, in the sacrifice, we are honorable. Even if Christ is not now seen as the
one who offers the sacrifice, nevertheless it is he himself that is offered in
sacrifice here on Earth when the body of Christ is offered. Indeed, to offer
himself he is made visible in us, he whose word makes holy the sacrifice that is
offered" (Commentaries on Twelve Psalms of David 38:25 [A.D. 389]).
John Chrysostom
"When you see the Lord immolated and lying upon the altar, and the priest
bent over that sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled by that precious
blood, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not
lifted up to heaven?" (The Priesthood 3:4:177 [A.D. 387]).
"Reverence, therefore, reverence this table, of which we are all
communicants! Christ, slain for us, the sacrificial victim who is placed
thereon!" (Homilies on Romans 8:8 [A.D. 391]).
"‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the blood of
Christ?’ Very trustworthy and awesomely does he [Paul] say it. For what he is
saying is this: What is in the cup is that which flowed from his side, and we
partake of it. He called it a cup of blessing because when we hold it in our
hands that is how we praise him in song, wondering and astonished at his
indescribable gift, blessing him because of his having poured out this very gift
so that we might not remain in error; and not only for his having poured it out,
but also for his sharing it with all of us. ‘If therefore you desire blood,’
he [the Lord] says, ‘do not redden the platform of idols with the slaughter of
dumb beasts, but my altar of sacrifice with my blood.’ What is more awesome
than this? What, pray tell, more tenderly loving?" (Homilies on First
Corinthians 24:1(3) [A.D. 392]).
"In ancient times, because men were very imperfect, God did not scorn to
receive the blood which they were offering . . . to draw them away from those
idols; and this very thing again was because of his indescribable, tender
affection. But now he has transferred the priestly action to what is most
awesome and magnificent. He has changed the sacrifice itself, and instead of the
butchering of dumb beasts, he commands the offering up of himself" (ibid.,
24:2).
"What then? Do we not offer daily? Yes, we offer, but making remembrance of
his death; and this remembrance is one and not many. How is it one and not many?
Because this sacrifice is offered once, like that in the Holy of Holies. This
sacrifice is a type of that, and this remembrance a type of that. We offer
always the same, not one sheep now and another tomorrow, but the same thing
always. Thus there is one sacrifice. By this reasoning, since the sacrifice is
offered everywhere, are there, then, a multiplicity of Christs? By no means!
Christ is one everywhere. He is complete here, complete there, one body. And
just as he is one body and not many though offered everywhere, so too is there
one sacrifice" (Homilies on Hebrews 17:3(6) [A.D. 403]).
Augustine
"In the sacrament he is immolated for the people not only on every Easter
Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were
to reply that Christ is being immolated. For if sacraments had not a likeness to
those things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all;
and they generally take the names of those same things by reason of this
likeness" (Letters 98:9 [A.D. 412]).
"For when he says in another book, which is called Ecclesiastes, ‘There
is no good for a man except that he should eat and drink’ [Eccles. 2:24], what
can he be more credibly understood to say [prophetically] than what belongs to
the participation of this table which the Mediator of the New Testament himself,
the priest after the order of Melchizedek, furnishes with his own body and
blood? For that sacrifice has succeeded all the sacrifices of the Old Testament,
which were slain as a shadow of what was to come. . . . Because, instead of all
these sacrifices and oblations, his body is offered and is served up to the
partakers of it" (The City of God 17:20 [A.D. 419]).
Sechnall of Ireland
"[St. Patrick] proclaims boldly to the [Irish] tribes the name of the Lord,
to whom he gives the eternal grace of the laver of salvation; for their offenses
he prays daily unto God; for them also he offers up to God worthy
sacrifices" (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 13 [A.D. 444]).
Fulgentius of Ruspe
"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the only-begotten God
the Word himself became flesh [and] offered himself in an odor of sweetness as a
sacrifice and victim to God on our behalf; to whom . . . in the time of the Old
Testament animals were sacrificed by the patriarchs and prophets and priests;
and to whom now, I mean in the time of the New Testament . . . the holy Catholic
Church does not cease in faith and love to offer throughout all the lands of the
world a sacrifice of bread and wine. In those former sacrifices what would be
given us in the future was signified figuratively, but in this sacrifice which
has now been given us is shown plainly. In those former sacrifices it was
fore-announced that the Son of God would be killed for the impious, but in the
present sacrifice it is announced that he has been killed for the impious"
(The Rule of Faith 62 [A.D. 524]).
Many non-Catholics do not understand the Mass. Television evangelist Jimmy
Swaggart wrote, "The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Mass is an
expiatory sacrifice, in which the Son of God is actually sacrificed anew on the
cross" (Swaggart, Catholicism and Christianity). The late Loraine
Boettner, the dean of anti-Catholic Fundamentalists, said the Mass is a
"jumble of medieval superstition."
Vatican II puts the Catholic position succinctly:
"At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted
the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to
perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should
come again, and so to entrust to his beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of
his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of
charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with
grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us" (Sacrosanctum
Concilium 47).
Even a modestly informed Catholic can set an inquirer right and direct him to
biblical accounts of Jesus’ final night with his disciples. Turning to the
text, we read, "And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it
and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this
in remembrance of me’" (Luke 22:19).
The Greek here and in the parallel Gospel passages (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22)
reads: Touto estin to soma mou. Paul’s version differs slightly:
Touto mou estin to soma (1 Cor. 11:24). They all translate as "This is
my body." The verb estin is the equivalent of the English
"is" and can mean "is really" or "is
figuratively." The usual meaning of estin is the former (check any
Greek grammar book), just as, in English, the verb "is" usually is
taken literally.
Fundamentalists insist that when Christ says, "This is my body," he is
speaking figuratively. But this interpretation is precluded by Paul’s
discussion of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11:23–29 and by the whole tenor
of John 6, the chapter where the Eucharist is promised. The Greek word for
"body" in John 6 is sarx, which can only mean physical flesh,
and the word for "eats" (trogon) translates as "gnaws" or
"chews." This is certainly not the language of metaphor.
No "figurative presence"
The literal meaning can’t be avoided except through violence to the text—and
through the rejection of the universal understanding of the early Christian
centuries. The writings of Paul and John reflect belief in the Real Presence.
There is no basis for forcing anything else out of the lines, and no writer
tried to do so until the early Middle Ages. Christ did not institute a
Figurative Presence. Some Fundamentalists say the word "is" is used
because Aramaic, the language Christ spoke, had no word for
"represents." Jesus just had to do the best he could with a restricted
vocabulary. Those who make this feeble claim are behind the times, since, as
Cardinal Nicholas Wiseman showed a century ago, Aramaic has about three dozen
words that can mean "represents."
The Catholic position
The Church teaches that the Mass is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of
Calvary, which also is invariably misunderstood by anti-Catholics. The Catholic
Church does not teach that the Mass is a re-crucifixion of Christ, who
does not suffer and die again in the Mass.
Yet, it is more than just a memorial service. John A. O’Brien, writing in The
Faith of Millions, said, "The manner in which the sacrifices are
offered is alone different: On the cross Christ really shed his blood and was
really slain; in the Mass, however, there is no real shedding of blood, no real
death; but the separate consecration of the bread and of the wine symbolizes the
separation of the body and blood of Christ and thus symbolizes his death upon
the cross. The Mass is the renewal and perpetuation of the sacrifice of the
cross in the sense that it offers [Jesus] anew to God . . . and thus
commemorates the sacrifice of the cross, reenacts it symbolically and
mystically, and applies the fruits of Christ’s death upon the cross to
individual human souls. All the efficacy of the Mass is derived, therefore, from
the sacrifice of Calvary" (306).
"Once for all"
The Mass, of course, does not re-crucify Christ. The Catholic Church
specifically says Christ does not die again—his death is once for all. It
would be something else if the Church were to claim he does die again, but it
doesn’t make that claim. Through his intercessory ministry in heaven and
through the Mass, Jesus continues to offer himself to his Father as a living
sacrifice, and he does so in what the Church specifically states is "an
unbloody manner"—one that does not involve a new crucifixion.
The Language of Appearances
Loraine Boettner mounts another charge. In chapter eight of Roman Catholicism,
when arguing that the meal instituted by Christ was strictly symbolic, he gives
a cleverly incomplete quotation. He writes, "Paul too says that the bread
remains bread: ‘Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of
the Lord in an unworthy manner. . . . But let each man prove himself, and so let
him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup’ (1 Cor. 11:27–28)."
The part of verse 27 represented by the ellipsis is crucial. It reads,
"shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." Why does Boettner
omit this? Because to be guilty of someone’s body and blood is to commit a
crime against his body and blood, not just against symbols of them. The omitted
words clearly imply the bread and wine become Christ himself.
Profaning the Eucharist was so serious that the stakes could be life and death.
In the next two verses (29–30), Paul states, "For any one who eats and
drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That
is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died."
Boettner’s omitted statements reveal that when Paul uses the term
"bread," he’s using the language of appearances, what scholars call
"phenomenological language." In this form of speech, something is
described according to how it appears, rather than according to its fundamental
nature. "The sun rose," is an example of phenomenological language.
From our perspective, it appears that the sun rises, though we know that
what we see is actually caused by the earth’s rotation.
Scripture uses phenomenological language regularly—as, for example, when it
describes angels appearing in human guise as "men" (Gen. 19:1-11; Luke
24:4–7, 23; Acts 1:10–11). Since the Eucharist still appears as bread
and wine, Catholics from Paul’s time on have referred to the consecrated
elements using phenomenological language, while recognizing that this is only
description according to appearances and that it is actually Jesus who is
present.
We are not merely symbolically commemorating Jesus in the Eucharist, but
actually participating in his body and blood, as Paul states, "The cup of
blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The
bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1
Cor. 10:16).
The Manner of Melchizedek
The Old Testament predicted that Christ would offer a true sacrifice to God
using the elements of bread and wine. In Genesis 14:18, Melchizedek, the king of
Salem (that is, Jerusalem) and a priest, offered sacrifice under the form of
bread and wine. Psalm 110 predicted Christ would be a priest "after the
order of Melchizedek," that is, offering a sacrifice in bread and wine. We
must look for some sacrifice other than Calvary, since it was not under the form
of bread and wine. The Mass meets that need.
Furthermore, "according to the order of Mel-chizedek" means "in
the manner of Melchizedek." ("Order" does not refer to a
religious order, as there was no such thing in Old Testament days.) The only
"manner" shown by Melchizedek was the use of bread and wine. A priest
sacrifices the items offered—that is the main task of all priests, in all
cultures, at all times—so the bread and wine must have been what Melchizedek
sacrificed.
Fundamentalists sometimes say Christ followed the example of Melchizedek at the
Last Supper, but that it was a rite that was not to be continued. They undermine
their case against the Mass in saying this, since such an admission shows, at
least, that the Last Supper was truly sacrificial. The key, though, is that they
overlook that Christ said, "Do this in remembrance of me" (Luke
22:19). Clearly, he wasn’t talking about a one-time thing.
"Do this in remembrance of me" can also be translated as "Offer
this as my memorial sacrifice." The Greek term for "remembrance"
is anamnesis, and every time it occurs in the Protestant Bible (whether
in the New Testament or the Greek Old Testament), it occurs in a sacrificial
context. For example, it appears in the Greek translation of Numbers 10:10:
"On the day of your gladness also, and at your appointed feasts, and at the
beginnings of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings
and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; they shall serve you for
remembrance [anamnesis] before your God: I am the Lord your God."
Thus the Eucharist is a remembrance, a memorial offering we present to God to
plead the merits of Christ on the cross.
Fundamentalists disbelieve claims about the antiquity of the Mass’s
sacrificial aspects, even if they think the Mass, in the form of a mere
commemorative meal, goes all the way back to the Last Supper. Many say the Mass
as a sacrifice was not taught until the Middle Ages, alleging Innocent III was
the first pope to teach the doctrine.
But he merely insisted on a doctrine that had been held from the first but was
being publicly doubted in his time. He formalized, but did not invent, the
notion that the Mass is a sacrifice. Jimmy Swaggart, for one, goes further back
than do many Fundamentalists, claiming, "By the third century the idea of
sacrifice had begun to intrude." Still other Fundamentalists say Cyprian of
Carthage, who died in 258, was the first to make noises about a sacrifice.
But Irenaeus, writing Against Heresies in the second century, beat out
Cyprian when he wrote of the sacrificial nature of the Mass, and Irenaeus was
beaten out by Clement of Rome, who wrote, in the first century, about those
"from the episcopate who blamelessly and holily have offered its
sacrifices" (Letter to the Corinthians 44:1).
Furthermore, Clement was beaten out by the Didache (a Syrian liturgical
manual written around A.D. 70), which stated, "On the Lord’s Day . . .
gather together, break bread and offer the Eucharist, after confessing your
transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure. Let no one who has a quarrel
with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled, lest our sacrifice be
defiled. For this is that which was proclaimed by the Lord: ‘In every place
and time let there be offered to me a clean sacrifice. For I am a great king,’
says the Lord, ‘and my name is wonderful among the gentiles’ [cf. Mal.
1:11]" (14:1–3).
It isn’t possible to get closer to New Testament times than this, because
Clement and the author of the Didache were writing during New Testament
times. After all, at least one apostle, John, was still alive.
A misreading
Fundamentalists are particularly upset about the Catholic notion that the
sacrifice on Calvary is somehow continued through the centuries by the Mass.
They think Catholics are trying to have it both ways. The Church on the one hand
says that Calvary is "perpetuated," which seems to mean the same act
of killing, the same letting of blood, is repeated again and again. This
violates the "once for all" idea. On the other hand, what Catholics
call a sacrifice seems to have no relation to biblical sacrifices, since it
doesn’t look the same; after all, no splotches of blood are to be found on
Catholic altars.
"We must, of course, take strong exception to such pretended
sacrifice," Boettner instructs. "We cannot regard it as anything other
than a deception, a mockery, and an abomination before God. The so-called
sacrifice of the Mass certainly is not identical with that on Calvary,
regardless of what the priests may say. There is in the Mass no real Christ, no
suffering, and no bleeding. And a bloodless sacrifice is ineffectual. The writer
of the book of Hebrews says that ‘apart from shedding of blood there is no
remission’ of sin (9:22); and John says, ‘The blood of Jesus his Son
cleanseth us from all sin’ (1 John 1:7). Since admittedly there is no blood in
the Mass, it simply cannot be a sacrifice for sin" (174).
Boettner misreads chapter nine of Hebrews, which begins with an examination of
the Old Covenant. Moses is described as taking the blood of calves and goats and
using it in the purification of the tabernacle (Heb. 9:19–21; see Ex. 24:6–8
for the origins of this). Under the Old Law, a repeated blood sacrifice was
necessary for the remission of sins. Under the Christian dispensation, blood
(Christ’s) is shed only once, but it is continually offered to the Father.
"But how can that be?" ask Fundamentalists. They have to keep in mind
that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever" (Heb.
13:8). What Jesus did in the past is present to God now, and God can make the
sacrifice of Calvary present to us at Mass. "For as often as you eat this
bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes" (1
Cor. 11:26).
Jesus does not offer himself to God as a bloody, dying sacrifice in the Mass,
but as we offer ourselves, a "living sacrifice" (Rom. 12:1). As this
passage indicates, the offering of sacrifice does not require death or the
shedding of blood. If it did, we could not offer ourselves as living sacrifices
to God. Jesus, having shed his blood once for all on the cross, now offers
himself to God in a continual, unbloody manner as a holy, living sacrifice on
our behalf.
The sacrament of confirmation is found in Bible passages such as Acts 8:14–17,
9:17, 19:6, and Hebrews 6:2, which speak of a laying on of hands for the purpose
of bestowing the Holy Spirit.
Hebrews 6:2 is especially important because it is not a narrative account of how
confirmation was given and, thus, cannot be dismissed by those who reject the
sacrament as something unique to the apostolic age. In fact, the passage refers
to confirmation as one of Christianity’s basic teachings, which is to be
expected since confirmation, like baptism, is a sacrament of initiation into the
Christian life.
We read: "Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings of Christ and go
on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that
lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of
hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment" (Heb. 6:1–2).
Notice how in this passage we are walked through the successive stages of the
Christian journey—repentance, faith, baptism, confirmation, resurrection, and
judgment. This passage encapsulates the Christian’s journey toward heaven and
gives what theologians call the order of salvation or the ordo salutis.
It well qualifies as "the elementary teachings" of the Christian
faith.
The laying on of hands mentioned in the passage must be confirmation: The other
kinds of the imposition of hands (for ordination and for healing) are not done
to each and every Christian and could scarcely qualify as basic teachings that
form part of the order of salvation.
As the following passages show, the Church Fathers and early Christian writers
also recognized confirmation as a sacrament distinct from baptism, even though
it was usually given simultaneously with baptism. Their words speak powerfully
about this anointing and imposition of hands for reception of the Holy Spirit
and the role it has in Christian initiation.
Theophilus of Antioch
"Are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? It is on this
account that we are called Christians: because we are anointed with the oil of
God" (To Autolycus 1:12 [A.D. 181]).
Tertullian
"After coming from the place of washing we are thoroughly anointed with a
blessed unction, from the ancient discipline by which [those] in the priesthood
. . . were accustomed to be anointed with a horn of oil, ever since Aaron was
anointed by Moses. . . . So also with us, the unction runs on the body and
profits us spiritually, in the same way that baptism itself is a corporal act by
which we are plunged in water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are
freed from sins. After this, the hand is imposed for a blessing, invoking and
inviting the Holy Spirit" (Baptism 7:1–2, 8:1 [A.D. 203]).
"No soul whatever is able to obtain salvation unless it has believed while
it was in the flesh. Indeed, the flesh is the hinge of salvation. . . . The
flesh, then, is washed [baptism] so that the soul may be made clean. The flesh
is anointed so that the soul may be dedicated to holiness. The flesh is signed
so that the soul may be fortified. The flesh is shaded by the imposition of
hands [confirmation] so that the soul may be illuminated by the Spirit. The
flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ [the Eucharist] so that the soul too
may feed on God. They cannot, then, be separated in their reward, when they are
united in their works" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8:2–3 [A.D.
210]).
Hippolytus
"The bishop, imposing his hand on them, shall make an invocation, saying,
‘O Lord God, who made them worthy of the remission of sins through the Holy
Spirit’s washing unto rebirth, send into them your grace so that they may
serve you according to your will, for there is glory to you, to the Father and
the Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, both now and through the ages
of ages. Amen.’ Then, pouring the consecrated oil into his hand and imposing
it on the head of the baptized, he shall say, ‘I anoint you with holy oil in
the Lord, the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit.’ Signing
them on the forehead, he shall kiss them and say, ‘The Lord be with you.’ He
that has been signed shall say, ‘And with your spirit.’ Thus shall he do to
each" (The Apostolic Tradition 21–22 [A.D. 215]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"It is necessary for him that has been baptized also to be anointed, so
that by his having received chrism, that is, the anointing, he can be the
anointed of God and have in him the grace of Christ" (Letters 7:2
[A.D. 253]).
"Some say in regard to those who were baptized in Samaria that when the
apostles Peter and John came there only hands were imposed on them so that they
might receive the Holy Spirit, and that they were not re-baptized. But we see,
dearest brother, that this situation in no way pertains to the present case.
Those in Samaria who had believed had believed in the true faith, and it was by
the deacon Philip, whom those same apostles had sent there, that they had been
baptized inside—in the Church. . . . Since, then, they had already received a
legitimate and ecclesiastical baptism, it was not necessary to baptize them
again. Rather, that only which was lacking was done by Peter and John. The
prayer having been made over them and hands having been imposed upon them, the
Holy Spirit was invoked and was poured out upon them. This is even now the
practice among us, so that those who are baptized in the Church then are brought
to the prelates of the Church; through our prayer and the imposition of hands,
they receive the Holy Spirit and are perfected with the seal of the Lord"
(ibid., 73[72]:9).
"[A]re not hands, in the name of the same Christ, laid upon the baptized
persons among them, for the reception of the Holy Spirit?" (ibid.,
74[73]:5).
"[O]ne is not born by the imposition of hands when he receives the Holy
Ghost, but in baptism, that so, being already born, he may receive the Holy
Spirit, even as it happened in the first man Adam. For first God formed him, and
then breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. For the Spirit cannot be
received, unless he who receives first has an existence. But . . . the birth of
Christians is in baptism" (ibid., 74[73]:7).
Council of Carthage VII
"[I]n the Gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with his divine voice, saying,
‘Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the
kingdom of God’ [John 3:5]. This is the Spirit which from the beginning was
borne over the waters; for neither can the Spirit operate without the water, nor
the water without the Spirit. Certain people therefore interpret [this passage]
for themselves wrongly, when they say that by imposition of the hand they
receive the Holy Ghost, and are thus received, when it is manifest that they
ought to be born again [initiated] in the Catholic Church by both
sacraments" (Seventh Carthage [A.D. 256]).
Treatise on Re-Baptism
"[I]t has been asked among the brethren what course ought specially to be
adopted towards the persons of those who . . . baptized in heresy . . . and
subsequently departing from their heresy, and fleeing as supplicants to the
Church of God, should repent with their whole hearts, and only now perceiving
the condemnation of their error, implore from the Church the help of salvation.
. . . [A]ccording to the most ancient custom and ecclesiastical tradition, it
would suffice, after that baptism which they have received outside the Church .
. . that only hands should be laid upon them by the bishop for their reception
of the Holy Spirit, and this imposition of hands would afford them the renewed
and perfected seal of faith" (Treatise on Re-Baptism 1 [A.D. 256]).
"[B]y imposition of the bishop’s hands the Holy Spirit is given to every
one that believes, as in the case of the Samaritans, after Philip’s baptism,
the apostles did to them by laying on of hands [Acts 8:14–17]; in this manner
also they conferred on them the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 3).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"After you had come up from the pool of the sacred streams, there was given
chrism, the antitype of that with which Christ was anointed, and this is the
Holy Spirit. But beware of supposing that this is ordinary ointment. For just as
the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Spirit is simple
bread no longer, but the body of Christ, so also this ointment is no longer
plain ointment, nor, so to speak, common, after the invocation. Further, it is
the gracious gift of Christ, and it is made fit for the imparting of his Godhead
by the coming of the Holy Spirit. This ointment is symbolically applied to your
forehead and to your other senses; while your body is anointed with the visible
ointment, your soul is sanctified by the holy and life-giving Spirit. Just as
Christ, after his baptism, and the coming upon him of the Holy Spirit, went
forth and defeated the adversary, so also with you after holy baptism and the
mystical chrism, having put on the panoply of the Holy Spirit, you are to
withstand the power of the adversary and defeat him, saying, ‘I am able to do
all things in Christ, who strengthens me’" (Catechetical Lectures,
21:1, 3–4 [A.D. 350]).
"[David says,] ‘You have anointed my head with oil.’ With oil he
anointed your head, your forehead, in the God-given sign of the cross, so that
you may become that which is engraved on the seal, ‘a holy thing of the
Lord’" (ibid., 22:7).
Serapion
"[Prayer for blessing the holy chrism:] ‘God of powers, aid of every soul
that turns to you and comes under your powerful hand in your only-begotten. We
beseech you, that through your divine and invisible power of our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ, you may effect in this chrism a divine and heavenly operation, so
that those baptized and anointed in the tracing with it of the sign of the
saving cross of the only-begotten . . . as if reborn and renewed through the
bath of regeneration, may be made participants in the gift of the Holy Spirit
and, confirmed by this seal, may remain firm and immovable, unharmed and
inviolate. . . .’" (The Sacramentary of Serapion 25:1 [A.D. 350]).
Council of Laodicea
"[T]hose who have been illuminated are, after baptism, to be anointed with
celestial chrism and thus become partakers in the kingdom of Christ" (Canon
48 [A.D. 360]).
Pacian of Barcelona
"If, then, the power of both baptism and confirmation, greater by far than
charisms, is passed on to the bishops, so too is the right of binding and
loosing" (Three Letters to the Novatianist Sympronian 1:6 [A.D.
383]).
The Apostolic Constitutions
"[H]ow dare any man speak against his bishop, by whom the Lord gave the
Holy Spirit among you upon the laying on of his hands, by whom you have learned
the sacred doctrines, and have known God, and have believed in Christ, by whom
you were known of God, by whom you were sealed with the oil of gladness and the
ointment of understanding, by whom you were declared to be the children of
light, by whom the Lord in your illumination testified by the imposition of the
bishop’s hands" (Apostolic Constitutions 2:4:32 [A.D. 400]).
The African Code
"[T]he former council . . . decreed, as your unanimity remembers as well as
I do, that those who as children were baptized by the Donatists, and not yet
being able to know the pernicious character of their error, and afterward when
they had come to the use of reason, had received the knowledge of the truth,
abhorred their former error, and were received in accordance with the ancient
order by the imposition of the hand, into the Catholic Church of God spread
throughout the world" (Canon 57[61] [A.D. 419]).
When Jesus came, he elevated matrimony to the same status it had originally
possessed between Adam and Eve—the status of a sacrament. Thus, any valid
marriage between two baptized people is a sacramental marriage and, once
consummated, cannot be dissolved. Jesus, therefore, taught that if anyone so
married divorces and remarries, that person is living in perpetual adultery, a
state of mortal sin.
He said, "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits
adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits
adultery" (Luke 16:18; cf. Mark 10:11–12).
Paul was equally insistent on this fact, declaring, "Thus a married woman
is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. . . . Accordingly, she will
be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is
alive" (Rom. 7:2–3).
This applied, of course, only to sacramental marriages—those between baptized
people. For marriages involving an unbaptized party, a different rule applied (1
Cor. 7:12–15).
In the midst of the Greco-Roman culture, which allowed for easy divorce and
remarriage, the early Church Fathers proclaimed Christ’s teaching on the
indissolubility of marriage—just as the Catholic Church does today in our
modern, secular, easy-divorce culture (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church
1614–1615). Other denominations have modified their teachings to accommodate
the pro-divorce ethos that dominates modern culture, but the Catholic Church
preserves the teaching of Jesus and the early Christians.
While their ex-spouses are alive, the only time that a baptized couple can
remarry after divorce is when a valid sacramental marriage never existed in the
first place. For example, for a marriage to be contracted, the two parties must
exchange valid matrimonial consent. If they do not, the marriage is null. If the
competent authority (a diocesan marriage tribunal) establishes this fact, a
decree of nullity (commonly called an annulment) can be granted, and the parties
are free to remarry (CCC 1629). In this case there is no divorce followed by
remarriage in God’s eyes because there was no marriage before God in
the first place, merely a marriage in the eyes of men.
If, however, the parties are genuinely and sacramentally married, then, while in
some cases there may be good reasons for them to live apart and even to obtain a
legal separation, in God’s eyes they are not free to remarry (CCC 1649).
This is not a commandment of men, but one that comes directly from Jesus Christ.
As Paul said, "To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord,
that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her
remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband
should not divorce his wife" (1 Cor. 7:10).
Fortunately, God will ensure that the sacramentally married have the grace
necessary to live out their marriage vows and either stay married or live
continently. The sacrament of matrimony itself gives this grace. Whenever we
face a trial, God ensures that we will have the grace we need. As Paul elsewhere
says, "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is
faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the
temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure
it" (1 Cor. 10:13).
As the following quotations from the early Church Fathers illustrate, they also
recognized the seriousness of Christ’s teaching regarding the indissolubility
of marriage.
Hermas
"What then shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this disposition
[adultery]? Let him divorce her, and let the husband remain single. But if he
divorce his wife and marry another, he too commits adultery" (The
Shepherd 4:1:6 [A.D. 80]).
Justin Martyr
"In regard to chastity, [Jesus] has this to say: ‘If anyone look with
lust at a woman, he has already before God committed adultery in his heart.’
And, ‘Whoever marries a woman who has been divorced from another husband,
commits adultery.’ According to our Teacher, just as they are sinners who
contract a second marriage, even though it be in accord with human law, so also
are they sinners who look with lustful desire at a woman. He repudiates not only
one who actually commits adultery, but even one who wishes to do so; for not
only our actions are manifest to God, but even our thoughts" (First
Apology 15 [A.D. 151]).
Clement of Alexandria
"That Scripture counsels marriage, however, and never allows any release
from the union, is expressly contained in the law: ‘You shall not divorce a
wife, except for reason of immorality.’ And it regards as adultery the
marriage of a spouse, while the one from whom a separation was made is still
alive. ‘Whoever takes a divorced woman as wife commits adultery,’ it says;
for ‘if anyone divorce his wife, he debauches her’; that is, he compels her
to commit adultery. And not only does he that divorces her become the cause of
this, but also he that takes the woman and gives her the opportunity of sinning;
for if he did not take her, she would return to her husband" (Miscellanies
2:23:145:3 [A.D. 208]).
Origen
"Just as a woman is an adulteress, even though she seem to be married to a
man, while a former husband yet lives, so also the man who seems to marry her
who has been divorced does not marry her, but, according to the declaration of
our Savior, he commits adultery with her" (Commentaries on Matthew 14:24
[A.D. 248]).
Council of Elvira
"Likewise, women who have left their husbands for no prior cause and have
joined themselves with others, may not even at death receive Communion"
(Canon 8 [A.D. 300]).
...
"Likewise, a woman of the faith [i.e., a baptized person] who has left an
adulterous husband of the faith and marries another, her marrying in this manner
is prohibited. If she has so married, she may not receive Communion—unless he
that she has left has since departed from this world" (Canon 9).
"If she whom a catechumen [an unbaptized person studying the faith] has
left shall have married a husband, she is able to be admitted to the fountain of
baptism. This shall also be observed in the instance where it is the woman who
is the catechumen. But if a woman of the faithful is taken in marriage by a man
who left an innocent wife, and if she knew that he had a wife whom he had left
without cause, it is determined that Communion is not to be given to her even at
death" (Canon 10).
Basil the Great
"A man who marries after another man’s wife has been taken away from him
will be charged with adultery in the case of the first woman; but in the case of
the second he will be guiltless" (Second Canonical Letter to
Amphilochius 199:37 [A.D. 375]).
Ambrose of Milan
"No one is permitted to know a woman other than his wife. The marital right
is given you for this reason: lest you fall into the snare and sin with a
strange woman. ‘If you are bound to a wife do not seek a divorce’; for you
are not permitted, while your wife lives, to marry another" (Abraham 1:7:59
[A.D. 387]).
"You dismiss your wife, therefore, as if by right and without being charged
with wrongdoing; and you suppose it is proper for you to do so because no human
law forbids it; but divine law forbids it. Anyone who obeys men ought to stand
in awe of God. Hear the law of the Lord, which even they who propose our laws
must obey: ‘What God has joined together let no man put asunder’" (Commentary
on Luke 8:5 [A.D. 389]).
Jerome
"Do not tell me about the violence of the ravisher, about the
persuasiveness of a mother, about the authority of a father, about the influence
of relatives, about the intrigues and insolence of servants, or about household
[financial] losses. So long as a husband lives, be he adulterer, be he sodomite,
be he addicted to every kind of vice, if she left him on account of his crimes,
he is her husband still and she may not take another" (Letters 55:3
[A.D. 396]).
"Wherever there is fornication and a suspicion of fornication, a wife is
freely dismissed. Because it is always possible that someone may calumniate the
innocent and, for the sake of a second joining in marriage, act in criminal
fashion against the first, it is commanded that when the first wife is
dismissed, a second may not be taken while the first lives" (Commentaries
on Matthew 3:19:9 [A.D. 398]).
Pope Innocent I
"[T]he practice is observed by all of regarding as an adulteress a woman
who marries a second time while her husband yet lives, and permission to do
penance is not granted her until one of them is dead" (Letters 2:13:15
[A.D. 408]).
Augustine
"Neither can it rightly be held that a husband who dismisses his wife
because of fornication and marries another does not commit adultery. For there
is also adultery on the part of those who, after the repudiation of their former
wives because of fornication, marry others. This adultery, nevertheless, is
certainly less serious than that of men who dismiss their wives for reasons
other than fornication and take other wives. Therefore, when we say: ‘Whoever
marries a woman dismissed by her husband for reason other than fornication
commits adultery,’ undoubtedly we speak the truth. But we do not thereby
acquit of this crime the man who marries a woman who was dismissed because of
fornication. We do not doubt in the least that both are adulterers. We do indeed
pronounce him an adulterer who dismissed his wife for cause other than
fornication and marries another, nor do we thereby defend from the taint of this
sin the man who dismissed his wife because of fornication and marries another.
We recognize that both are adulterers, though the sin of one is more grave than
that of the other. No one is so unreasonable to say that a man who marries a
woman whose husband has dismissed her because of fornication is not an
adulterer, while maintaining that a man who marries a woman dismissed without
the ground of fornication is an adulterer. Both of these men are guilty of
adultery" (Adulterous Marriages 1:9:9 [A.D. 419]).
"A woman begins to be the wife of no later husband unless she has ceased to
be the wife of a former one. She will cease to be the wife of a former one,
however, if that husband should die, not if he commit fornication. A spouse,
therefore, is lawfully dismissed for cause of fornication; but the bond of
chastity remains. That is why a man is guilty of adultery if he marries a woman
who has been dismissed even for this very reason of fornication" (ibid.,
2:4:4).
"Undoubtedly the substance of the sacrament is of this bond, so that when
man and woman have been joined in marriage they must continue inseparably as
long as they live, nor is it allowed for one spouse to be separated from the
other except for cause of fornication. For this is preserved in the case of
Christ and the Church, so that, as a living one with a living one, there is no
divorce, no separation forever" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:10:11
[A.D. 419]).
"In marriage, however, let the blessings of marriage be loved: offspring,
fidelity, and the sacramental bond. Offspring, not so much because it may be
born, but because it can be reborn; for it is born to punishment unless it be
reborn to life. Fidelity, but not such as even the unbelievers have among
themselves, ardent as they are for the flesh. . . . The sacramental bond, which
they lose neither through separation nor through adultery, this the spouses
should guard chastely and harmoniously" (ibid., 1:17:19).
The sacrament of holy orders is conferred in three ranks of clergy: bishops,
priests, and deacons.
Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint,
ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They are often called
"evangelists" in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops
include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).
Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as "presbyters" or
"elders." In fact, the English term "priest" is simply a
contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility
of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1
Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).
Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible
for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of
food (Acts 6:1–6).
In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid.
Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office,
sometimes not. This non-technical use of the terms even exists today, as when a
Protestant pastor who is actually an elder is also called a "minister"
(Greek, diakonos), though he is not a member of his congregation’s
deacon board.
Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos
("servant" or "minister"; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph.
3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of
apostle.
Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a "fellow
elder," [1 Pet. 5:1] even though he, being an apostle, also had a much
higher office than that of an ordinary elder.
The term for bishop, episcopos ("overseer"), was also fluid in
meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the
priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a
city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the
highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one
were staying there at the time.
Although the terms "bishop," "priest," and
"deacon" were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of
the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today
to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New
Testament.
As the following quotations illustrate, the early Church Fathers recognized all
three offices and regarded them as essential to the Church’s structure.
Especially significant are the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who
traveled from his home city to Rome, where he was executed around A.D. 110. On
the way he wrote letters to the churches he passed. Each of these churches
possessed the same threefold ministry. Without this threefold ministry, Ignatius
said, a group cannot be called a church.
Ignatius of Antioch
"Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your
God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus
and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his
company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the
presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ" (Letter to the Magnesians 2
[A.D. 110]).
"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding
in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the
apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the
business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at
last made manifest" (ibid., 6:1).
"Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of
the apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and in
soul, in faith and in love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit, in beginning and
in end, together with your most reverend bishop; and with that fittingly woven
spiritual crown, the presbytery; and with the deacons, men of God. Be subject to
the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the
apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in
both body and spirit" (ibid., 13:1–2).
"Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is
clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ,
who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is
necessary, therefore—and such is your practice that you do nothing without the
bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of
Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is
necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of
Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons
of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They must therefore guard
against blame as against fire" (Letter to the Trallians 2:1–3
[A.D. 110]).
"In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect
Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and
the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these,
it cannot be called a church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have
received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your
bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I
believe that even the godless do respect him" (ibid., 3:1–2).
"He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he that is outside the
sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and
the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clear conscience" (ibid.,
7:2).
"I cried out while I was in your midst, I spoke with a loud voice, the
voice of God: ‘Give heed to the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons.’
Some suspect me of saying this because I had previous knowledge of the division
certain persons had caused; but he for whom I am in chains is my witness that I
had no knowledge of this from any man. It was the Spirit who kept preaching
these words, ‘Do nothing without the bishop, keep your body as the temple of
God, love unity, flee from divisions, be imitators of Jesus Christ, as he was
imitator of the Father’" (Letter to the Philadelphians 7:1–2
[A.D. 110]).
Clement of Alexandria
"A multitude of other pieces of advice to particular persons is written in
the holy books: some for presbyters, some for bishops and deacons; and others
for widows, of whom we shall have opportunity to speak elsewhere" (The
Instructor of Children 3:12:97:2 [A.D. 191]).
"Even here in the Church the gradations of bishops, presbyters, and deacons
happen to be imitations, in my opinion, of the angelic glory and of that
arrangement which, the scriptures say, awaits those who have followed in the
footsteps of the apostles and who have lived in complete righteousness according
to the gospel" (Miscellanies 6:13:107:2 [A.D. 208]).
Hippolytus
"When a deacon is to be ordained, he is chosen after the fashion of those
things said above, the bishop alone in like manner imposing his hands upon him
as we have prescribed. In the ordaining of a deacon, this is the reason why the
bishop alone is to impose his hands upon him: he is not ordained to the
priesthood, but to serve the bishop and to fulfill the bishop’s command. He
has no part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and
is to acquaint the bishop with such matters as are needful. . . .
"On a presbyter, however, let the presbyters impose their hands because of
the common and like Spirit of the clergy. Even so, the presbyter has only the
power to receive [the Spirit], and not the power to give [the Spirit]. That is
why a presbyter does not ordain the clergy; for at the ordaining of a presbyter,
he but seals while the bishop ordains.
"Over a deacon, then, let the bishop speak thus: ‘O God, who have created
all things and have set them in order through your Word; Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, whom you sent to minister to your will and to make clear to us
your desires, grant the Holy Spirit of grace and care and diligence to this your
servant, whom you have chosen to serve the Church and to offer in your holy
places the gifts which are offered to you by your chosen high priests, so that
he may serve with a pure heart and without blame, and that, ever giving praise
to you, he may be accounted by your good will as worthy of this high office:
through your Son Jesus Christ, through whom be glory and honor to you, to the
Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit, in your holy Church, both now and
through the ages of ages. Amen’" (The Apostolic Tradition 9 [A.D.
215]).
Origen
"Not fornication only, but even marriages make us unfit for ecclesiastical
honors; for neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon, nor a widow is able
to be twice married" (Homilies on Luke 17 [A.D. 234]).
Council of Elvira
"Bishops, presbyters, and deacons may not leave their own places for the
sake of commerce, nor are they to be traveling about the provinces, frequenting
the markets for their own profit. Certainly for the procuring of their own
necessities they can send a boy or a freedman or a hireling or a friend or
whomever, but, if they wish to engage in business, let them do so within the
province" (Canon 18 [A.D. 300]).
Council of Nicaea I
"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some
districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters
[i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no
right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to
them that do offer [it]. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons
now touch the Eucharist even before the bishops. Let all such practices be
utterly done away, and let the deacons remain within their own bounds, knowing
that they are the ministers of the bishop and the inferiors of the presbyters.
Let them receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters,
and let either the bishop or the presbyter administer to them" (Canon 18
[A.D. 325]).
John Chrysostom
"[In Philippians 1:1 Paul says,] ‘To the co-bishops and deacons.’ What
does this mean? Were there plural bishops of some city? Certainly not! It is the
presbyters that [Paul] calls by this title; for these titles were then
interchangeable, and the bishop is even called a deacon. That is why, when
writing to Timothy, he says, ‘Fulfill your diaconate’ [2 Tim. 4:5], although
Timothy was then a bishop. That he was in fact a bishop is clear when Paul says
to him, ‘Lay hands on no man lightly’ [1 Tim. 5:22], and again, ‘Which was
given you with the laying on of hands of the presbytery’ [1 Tim. 4:14], and
presbyters would not have ordained a bishop" (Homilies on Philippians
1:1 [A.D. 402]).
Patrick of Ireland
"I, Patrick, the sinner, am the most rustic and the least of all the
faithful . . . had for my father Calpornius, a deacon, a son of Potitus, a
priest, who belonged to the village of Bannavem Taberniae. . . . At that time I
was barely sixteen years of age . . . and I was led into captivity in Ireland
with many thousands of persons, in accordance with our deserts, for we turned
away from God, and kept not his commandments, and were not obedient to our
priests, who were wont to admonish us for our salvation" (Confession of
St. Patrick 1 [A.D. 452]).
"I, Patrick, the sinner, unlearned as everybody knows, avow that I have
been established a bishop in Ireland. Most assuredly I believe that I have
received from God what I am. And so I dwell in the midst of barbarous heaths, a
stranger and an exile for the love of God" (Letter to the Soldiers of
Coroticus 1 [A.D. 452]).
Fundamentalist attacks on priestly celibacy come in a number of different
forms—not all compatible with one another. There is almost no other subject
about which so many different confusions exist.
The first and most basic confusion is thinking of priestly celibacy as a dogma
or doctrine—a central and irreformable part of the faith, believed by
Catholics to come from Jesus and the apostles. Thus some Fundamentalists make a
great deal of a biblical reference to Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:30),
apparently supposing that, if Catholics only knew that Peter had been married,
they would be unable to regard him as the first pope. Again, Fundamentalist time
lines of "Catholic inventions" (a popular literary form) assign
"mandatory priestly celibacy" to this or that year in Church history,
as if prior to this requirement the Church could not have been Catholic.
These Fundamentalists are often surprised to learn that even today celibacy is
not the rule for all Catholic priests. In fact, for Eastern Rite Catholics,
married priests are the norm, just as they are for Orthodox and Oriental
Christians.
Even in the Eastern churches, though, there have always been some restrictions
on marriage and ordination. Although married men may become priests, unmarried
priests may not marry, and married priests, if widowed, may not remarry.
Moreover, there is an ancient Eastern discipline of choosing bishops from the
ranks of the celibate monks, so their bishops are all unmarried.
The tradition in the Western or Latin-Rite Church has been for priests as well
as bishops to take vows of celibacy, a rule that has been firmly in place since
the early Middle Ages. Even today, though, exceptions are made. For example,
there are married Latin-Rite priests who are converts from Lutheranism and
Episcopalianism.
As these variations and exceptions indicate, priestly celibacy is not an
unchangeable dogma, like the Trinity, but a disciplinary rule, like requiring
clergy to have formal theological education (a discipline followed in most
non-Catholic churches). The fact that Peter was married is no more contrary to
the Catholic faith than the fact that the pastor of the nearest Maronite
Catholic church is married.
Is Marriage Mandatory?
Another, quite different Fundamentalist confusion is the notion that celibacy is
unbiblical, or even "unnatural." Every man, it is claimed, must obey
the biblical injunction to "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28); and
Paul commands that "each man should have his own wife and each woman her
own husband" (1 Cor. 7:2). It is even argued that celibacy somehow
"causes," or at least correlates with higher incidence of, illicit
sexual behavior or perversion.
All of this is false. Although most people are at some point in their lives
called to the married state, the vocation of celibacy is explicitly
advocated—as well as practiced—by both Jesus and Paul.
So far from "commanding" marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, in that very
chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: "To the
unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I
am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is
better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (7:8-9).
It is only because of this "temptation to immorality" (7:2) that Paul
gives the teaching about each man and woman having a spouse and giving each
other their "conjugal rights" (7:3); he specifically clarifies,
"I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all
were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind
and one of another" (7:6-7, emphasis added).
Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage:
"Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will
have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is
anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married
man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests
are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the
Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about
worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (7:27-34).
Paul’s conclusion: He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from
marriage will do better" (7:38).
Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense,
"better" than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on
divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, "If such is the case
between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). This
remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy "for the sake of
the kingdom":
"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some
are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were
made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of
the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt.
19:11–12).
Notice that this sort of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom" is a
gift, a call that is not granted to all, or even most people, but is granted to
some. Other people are called to marriage. It is true that too often individuals
in both vocations fall short of the requirements of their state, but this does
not diminish either vocation, nor does it mean that the individuals in question
were "not really called" to that vocation. The sin of a priest
doesn’t necessarily prove that he never should have taken a vow of celibacy,
any more than the sin of a married man or woman proves that he or she never
should have gotten married. It is possible for us to fall short of our own true
calling.
Celibacy is neither unnatural nor unbiblical. "Be fruitful and
multiply" is not binding upon every individual; rather, it is a general
precept for the human race. Otherwise, every unmarried man and woman of marrying
age would be in a state of sin by remaining single, and Jesus and Paul would be
guilty of advocating sin as well as committing it.
"The Husband of One Wife"
Another Fundamentalist argument, related to the last, is that marriage is
mandatory for Church leaders. For Paul says a bishop must be "the
husband of one wife," and "must manage his own household well, keeping
his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know
how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s Church?" (1
Tim. 3:2, 4–5). This means, they argue, that only a man who has demonstrably
looked after a family is fit to care for God’s Church; an unmarried man, it is
implied, is somehow untried or unproven.
This interpretation leads to obvious absurdities. For one, if "the husband
of one wife" really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by
the same logic "keeping his children submissive and respectful in every
way" would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or
even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not
qualify.
In fact, following this style of interpretation to its final absurdity, since
Paul speaks of bishops meeting these requirements (not of their having met
them, or of candidates for bishop meeting them), it would even follow
that an ordained bishop whose wife or children died would become unqualified for
ministry! Clearly such excessive literalism must be rejected.
The theory that Church leaders must be married also contradicts the obvious fact
that Paul himself, an eminent Church leader, was single and happy to be so.
Unless Paul was a hypocrite, he could hardly have imposed a requirement on
bishops which he did not himself meet. Consider, too, the implications regarding
Paul’s positive attitude toward celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7: the married have
worldly anxieties and divided interests, yet only they are qualified to
be bishops; whereas the unmarried have single-minded devotion to the Lord, yet
are barred from ministry!
The suggestion that the unmarried man is somehow untried or unproven is equally
absurd. Each vocation has its own proper challenges: the celibate man must
exercise "self-control" (1 Cor. 7:9); the husband must love and care
for his wife selflessly (Eph. 5:25); and the father must raise his children well
(1 Tim. 3:4). Every man must meet Paul’s standard of "managing his
household well," even if his "household" is only himself. If
anything, the chaste celibate man meets a higher standard than the
respectable family man.
Clearly, the point of Paul’s requirement that a bishop be "the husband of
one wife" is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only
one wife. Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not
have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who
are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he
must be married).
The truth is, it is precisely those who are uniquely "concerned about the
affairs of the Lord" (1 Cor. 7:32), those to whom it has been given to
"renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom" (Matt. 19:12), who are
ideally suited to follow in the footsteps of those who have "left
everything" to follow Christ (cf. Matt. 19:27)—the calling of the clergy
and consecrated religious (i.e., monks and nuns).
Thus Paul warned Timothy, a young bishop, that those called to be
"soldiers" of Christ must avoid "civilian pursuits":
"Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on
service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one
who enlisted him" (2 Tim. 2:3–4). In light of Paul’s remarks in 1
Corinthians 7 about the advantages of celibacy, marriage and family clearly
stand out in connection with these "civilian pursuits."
An example of ministerial celibacy can also be seen in the Old Testament. The
prophet Jeremiah, as part of his prophetic ministry, was forbidden to take a
wife: "The word of the Lord came to me: ‘You shall not take a wife, nor
shall you have sons or daughters in this place’" (Jer. 16:1–2). Of
course, this is different from Catholic priestly celibacy, which is not divinely
ordained; yet the divine precedent still supports the legitimacy of the human
institution.
Forbidden to Marry?
Yet none of these passages give us an example of humanly mandated celibacy.
Jeremiah’s celibacy was mandatory, but it was from the Lord. Paul’s remark
to Timothy about "civilian pursuits" is only a general admonition, not
a specific command; and even in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul qualifies his strong
endorsement of celibacy by adding: "I say this for your own benefit, not to
lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your
undivided devotion to the Lord" (7:35).
This brings us to Fundamentalism’s last line of attack: that, by requiring
at least some of its clerics and its religious not to marry, the Catholic Church
falls under Paul’s condemnation in 1 Timothy 4:3 against apostates who
"forbid marriage."
In fact, the Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take
a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They "renounce
marriage" (Matt. 19:12); no one forbids it to them. Any Catholic who
doesn’t wish to take such a vow doesn’t have to, and is almost always free
to marry with the Church’s blessing. The Church simply elects candidates for
the priesthood (or, in the Eastern rites, for the episcopacy) from among those
who voluntarily renounce marriage.
But is there scriptural precedent for this practice of restricting membership in
a group to those who take a voluntary vow of celibacy? Yes. Paul, writing once
again to Timothy, mentions an order of widows pledged not to remarry (1 Tim
5:9-16); in particular advising: "But refuse to enroll younger widows; for
when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur
condemnation for having violated their first pledge" (5:11–12).
This "first pledge" broken by remarriage cannot refer to previous
wedding vows, for Paul does not condemn widows for remarrying (cf. Rom. 7:2-3).
It can only refer to a vow not to remarry taken by widows enrolled in
this group. In effect, they were an early form of women religious—New
Testament nuns. The New Testament Church did contain orders with
mandatory celibacy, just as the Catholic Church does today.
Such orders are not, then, what Paul meant when he warned against
"forbidding to marry." The real culprits here are the many Gnostic
sects through the ages which denounced marriage, sex, and the body as
intrinsically evil. Some early heretics fit this description, as did the
medieval Albigensians and Catharists (whom, ironically, some anti-Catholic
writers admire in ignorance, apparently purely because they happened to have
insisted on using their own vernacular translation of the Bible; see the
Catholic Answers tract Catholic Inventions).
The Dignity of Celibacy and Marriage
Most Catholics marry, and all Catholics are taught to venerate marriage as a
holy institution—a sacrament, an action of God upon our souls; one of the
holiest things we encounter in this life.
In fact, it is precisely the holiness of marriage that makes celibacy precious;
for only what is good and holy in itself can be given up for God as a sacrifice.
Just as fasting presupposes the goodness of food, celibacy presupposes the
goodness of marriage. To despise celibacy, therefore, is to undermine marriage
itself—as the early Fathers pointed out.
Celibacy is also a life-affirming institution. In the Old Testament, where
celibacy was almost unknown, the childless were often despised by others and
themselves; only through children, it was felt, did one acquire value. By
renouncing marriage, the celibate affirms the intrinsic value of each human life
in itself, regardless of offspring.
Finally, celibacy is an eschatological sign to the Church, a living-out in the
present of the universal celibacy of heaven: "For in the resurrection they
neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven"
(Matt. 22:30).
Recently
in our world there were lot of scams which were thrown upon catholic priests.
The world said it is because it is not easy to live celibate life and the church
should relax it. Well the priests who misled their celibacy life were few but
the media propaganda it very big. Catholic priests were the one who have
profound effect in cultural values, they played major role in governments, they
were the cause for development of villages, towns, cities, nations. They
established greatest educational institutions, universities, Research and
Development centers, Orphans and
Children care centers, Institutes for the care of sick, widow, abandoned babies,
elderly ones. They are the one who stood and spoke against tyranny governments
which disrespected human lives, Some of them lost their lives when they spoke
against evil governments, groups and factions, lot of them have lived saintly
and angelic life. There will be no time and end to talk about all good things
the catholic clergy has done to humans in this world. But because very few did
wrong, it doesn’t mean others are also like that.
When
Judas one of the apostles betrayed jesus, the church formed didn’t stop
functioning. Jesus knew before hand that Judas is going to betray, but he asked
other apostles to spread the word of God
into all corners of the earth. Jesus also said there will be turbulence in the
church and ruptures will be there, but Jesus promised,
"I will build my
Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt.
16:18).