The Nicene Creed states that the Holy Spirit “spoke through the prophets in (or into) one holy, catholic, and apostolic church.” Contrary to usual translations, neither the Greek nor the Latin originals say “I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic church.” As written, the thought of the authors seems to be that as the Spirit spoke through the prophets in depositing the Bible for all time, so He continues to guide the Church into all truth. Either that, or taking “in” as “into,” the Spirit spoke the Bible into that church.
What kind of church is it that the Spirit works in? A church that is united, holy, catholic, and apostolic. No church is fully these things, and so the thought has to be that to the extent that the church functions in this way, to that extent the Spirit guides her.
So, is the church today one? Hardly. Of course, sectarians will say that she is one, because they exclude everyone with whom they disagree. Landmark Baptists and “Baptist Bride” Baptists of all stripes will recognize the rest of us as “separated brethren,” but not as fully “in” the church. This same hypersectarian mentality is found in Romanism, Orthodoxy, and in nose-bleed-high Anglicanism. Authentic churches, however, recognize others as real though flawed. The great Scottish Presbyterian Samuel Rutherford was a pains to insist that Roman Catholic ordination was real and that no converted priest was to be “re-ordained” in the Scottish church. Sadly, Hyperbaptists, Papists, Orthodox, and too much of Anglicanism cannot say the same. Some goofy sectarian Presbyterians are the same. Churches function as part of the ONE when they recognize one another’s orders and sacraments and discipline. This is not always easy, but real churches do it. When someone comes to us from a Baptist or Catholic church and wants to join, we phone up the pastor/priest and talk to him. We find out what the story is. We honor other churches, however wayward we think they are.
Is the church today holy? Well, that definitely depends on the church. Those who define holiness as mysticism and shamanism can tolerate all kinds of immorality. In Rome and Orthodoxy and Pentecostalism, holiness inheres in various charmed objects and persons. These semi-churches will discipline someone who rejects these talismans, but turn a blind eye to Tsars, mafiosos, pederasts, adulterers, and royalty. Imagine what would happen if a priest in the Church of England refused communion to one of their adulterous royalty? Well, you can’t imagine it, can you? It cannot happen. Anyone who reads the Pauline epistles or chapters 2 and 3 of Revelation knows that kicking people out for immorality is at the top of Jesus’ demands for a faithful bride. Can anyone point to an instance of that’s happening in Anglicanism, Orthodoxy, or Rome? One thing these churches are not is “holy.” It seems that it is only in those churches that trace back to the Reformation, including the Baptists, where the holiness that Jesus wants can be found, however partially.
Is the church today catholic? This is similar to asking if she is one. The test of catholicity is an open communion table. From early times the church has failed to be charitable in this regard. In his book Jesus Wars, John Philip Jenkins describes the horrible treatment of “Monophysite” and “Nestorian” Christians at the hands of savage “Orthodox” monks; and vice versa. Rodney Stark’s wonderful book on the “crusades,” God’s Battalions, shows how the eastern Christians welcomed the Moslem invaders as deliverers from vicious oppression at the hands of Byzantine Christianity. We’ve grown up a bit since those days, but it is still the case that sectarian groups deny communion to baptized believers simply because they don’t sign on the dotted line. Hyper-Lutherans deny communion to anyone who does not confess what is often called “consubstantiation.” Now, think about this. The Eucharistic Meal is not what you or I think it is or may be; it is what Jesus does. If I’m wrong about the theory, does that mean Jesus is not present? Real Lutherans say, yes, there is “real presence” as they define it, but even if you don’t understand that, Jesus is still there for you if you trust him and are baptized.
Catholicity of practice is, sadly, missing from Orthodoxy, Hard-core Baptists, the Church of Christ, and most of Rome. Rome won’t “rebaptize” Protestants, but neither will she give us communion unless there happens to be no Protestant church in the area we can attend. This is at least an improvement over how things were when I was a child, before Vatican II. Orthodoxy says our baptisms stink, and have to be cleansed by “chrismation,” a ritual nowhere found in the apostlolic scriptures. As Peter Leithart wrote recently on his blog, anyone who is truly committed to catholicity will have a hard time joining one of these sects.
Finally, is the church Apostolic? Here again, we have sects that claim something called “apostolic succession,” a notion that cannot be found in the Bible. In fact, Paul is at pains repeatedly to deny any succession from the earlier apostles. I’m happy with the notion of ministers ordaining ministers and Christians baptizing Christians, but ultimately the succession in the Church is by the Spirit. It cannot be otherwise. “Apostolic” in the Nicene Creed means “faithful to the apostles.” Well, do the apostles anywhere teach that icons can be used as charmed objects with which to communicate with the dead? Do they tell us to chat with, or to offer prayers to, our “heavenly family members”? Surely, if the Apostolic Church had changed the earlier rules against consulting the dead and worshipping through images and man-made objects, it would have been controversial. But we see nothing of that. The controversial changes were about circumcision, calendar, food, and Jewish exceptionalism. In fact, the early Church teachers (“fathers”) were death on using images in worship, and it was only in the 700s that ignorant monks were able to overwhelm the authentic clergy and bring this garbage into the church. No Apostolic church has anything to do with prayers to the goddess BMEV (Blessed Mary Ever Virgin) or any other god-saints. No Apostolic church bows down to pieces of wood and brass, to images whether flat or in the round.
It is because I am a member of the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church that I cannot imagine joining one of these giant sects. The fact is that God the Holy Spirit fixed these problems half a millennium ago in the Protestant (pro-test = stand for) Reformation. Protestantism has now run its course, but what will come in its place will be more Biblical, more Catholic, more Unified. It will not be a return to Monophysitism, Nestorianism, Orthodoxy, or Romanism.
People who despair of Protestant churches as they have experienced them — and many are pretty awful today — and who go into Rome or Orthodoxy may do so for two reasons. One, they may become idolators, pure and simple. Such is the case with Scott Hahn, who decided to worship Mary and then converted. Or, two, they may hold their nose at many things but go into these churches because they think (erroneously in my view) that this is where God is going to act in the future. This is an understandable reason, and I think godly men like Louis Bouyer are in this category. For myself, however, I think remaining in the Protestant world is the best option, however chaotic it is right now. God does not go back. The future, which we cannot really imagine, will come out of what He has done most recently, which is the Reformation.
You Romanists, Nestorians, Monophysites, HyperBaptists, HyperLutherans, and Orthodox are welcome at the Lord’s Table in authentic Protestant churches such as the ones I attend. Come on in. The fire’s warm. The roast is in the oven. The Châteauneuf-du-Pape is decanted. We’d love to see you.
[…] from James Jordan – One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church Catholicity of practice is, sadly, missing from Orthodoxy, Hard-core Baptists, the Church of […]
“Rom . will she give us communion unless therwon’t “rebaptize” Protestants, but neither happens to be no Protestant church in the area we can attend.”
Hmm… I don’t think this is true, is it? I mean, the Catholic Catechism allows Communion for Orthodox if there is no Orthodox church available, but I think it says that anyone else has to be in an ‘urgent’ situation – normally near death – and to have said he believes what the (Roman) Catholic Church believes.
Could be wrong, and it is certainly the case that there are priests who will commune persons they know to be Protestants – but I think it is illicit according to Roman canon law.
jj (I am a Catholic but too lazy to look up the Catechism to see what it says :-))
John, I’m going by what a priest friend has assured me is the normal rule.
Jim
Your priest friend is wrong, and by relying on him instead of the definitive source your assertion is wrong as well. The “normal” rule is found in the Code of Canon Law, and it’s not a difficult thing to determine. It’s called research.
Admin, sorry to hear it. I guess the Papal church is even less catholic than I had thought.
Well, there is a consistency and a compassion in the prohibition that y’all cannot or will not acknowledge for some reason. We believe that the consecrated host is truly Christ. We believe that partaking of Christ in the Eucharist without discerning it as such would be bad for you…you might become sick or die the Bible says. Consistent with that conviction and out of love for you the “Papists” do not invite you…well, your priest friend does apparently, but that is contrary to Church Law and a sad thing. So given what we profess and believe God’s Word to mean, what would you expect? “Come on down! Hope it doesn’t kill you!”
The name is Kevin Branson, not trying to be anonymous.
G.K. Chesterton writes, “All these are possible as general views of life; and there is a [fifth] that is at least equally possible, though certainly more positive. The whole point of this last might be expressed in the line of M. Cammaerts’s beautiful little poem about bluebells; le ciel est tombé par terre. Heaven has descended into the world of matter; the supreme spiritual power is now operating by the machinery of matter, dealing miraculously with the bodies and the souls of men. It blesses the five senses; as the senses of the baby are blessed at a Catholic christening. It blesses even material gifts and keepsakes, as with relics or rosaries. It works through water or oil or bread or wine. Now that sort of mystical materialism may please or displease the Dean, or anybody else. But I cannot for the life of me understand why the Dean, or anybody else, does not see that the Incarnation is as much a part of that idea as the Mass; and that the Mass is as much a part of that idea as the Incarnation.
“A Puritan may think it blasphemous that God should become a wafer. A Moslem thinks it is blasphemous that God should become a workman in Galilee. And he is perfectly right, from his point of view; and given his primary principle. But if the Moslem has a principle, the Protestant has only a prejudice. That is, he has only a fragment; a relic; a superstition “If it be profane that the miraculous should descend to the plane of matter, then certainly Catholicism is profane; and Protestantism is profane; and Christianity is profane. Of all human creeds or concepts, in that sense, Christianity is the most utterly profane. But why a man should accept a Creator who was a carpenter, and then worry about holy water, why he should accept a local Protestant tradition that God was born in some particular place mentioned in the Bible, merely because the Bible had been left lying about in England, and then say it is incredible that a blessing should linger on the bones of a saint: why he should accept the first and most stupendous part of the story of Heaven on Earth, and then furiously deny a few small but obvious deductions from it—that is a thing I do not understand; I never could understand. I have come to the conclusion that I shall never understand. I can only attribute it to Superstition.”
There’s a good article here on the subject:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/who-can-receive-communion
pretty much what I had thought.
I’m interested in the topic because I recall, in, I think, 1985, when our Reformed church in New Zealand was preparing a statement to be read before the Lord’s Supper about ‘fenced Communion’ – we particularly didn’t want the Baptists coming to Communion – I wrote to you, Jim, on the subject. I said, in my letter, that ‘of course’ the symbol of unity was confessing the Creeds – but how far did he think one could go on this. You replied that, on the contrary, in his opinion the symbol of unity was the sacraments.
I found that reply very exciting. I had never thought of the sacraments as of much importance – having, certainly, a Baptist or evangelical mind-set myself. Your reply made my stop and think – of course excommunication was the real statement of whether you were one with us or not. This understanding of the centrality of the sacraments was one step for me on the road that led to Rome.
In the event, our Reformed church composed a statement to be read telling non-reformed people that they shouldn’t come to the Lord’s Supper lest they be compromising their own faith. Hence it was clearly a credal standard that was being followed.
I don’t think I really understood, at the time, what you meant by your statement; perhaps I do now. Thanks for the article!
jj
A kind of PS – reflecting on what I wrote a minute ago, it seems to me that the Catholic view of unity is neither credal – we are one with those who believe the doctrines we believe – nor sacramental – we are one with those who share our sacraments – but corporate – or, if the Catholic claim to be the church in which the fulness of Christ ‘subsists’ is false, then sectarian – we are one with those who adhere to the Catholic body.
In the above, of course, by ‘Catholic’ I mean what non-Catholics would call ‘Roman Catholic.’
Jim, would you agree with my understanding of Catholic unity? It is, in fact, the same principle of unity as that of those that everyone would call sects – e.g. Jehovah’s witnesses.
Of course the whole validity of that principle turns on the truth or falsehood of the Papist claims – but that’s another story :-)
jj
What is canonized and what is so on the ground *often* differ. And in the case of the Roman Church, it tends to look different depending on local context (there is little recognizability between Catholicism in e.g. the Philippines compared to the USA, for instance).
John,
Glad to have been of help way back then, but sorry it was a step on the way to Rome! I can’t see that as a move toward Christian catholicity. But as to your other post, I really can’t say. I suspect you are right: It’s incorporation into an institution; but on the other hand, I suspect that the answer to your question will depend on which Papal theologican you ask!
JBJordan
Kevin,
Thanks for the name. I had already found the tract that John Jensen pointed me to, and it includes your point. I think it is important enough for me to write a separate post on it.
JBJordan
“No Apostolic church has anything to do with prayers to the goddess BMEV (Blessed Mary Ever Virgin) or any other god-saints.”
I had a lot of respect for you when I was a Reformed believer. And I had a lot of respect for you up until one minute ago when I read this. My first reaction was to not respond, but I feel someone should defend her who never defended herself. It is an outrage to insult the mother of our Lord like this. You should be ashamed.
There is one God in three persons, and Catholics do not worship Mary or any other saints, nor do we think she or they are one of those 3 persons. They are human beings just like you or I. And by the way, they are not dead. So your railing against praying to dead people betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the communion of saints and theosis/beitific vision. Communicating with dead people is sorcery, which is condemned by the Church. Saints are not dead, but alive in Christ.
Your bitter characterization of Catholics and Orthodox makes it really hard to believe you care to commune with such “idolators” and that you think they are fellow Christians. And it makes it easy to dismiss you. You sound in this post like a wild eyed tent revival dispensationalist… oh, but with a roman collar of course.
Note: If you care about unity with Catholics and Orthodox, perhaps refrain from insulting the Mother of God. They tend to tune out and dismiss you at that point.
David,
The insult to the mother of our Lord is to elevate her into some goddess status and pray to her.
RCs do indeed “worship” Mary and the saints. They perform acts of veneration and worship toward human artifacts that supposedly represent and connect up with Mary and the saints. This is in direct violation of the biblical prohibition not to “bown down” to any carved images. Whether you give her equal status with the Father, Son, and Spirit is beside the point. The acts of prayer and ritual bowing done before statutes (and icons) is the issue. It may not be idolatry proper (worshiping another god), but it is certainly liturgical idolatry (worshiping the true God in a forbidden manner).
You say, “they are not dead.” Of course, they are dead. The departed saints are “dead in Chirst,” as the NT repeatedly says. Death is the separation of body and soul. They remain in a state of death until Christ returns and restores them to life in their resurrected bodies. This is basic stuff, David. Being dead doesn’t mean you cease to exist. Being dead doesn’t mean you have no consciousness in heaven. It means you are experiencing the judicial setence of death, your body and soul torn asunder. The dead or departed saints are with the Lord. They are blessed, but they are dead and long for the full restoration of life at the resurrection. The living are cut off from and have no communication with people that are dead. We may not pray to dead people.
“RCs do indeed “worship” Mary and the saints.”
And you are Abraham Lincoln. See how just saying something doesnt make it any more plausible? I pray to Mary every day. I dont worship her.
“We may not pray to dead people.”
The Church says otherwise. Given the choice between the Church and your opinion, the choice is obvious.
“It may not be idolatry proper (worshiping another god), but it is certainly liturgical idolatry (worshiping the true God in a forbidden manner).”
Mr. Jordan specifically said Scott Hahn “decided to worship Mary and then converted”. How incredibly patronizing! That sounds like a lot more than just “liturgical idolatry” as you put it. Calvin says that we are idol factories, so yes we all have our problems. But the tone of your and James’ rhetoric shows no distiction between praying for a saints help or venerating them and worshipping a golden calf as God.
As if when someone goes from Baptist to Calvinist they “decided that God likes to send people to hell so they became a double predestinarian.” How incredibly dismissive and ignorant.
David,
You are right: I should have said that Scott Hahn had decided to worship the goddess BMEV. That goddess is NOT the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, who was Mary of Nazareth, mother later on of other sons and daughters. She is now in heaven with her Son and all the saints, on the other side of the firmament, who is Jesus Christ. You cannot talk to her, because Jesus is in the way. He is the only Mediator between heaven and earth. All communication, if any, has to go through Him. You cannot go around Him and talk to anyone in heaven. Now, if you are faithful you will be able to talk with her when you die.
But you should really give up your little gods and goddesses and your shrines and high places. These are dangerous things. The God who loves you more than you love yourself has told us that attempts to speak to the dead and bowing down to manmade objects for worship purposes of any sort are extremely dangeous and soul-ruining, which is why He lovingly forbad them and instituted serious punishments for them.
As for what the Church has said, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church opposed this evil when it arose, and after it became dominant, rejected it 500 years ago. That’s old news.
As for bitterness, well, that’s in the eye of the beholder. I imagine Jesus and Paul were accused of that in their day. I have good friends in all these camps, including hardshell Baptists, RCs, EOs, Reformed and Lutheran people who will not let me commune with them, etc. It does not change the fact that this refusal to treat baptized believers as true Christians is a sin, however much it may be a “sin of inadvertency.”
JBJordan
Mr. Jordan, the Church did not rise up to defeat these practices as you have asserted, for praying fir the departed and praying yo the Saints and Martyrs was part and parcel of the life of the Church from it’s beginning. We have preserved for us not only inscriptions and other archaeological proofs but also the clear message of the Fathers, not the least of which is St. Augustine of Hippo:
“As to our paying honor to the memory of the martyrs, and the accusation of Faustus, that we worship them instead of idols, I should not care to answer such a charge, were it not for the sake of showing how Faustus, in his desire to cast reproach on us, has overstepped the Manichaean inventions, and has fallen heedlessly into a popular notion found in Pagan poetry, although he is so anxious to be distinguished from the Pagans. For in saying that we have turned the idols into martyrs, be speaks of our worshipping them with similar rites, and appeasing the shades of the departed with wine and food…It is true that Christians pay religious honor to the memory of the martyrs, both to excite us to imitate them and to obtain a share in their merits, and the assistance of their prayers. But we build altars not to any martyr, but to the God of martyrs, although it is to the memory of the martyrs. No one officiating at the altar in the saints’ burying-place ever says, We bring an offering to thee, O Peter! or O Paul! or O Cyprian! The offering is made to God, who gave the crown of martyrdom, while it is in memory of those thus crowned. The emotion is increased by the associations of the place, and. love is excited both towards those who are our examples, and towards Him by whose help we may follow such examples. We regard the martyrs with the same affectionate intimacy that we feel towards holy men of God in this life, when we know that their hearts are prepared to endure the same suffering for the truth of the gospel. There is more devotion in our feeling towards the martyrs, because we know that their conflict is over; and we can speak with greater confidence in praise of those already victors in heaven, than of those still combating here.” Augustine, Against Faustus, 20:21 (A.D. 400).
Kevin,
I fear you are simply not correct in asserting that the pre-Nicene church ever countenanced attempts to talk to the dead or to ask them for anything. Where is the evidence? No one asked any dead person to pray for them, or worse, asked him or her to act on earth in his behalf (“St. Christopher, help me as I cross this river.”) Yes, of course, they commemorated the lives and deaths of their family members and of their leaders, but they did not pray to them or think they could talk to them. In this they followed the clear teachings of the Fathers of the Church (i.e., Moses, David, Isaiah, Jesus, Peter, Paul, etc.).
In what Augustine writes, well after the church had been invaded by many half-converted pagans, the only thing objectionable is the notion that the martyrs are asked to pray for us. That’s still far less than asking them to do things for us. Still, it flies in the face of the teaching of the Fathers. Yet, during this time of the Church’s infancy and beginning adolescence, we do not expect everything to have been worked out. On the central matters they devoted time to, the Church Children made great strides: The formula of Chalcedon, the doctrine of the Tri-unity of God. But when
“Barnabas” writes that the Jews were idiots for thinking God really wanted them to kill animals instead of just thinking about it;
“Barnabas” writes that badgers are unclean because they engage in oral sex;
Basil writes that sexual intercourse is part of the curse and that originally we would have reproduced parthenogenically;
Nyssa comes up with a bizarre Life of Moses worthy of any fantasy writer;
Jerome says that saints in heaven are omnipresent;
Jerome commits manslaughter by provoking a young Roman girl to starve herself to death;
Etc.
Well, no mature Christian is going to go along with such stuff. And neither do we try to talk to people in heaven. We stand with the Fathers and the early church.
More in a separate installment in this blog.
Two questions:
First, you said “Christ is the only mediator between heaven and earth.” I’m not sure where you’re getting that. He is the only mediator between God (the Father) and Man, but that’s different from claiming he’s the only mediator between heaven and earth.
Second, I’m confused by your reading of the Creeds. My copy of Schaff is away in storage right now, but wikipedia gives the Greek “Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν.” I suppose this could be read is part of the previous phrase, as you do in your first paragraph. But why can’t it be read in parallel with “εἰς ἕνα Θεόν, Πατέρα” “Καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν” “Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον” The lack of kai is the only thing that I can see that doesn’t support the second reading.
But the Latin reads “Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et” which *lacks* “in” and contains “et” which indicates a new section.
And wikipedia translates the Armenian as “We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church;” which again supports the traditional reading. (Though I suppose they may be mistranslating it, and my Armenian is not even rusty.)
So my question is, why your reading? It’s not the reading of any of the modern translations, it’s not the Latin, it’s not the Armenian, and it seems only possible (and to me, not even plausible) in Greek.
Who said the departed Saints are dead (Mark 12:26-27)? They are alive in Christ, at least that’s what the Bible says. Jesus even had a conversation with a couple of them once while on Earth.
Are you implying that St. Augustine was nudged off course here due to the “half-converted pagans” who had “invaded” the Church? Surely you can find more to be upset about with good old St. Augustine than just this little slip up. Actually, I’d like to give you a laundry list of doctrines that St. Augustine held to that will positively perturb you, but I don’t blame these beliefs on sneaky quasi-converts in his midst. It’s just that he believed in those things that the Church held out as true, and still does. In the words of Francis Beckwith: “Saint Augustine, whose genius helped rid the Church of the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian heresies, would not be welcomed …as a faculty member at virtually any evangelical seminary, because the Bishop of Hippo accepted the deuterocanonical books as part of the Old Testament canon, the deposit of Sacred Tradition, apostolic succession, the gracious efficacy of the Sacraments, the Real Presence of the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, and the infusion of God’s grace for justification.”
I don’t get why Protestants love this guy Augustine so much! He’s obviously terribly confused and out of touch with heterodoxy.
As regards strange things that the Father’s have written: what’s your point? Martin Luther wrote some very strange things, and yet I think we can all discern what his message and doctrine truly was, in spite of the occasional outburst or inappropriate exclamation. So too with the Fathers, who are quite clear in their writings on this practice of praying for the departed, and praying to the martyrs, nevermind some silly things they might have written here or there. Their body of writings speaks for itself, unless it is read selectively and with a very narrow framework of interpretation.
Pre-Nicene Church, eh? Are you redrawing some boundary lines that now define the conversation as regards what can be offered to demonstrate that prayers to the saints were and always have been offered by the faithful? Are you more comfortable with those new limitations imposed? Just so you know, I think I’ll hop around on both sides of that line you have drawn.
I mentioned monumental inscriptions and archaeological evidence earlier. Well, there are thousands of inscriptions that have been documented, translated and studied. A couple of works that I can mention are Die Acclamationen by Kirsch and Monumenta Liturgica by Cabrol/Leclercq, One inscription I will mention, because it is from the late third century (and you like Pre-Nicene references, I understand) is at the tomb of St. Sebastian, which reads “Petrus and Paulus, pray for us!” as well as “Peter and Paul, pray for victory”.
There are lots more of them…some are prayers for the departed, some are prayers to the Saints. Just like we do today. And by the way, we do ask the Saints to “do things” for us. We ask them to pray for us, to intercede, for the prayer of a righteous man can git er done, the Bible says. You can’t get more righteous than the perfected Saints basking in the perpetual light of the throne of God. I’m asking you to pray for me too, but I’m putting lots more of my chips on the prayers of the Saints. Nothing personal.
Mr. Jordan, you maintain that what Augustine has said “flies in the face of the teaching of the Fathers”. Actually, that is not true. Do you really want me to reply with just some of what the Fathers wrote on this subject by posting here in the comment window? There really is quite alot. I mean…an awful lot. I won’t send everything, perhaps just a few thousand words of quotations…sufficiently long passages so that they can be read and understood in context. I’ll wait until you confirm that you actually would like for me to do this before I do, as it might be rude to just dump them in the comment window without permission. I mean…it’s alot.
In the meantime, I’ll just throw a couple your way. OK, here’s where I’m gonna hop back over that Pre-Nicene line you decided to draw, just cause it is meaningless and it was your idea, not mine.
Here is Cyril of Jerusalem: “Then we commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that at their prayers and intercessions God would receive our petition. Then on behalf also of the Holy Fathers and Bishops who have fallen asleep before us, and in a word of all who in past years have fallen asleep among us, believing that it will be a very great benefit to the souls, for whom the supplication is put up, while that holy and most awful sacrifice is set forth.” Catechetical Lectures, 23:9 (A.D. 350).
Jumping back over your Pre-Nicene line again, Clement of Alexandria wrote “In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]” Miscellanies 7:12 (A.D. 208)
And Origen: “But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . .as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep” Prayer 11 (A.D. 233).
And Methodius of Olympus (this is a pretty long one): “Hail to you for ever, Virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for to you do I turn again. You are the beginning of our feast; you are its middle and end; the pearl of great price that belongs to the kingdom; the fat of every victim, the living altar of the Bread of Life [Jesus]. Hail, you treasure of the love of God. Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . You gleamed, sweet gift-bestowing Mother, with the light of the sun; you gleamed with the insupportable fires of a most fervent charity, bringing forth in the end that which was conceived of you . . . making manifest the mystery hidden and unspeakable, the invisible Son of the Father—the Prince of Peace, who in a marvelous manner showed himself as less than all littleness”
“Therefore, we pray [ask] you, the most excellent among women, who glories in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate the memory, which will ever live, and never fade away”.
“And you also, O honored and venerable Simeon, you earliest host of our holy religion, and teacher of the resurrection of the faithful, do be our patron and advocate with that Savior God, whom you were deemed worthy to receive into your arms. We, together with you, sing our praises to Christ, who has the power of life and death, saying, ‘You are the true Light,
proceeding from the true Light; the true God, begotten of the true God’” Oration on Simeon and Anna 14 (A.D. 305).
There’s more, like I said. I’ll load you down if you want. Just let me know.
BTW, Barnabas! Seriously! You are tossing “Barnabas” into the discussion? Autustine and “Barnabas”. They’re not exactly cut from the same cloth Mr. Jordan.
Kevin
Bishops have the authority to commune who they will. So a bishop can grant a dispensation to Protestants to receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Church. Generally they only do this if the Protestant cannot receive at his own church, but it’s the Bishop’s discretion. And anyone is free to write to the Bishop requesting a dispensation–and he may grant it. (Though when I wrote to the Bishop I was denied because I attended a Protestant Church.) That said, the Catholic Church teaches that only people who believe in the Real Presence should receive–even if they are Catholic.
Nevertheless, in practice, Catholic communion is wide open. It would be almost impossible to be refused communion at a Catholic parish.
Matthew,
I can add that the Holy Spirit mediates between heaven and earth, sent by Jesus now, and by the Father and Son always.
As for the Creed, believe me that I have tried repeatedly to understand these differences. Schaff does have “et” for the Latin, but at this site we read “in.”
http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/nicene_creed.htm
The Greek is clearly eis.
I cannot imagine the council as saying that trust in the church is on the same level as trust in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But neither version quite says that. The Greek does not say “kai eis,” but simply “eis.” Why no “kai”? The Latin simply says “et,” not “et in” (in Schaff). Why no “in”? If you know of some place where all this is discussed, I’d welcome the reference.
JBJordan
Kevin,
Jesus says they are dead in the very passage you cite. So does Paul in 1 Cor. 15:35, 42, etc.
The Fathers know nothing of this practice of talking to dead people. You’ve shown that more than one of the Church Children believed in it, but you’ll not find Paul, John, Jesus, Moses, David, or any other Church Father saying anything about it, and no example of it in the Bible.
Clement and Origin say nothing about people on earth addressing saints in heaven. By the Spirit all Christians are together in worship, everywhere on earth, but they can’t all talk to each other. The quotation from Methodius is pretty weird, and only shows that these evil ideas were creeping in even before Nicaea.
JBJordan
Jim, you keep redefining terms and moving the boundaries (not to mention selectively approving my responses), and that makes a conversation difficult. I did point out in a comment that you chose to delete, apparently, that the “Barnabas” you quoted is an unknown author, in other words, he could have been anybody. You have also now redefined who are the Church Fathers. That’s odd, given that the point of our disagreement is your contention that the Early Church did not believe or practice prayer for the departed or prayers seeking the intercession of the Saints. So, when I offer you proof that your assertions are without basis by quoting these Church Fathers (and offering to inundate you with much, much more of the same), you decide to disqualify these men, because they don’t meet your novel definition of what is a Church Father! Seriously! Call them what you want, these great men, bishops and doctors of the Church, speak even now of what the belief and practice of the Church was right out of the gate, and what they say to us flies in the face of your very odd assertions. I realize this is your playground but you don’t seem to want to “play nice”. Why can’t you deal with the fact that the written record that we have from the Early Church, all the way through two centuries of belief and practice of Catholic and Orthodox believers, speaks against your version of Church history. This is so odd.
You state that: “The test of catholicity is an open communion table.” How do you know that? From the article it seems obvious that you don’t get that opinion from tradition–do you get it from Scripture? If so, where?
Would you allow an Arian to come to the Table? What about a Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, or Muslim? How big a heretic does one have to be before being excluded from the Eucharist, and what are your reasons for drawing the lines there?
[…] this from Jim Jordan and this from Peter Leithart and this and this from us here — and […]
Kevin,
It’s just a fact that the “fathers” of the Church are the prophets and apostles. So, I choose to use the term properly and sensibly and non-prejudicially.
You complain about the Epistle of Barnabas, but that is found in every book of “Apostlic Fathers” (a weird title; “Postapostolic Writers” would be better).
I’d like to see any any of these 2nd century writers anything about calling on the saints in prayer. Ignatius? Irenaeus?
Beyond that, of course, I’d like to see in Acts where Luke writes something like, “As we left Ephesus, we asked James and Stephen the martyrs to bless us on our voyage.” Funny that nobody in the Spirit ever says anything like that!
JBJordan
Mr. Park,
The answers to your two questions are: The Letter of Paul to the Galatians, and Trinitarian Baptism.
Yours,
JBJordan
Would you allow someone like Milton, an Arian baptized in the Triune name; or a Nestorian or Eutychian to come to your table?
Matthew, as you know it’s not MY table; which begins to be the answer to your question. The church has to ask, since it is Jesus’ table, whom does Jesus invite to come? Do those people have to agree with this or that semi-philosophical formula as to how His humanity and divinity work together? Were the vast, vast numbers of “Nestorian” Christians in the east for 500+ years excluded by Jesus because they put things together slightly differently? What would Jesus say? Is the Jesus of the Bible sitting up in heaven just waiting for people to make a slip in their systematics so He can send them to hell?
Do I exclude Roman Catholics and Lutherans because they contradict Chalcedon? Indeed, they contradict “very man of very man” with their ubiquitized humanity. No wonder they use wafers instead of “daily bread,” because their Jesus is no longer “one of us.” But no, they should be at the Table unless they become a problem.
The true catholic position is that people are invited and admitted on the basis of their baptism, until they commit some serious sin of which they are impenitent. If Milton came to a church I pastored, he’s be welcome to the Table. By coming to “my” church he would be improving on his baptism and putting himself inside the discipline circle of the orthodox faith. Now, if after numerous conversations I determined that in face he was committed to a false Christ, then separation from the Table would be required.
JBJ
James,
So, let me get something straight. Set aside all of your special pleading for moment, and let’s talk about normative Biblical catholicity.
Are you arguing that the faith (e.g. belief, doctrine) of those baptized in the triune name into any communion is of no consequence with regard to accepting them as true members of the Church? You are arguing that triune baptism alone places one into the “visible”, “historic”, Church? Regardless of who performed the Baptism, and the beliefs of the one baptized? In other words, if an atheist decides to start baptizing people in the triune name for fun, you have to accept those baptisms?
You should keep in mind that Nestorians, and Arians, were once members of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. A Church which, following the command of the Apostles, was defined by it’s conciliar succession of Bishops, orthodoxy, and discipline. That discipline was practiced not only in case of unrepentant sin, but also in cases of heterodoxy. Primarily because heterodoxy is a sin. I find it fascinating that you object to the Orthodox Catholic Church’s excommunication of sinners while at the same time you espouse your own right to excommunicate sinners. You, like the Popes before you, have set yourself up in opposition to the Church.
You will have to give an account to God for your own wisdom. A wisdom I have found not only unsatisfying, but highly speculative and at times seemingly arbitrary.
Adamsadvarian, the question of the validity of baptism is a matter of the Donatist controvery. I recommend the literature on that.
Those who are finally saved are those who improve on their baptisms, according to how long they live and the situations God put them in.
I don’t think that “Chang Wee,” living in the 940s in western China, was ever a member of any church other than what people over here call “Nestorian.” So, when was HE excommunicated?
Do you worship a god who delights to send people to hell just because they happen to be born and reared in Babylon in the 600s and faithfully attend worship and trust in Jesus as they have been taught? Really?
If an EO church in my town declared someone excommunicate, and he came to the church I pastored, I would not admit him to the table until I had time to speak with his former pastor and find out what is going on.
JBJordan
But (and I haven’t researched it myself) Augustine’s position was that heretical baptisms are valid, but ineffective, and the heretically baptized need to be received into the Church to receive communion. Now you may be right that Augustine isn’t right. But as far as I know, this isn’t a question of you siding with Augustine against the Donatists, but of you siding against Augustine and Cyprian, against the Early Church.