St. Augustine: On Christian Doctrine Commentary–Full Text

Augustine

In his book The Theology of Augustine, Matthew Levering focuses on the theme of love, what is love and how it functions in Christian teaching. As Levering examines, according to Augustine, Scripture teaches how to love. It must be vital for the interpreter of scripture to recognize how the words of scripture direct us to love of God.

So what does it mean to love? Typically, society tends to agree that being a loving person is being a good person, so perhaps, we should start at the question—What does it mean to be good? If a person loves someone there is an act in regard to that person, a willing of the good, or rather, the perfection of that person. Theologian Fr. Thomas Joseph White O.P. writes in his book The Light of Christ, “Goodness is the property of something that has reached its perfection or its goal…A good person typically is taken to be a person who is capable of virtuous moral actions, of justice, charity, mercy, and kindness toward others.”[1]

It is prudent to point out that what is justice, charity, mercy, and kindness toward others isn’t necessarily what another person thinks will make them happy or feel good. Prior to the rise of Christian Neo-Platonic thought around the 3rdand 4thcentury A.D. in Western society, these sentiments were expressed by a group who expressed skepticism against the works of Plato and Aristotle as those schools of thought lacked a development with any theology of their own. The group known as the Epicureans “sought a lifestyle of hedonism focusing on pleasure. These groups (the Stoics) without divine revelation to serve as a development for philosophy tended toward an ideology of self-interest.”[2]

Naturally, it must be understood that within the Christian moral system an adherence to love and to partake in the pilgrimage toward the Kingdom of God, a person is called to deny themselves of perceived pleasures that are not necessarily going to lead them to a perfecting of themselves—a life of holiness—or the goal of heaven. For example, Jesus says in the Gospel of John, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”[3]Naturally, if we pair this expression with the beginning of John’s Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”[4]It is to be understood that the commandments of the Old Testament are given by Christ. In fact, Jesus says as much, “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. 18 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.[5]

What I hope to make clear in regards to love is that it is intimately connected to the good news and the repentance of sin that when we are told that “day shall dawn upon[f] us from on high79 to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace,”[6]to get the full sense of the good news of Easter Sunday, God desires “to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins.”[7]Every Catholic is reminded of the words of Jesus’ call to repentance on the first day of Lent, Ash Wednesday, when they receive ashes on their forehead, as “Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel.”[8]

Now, an objection usually occurs that says something of the nature, “If Jesus did come to change the law, why are Christians called to follow only some of these Old Testament laws.” The skeptic, or even Christian for that matter, usually fails to recognize a distinction in Judaic understanding of laws. In our modern society, we have different variations of the law, for example: misdemeanor and classes of felonies. In Ancient Judaic-Christianity, there is a distinction between Ritual and Moral law. Catholic Apologist Trent Horn explains in his book Hard Sayings that “St. Paul taught that the Mosaic Law was useful in teaching the Jews how to be holy, but it was incapable of saving them from sin (Gal. 3:10).”[9]Horn goes onto quote Scripture professor at the Augustine Institute Mark Giszczak for a further understanding, “Moral Law has to do with universal principles of right and wrong.  Ritual and ceremonial law has to do with symbolic, religious cleanness and uncleanness in Old Testament religion. Judicial or civil law involves structures for the administration of the law in the Old Testament…Aquinas teaches that the ritual and judicial laws have abrogated, but the moral law still holds. So we can eat bacon, but we can’t eat our neighbor.”[10]

So, it is important to understand these distinctions to understand scripture and St. Augustine makes this point. He explains that if the Holy Spirit can give us an understanding of Holy Scripture, the normal method to learn how to interpret it is from teachers. Every once in a while, I watch Evangelical street preaches on Youtube. Of course, one of the main targets for these street preachers are Catholics, so they’ll often stand in front of a Catholic Church while people are going into Mass and announce to them that they’re adherent to a false gospel. Naturally, some Catholics will come over and speak to them about the development of scripture, remind them that Sola Scriptura is not found in the scripture, and the history and development of the Church. At this point, I’ve heard the preacher’s response, “did you learn that at Bible college or seminary? You have man’s gospel not God’s gospel. I know how to interpret scripture because the Spirit is upon me” In this juncture of the conversation, as the Evangelical will only adhere to the text itself, to plant the seed from St. Augustine that scripture shows that the proper way to learn what the scripture says is from human teachers in as St. Paul needed to go to Ananias in Acts 9.[11]

In Book One, St. Augustine examines that there are two tasks with interpreting scripture:

 

  1. Discovering What there is to be learned
  2. Teaching what one has discovered.

 

St. Augustine also explains that in scripture there must be distinction between things and signs. Perhaps, it could be philosophically explained as matter and metaphysical or even simply the physical and the spiritual. St Augustine makes clear:

 “All instruction is either about things or about signs; but things are learnt by means of signs. I now use the word “thing” in a strict sense, to signify that which is never employed as a sign of anything else: for example, wood, stone, cattle, and other things of that kind.Not, however, the wood which we read Moses cast into the bitter waters to make them sweet, nor the stone which Jacob used as a pillow,4nor the ram which Abraham offered up instead of his son; for these, though they are things, are also signs of other things. There are signs of another kind, those which are never employed except as signs: for example, words. No one uses words except as signs of something else; and hence may be understood what I call signs: those things, to wit, which are used to indicate something else. Accordingly, every sign is also a thing; for what is not a thing is nothing at all. Every thing, however, is not also a sign.” [12]

 One of the most famous examples in the Old Testament of typological signs is found in the examination of God’s test of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac:

22 ¶* After these things God tested Abraham, and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here am I.” He said, “Take your son, your only-begotten son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac; and he cut the wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place afar off. Then Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey; I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.” And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it on Isaac his son;* and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So they went both of them together. And Isaac said to his father Abraham, “My father!” And he said, “Here am I, my son.” He said, “Behold, the fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” Abraham said, “God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” So they went both of them together.

¶ When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. 10 Then Abraham put forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here am I.” 12 He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only-begotten son, from me.” 13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.[13]

In this particular narrative the interpreter finds several signs. For example, Abraham is a sign of God—The Father and Isaac is symbol of God—the Son. They partake in a journey up a mountain so that Abraham may sacrifice is only begotten son in atonement while Isaac carries the wood with which will be used to make said sacrifice. Of course, God stays the hand of Abraham but provides another provision for Abraham to make atonement—which God will do with His Son.

There is a difficulty in our modern culture to understand signs. Currently we live in a society of secular rational materialism in one hand and often in the other hand religiously of spiritual fideism. Christians are best served by utilizing the three modes of gaining knowledge: Theology, Philosophy, and Science to avoid the pitfalls of either position in their search for God and truth.[14]In our academic fields, only things constitute as evidence or proofs and we often find in our spiritual lives the sentiment of being ‘spiritual but not religious’—this is not orthodox Christianity.

Originally, science was a subcategory of philosophy, it taught that it was our senses that led us to our understanding of the beyond. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas’ Five Proofs for the Existence of God are built from an understanding of observation from the material world. In Aquinas’ cosmological argument for the existence of God, he illustrates three observations:

1. Change (growth) is motion, what is in motion needs a mover.

  1. What is caused needs a cause.
  2. What could possibly exist, could not exist, all possible existence needs a necessary existence.

St. Augustine’s Guide for Things:

  1. A person must learn to use things in pursuit of perfection or their end—Holiness and God/Heaven.
  2. Recognition that the world (creature/material) is good, not infinite good for which we were made; cannot give us eternal happiness.

So, examining the Christian faith, we begin to understand that it is inherent that things play a vital role, but they are to lead to the eternal spiritually. In the history of philosophy, the pre-Socratics were materialist that could not move past their own material observations. Naturally, they were followed by the Platonist with the emphasis on the spirit over matter. In our modern society, the camps tend to break into factions of either materialist or spiritualist, whereas, Christianity from the Gospels have always highlighted a both/and understanding of the person.

For instance, The Incarnation is the putting on flesh of the divine second person. The institution of the Eucharist is Christ giving us the grace of His sacred body and precious blood through the material accidents of bread and wine.

Augustine in Book One writes on the importance of the Incarnation moving us toward purification in our souls:

  1. But of this we should have been wholly incapable, had not Wisdom condescended to adapt Himself to our weakness, and to show us a pattern of holy life in the form of our own humanity. Yet, since we when we come to Him do wisely, He when He came to us was considered by proud men to have done very foolishly. And since we when we come to Him become strong, He when He came to us was looked upon as weak. But “the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” And thus, though Wisdom was Himself our home, He made Himself also the way by which we should reach our home.[15]

In the Gospel of Mark, the physical body plays a central role in the resurrection of Jairus’ daughter. It is through the death of the body where Jesus gives an invitation to faith to her father. Also, when Jesus goes to the little girl; he reaches and gently takes her hand and speaks to her body to say “arise.” Jesus doesn’t look to the heavens, he doesn’t call down here spirit to her body, but rather, speaks to her body as if she is still present. Jesus instructs us that the body is central to the mystery of soteriology and the resurrection of the body:

35 While he was still speaking, there came from the ruler’s house some who said, “Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the Teacher any further?” 36 But ignoring what they said, Jesus said to the ruler of the synagogue, “Do not fear, only believe.” 37 ¶ And he allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother of James. 38 When they came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, he saw a tumult, and people weeping and wailing loudly. 39 And when he had entered, he said to them, “Why do you make a tumult and weep? The child is not dead but sleeping.” 40 And they laughed at him. But he put them all outside, and took the child’s father and mother and those who were with him, and went in where the child was. 41 ¶ Taking her by the hand he said to her, “Talitha cumi”; which means, “Little girl, I say to you, arise.” 42 And immediately the girl got up and walked; for she was twelve years old. And immediately they were overcome with amazement. 43 ¶ And he strictly charged them that no one should know this,* and told them to give her something to eat. [16]

Christianity has always been a religion where things matter.

How does humanity speak of God?

A Skeptics may object to Christian theology saying, “The Greek Gods are now myths, no one believes in them anymore, why is your God any different?” Matthew Levering explains, “Our human concepts of God fall infinitely short of God. But even though our words about God are inadequate, nonetheless we can speak truth about God…Some conceive of God as the sun or as the entire cosmos; some conceive of gods among which one is primary. But we do not conceive of God truthfully in these ways.”[17]

Levering explains that each person of the Trinity are things in their relation to being that we are meant to enjoy. In the second person of the Trinity, Levering writes, “the divine Word, while remaining unchanged in itself, assumed a human nature so that we could see, hear, and touch him. Christ is both physician and medicine to our wound of sin.”

Augustine writes about the Incaranation and the Word:

chap. 13.—the word was made flesh

In what way did He come but this, “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us”? Just as when we speak, in order that what we have in our minds may enter through the ear into the mind of the hearer, the word which we have in our hearts becomes an outward sound and is called speech; and yet our thought does not lose itself in the sound, but remains complete in itself, and takes the form of speech without being modified in its own nature by the change: so the Divine Word, though suffering no change of nature, yet became flesh, that He might dwell among us.[18]
What is interesting in Levering’s particular work on the theme of Love within the theology of Augustine is that it appears that completely ignores love’s relationship with judgment. Levering explains, “In the Church, which is his “body” (Eph. 1:23), he unites us in charity with him and with each other. Those who love him are liberated from the slavery of sin and will live in glorious union with him forever. Christ calls us to enjoy him now and eternally”[19]

Augustine explains the judgment of those who fail to conform to the truth:

19. Now he whose soul does not die to this world and begin here to be conformed to the truth, falls when the body dies into a more terrible death, and shall revive, not to change his earthly for a heavenly habitation, but to endure the penalty of his sin.[20]

What is “right ordered love?”

Levering explains in his book, The Theology of Augustine, “When we love others and ourselves on account of God, we “use” ourselves and others rather than “enjoy” ourselves and others. In other words, God is our Goal. All our other relationships find their fullness in relation to our enjoyment of God. God gives us our ultimate happiness.”

Augustine explains this in detail, “Neither ought any one to have joy in himself, if you look at the matter clearly, because no one ought to love even himself for his own sake, but for the sake of Him who is the true object of enjoyment. For a man is never in so good a state as when his whole life is a journey towards the unchangeable life, and his affections are entirely fixed upon that. If, however, he loves himself for his own sake, he does not look at himself in relation to God, but turns his mind in upon himself, and so is not occupied with anything that is unchangeable.” [21]

What is interesting when examining Augustine’s understanding of properly ordered love is that it is contradiction with many of the prevailing schools of thought today in our Western culture birthed from modern philosophy that began with Rene Descartes 1596-1650. In fact, it is with Descartes where humanity began to turn their thought inward into what is commonly referred to as relativism today. In classical philosophy from the Greeks, it is understood that objects inform the intellect what they are in relation, but with Descartes’ understanding it is rather the intellect that determines what objects are as they are perceived by that particular intellect. Professor Ralph McInerny explains in his book, A First Glance at St. Thomas Aquinas, that Descartes “invented a little game called Methodic Doubt. He would sort through what he thought he knew and ask himself if it was not imaginable that it was false.”[22]

The famous Cartesian example is the straight stick that convex in the water appearing to be curved. What is puzzling is that Descartes seems to ignore that philosophy is the deposit of all knowledge. Humans know through their senses that water causes items to convex. It is also know that a stick could be straight or curved. So, the determination that one cannot trust their senses based on sight alone doesn’t appear to follow the ultimate conclusion. The great lengths of Cartesian skepticism is astonishing to the degree that in the end, Descartes concludes that you can only trust that you are because other ‘facts’ could be the result of a demon whispering in your ear.

What is determined by this examination of modern philosophy is that in order to love properly, humanity must learn how to orient their relationship to things. Once the proper hierarchy of knowing is understood—how we can understand things—one can also order their love in “use” as “use” therefore signifies rightly ordered love rather than manipulation or instrumentalization.”[23]To love orderly is to love correctly love God, but it’s important to understand that our love for God is not for His benefit. God does not need our love. When a person loves God it is in benefit to them, which is what God desires for us.

Augustine writes, “No sinner is to be loved as a sinner; and every man is to be loved as a man for God’s sake; but God is to be loved for His own sake. And if God is to be loved more than any man, each man ought to love God more than himself.”[24]So, humanity is called to rightly use things in relation to rightly ordered love for the purpose of the enjoyment of God. However, God doesn’t love us for our own sake, but rather for his own goodness. Augustine explains, “God, however, in His use of us, has reference to His own goodness. For it is because He is good we exist; and so far as we truly exist we are good.”[25]

 

Book 2

 God Makes Interpreting Scripture Difficult.

Levering poses a question to his reader, “If Scripture is an instrument of salvation, then why does it need interpretation? Augustine argues that God allowed obscurities and ambiguities to be present in Scriputre so that those who intellectually proud might be humbled by the labor of interpretation and so that the message of Scripture might not be disdained because it seemed to simple.”[26]It’s interesting that Augustine makes this point because prior to meeting St. Ambrose of Milan, this more or less was his position on scripture. Classics professor Robin Lane Fox writes in his biography of Augustine, “On Sundays, Augustine recalls, he would come to listen attentively to Ambrose’s sermons. People talked and interrupted, as we can infer from Ambrose’s own words, but Augustine was not troubled. He was not there to take in the contents, and yet as he listened to the style, his ‘heart’, typically, opened to what was being spoken…Ambrose was the first person to show him that concealed other meanings, or allegories, could be discerned in awkward verses of scripture.”[27]

Seven Steps to Interpret Scripture

In book two of On Christian DoctrineAugustine lists seven steps needed to interpret scripture:

  1. Holy Fear of God
  2. Piety

3.Knowledge

  1. Fortitude
  2. Mercy
  3. Purity of Heart
  4. Wisdom

Naturally, a Christians will be able see a connection with the list of these particular seven steps with other lists such as the seven Capital Virtues and the Seven Gifts the Holy Spirit that every Catholic is sealed with on the date of their confirmation:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church examines these Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit in paragraph 1831:

1831The seven gifts of the Holy Spirit are wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord. They belong in their fullness to Christ, Son of David. They complete and perfect the virtues of those who receive them. They make the faithful docile in readily obeying divine inspirations.[28]

The Catechism also references how these particular gifts are incorporated during the Liturgy when Bishop lays his hands on the confirmands:

1299In the Roman Rite the bishop extends his hands over the whole group of the confirmands. Since the time of the apostles this gesture has signified the gift of the Spirit. The bishop invokes the outpouring of the Spirit in these words: (1831)

All-powerful God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

by water and the Holy Spirit

you freed your sons and daughters from sin

and gave them new life.

Send your Holy Spirit upon them

to be their helper and guide.

Give them the spirit of wisdom and understanding,

the spirit of right judgment and courage,

the spirit of knowledge and reverence.

Fill them with the spirit of wonder and awe in your presence.

We ask this through Christ our Lord.[29]

 

Matthew Levering explains in his book, The Theology of Augustine, what each particular step means in regards to scripture. He explains that the fear of God is a reminder of our needed humility in the presence of God. Piety is also connected to humility in the respect that we attempted to defend our sins by the word of God. Of course, knowledge is needed so that we can love in a right ordered way and not by putting creature ahead of God. Levering reminds us that “In fear of God and piety, the interpreter of Scripture must begin, therefore, by the lamenting his sins.”[30](emphasis my own).

What is interesting about this point is that this understanding of the fear of God and piety can be brought by us to the work of the Liturgy of the Mass. A rebuke from those who deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is often heard in this or similar manner, “If you actually receive the Body of Christ and are a part of His body, how come all those who eat and drink his body and blood do not change?” It is a fair point to make against this particular teaching of the Church. What this challenge should do for each of us Catholics is to reorder our love toward God. So, if we take a look at scripture, St. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians explains the reason why there is no change in many who partake in the sacrament of the Eucharist:

27 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. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged.[31]

What St. Paul is reminding us is that those who come to Mass need to allow their souls to receive the Savior of the World. If any of us are to fill ourselves with the notion that we are generally generally good, our souls have already been filled with a worldly understanding that cannot give us salvation. If one thinks he or she is generally good and coming to Mass is the work that makes them good, the idea borders on semi-pelagianism. The revelation from God found in the body of the Incarnation, Scripture, and His Church is the grace of mercy. A sentiment understood by Pope Francis in his book, The Name of God is Mercy, he writes, “the prophet (Ezekiel) speaks of shame, and shame is a grace: when one feels the mercy of God, he feels a great shame for himself and his sins.”[32]There is a nuance though of the role of the Church and the Grace of God to be understood. If one examines scripture, whether it is Pharaoh in the Exodus or Herod Antipas who beheaded John the Baptist, the open admonishment of their sins in public hardened their hearts. However, we find in the Gospel of Luke the Prodigal Son who is welcomed by his father when shame of his own actions brings contrition to his heart. The Church should not shy away of teaching what is sin, it is inherently part of the Gospel, but those in the Church should remind themselves daily of their need for the fear of the Lord this how we build fortitude to have mercy. When we can learn to have mercy on even our enemies we can keep our hearts clean so that we can hear from Holy Spirit wisdom.

 

How to be knowledge of Scripture?

It’s simple, read the scripture. Augustine writes:

“14. In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them.”[33]

So, how are we to know constitutes as scripture? Levering explains, “To be knowledgeable in Scripture, one must have read the canonical books of Scripture. Those book are canonical that are accepted by the great majority of the most important churches. He lists these books, including (among books that were later contested) Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach.”[34]It is interesting as Levering highlights is that Augustine defends the use of the Septuagint where it differs from the Hebrew manuscripts due to the esteem that Augustine held within Reformation circles.[35]Some of the motivation of participants in the Reformation was a return to authentic early Christian teaching, so they looked at what books the Jews were using in their canon to establish what they would accept as their own. The problem with this particular understanding is that the change of Canon in the Jewish religion occurred after the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. During the 1stcentury A.D. a great many Jews could no longer speak Hebrew, so they used what is known as the Septuagint—the Greek translated Old Testament. Therefore, Jesus’ canon would be reflective of the one listed by Augustine.

Augustine also recognizes that proper understanding and knowledge get lost in cultural and historical contexts when texts are translated into different languages. For example, many who object to the historicity of the Roman Census in Luke’s Gospel is that Joseph didn’t need to go to Bethlehem. So, it is was literary invention from Luke. The problem with this particular understanding is with the Greek word “katalyma.” “Dr. Edward Sri of the Augustine Institute illuminates the use of the word as it can “refer to a guest room, a house, an inn or simply ‘a place to say.’ It is best to translate this word simply a ‘lodging’ to keep open the various possible settings in which Christ may have entered the world.”[36]The translator is also cautioned by Augustine not to be too literal with translated words; therefore, a diversity of translations can serve the interpreter of Scripture.  [37]

Book 3

How to Distinguish between the Literal and Figurative?

Matthew Levering explains that Augustine determines that the interpreter can distinguish from the literal and figurative by knowing that “signs can be literal only if they accord with the truth of faith.”[38]Therefore, the interpreter does have some freedom in exercising an interpretation of Scripture so long that it does not contradict the Deposit of Faith handed to us by Apostolic Teaching, Creeds, Dogma, Doctrine, and the Magisterium.

In examining Matthew Levering’s book The Theology of Augustine, Levering leaves out a lot material written by St. Augustine. Naturally, Levering is focusing on the theme of love in his thesis for his book writing, “If one interprets Scripture to say something opposed to charity, one has misinterpreted scripture.”[39]Again, the context of this particular sentiment begs the question, what is charity? What is love? Many in our modern culture would argue that any attempt to subvert the will of another is an act that is opposite of charity—an act of violence. For the sake of clarity, it should be understood that Augustine would not agree with this understanding of what constitutes as love. For those to know what is love or charity, they need to know what is good and what is evil, what is sin and what is virtue. In fact, Augustine totally rejects the modern notion that the diversity of cultures indicates a diversity of truths—the common retort, “That may be what you believe is the truth, but I have my own.” Augustine writes:

  1. But when men unacquainted with other modes of life than their own meet with the record of such actions, unless they are restrained by authority, they look upon them as sins, and do not consider that their own customs either in regard to marriage, or feasts, or dress, or the other necessities and adornments of human life, appear sinful to the people of other nations and other times. And, distracted by this endless variety of customs, some who were half asleep (as I may say)—that is, who were neither sunk in the deep sleep of folly, nor were able to awake into the light of wisdom—have thought that there was no such thing as absolute right, but that every nation took its own custom for right; and that, since every nation has a different custom, and right must remain unchangeable, it becomes manifest that there is no such thing as right at all. Such men did not perceive, to take only one example, that the precept, “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them,” cannot be altered by any diversity of national customs. And this precept, when it is referred to the love of God, destroys all vices; when to the love of one’s neighbor, puts an end to all crimes. For no one is willing to defile his own dwelling; he ought not, therefore, to defile the dwelling of God, that is, himself. And no one wishes an injury to be done him by another; he himself, therefore, ought not to do injury to another.[40]

 The understanding of knowing that there is absolute truth and absolute wrong that transcends human cultures is vital to the foundation of Levering’s thesis that scripture must be interpreted with love.

 

Book 4

Matthew Levering in his book, The Theology of Augustine, explains that book four of On Christian doctrine was written sometime after the other three.[41]Nonetheless, Augustine writes about the proper teaching of scripture from the interpreter of it. Levering writes, “Augustine emphasizes that prayer before speaking is primary, but he also points out that St. Paul taught Timothy and Titus what they should teach others. Although the Holy Spirit raises up Christian teachers, nonetheless these teachers cannot suppose that they do not need to learn the content of faith from others.”[42]Naturally, this beings the discussion back to the Evangelical street preachers that attempt to deflect Catholic apologist by claiming they have no need for teachers that the Holy Spirit gives them all the gifts to interpret Holy Scripture. The difficulty with this particular teaching on their part is that it contradicts the Holy Scriptures themselves as St. Augustine explains:

  1. Now if any one says that we need not direct men how or what they should teach, since the Holy Spirit makes them teachers, he may as well say that we need not pray, since our Lord says, “Your Father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask Him;” or that the Apostle Paul should not have given directions to Timothy and Titus as to how or what they should teach others. And these three apostolic epistles ought to be constantly before the eyes of every one who has obtained the position of a teacher in the Church. In the First Epistle to Timothy do we not read: “These things command and teach?”3What these things are, has been told previously. Do we not read there: “Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a father?” Is it not said in the Second Epistle: “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me?”5And is he not, be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth?” And in the same place: “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and doctrine…And so the same apostle says to Timothy himself, speaking, of course, as teacher to disciple: “But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned, and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them.”[43]

Overall, the entire document On Christian Doctrineis the instruction that the Catholic faith is one of both faith and reason. The Catholic faith is a faith of both the material and the spiritual. We are the creation of God who formed us both with a body united with our souls. It is God who gives us the material sacraments that aid us by His Grace to live out our call to holiness.

[1]Fr. Thomas Joseph White O.P., The Light of Christ: An Introduction to Catholicism(Washington: Catholic University Press. 2017), 69.

[2]Phillip Hadden, The Nature of Philosophy, Science, and Theology and Their Relationship. 2019, Unpublished manuscript, Holy Apostles College and Seminary.

 

[3]Jn. 14:15 RSV

[4]Jn. 1:1 RSV

[5]Mt. 5:17:18 RSV

[6]Lk 1:78-79 RSV

[7]Lk 1:77 RSV

[8]Mk. 1:15 RSV

[9]Trent Horn, Hard Sayings: A Catholic Approach to Answering Bible Difficulties (El Cajon: Catholic Answers Press. 2016), 256.

[10]Ibid.

[11]Matthew Levering, The Theology of Augustine, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. 2013), 2.

[12]Augustine of Hippo, “On Christian Doctrine,”inSt. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. F. Shaw, vol. 2, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 523.

[13]The HolyBible, Revised Standard Version; Second Catholic Edition (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006), Gen 22:1–13.

[14]Phillip Hadden, The Nature of Philosophy, Science, and Theology and Their Relationship. 2019, Unpublished manuscript, Holy Apostles College and Seminary.

[15]Augustine of Hippo, “On Christian Doctrine,”inSt. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. F. Shaw, vol. 2, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 525.

[16]Mk 5:35–43 RSV

[17]Levering, 4.

[18]Augustine of Hippo, “On Christian Doctrine,”inSt. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. F. Shaw, vol. 2, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 526.

[19]Levering, 5.

[20]Augustine of Hippo, “On Christian Doctrine,”inSt. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. F. Shaw, vol. 2, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 527.

[21]Augustine of Hippo, “On Christian Doctrine,”in St. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. F. Shaw, vol. 2, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 527–528.

[22]Ralph McInerny, A First Glance at St. Thomas Aquinas. (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990), 22.

[23]Levering, 6.

[24]Augustine of Hippo, “On Christian Doctrine,” in St. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. F. Shaw, vol. 2, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 530.

[25]Augustine of Hippo, “On Christian Doctrine,”in St. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. F. Shaw, vol. 2, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 531.

[26]Levering, 9.

[27]Robin Lane Fox, Augustine(New York: Basic Books, 2015), 187.

[28]Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), 450.

[29]Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), 329.

[30]Levering, 9.

[31]1 Cor. 11:27–31. RSV

[32]Pope Francis, The Name of God is Mercy (New York: Random House, 2016), 10.

[33]Augustine of Hippo, “On Christian Doctrine,” in St. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. F. Shaw, vol. 2, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 539.

[34]Levering, 10.

[35]Ibid.

[36]Edward Sri, Dawn of the Messiah: The Coming of Christ in Scripture (Cincinnati: St. Anthony Messenger Press, 2005), 74.

[37]St. Augustine of Hippo, On Christian Doctrine,Book 2 para. 17-18.

[38]Levering, 13.

[39]Ibid.

[40]Augustine of Hippo, “On Christian Doctrine,” in St. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. F. Shaw, vol. 2, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 562–563.

[41]Levering, 15.

[42]Levering, 16.

[43]Augustine of Hippo, “On Christian Doctrine,”in St. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. F. Shaw, vol. 2, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 585.

On Beauty

Unknown

When humanity recognizes the beautiful, they see a glimpse of God. Beauty is complex; it is a participation in the Divine, as truth and love also participate. These glimpses are all around us; we merely have to disconnect for a mere second from the chains of the noise of our techno-modern society and in the silence feel the cool spring breeze, see the vibrant red of a cardinal and listen to his dawn chorus.

What most experience as the beautiful is rather their limited understanding of it. We come to experience the beautiful as it is measured in physical being, but beauty is a concept that is understood—abstracted from the sensible or perhaps revealed. Does beauty have its own form or does our understanding simply reveal that of the source of all that is beautiful?

What is it about the precision of a dance, the awe from the movement of a marching soldier, the order to the liturgy, and the rising and setting of the sun that man can abstract the beautiful?

Beauty as a concept is debated among philosophers; whether it is a form, a transcendental, or a participation. Perhaps, the most appealing aspect of beauty is its mystery. Does it then become a tautology, if beauty is a mystery and mystery is beautiful? Beauty is what stirs the soul to take the leap into the mystery of faith; whether it be faith in God or that of the love of a paramour. And yet, it is the relationship of beauty with measuring values that lend its connection to Truth

On the Influence of St. Augustine

507f5810df314bc8bc953153c5bdbf9d--augustine-of-hippo-st-augustine-quotes

St. Augustine is the most quoted Saint in the Catechism of the Catholic Church with 87 Citations followed by St. Thomas Aquinas at 61. Naturally, in many respects, as asserted by Bishop Robert Barron asserts in his Pivotal Players series, St. Augustine is “one of three or four most important players in the history of the Church…he is a pivotal figure in the development of Western Civilization. He is the most significant bridge of ancient Rome and the Christian culture that would come to full flower in the Middle Ages. As a master of the Latin language; he ranks with Cicero, Virgil and Ovid. As a theologian and philosopher, he has practically no rivals, with the possible exception of Thomas Aquinas.[1]

Augustine was born to St. Monica in Thagaste in North Africa which is now modern-day Algeria in 354 A.D. St. Monica, a devout Christian and his father a pagan by the name of Patricius. Augustine had a difficult relationship with his father, who enjoyed drinking and was a little rough. Patricius would later convert to the Christian faith on his death bed. During Augustine’s youth, his father paid for him to be tutored in Carthage, where not long after that in 370 A.D. Augustine would father a son to a woman he does not name in the Confessions. It was shortly after this period that Augustine becomes interested in philosophy by reading Ciceroes Horetensius, which unfortunately has been lost to history. What we know of this document, we know only from sources like Augustine who quote the document.  Augustine would teach and later become the rhetorician of the Emperor of Rome in Milan. He also becomes involved with a heretical group called the Manicheans which practiced a quasi-Christian dualistic world. It combined Neo-Platonic elements of light, darkness, good, evil within some elements of Christian Gnosticism. A good source for an explanation of Manichean belief is Classics scholar Robin Lane Fox’s massive volume titled Augustine.

It is after St. Augustine hears the preaching of St. Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan, that he is converted to Christianity. St. Ambrose introduces him to a synthesis of Neo-Platonic thought into orthodox Christianity, Augustine quits his job with the emperor and baptized on Easter in 387 A.D.

It’s fairly easy to intimately know St. Augustine conversion story. Augustine wrote one of, if not, the first autobiographies in Western Civilization—still readily available in print to this very day. Augustine’s Confessionsis unique as it gives a person account of his youth, sinful character, conversion, and foundational theology and philosophy. It is in the pages of theConfessions we learn that Augustine could not find peace in glory, power, wealth, and pleasure. He finally finds peace in a submission of his will to a crucified mocked, beaten, poor, and suffering Jesus Christ. Augustine writes in the first page of the Confessions, “Our Heart is restless until it rests in thee.”[2]A position of submission, a position quite strange to our 21stcentury Western world that values rights over duties and expressed individualism over the social good. Fr. Jacques Philippe in his book Interior Freedom gives a clear diagnosis of our current cultural climate writing, “that our love often goes in the wrong direction: we love ourselves, selfishly, and end up frustrated, because only genuine love can fulfill us.”[3]St. Augustine reminds us, as we will see with his multiple works, that many issues we may consider to be a development of modern society are very old issues simply recycled.

The first time I came to be acquainted with St. Augustine is the beginning of 2008. At the time I was attending the University of Illinois Chicago. I needed to take an elective class, I looked at the class catalog—they still had those at the time—and saw that there was a course offered on “Catholic Thought.” I thought to myself, “Hey, I’m Catholic, this is an easy “A.” Of course, what I found out is that the professor is considered a serious scholar on Augustinian topics and he went by the name of Paul J. Griffiths. Now, I had gone to Catholic School K-8 and confirmed in the Catholic Church but it was a secular university where I learned that Catholicism is a serious intellectual powerhouse built on Divine Revelation, Apostolic tradition, and serious intellectual prowess. It was at the University of Illinois at Chicago, I learned that Catholicism is smart, a seed of admiration for St. Augustine was planted.

The course, being a survey course, we only dived into selected material of St. Augustine’s Confessions.It is in those pages where Augustine begins to develop the theology of Original Sin. It’s an interesting process to ponder that the Church operated under the idea of Original Sin for approximately four centuries as it formulated the purpose of the second person of the Trinity in its Nicene Creed, but it was Augustine that developed it into a theological language known to us now as “Original Sin.” The most famous passage in the Confessions that deals with this particular topic is when Augustine examines his motives for stealing pears as a young boy.

Augustine writes:

Surely, Lord, your law punishes theft, as does that law written on the hearts of men, which not even iniquity itself blots out. What thief puts up with another thief with a calm mind? Not even a rich thief will pardon one who steals from him because of want. But I willed to commit theft, and I did so, not because I was driven to it by any need…For I stole a thing which I had plenty of my own and of much better quality. Nor did I wish to enjoy that thing which I desired to gain by theft, but rather to enjoy the actual theft and the sin of theft.

 …We took great loads of fruit from it (orchard), not for our own eating, but rather to throw it to the pigs;

 …Behold, now let my heart tell you what it looked for there, that I should be evil without purpose and there should be no cause for my evil but evil itself. Foul was the evil, and I loved it[4].

 After reading this selected material, we were asked in a lecture by Professor Griffiths, what is the source of our desire to do evil? Augustine explains that the sin we desire to commit is caused by a weakness or wound to our hypomorphic nature (body and rational soul composite). Augustine explains that it was in humanity’s disobedience to God that deprived us of our original grace or friendship with Him and it affects even the littlest of us. As all that God creates is good in form, evil and sin is a deprivation of the good. For example, if someone wishes to do good for someone; they will what it means as the perfection of another. If someone wishes to do harm; they will deprive them of the good or perfection.

 

Naturally, a lot of this development of the idea Original Sin is further solidified in Augustine’s debate with Pelagius and Pelagianism. Pelagianism is an early Church heresy that argued that people could attain salvation by good works, or basically if you’re a good person you go to heaven. Many in our modern Catholic Church would find it shocking that the Church has never taught that being good is all one needs to go to heaven. Pope Francis warns us of Neo Pelagianism in his Apostolic Exhortation GAUDETE ET EXSULTATE:

49. Those who yield to this pelagian or semi-pelagian mindset, even though they speak warmly of God’s grace, “ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style.”

52. The Church has repeatedly taught that we are justified not by our own works or efforts, but by the grace of the Lord, who always takes the initiative. The Fathers of the Church, even before Saint Augustine, clearly expressed this fundamental belief. Saint John Chrysostom said that God pours into us the very source of all his gifts even before we enter into battle.[53] Saint Basil the Great remarked that the faithful glory in God alone, for “they realize that they lack true justice and are justified only through faith in Christ”.[54]


  1. The Second Synod of Orange taught with firm authority that nothing human can demand, merit or buy the gift of divine grace, and that all cooperation with it is a prior gift of that same grace: “Even the desire to be cleansed comes about in us through the outpouring and working of the Holy Spirit”.[55]Subsequently, the Council of Trent, while emphasizing the importance of our cooperation for spiritual growth, reaffirmed that dogmatic teaching: “We are said to be justified gratuitously because nothing that precedes justification, neither faith nor works, merits the grace of justification; for ‘if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise, grace would no longer be grace’ (Rom 11:6)”[5]

 

Ultimately, it is through Augustine’s observation of life that he concludes through reason that we’ve been scarred by Original Sin. It was in the first act of disobedience that has wounded our original state of grace; therefore, it must be through an act of God to provide for us the means to be justified by his free gift of Grace—this is why St. Augustine is known as the Doctor of Grace.

[1]St. Augustine of Hippo. Performed by Bishop Robert Barron. Accessed May 12, 2019. http://www.wofdigital.org.

[2]St. Augustine, The Confessions, 1.1

[3][3]Jacques Phillippe, Interior Freedom, 2002, p. 13.

[4]Augustine, and John K. Ryan. The Confessions of St. Augustine. (New York: Image Books, 2014), 28.

[5]Pope Francis. Gaudete Et Exsultate: Apostolic Exhortation on the Call to Holiness in Today’s World (19 March 2018) | Francis. Accessed May 12, 2019. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20180319_gaudete-et-exsultate.html.

 

On Meditation and Contemplative Prayer

sd via dwightlockenecker.com

Meditation and Contemplative prayer allows us to silence a great many distractions in our lives. In meditation, such as Lectio Divina, we can read the text and ask the Lord, “What am I to learn?” In this form, our minds are allowed to explore and be illuminated rather than be reactive as modernity has trained our minds. Finally, Contemplative prayer as CCC 2715 explains, “is a gaze of faith, fixed on Jesus. “I look at him and he looks at me.” The gift given allows us to order our will with the renunciation of our individualistic desires.

One technique that is described in Fr. Michael Casey’s book Toward God is Lectio Divina, which he describes as holy reading. (p. 67) The reading of scripture is not the same as reading the books of the Bible in a narrative form but rather with reverence and meditation. Fr. Casey explains that “one needs to be convinced that the text of the Bible being used is substantially accurate. If one is reading for a more theological standpoint, a Bible that is translated into a more literal translation may be preferred over a dynamic translation which is better suited for narrative uses of scripture.

Fr. Casey illustrates further that when practicing the technique of holy reading, one must process through the text at a much slower pace and with a vocalized prayer to focus more intently on each word. (p.71) The process may take as long as a year to read a single book of scripture. However, as the Catechism reflects in paragraph 2708: “Meditation engages thought, imagination, emotion, and desire. This mobilization of faculties is necessary to deepen our convictions of faith, prompt the conversion of our heart, and strengthen our will to follow Christ. Christian prayer tries above all to meditate on the mysteries of Christ, as in Lectio Divina or the rosary. This form of prayerful reflection is of great value, but Christian prayer should go further: to the knowledge of the love of the Lord Jesus, to union with him.”The process becomes naturally efficacious because it allows the text to continually speak to us within the parameters of our own lives and develop a greater appreciation for the nurturing word of God.

On Prayer and Form

67525f0e3bfd3d4cebea5e87ee318d32--no-se-catholicvia pinterest Debbie Cannon

So how does prayer nourish our souls? The ancients of spoke of the soul as the heart and the ancient Church was no different in this respect. Fr. Casey in his book Toward God speaks of prayer being a compunction of our heart derived from the original meaning from its Latin origin meaning, “the word compunction points to an experience being pricked or punctured…Compunction in this sense is an arousal, an awakening.” (p.43)

In regards to being the products of the philosophy of Individualism in our modern world, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains in paragraph 2704, the vocal form of prayer, “is the form of prayer most readily accessible to groups.” Our cooperation with God’s grace bestows on us an opening into our hardened hearts that allows us to turn away from our selfish individualistic natures toward the communio of our Christian life.

After the fall of man, our hearts have been turned away from God by original sin. Furthermore, n our modern society, we’ve been constantly bombarded with hedonism and a culture that turns out wills inward which have caused our hearts to harden like the Pharaoh of Exodus when Moses said to him that God had decreed to let his people go.

Personal prayer is one that is called for in the Gospels, as in the Gospel of Matthew 6:6 RSV,But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.” It is a method of prayer best suited for private devotion to foster a relationship with God through vocal, meditative, and contemplative prayer. It is one that is generally more silent and reserve to conduce an opportunity for God to speak to us through our meditation of scriptures or the life of Christ. It’s an interaction where as in John Chapter 4, we can drink from the true living water and be refreshed.

The difference in Communal Prayer is one that it highlights one of attributes from God that we are made to be social and for each other. As the persons in the Holy Trinity show us the perfect love between each person of the one true God, we’re to learn how to properly love each other. We can do this by coming together, singing, and as we attend the sacrifice of the mass to participate in the communal meal aspect of the mass, where rich, poor, healthy, sick etc. all eat from the same table. In this manner, the communal prayer gives us the grace to see the dignity of all our brothers and sisters.

One great types of communal prayer is Liturgical Prayer which is the great work of the Church. It is the participation in Christ’s own prayer addressed to the Father in Holy Spirit. (CCC 1073) As the Catechism in paragraph 1074 says, “The Liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; it also the font from which all her power flows.” Of course, the passage is a quotation from the Vatican II document on the sacred liturgy–Sacrosanctum concilium. As the Catechism explains, the work of the Church is utilized by initiating the faith into the mystery of Christ by proceeding from the visible to the invisible.

In fact, there is no greater work or prayer than the Liturgy of the Mass, as the Catechism says, “The Eucharist is “the source and summit of the Christian life.” “The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch.” (CCC, 1324.) In the liturgy of the mass, we are witnesses of the great paschal mystery of Christ, the paschal victim, who takes away the sins of the world.

On Prayer

Grace_Cathedral_-_Votive_Rack photo via Wikipedia

Our prayer life must be one undertaken through the instruction of the Holy Spirit and also by ordering our will toward God. The Catechism reads, “Through living transmission (Sacred Tradition) within “the believing and praying Church,” the Holy Spirit teaches the children of God how to pray.”(CCC 2650) If we’re moved to learn how to pray through the traditions of the Church, the initiation is by the grace of God. However, the Catechism does not contradict the Spirit, that one must also have the will to pray and so we must initially cooperate with God’s grace.

Nonetheless, the idea of a radical will, which would still be a creation of God, somehow acts radically on its own from our creator goes against the Thomistic understanding of God’s nature being existence. Our wills would cease to exist if there was no necessary being who sustains them by being pure actuality. So, in regards to prayer, as we can form poor habits or good habits, we must cooperate with grace and practice short bursts of prayer, practice the sacraments, and build the habits of virtue which is in the tradition of faith.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church reiterates these points by asserting in paragraph CCC 2726, “Those who seek God by prayer are quickly discouraged because they do not know that prayer comes also from the Holy Spirit and not from themselves alone.” The desire to pray is stirred by God’s grace, and it is up to our cooperation with His grace whether we can order our wills to learn from the traditions of our Church.

So how can we pray? Of course, the two major types of prayer are could be categorized into personal and communal. One of the obvious, in most cases, differences between personal prayer and communal prayer is silence. Naturally, as creatures who primarily communicate our intellect through the spoken word when we’re together in a community, we often pray out loud so others can hear, but when we’re alone with God that when we can hear the call of God like a gentle breeze.

So how can we learn to persevere in our personal prayer? Fr. Michael Casey makes two points on this distinction in his book Toward God, “Prayer is not extrinsic. It is a conscious attempt to identify with our natural tendency toward God. It tries to release our innate buoyant impulse. If a person learning to swim doubts that the body will float naturally, much energy will be used to avoid disaster. Others, convinced of their natural buoyancy, will simply relax, feel supported by the water and enjoy the primal sense of beings borne up.” (p. 29)

The analogy of learning how to swim in connection to learning how to prayer really resonates with me. Sure, swimming can be a communal experience once someone knows how to swim properly; however, although friends can give tips on how to swim, it is often an experience that must be learned between the water and the swimmer. If anyone has ever jumped into a swimming pool and sunk to the bottom, it is one of the few places in the Western world where one can experience physical silence. And in that silence, if one relaxes and gives full trust to the water, their bodies will float naturally to the top just as Fr. Casey explains.

It is in the silence of individual prayer where we can hear the voice of God because as Fr. Casey explains, “We do not produce prayer. During prayer time we do not attempt to initiate a relationship with God; that relationship already exists.” (p.33)

Everything is a result of God’s grace.

St. John Chrysostom

_DSC7208.JPG

St. John Chrysostom was born around 349 A.D. in Antioch and like many of the other Church Fathers we’ve discussed like St. Justin Martyr and St. Athanasius was born into wealth. The affluence of his family allowed him to taught by one of antiquities greatest teachers, Libanius. The famous pagan professor said “It is a pity…that the boy is a Christian—otherwise he could be my successor.”[1]Chrysostom lost his father at an early age and being brought by his mother, Anthusa, as Pope Benedict XVI explains she “instilled in him exquisite human sensitivity and a deep Christian faith.”[2]D’Ambrosio explains that despite having such a formidable education, Chrysostom, “lost his enthusiasm for a life in law or public service. He had met some hermits outside the city and, inspired by their example, decided to join them.[3]He spent four years with the monks on Mount Silpius, “he extended his retreat for a further two years, living alone in a cave under the guidance of an old hermit.”[4]

Pope Benedict, in his General Audience on St. John Chrysostom, gives an account of Chrysostom’s early career in the Church’s clergy as he “between 378 and 379, he returned to the city. He was ordained a deacon in 381 and a priest in 386 and come a famous preacher in the city’s churches.”[5]It was the next year when Emperor Theodosius had been compelled to increase taxes due to a response to an invasion. The tax increased caused a mob to form who were incensed by the tax. The mob defaced statues of the Emperor and as response to the vandalism the Emperor intended to punish the city.[6]At this moment, after the Bishop went to the Emperor to plead for reconciliation, Chrysostom went to the people, led them in prayer and gave twenty-one of some of his most famous homliles called On the Statues. St. John was able to quiet the rage of the mob, which in turn, smoothed over the wrath of the Emperor. In our current cultural climate, perhaps it would be wisdom for both leaders and citizens to reflect on this event.

St. John Chrysostom understands this by developing and defending the doctrine of Eucharist to be called “The Doctor of the Eucharist.”

He writes,

“For When thou seest the Lord sacrificed and laid upon the alter, and the priest standing and praying over the Victim, and all the worshippers empurpled with that Precious Blood, canst thou think that thou art still amongst men and standing on earth…Oh, what a marvel! What love of God to Man!”

Elias left a sheepskin to his disciple, but the Son of God, ascending left us His own flesh!…Let us not lament, nor fear the difficulties of the times, for He who did not refuse to pour out His Blood for all and has suffered us to partake of His Blood for all and has suffered us to partake of His Blood again—what will He refused to do for our safety?”[7]

As we note above from Fr. Rengers, D’Ambrosio further explains, “One of the most notable themes struck by John is the centrality of the Eucharistic sacrifice in the life of the Church. He insisted that consecrated elements truly become the Body and Blood of Christ.”[8]In D’Ambrosio’s text, he references from Homilies 1 and 2 on the Betrayal of Judasin which St. John Chrysostom’s words become an astounding defense for the Priesthood and the Priest’s role in Christ’s sacrifice at the Mass.

 

If we break down St. John’s words, when he articulates the idea “It is not man who causes what is presented to come the Body and Blood of Christ, but Christ Himself.”[9]This is a perfect example of what is known as In Persona Christi. It’s important to note that we acknowledge this in the beginning of Mass. For example, at the opening of Mass, when we respond “And with your Spirit, It is a response to In Persona Christi—not the priest.And of course, there are other times when the Priest serves in the person of Christ like at the sacrament of reconciliation.

Again, in a Christmas Homily, St. John Chysostom reminds us of the Incarnation during the celebration of the sacrament of Holy Mass by saying, “Reflect, O Man, what sacrificial flesh you take in your hand!” (note the language)
St. John Chrysostom writes in regards to our mission for aiding the poor in Homily 50 on aiding the poor and being a missionary church.

He says:

Wouldest thou do honour to Christ’s Body? Neglect Him not when naked; do not, while here thou honourest Him with silken garments, neglect Him perishing without of cold and nakedness. For He that said, This is My Body, and by His word confirmed the fact, This Same said, Ye saw Me an hungered, and fed Me not; and, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to Me. For This indeed needs not coverings, but a pure soul; but that requires much attention.

Let us learn therefore to be strict in life, and to honour Christ as He Himself desires. For to Him who is honoured that honour is most pleasing, which it is His own will to have, not that which we account best. Since Peter too thought to honour Him by forbidding Him to wash his feet, but his doing so was not an honour, but the contrary.

Even so do thou honour Him with this honour, which He ordained, spending thy wealth on poor people. Since God hath no need at all of golden vessels, but of golden souls.

And these things I say, not forbidding such offerings to be provided; but requiring you, together with them, and before them, to give alms. For He accepts indeed the former, but much more the latter. For in the one the offerer alone is profited, but in the other the receiver also. Here the act seems to be a ground even of ostentation; but there all is mercifulness, and love to man.

For what is the profit, when His table indeed is full of golden cups, but He perishes with hunger? First fill Him, being an hungered, and then abundantly deck out His table also. Dost thou make Him a cup of gold, while thou givest Him not a cup of cold water? And what is the profit? Dost thou furnish His Table with cloths bespangled with gold, while to Himself thou affordest not even the necessary covering? And what good comes of it? For tell me, should you see one at a loss for necessary food, and omit appeasing his hunger, while you first overlaid his table with silver; would he indeed thank thee, and not rather be indignant? What, again, if seeing one wrapped in rags, and stiff with cold, thou shouldest neglect giving him a garment, and build golden columns, saying, “thou wert doing it to his honour,” would he not say that thou wert mocking, and account it an insult, and that the most extreme?

Let this then be thy thought with regard to Christ also, when He is going about a wanderer, and a stranger, needing a roof to cover Him; and thou, neglecting to receive Him, deckest out a pavement, and walls, and capitals of columns, and hangest up silver chains by means of lamps, but Himself bound in prison thou wilt not even look upon.[10]
The Interesting part of when D’ambrosio quotes this particular passage in the text is that immediately my thoughts went to the Gospel of John Chapter 12:

The Anointing at Bethany.Six days before Passover Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. They gave a dinner for him there, and Martha served, while Lazarus was one of those reclining at table with him. Mary took a liter of costly perfumed oil made from genuine aromatic nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and dried them with her hair; the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil. Then Judas the Iscariot, one [of] his disciples, and the one who would betray him, said, “Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days’ wages and given to the poor?” He said this not because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief and held the money bag and used to steal the contributions. So Jesus said, “Leave her alone. Let her keep this for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.”

[The] large crowd of the Jews found out that he was there and came, not only because of Jesus, but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 And the chief priests plotted to kill Lazarus too, 11 because many of the Jews were turning away and believing in Jesus because of him. [11]

 I thought how can St. John Chrysostom challenge the importance of golden cups on the church’s altar and at the same time come to an agreement with this particular passage. Naturally, I went to the source to find the answer and it’s as if St. John knew I would inquire about such a discrepancy between the Gospel texts, he says:

Why then doth He Himself say, The poor always ye have with you, but Me ye have not always? Why, for this reason most of all should we give alms, that we have Him not always an hungered, but in the present life only. But if thou art desirous to learn also the whole meaning of the saying, understand that this was said not with a view to His disciples, although it seem so, but to the woman’s weakness. That is, her disposition being still rather imperfect, and they doubting about her; to revive her He said these things. For in proof that for her comfort He said it, He added, Why trouble ye the woman? And with regard to our having Him really always with us, He saith, Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. From all which it is evident, that for no other object was this said, but that the rebuke of the disciples might not wither the faith of the woman, just then budding.[12]

St. John’s words stirs in my thoughts the question, on a parish level, how can we properly meet the needs of the poor in our community. In my own parish, a new ministry has started with a chapter of St. Vincent De Paul Society, which appears to be doing good work by helping other churches make and deliver meals, as well as take other donations. One of the issues that I have from a Catholic stand point is that I feel as though we get away from our mission stated in Matthew 25, when I drive around town, I see many Evangelical churches together going out and engaging with the poor. I ask myself, where are the Catholics. In my mind, in regards to our own parish, I wonder what St. John Chrysostom would say in regards to our present parish life.

One of St. John Chrysostom’s most famous homilies is his Easter Homily, which is given as the Homily at every Easter Sunday in the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches. In fact, the homily is so prestiges that it is getting a new rebirth in Protestant churches as the Homily given at the Easter services. Again, St. John Chrysostom reminds us that we must focus on the importance of the Resurrection in regard to the entirety of our faith. Christ is not like Mohammad, Buddha, or Confucius who wish for us to follow a path, but rather Christ tells us to “Come Follow Him,” and where we ask him where, he replies, “Come and See.” The centrality of our faith relies on Christ and His Resurrection, as we’ve seen by the lives and works of St. Justin Martyr and St. Athanasius. St. Paul reminds us in the First Letter to the Corinthians, “13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then neither has Christ been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then empty [too] is our preaching; empty, too, your faith. 15 Then we are also false witnesses to God, because we testified against God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised, 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins.[13]

 

Easter Homily

Is there anyone who is a devout lover of God? Let them enjoy this beautiful bright festival! Is there anyone who is a grateful servant? Let them rejoice and enter into the joy of their Lord!

Are there any weary with fasting? Let them now receive their wages! If any have toiled from the first hour, let them receive their due reward; If any have come after the third hour, let him with gratitude join in the Feast! And he that arrived after the sixth hour, let him not doubt; for he too shall sustain no loss. And if any delayed until the ninth hour, let him not hesitate; but let him come too. And he who arrived only at the eleventh hour, let him not be afraid by reason of his delay.

For the Lord is gracious and receives the last even as the first. He gives rest to him that comes at the eleventh hour, as well as to him that toiled from the first. To this one He gives, and upon another He bestows. He accepts the works as He greets the endeavor. The deed He honors and the intention He commends.

Let us all enter into the joy of the Lord! First and last alike receive your reward; rich and poor, rejoice together! Sober and slothful, celebrate the day!

You that have kept the fast, and you that have not, rejoice today for the Table is richly laden! Feast royally on it, the calf is a fatted one. Let no one go away hungry. Partake, all, of the cup of faith. Enjoy all the riches of His goodness!

Let no one grieve at his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed. Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen from the grave. Let no one fear death, for the Death of our Savior has set us free. He has destroyed it by enduring it.

He destroyed Hades when He descended into it. He put it into an uproar even as it tasted of His flesh. Isaias foretold this when he said, “You, O Hell, have been troubled by encountering Him below.”

Hell was in an uproar because it was done away with.
It was in an uproar because it is mocked.
It was in an uproar, for it is destroyed.
It is in an uproar, for it is annihilated.
It is in an uproar, for it is now made captive.
Hell took a body, and discovered God.
It took earth, and encountered Heaven.
It took what it saw, and was overcome by what it did not see.
O death, where is thy sting?
O Hades, where is thy victory?

Christ is Risen, and you, O death, are annihilated!
Christ is Risen, and the evil ones are cast down!
Christ is Risen, and the angels rejoice!
Christ is Risen, and life is liberated!
Christ is Risen, and the tomb is emptied of its dead; for Christ having risen from the dead, is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

To Him be Glory and Power forever and ever. Amen!

[1]Marcellino D’Ambrosio, When The Church was Young: Voices of the Early Fathers(Servant Books: San Francisco, 2014), 243.

[2]Pope Benedict XVI, Church Fathers: From Clement of Rome to Augustine(Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 2008), 98.

[3]D’Ambrosio, 243.

[4]Pope Benedict XVI, 98.

[5]Ibid, 99.

[6]D’Ambrosio, 244.

[7][7]Christopher Rengers and Matthew E. Bunson, The 35 Doctors of the Church(Tan Books: Charlotte, 2014), 112.

[8]D’Ambriosio, 245.

[9]Ibid.

[10]John Chrysostom, The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Parts 1 & 2, trans. Bart Prevost, vol. 2, A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; J. G. F. and J. Rivington, 1843–1844), 685–686.

[11]New American Bible, Revised Edition (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Jn 12:1–11.

[12]John Chrysostom, The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Parts 1 & 2, trans. Bart Prevost, vol. 2, A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; J. G. F. and J. Rivington, 1843–1844), 686–687.

[13]New American Bible, Revised Edition (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), 1 Co 15:13–17.

_DSC7208.JPG

St. Athanasius

336

Welcome to the 4thweek of the Discussion group series on the Church Fathers. In our last session, we discussed St. Justin Martyr’s beautiful illumination on the Logos; being Christ, it relationship to Creation, and its philosophical connection to divine truth. St. Justin Martyr’s narrative brough forth some thoughts on the proofs of God, namely St. Thomas Aquinas’ 3rdway—“Why is there something rather than nothing.” It also caused us to engage pagan philosopher’s ideas about God and their understanding of God.

When attending University of Illinois, I remember taking a class on Plato, and, of course, we had to read Plato’s Phaedrus. However, to be honest, I don’t remember much of the text, Plato’s development of his ‘theory of forms’ is developed over many texts starting with the Phaedo, Phaedrus, and the Republic. In Plato’s Phaedrus, I came across a particular text that Plato puts coming from the mouth of Socrates, “Madness from a god is finer than self-control of human origin.[1]” In the TV miniseries, The Man Who Became Pope, Karol Wojtyla—the future John Paul II—is quotes the phrase in a more Christian context saying to KGB agent saying, “Madness that comes from God is so much better than wisdom of human origin.” Bishop Wojtyla, in the film, brings to the attention of the Soviet atheist that Plato was the Father of Reason echoing our past conversation on Justin Martyr’s incorporation of pagan philosophy with the Logos.

Our past discussions show us that really the primary outcome of learning the history of the Church Fathers is to gain a better understanding of the revelation of God. Our next discussion further develops this revelation as St. Athanasius is the next person of interest for our group. In many ways, St. Athanasius carries the tradition of St. Justin Martyr by developing further the idea of the Divine Word and the Word’s eschatological role in salvation history.

Who and why was St. Athanasius important?

Pope Benedict XVI writes, “Athanasius was undoubtedly one of the most important and revered early Church Fathers. But this great Saint was above all the impassioned theologian of the Incarnation of the Logos, the Word of God who – as the Prologue of the fourth Gospel says – “became flesh and dwelt among us” (Jn 1: 14).”[2]
St. Athanasius was born around 300 A.D, his exact date of birth is debated among scholars,  and died on May 2, 373 A.D. Fr. Christopher Rengers writes in his book, The 35 Doctors of the Church, “nothing is known of his family. From the thoroughness of his education, it is presumed that he came from well-to-do parents who could afford a good education. But he could have received much of this through the influence of Alexander (Patriarch of Alexandria)”[3]Pope Benedict believes that this education occurred before any contact with Bishop Alexander of Alexandria.[4]Prior to the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., in 318 A.D, Athanasius wrote his most famous work called On the Incarnationin which Marcellino D’Ambrosio articulates as “one of the great theological classics of all time.”[5]However, it must be expressed that there is some debate when the classic text was written; D’ambrosio dates it to an earlier period due to addressing the topics brought forth by Arius and the Arian heresy, but not ever naming Arius distinctly.[6]

The issues brought forth by St. Athanasius and settled during the Council of Nicaea would appear to us modern Catholics as non-controversial, but Catholics of the modern age have to realize that much of our creedal traditions were forged during these pivotal years. Fr. Rengers explains, “A GREAT controversy that involved emperors, popes and bishops, that stirred up intrigue and bloodshed, that shook Christianity to its depths, centered on one simple, sure answer in the Catechism. The answer goes very simply: ‘The chief teaching of the Catholic Church about Jesus Christ is that He is God made man.”[7]Fr. Renger goes on, “Because of his championship of this fundamental truth he is called ‘The Father of Orthodoxy’…St. Athanasius defended the divine Sonship at the cost of immense personal discomfort, suffering and danger. His whole live was shaped around his defense of the divinity of Christ.”[8]

 

St. Athanaius’ orthodoxy exhibited in his work On the Incarnation and others that defended the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ caused him a lot of turmoil in his live. D’Ambrosio reminds us that “during the forty-five years he was bishop, he was banished five times for a total of seventeen years in exile. By the time he died in A.D. 373, he had outlasted most of his enemies. He fought tirelessly, sometimes almost singlehandedly, for the truth of the Catholic faith taught at Nicaea.”[9]During one of his many exiles, St. Athanasius “was pursued up the Nile, When the imperial officers were gaining on him, he ordered his boat turned around. At the time it was still hidden from the pursuers by a bend in the river. When the two boats crossed paths, the Roman officers, not personally knowing Athanasius shouted out, asking if anyone had seen Athanasius. St. Athanasius himself answered them: “He is not very far off.” It’s important to ponder this story, for it reveals that in our future struggles, we must use our intelligence to not only defend ourselves from our enemies, but also to defend the faith.

Arius was a priest in Alexandria who “threatened authentic faith in Christ, declaring the Logos was not a true God but a created God, a creature “halfway” between God and man who hence remained for ever inaccessible to us.”[10]Jimmy Akin explains Arianism very well in his book, The Fathers Know Best, writing that the heresy was “Founded by Arius, a priest of Alexandria, Egypt, in the early 300s. Arius held that originally the Son of God did not exist. There was a time in which there was a single divine Person who became the Father when he created the Son out of nothing. The Son was the first of all created beings and thus separate from the Father in being. The heresy was condemned at the first ecumenical council—Nicaea I in 325—but the controversy intensified and lasted much longer.[11]

 

What would be the result if Arius’ assertion were true?

D’Ambrosio explains “If Christ is simply a demigod, an intermediary who is something less than God, he is not really Emmanuel, God with us, Rather, he is an emissary sent by God…the emissary conveys the orders of the Sovereign but does not himself know the Sovereign intimately, he cannot reveal God to us as he really is. We are condemned to obey God but to never really know him.”[12]

The idea of the Incarnation and Divinity of Jesus is important to Christianity that D”Ambrosio explains it as “the linchpin of our salvation. If Christ were only a creature, the Gospel would truly be such a good news after all.”[13]In many ways, it has always been sin that is easily visbible in the world. The good news of the Gospels gives us hope that the hole that has been caused by our sin against God will be healed by God with our cooperation, as St. Athanasius explains so beautifully in his work On the Incarnation.

I am reminded of the consequence of Christ being a creation of God and also of an essay written by G.K. Chesterton on Original Sin.

Chesterton writes:

ONCE upon a time when Mr. H. G. Wells was setting forth on his varied and splendid voyage from Utopia to Utopia, he announced as a sort of watchword or war-cry that the new world would have nothing to do with the idea of Original Sin. He did not specially speak, and, indeed, there was no reason for him to speak, about his other beliefs or unbeliefs. He had not then compared the Trinity to a dance; but neither had he called adoring multitudes to the shrine of the Invisible King. But, standing at the end of the great scientific nineteenth century, he thought it time to announce that the one doctrine he did not believe in was Original Sin. Standing at the beginning of the still more scientific twentieth century, Mr. Aldous Huxley calmly announces that the one doctrine he does believe in is Original Sin. He may be a sceptic or a heretic about many things, but on that point he is quite orthodox. He may not hold many theological dogmas, but about this dogma he is quite dogmatic. There is one fragment of the ancient creed which he not only clings to, but declares to be necessary to all clear minds of the new generation. And that is the very fragment which Mr. Wells threw away thirty years ago, as something that would never be needed any more. The stone that the builder of Utopia rejected . . .”[14]

 

It is St. Athansius work, On the Incarnation,were he lays down both the importance of the divinity of Christ and his necessary sacrifice to make the world anew as a result of humanities sin against God.

On the Incarnation

 

In Athanasius’ work, the first 5 sections discuss creation and the fall of man. In the text, we are reminded of the God’s only prohibition and the result of ignoring such an edict from God.

Section 3

“First of all believe that God is one, which created and framed all things, and made them to exist out of nothing.” 2. To which also Paul refers when he says, “By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the Word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which do appear.” 3. For God is good, or rather is essentially the source of goodness: nor could one that is good be niggardly of anything: whence, grudging existence to none, He has made all things out of nothing by His own Word, Jesus Christ our Lord…and He did not barely create man, as He did all the irrational creatures on the earth, but made them after His own image, giving them a portion even of the power of His own Word; so that having as it were a kind of reflexion of the Word, and being made rational, they might be able to abide ever in blessedness, living the true life which belongs to the saints in paradise. 4. But knowing once more how the will of man could sway to either side, in anticipation He secured the grace given them by a law and by the spot where He placed them. For He brought them into His own garden, and gave them a law: so that, if they kept the grace and remained good, they might still keep the life in paradise without sorrow or pain or care, besides having the promise of incorruption in heaven; but that if they transgressed and turned back, and became evil, they might know that they were incurring that corruption in death which was theirs by nature: no longer to live in paradise, but cast out of it from that time forth to die and to abide in death and in corruption.[15]

 

Section 5

 

Here, St. Athanasius reminds us, that by committing this sin against God by ignoring his edict, we, in fact, lost existence with God being cast out of the garden by inventing wickedness

 

as Wisdom also says: “God made man for incorruption, and as an image of His own eternity; but by envy of the devil death came into the world.” But when this was come to pass, men began to die, while corruption thence-forward prevailed against them…having to begin with been inventors of wickedness and called down upon themselves death and corruption; while later on, having turned aside to wrong and exceeding all lawlessness, and stopping at no one evil but devising all manner of new evils in succession, they have become insatiable in sinning[16]

However, in sections six through ten, St. Athansius explains God’s resolution for the salvation of humanity. He explains, in section six, that he cannot go back on his word in Genesis, in regards to his prohibition, humanity must die; however, if God were to leave his creation as thus it would show God to be limited in his own nature.[17]

It is in the section six of On The Incarnationthat we come to a theological crossroadsbetween St. Athanasius and St. Thomas Aquinas.

Arguably, the greatest thinker, philosopher, and theologian of the Catholic Church, St. Thomas Aquinas argues for a theological position which appears to challenge St. Athanasius’ work in On the Incarnationabout the necessity of The Word becoming flesh. In the Summa, St. Thomas remarks that the Incarnation is not necessary, but fitting; however, in On the Incarantion, St. Athanasius, by explaining that God cannot go back on his word in Genesis, there is only one fitting method for deification, or theosis of humanity in salvation history. For all practical purposes, as I’ve quoted both sources, they appear contradictory, but they are not under the proper understanding of what each saints means by necessary.

The scope of St. Thomas’ understanding is in understanding of cosmology. As God created the universe from nothing and is also all knowing. St. Thomas is correct that the omnipotent eternal God would be aware of humanities sin prior to it’s act and could choose whatever course for salvation as he acts in a state of pure actuality—never in a state of potentiality. Therefore, if it was fitting and proper for God after our sin to send his only begotten Son into the world to ransom us from our sins, then it follows under the lines of St. Athanasius argument. St. Athanasius argument merely doesn’t equate for the idea that God didn’t even have to create humanity, the world, declare his commandment not to eat from the tree, etc. Therefore, it is only necessary to the degree that God desired in His plan. In some manner, there becomes a mystery that Christ has always been the plan, it becomes both necessary and fitting that Christ shall ransom us from our sins, as God is ever knowing. In this framework, St. Athanasius’ necessary means so in the second sense

 

Development of the Doctrine of the Trinity

St. Athanasius writings were also responsible for much of the development and understanding of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. In the Liturgy of Hours, the reading for Trinity Sunday is taken from St. Athanasius’ First Letter to Serapionin which he writes:

It will not be out of place to consider the ancient tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church, which was revealed by the Lord, proclaimed by the Apostles and guarded by the Fathers. For upon this faith the Church is built, and if anyone were to lapse from it, he would no longer be a Christian, either in fact or in name…We acknowledge the Trinity, holy and perfect, to consist of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In this Trinity there is no intrusion of any alien element or of anything from outside, nor is the Trinity a blend of creative and created being (note: Christ’s Divinity here). It is a wholly creative and energizing reality, self-consistent and undivided in its active power, for the Father makes all things through the Word and in the Holy Spirit, and in this way the unity of the Holy Trinity is preserved…”[18]

How would any of you describe the Holy Trinity?

One time I was having a discussion with an atheist who had popped in the comment section of my blog who presented a challenge to all Christians. The challenge stated, “Name one unique idea created by Christianity.” After some other bloggers had offered ideas that were dismissed, and after I had presented Transubstantiation— only to be dismissed (even though it is unique)— I also presented the most glaring central doctrine of the Church, The Holy Trinity. However, the atheist rejected this as not being an original idea as he gave what he referred to as the Hindu trinity known as Trimurti. After I had looked into the Trimurti, I concluded that the Christian Trinity is truly unique, and this comparison to the Trimurti was a false equivalent.

 

Now to claim this is a false equivalent, one must have a better understanding of the most Holy Trinity. In the case of the Trimurti, the three gods are exactly that, three distinct gods that are reincarnated into an avatar known Datta, but regardless, Brahma still takes center stage in that religion. I explained their difference ultimately using the Athanasian Creed, Fr. Rengers reminds us of the Athanasius Creed, “consisting of 40 rhythmic statements, had been used in the Sunday Office for over a thousand years.”[19]—which I wish we would use more often— “So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God…So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another.”

 

During the conversation, I wish that I had the modern example given by Michael Pennock in This is Our Faithof a woman who is three different persons, although she is one woman. She is a Mother, a wife, and friend. I also wish I was more familiar with St. John’s of Damascus example, “The Father is the sun with the Son as ray and the Holy Spirit as heat.” All very distinct concepts, but from one source, and with one will. It is entirely different, a central doctrine and great mystery that is truly original to Christianity.
Finally, a great foundation for understanding the Holy Trinity rests in focusing on the Incarnation, The Word of God, Christ Jesus, Our Lord and Savior. Of course, as I’ve mentioned previously, unless we are fluent in ancient languages, we must read St. Athanasius in translation. However, one of the greatest teachers of our faith, and perhaps one day will be honored as a Doctor of the Faith, Bl. John Henry Newman writes on the Incarnation:

“This was the new and perfect tabernacle into which He entered (the body); entered, but not confined, not to be circumscribed by it. The Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; though His own hands ‘made it and fashioned it,’ still he did not cease to be what He was, because He became man, but was still the Infinite God, manifested in, not altered by the flesh. He took upon Him our nature, as an instrument of His purposes, not as an agent in the work. (The Incarnation is not a creature) What is one thing cannot become another; His manhood remained human, and His Godhead remained divine.”[20]

[1]http://web.stanford.edu/~mvr2j/ucsccourse/Phaedrus.pdf p. 523

[2]Pope Benedict XVI, Church Fathers: From Clement of Rome to Augustine(Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 2008),58.

[3]Christopher Rengers and Matthew E. Bunson, The 35 Doctors of the Church(Tan Books: Charlotte, 2014), 2.

[4]Pope Benedict XVI, 59.

[5]Marcellino D’Ambrosio, When The Church was Young: Voices of the Early Fathers(Servant Books: San Francisco, 2014),162.

[6]Ibid, 163.

[7]Renger and Bunson, 1.

[8]Ibid.

[9]D’Ambrosio, 177.

[10]Pope Benedict XVI, 59.

[11]Jimmy Akin, The Fathers Know Best: Your Essential Guide to the Teachings of the Early Church(San Diego: Catholic Answers, 2010), 85.

[12]D’Ambrosio, 165.

[13]Ibid, 164.

[14]http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/GKC_Come_to_Think.html#c28

[15]Athanasius of Alexandria, “On the Incarnation of the Word,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Archibald T. Robertson, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 37–38.

[16]Ibid, 39.

[17]On the Incarnation, 6.

[18]Rengers and Bunson, 8.

[19]Ibid.

[20]Dave Armstrong, Quotable Newman(Sophia Press: Manchester, 2012), 197.

St. Justin Martyr

Иустин_Философ,_Афон.jpg

Welcome to Our Saviour’s Parish. We’re in the third week of our discussion series. In our first week, we covered the oldest known catechism of the church—the  Didache, and followed it up last week with St. Clement of Rome. By examining these periods of our early Christian history, we’ve been able to uncover the early foundations of Christians living the philosophy of community rather than living as individuals, the concept of commandments, the early practices of baptism, Apostolic succession, Christian unity, the primacy of the Pope.

As I was reviewing the text for our discussion series, I found it hard to choose Church Fathers, as all played a pivotal role in the early years of Christianity. So the first week, I chose the Didache for the reason to show that early Christians did in fact believe in the same things that we profess today. The second week, I chose Clement to show the importance of Apostolic succession and the Papacy to early Christians. So when deciding on our third weeks topics, I landed on St. Justin Martyr, for the reason that in his written work The First Apology, he illustrates to us a liturgy that is very similar to our contemporary mass.

St. Justin Martyr is important for many reasons, in fact, Pope Benedict XVI says that he is “the most important of the second-century apologist Fathers.”[1]Of course, St. Justin’s fate is usually paired with his fate; however, it’s also important to note him, as many were in the early years, as a convert to the faith. Reviewing our text, we learn that Justin Martyr was born “about twenty miles to the north of the City of David in the ancient biblical town of Shechem”[2]around the year 100 A.D.

D’Ambrosio explains that Justin grew up in a pagan family, and during the time, it would be desirable to become one of the popular cloak wearing philosophers who were gathering their many disciples.[3]In the last month, listening to one of Bishop Robert Barron’s podcasts, Bp. Barron that if any of us desire to become men and women who are learned in our craft then we must put in the time. So Naturally, Justin’s desire to become a philosopher led him to the great libraries of Alexandria and Ephesus to perfect his craft.[4]During his time in these great cities of learning, Justin would be introduced to “numerous systems of thought—The Stoics, then Pythagoras, then finally Plato,” who would so heavily influence the thought of St. Augustine.[5]

Whilst learning from these various schools of thought, it was during this period in which St. Justin Martyr would be converted to the Christian faith. Pope Benedict gives a stirring account of Justin’s conversion story of a trailing old man saying, “he himself (Justin Martry) recounts in the first chapters of his Dialogue with Tryphon, a mysterious figure, an old man he met on the seashore, initially leads him into a crisis by showing him that it is impossible for the human being to satisfy his aspiration to the divine solely with his own forces. He then pointed out to him the ancient prophets as the people to turn to in order to find the way to God and ‘true philosophy’. In taking his leave, the old man urged him to pray that the gates of light would be opened to him.” The story foretells the crucial episode in Justin’s life: at the end of a long philosophical journey, a quest for the truth, he arrived at the Christian faith.”[6]

It’s easy for modernity to dismiss this story as nothing more than pious legend; however, if we take it at face value, can we not ask who was this mysterious old man? Are there mysterious in our lives that have led us closer to Christ? Have we encountered God and should we speak more to these revelations with our fellow Christians?

One of the great aspects of the Catholic faith is that is not an either; or religion, we’re not required by our Church to choose between faith and reason, but rather, we’re given the opportunity to have both; and; this system of thought has been exhibited in recent years by the 1998 encyclical of our patron, Pope St. John Paul II, Fides et Ratio. The foundation of the tradition of faith and Reason in our church is very much rooted in the writings and life of St. Justin Martyr. As Catholics, we’re accused of being superstitious by tired stereotypes forged by anti-Catholic rhetoric; however, the truth is that we’re not required to be anti-science but rather pro-science. Furthermore, we can’t be afraid of science because in studying the creations of God we can only move closer to God, the creator of the world, and ultimately nothing can be discovered that would invalidate Him. Of course, this train of thought, is what led men like Fr. Georges Lemitre—the Father of the Big Bang Theory and Augustinian Friar Gregor Mendel—the Father of Modern genetics.

We’re also charged with taking up the principles of Logic and philosophy, more of the realm of St. Justin, as D’ambrosio explains, “Justin did not then take off his philosopher’s cloak. Rather, he believed that it was only after baptism that he was finally entitled to wear it. In Christ, he had found the answer to every question, the key that unlocked all doors, just as the old man had promised.”[7]
After Justin’s conversion to Christianity, his desire for knowledge led him Ephesus where St. John the Apostle lived and died, and then from there, to Rome where St. Paul and St. Peter met their reward in which Justin would later take a share in it. It is at Rome where St. Justin Martyr writes two of his most important defenses of the faith, or apologies. Of course, an apology in the traditional sense doesn’t carry the same connotation as in our modern language,. Pope Benedict XVI explains, “the apologists had a twofold concern: that most properly called “apologetic”, to defend the newborn Christianity (apologhía in Greek means, precisely, “defence”), and the pro-positive, “missionary” concern, to explain the content of the faith in a language and on a wavelength comprehensible to their contemporaries.”[8]

Pope Benedict XVI further explains that it was the message of his apologies and its criticisms of pagan culture as “He founded a school in Rome where, free of charge, he initiated students the new religion…considered as the true philosophy. Indeed, in it he had found the truth, hence, the art of living virtuously. For this reason he was reported and beheaded in about 165 A.d. during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher-emperor to whom Justin had actually addressed one of his Apologia.”[9]

Generally, Apologists, because their job description entails the defense of the faith, they’re works are generally reactive to the charges of the non-believers. Justin’s responses are no different in this aspect, from D’ambrosio we learn that the calumny of the day expressed charges of incest and cannibalism, “Rumors had arisen, based on Christians’ terminology, that their secret meetings were “love feasts” between “brothers and sisters” who “consumed the flesh and blood of a man called Christus.”[10]These types of accusations continue through St. Augustine’s day to our present “meme” culture. The First Apology starts off, as D’ambrosio explains, “by blasting the idolatry and sexual immorality of the pagan society of his day…adultery and promiscuity, including homosexual liaisons and pedophilia, were rife in the empire at this time.”[11]By studying Church history, we learn that the culture of “free love” or the modern version “love is love” brought forth by the sexual revolution of the late 60s is not a result of modern progression from the dark ages, but rather, a regression to the pagan moral system of hedonism.

Justin challenges the majority culture of the day with a polemical response accusing the pagan faithful of immoral behavior as exhibited in D’ambrosio’s book:

“as for us, we have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do any one an injury, and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution…And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. And any one who uses such persons, besides the godless and infamous and impure intercourse, may possibly be having intercourse with his own child, or relative, or brother. And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy;[12](1 Apology 27.)

 

St. Justin also by discrediting the accusations of incest by Christians gives a magnificent opus of the purity and dignity that is exhibited in Marriage founded on Christian principles taught by Jesus Christ himself:

“Concerning chastity, He uttered such sentiments as these: “Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart before God.” And, “If thy right eye offend thee, cut it out; for it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of heaven with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into everlasting fire.” And, “Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced from another husband, committeth adultery.”4And, “There are some who have been made eunuchs of men, and some who were born eunuchs, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake; but all cannot receive this saying.” So that all who, by human law, are twice married,6are in the eye of our Master sinners, and those who look upon a woman to lust after her. For not only he who in act commits adultery is rejected by Him, but also he who desires to commit adultery: since not only our works, but also our thoughts, are open before God. And many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years; and I boast that I could produce such from every race of men. For what shall I say, too, of the countless multitude of those who have reformed intemperate habits, and learned these things? For Christ called not the just nor the chaste to repentance, but the ungodly, and the licentious, and the unjust; His words being, “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” For the heavenly Father desires rather the repentance than the punishment of the sinner. And of our love to all, He taught thus: “If ye love them that love you, what new thing do ye? for even fornicators do this. But I say unto you, Pray for your enemies, and love them that hate you, and bless them that curse you, and pray for them that despitefully use you.”8[13]
What one finds in St. Justin’s text is a belief system pulled straight from scripture. First and foremost, it indicates the early Christian understanding on Jesus’ concept of what constitutes as marriage, as Justin is responding to the promiscuity of pagan culture.  In Matthew Chapter 19, as a response to the Pharisees challenging Christ in regards to Moses’ allowance for divorce, Jesus gives a definition of marriage based on Genesis chapter three. The only indication from Christ for a properly ordered relationship, in accordance to God’s creation, is a relationship ordered by biological compatibility and one predisposed to life, anything other type of relationship is one that does not reflect the proper sense of Christian community, but rather, pleasure of each single individual; and therefore, in the most proper sense is not true love.

So, If we compare what we’ve learn from our study of the Didache with the writings of St. Justin Martyr, D’ambrioso articulates that “Justin insists that Chrstianity is not just a belief system but a whole new way of living.”[14]A Christian must choose either the way of life or the way of death. In many ways, the struggle between the two choices sets up much of the frame work of St. Augustine’s text the City of God. We must ultimately between the City of God or the City of Man, while living in the City of Man.

The second biggest accusation towards the Christian faithful is the charge of cannibalism, which much of this was brought about by the secretiveness of the liturgy of the Eucharist. Strangers were not allowed to witness such rites and those learning the faith, known as catechumens, were compelled to leave during the meal part of the liturgy—a practice which still occurred in the old form of the Mass.  What is important to note about St. Justin’s explanation in regards to the Liturgy of the Eucharist, by revealing the Mass to the Emperor, is that it very much the same liturgy used during current Masses in our post-Vatican II era. In this manner, one could make the argument that our current Liturgy is much more ancient than the Tridentine Latin Mass. As I’ve heard our more traditional brothers and sisters articulate that “the mass of all ages” has been responsible for more saints than any other form, should we perhaps reassess such a claim in light to Justin’s description of the mass which was used by the Second Vatican Council to “renew the Mass according to the most ancient pattern of the Roman liturgy as recorded by Justin.”[15]

The entire period of patristic era of the Church Is filled with nothing but Saints.

 

Justin explains the Church’s liturgy:

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; (Liturgy of the Word) then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs(Homly), and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray(Creed and Prayers of petition), and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability,2and the people assent,(Liturgy of the Eucharist)saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each(Communion), and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows, and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds, and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need.[16]

 

Finally when Justin Martyr refutes the challenges of cannibalism, D’Ambrosio notes that “Justin refrains from any empty symbolism.”[17]

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.[18]

The vital lesson to take from Justin’s life is to consider whether we’ve chosen the way of Christian life, the Christian community—the body of Christ. And if we have chosen the way of life, how have we held true to these beliefs? Do we retreat from our dominating secular culture in regards to defending orthodox Christian beliefs? Or are we willing to challenge that culture, just as St. Justin Martyr did even if it means to die for it.

In the end, it was the critique of Cynic philosopher Crescens of St. Justin Martyr in his Second Apologia that led to being brought forth to Rusticus, the prefect of the Rome.[19]As exhibited in D’Ambrosio’s book, an account of Justin’s witness to Christ exists to this day:

Rusticus—“You are then a Christian?” Justin—“Yes, I am.” The judge then put the same question to each of the rest, viz., Chariton, a man; Charitana, a woman; Evelpistus, a servant of Cæsar, by birth a Cappadocian; Hierax, a Phrygian; Peon, and Liberianus, who all answered, “that, by the divine mercy, they were Christians.” Evelpistus said he had learned the faith from his parents, but had with great pleasure heard Justin’s discourses. Then the prefect addressed himself again to Justin in this manner: “Hear you, who are noted for your eloquence, and think you make profession of the right philosophy, if I cause you to be scourged from head to foot, do you think you shall go to heaven?” Justin replied, “If I suffer what you mention, I hope to receive the reward which those have already received who have observed the precepts of Jesus Christ.” Rusticus said, “You imagine then that you shall go to heaven, and be there rewarded.” The martyr answered, “I do not only imagine it, but I know it; and am so well assured of it, that I have no reason to make the least doubt of it.” The prefect seeing it was to no purpose to argue, bade them go together and unanimously sacrifice to the gods, and told them that in case of refusal they should be tormented without mercy. Justin replied, “There is nothing which we more earnestly desire than to endure torments for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ; for this is what will promote our happiness, and give us confidence at his bar, where all men must appear to be judged.” To this the rest assented, adding, “Do quickly what you are about. We are Christians, and will never sacrifice to idols.” The prefect thereupon ordered them to be scourged and then beheaded,[20]

[1]Pope Benedict XVI, Church Fathers: From Clement of Rome to Augustine(Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 2008),17.

[2]Marcellino D’Ambrosio, When The Church was Young: Voices of the Early Fathers(Servant Books: San Francisco, 2014), 47.

[3]Ibid.

[4]Ibid.

[5]Ibid.

[6]Pope Benedict XVI, 17.

[7]D’Ambrosio, 48.

[8]Pope Benedict XVI, 17.

[9]Ibid, 18.

[10]D’ambrosio, 49.

[11]Ibid.

[12]Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 172.

[13]Justin Martyr, 167.

[14]D’Ambrosio, 50.

[15]Ibid, 55.

[16]Justin Martyr, 186. 1 Apologia 67.

[17]D’ambrosio, 55.

[18]Justin Martyr, 185. 1 Apologia 66.

[19]D’Ambriosio, 56.

[20]Alban Butler, The Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs and Other Principal Saints, vol. 2 (New York: P. J. Kenedy, 1903), 463.

 

 

St. Clement of Rome

250px-Clemens_I

Welcome to Our Savior’s Parish second week of our six week discussion series on the Church Fathers, I ask the Holy Spirit to guide my words, your words, and our ears to further our understanding of the founding and early history of the Church.

The first Church Father that we’ll examine is Pope St. Clement I of Rome. Of course with any person of antiquity, often what we know about the individual is pieced together by various sources, some of which may occur a generation or two after an individual has died.

Clement of Rome “Probably wrote in early 70,” as Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin wrote in his book The Father’s Know Best, and that“Various ancient sources place him as the first, second, or third successor of St. Peter. (Most commonly, he is held to be the third, after Linus and Cletus.) He was the author of a single surviving Letter to the Corinthians, which is often dated around 95 A.D,” but Akin believes “this is too late a date.[1]

Pope Benedict XVI gave several audiences on the topic of the Church Fathers and specifically on March 7th, 2007 he spoke on Clement of Rome in which he said, “St Clement, Bishop of Rome in the last years of the first century, was the third Successor of Peter, after Linus and Anacletus. The most important testimony concerning his life comes from St Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons until 202. He attests that Clement “had seen the blessed Apostles”, “had been conversant with them”, and “might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes” (Adversus Haer. 3, 3, 3).[2]

A magnificent introduction to the Father that we’ll spend this evening getting to know more about. One point that we can take from Pope Benedict’s reference to St. Irenaesus’ words is that the early Church viewed Clement of Rome with the utmost respect, as well as, because his relationship with the Apostles, Clement was viewed with a special authority in their community. Pope Benedict explains, “The authority and prestige of this Bishop of Rome were such that various writings were attributed to him.”[3]As we learn more tonight, let us keep that in mind when reviewing some of the content of his Letter to the Corinthians.

The letter from Clement of Rome to the Church of Corinth, in which he didn’t sign, is also called by scholars The First Epistle of Clement to Corinthians. The reason that we know today who authored this letter is from various sources in the 2ndcentury A.D. who attribute him to the work. The letter written by Clement is a response to an uprising of young Christians who sought to remove and replace established leaders in the church of Corinth in response to the Roman persecutions under the Emperor Domitian.[4]At this point, in regards to the historical record, we find a disagreement between Mr. Akin and Pope Benedict. As mentioned before, Akin believes that the Letter to the Corinthians’ dating at 95 A.D. is too late. He mentions in his book, “William Jurgens (American Catholic historian) points to internal evidence that places it no later than 80 or so (the date he favors) and possibly up to ten years earlier. John A. T. Robinson (New Testament scholar and Anglican Bishop) shows internal evidence that places it in the first part of the year 70. Specifically, Clement refers to sacrifices still being offered at the temple in Jerusalem, which was destroyed in July of 70. Clement also refers to the repeated crises that have prevented him from writing to the Corinthians until now, which is a likely reference to the violent “year of four emperors” in 69.[5]

Pope Benedict writes that the “These “calamitous events” can be identified with Domitian’s persecution: therefore, the Letter must have been written just after the Emperor’s death and at the end of the persecution, that is, immediately after the year 96.”[6]

Who’s right? Well to be fair, Pope Benedict doesn’t present any evidence with his assertion, this makes Akin’s point appear more convincing. However, Pope Benedict’s view is the historical consensus as conceded by Akin.

Now, turning to our reference book for our Lecture Series, When the Church Was Young, the author, in regards to the youthful uprising, Marcellino D’Ambrosio poses two questions for the letter of Clement to answer:

#1 Was such a move by the young Christian upstarts legitimate to remove the established leaders of the church of Corinth?

 

#2 Is the leadership in the Christian community simply a function of popularity, talent, or political power?[7]
At this point, I’ll turn to those here who may have examined the material on how Clement answered these questions.

D’Ambrosio articulates that “in the letter, Clement insisted that the Apostles had intended an orderly succession of authority in the Church…this process of succession from the apostles was to be presented unbroken. This provides us (the faithful) with the earliest written reference to the idea of apostolic succession”[8]that was conveyed quite possible at the time by the active Bishop of Rome, depending on where one dates the letter, who would have known the teachings of the first Bishop of Rome and St. Paul on a personal level.

I believe that D’Ambrosio gives a context clue for a letter date which indicates that he believes that Clement was already Bishop of Rome, and since he’s not here to ask, I say it’s fair game to speculate a bit. If you’re still listening up to this point you may have mentally asked yourself, “Does twenty years matter with dating?” If the dating by scholars to 95 A.D. continues to hold true, this letter could possibly be one of the first historically documented records of the doctrine of Petrine Primacy prior to its more solid conception under Pope Leo the Great. In this regard, we see a reversal of Galatians 2 where the successor of Peter corrects and takes “it upon himself to speak to the members of a Church founded by the Apostle Paul…that they needed to restore the properly authorized leaders of the church.”[9]

 

The Letter of Clement reads:

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus12Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments,14then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit,16to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons2in faith.”[10]

 The Letter of Clement gives us from a disciple of Peter and Paul the foundational premises of two Catholic doctrines namely, Primacy of the Pope and Apostolic Succession. At this point, I’d like to pivot directly to Apostolic succession. I believe it to be important to understand this idea as a way for us to grow even deeper in our faith together. On a personal note, I arrive at my faith by two means, the first, is being a combination of St. Thomas Aquinas’ 3rdway “Why is there something instead of nothing?” and his 1stway a “Prime mover.” At this point, I’ve reasoned that there is God, the necessary being, but now I ask, “Who is this God and what can I know about him.” Apostolic Succession, teaching, authority etc. are vital to me to answer these questions. If you listen to Podcasts, Bishop Robert Barron has one, and he constantly explains that Jesus’ teachings are great but the most important aspect of Christianity is not what Jesus said but who Jesus claims to be. He claims to be God by the way. So How do we know if Jesus is who says is? Well, he called twelve apostles and appointed them to be fishers of men. Those same men were invested into the priesthood of Christ and bearing the same message that Christ is God they “laid hands” on those to succeed them and those men did the same until our present day.

Now, stop, and ask yourself, Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God? I say, yes, and the reason why is that I have assented to this truth because a Risen Lord appeared to the Apostles, they chose to die for this truth and their disciples chose to die for it as well. And that message, as well as the priesthood through unbroken succession, is with us today.

This truth has been preserved for us by Clement of Rome and by the Holy Spirit. Not convinced?

We can discover by reading his Apologia Pro Vita Sua that it was the Church Fathers and Apostolic Succession that convinced one of the towering intellectuals of the 19thcentury, Blessed John Henry Newman, to convert from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism. No big deal, right? For Newman to convert to Catholicism was a social death sentence to arguably the brightest mind in England at the time.

Newman writes, far more elegantly than I, “All sects think it necessary that their Ministers should be ordained by other Ministers. Now, if this be the case, then the validity of ordination even with them, rest on a succession; and is it not plain that they ought to trace that succession to the Apostles?”[11]Furthermore, “A body of doctrine had been delivered by the Apostles to their first successors, and by them in turn to the next generation, and then to the next.”[12]“We say, ‘therefore the Apostles live in their successors.’ Christ implies, ‘therefore the body never died, and therefore it will rise again.’[13]
The unity of the Body of Christ rests on Apostolic Succession, this is what Clement of Rome means to explain to the young Christians in Corinth, this is what is at the heart of Jesus’ priestly prayer in the Gospel of John chapter 17.

Jesus says,

20 “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. 22 And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.[14]

So, how was Clement of Rome’s letter received? The Corinthians had a most grateful response to the “fatherly” correction[15]as they continued to read his letter as part of their Sunday worship for the next several hundred years.”[16]

The letter of Pope St. Clement I has survived to us today initially because it has been translated from Greek to many different languages. However, during some point in the history of the Western Church the letter was lost until in 1623 when the Patriarch of Constantinople gave the King of England a 5thcentury Bible called the Codex Alexandrinus which contained Clements letter calling for unity through Apostolic Succession. [17]

D’Ambrosio makes an interesting observation that “unfortunately, Clement’s letter was not available during the prior century when great arguments shattered the Christian unity in the West.”[18]

[1]Jimmy Akin, The Fathers Know Best: Your Essential Guide to the Teachings of the Early Church(San Diego, CA: Catholic Answers, 2010), 56.

[2]Pope Benedict XVI, Church Fathers: From Clement of Rome to Augustine(Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 2008), 7.

[3]Ibid.

[4]Marcellino D’Ambrosio, When The Church was Young: Voices of the Early Fathers(Servant Books: San Francisco, 2014), 5.

[5]Akin, 57.

[6]Pope Benedict XVI, 8.

[7]D’Ambrosio, 6.

[8]Ibid, 6-7 Some scholars believe Clement to be referenced in scripture in Philippians 4:3 “Yes, and I ask you also, my true yokemate, to help them, for they have struggled at my side in promoting the gospel, along with Clement and my other co-workers, whose names are in the book of life[8]

[9]D’Ambrosio, 7.

[10]Clement of Rome, “The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,” in The Gospel of Peter, the Diatessaron of Tatian, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Visio Pauli, the Apocalypses of the Virgil and Sedrach, the Testament of Abraham, the Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena, the Narrative of Zosimus, the Apology of Aristides, the Epistles of Clement (Complete Text), Origen’s Commentary on John, Books I-X, and Commentary on Matthew, Books I, II, and X-XIV, ed. Allan Menzies, trans. John Keith, vol. 9, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1897), 241–242.

[11]Dave Armstrong, The Quotable Newman(Sophia Press: Manchester, 2012,) 37.

[12]Ibid.

[13]Ibid, 38.

[14]New American Bible, Revised Edition (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Jn 17:20–23.

[15]D’Ambrosio, 8.

[16]Ibid, 9.

[17]Ibid.

[18]Ibid.