Great read: homily for funeral Mass of Antonin Scalia

Fr. Paul Scalia's homily at his father's funeral (source):

 

February 20, 2016

We are gathered here because of one man. A man known personally to many of us, known only by reputation to even more, a man loved by many, scorned by others, a man known for great controversy, and for great compassion. That man, of course, is Jesus of Nazareth. It is He whom we proclaim. Jesus Christ, son of the Father, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified, buried, risen, seated at the right hand of the Father. It is because of Him, because of His life, death and resurrection that we do not mourn as those who have no hope, but in confidence we commend Antonin Scalia to the mercy of God. 

Scripture says “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.” And that sets a good course for our thoughts and our prayers here today. In effect, we look in three directions: to yesterday, in thanksgiving; to today, in petition; and into eternity with hope. We look to Jesus Christ yesterday--that is, to the past--in thanksgiving for the blessings God bestowed upon Dad. In the past week, many have recounted what Dad did for them, but here today, we recount what God did for Dad; how He blessed him. 

We give thanks, first of all, for the atoning death and life-giving resurrection of Jesus Christ. Our Lord died and rose, not only for all of us, but also for each of us. And at this time we look to that yesterday of His death and His resurrection, and we give thanks that He died and rose for Dad. Further, we give thanks that Jesus brought him to new life in baptism, nourished him with the Eucharist, and healed him in the confessional. We give thanks that Jesus bestowed upon him 55 years of marriage, to the woman he loved, a woman who could match him at every step, and even hold him accountable. God blessed Dad with a deep Catholic faith, the conviction that Christ’s presence and power continue in the world today through his body, the Church. He loved the clarity and coherence of the Church’s teaching. He treasured the Church’s ceremonies, especially the beauty of her ancient worship. He trusted the power of the sacraments as the means of salvation, as Christ working within him for his salvation. Although, one time, one Saturday afternoon, he did scold me for having heard confessions that afternoon, that same day. And I hope that is some source of consolation, if there are any lawyers present, that the roman collar was not a shield against his criticism. The issue that evening was not that I’d been hearing confessions, but that he’d found himself in my confessional line. And he quickly departed it. As he put it later, “Like heck if I’m confessing to you!” The feeling was mutual. 

God blessed Dad, as is well known, with a love for his country. He knew well what a close-run thing the founding of our nation was. And he saw in that founding, as did the founders themselves, a blessing. A blessing quickly lost when faith is banned from the public square, or when we refuse to bring it there. So he understood that there is no conflict between loving God and loving one’s country, between one’s faith and one’s public service. Dad understood that the deeper he went in his Catholic faith, the better a citizen and a public servant he became. God blessed him with a desire to be the country’s good servant, because he was God’s first. 

We Scalias, however, give thanks for a particular blessing God bestowed. God blessed Dad with a love for his family. We have been thrilled to read and hear the may words of praise and admiration for him, his intellect, his writings, his speeches, his influence, and so on. But more important to us—and to him—he was Dad. He was the father that God gave us for the great adventure of family life. Sure, he forgot our names at times or mixed them up, but there are nine of us. He loved us, and sought to show that love, and sought to share the blessing of the faith he treasured. And he gave us one another, to have each other for support. That’s the greatest wealth that parents can bestow, and right now we’re particularly grateful for it. 

So we look to the past, to Jesus Christ yesterday. We call to mind all of these blessings, and we give Our Lord the honor and glory for them, for they are his work. 

We look to Jesus today, in petition, to the present moment here and now, as we mourn the one we love and admire, the one whose absence pains us. Today we pray for him. We pray for the repose of his soul. We thank God for his goodness to Dad, as is right and just, but we also know that, although Dad believed, he did so imperfectly, like the rest of us. He tried to love God and neighbor, but like the rest of us, did so imperfectly. He was a practicing Catholic, practicing in the sense that he hadn’t perfected it yet, or rather, that Christ was not yet perfected in him. And only those in whom Christ is brought to perfection can enter Heaven. We are here then, to lend our prayers to that perfecting, to that final work of God’s grace, in freeing Dad from every encumbrance of sin. But don’t take my word for it. Dad himself, not surprisingly, had something to say on the matter. Writing years ago to a Presbyterian minister whose funeral service he admired, he summarized quite nicely the pitfalls of funerals and why he didn’t like eulogies. He wrote “Even when the deceased was an admirable person, indeed especially when the deceased was an admirable person, praise for his virtues can cause us to forget that we are praying for and giving thank for God’s inexplicable mercy to a sinner.” Now, he would not have exempted himself from that. We are here, then, as he would want: to pray for God’s inexplicable mercy to a sinner; to this sinner, Antonin Scalia. Let us not show him a false love, and allow our admiration to deprive him of our prayers. We continue to show affection for him and do good for him by praying for him, that all stain of sin be washed away, that all sins be healed, that he be purified of all that is not Christ. That he rest in peace. 

Finally, we look to Jesus, forever, into eternity--or better, we consider our own place in eternity, and whether it will be with the Lord. Even as we pray for Dad to enter swiftly into eternal glory, we should be mindful of ourselves. Every funeral reminds us of just how thin the veil is, between this world and the next, between time and eternity, between the opportunity for conversion and the moment of judgment. So we cannot depart here unchanged. It makes no sense to celebrate God’s goodness and mercy to God if we are not attentive and responsive to those realities in our own lives. We must allow this encounter with eternity to change us, to turn us from sin and toward the Lord. The English Dominican Father Bede Jarret put it beautifully when he prayed “Oh strong son of God, while you prepare a place for us, prepare us also for that happy place, that we may be with you and with those we love for all eternity. 

Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever. My dear friends, this is also the structure of the Mass, the greatest prayer we can offer for Dad, because it’s not our prayer but the Lord’s. The Mass looks to Jesus yesterday. It reaches into the past, to the Last Supper, to the crucifixion, to the resurrection, and it makes those mysteries and their power present here, on this altar. Jesus himself becomes present here today, under the form of bread and wine, so that we can unite all of our prayers of thanksgiving, sorrow and petition with Christ himself, as an offering to the Father. And all of this, with a view to eternity, stretching towards heaven, where we hope to enjoy that perfect union with God himself and to see Dad again, and with him rejoice in the communion of saints.

Response to Charles Pritt of Lighthouse Baptist Church (Newark, DE) on Baptism (June 10, 2012 Sermon)

[Update July 3, 2012: I altered a few sections for clarity.  Also, I should note that I cribbed the format of this post--pictures and all--from one of my favorite blogs, Shameless Popery, written (mostly) by Joe Heschmeyer.]

The video clip below is from the June 10, 2012 Sermon at Lighthouse Baptist Church (Newark, DE) given by Pastor Charles Pritt.  (Pritt is the music minister at LBC, which makes his sermon all the more impressive.  As a professional musician myself, I appreciate a musician who is passionate about God.) In this sermon, Pritt tackles some difficult verses from 1 Peter 3, and I am happy to report that at some points, Pritt's interpretation of these verses (especially in regard to Baptism) fits very closely with a Catholic understanding of Baptism.  Praise be to God!  I admire all the Pastors at LBC (so much that I would love for us to be able to worship together with one mind and heart!), and I admire Pastor Pritt's efforts to follow God's Word in 1 Peter 3 to the best of his understanding.

I.  Introduction

That said, it is important for Catholics (perhaps even Catholics who now attend LBC but who are reconsidering returning to the Catholic Church) and even for Pastor Pritt to see (1) how denying baptismal regeneration forces one into an uncomfortable interpretive dilemma when getting to verses like 1 Peter 3:21 and (2) how the Catholic teaching on Baptism makes greater sense of this passage than the Baptist interpretive tradition within which Pastor Pritt developed his sermon.

In the clip below, I recommend starting just before the 18-minute mark, when Pastor Pritt deals most directly with Peter's teaching that "Baptism...now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21).  If time allows, I strongly encourage you to listen to the entire sermon, which contains many wonderful truths, most especially that it is Christ's death and resurrection that saves us.  (Catholics assert that it is in Baptism that the salvation won for us on Calvary is applied to us by Christ.)

Here is the passage under discussion (1 Pet. 3:18–21 NKJV; emphasis mine):

¹⁸ For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, ¹⁹ by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison,²⁰ who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. ²¹ There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Here is the same passage in a slightly more reader-friendly translation (NAS):

¹⁸ For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; ¹⁹ in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, ²⁰ who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. ²¹  Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you— not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 

And here is what Pastor Pritt has to say about these verses (begin around 17:50):

II.  Noah's Salvation and Our Salvation: Through Water

The most challenging aspect of 1 Peter 3 for Baptists is v. 21: "Baptism...now saves you."  This verse alone would seem to end the debate.  Baptism now saves us.  Or does it?

Before trying to answer this question and examining Pritt's interpretation, let's list the data found in the passage itself:

• Peter refers to the days of Noah, when eight people were saved by water in the Ark.
• Peter almost off-handedly (without argument or explanation) says that Noah's salvation was a type of Baptism, which saves you now.
• Peter clarifies that we are saved not by washing off of filth from the flesh but through the appeal of a clean conscience to God, through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Notice that Peter directly connects Noah's salvation and Baptism in the text.  Yet, Pritt begins by connecting Noah's salvation with "what Christ did for us" (forward to 21:30).

There is an important element of truth here: the salvation experienced by many in the Old Testament (Noah, Abraham, Moses and the Israelites, etc.) points toward the salvation we receive from Christ in the New Testament.

Yet, "what Christ did for us" does not result in the salvation of every human being since (and before) Calvary.  Somehow, the salvation won for us must be applied so that individuals can be born again into Christ's body.  Something must take place that causes us to become "new creations in Christ" (2 Cor. 5:17).  Put differently, Catholics and Baptists agree that we are saved by the merits of Christ's passion, death, and resurrection alone.  The difference between us seems to be in how we believe the grace of Calvary is applied to our souls.

It is this question that Catholics believe is addressed by Peter's letter.  Peter claims that "baptism...now saves you...through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ."  As Paul writes in Romans 6:3, we are "baptized into his death" (a verse Pritt looks at later).

So, while Pritt's first interpretive step (in the video above) changes the accent from baptism to "what Christ did for us," this reading isn't fundamentally opposed to 1 Peter or Catholic teaching.  Catholics happily agree that our salvation is through what Christ did for us.  We group Baptism under that heading: it is Christ who baptizes us.  It is Christ who applies the grace of Calvary to our souls in Baptism.

III.  Parallels between Noah's Salvation and the Sacrament of Baptism

In the sermon, Pritt points out some good parallels between Noah's salvation and our salvation in Christ, including that "we are rescued from wickedness...saved from spiritual death...and the judgment of sin destroys the wicked."  Pritt then draws a connection between the ARK that went through the flood and JESUS who went through the crucifixion.  

Most Catholic commentators would add that the Ark also represents the New Testament Church.  Here, I think a both/and approach is ideal, and in fact, I rather like the connection Pritt draws between the Ark and Jesus.  Whereas during the time of Noah, Noah and his family were saved and everybody else destroyed, Christ actually allows himself to be destroyed so he might rise again to win the victory over sin and death.  Similarly, Christians must die to sin so that through Christ we can be resurrected to new Life.  

As much as I like the connection between the Ark and Christ, there is much to be gained by thinking of the Ark as a type or precursor of the NT Church, which is saved through the waters of Baptism.  The Ark/Church connection does better justice to the text of 1 Peter itself.  In the NT reality being compared to Noah, we are saved by Baptism through the resurrection of Christ: "Baptism now saves you."  The "WE" being saved is the church--the people to whom Peter is writing--not Christ.  So, the Ark, that held the covenant family of God during the time of Noah corresponds to the Church, which holds the covenant family of God in the NT (see 1 Tim. 3:15).

Because Pritt puts the accent on "what Christ did for us" rather than the more specific idea of "baptism" (by which I still mean the ritual involving water), he misses some rather important parallels.  For starters, when Peter evokes Noah, the entire story of Noah is called to mind, and this story involves far more than being saved by water.  In fact, if those flood waters had never resided, Noah and his family would have eventually perished as well.  After the flood waters reside, Noah sends out a dove, which is a symbol of the Holy Spirit.  This dove returns to Noah carrying an olive branch, a symbol of peace with God.  After making land-fall, God enters into a covenant with Noah and his family.

How do these aspects of the story find their parallel in the "baptism" that now saves us?  Well, if by "baptism" Peter is referring to the ritual involving water...quite a lot!  Both Noah's salvation and Baptism involve water.  Both Noah's salvation and Baptism involve the Holy Spirit.  Both Noah's salvation and Baptism involve finding peace with God.  Both Noah's salvation and Baptism involve entering into the Covenant family of God.

Tim McClure, Noah and the Dove

From this text alone, one could derive a nearly-complete theology of Baptism: Baptism is a saving act involving water and spirit that causes us to die to sin and be born with a clean conscience in a state of friendship with God as a member of his covenant family, all through the merits of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

One connection highlighted above (and missed by Pritt) is key: that Noah's salvation involved water AND a dove.  Likewise, Baptism involves not only water but the Holy Spirit as well.  In other words, Catholics believe that Baptism saves us not because we are taking a bath but because the Holy Spirit works in and through the waters to regenerate our souls.  The water is a powerful sign and symbol of the interior action being accomplished in us by the Holy Spirit.  Again: Baptism, according to Catholics, involves an inseparable connection between water AND spirit.

Alex Sokolov, Crossing the Red Sea

Notice that this connection between water and Spirit is found all throughout the Bible!  The first creation (in Genesis 1) emerges from the Spirit hovering over the waters; we become new creations in Christ through the water and spirit of Baptism.  We see water and Spirit in Noah's salvation; Peter explicitly connects this picture with the water and Spirit of Baptism.  We again see water and the Spirit (in the form of Wind) at the salvation of the Israelites as they escaped bondage (sin) by passing through the Red Sea (Exodus 14).  When Jesus is baptized, the Spirit descends, again in the form of a dove, and a voice from heaven declares a family relationship with Jesus: "this is my beloved son."  And then, Jesus turns to Nicodemus (who approaches Jesus in a state of spiritual darkness) and tells him: "you must be born from above...you must be born of water AND Spirit" (John 3:3-5) And after this message, what do the apostles go out and do: baptize!  Water and Spirit: What God has joined together...

So, when Peter connects the salvation experienced by Noah to our salvation by Baptism, he is connecting two things that share the elements of water and Spirit, a connection that is supported at key covenant-making moments throughout the Bible.

Yet, this is not the reading of 1 Peter 3:21 that Pritt offers.  Further, the two interpretations he does offer seem to contradict one another.  Both are based on an a priori assumption that Baptism understood as a ritual involving water does not save.

IV.  Interpretation #1: Baptism Does NOT Save Us

This reading of 1 Peter 3:21 is most common among Baptists.  According to Interpretation #1, Baptism is understood as the religious ritual involving water commonly referred to as "baptism."  In this reading, the ritual of water baptism does not save.  This interpretation strains 1 Peter 3:21 since this verse, frankly, literally says the exact opposite of the Baptist interpretation of the verse.  How does Pritt arrive at an interpretation of a verse that in fact says the opposite of what the verse itself says?

He does so by pitting water AGAINST the Spirit and by pitting Baptism AGAINST the saving work of Christ.

Thus, when Peter says baptism saves us and then adds the addendum that washing off dirt from the flesh does not save us, Pritt understands Peter to be making a sudden shift or self-correction from what he just said.  It is as if Peter is making two contradictory statements in sequence:
1.  Baptism...now saves you.
2.  No, wait, Baptism does not save you because no mere washing can save.  It is the pledge of a clean conscience through the resurrection of Christ that saves.  Baptism is a mere external ritual that accomplishes only an external washing.  You see? Peter denies that an external washing saves!

One problem with this reading is it doesn't explain why statement #1 ("baptism now saves you") was made in the first place.  Even though this reading still doesn't explain why Peter initially states that "baptism...now saves you," the opposition between external ritual and internal regeneration assumed by most Baptists (and seemingly assumed by Pastor Pritt here) allows him to accent the addendum and then move on to say "aha! it is the appeal of a clean conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ that saves...NOT Baptism!" (I hope you can see the wedge between ritual and internal regeneration in action that undergirds Interpretation #1)

How does Pritt and other Baptists solve the dilemma?  By suggesting that baptism is a sign that points to or "pictures" the saving work of Christ and our salvation in Christ.  According to Baptists, our baptism is a proclamation of our having confessed Christ with our lips and accepted Him with our hearts.  In this reading, then, when Peter says "baptism now saves you," he really means that "what baptism points to [Christ's saving work] now saves you."

At the end of the day, this position is actually not far from what Catholics believe.  Catholics do believe that Baptism is a picture of Christ's saving work.  Catholics believe being immersed in (or sprinkled with) water does picture the regenerative action of Christ on our souls.  

The difference is that Catholics believe that Christ actually does these things to us during and through Baptism!  We don't disagree that it is Christ's saving work that now saves us.  We simply assert that Baptism is Christ saving work, and not simply a human ritual devoid of Christ, the Spirit, and God's grace.  In other words, Baptism for Catholics is infinitely higher than an empty human ritual, because God himself works through it.

Here is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it (paragraphs 1215–1216; quoting Justin Martyr and St. Gregory of Nazianzus): 

St. Gregory of Nazianzus

This sacrament is also called "the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit," for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God." "This bath is called enlightenment, because those who receive this [catechetical] instruction are enlightened in their understanding. . . ." Having received in Baptism the Word, "the true light that enlightens every man," the person baptized has been "enlightened," he becomes a "son of light," indeed, he becomes "light" himself: Baptism is God's most beautiful and magnificent gift....We call it gift, grace, anointing, enlightenment, garment of immortality, bath of rebirth, seal, and most precious gift. It is called gift because it is conferred on those who bring nothing of their own; grace since it is given even to the guilty; Baptism because sin is buried in the water; anointing for it is priestly and royal as are those who are anointed; enlightenment because it radiates light; clothing since it veils our shame; bath because it washes; and seal as it is our guard and the sign of God's Lordship.

What a beautiful summation of the Catholic understanding of Baptism, delivered to us from the fourth century!

In a nutshell, Pritt assumes in Interpretation #1 that by "baptism," Peter has in mind the ritual involving water.  (This definition of baptism is required to be able to then argue that the ritual is an external sign that points to our salvation that presumably occurs at some previous point in time.)

V. Interpretation #2: Baptism DOES Save Us.

As you can see from the heading, Interpretation #2 seems to directly contradict Interpretation #1.  In #1, Baptism does not saves us.  In Interpretation #2, it does.

What gives?

In Interpretation #2, Pritt suggests that the baptism referred to by Peter is a "spiritual Baptism," something that apparently occurs completely separately from the "water Baptism" that does not save.  

This interpretation fits a growing trend to read any reference to baptism that suggests baptismal regeneration as being a "spiritual" baptism or immersion into Christ.  This approach is taken by Pritt in regard to 1 Peter 3:21 as well as Romans 6 (which claims we are "baptized into Christ's death"). 

Notice how both Interpretations flow from the wedge placed between water and spirit in denying a priori the very possibility of baptismal regeneration.  Once the wedge is in place, you get the possibility of "water Baptism" and "Spirit[ual] baptism." 

Well, Catholics would joyfully affirm that spiritual baptism does save us.  In other words, in its most basic form, Pritt's Interpretation #2 is compatible with a Catholic understanding of Baptism.

Catholics, once again, simply affirm that water baptism always involves the Spirit.  The Bible always connects water and Spirit, and Catholics do so with regard to our theology of Baptism.

Further, I see no basis for separating spiritual baptism from water baptism, and I'll try to give some more arguments for this position below.

For now, simply note that this Interpretation #2 is not compatible with Interpretation #1 since they start from different definitions of "baptism."  In other words, it is impossible to reconcile these two interpretations because they start from fundamentally different assumptions about what the author literally meant by the word "baptism."  Certainly it is possible to build off the literal meaning of a text (to achieve a spiritual or analogical meaning, for instance), but these higher meanings can never contradict the literal meaning on which they are based.

That said, Interpretation #2 is compatible with the Catholic understanding of Baptism; it simply fails to connect the two things that are inseparable throughout the Bible: water and Spirit. 

Also, note that Pritt offers no basis in the text itself for deciding which understanding of Baptism Peter had in mind when he wrote "baptism...now saves you."  Did Peter have in mind the empty ritual that doesn't save, or the spiritual baptism that does?

VI.  Developing a Biblical Understanding of Baptism

Without a clear basis to know how Pritt understands the word "baptism" when it occurs in Scripture, it is difficult to dialogue much further with Pritt's sermon.  It would seem that anytime the Bible speaks of baptism as something connected to our salvation, Pritt could say that "baptism here really is referring to spiritual baptism" or "baptism there is simply another word for immersion."

The Catholic, and I believe Biblical, position on baptismal regeneration is supported by three fundamental interpretive keys:

1. Baptism, unless the context clearly suggests otherwise, is to be understood in the NT as referring to the ritual of baptism involving water and the Spirit.  This interpretive principle is supported by the practice of the early church as recounted in the NT and in the writings of the early church fathers.  Just think: John the Baptist baptized in water.  Jesus was baptized in water and the Spirit descended.  Jesus says we must be born again...of water and spirit.  Jesus sent the apostles out to baptize, and on Pentecost, 3,000 new believers (along with their families) were baptized in water.  So, the entire Biblical context and practice of the early church makes definition #1 of "baptism" to be the very thing that comes to any Christian's mind when they hear the word "baptism."  In fact, this understanding of baptism is so normative that strongly suggests that phrases such as the "washing of regeneration" (Titus 3:5) refer to Baptism.
2. Baptism involves water AND spirit (John 3:5).  Thus, Baptism has the potential to be soul-saving and sin-forgiving.  Acts 2:38: "Repent and be baptized...for the forgiveness of sins."  Baptist theology denies that baptism can cause the forgiveness of sins, despite Peter's clear teaching during the first sermon ever preached.  (NB: Baptism is not opposed to faith, repentance, etc.  Rather, Baptism is the very action of faith on the part of the believer...and the response of Christ in Baptism is to perform the "circumcision made without hands.")
3. Baptism applies the saving work of Calvary to our souls.  Baptism is Christ's work that we participate in.  It is not a human work done apart from Christ or God's grace.  In other words, no Catholic believes that Baptism replaces the work of Christ on the Cross, as if trying to be saved by Baptism is to try to bypass being placed under the blood of Jesus shed for us on the Cross.  Never!!  Baptism is the very means by which Christ produces within us a "circumcision made without hands" (Col 2:11), which Paul immediately links to...you guessed it: Baptism!  

These Biblical interpretive principles make it quite easy to come to grips with 1 Peter 3:21.  But they also explain the enormous weight put on Baptism elsewhere in Scripture.  During the Great Commission, for instance, Jesus Christ himself leaves the apostles with the command to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).  Isn't this a bit shocking?  Shouldn't Jesus have said to make disciples by getting people to accept Him into their hearts?  Why the emphasis on Baptism if it is merely an empty ritual, and why make it seem like the very process of making disciples rests on baptizing them?  The Great Commission not only supports baptismal regeneration; it practically requires it to make sense!  Similarly, when Paul writes to the Ephesians that there is "one faith, one Lord, one Baptism" (Eph. 4:5) he acknowledges the importance of Baptism by placing it alongside other essential components of our salvation.  

VII.  What did the First Christians Believe?

Justin Martyr

The earliest Christian pastors, some of whom were even appointed by the apostles and their immediate successors themselves, believed in baptismal regeneration.  For them, baptism was more than an empty ritual but was something that actually imparted saving grace.  They believed that the waters of baptism were holy because of the presence of the Holy Spirit.

For instance, writing around the year 150 A.D., Justin Martyr reports:

"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61)

Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, writing near the end of the second century (around 190 A.D.) writes:

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (Fragment 34).

Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of John the apostle (along with Ignatius of Antioch).  Note that both Justin and Irenaeus tie water and spirit together, Justin by his reference to the Trinity and to the third chapter of John's Gospel, and Irenaeus to this same chapter.  We clearly see here the existence of an interpretive tradition that has its roots in the very teaching of the people who wrote the Scriptures being interpreted.

Ignatius's writings also contain implicit nods toward baptismal regeneration, and the importance of baptisms being conducted by the bishop.  Given that Ignatius was chosen to replace Peter when the chief apostle made his final voyage to Rome, the apostolic pedigree of baptismal regeneration is solid.

Add to that the following: if the early church universally denied baptismal regeneration, then where is the outcry when the heresy of baptismal regeneration was hoisted upon the Church almost immediately after the death of the last apostle?  And why were the apostles so quick to appoint people to important positions of leadership who obviously held baptismal regeneration if this doctrine was not part of the apostolic faith?

VIII. Conclusion

I began this essay pointing out that the Catholic understanding of baptismal regeneration makes verses like 1 Peter 3:21 much easier to interpret.  In fact, the Catholic understanding of baptism is the only understanding that allows one to see a glorious and harmonious convergence between Scriptures and the life and teaching of the early church.  If the faith was truly left once for all with the saints (Jude 3), then we would expect to see a continuity of faith and doctrine between the early church and Christians today.  In regard to Baptism, this continuity of doctrine can be traced back to the earliest Christian teachers and even to the apostles themselves!  As Peter put it so well: "baptism now saves you."

Baptist readers: what do you think?  I invite you to share your thoughts, questions, and counter-arguments in the comments section below!

Another Catholic Convert: Leah Libresco

Join me in welcoming (and praying for) Leah Libresco, who recently announced that she was converting to the Catholic Church from an atheist background.

Two things I love about the interview below:
1.  The truth of the Church's moral teachings attracted her.  Too often, Catholics fail to share how wonderfully good the Church's moral teaching are; we wince to mention contraception and skirt away from that and other topics that might offend our listeners.  Yet, the Church's moral teachings are beautiful and just as true as each of her doctrines...and just as attractive!

2. Even though Leah focused on the coherency of the Church's moral position, she describes the best thing about being Catholic as...the Eucharist.  Being able to believe and receive Jesus in the Eucharist is the best thing that could ever be for anyone, anywhere, anytime.   Leah gets it!

Jimmy Akin on Purgatory

Check out this great new video published by Jimmy Akin on the doctrine of Purgatory.  In it, he exams the common saying that "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord," a phrase that is often used to deny the existence of Purgatory.  However, as Akin shows, this phrase is a misquotation of Scripture.  Other Bible verses (esp. 1 Cor. 3:15) are used to support the doctrine of Purgatory.  Especially interesting is the final section of the video, in with Akin discusses the mistaken notion that Purgatory takes a certain amount of "time" (as in measurable time as experienced by persons before death).

"Not For Itching Ears" ponders Early Church Traditions

'Just stumbled on a new blog today, written by an Evangelical Protestant with an unquenchable interest in the early church.  I found this post, the article it cites, and the discussion that follows to be particularly interesting, especially in light of my dialogue with local Baptist pastors recounted on this blog.

While some pastors (not to mention average congregants!) have a difficult time recognizing the role of tradition in their interpretation of Scripture, Jim (author of "Not for Itching Ears") clearly recognizes that "our tradition interprets the Word in such a way that it makes the Word teach our tradition" (comment taken from the combox).

So, make your way over to "Not for Itching Ears," and check out Jim's post "A Compelling Case AGAINST Sola Scriptura? (Scripture Alone) Part 1."

Our Holy Father is coming Philadelphia!!!

I can hardly imagine better news than what was just announced in Milan today:

Pope Benedict has chosen Philadelphia as the meeting place for the eighth World Meeting of Families!!  Now granted, these meetings occur once every three years, so we have to wait until 2015 for our Holy Father, God willing, to visit our archdiocese.

These will be an exciting three years as the archdiocese prepares for this meeting.  I pray that the Holy Spirit be poured out in the hearts and souls of the members of the Church in Philadelphia so that we are ready to receive the gift of our Holy Father's visit!  May we hear Jesus speak to us through his vicar on earth, and may we respond with joyful obedience to what he teaches us.

I was just reading a meditation written by Joseph Ratzinger on the Creed this morning, and I was struck (as I am every time I read our Pope's writings) at his sophistication and beauty of thought, his broad view of human life and culture, and his deeply Christian perspective on the relationship of Jesus, his Church, and the world.  We are so blessed to have such a wonderful Holy Father, and doubly blessed that he will be visiting our shores so soon!  I can HARDLY wait!!

Rocco Palmo has the full scoop here.

If you are a non-Catholic reader who wonders why the Papacy is so important, why we call our Pope "Holy Father" (something I was just quizzed on in Chick-fil-A a few days ago!), why we have a pope to begin with, or where the papacy is found in the Bible, please add your questions in the comment box below!

And finally, the announcement itself:

Video Response to Lighthouse Baptist Church (Newark, DE) - Part I - Introduction

Given the power of images and sound on the Internet, I've begun making video responses to Lighthouse Baptist Church in Newark, DE. Obviously, this is a modest first stab at making video responses, and I hope to increase production value over time. But, the heart of the videos is the message, which attempts to establish frank, open, and most importantly, charitable dialogue with my fellow Christians who worship God within this local Baptist congregation.

 I should add that I greatly respect the evangelistic mission that members of this congregation (including Tobe Witmer, their pastor) exhibit. Witmer recently created a short DVD presenting his Baptist understanding of the Gospel (granted, he would likely disagree with this characterization, but we'll move on for now...), and he plans to distribute 4,000 copies of this DVD around the Newark (DE) area this summer. In fact, a copy arrived on my own doorstep just today!

So, I better get moving in composing a Catholic Christian response to this particular Gospel message (not all of which, incidentally, is incorrect. As a Catholic, I offer a hearty "Amen!" to every Bible verse read, as well as many of the interpretations of these verses offered by Witmer.)

But I get ahead of myself. 

Here is my introductory video response to Lighthouse Baptist Church. Through this video, may Baptists at LBC know that they are loved, prayed for, and welcomed by local Catholics, and that we stand ready to dialogue about our commonalities and differences as we pursue Christ, ever keeping in mind HIS prayer that "we may be one" (John 17).
 

Joe Heschmeyer on St. Paul and the Unity of the Church

Shameless Popery: Catholicism, Protestantism, and Saint Paul's Vision of the Church: At or near the heart of the Reformation is a debate over Saint Paul, and how we should understand his writings, particularly his statements about justification in his Epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians. This is an interesting exegetical question, but in my opinion, it overlooks an obvious reality: St. Paul would never have been a Protestant. His views on the Church simply wouldn't permit such a thing.

I've discussed St. Paul's views on the Church in the past, but I wanted to focus on a specific passage from Ephesians 4:11-14, in which he writes:
So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming.
There's a lot to unpack here, but here are six major points that you should take away from the above:

1. Jesus Christ personally created the Church, which is His Body;
2. The Church is Apostolic, since Christ Himself gave the Church the Apostles;
3. This Apostolic Church is structured with various offices and ministries;
4. These various offices and ministries are all built towards the same end: building up the Body;
5. We're all called to “reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God,” which St. Paul equates with spiritual maturity, and having the fullness of Christ;
6. When we don't have have this spiritual maturity, we get “tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming.”

Those first five points lay out a positive case for the Church. The Church isn't just the set of all believers, however assembled. It's a structured Body, and this structure isn't accident. Rather, it was put in place by Jesus Christ Himself.

And we, as Christians, are called to total unity in the faith. That's a tall order, since it necessarily requires doctrinal unity: if we can't even agree on the doctrines surrounding Baptism, Communion, justification, and the rest, we're failing to “reach unity in the faith.” Granted, unity in the faith is much more than doctrinal unity, but it's certainly not less.

************

Continue reading Joe's article here.

Response to Lighthouse Baptist Church (Newark, DE) Street Evangelists, Part 18 of 24

This is the eighteenth part of a 24-part series of responses to a street evangelist I met from Lighthouse Baptist Church (Newark, DE). Please click here to see the first post, which contains a set of links by topic to all the posts in the series.

18.  Using the KJV instead of a Catholic version.  It was stated that I should take a look at the KJV rather than use a Catholic version.  The argument is a common one: faulty Catholic doctrines are in part a result of faulty translations.  This statement can not be born out of careful comparison, because many Catholic and Protestant scholars alike say the difference between the best Protestant translations (including the KJV) and the best Catholic translations are quite small.  Every translation, ultimately, suffers by being a translation, but I can tell you that I feel very comfortable arguing for the Catholic faith from the KJV, and at times, I even prefer it.  I own and use the NIV, the KJV, the NKJV, the RSV, the NJB, the Douay-Reihms, and look at other translations online through sites like Bible-gateway.  In almost every case, the results are the same.  So, the argument that learning Christianity from the KJV instead of the Catholic version leads to a different Christianity doesn’t hold water.

Response to Lighthouse Baptist Church (Newark, DE) Street Evangelists, Part 17 of 24

This is the seventeenth part of a 24-part series of responses to a street evangelist I met from Lighthouse Baptist Church (Newark, DE). Please click here to see the first post, which contains a set of links by topic to all the posts in the series.

17.  Baptist Converts to Catholicism.  I mentioned that I have an iPod full of the personal testimonies and conversion stories of Baptist pastors who have converted to Catholicism.   Now, I fully acknowledge that people convert from every church to every other church.  The reasons I brought up these stories are:

a) even though we all know in our minds that people convert in every different direction, it seems unthinkable to most Baptists that a Baptist pastor would convert to Catholicism;

b) what is important is not that Baptist pastors are converting, but why they are converting.  Why would they make such a huge personal sacrifice, where they give up their job, their pastorate, and often many friends, to join a church that, in many cases, they would have once said was the last church they would ever consider joining?

Yes, people leave Catholicism all the time.  In some cases, Catholics leave because they were very poorly catechized, went to a parish that was not very alive, and found a nice evangelical church much more friendly and welcoming.  To that, I say bravo to the evangelical churches!  Many Catholics are learning from you to improve our own church, and those of you who have converted to Catholicism bring rich graces into the life of the Catholic Church!  In other cases, Catholics leave because they have embraced a life of sin (either through contraception, divorce and remarriage, abortion, etc.) and have decided to find a denomination that teaches that these sins are okay.  Sometimes, Catholics also leave Catholicism because they have been taught lies by people who are against the Catholic Church, and leave the Catholic Church on the basis of these lies.  For instance, if I was gullible enough to believe the person from LBC who told me that we recrucify Christ in the Mass, I would leave the Catholic Church immediately, because the Bible clearly says (as the Baptist would definitely point out) that Christ was sacrificed “once for all.”  However, I know my faith, and I’m not gullible, so I can see through a false claim when one is presented to me.

Even though the motivations behind the types of conversion outlined above are very different, notice that neither one presents a good reason to leave or join any church.  (We shouldn’t leave because another church is friendlier, to avoid conversion from sin, or because we have been fed a lie.)  Rather, the main reason we should join a church is because it is true.  It is the truth that will set us free.

And…when you listen to these Baptist pastors who converted to Catholicism, they all say that as much as they loved being Baptist pastors, it was the truth of Catholicism that drew them in (even against their wills, sometimes).  As one book of conversion stories is titled, these converts were “surprised by truth.”

Here’s what I recommend: take some time and listen to 10 stories of Catholics who left the Church, and compare them to 10 stories of Baptist pastors who joined the Catholic Church.  Discern what all their motivating factors are, and most importantly, try to determine how well they seemed to have a grasp on their former faiths.  When people leave the church, are they headed toward a greater or lesser unity?  What about when people join the Catholic Church?

The easiest way to get to them is to get to Baptist pastors’ conversion stories to Catholicism is at EWTN.  Click on this link, and then enter “Journey Home” in the search space for “EWTN programs” (not “series”…you want the second space down).  This will bring you to over 600 conversion stories to the Catholic Church, many of them by Protestant ministers of one stripe or another.  Scroll through the pages to find stories of Baptist converts.  There are well over fifty of them.  Also look for “former fundamentalist,” or former “Bible missionary.”  These titles also apply well to people at a place like LBC.

Response to Lighthouse Baptist Church (Newark, DE) Street Evangelists, Part 16 of 24

This is the eleventh part of a 24-part series of responses to a street evangelist I met from Lighthouse Baptist Church (Newark, DE). Please click here to see the first post, which contains a set of links by topic to all the posts in the series.

15.  “If we’re all saved, that’s basically all that matters.”  

One gentleman made it seem like there was no need to discuss differences if we were all already saved.  I think this a reductionistic view that is contrary to the love of God.  Jesus, out of love for us and a desire for everyone to be saved, offered his passion so that “we may be one” and that the “world may know” that the Father sent the Son.  Yet, this gentlemen’s attitude was more like: it doesn’t matter if we are one.  All that matters is that you are saved.

While being saved is an important thing, all of the Bible can not be boiled down just to being saved, if by “saved” you mean a person entering into a relationship with God through being forgiven of original and personal sins and regenerated.

Rather, God wants our salvation to be complete in Him, and that includes God’s family being unified.  The consequences of our salvation extend beyond the individual who is saved to the entire mystical body of Christ, God's people who were once scattered and are now gathered at and by the cross of Christ.

This gentleman’s view of salvation seems to be a lot narrower than what Jesus himself wants for his followers.  Jesus wants to give us more.  Lord, give us hearts that are open to more of what you want to give to us!

Response to Lighthouse Baptist Church (Newark, DE) Street Evangelists, Part 15 of 24

This is the fifteenth part of a 24-part series of responses to a street evangelist I met from Lighthouse Baptist Church (Newark, DE). Please click here to see the first post, which contains a set of links by topic to all the posts in the series.


15. “I believe there are saved Catholics.” 
 I was really confused by this statement, since Pastor Witmer on multiple occasions has grouped Catholics together with unbelievers, atheists, Satanists, Occults, etc. Further, Baptists usually seem to take a special delight when a Catholic converts, as if they have been rescued from the bondages of “Romanism” and been introduced to true Christianity. When you say that you believe there are Catholics who are saved, are you sure? Is it possible, in your mind, to have entered into an authentic relationship with Christ yet believe in transubstantiation, infant baptism, veneration of Mary, etc.?

Or, do you think that Catholics who are saved must not really follow their Church in these areas…and are thus not really Catholics.

I’ve told you in this letter that I consider you my brothers and sisters in Christ. How do you view faithful Catholics such as myself, who genuinely love and follow our Lord and the Catholic Church, which we believe He established?

Shameless Popery: Treating Jesus as a King Without a Kingdom

Shameless Popery: Treating Jesus as a King Without a Kingdom: One of the most important points to understand about Catholicism is that the truth of the Catholic Church flows from the truth of Jesus Christ. Her status is inexorably tied up with His. I've been reading John Allen's book-length interviews with Archbishop Dolan, A People of Hope. I'm excited to do a full review of it soon (it's a superb book), but I wanted to go ahead and highlight something that Abp. Dolan said, because I think it illustrates this point neatly:

Just as most people missed the divine in Jesus because of his humanity, so do most people miss Jesus in the Church because of our earthiness, because we are clumsy, we are sinful, we are awkward. But this is how Jesus continues to radiate his grace and mercy, through the Church. That’s the leap of faith today. I think Father Ron Rolheiser says it well: We want a king without the kingdom; we want a shepherd without the other sheep; we want a father, with us as the only child; we want a general without an army; we want to believe without belonging.

There are two points to make about this: first, that the success of the Church flows from the success of Christ; and second, that we need to change our thinking about salvation.

...

Read on...Joe's post sums up so succinctly why we need Jesus's Church, and the fact that the decision is not up to us!

Response to Lighthouse Baptist Church (Newark, DE) Street Evangelists, Part 14 of 24

This is the fourteenth part of a 24-part series of responses to a street evangelist I met from Lighthouse Baptist Church (Newark, DE). Please click here to see the first post, which contains a set of links by topic to all the posts in the series.

13. “Baptism does not save you.” The kind lady who was out walking told me this, and when I told her that the Bible actually says the exact opposite…well, I don’t think she believed me.

Here is the KJV translation of 1 Peter 3:18–21:

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Other translations put it, “baptism…now saves us.”

Now, I fill be the first to tell you that taking a bath in mere water does not save anyone. But the Catholic Church has NEVER taught that baptism is a mere washing with water. Also, the Catholic Church has NEVER taught that baptism is a work that we humans do to “work” our way to heaven.

Rather, baptism is a work that God does on our soul, but he does this work using physical matter for our sake as humans (who are both body and soul). Obviously, Jesus could have healed the blind man by saying, “be healed.” But Jesus saw fit to rub spit and mud on the man’s eyes and have him wash it off. Likewise, Jesus heals us of sin in baptism using matter, though it is obviously not the matter itself that does the healing. Baptism is Jesus’s work on our souls through water AND Spirit.

Okay, now consider Baptism for a moment in Scripture. When Jesus says we must be “born anothen” in John 3:3, he immediately expands on what he means by using a parallel expression that we must be “born of water and spirit.” Put the two expressions together, and you get Jesus saying: “you must be born again of water and spirit to enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Two points: 1) most Baptists imagine a born again experience to have nothing to do with water, and 2) Jesus joins water and spirit, and in doing so he is joining two things that we find inseparable throughout Scripture.

For instance, consider:
➢ Genesis 1:1—the spirit hovered over the waters out from which came the first creation. We are new creations in Christ, and we arise as new creations from the waters and spirit of baptism.
➢ Genesis 7-9—We see waters cleansing the earth of sin, and the spirit (in the form of the dove) bringing the olive branch of peace and salvation to Noah. In 1 Peter 3:21, Peter specifically cites this as a type of baptism, where Christians in the New Covenant are saved through water and spirit, not by the water’s washing, but by the appeal of a clean conscience brought forth by the spirit…and all this occurs, says Peter, IN BAPTISM! (Keep in mind as well that the Ark is itself a type of the New Covenant Church, which as a whole is saved through the waters and spirit of baptism.)
➢ Exodus 14: Moses crossing the Red Sea. Remember, Moses and Israel were saved from bondage (sin) through water that was parted by a strong wind (the Spirit) to enter the promised land (a type of heaven). Once again, we see water and spirit bound together in Scripture.
➢ Let’s jump ahead now (skipping things like the Jewish rites of purification, which was what the stone jars at the Marriage Feast of Cana were for, by the way…) So, Jesus once again reaffirms the connection between water and spirit as a vehicle for communicating our salvation to us. You could think of all of the Old Testament as a divine pedagogy for recognizing and appreciating everything Jesus does in the New Testament. But does Jesus’s teaching that we must be “born again of water and spirit” really mean baptism? Let’s look at the context of John 3:
➢ John 1: What is going on here? Baptism! And when John the Baptist baptizes Jesus, what appears? The Spirit, in the form of a dove, and the voice of God is heard calling Jesus His son. Likewise, when we are baptized, the Spirit works on our souls and we are made into children of God.
➢ John 2: At the Wedding Feast of Cana, Jesus performs his first miracle using the water in the stone jars for the Jewish Rites of Purification. What were these rites a pre-figurement of? Baptism.
➢ John 3: “You must be born again of water and spirit.” This is the only way that Nicodemus, who approached Jesus at night (in a state of spiritual darkness), can move into salvation (spiritual light). According to Jesus, it must involve water and spirit. Jesus joins them together; let no man put them asunder!
➢ John 3: What do the apostles do right after Jesus teaches this to Nicodemus? They go out baptizing!
➢ John 4: By John 4, how has John framed Jesus’s promise of a “spring of living water welling up to eternal life”? Baptism.
➢ When Jesus dies on the cross, John notices the following: Jesus gives up his spirit, and then water and blood flow from his side. The early church saw in this moment a profound image: Just as the first Eve was born from the side of the first Adam, the new Eve (the Church) is born out of the side of the new Adam (Christ), and the Church is joined to the bridegroom precisely through the water (Baptism) and the blood (the Eucharist).

So, Baptism is never thought of in Scripture as just a bath in water. Rather, it is in Baptism that Jesus Christ saves us. Our salvation is something Jesus does on us, and the Bible says that Baptism is when he does it:
➢ 1 Peter 3:21: “baptism…now saves us.”
➢ Romans 6: “baptized into Jesus Christ”
➢ Romans 6: “baptized into His death”
➢ Romans 6: “buried with him by baptism”
➢ Colossians 2:12: “buried with him in baptism”
➢ Titus 3:5: “he saved us, by the washing of regeneration”
➢ Acts 2:38: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Now, even if you don’t agree with the interpretation above, can you at least see that Christians (Catholic and Protestant) who believe in baptismal regeneration have a Biblical basis for believing this? Add to this the fact that all the students of the apostles and their successors, for the first centuries of Christian history and for many centuries beyond, all believed in baptismal regeneration, and I think the case tilts strongly in the Catholic direction.

Finally, note that what Catholics are accused of (trying to be saved by a mere washing in water)…IS NOT ACTUALLY WHAT CATHOLICS BELIEVE! We believe we are saved by the “water and spirit” of baptism. Jesus joins the two together. Baptists separate them, and then pick on people for believing in water-only baptism, even though NO ONE ACTUALLY ATTEMPTS TO DO WATER-ONLY BAPTISM BUT BAPTISTS (and other Christians who deny baptismal regeneration).

For Catholics, baptism means what Jesus said it means: “water AND spirit.”  What God has joined together...

Response to Lighthouse Baptist Church (Newark, DE) Street Evangelists, Part 13 of 24

This is the thirteenth part of a 24-part series of responses to a street evangelist I met from Lighthouse Baptist Church (Newark, DE). Please click here to see the first post, which contains a set of links by topic to all the posts in the series.

13. Do this in REMEBRANCE of me.  Many Baptists with whom I have spoken have turned to this word spoken by Jesus at the last supper to deny the very words that Jesus had just spoken: “this is my body.”

In a nutshell, the Catholic argument is: Jesus said “this is my body.” Jesus said “truly, truly I say unto you, unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you” (John 6) Jesus said it, Christians have always believed it since the beginning (except those in John 6:66 who turned away and did not follow Jesus any longer), and I see no reason to deny the clear teaching of my Lord.

Now, the problem with how many Baptists interpret the word “remembrance” is they look the word up in their Webster’s dictionary and they interpret it within the framework of 21^st-century notions of metaphysics.  Doing so, they draw the conclusion that something that is “remembered” is not present, but rather thought about as a past event.  It is only present in the memory and in the symbols we use to remember it, but the thing symbolized is itself absent.  Our 21^st-century metaphysics tell us that remembering something does not make it present in any way, shape, or form.

The problem with this interpretation is that Jesus wasn’t using the word with 21^st-century dictionaries and metaphysics in mind.

The word for “remembrance” was a special Greek word, anamnesis, that was used in the Old Testament primarily in the context of the Jewish Passover and other sacrifices, the very salvation event that Jesus, the true Passover, was in the act of fulfilling.  So, if you want to understand “remembrance” in context, then turn not to Webster but to the Old Testament Passover ritual and sacrifices.  When you “study this out,” you’ll find that every time anamnesis is used in the Old Testament Hebrew and Greek cultures, it was in connection with sacrifice (see Numbers 10:10, for instance).  Thus, Jesus is connecting what he is doing in the last supper with the “new covenant,” with the “Passover,” and with “sacrifice.”  We know that Jesus is the “Lamb of God,” and John points out how sour wine was offered to Jesus on the cross using a hyssop branch, the same branch used at the original Passover in Egypt to sprinkle the blood of the lamb on the doorposts of those who were “passed over”.  We also see that not a bone in Jesus’s body is broken: he is truly the Lamb of God, offered for our salvation on the cross.  (There are many other connections, John is pointing out, but you probably already know them, so I’ll move on.)

Yet, the sacrifice of Calvary begins in the upper room, where Jesus freely offered his body and blood in the first Mass.  And just like the ancient Jews had to eat the Lamb (or else their first born son would die), we also have to eat the lamb, but not by consuming our Lord’s body and blood in a bloody manner.   Rather, at the last supper, our Lord provides a way that we can commune with him in His fullness: through the Eucharistic sacrifice. 

That is why Jesus didn’t just offer his body and blood, but said, “take this eat…do this as a memorial sacrifice of my offering” which gets us closer to the meaning of anamnesis.  I recommend taking a look at this article for more on this topic:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402sbs.asp

Even better would be to buy Brant Pitre’s book, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist.  Or, check out his talks on this very subject here.

I have a LOT more to say on this subject below when I talk about how Catholics understand the Mass, and why the Mass is not a “recrucifixion of Christ.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

Okay, I think that gets us through everything we spoke about.

I’ll try to be a bit briefer with the topics that I believe were covered by the other group. 

Shameless Popery: Martin Luther and the Book of James

And another terrific post by Joe Heschmeyer, this time on Martin Luther's assessment of the book of James...and what this says about the reliability of Luther's understanding of Justification in other Biblical texts (esp. Paul).

The combox discussion is also quite illuminating...

Here's the link:

Shameless Popery: Martin Luther and the Book of James: Martin Luther's hostility to the Book of James is well-known, and I've mentioned it in other contexts, but I wanted to consider today the im...

Response to Lighthouse Baptist Church (Newark, DE) Street Evangelists, Part 12 of 24

This is the twelfth part of a 24-part series of responses to a street evangelist I met from Lighthouse Baptist Church (Newark, DE). Please click here to see the first post, which contains a set of links by topic to all the posts in the series.

12.  The Latin Mass.
Thanks for bringing up the Latin Mass. I love both the older Latin form of the Mass and the New, vernacular form as well. The language used at Mass is not a doctrinal issue, and so there is no problem with people using either one.

Also, make sure you think about the use of Latin historically and with all the facts.

For much of Church history, Latin was a language that common church-goers knew, so we shouldn’t imagine that no one understood the Mass until Vatican II began allowing the vernacular languages to be used. Further, even as time went on and fewer and fewer people knew the Latin language, the prayers of the Mass were often learned through repetition of hearing them, and children were educated in Latin as a second language, so many people understood the Latin being used. Even I have almost no training in Latin, but I know the Mass well enough to be able to follow the words in Latin. (It really isn’t that hard!) On top of that, after the invention of the printing press, the Church made available “missals,” a booklet that contained the Latin prayers of the Mass on one side and the translation on the other, just so that everyone could follow along if they needed/wanted to. And finally, the parts of the Mass that were not repeated every week, most especially the sermon on the four to five bible readings, were always given in the vernacular language. In fact, for the last five hundred years or so (the period where the Latin language fell out of general use), the priest at Mass would usually begin by translating at least the Gospel (if not more) into the vernacular language.

Here’s a little story that might help give you a different perspective on the use of Latin.

Imagine your family eating at a dinner table. You all speak the same language, and you use that language to bond with one another, sharing stories, creating unique turns of phrases that only your family understands, and passing on memories of what grandpa said, using that funny word that he loved to say, and that unique inflection that he always gave it. Over the decades, you watch your children grow, until they start bringing their own children with them to the dinner table. You pass on the family stories, raise them to know what it means to be a member of the Hall family, and share with the grandchildren the same laughs about (great-)grandpa that have enlivened family dinners for generations. Eventually your children’s children begin showing up to the dinner table with their children. You are by now an old man, but you relish returning week after week with your family that has, over the years, remained unified as a loving family, sharing stories, laughs, tears, memories, and the joy of family life.


Then one day, something changes.


A great-grandchild shows up to the table and has chosen to begin speaking a new language. That child doesn’t mean badly, but in choosing the new language, he forgets almost all of the older, family language. It doesn’t effect things too much at first: the child still kind of understands the stories about grandpa and most of the inside jokes are not lost on him.


But the trend continues.


Within a few months, almost all of the grandchildren have started speaking a new language, and none of them have chosen the same ones. Out of love, you and your children begin learning these languages so that you can do your best to translate the family tradition into these new tongues.


But you quickly realize that some of the most precious memories, stories, and laughs only make sense in the original language. In fact, the entire family identity would be lost if the original language itself was abandoned. With it, the unity of the family, bound up in the entire history and memory of the family would dissolve.

Now, if you are a family man like I am, the sense of horror at the dissolution of the family makes one want to cry: “Stop! Keep the traditions alive! Don’t give up the family language!”

One hopes and prays that the children are only going through a phase and will one day desire to know their roots enough to at least try to understand the family language enough to learn her history, her story, and the unique forms of expression and address that bind her into a solid unit.

My friend, the Catholic Church has always struck a great balance between preserving the family language while doing everything in her power to make that language accessible (relative to the need for accessibility) to the “great grandchildren” of the family. Like I said, the Church has made the translation available for anyone who wanted to follow along, and the non-repeating parts of the Mass were always spoken in the vernacular. Anyone who really wanted to understand could; they just had to pick up a missal.

I don’t know Latin or Greek, but I know the prayers that are still prayed at Mass in these languages, and you probably do to. “Kyrie Elieson” means “Christ have Mercy.” “Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi” means “Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world…” It is a prayer that every Catholic around the world prays at least four times in every Mass, and this prayer shows that any true, faithful Catholic trusts in Jesus as savior. (Long tangent: They might not always articulate this trust in the terms that a fundamentalist Baptist in your neck of the woods would use, but that doesn’t mean that these Catholics do not accept that Christ is their savior. That’s why it is unfathomable to me that Pastor Witmer can group Catholics in general with unbelievers, Satanists, etc., as I have heard him do in multiple sermons. I trust that he is not speaking out of malice, so I can only conclude that he is almost completely ignorant about Catholicism, and I feel quite sorry for the people who believe that the things he says about Catholics are true. He, and these people, will one day have to give an account before God as to why they would believe and share such negative things about other Christians without first checking to see if they were even true. Now, remember, there will always be sinful Catholics, and there will be Catholics who show up and warm a pew each week but who don’t have a relationship with Jesus. But that doesn’t at all mean that all Catholics don’t have a relationship with Jesus. I am almost certain that Baptist have their pew warmers as well, though it would be wrong of me to judge your church by the weakest members in her!)

You might be interested to know that the great-grandchildren have made it through their “phase.” In the Catholic Church, the youth (such as myself) are beginning to tap into their roots and request the availability of the Latin Mass. We appreciate now that some doctrines can’t be communicated with accuracy in every language, we’ve seen too many translators try to “tamper” with Mass translations (often resulting in a watering-down of the faith), and we are learning to understand the Bible and the liturgy in their original languages. Many of us now realize that the great experiment of changing the Mass into the vernacular didn’t really do anything to increase our engagement (at Mass, I still see people who sit there bored and unengaged…perhaps the problem isn’t one of the language but of the human condition!). In contrast, in every Latin Mass I have attended, there is a profound sense of reverence, focus, attention, and worship.

That being said, many others prefer the Mass in the vernacular, and this is perfectly acceptable. There is no reason for Christians to be divided over options when both options are good and acceptable.

Now, returning to our story:

How would you feel (as the head of the family) if a neighbor from outside the family showed up at the door and began chastising you for trying (just as your longstanding family identity is beginning to slip away) to maintain the family language in reasonable ways?

How do you think I feel as a Catholic when people outside the “immediate” family show up at the door and chastise the Catholic Church for trying to maintain the family language in a reasonable way? The only difference is, the Catholic Church is trying to protect memories and traditions and truths that are far more valuable than those of your or my biological families.