Pastor Billy has been reading too many Jack Chick comics. Mark Bonocore picks apart some very erroneous historical claims, and gives Pastor Billy a good patristics lesson in Church Authority and Baptism. Pastor Billy's comments are in red. Mark responds in blue.
In response to the comments made by your husband's Baptist pastor, let me first say that he is correct insofar that the Catholic Church recognizes Sacred Apostolic Tradition as it is reflected in the "consensus patrum" (or "consensus paternum" --the "consensus of the [Church] fathers"), and is not bound by the theological opinion of any one Church father, who may, like all individual Christians, be in error. Indeed, we do not believe that any Church father has infallible teaching authority. Rather, the Church fathers are merely faithful witnesses to the reality that the early Church did subscribe to, and live by, a consistent, universal body of oral Traditions that were passed down to it by the Apostles themselves (2 Thess 2:15). This does not mean, however, that any one father always correctly understood of interpreted a particular Apostolic Tradition, which is why we go by the consensus of the fathers, as well as by the Magisterium of the Church itself, which is empowered by the Christ-promised Spirit of Truth (the Holy Spirit --John 14:16-17 & 16:13) to determine whose theological opinions are correct and whose theological opinions are incorrect....Just as the Magisterium of the Church had to do in Acts 15, when a disagreement of theology (over whether or not Gentiles needed to be circumcised) took place among the Apostles themselves. So, the ultimate ruling of the Magisterium is only for such extreme cases. However, for the most part, and despite the way your husband's pastor mischaracterizes our ancient history, what we see is a remarkable consistency of belief among the fathers who lived as far apart from each other as Palestine and modern-day France, thus drawing their common ("Catholic") doctrines from the Apostles themselves. ...And no where is this unity of belief more consistent than when it comes to the issue of Baptism.
Indeed, not only is your husband's pastor profoundly wrong about that, but he also presents a number of other historical and doctrinal errors, all of which I will address below.
For starters, he writes ...
“Concerning the Early Church "Fathers", it is important to note that the list itself is ambiguous.”
Oh? :-) But, he continues ...
”It is generally taught by the Catholic Church that these were great Christian writers who passed on and clarified the Catholic doctrine. The Church is quick to say, though; that there is no officially conferred distinction with these men. For example, the Catholic church has to separate from St. Hippolytus on many points because of clear doctrinal errors and because of his impure lifestyle.”
Well, ... :-) First of all, the pastor is clearly confusing St. Hippolytus with someone else, since no one could ever accuse Hippolytus of an "impure lifestyle." Rather, it was just the opposite --that is, Hippoytus preached an overly-puritanical doctrine called "Ditheism," and believed that certain sins (like adultery and fornication) could not be forgiven, and that those Christians who committed these sins should be permanently excommunicated from the Church.
And, because Pope St. Zephyrius (A.D. 199-217) and Pope St. Callistus (A.D. 217-222) granted Confession and absolution to adulterers and fornicators, Hippolytus accused them of "laxity," broke off from the main Christian community at Rome, and set up his own "church of Rome" in the suburbs, proclaiming himself, and not Callistus, to be the rightful successor to St. Peter. Thus, Hippolytus became the Church's first anti-pope; and so he was the one who "separated himself" from the Catholic Church, not vise-versa.
Also, it should be mentioned, that Hippolytus was eventually reconciled with Pope Callistus' successor, Pope St. Pontian (230-235); and the two were martyred together on the island of Sardina. This is why we call Hippolytus Saint Hippolytus today --because he was reconciled with the Church, accepted its authority, and was martyred for it.
The pastor also writes .....
“The official Catholic Church position is that no one should regard these leaders as personally infallible in all they teach. It is rather in their common teaching or consensus that the "Fathers" infallibly witness to the authentic Catholic tradition (Vatican Council I Dei Filius, 2). This is called the consensus patrum.”
All true. But, he goes on ....
“Here is where they run into a problem.”
Do we? :-)
“There is widespread disagreement concerning such fundamental issues as the Deity of Christ.”
Balderdash. Name ONE Church father who denied the Deity of Christ. One.
“Athenasius [sic] was virtually alone in defending the deity of Jesus as being the same substance as God The Father in the Nicean Council. Many disagreed with him.”
You know, it's a shame that this person holds the status of a "pastor," when his grasp of Christian history is clearly limited to that of a Catholic highschool student. First of all, the saint's name is "Athanasius" (meaning "immortal" in Greek) not "Athenasius" (as if it comes from "Athens" ...it does not).
Secondly, the famous poetic saying "Athanasius against the world" does indeed reflect some historical truth, since Athanasius did, almost single-handedly, oppose the Arian heresy and promote orthodox Christianity (the Deity of Christ). HOWEVER, ... This was only in the EASTERN Church (the Church in the Eastern Roman Empire), where the Eastern Emperor (Constantius II) had embraced the Arian doctrines, appointing Arian bishops to govern the Eastern sees. And so, over 80% of all the Eastern bishops were Arians --that is, the clear majority of Eastern bishops were publicly teaching that Jesus is not God. And St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt (along with Bishop St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and a few others) was the leading voice against the Arians.
Yet, what your husband's pastor fails to mention (no doubt because he doesn't know any better, and never bothered to look into it) is that the ENTIRE Western Church, led of course by the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), ALSO opposed Arianism and held fast to the orthodox Christian Faith. In fact, it was to Rome that Athanasius appealed again and again as the Arians kept deposing him from his see and banishing him. It was Rome that kept restoring him and supporting him in his fight against the Arians. For example, Pope St. Julius I writes to the semi-Arians at Constantinople and blasts them for deposing Athanasius, with the words:
“It behoved you to write to us that thus what is just might be decreed for all. For they who suffered were bishops, and the Churches that suffered no common ones, over which the Apostles ruled in person. And why were we (the Pope) not written to concerning the Church, especially Alexandria? Or are they (the Arians) ignorant that this has been the custom first to write to us, and thus what is just be decreed from this place (Rome)? If therefore, any such suspicion fell upon the bishop there (Alexandria), it was benefiting to write to this Church (Rome).” (Julius, Ep. n. 6,21.)
So, the only reason that Athanasius was not immediately killed by his Arian enemies was because he enjoyed the protection of Rome, given that he was bishop of Alexandria, the Church's 2nd leading see and primate in the East.
Another glaring historical error made by the pastor above is that he implies (indeed, he clearly believes) that Athanasius was alone in arguing for the Deity of Christ at the Council of Nicaea itself. However, that is simply ridiculous. :-) At the time of the Council, Athanasius was merely a deacon under Bishop Alexander of Alexandria; and while he did oppose Arius and give the orthodox address at the Council, the Council fathers at Nicaea were all orthodox Catholic bishops, and the Council proclaimed that Jesus is God, and that Arianism is a heresy, NOT because of the address of the deacon Athanasius (who had no authority at the Council --a council of bishops), but because Jesus' eternal Divinity ---the belief that He is "One in Being with the Father" --was the Apostolic Tradition known to all the bishops at Nicaea.
Indeed, it was not until twenty years after Nicaea that Constantine the Great's son (Constantius II ..already mentioned above) permitted the heretic Arius to return from exile, and re-promoted Arianism throughout the Eastern Empire. It was at this time that Athanasius was reigning as Bishop of Alexandria, and this is when he gained his reputation as the leading voice in the East against Arianism. So, I would strongly suggest that your husband's pastor pick up a reliable Church history book and learn the facts involved.
“Also, it was Constantine, the Roman Emperor who presided over this council instead of some supposed "Pope".”
This is also untrue. Yes, the Emperor Constantine called the council ...which should not be surprising, since the Church (by that time, a 300-year-old institution) had never held an Ecumenical Council before --an Ecumenical Council being an act of the imperial Roman government --a way of codifying the common, Apostolic Tradition of the city-churches into imperial Roman law.
HOWEVER, ... The Emperor Constantine did not "preside" of the Council at all. In fact, he directly announced how he could not, since he was not a bishop. Rather, the person who presided at the Council of Nicara was a Western (Spanish) bishop name Osinius of Cordoba, who was ... :-) Guess what?...The legate of the elderly Bishop of Rome, Sylvester I, who could was too old to attend the Council in person. In fact, in all of the signed registers of Nicaea, it is Osinius' name, along with the two Roman priests Vito and Vincensius, who appear FIRST --that is, BEFORE the patriarchal bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, who were the two leading bishops in the East. ...And this, again, is because they represented the Bishop of Rome, the First See of the universal Church.
In fact, Canon 6 of Nicaea directly states that Alexandria should retain primacy in the East because the Church of Rome recognizes that Alexandria holds such Eastern primacy. So, again, our pastor friend has a lot to learn.
He also writes ...
“Leo I was the first to claim absolute authority over the church.”
Nonsense. This is more pedestrian pseudo-history. Above, I presented an epistle of Pope Julius in which he clearly states that Rome alone can issue decrees and decide cases involving other dioceses throughout the Church. This was written in A.D. 342 --LONG before the reign of Leo the Great, which began in 440.
And the Tradition of Roman primacy goes all the way back to Peter himself. For example, in 188 A.D., only two generations after the Apostles, Pope Victor I issued a universal degree to standardize the date for the feast of Easter; and when some churches in Asia Minor refused to go along with it, he threatened to excommunicate them --something which he was eventually persuaded not to do by St. Ireneaus of Lyons. Yet, at the same time, neither Ireneaus, nor any other bishop at the time, denied that Pope Victor had the authority to do it.
As the Protestant early Church historian J.N.D. Kelly explains the situation:
"At his (Pope Victor's) initiation, synods were held both at Rome and at other centers, from Gaul (France) to Mesopotamia, and the majority opinion sided with him. The churches of Asia Minor, however, refused to abandon their age-old Quartodeciam custom of observing Easter on the 14th of [the Jewish month of] Nisan, whatever the day of the week on which it fell. Victor thereupon proclaimed their exclusion from Communion, not simply with Rome but with the Church universally. “ (Oxford Dictionary of Popes, 12).
This took place in 188 A.D. --252 years before Leo I became Bishop of Rome. And we can multiply examples of this sort of thing in the early, pre-Constantinian Church. For example, in A.D. 220, Pope Callisus I (already mentioned above) ruled, by his Petrine authority to "bind and loosen," that the Sacrament of Confession could be received more than once in a person's lifetime, and that the sins of adultery and fornication were forgivable, and not grounds for excommunication from the Church. And while some people, like St. Hippolytus and Tertullian, objected to this, no orthodox Christian ever claimed that the Pope lacked the authority to do it. Rather, the universal Church accepted the Pope's ruling ...a ruling we maintain to this day, but one which was characterized by Tertullian, then a Montanist heretic, and so outside the Church, in the following words ...
"I hear that an edict has been put forth, and a preemptory one too. The "Pontifex Maximus," that is the "bishop of bishops" issues this decree: 'I remit to such as have discharged the requirements of penance, the sins of both adultery and fornication .' O, edict, on which cannot be subscribed 'good deed'! ...Far from Christ's betrothed be such a proclamation!" (Tertullian, On Modesty, 1.1, ANF IV 74).
Again, Tertullian was a heretic when he wrote these words. But, the mere fact that he mockingly calls Pope Callistus "bishop of bishops" and "Pontifex Maximus" --"Pontifex Maximus" being a title for the pagan HEAD of the Roman state religion at the time --shows the extent of Callistus' authority throughout the Church. Indeed, he also calls Callistus' teaching "an edict" and a "decree." ...All mocking terms, but a witness to the Pope's universal authority all the same. And, this, don't forget, (like the case of Pope Victor above) was when the Church was still an illegal, underground society persecuted by the imperial Roman government. However, the Pope's authority was there all the same.
And I could go on and on illustrating that Pope Leo was in no way the first Bishop of Rome to exercise universal authority. Indeed, if Leo introduced such a novelty, then how in the world could ALL the Eastern bishops at the Council of Chalcedon, write things like this to him:
"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness" --Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3.
The bishops at Chalcedon above are saying that the Monophysite heretic Dioscorus (St. Athanasius' own successor as Bishop of Alexandria) was stripped of his office by the authority of Pope Leo. ...the very thing which the Arians, 109 years earlier with Athanasius, had no authority to do without the permission of the Bishop of Rome.
In the same way, upon concluding their synod, the Council fathers write to Pope Leo, saying ...
“You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith.” ---Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98
...and ...
“For if ‘where two or three are gathered together in His name’ He has said that ‘there He is in the midst of them’, must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him ...Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will.” ---Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451.
...and ...
“Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the Vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness.” ---Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98.
...and ...
“Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children.” --Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98.
So, clearly, Leo I did not merely "claim" universal authority in the Church Rather, he HELD universal authority in the Church --something which could not be the case here at the 451 A.D. Council of Chalcedon if Leo himself had simply "made it up" only 11 years before (Leo became Pope in 440 A.D.).
So, as I said, your husband's pastor has a poor grasp of authentic history.
He goes on to ask ...
“Where is the apostolic succession traced back to Peter?”
Very clearly, in the pages of authentic history itself. :-) Go look up the Apostolic succession of authority. It's not hard to find ...if you look at the primary documents, and not lying anti-Catholic rags.
“(Peter did not exercise or claim any absolute authority over the Church either.)”
Really? :-) Well, gee, perhaps you're not reading Scripture carefully enough then. In Matt 16:18-19, Jesus makes Peter the "Rock and Key-bearer" of the Church (that is, the Davidic-style prime-minister over His Kingdom --compare to Isaiah 22:20-24), entrusting him with the ultimate authority to "bind and loosen."
In Luke 22:31-32, Jesus says that He has prayed that Peter's own faith will not fail, and entrusts Peter with the charge of confirming and strengthening his brother Apostles. And, in John 21:15-19, Jesus entrusts Peter...and Peter alone ...with the ministry of feeding and tending (in Greek, it says "ruling") His sheep. Then, in Acts of the Apostles, we see this Christ-created ministry exercised:
So, what do you call all this if not the exercise of ultimate authority??? :-)
“Not one of the Church "Fathers" claimed papal authority.”
Really? :-) Then what does St. Ireneaus of Lyon mean when, in 180 A.D., he says of Rome ...
"Since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the bishops' successions of all the city-churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness or wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper (i.e., renegade heretics), by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the Tradition and the Faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For it is a matter of NECESSITY that all other city-churches agree with this church (Rome) because of its PREEMINENT AUTHORITY." He then goes on to list the succession from Peter's successor Linus to the Pope of his day. (Against the Heresies, 3, 3:2).
Also, what is St. Cyprian (in 251 A.D.) talking about when he writes to Pope Cornelius, saying ...
"With false bishops appointed for themselves, they dare even set sail and carry their letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal Church (Rome), in which sacerdotal unity (priestly unity) has its source; nor do they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the Apostle, to whom heretical faith cannot have access." (Cyp. ad. Corneliis 1, 251 A.D.).
And what is St. Augustine of Hippo referring to when he speaks of Rome, saying ...
"...Why! a sprig that is cut from the Vine retains its shape. But what use is that shape if it is not living from the root? Come, brother, if you wish to be engrafted in the Vine. It is grievous when we see you thus lying cut off. Number the bishops from the See of Peter (Rome). And, in that order of fathers, see whom succeeded whom. This is the Rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer. All who rejoice in peace, only judge truly." --St. Augustine, Psalmus Contra Pertem Donati.
And also ....
"For, if the order of the succession of bishops is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter, to whom the Lord said: 'Upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." For to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus Clement ...To Julius Liberius, to Liberius Damasus, to Damasus Sircius, to Sircius Anastasius." --St. Augustine, Ep 53.
And what could St. Jerome possible be alluding to, when he writes ....
"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless garment of the Lord, 'woven from the top throughout,' since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, and since among broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover 'the sealed fountain' and 'the garden enclosed,' I think it is my duty to consult the Chair of Peter, and to turn to the church whose faith has been praised by Paul. ....My words are spoken to the successor of the Fisherman, to the disciple of the of the Cross . As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with no one but Your Blessedness, that is with the Chair of Peter. For this I know is the Rock on which the Church is built! This is the house where alone the Paschal Lamb can rightly be eaten. This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. (Jerome, Letter 15 --addressed to Pope Damasus I, c. 375 A.D.)
:-) So, "not one," huh? Shall I go on??? I would be more than happy to.
“They also contradict each other on many points.”
Like the pastors other mischaracterizations of history, I'm sure this one gives him a lot of "comfort" as a non-Catholic. The only problem is that it's not true. :-) With only a few rare exceptions, the fathers do not contradict each other on any significant aspect of the Apostolic Faith. I know that this is not what the pastor has been taught; but, obviously, he has been taught many things that are clearly erroneous.
“This makes the consensus patrum suspect, to say the least;”
Not if you know the authentic history, my friend. ;-)
“and it makes the Catholic doctrine of papal succession and apostolic authority impossible to defend.”
I see. :-) But I just have done "the impossible" above. Indeed, if you'd like to debate the reality Papal succession and authority in more detail, I would very much welcome the opportunity to correct your historical misconceptions in detail. Just say the word. But, I thought we were speaking about the fathers' consensus on Baptismal regeneration here? ;-)
“It certainly is not taught in the Bible.”
Matt 16:18-19, Luke 22:31-32, John 21:15-19. ...and 2 Peter 1:15 (a reference to Peter's appointment of successors). What more do you want? But, tell me, Pastor ... If everything must be taught clearly in the Bible, would you care to show me where the Trinity is clearly defined in the Bible as "One God in three, co-equal, co-eternal, consubstantial Divine Persons"? Would you care to show me where the Bible clearly defines the Hypostatic Union of Christ --that is, His being both fully-God and fully-man (One Divine Person with two natures --a Divine nature and a human nature)? Would you care to show me where the Bible itself defines the canon of the Bible --that is, which books belong in the Bible and which books do not? Clearly, orthodox Christians believe all these things, not because they are taught explicitly (if at all) in the Bible, but because of oral Apostolic Tradition as it was handed down to the Catholic Church (per 2 Thess 2:15, 1 Corinth 11:2, etc.). And, if you're going to accept these oral Traditions, then how can you deny the Traditional primacy of Rome as successor to Peter's Christ-given ministry?
“Concerning teaching on baptism, there was a general consensus that Baptism had a connection to regeneration in the writings of the Early Church "Fathers".”
A "connection"??? :-) Try again.
“To say that they all agree is simply not true.”
:-) Really?
“The quality and reality of the connection is disputed. The doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration developed over time to include infant Baptism. This practice started at least four centuries after the completion of the New Testament.”
Nonsense. On the day of Pentecost itself, Peter's tells the crowds: "Repent and be Baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit for the promise is made to you and to YOUR CHILDREN and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call." (Acts 2:37-39)
Here, Peter was speaking to Jews, and inviting them into the New Covenant in Jesus Christ. As all of these Jews knew, the Old Covenant was entered into through circumcision; and circumcision was normally received while you were an infant --performed on the infant eight days after birth. So, what you're really saying, Pastor, is that the Old Covenant is GREATER THAN the New Covenant in Jesus Christ ...since, clearly, infants could be admitted to the Old Covenant, but not to the New Covenant --a ridiculous notion.
Indeed, in Colossians 2:11-12, St. Paul directly speaks of Baptism as our circumcision, writing ... "In Him, you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with Him in Baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the power of God, Who raised Him from the dead." (Colossians 2:11-12)
So, how then, pray tell, can you say that Baptism (initiation into the Covenant of Christ) cannot be performed on infants, and was not performed on infants in the Apostolic Church??? These were Jews, Pastor. :-) They knew that a Covenant is open to an infant as much as it is to an adult. In fact, from the writings of the fathers themselves, I can show you that the practice of infant Baptism was not only around LONG before you claim it was (your assertion of "four centuries after" is a joke!), but that we can easily trace it all the way back to the Apostles. And we can do that like this:
In the year 215 A.D. (218 years EARLIER than you claim infant Baptism started), the Church father St. Hippolytus of Rome writes:
"And they shall Baptize the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family." (Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 --215 A.D).
Now, St. Hippolytus was the disciple of St. Ireneaus of Lyon; and, in A.D.180, St. Ireneaus writes:
"For He came to save all through Himself --all, I say, who through Him are born again to God [i.e., Baptized] --infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." (Ireneaus, Against the Heresies 2:22:4 --180 A.D.)
St. Ireneaus was the disciple of St. Polycarp, who was the disciple of the Apostle John himself (as well as an associate of the Apostle Philip). And, in A.D. 155, St. Polycarp said this at his execution:
"Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury. How can I blaspheme my King and Savior?" (Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9: A.D. 156).
Now, .... It is well documented that "The Martyrdom of Polycarp" was written the year after the saint's execution; and so the quote above is extremely reliable. It is also well documented that Polycarp was 86 years old at the time of his death. Therefore, if the saint claims to have served Jesus for 86 years, it therefore follows that he was Baptized as an infant. And, in another place, we are told that Polycarp was Baptized by none other than the Apostle John! :-) Therefore, ... At least in the case of St. John, we can show conclusively that the Apostles Baptized infants.
Also, .... LONG before you claim of "four centuries later," we have ... St. Justin Martyr ...in 150 A.D ...saying ....
"And both men and women who have been Christ's disciples since infancy, remain pure, and at the age of sixty or seventy years ..." (Justin Martyr, First Apology,15:6 (A.D. 110-165)
...and also Origen ...in 244 A.D ...saying ...
"Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And, indeed, if there were nothing in infants that required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would be superfluous." (Origen, Homily of Leviticus 8:3 --244 A.D.)
...and also St. Cyprian ...in 250 A.D. ...saying ....
"But in respect to the case of infants, which you say ought not to be Baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be Baptized and sanctified within the eighth day ....And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from Baptism ...we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons." (Cyprian, Epistle 58, To Fides [54] --251 A.D.)
...and also St. Gregory Nazianzus ...381 A.D. ...saying ...
"Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children and conscious neither of the loss nor of grace? Are we to Baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated." (Gregory Nazianzus, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:28 --A.D. 381).
...and also St. John Chrysostom ...388 A.D. ...saying ...
"We do Baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any sins." (John Chrysostom, Ad Neophytos --A.D. 388).
...and also St. Ambrose ...in 387 A.D. ...saying ...
"Unless a man be born again through water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. No one is expected: not the infant; not the one prevented by necessity." (Ambrose of Milan, Abraham 2,11:79 --A.D. 387)
...and also St. Augustine ...415 A.D. ...
"Likewise, whoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that Sacrament (Baptism) are alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration and condemns the universal Church, in which it is the practice to loose no time and run in haste to administer Baptism to infant children, because it is believed as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ." (Augustine, Epistle 167 --A.D. 415).
...and also Council of Carthage ...418 A.D. ...saying
"Canon 2: Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mother's wombs should not be Baptized ...let him be anathema." (Council of Carthage, A.D. 418).
This is all before A.D. 433 --that is, the date of the pastor's silly "four hundred years after" assetion. So, again, our pastor friend is revealed to have a very bad grasp of history. Indeed, I would challenge him to produce ONE Church father, or ANY ancient orthodox Christian, who asserted that Baptism cannot be administered to infants, as modern Baptist theology maintains. Good luck. ;-)
“It may be a surprise to most Catholics that the Church today does not even come close to preforming this "sacrament" the way these early Church leaders did.”
Au contraire. See above. :-)
“Candidates were immersed; sometimes three times.”
The original practice, following the Jewish mikveh ritual, was indeed to immerse the new Christian (and, yes, it was always three times). Yet, this wasn't very conducive to situations like when you were locked in a jail cell, awaiting death in the Roman arena, and there was no pond, tub, or river to "immerse" you in. :-) Thus, the Church, again by its Christ-given authority to "bind and loosen" (Matt 16:19), ruled that pouring or sprinkling were also equally valid forms of the Sacrament. And this ruling came as early as A.D. 100, if not before. For, in the "Didache," also known as "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," which is dated anywhere between A.D. 80 and A.D. 130, it says:
"In regard to baptism, baptise thus: After the foregoing instructions [on the Christian life] baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water; and it you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the Name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Before the Baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized, fast, and also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days." (Didache, 2).
So, again, the pastor's assertion (i.e. "...the Church today does not even come close to performing this "sacrament" the way these early Church leaders did.") is shown to be baseless and alien to authentic history.
“Before baptism the candidates were anointed with the "oil of exorcism" so that all evil spirits would flee away. Some even taught that candidates had to stand naked in the water. (Read Tertullian´s The Crown and St. Hyppolytus´ The Apostolic Tradition.”)
Some Rites of the Catholic Church (e.g. the Chaldean Rite in Iraq) still require the candidate to be naked. And, even in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church today (along with the Eastern Orthodox Church and all the other Apostolic rites of the Catholic Church), we still perform the rite of exorcism prior to Baptizing. This has its roots in oral Apostolic Tradition and in Scripture itself (if you know where to look ;-). Also, in the Roman Rite, we did away with the need to be naked, since that, like full immersion, is merely an ancillary symbol of the Sacrament and not essential to the Sacrament itself.
”Most of the early Church "Fathers" emphasized evidence of repentance and faith preceding Baptism.”
....As do we today when we're talking about the Baptism of adults. An adult cannot be Baptized without repentance of his or her sins. The Catholic Church has never said otherwise. But, we also acknowledge (as should you) that people who do not have the capacity to commit actual sins ...such as infants or retarded people ...still require the life-giving grace of Baptism and admission into the New Covenant of Christ. Or are we to say that Jesus is not the Savior of infants or retarded people??? Are they saved "outside of"Christ??? If so, then you make Christ a liar (i.e., "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.").
“Most candidates had to go through thorough investigation and classes.”
This is still the case in the Catholic Church today for adults and for everyone else who has attained the age of reason.
“It was Tertullian who started to teach that the water had some mystic and magical quality.”
Wrong. :-) Peter himself, in 1 Peter 3:21, directly teaches that Baptism itself saves us: "This prefigured Baptism, which SAVES YOU NOW. It (Baptism) is not a removal of dirt, but an APPEAL TO GOD for a clean conscience, through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ ..."
As for the patristic witnness, I already presented Justin Martyr, Ireneaus, and Hippolytus speaking of Baptism (and the abiliy of infant Baptism) before the time of Tertullian. So, as I keep pointing out, your grasp of history needs a lot of work.
What's more, Catholicism does not believe that Sacraments are "magic." ...any more that we believe that Jesus' miracles were. Rather, just as Jesus possessed the authority to heal people, and thus effect a real and substantial change in physical reality, so He empowers His Church to forgive sins in His Name, and thus affect a real and substantial change in metaphysical reality --making the Baptized person into a "new creation in Jesus Christ." Go read Mark 2's passage about the paralytic and the Son of Man's ability to forgive sins.
“He would "sanctify" the water. I would like to see proof that Polycarp and others before him agreed with that”.
:-) I just presented you the statement of Polycarp above. If Polycarp "served the Lord" for "eighty and six years," and if he was 86-years-old when he said this, then how long was Polycarp a Christian??? ...Keeping in mind that, in the ancient understanding, a person was not a Christian or a "servant of Christ" unless he was Baptized. :-) And Polycarp, so we know, was Baptized by St. John the Apostle.
“Augustine in his writings formalized the doctrine of infant baptism which became the common practice until now.”
The doctrine existed, and was in place universally, long before Augustine. Above I quoted from Augustine (in N. Africa), from Hippolytus (in Rome), from Ambrose (in N. Italy), from Ireneaus (in modern France), from Justin (in Palestine), from Gregory of Nyssa (in Asia Minor), from John Chrysostom (in modern Bulgaria / Greece) ...and, if you like, I could add Athanasius (in Egypt), Aphratees (in Persia), Ephraim (in Armenia), and a few other places. So, what part of the ancient world have I left out? :-) Literally, the Catholic teaching is "all over the map" ...and long before the time of Augustine.
“This separated baptism from personal faith altogether.”
Nonsense. As I said before, when it comes to Baptizing adults, personal faith is a very important element to Baptism. If an adult lies about accepting Christ, then his Baptism is invalid. ...just as if a groom lies in the context of his wedding vows (promising to be faithful to this one woman, when he has no intention of doing so), thereby rendering the marriage null and void.
Rather, the error appears in your modern Baptist theology, given that you have made Baptism into a mere symbol, rather than what it really is --namely, a physical act whereby the Church of Jesus Christ is able to forgive ones sins (including the damage to our human nature that is called "Original Sin") and to bring the person into the saving Covenant of Jesus Christ. This is why Jesus told us to Baptize; this is what He meant in John 20:22, when He told the Apostles: "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." Baptism is something that is done to you by Christ through the ministry of His Church. It is not merely an outward sign of a choice that you have made, but the Sacramental sign of a Covenant between both you and Jesus Christ --a Sacramental participation in His death and Resurrection.
“I agree with some of the early Church "Fathers" that there is connection between baptism and regeneration”.
Well, that's nice. Except, not one Church father taught that there is merely a "connection" between Baptism and regeneration. Rather, what they ALL taught is that Baptism IS regeneration --the word "regeneration" itself coming from the Latin "re" and "generatare" ("to be born"). Baptism is to be "Born again" in Jesus Christ. That's specifically what John 3:5 refers to.
Rather, it is your Baptist theology that is the novelty --a heresy that did not come into being until the late 16th Century ....although it was toyed with for a brief time 300 years earlier than that What cannot be disputed, however, is that your Baptist theology is totally alien to the ancient Church. Before the time of Wycliffe and Huss, no one ever professed anything like it.
“I disagree with the later "Fathers" as to the extent of that connection.”
More fantasy. There is no distinction in doctrine between the earlier fathers and the later ones. Both taught precisely the same thing about Baptism.
“The passage that most clearly shows the connection is I Peter 1:20-21. It reads concerning dead people in the Old Testament era: "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein a few, that is eight souls were saved by water. The like figure where unto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscious toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Might I respectfully suggest that you set aside the very nice English, but very poor translation, that is the King James Version of the Bible, and return to the original Greek. For example, in the Greek, it does not say, "...doth also save US now," but "...which saves YOU now." Not that it's a big point, but it illustrates the kind of fast-and-loose approach that the KJV takes when it comes to the literal Word of God. It is not a good translation, and it is probably responsible for a good many of your errors when it comes to the authentic Apostolic Faith.
As for your interpretation, you say ...
“The ark was an Old Testament figure of salvation in Jesus Christ. Like the ark symbolically saves, Baptism saves us in figure only if it relates to a reality- a reality that also we choose to receive in our conscience.”
Nice rationalization ...and very typical of modern Baptist throught. However, this is simply not what St. Peter is referring to in the Greek. The "clean conscience" that the verse refers to is not the modern concept of a "clean conscience" ...as if St. Peter knew anything about modern, Freudian thought.
:-) Rather, the remark is connected to the concept of an "appeal to God." In other words, the "appeal" is that of Jesus Himself, as is the "conscience," given that we are Baptized into the Resurrected Christ. Or, to put it another way, only Christ has a clean conscience. From God's point of view, it is His conscience that we acquire in Baptism (since we have passed through His death and into His life); and so we, with Paul, can say, "It is no longer I who live but Christ living in me." And this new conscience is acquired by the Christian via an "appeal to God" which is the prayer of the Church as it Baptizes the new Christian into His Body.
As for Baptism being a mere "symbol," ... If the Ark was something real and substantial, then so must Baptism be something real and substantial ...otherwise, as with circumcision, what you're saying is that the OT antetype is greater than the NT type --that the thing that prefigures Baptism is greater than Baptism itself. Indeed, your statement above about the Ark "symbolically saving" is totally void of sense, since the Ark did not merely "symbolically" save Noah and his family, but truly prevented them from drowning along with the rest of the ancient world. And why? Because Noah and his family were surrounded (incased) by the Ark, just as the Christian is surrounded ("incased") by the "clean conscience" of Jesus Christ. It is IN Him that we are saved....And this is not symbolic, but literal.
“Baptism does not wash away sin.”
Says you ...and the evil one. Yet, ... When Christ declares something to be, it is so. When Christ's Church, speaking with His own authority, declares something to be, it is so. "I Baptize (wash) you" makes it so.
“It can never wash away the filth of the flesh.”
No, a good hot shower can take care of that. :-) But, that's not what Catholics believe in regard to Baptism. ...Nor is sin what Peter refers to in 1 Peter 3:21. Rather, he says, "It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God..." Here, Peter is merely referring to ordinary washing and contrasting that with the deeper, Sacramental reality of Baptism. In the Jewish mikveh (ritual washing) custom, from where we get the original form of Baptism (that is, full immersion), "dirt" and other "unclean" / "unkosher" material was washed away from the body, making one legally acceptable to perform sacred rites under the Mosaic Law. What Peter (a Jew himself, coming from that same Jewish tradition) is saying is that Baptism is NOT merely the mikveh ritual ...as when one washed one's full body before entering the Jewish Temple, etc. Rather, it is something more. ...Something Sacramental and Spiritual --a deeper kind of washing --a washing that the Law of the Old Covenant could not provide. ...Because, unlike with Christian Baptism, the mikveh could not provide a "clean conscience." It could not rid a person of ALL sin, but merely make one "legally acceptable," if still guilty of sin. Thus, because you do not read Scripture with an understanding of Sacred Tradition, you are totally missing what the Apostle is teaching us and the context in which he is teaching us.
“When we trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, we are saved from sin.”
So, then, you save yourself??? :-) It's all based on your choice? Ah! But, that's not what Scripture says. Jesus clearly told the Apostles: "Whose sins you retain, they are retained." ...That is, if they refused to Baptize someone, then the person remained in his sins. As you yourself correctly point out, Baptism (for an adult) without full repentance of sins is meaningless. Thus, the Spirit-guided Church may (indeed, is empowered to) judge what are the standards of repentance that make Baptism appropriate and acceptable.
For example, if a married man wishes to accept Christ but will not give up his mistress, the Church is obliged to refuse him Baptism. This man may "trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus" all he wishes, but until he obeys the teaching authority of the Church (which has the power to interpret Tradition and says that a man may only have one wife), his "trust" will do him no good. This is why Jesus gave His Church the authority to Baptize. This is why we cannot Baptize ourselves, but must have someone in the Church (or approved by the Church) do it for us.
“Baptism is connected to salvation and regeneration in the sense that it is the natural response to faith. It is an open identification of our inward regeneration.”
Very wrong. As I pointed out with the example of the adulterous man who wants to accept Christ without giving up his second wife (mistress), he may sincerely "feel" that he's been inwardly 'regenerated' all he likes, but until he assents to the full and authoritative teaching of the Church (which defines what is a sin and what is not --what needs to be repented for and what does not), he is not regenerated at all. Rather, the power of regeneration lies with the Church --Christ's Body. It is the Church that supplies the grace to Baptize, not the convert himself, and not even Christ apart from His Church. Rather, it is Christ acting through His Church that supplies both Baptism and the Gospel message that calls for Baptism. Clearly, none of us has ever heard of Christ apart from the Church that proclaims His Gospel (I speak here of all Christians --the full extent of the Body of Christ).
If Christ does not bring His Gospel message to people apart from the Church, how can you say that he regenerates people apart from the Church??? Clearly, St. Paul says that faith comes through hearing; and none of us (apart from the Apostles themselves) have ever literally heard the voice of Christ with our ears. Rather, what we've heard is the voice of the Church speaking with the authority of Christ; and it is with this same authority of Christ that Christ uses His Church to regenerate souls through the Sacrament of Baptism. In this, as the Catholic Church believes, Christ Himself is the Sacrament (the visible, physical Sign of the living and eternal God); and His Church, as a literal, "one-Flesh" extension of His Incarnation (just as all men are one-flesh extensions of the first Adam) is the Sacrament as well. And, it is through the Sacrament that is the Church that what we normally speak of as the "Seven Sacraments" flow.
“That´s why whenever you see someone baptized in the Bible it always follows the person´s conscious choice to trust in the sacrifice of Jesus alone.”
And who says that the Bible alone is to be our source of authority? The Bible (by which you mean the Acts of the Apostles) is an evangelical tool directed at 1st Century pagan peoples who required the process that you describe above. And, even in this, Acts merely describes the ritual of Baptism is cursory form, not going into any detail of how the formula was imposed or what specifically accompanied it ...because most of the original readers of Acts either did, or were soon to, experience that first hand. In fact, if it wasn't for Matthew 28:19, we would have no Scriptural witness to the specific formula used by the Apostles for Baptism at all. Rather, the truth is that the Bible is only a slim glimpse at a much larger body of organic Apostolic Tradition ...all of which you are missing out on because of your disconnection to the Catholic Church (and/or the Eastern Orthodox Church).
Our Pastor friend also writes ...
“Baptism was a commanded so there must be a connection. Whenever Baptism was not possible; it was not necessary. John´s baptism had been in effect when the thief on the cross trusted in Jesus. Jesus had already commanded the performance of baptism to His disciples. Yet Jesus said to the thief, "Today you will be with me in Paradise." The thief had no opportunity to perform a work whatsoever.”
Well, we have several mistakes here. :-) Firstly, John's Baptism was not Christian Baptism at all. Rather, it was merely an expanded form of the mikveh ritual. For example, when a Gentile converts to Orthodox Judaism, even today, what happens is that the convert is circumcised, after which his head is shaved and his fingernails and toenails are clipped very short (so he's in the condition that he was as a newborn baby); then, he is immersed completely in a mikveh (ritual bath) only to emerge again as a "new born Jew." Sound familiar??? :-) This is what John the Baptist was doing. The only difference was that he was doing it to JEWS THEMSELVES! In this, what John was saying is that ALL Jews had broken the Covenant --that all of them were tantamount to unclean Gentiles. Thus, in expectation for the Messiah (to get them ready for the Messiah's coming), John took people to the other side of the Jordan river (the side that they had crossed over from with Joshua in the days of Moses --the place they were before they entered into the Covenant of the Promised Land), and then brought them through the water (baptizing them ...again ...into Judaism, through the mikveh ritual, in the process), and then allowing them to emerge on the other side of the river --that is, re-admitting them into the Promised Land --into the Jewish Covenant. So, there was no involvement of the Holy Spirit in any of this, but merely a "baptism of repentance" (Acts 19:4) --the very thing which you modern Baptists have reduced Christian Baptism to.
However, Christian Baptism is greater. Christian Baptism is a Baptism into the Lord's own death and resurrection --into the saving Covenant that He established with us.
Secondly, ... While John 3:22 depicts Jesus' disciples as baptizing (John's Gospel also makes it clear that Jesus Himself was not baptizing at this time), it is a mistake to assume that the disciples were doing this at Jesus' command or that this was the same thing as Christian Baptism. Rather, it was merely the same mikveh ritual that John was performing. Like the Baptist, Christ's disciples were getting the Jewish people ready for the coming of the Kingdom of God. ...for no one in the crowds at that time knew that Jesus was the Messiah.
Thirdly, ... It is a classic Protestant mistake to assume that the Good Thief on the Cross had no opportunity to perform any work. He performs quite a few works. To begin with, he admits his guilt and his sin, saying, "We have been condemned justly, for the sentence we have received corresponds to our crimes." He also defends Jesus against the jibes of the Bad Thief, saying "Have you no fear of God? ...this man has done nothing criminal." After all, didn't Jesus say, "He who acknowledges me before men, I will acknowledge before my Father in Heaven."? :-) That's a work, no? Also, the Good Thief accepts the sovereignty of Jesus, saying, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your Kingdom." --a clear act of faith. But, it doesn't stop there. :-) In doing this, he offers up his own suffering of his cross in union with the Cross of Christ --the very thing that Paul refers to in Colossians 1:24, when he says: "In my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the suffering of Christ on behalf of His Body, the Church." So, despite the fact that the Good Thief is nailed to a cross, a lot of good "works" are taking place there. Also .... Intrinsically connected to this, the Good Thief is sharing in the "Baptism" that Christ Himself refers to in Mark 10:38. While most of us mysteriously share in the death of Christ through Sacramental Baptism, the Good Thief LITERALLY shared in the death of Christ, hanging right next to Him on the Cross --that is, he literally experienced the very thing which we connect to Sacramentally.
Fourthly, it is also a mistake to assume that the Good Thief went immediately to Heaven, because that's not what Scripture says. What Jesus says to him is literally: "THIS DAY you will be with me IN PARADISE." "Paradise" is not Heaven; and this is clearly the case, since Jesus did not go to Heaven THAT DAY: Friday. Rather, as 1 Peter 3:19 and 4:6 reveal to us, Jesus was in Sheol (the "realm of the dead") that day. And, even three days later, when He rose on Sunday morning, John 20:17 clearly tells us that He STILL had not gone to Heaven --had not "ascended to the Father." Rather, Jesus and the Thief went to what the Jews called the "Paradise of the Fathers" ...also known as the "Bosom of Abraham" (see Luke 16:22ff), which was one of the two regions that Sheol was divided into --the other being Gehenna, a place of fiery punishment. So, all Jesus was really saying to the Thief is that, instead of Gehenna, He would go with Christ to the place where Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the other patriarchs ("fathers") and saints of the OT awaited the coming of the Messiah. ...And this is part of what we Catholics call "Purgatory." :-) For, before the Ascension of Christ, NO human being went into God's Presence in Heaven. See how Biblical Catholicism really is?
And, lastly, our pastor friend makes the curious assertion: "Whenever Baptism was not possible; it was not necessary." Well, since Baptists like yourself are limited by the Bible alone, where does the Bible EVER teach that??? :-) Baptism is ALWAYS necessary. ...The only thing that is not strictly necessary is Sacramental Baptism. For, we Catholics also recognize a thing called "Baptism by desire" and/or "Baptism in blood" ...by which those who desired Baptism but die, or are martyred, beforehand still receive the grace of Sacramental Baptism via the principal of "ecclesia supplex" --that is, "the Church supplies [the grace]." What we do not believe, however, since it is TOTALLY unBiblical is that ANYONE can enter Heaven without the grace of Baptism ....whether it is administered Sacramentally or mysteriously by the Body of Christ.
”Cornelius and other Gentiles received The Holy Spirit and were considered regenerate believers before they were baptized (Acts 10:44-48).”
Nice try. :-) But, again, this is a misinterpretation of Scripture. What Cornelius and his household received was a charismatic manifestation of the Holy Spirit, just like King Saul received in 1 Sam 10:10-13, and just like Samson and numerous other OT peoples experienced. This was not regenerative in nature at all. ...Unless you wish to say that King Saul was also a "Baptized Christian"? :-) Rather, what amazed Peter and the other Jewish disciples who were with him was that the Spirit of God ("ha Ruach ha-Kadosh" --the Holy Spirit) would fall upon "unclean Gentiles," as He was known to fall upon faithful Jews from ancient times --as He did upon the Apostles at Pentecost even though they were already "clean" (see John 13:10-11). And this was a sign for Peter, confirming his vision about the clean and unclean animals (also in Acts 10), and letting him know that, by his Christ-given authority to "bind and loosen," Gentiles were to be admitted into the Church --that they should be Baptized into the Christian Covenant without circumcision. That's what you see going on there in Acts 10 & 11.
“In Acts 16:30 Paul was asked directly by the Phillipian jailor "What must I do to be saved?" The record of Paul´s response does not mention baptism as a prerequisite at all.”
Oh? But, Paul's actions certainly do. :-) Look at what takes place there. In Acts 16:33, it says: "He (the jailor) took them (Paul and Silas) in at that hour of the night and bathed their wounds; then he and his family were Baptized at once." So, look that the context here. :-) There was just an earthquake. Everything is a mess. It's the middle of the night. Paul and Silas have beaten and bloody wounds covering their backs. They can hardly walk. Yet, ... It was important for everyone to be Baptized that very night. :-) Why? Couldn't it wait ...since they were already (supposedly) "saved"??? :-)
”But the passage says that all in his household believed (vs. 34), “
Not before they were Baptized (v. 33) it doesn't. :-) What you have to come to terms with here is that, if the father of a family decided to enter into a Covenant, the rest of the family (whether they fully understood or not) would obediently follow him and pledge themselves to that Covenant. This is what we see happening here --something that is totally alien to our moden, American ("democratic") experience and mentalities, but something that happened in the ancient world quite often.
“This is the way baptism is taught in Scripture.”
Yes. It's a great pity you don't know the proper way to interpret it, though. See Acts 8:30-1 / Acts 18:26.
“I hope this helps you and I hope you study this further.”
"Oh, Physican heal thyself." :-) I sincerely hope that you are a true Christian and are willing to pursue the truth, no matter where it leads you. Because, in the Lord's own beautiful Name, you have been greatly misled. May He shepherd you into the fullness of His Covenant.
“I know I used a strong word for the teaching of baptismal regeneration ("heretical"). This is not an indictment of the Catholic Church by itself. Here is how the Catechism reads: "By baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and personal sins, as well as the punishment for sin..." (Read pp. 320, 322) The Seventh Day Adventists, The Mormons, The Church of Christ teach the same thing using similar language.”
Unfortunately, they do not believe in the same thing we do, however. What's more, unlike the Adventists, Mormons, and Church of Christ, your ancestors were Catholic Christians. You come from us. Your Christian forefathers once believed as we do. I pray that you will find your way home one day.
Mark Bonocore
The Catholic Legate
November 1, 2004