Gregory of Nazianzus and Canon of Old Testament

Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329 to 390 AD) was bishop of Constantinople (present day Istanbul) from 379 to 381 AD.  Coming from well-to-do family he was well educated and Nazianzus was the place where he first studied. Gregory was known for his title “The Theologian” and together with John Chrysostom and Basil of Caesarea they are highly respected by eastern Orthodox Christians.   His most important works are the Orations (or Discourses).  In one of his works he gave us a list of Old Testament books comprising Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges & Ruth in one book, 1 to 4 Kings (Samuel and Kings), 1 & 2 Chronicles, 1 & 2 Esdras (Ezra Nehemiah), Job, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Proverbs, the Twelve, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel (source: J.P. Migne: Patrologia Græca, 37, 472-74).  Esther and deuterocanonical books are excluded while Lamentations could be combined with Jeremiah. This does not mean he rejected deuterocanonical books – in his works he still cited as scripture a number of deuterocanonical books: (English translation is from Nicene and Anti Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. 7 with added scripture reference).

How did God sustain her? Not by raining down manna, as for Israel of old [Exodus 16:14] or opening the rock, in order to give drink to His thirsting people [Exodus 17:6], or feasting her by means of ravens, as Elijah [1 Kings 17:6], or feeding her by a prophet carried through the air, as He did to Daniel when a-hungered in the den [Bel & Dragon or Daniel 14:36].

Gregory of Naziansus, Oration 18.30

And how shall we preserve the truth that God pervades all things and fills all, as it is written “Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord,” [Jeremiah 23:24] and “The Spirit of the Lord filleth the world,” [Wisdom 1:7] if God partly contains and partly is contained?

Gregory of Naziansus, Oration 28.8

But if not, what will you say to the suggestion on the other side, that on your hypothesis the Son has been called the only God. In what passage? Why, in this:-This is your God; no other shall be accounted of in comparison with Him, and a little further on, after this did He shew Himself upon earth, and conversed with men. [Baruch 3:35-37]

Gregory of Naziansus, Oration 30.13

The Father doth not glory in the dishonour of the Son. If a wise Son maketh a glad Father [Proverbs 10:1]. how much more doth the honour of the Son become that of the Father! And if you also accept this saying, My Son, glory not in the dishonour of thy Father [Sirach 3:10], similarly the Father doth not glory in the Son’s dishonour.

Gregory of Naziansus, Oration 37:18

Calvin and Baptism

John Calvin wrote commentaries of New Testament books save 3 John and Revelation.  They can be viewed and/or downloaded at http://www.ccel.org/.  On Mark 16:16 he wrote (underlined emphasis is added):

He who shall believe and be baptized shall be saved. This promise was added in order to allure all mankind to believe; as it is followed, on the other hand, by a threatening of awful destruction, in order to terrify unbelievers. Nor is it wonderful that salvation is promised to believers; for, by believing in the only begotten Son of God, not only are they reckoned among the children of God, but receiving the gift of free justification and of the Spirit of regeneration, they possess what constitutes eternal life. Baptism is joined to the faith of the gospel, in order to inform us that the Mark of our salvation is engraved on it; for had it not served to testify the grace of God, it would have been improper in Christ to have said, that they who shall believe and be baptized shall be saved. Yet, at the same time, we must hold that it is not required as absolutely necessary to salvation, so that all who have not obtained it must perish; for it is not added to faith, as if it were the half of the cause of our salvation, but as a testimony. I readily acknowledge that men are laid under the necessity of not despising the sign of the grace of God; but though God uses such aids in accommodation to the weakness of men, I deny that his grace is limited to them. In this way we will say that it is not necessary in itself, but only with respect to our obedience.

Calvin considered Baptism as mark of our salvation and admitted that it is joined to the faith yet he denied its absolute (I use his own word) necessity, i.e. it only shows our obedience.  Compared his statement with that of Luther in my earlier post. On 1 Peter 3:21 he wrote (underlined emphasis is added):

The like figure whereunto I fully think that the relative ought to be read in the dative case, and that it has happened, through a mistake, that ὃ is put, and not ᾧ. The meaning, however, is not ambiguous, that Noah, saved by water, had a sort of baptism. And this the Apostle mentions, that the likeness between him and us might appear more evident. It has already been said that the design of this clause is to shew that we ought not to be led away by wicked examples from the fear of God, and the right way of salvation, and to mix with the world. This is made evident in baptism, in which we are buried together with Christ, so that, being dead to the world, and to the flesh, we may live to God [Romans 6:4]. On this account, he says that our baptism is an antitype (ἀντίτυπον) to the baptism of Noah, not that Noah’s baptism was the first pattern, and ours an inferior figure, as the word is taken in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the ceremonies of the law are said to be antitypes of heavenly things, Greek writers apply the same word to sacraments, so that, when they speak of the mystical bread of the holy Supper, they call it the antitype. But here there is no comparison made between the greater and the less; the Apostle only means that there is a likeness, and as they commonly say, a correspondence. Perhaps it might more properly be said to be correspondency, (ἀντίστροφον,) as Aristotle makes Dialectics to be the antistrophè of Rhetoric. But we need not labor about words, when there is an agreement about the thing itself. As Noah, then, obtained life through death, when in the ark, he was enclosed not otherwise than as it were in the grave, and when the whole world perished, he was preserved together with his small family; so at this day, the death which is set forth in baptism, is to us an entrance into life, nor can salvation be hoped for, except we be separated from the world.

It seems to me Calvin admitted that Baptism is entrance to life.  He considered Baptism as Sacrament in what he further wrote:

Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh This was added, because it might be that the greatest part of men would profess the name of Christ; and so it is with us, almost all are introduced into the church by baptism. Thus, what he had said before would not be appropriate, that few at this day are saved by baptism, as God saved only eight by the ark. This objection Peter anticipates, when he testifies that he speaks not of the naked sign, but that the effect must also be connected with it, as though he had said, that what happened in the age of Noah would always be the case, that mankind would rush on to their own destruction, but that the Lord would in a wonderful way deliver His very small flock.

We now see what this connection means; for some one might object and say, “Our baptism is widely different from that of Noah, for it happens that most are at this day baptized.” To this he replies, that the external symbol is not sufficient, except baptism be received really and effectually: and the reality of it will be found only in a few. It hence follows that we ought carefully to see how men commonly act when we rely on examples, and that we ought not to fear though we may be few in number.

But the fanatics, such as Schuencfeldius, absurdly pervert this testimony, while they seek to take away from sacraments all their power and effect. For Peter did not mean here to teach that Christ’s institution is vain and inefficacious, but only to exclude hypocrites from the hope of salvation, who, as far as they can, deprave and corrupt baptism. Moreover, when we speak of sacraments, two things are to be considered, the sign and the thing itself. In baptism the sign is water, but the thing is the washing of the soul by the blood of Christ and the mortifying of the flesh. The institution of Christ includes these two things. Now that the sign appears often inefficacious and fruitless, this happens through the abuse of men, which does not take away the nature of the sacrament. Let us then learn not to tear away the thing signified from the sign. We must at the same time beware of another evil, such as prevails among the Papists; for as they distinguish not as they ought between the thing and the sign, they stop at the outward element, and on that fix their hope of salvation. Therefore the sight of the water takes away their thoughts from the blood of Christ and the power of the Spirit. They do not regard Christ as the only author of all the blessings therein offered to us; they transfer the glory of his death to the water, they tie the secret power of the Spirit to the visible sign.

As Sacrament, Baptism has two elements, (outward) sign and Grace (Calvin called it “thing”).  The (outward) sign is water – it makes God’s Grace, which is beyond our comprehension (something we cannot feel or sense using our five senses), becomes visible. What God through His Grace does to for us in Baptism, as Calvin wrote (correctly), is washing of the soul by the blood of Christ and the mortifying of the flesh.  Calvin clearly disagreed with those who consider Baptism only as sign, a view that is held by many Protestants today. At the same time Calvin accused Catholics (or papists in his term) to concentrate on the outward sign of Baptism (i.e. water) as mean of salvation and to forget Christ.  This charge is, of course, unfounded – Catholics do consider Baptism as necessity but it is not the only requirement of salvation.  In order to further separate Baptism from salvation Calvin wrote:

What then ought we to do? Not to separate what has been joined together by the Lord. We ought to acknowledge in baptism a spiritual washing, we ought to embrace therein the testimony of the remission of sin and the pledge of our renovation, and yet so as to leave to Christ his own honor, and also to the Holy Spirit; so that no part of our salvation should be transferred to the sign. Doubtless when Peter, having mentioned baptism, immediately made this exception, that it is not the putting off of the filth of the flesh, he sufficiently shewed that baptism to some is only the outward act, and that the outward sign of itself avails nothing.

The problem is, earlier Calvin admitted that Baptism is the washing of the soul by the blood of Christ, i.e. it is not the washing of our bodies as Peter stated as removal of dirt from body. 

Seven new deadly sins?

Recently the Catholic Church came into spotlight with the announcement of seven new deadly sins.  They are: (1) polluting, (2) genetic engineering, (3) being obscenely rich or extreme wealth, (4) drug dealing, (5) abortion, (6) paedophilia and (7) causing social injustice.   Other listed the following seven as (1) genetic modification, (2) carrying out experiments on humans, (3) polluting the environment, (4) causing social injustice, (5) causing poverty, (6) becoming obscenely wealthy and (7) taking drugs. The source of information is the interview made by Vatican Newspaper L’Osservatore Romano on 9 March 2008 with Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, Head of the Apostolic Penitentiary (the Vatican body which oversees confessions and plenary indulgences).  First the Catholic Church would not declare official teaching through interview and second did Monsignor Girotti really declare what media all over the world wrote?  L’Osservatore Romano released English translation of the interview, which I copied below (questions are in bold and Monsignor Girotti’s answers are in italic).  pdf file of the interview in English is available at http://blog.acton.org/uploads/penitentiary_interview.pdf. The alleged seven new deadly sins are mostly taken from his answer to the question: “what are the new sins?”  My readers can judge whether those new seven deadly sins are his true statement or his statement taken out of context by the media.  Based on the interview what L’osservatore Romano listed as new forms of sins are genetic manipulation, environmental pollution, social inequality and unsustainable social injustice.

The Apostolic Penitentiary seems to be a mysterious object for public opinion as well as for a good part of the faithful.

Unfortunately, this affirmation corresponds with reality. Although it is the oldest office of the Roman Curia – after the suppression of Dataria in 1967 and the Chancery in 1973 – it is little known even among a large part of the clergy. The reason perhaps can be found in the fact that its activity doesn’t have the same visibility as the other dicasteries.  The Apostolic Penitentiary, among the dicasteries of the Roman Curia, addresses in an always direct manner, a properly spiritual activity, most in keeping with the fundamental mission of the Church, which consists in the salus animarum (the health of souls). It is the universal and exclusive organ of the Papacy concerning the internal forum. It is concerned with the internal forum not only for sins, censures, and irregularities, but in general for occult/hidden situations, such as dispensing with sanctions, confirming nullified acts derived from occult/unknown circumstances. It also examines and resolves cases of conscience that come from these. It resolves doubts in moral or juridical cases, as well as dealing with unknown circumstances or individual concrete facts.

What is the value of your responses?

These have an authoritative value – according to the cases, commanding or aquitting – only for the real and singular cases that come to be proposed and not for other cases, but to those others that can be extended as a prudential criterion. Which means the doctrinal orientations and disciplines included in the same solutions can be with prudence applied by the priest who is given to have recourse, by analogy, in a broader field, in no case, however is permitted to divulge those responses.

Does it still have a sense of an office such as the Penitentiary from the moment that seems to create problems at the ecumenical level?

I find it difficult to gather the reasons and objective motives of the presumed difficulty the Penitentiary creates at the ecumenical level. If it is intended to refer to historical errors regarding forgiveness that until the age of the Renaissance did not foster the correct ecumenical discussion, it would suffice to compare it with the recent and rich papers of highly-regarded scholars who have very honestly explained the function of this dicastery which retains the true “source of grace” without any interest.

Does the attention to sin come from a sensibility to the needs of modern society or from a reference point of a past time?

The reference is always the violation of the covenant with God and with brothers and the social consequences of sin. If yesterday sin had a rather individualistic dimension, today it has a value, a resonance beyond the individual, above all social, because of the great phenomenon of globalization. In effect, the attention to sin presents itself more urgently today than yesterday, because its consequences are wider and more destructive.

Is the Penitentiary still useful?

Without a doubt. In an age characterized by images and publicity where everything is public, a dicastery such as the Apostolic Penitentiary, attentive to the interior world in its more delicate and less visible side, I believe it is a precious instrument, especially in the complex framework of the Church.

Which questions are drawing your attention?

There are those offenses of which, for their gravity, the Holy See reserves absolution: the absolution of being complicit in sin against the Sixth Commandment (canon 1378); the sacrilegious profanation of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist (canon 1367); the direct violation of the sacramental seal (canon 1388, 1); the dispensation of irregularity ad recipiendos Ordines contacted to procure an abortion (canon 1401,4); the dispensation of irregularity ad exercendos Ordines (canon 1044, 1).

How can one interpret the shock that public opinion has towards many situations of scandal and sin in the Church?

One cannot undervalue the objective gravity of a series of phenomenon that have been recently denounced and that bring with it the repercussions of human and institutional weakness of the Church; one cannot, however, ignore how it, worried with the grave damage, has redressed and continues to redress with rigorous interventions and initiatives to protect the image of the Church itself and for the good of the people of God. Nevertheless, it is necessary also to denounce the emphasis given to the media that on a daily basis casts discredit on the Church.

Sometimes people do not understand the Church’s (issuing of) indulgences and Christian forgiveness? Why do you think it is that way?

Today it seems that repentance is taken to mean opening one’s self to others when resolving issues found within his or her own special social sphere, within which one expresses his very own existence, and does so by offering his own contribution of clarification and support for those having such problems. Repentance, therefore, today takes on a (special) social dimension, due to the fact that relationships have grown weaker and more complicated because of globalization.

In your opinion, what are the “new sins”?

There are various areas today in which we adopt sinful behavior, as with individual and social rights. This is especially so in the field of bioethics where we cannot deny the existence of violations of fundamental rights of human nature – this occurs by way of experiments and genetic modifications, whose results we cannot easily predict or control. Another area, which indeed pertains to the social spectrum, is that of drug use, which weakens our minds and reduces our intelligence. As a result, many young people are left out of Church circles. Here’s another one: social and economic inequality, in the sense that the rich always seem to get richer, and the poor, poorer. This [phenomenon] feeds off an unsustainable form of social injustice and is related to environmental issues -which currently have much relevant interest.

Do you think frequent indulgences inspire one to take on a “magic wand mentality” about (ridding oneself of) guilt and punishment?

In order not to fall prey to such a dangerous and false vision, I really believe it is absolutely necessary to be familiar with and understand the rightful doctrine and practice of indulgences, which is understood by the Church as a significant expression of God’s mercy, as He reaches out to His children to help them overcome the punishment brought on by their sins.. God also does so in order “to push them toward, above all, a greater love of charity”. The Church is more than anything inspired by its desire to teach, more so than (to require the mere) repetition of formulas and practices of prayer, repentance and exercising theological virtues. The reforms enacted by God’s servant, Paul VI, with the Apostolic Constitution Indulgentiarum doctrina on January 1, 1967 to some degree eliminated the so-called “magic wand mentality”. Such doctrine clearly demonstrates the theological underpinnings of indulgences, as taken from the solidarity existing between men, as represented in Adam and Christ, the communion of saints, and the treasure of the Church consisting in expiation (of sins) and in the merits of Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints. Indeed, it must be emphasized that indulgences cannot be had without first undergoing a genuine conversion and without being in union with God. And added to this is the fulfillment of prescribed acts (of repentance).

Don’t you think the conditions to receive indulgences are light?

If, together with the usual imposed conditions, no. That is, receiving the sacrament of confession no more than 15 or 20 days afterward, receiving the Eucharist and praying according to the Pope’s intentions. To obtain such indulgences it is required that one also demonstrate outstanding purity and shows evidence of fervent charity. To arrive at this state is very difficult, due to our human weakness. Hence, when thinking about it this way, receiving indulgences is something not to be taken lightly.

Are there sins you cannot absolve?

The Penitentiary is the Pope’s longa manus when exercising his potestas clavium. Therefore, to carry out the functions assigned to him, within the degree of application, the Penitentiary possesses all necessary faculties [to absolve sin] -the only exception being those faculties which the Holy Father has expressly told the Cardinal Penitentiary to reserve for the Pope alone. He can, therefore, carry out, within his realm of authority, all acts of competence of all the other dicastries within the Roman Curia.

Regarding the abortion issue, it seems that the Church does not take into account the difficult situations women have to deal with.

It seems that this is an excessive concern, especially since it is the Church that constantly seeks to protect and safeguard the rights and dignity of women. There are many courageous and intelligent initiatives led by Catholic organizations and Church movements. They endlessly and efficaciously support single mothers and fight today’s social and cultural tendencies to the contrary. They even take responsibility to raise unwanted children and facilitate their adoption.

Translation by Istituto Acton, Rome.

Luther on Baptism

Most Protestants and “Bible only” Christians deny the necessity of Baptism for salvation.  Interestingly this is not what Martin Luther taught. On his sermon on Baptism he said (English translation from Luther’s Works, Vol. 51 : Sermons I. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1999, c1959 (Luther’s Works 51), S. 51:III-188):

Baptism is recorded in the last chapter of Mark: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:15-16). Even if a person is baptized but is without faith, he is lost. But we shall at this time omit discussion of that which serves us in disputation and controversy with the adversaries. In connection with baptism the words themselves, which are recorded here, must be understood. These every person must know. In the first place, note the command of God, which is very stern when he says: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). This is a strict command; if a person wants to be saved, let him be baptized; otherwise he is in God’s disfavor.

Luther also explained why water used in Baptism is not the same as ordinary water we use:

Say, therefore, that baptism is water and God’s Word comprehended in one. Take the Word away and it is the same water with which the maid waters the cow; but with the Word, it is a living, holy, divine water. He who considers the words: “will be saved” (Mark 16:16) will find it [salvation]; for with his words, “will be saved,” Christ puts salvation into baptism. Therefore it is impossible that this should be simple water when through it salvation, forgiveness of sins, and redemption from death and the devil is given.

Against those who denied the necessity of Baptism he further wrote:

But nobody believes what an excellent thing is in these words. The fanatics laugh at us and say: You neo-papists teach the people to trust in water. But when I ask them: What do you say about these words, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved”? they flutter away. So you say to them: We do not teach that one should trust in water, but we do teach that the water, when it becomes one thing with God’s Word, is baptism. The water does not do it because of itself, but rather because of the Word, which is connected with it. But if you take away the Word, then don’t go telling us that baptism is useless water. Then it is a figment of the devil, who is seeking to sow bad seed among us. You hear your Savior say: If you believe and are baptized, then salvation follows, not because of the water, but because you believe the Word. It is not for nothing that I insist so emphatically that you say that baptism is natural, physical water connected with the Word of God. When these two come together, water and the Word of God, then it is a baptism.

On the benefit of Baptism Luther wrote:

Furthermore, the benefit of baptism must also be learned. If baptism is water with the Word of God, what is its purpose, work, fruit, and benefit? It saves those who believe, as the words say. A child is baptized, not in order that it may become a prince; it is baptized in order that it may be saved, as the words say, that is, in order that it may be redeemed from sin, death, and the devil, that it may become a member of Christ, and that it may come into Christ’s kingdom and Christ become its Lord. Accordingly, baptism is useful to the end that through it we may be saved. There you have the transcendent excellence of baptism. The first honor is that it is a divine water, and when you see a baptism remember that the heavens are opened. The fruit is that it saves, redeems you from sin, liberates you from the devil, and leads you to Christ. The fanatics insist that one must first become holy. But I am not contending with them now, but teaching the simple.