Universal Priesthood

A common argument used against the priesthood of the Catholic Church is that a select cast of priestly mediators is no longer needed on earth, since all Christians are part of a "holy priesthood," and since Christ's mediatory sacrifice is sufficient once and for all.

The second part of the argument is based on a misunderstanding of the mediation provided by the Catholic priest, specifically, the re-presentation of Christ's once-and-for-all sacrifice on Calvary (see Fr. James T. O'Connor, The Hidden Manna (2d ed. 2005)). As there is no presentation of, or mediation by a new sacrifice, Christ's perfectly sufficient sacrifice suffers no derogation. Thus, I will focus on the other part of the argument, which sees a priestly cast as contrary to the Bible's description of a priesthood of all believers.

This view is founded on 1 Peter 2:4-5, where the Apostle says, "As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him — you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (NIV)"

But a general priestly office (held by all believers) excludes a particular priestly office no more than the general "offering" of "spiritual sacrifices" excludes the particular offering of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary. In fact, that a general priesthood can exist along with a particular priestly cast is proven by the Pentateuch. Exodus 19:3-6, depicts Moses receiving a message from the Lord for the house of Jacob and the people of Israel: "Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." But the existence of this general priesthood of all of God's people did not bar David from raising up a priestly tribe as described in 1 Chronicles 23 ff.

I am a layman. I do not know whether, in the development of eucharistic and episcopal doctrine, the eventual use of the word "priest" was the perfect choice. But I do know that the arguments against its use suffer from the aforesaid deficiencies. I also know that the classical Protestant term "minister" itself implies some mediation -- it means (in its verb form) "to administer or dispense." The Reformed minister dispenses God's grace via the word and sacraments. The very act of dispensing what is not one's own is a mediatory act. Therefore, if some human mediation denies Christ's sole mediation, then out with that term too.

Liturgical Order

I've been on-again-off-again picking away at Jurgens' The Faith of the Early Fathers. I was riveted last night while reading the First Apology of St. Justin the Martyr, penned some time between 148 and 155 A.D. To put this in chronological perspective, Justin was born as little as four years after the Book of Revelation was written (but no longer than within one generation). I was struck in particular by Justin's account of Christian worship (which Tim Troutman noted a while back is the earliest record of the order of a Christian service). [Note: I realize I'm not covering new ground with this post, but still want to make note of it.]

He describes a Christian baptism before beginning his discussion of the liturgical order of his day. "We, however, after thus washing the one who has been convinced and signified his assent, lead him to those who are called brethren, where they are assembled. They then earnestly offer common prayers for themselves and the one who has been illuminated and all others everywhere, that we may be made worthy, having learned the truth, to be found in deed good citizens and keepers of what is commanded, so that we may be saved with eternal salvation. On finishing the prayers we greet each other with a kiss. Then bread and a cup of water and mixed wine are brought to the president of the brethren and he, taking them, sends up praise and glory to the Father of the universe through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and offers thanksgiving at some length that we have been deemed worthy to receive these things from him. When he has finished the prayers and the thanksgiving, the whole congregation present, saying, "Amen." "Amen" in the Hebrew language means, "So be it." When the president has given thanks and the whole congregation has assented, those whom we call deacons give to each of those present a portion of the consecrated bread and wine and water, and they take it to the absent."

He then describes the Eucharist, how it is only for members of the believing community who have been baptized, and how "the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by [Christ], and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished [i.e., our assimilation of food into our being], is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus."

He then continues, with some repetition, "And on the day called Sunday there is a meeting in one place of those who live in cities or the country, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits. When the reader has finished, the president in a discourse urges and invites [us] to the imitation of these noble things. Then we all stand up together and offer prayers. And, as said before, when we have finished the prayer, bread is brought, and wine and water, and the president similarly sends up prayers and thanksgivings to the best of his ability, and the congregation assents, saying the Amen; the distribution, and reception of the consecrated [elements] by each one, takes place and they are sent to the absent by the deacons."

I have summarized the two overlapping accounts of the liturgical order of Christian worship:

1) Prayers for perseverance unto salvation;
2) Greeting with a kiss;
3) Bread and Cup of Water and Wine taken to the "president";
4) President offers praise and thanksgiving for these things;
5) Congregation assents with an "Amen"; and
6) Deacons distribute elements (and take some away to those absent).

1) Memoirs of Apostles [Gospels] and Prophets read;
2) President delivers discourse on what is read;
3) All stand and offer prayers;
4) Elements of bread and cup of water and wine brought forward;
5) President offers thanksgiving and prayers for these things;
6) Congregation assents with an "Amen"; and
7) Deacons distribute elements (and take some away to those absent).

Without speculating about the precise order of the first few things in each list, we can see the general pattern of a) Scripture reading, b) Homily, c) Prayers, d) Eucharistic elements presented, e) elements consecrated, f) elements distributed. This seems remarkably close to the Mass, as I recall it, and less similar to anything I experience on any given Sunday.

But St. Justin the Martyr is not without problems. Jurgens notes some questionable Christological language (which he is willing to excuse on account of the primitive state of Christological doctrines at that time). Also, I do not believe I could distinguish Justin's statements on works and righteousness from at least semi-Pelagianism (but the same excuse would be availing). It is also interesting how central the "Amen" of the congregations assent seemed to be for the consecration. I do not know if that survived in some form in the mass.

Eucharist, Episcopal Authority, Relics

I have encountered many a quote from a Church Father on the internet. I recently purchased William A. Jurgens' Faith of the Early Fathers, in the hopes that reading the Fathers in actual print would be more informative; reading ancient texts on an LCD screen somehow provides a disruptive contrast. I have not been disappointed.

I will share an especially meaningful quote here, but primarily want to note that if you've only ever read it on a computer screen, you may be missing something. Buy the Fathers in print!

St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote to the Smyrnaean Church c. 110 A.D. In this letter, he says:

"Pay close attention to those who have wrong notions about the grace of Jesus Christ, which has come to us, and note how at variance they are with God's mind. They care nothing about love: they have no concern for widows or orphans, for the oppressed, for those in prison or released, for the hungry or the thirsty. They hold aloof from the Eucharist and from services of prayer, because they refuse to admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which, in his goodness, the Father raised. Consequently those who wrangle and dispute God's gift face death. They would have done better to love and so share in the resurrection. The right thing to do, then, is to avoid such people and to talk about them neither in private nor in public. Rather pay attention to the prophets and above all to the gospel. There we get a clear picture of the Passion and see that the resurrection has really happened."

I simply note that, if I am permitted to take this text at face value, it seems little concerned with a common critique of Catholic Eucharistic practice. I have read and heard Protestants explain that the sacrifice of the Mass is false because Christ can't be both on the altar and risen in heaven. Ignatius says that the Eucharist is the flesh, and the same flesh which was crucified and was raised. If the Protestant critique is valid, it seems unlikely that St. Ignatius of Antioch would not have thought of it within a century of Christ's resurrection.

He continues:

"Flee from schism as the source of mischief. You should all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ did the Father. Follow, too, the presbytery as you would the apostles; and respect the deacons as you would God's law. Nobody must do anything that has to do with the Church without the bishop's approval. You should regard that Eucharist as valid which is celebrated either by the bishop or by someone he authorizes. Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Without the bishop's supervision, no baptisms or love feasts are permitted. On the other hand, whatever he approves pleases God as well. In that way everything you do will be on the safe side and valid. It is well for us to come to our senses at last, while we still have a chance to repent and turn to God. It is a fine thing to acknowledge God and the bishop. He who pays the bishop honor has been honored by God. But he who acts without the bishop's knowledge is in the devil's service."

Contrary to the common Protestant characterization of Church under the verse "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them. (Matthew 18:20)", Ignatius characterizes Church and the validity of its practices by submission to a ruling Bishop (overseer).

Jurgens' compilation then goes to a later writing (The Colbertine Martyrdom of Saint Ignatius, see page 27), likely from the 4th or 5th centuries, which discusses Ignatius' death. Jurgens had already told us that Ignatius died during the reign of Emperor Trajan (likely 110 A.D. also), having been sentenced to the beasts in the arena in Rome, as a martyr. I did not realize the principle of Holy Relics went back so far:

"Only the harder parts of his holy relics were left, and these were conveyed to Antioch and wrapped in linen, as an inestimable treasure left to the holy Church, on account of the grace that was in the holy martyr."

Considering this quote, it has an odd (i.e., foreign to me) sensibility. Grace stays with the body of a holy Christian at their death. If we are both a body and a soul, and if God's grace is with us in life, then why would it evaporate from the body at death? Or, why do we believe that the grace of God that is with us, with what we are, is only with our soul? We do, after all believe that our very-same body will be reunited with our soul. We should expect positive authority before asserting that the grace of God does not inhere in physical matter.

These are my thoughts on Eucharist, Episcopal Authority and Relics, gleaned from an in-print reading of the Fathers.

Monophysite Bread and Wine

[Please read the combox of this post, where I was led to make necessary corrections or qualifications to my comments on Monophysitism.]

Eutychian Monophysitism, condemned at the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), taught that the Lord was in two natures before the incarnational union, but one nature after (see here). I think Reformed Protestants rarely realize our confessional belief that Christ is bodily in Heaven as He is spiritually (see e.g., WCOF, Ch. VIII, Sec. 4). This belief flows from a proper understanding of the hypostatic union against Monophysitism, so it's important to retain!

But I wonder, is the Reformed view of the communion affected with at least a touch of Monophysitism?

The Catholics believe that Christ is fully present in their consecrated elements, both in His body and His Divinity. The Anabaptists taught that Christ's one sacrifice on the cross is memorialized with the Supper, so that neither His body nor His Divinity are made present to the communicant. But the Reformer has somewhat of a hybrid position: worthy participants "really and indeed" receive and feed upon Christ by faith. He is, then, "really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance. (WCOF, Ch. XXIX, Sec. 7)" Contrariwise, the wicked who receive the elements not in faith do not receive the thing signified by the bread and wine, but are still especially guilty for unworthily approaching the Supper (Id., Sec. 8).

Christians daily benefit from Christ's grace. This happens invisibly; we do not receive Christ when He answers our prayers, but we receive His grace. However, in the Supper, Jesus Christ and not only His graces are "really and indeed" present and received. But if Christ is indivisibly and eternally Incarnate, joined by the hypostatic union, it seems an improper speculation to state the we receive Him in only one nature. Even entering Heaven Christ retained the union of His natures. Why would He only dole out one nature for the benefit of His Church?

Further, I sense an illogic in the notion that those without faith receive nothing, and yet still eat and drink to their own damnation (Id.). This received-in-faith-only view of the communion seems to do great violence to 1 Cor. 11:29: "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. " There is no spiritual presence to cause harm to the unbeliever, since that presence only exists for the faithful. There is no bodily presence, of course, under the Reformed view. There is nothing left, then, that should not be consumed by the unbeliever.

Baptismal Regeneration

The title of this post is a dirty phrase in Reformed circles. Quite dirty. We are caught between the claims of our Western Catholic roots (that baptism washes away the guilt of original sin), and those of later Protestant bleachings of sacramentalism (that it is an entrance symbol for believing adults).

A tradition of disbelief in baptismal regeneration kept my wife and me from looking too far into the conservative branches of Anglicanism many years ago, before I could ever entertain Roman Catholic claims.

The Reformed view teaches that baptism is a type of entrance rite into the Visible Church, and that it is a real means of some grace, but that it does not effect a forgiveness of original sin nor guarantee membership in the church invisible on the part of the infant. Therefore, if a child dies before the age of determination (of faith), their state of salvation is known only to God in his divine and sovereign decree of election. Here, for me, is the rub. At the loss of a child in utero, I was starkly faced with this idea that the salvation or damnation of a child of the kingdom was a horrifying mystery, seemingly random to my pathetic perceptions.

No one in our church or family would tell us that the eternal disposition of our stillborn son was completely indeterminable by man. Stranger still, they would not have been willing to tell us that this child, had he died shortly after baptism, was any more assured of salvation than by his death in the womb. Double election/predestination does not work that way. To posit otherwise is to effectively embrace Baptismal Regeneration (or some effective baptismal regeneration by parental desire, in the case of our stillbirth).

The Gnostic Roots of Heresy

The good blogger at PrincipiumUnitatis keeps pumping me with good reading assignments, this time from his own 'pen'. His thesis is that "each of the heresies faced by the Church in the first
millenarian was in some way a denial of the complete divine-human union of Christ's incarnation." This fairly short piece (14 pages heavily foot-noted) is worth the time invested in reading it, especially for one considering the relationship of Orthodoxy and Catholicism to the proper constitution of Christ's Church.

I mean to point out here though two fairly unrelated points that struck me.

1) Here is one of those Luther quotes that made me deliver a staccato and loud "Hmm." in my throat:

"If the words, "I believe that there is a holy Christian people," had been used in the Children's Creed, all the misery connected with this meaningless and obscure word ("church") might easily have been avoided.... Ecclesia ... should mean the holy Christian people, not only of the days of the apostles, who are long since dead, but to the end of the world...." (Martin Luther, On the Councils and the Church – Part III (1539))

I merely comment that his suggested words were not used because they were in no way meant. "Church" is quite Scriptural, and thanks to the clear and repeated metaphors of a building and a body, is not so obscure a word.

2) Our author shares this comment, "By denying the efficacy of the sacraments, Zwingli was denying that the blood and water that flowed from Christ's side are our source of salvation. (That blood and water continues to flow from the side of Christ's Body, the Church, in the sacraments; these are the 'rib' by which the Father is making a Bride for His Son.)"

The parenthetical portion is most profound, in my opinion. I won't comment on it, because I have not had time to process its implications fully. I merely post it here because it was one of two profound, eye-opening moments I've had since the start of summer.

Revivalism's Infection: Grapejuice

Robert Latham, an OPC minister, wrote an excellent little book entitled The Lord's Supper, in which he notes the bad habit of serving grape juice in lieu of wine at the sacrament by the same name.

The widespread use of this alternative drink in the Protestant (esp. the PCA) sacrament is telling. Biblical instruction is clear on this point; both the Gospels and an epistle of Paul tell us to use wine. The use of wine in the sacrament is not an inference from scripture, we are directly told that the Lord used wine. Apparently though temperance and revivalism are ready rivals for sola Scriptura's mandates.

I often get in this debate with my fellows in the PCA, and have attended congregational meetings on the subject. The most common objection is that we might offend those with an uncontrolled inclination for the bottle. I note that in scripture Christ's students were offended by His own teaching on the matter, exclaiming, "this is hard teaching, who can accept it? (John 6:60)" Offensive indeed.

Alternatively, I hear that some people are pregnant or for whatever reason would have to pass up on one of the two elements if we used wine. Yet, wine it is to be. Wine is not grapejuice. Wine creates a particular sensation, and grapejuice quite a different one. We are not addressing the difference between Coke and Pepsi, but between a drink that gives a warmth in the chest (as if you can feel the Grace of the Sacrament entering you) and a drink that makes your cheeks pucker and your head want to shake at its tartness. Did Christ choose wine only because it is the same color as blood? Could he have just as easily chosen tomato paste? The distinctives of wine are relevant, and the Biblical teaching is clear. Let the reins of tent revivalism be loosed!

Anointing with Oil

Anointing of the sick was referenced this morning at church. I wonder, what ecumenicity can I find in the subject?

"Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders [(presbuterous)] of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven." James 5:14-15, ESV.

The Catholic view (as I am able to understand it, and briefly stated).
The "Anointing of the Sick" is one of the seven sacraments. It has as its purpose the conferral of a special grace on the Christian experiencing the difficulties inherent in the condition of grave illness or old age. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1527. Only priests (presbyters and bishops) can give it, using oil that has been properly blessed. Catechism, 1530. The special grace of the sacrament has as its effects: (and I paraphrase) uniting the sick person to the passion of Christ; strength, peace and courage to endure sufferings; the forgiveness of sins, if unable to obtain it through Penance; the restoration of health, if it is conducive to the salvation of his soul; and preparation for passing over to eternal life. Catechism, 1532.

The Orthodox view (as I am able to understand it, and briefly stated).
The sacrament of "Anointing of the Sick" reminds us that when we are in pain, Christ is present with us through the presence of his Church. Oil is used as a sign of God's presence, strength and forgiveness. After prayers devoted to healing, the priest anoints the sick body with Holy Oil.

It is not limited to those near death, but to anyone who is sick in mind, body or spirit. The Church celebrates this sacrament for all of its members during Holy Week. Rev. Thomas Fitzgerald, The Sacraments, http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7105.asp.

Some Protestant views (as I am able to understand it, and briefly stated).
None but the Anglicans, to my knowledge, would account the James 5 anointing of oil among the "sacraments". Much of the google-able discussion of this passage analyzes the meaning of "elder", and not the meaning of the anointing with oil.

Presbyterian (PCA):
Whiles miracles described in scripture which validate a speaker's revelation have ceased along with revelation (since the closing of the NT Canon), "[t]he power of God in response to believing prayer to work wonders and to heal the sick cannot be limited (citing James 5:14)." A Pastoral Letter to the churches and members of the PCA, Second General Assembly of the PCA (1975), http://www.pcahistory.org/documents/pastoralletter.html.

Lutheran (LCMS):
"The LCMS does not have an "official position" on anointing with oil in connection for prayers for healing." Some suggest it was medicinal, and like today's medical efforts, should be accompanied by prayer. Others believe it was a symbol of the healing power of the Holy Spirit. As nothing indicates in James that anointing was to be a "means of grace" like the sacraments it is essentially a matter for Christian liberty and conscience. Anointing/Prayers for the Sick, LCMS Website. http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2202.

Baptist:
It was the prayer that was the healing instrument in James 5:14-15. Healing and Faith. http://www.namb.net/site/c.9qKILUOzEpH/b.695711/k.8B8E/Healing_and_Faith.htm.

If anyone has something more concrete from the Southern Baptists or other Baptist denominations, please let me know, but it seems like they take a normative protestant approach: the passage may be about old medicine, it affirms the power of prayer, it is interesting because it references the office of "elder" and it may be dubious to hold that the oil brought about some miracle.

Pentecostal:
"In the Assemblies of God we believe neither the laying on of hands nor anointing with oil is indispensable for healing, for often in Scripture healing takes place without either. But at times the touch of a praying person and the application of oil are an encouragement to faith, and such a practice is enjoined by Scripture." Laying on of Hands and Anointing the Sick with Oil. http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/gendoct_12_sick.cfm. Cf. 16 Fundamental Truths of the Assemblies of God, Number 12 (noting that this healing is one of the four "cardinal" doctrines of the AG).

Others:
Interestingly, the Mormons have an oil anointing practice as well. But I don't have time to think about that.

What is a sacrament?
From Latin, Sacare, meaning "to consecrate".

Catholic - Sacraments are outward signs of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification (Catechismus concil. Trident., n.4, ex S. Aug. "De Catechizandis rudibus").

Episcopal - The Book of Common Prayer (p. 857) defines sacraments as “outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace, given by Christ as sure and certain means by which we receive that grace.”

Reformed -
The sacraments are holy visible signs and seals, appointed of God for this end, that by the use thereof, he may the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the gospel, viz., that he grants us freely the remission of sin, and life eternal, for the sake of that one sacrifice of Christ, accomplished on the cross. Heidelberg Catechism, Question 66.

I welcome input on how I can change this post to better characterize any of these groups' teachings, or can add the teachings of any other group of Christians that I omitted (please give me some references/citations though).

How can we be united in the Faith on this matter? Can we be "one church" when we read James 5:14-15? cf. John 17:11b, "Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one."