The Nicene Creed And The Refutation Of Heresies

We recite the Nicene Creed, which was formulated at the Council of Nicaea (325) and the Council of Constantinople (381), every Sunday at Mass. But do we really take into account all that we are saying? Many people do not know that not only are we professing what we believe, but in the Creed, we are also condemning heretical notions of Christianity. The reason for this is that the Nicene Creed arose out of ancient baptismal interrogations. Before being immersed into water three times, the catechumen was asked if they believed in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. When the fathers of Nicaea wished to condemn Arius, they couldn’t merely have him recite the old formulations, because they were just vague enough to allow for Arianism. So the fathers inserted phrases which would be odious to Arius. They also inserted phrases that would be problematic for other forms of heresy. See below:

We believe in one God, (Against Gnostics)
the Father, the Almighty, (Against Gnostics)
maker of heaven and earth, (Against Gnostics)
and of all that is, seen and unseen. (Against Gnostics)

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,  (Against Gnostics)
eternally begotten of the Father, (Against Arians and Adoptionism)
God from God, Light from Light, (Against Arians)
true God from true God, (Against Arians)
begotten, not made, (Against Arians)
one in Being with the Father. (Against Arians)
Through him all things were made.  (Against Gnostics and Arians)
For us men and for our salvation,
he came down from heaven:  by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. (Against Docetism and Ebionism)

For our sake he was crucified
under Pontius Pilate; he suffered died and was buried. (Against Docetism)
On the third day he rose again
in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father. (Against Modalism)
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end. (Against Modalism)

We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life, (Against the Pneumatomachians [The Spirit Fighters])
who proceeds from the Father  (Against the Pneumatomachians [The Spirit Fighters])

and the Son. (Against the Greeks. Originally against the Arians)
With the Father and the Son (Against the Pneumatomachians [The Spirit Fighters])
he is worshipped and glorified. (Against the Pneumatomachians [The Spirit Fighters])
He has spoken through the Prophets. (Against the Pneumatomachians [The Spirit Fighters])
We believe in one holy
catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one
baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.
Amen.

Book Review: The Old Testament Documents

Length: 239 pages
Size: 5 1/2 x 8 1/4 inches
Binding: paperback
Publisher: IVP Academic (August 2001)
ISBN: 978-0-8308-1975-1
IVP Order Code: 1975

With the wasteland of scholarship that exists in modern biblical studies, it is refreshing to find a scholar who approaches the Old Testament texts as the Word of God. That scholar is Walter C. Kaiser Jr., president emeritus and Colman M. Mockler Distinguished Professor of Old Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Kaiser envisions his The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant? as a companion volume to the classic work by F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?

Kaiser’s book serves as a refreshing introduction to the Old Testament. The books are judged on their own merit and based on their own claims—which are to be the revelation of God given to His people. He lays great importance in discovering what the texts, as they stand, mean to us. The several books are united by virtue of being the Word of God and so they should be read as a unity, each individual book having its place in the wider narrative of salvation history. With this hermeneutic in mind, he brings to light evidence against the tendency to break up individual books (specifically the Pentateuch) into little pieces in hopes of finding supposed sources, such as the Wellhausenian J, E, P, and D.

The greatest treasure of this book is the copious amounts of archeological corroboration Kaiser uses to show that the Old Testament documents are indeed reliable. One such example is of the walls at Jericho, which in the biblical account fell after Joshua led his army around while blowing trumpets. Many modern scholars doubt that this evident ever happened, or at least not as is told in the book of Joshua. Yet, Kaiser explains that the archeological excavations done at Jericho show that the walls fell outward supporting Joshua’s description that the walls “fell down flat” (Josh. 6:20) making it so that every man could charge straight into the city. Also, the mass amounts of grain found in the city support the biblical account of a swift fall of Jericho, rather than a long siege in which the attackers waited for the inhabitants to starve.

Kaiser also talks about the Old Testament Canon and here is where I, as a Catholic, disagree with the eminent Protestant. Kaiser and other Protestants affirm only 39 books of the Old Testament as Canonical (they leave out Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus [also known as Sirach], Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees), whereas Catholics hold that there are 46 books. Kaiser asks the question, “Who…made the decision as to what books were to be included in the canon and what were the criteria that were used?” He answers his question by stating, “The answer we could give is that there is no evidence that any group, council, or any other religious or nonreligious body made such as decision, much less left a clue as to what their criteria were.” This is simply false.

The Christian Canon of the Old Testament was established first in 382 at the Council of Rome which was held under Pope Damasus. Here is what is has to say:

“Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.

The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books (meaning 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings), Paralipomenon two books (1 and 2 Chronicles), Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) one book.

Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book (Baruch is included here), with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee (Hosea) one book, Amos one book, Micheas (Micah) one book, Joel one book, Abdias (Obadiah) one book, Jonas (Jonah) one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias (Zephaniah) one book, Aggeus (Haggai) one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book.

Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books (Ezra and Nehemiah), Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.

Notice that there isn’t any talk of a “second-canon” or “deuterocanonical” books. There was only ONE canon of Sacred Scripture. The seven books that the Protestants reject never had a secondary status! The later councils of Hippo and Carthage (393 and 397) both affirmed the same books as being canonical. Then in 405, Pope Innocent I in his epistle “Consulenti tibi” to Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, enumerates the same books that were listed at Rome, Hippo, and Carthage as being canonical. From here on until 1442 there is no more talk of the canon amongst the Popes or councils of the Church. The Council of Florence in 1442 lists the same as has been listed previously, again with no mention of a second canon. There has always only been ONE canon, and one alone. Then in 1546, at the Council of Trent, the Church reaffirms the list found at Florence in reaction against the Protestants taking out of the seven books mentioned previously. Thus, history witnesses against Kaiser’s claim that “At the Council of Trent (A.D. 1546), the Roman Catholic Church also added as canonical [the seven books]…though always with a secondary or deuterocanonical status.” Although, to Kaiser’s credit, he does not try to invoke the oft used myth that a council of rabbis took place at Jamnia which settled the Hebrew canon in 90 A.D. Instead, he firmly rejects the notion and states that all that took place at Jamnia was a discussion on how to interpret the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon. There was no mention of their canonical status. On top of all that, if Jamnia did settle the Jewish canon, which it did not, why would the Church be bound to accept it? It wouldn’t and any notion that it should is to be rejected as ludicrous.

Canon issues aside, the book on a whole is a great introduction to the Old Testament. Are the texts reliable and relevant? Walter Kaiser is no Marcionite and the answer is a definite “Yes!” I highly recommend this book to all and praise IVP Academic for publishing it. It is books like this that makes Intervarsity Press one of my favorite publishers! Many thanks once again to Heather Mascarello and the good folks at InterVarsity Press who have provided me with a review copy of The Old Testament Documents by Walter Kaiser.

My Greatest Love: A Jew

St. Josemaria Escriva participates in interreligious dialogue.

Two Creation Accounts?

Here is a good summary of the reasons to reject the Documentary Hypothesis concerning Genesis 1-2.

Another point concerning the two names for God found in Gen. 1 and 2, that the author of the article did not mention, is that since Gen. 1 describes a broad view of creation, the generic name for God ("Elohim") is used. Whereas in the more intimate account of creation in Gen. 2 focusing on man, the covenant name for God ("Yahweh") is used, which is entirely fitting.

The Righteousness Of God

“The problem of the proper interpretation of dikaiosyne theou in Romans has been one of the hotly debated issues in New Testament studies over the past generation, but rare is the critic who even considers the possibility of interpreting Paul’s ‘righteousness of God’ language against the background of the LXX. Learned scholars have argued bitterly whether dikaiosyne theou was a technical term in Jewish apocalyptic thought, as attested especially in the Qumran texts, or whether it was a new creation of Paul’s theological genius, without ever observing that the very Old Testament texts quoted by Paul in Romans 3 already introduce the idea of God’s righteousness. This remarkable oversight illustrates the power of hermeneutical conventions in shaping a community’s reading of its canonical texts. The Reformation theme of justification by faith has so obsessed generations of readers (Protestant readers, at least) that they have set Law and gospel in simplistic antithesis, ignoring the internal signs of coherence in Rom. 3:1-26; consequently, they have failed to see that Paul’s argument is primarily an argument about theodicy, not about soteriology. The driving question in Romans is not ‘How can I find a gracious God?’ but ‘How can we trust in this allegedly gracious God if he abandons his promises to Israel?’ Christian caricatures of the Old Testament have made it difficult for belated generations of Gentile readers to grasp Paul’s passion for asserting the continuity of his gospel with the message of the Law and the Prophets. By following the echoes of Psalm 143, however, we can rediscover the scriptural idea of God’s saving justice at the foundation of Paul’s argument in Romans.

That is why Paul insists (Rom. 3:31) that his gospel does not annihilate the Law but establishes it. How so? First of all, Paul’s proclamation presents the righteousness of God not as some unheard-of soteriological novelty but as the manifestation of a truth attested by Scripture from the first. When he says that his message confirms the Law, he refers not to the specific commandments of the Pentateuch but to the witness of Scripture, read as a narrative about God’s gracious election of a people. That is why the Abraham story becomes for Paul the crucial test case. If he can show, as he sets out to do in Romans 4, that the story of Abraham supports his reading of God’s Gentile-embracing grace, then he will have demonstrated, to his own satisfaction at least, the unity of gospel and Law.”

-Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul

Book Review: Ancient Christian Texts- Ambrosiaster's Commentaries On Galations-Philemon

Length: 166 pages
Size: 9.9 x 6.7 x 0.8 inches
Binding: hardcover
Publisher: IVP Academic (September 30, 2009)
ISBN: 978-0-8308-2920-0
IVP Order Code: 2920

There is a problem in contemporary biblical criticism. Some say it began with Baruch Spinoza, while others trace it back even further to William of Ockham. The problem manifests itself in the historical-critical method, which, in the words of Pope Benedict XVI, is a “hermeneutic of suspicion.” It operates on the notion that if certain phenomena are unobservable in our time, then it didn’t exist in antiquity either. This can lead to major problems when it comes to examining the miracles of the New and Old Testaments. They are often explained away as mere pious exaggeration.

Another problem concerning contemporary views of Scripture is the wide chasm between exegesis and theology. This dichotomy is surely of modern invention. When we look back on the great minds of Christianity, we see that this wasn’t always the case. It used to be that the Sacred Page was the soul of theology and Vatican II sought to once again make it so, but like so many other aspects of the Second Vatican Council, it has yet to be fully realized. However, there are a noble few who are working towards implementing this call of Vatican II, both inside and outside of the Church.

One of these few is Thomas Oden and his collaborators in the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (ACCS) series published by InterVarsity Press. This series has served to remind us that the Church Fathers are the locus for the reuniting of exegesis and theology. In the Fathers, exegesis informs theology and theology informs exegesis. More importantly Scripture is read ex corde ecclesiae, from the heart of the Church. In the ACCS series we were introduced to a plethora of Church Fathers, from both East and West, and their line by line commentaries on all of the books of Sacred Scripture (some of which had never before appeared in English). The downside to this format is that you only get little snippets of the Fathers’ commentaries. For those who do not have the means or training to look up the full commentary in the original language, this can leave one burning with a desire for more, yet with no means of which to quench it.

Until now, that is. Oden and Gerald Bray have provided us with the fulfillment of our desire in the form of the Ancient Christian Texts (ACT) series. ACT presents for the first time in English full commentaries by the likes of Ambrosiaster, Origen, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cyril of Alexandria, and many others. The translations are fresh and modern (described as a “thought-for-thought translation”) in order for the reader to take away as much as possible. This philosophy of translation allows the commentaries to be accessible to all. Currently in the series are:

Ambrosiaster’s Commentaries on Galatians--Philemon (hardcover)
Ambrosiaster’s Commentaries on Romans and 1-2 Corinthians (hardcover)
Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Commentary on the Gospel of John (hardcover)
Origen’s Homilies on Numbers (hardcover)

Many thanks to Heather Mascarello and the good folks at InterVarsity Press who have provided me with a review copy of Ambrosiaster’s Commentary on Galatians-Philemon. Ambrosiaster is an enigmatic Father of the Church, the writings of whom were once thought to be those of Ambrose of Milan. This alone gives witness to the importance of his corpus. His exegetical method is practical and pastoral. He also shows a good knowledge of the Jewish laws and Scripture, which is evidenced especially in his commentaries on Galatians and Philippians. Consequently, his knowledge of Judaism led some to falsely believe that he was the Jewish convert, Isaac of Rome. Regardless of his true identity, his Pauline commentaries are of great importance to the history of exegesis, on par with those of Chrysostom.

The Ancient Christian Texts series is to be highly recommended for anyone who is interested in Patristic exegesis. I look forward to reading the titles already published and wait in anticipation of future volumes.

God Is Known By His Works

"Concerning the question: What is God? not one of the masters who have ever been has succeeded in giving an explanation, for it is beyond all thought and intelligence. And yet someone who zealously and diligently seeks for some kind of knowledge of God will attain it, although in a very remote way... This is how some virtuous pagan masters sought him in former times, especially the wise man, Aristotle. He examined the course of nature..., sought passionately and thus found. From nature he deduced that that there must necessarily be a unique monarch, lord over all creatures, and this is what we call God...God's being is such a spiritual substance that mortal eye is unable to contemplate it as it is, but it can be seen in its works. As Saint Paul says: creatures are a mirror reflecting God (Rom 1:20). Let us stop here for a moment...: look above and around you, how immense and lofty is the heaven in its swift course, with what nobility has its Lord adorned it with its seven planets and how decorative it is by reason of its innumerable host of stars! When the sun shines gaily in a cloudless sky during the summer, what fruit, what good things it brings to the earth! How beautifully green are the meadows, how smiling the flowers, how the sweet song of little birds resounds in forest and field, and all the animals that went into hiding during the hard winter now hasten happily outside. How both young and old among men express their joy with the joy that brings such happiness to them. O loving God, if you are so worthy of being loved in your creatures, how beautiful and worthy of being loved you must be in yourself!"

-Blessed Henry Suso, Dominican Life, ch. 50

Ask A Father

Q: St. Justin Martyr, why can’t non-Catholics receive Communion at Mass?

A: “No one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone.”

-First Apology, Chapter 66

On this same theme, see this post.