Posted on 06/19/2016 1:22:54 PM PDT by ebb tide
Foreword by Michael J. Matt
It is becoming apparent to this writer that many people, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, are waking to the harsh reality of what Pope Francis is all about. The next step is to help these same good people understand the harsh reality of what the entire Modernist revolution has been about ever since the days of St. Pius X, when popes were still vigorously battling this great ‘synthesis of all heresies’.
The Modernist revolution ‘came out of the closet’, if you will, at the time of the Second Vatican Council, but nowhere was its agenda made more abundantly apparent than in the systematic destruction of the Roman Rite, which took place in the aftermath of Vatican II and with the full blessing of the Spirit of Vatican II.
Once it is understood why Modernists at the ‘heart and bosom’ of the Church attacked the Mass first—because it was the liturgical stronghold, if you will, in which Catholic doctrine had been protected for centuries, and in which even the Latin itself made experimentation and novelty nearly impossible, and which day after day reinforced Catholic ideas so repugnant to Modernist notions of ecumenism, dialogue, universal salvationism, and ultimately the false moral liberty (a mere extension of the Modernists’ crowning achievement of a false religious liberty) on which the rise of abortion, contraception and the destruction of Christian marriage were wholly dependent—then it is easy to understand what’s been going on in the Church for a long time. Quite simply, we are all the victims of a massive Modernist coup d’état, for which our poor, beleaguered pontiff is nothing more than the ultimate poster boy.
The ascendency of Pope Francis to the Chair of St. Peter has always been the endgame of the Modernists—to get one of their own at the very top. Francis did not emerge from a vacuum, and it is unfair to him to suggest otherwise. This has been a long time coming, but, in so many ways, the success of the entire Modernist revolution that he now represents was wholly dependent on the destruction of the Roman Rite, the so-called Tridentine Mass—both from the spiritual as well as the practical perspective.
You don’t like Latin? You prefer vernacular? You enjoy the priest facing the people so you can see his face? Of course, and this is because through no fault of your own, you have been brainwashed by Modernists, causing your understanding of what liturgy is supposed to be to become fatally flawed. You think that liturgy should be all about you, and how it makes you feel, and how you respond to it, rather than about God and the proper worship owed to the Creator. And when it fails to entertain or to make us "feel" something, it becomes irrelevant to us, just as it became irrelevant to millions of fallen-away Catholics since the introduction of the Novus Ordo.
How you and I “feel” about the Mass is really quite irrelevant. In true Luciferian fashion, the point and purpose of the Mass have been inverted. The Modernists knew what they were doing, and superficial abuses such as altar girls and use of the vernacular pale in severity when compared to what they were really all about—the end of the worthy sacrifice that since the beginning of history man knew he owed to God. Thus tables replaced altars, women and guitar strummers diverted attention away from priests, communion rails were razed to make room for ‘gathering spaces’, tabernacles--the holy of holies--were shoved off to the side if not removed from the church altogether, and celebrating the communal meal suplanted God offering God to God on the altar of sacrifice.
The following article penned by an adult convert to Catholicism, goes over some familiar ground where the liturgy is concerned, but if it is read prayerfully and humbly, I’m convinced it will help many formerly brainwashed Catholics to stir themselves to the reality of what’s really happened over the past fifty years and to, Deo Volente, resolve to take measures to reclaim what was viciously stolen from them a long time ago—their birthright, their identity, their liturgical patrimony, their religion, their future, the souls of their own children.
Please God, help us all to see and understand what we have lost, what they have done to your bride and how they have uncrowned You. MJM
In his homily message on January 18, 2016, Pope Francis sharply criticized traditional Catholics, calling them, among other things, Christians who have hearts closed to the surprises of the Holy Spirit and rebels who practice the sin of divination; insults which have already been widely discussed on the internet.
Wishing to lend credence to these accusations, the Pope used the day's scripture readings to illustrate his point, including a particular story about King Saul, which can be found in the book of 1 Kings chapter 15 (Douay Rheims version).
While Francis obviously misinterpreted the passage, the true interpretation, as explained very clearly within the scripture, contains an important message for all Catholics who wish to seek God's truth and God's will during a particularly confusing time in Church history. In my mind, the correct interpretation of the passage helps illustrate why the Traditional Latin Mass (according to the 1962 missal), relegated to the "extraordinary form" so many years ago by the Church hierarchy, is so important, and why it is necessary now perhaps more than ever that it be celebrated and made available on a regular basis to all Catholics.
King Saul, forerunner to Annibale Bugnini--Father of the New Mass? king saul 1In Chapter 15 of 1Kings, God commanded Saul through the prophet Samuel to rise up against the tribe Amalec and destroy both the people and all that belonged to them. He was clearly instructed to neither spare nor covet anything, but rather, to slay "both man and woman, child and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." Saul obeyed the Lord by attacking and overcoming Amalec, but he did not destroy everything as commanded. Rather, he kept the king alive, and gathered up the best of the flocks and herds, garments, and "all that was beautiful." Everything that was "vile and good for nothing", he destroyed.
To add to this rebellion, Saul then further insulted God by sacrificing some of these forbidden treasures to the Lord. When confronted by Samuel, Saul blamed the people, stating they wanted to "spare the best of the sheep and the herds" in order to sacrifice them to the Lord.
Note first of all, that as the scripture specifies that "some" of the spoils were sacrificed, the rest were obviously kept for the enjoyment and further enrichment of Saul. Secondly, the passage does not specify whether or not the people had knowledge regarding God's instructions to Saul, and yet Saul, proving himself to be a hireling rather than a shepherd, attempted to blame them for the incident. Last and most importantly, one must note that Saul offered an inferior religious act, clearly unacceptable to God in an attempt to excuse his disobedience to God's command. Thus the people participated in an act that was abominable to the Lord, quite probably in ignorance, out of faithful obedience to a leader who chose to ignore the sin for the purpose of his own worldly gain. Like the false shepherds who feed themselves instead of the flock (Eze 34:2), like the false shepherds who say "Blessed be the Lord, we are become rich," and spare not the flock (Zec 11:5).
As an adult convert to Catholicism, I was not familiar with the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), and knew nothing about the change imposed upon the faithful with the advent of the Novus Ordo Mass (NOM). The first time my family and I attended the monthly TLM at our (fairly conservative) Novus Ordo parish, I didn't understand a word of Latin (although I very much enjoyed the Gregorian chant, as did my family).
Nonetheless, I was astounded upon reading the English translation of the liturgy. What a difference! How beautiful! This Mass was clearly about a humble, contrite people, all sinners, giving thanks to the God who created them and who loves them so much.
Having read the liturgy, it now seems most plausible that the NOM, so different in tone, has been instrumental in weakening the bond between God and the faithful. This seems logical, as the emphasis placed on the meaning of the Mass has shifted from the great sacrifice of the Lamb of God to a memorial of (the last supper) meal. I believe that this change in emphasis and tone has actually encouraged the faithful to become more dependent on the world, in direct contradiction to Christ's own will which He expressed so eloquently in the gospels, especially in the gospel of St. John, Chapter 17.
How could one even begin to praise the glories of the "Mass of all time?" It begins with Psalm 42, which reminds us of our need for God, and tells of His devotion and intimate care for His people: Although enemies surround us, even though we may face grave peril and persecution in this world, we need not be disturbed; the "light of truth" has brought us here, to the altar of God. And then from Psalm 120: "Our help comes from the Lord who made heaven and earth."
Throughout the Mass it is made abundantly clear that the sacrifice is Jesus Christ Himself, the "spotless host", the "holy sacrifice", the "Victim without blemish." How can we be but humbled by this reminder. We must recall we are unworthy sinners. When the priest asks God to cleanse his heart and lips, to purify him that he may be made worthy to announce the holy gospel, we are again in awe, being reminded of our distinct and undeserved privilege. For many ears have not been opened to receive the message of Christ's peace into their lives.
In addition, within the liturgy of the Mass, we are reminded of the communion of saints whose prayers and intercession help us stand strong in faith during this difficult life, as they once did as well, resisting sin and the desire for worldly pleasures which strengthened them to persevere in times of trial. Even trial that led to martyrdom. And after the sacrifice of the Mass, we are treated to the last gospel reading—the same each Sunday—the glorious treatise by St. John regarding the greatness of God and the wonders of His gift to mankind (Jn 1:1-14):"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...by Him all things were made...In Him was life and the life was the light of men...those who receive Him were given great power to become sons of God, those who believe in His name...And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (as we all genuflect) and we saw His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."
In light of this beautiful, reverent liturgy, the question is simple: How will the faithful, who, by the words of Jesus all sleep while waiting for the return of the bridegroom, come to understand the great glory of God and His promise of eternal life which (at best) we comprehend only dimly, given that our day to day lives occur in this sinful world? We cannot comprehend the promise and stand firm in the faith unless, when we come before the altar of God for the holy sacrifice of the Mass, we are reminded of God's glory, God's sacrifice, our unworthiness, and God's love. This is our greatest strength, our greatest prayer, our greatest grace.
The change of tone in the NOM is indeed substantial. Consider the great miracle of transubstantiation as it occurs in the cannon of the TLM: The priest "humbly prays to the Father through Jesus", asking that He receive and bless these "holy, unspotted sacrifices" which he offers up to God first for the Catholic Church, requesting that He grant her peace (Christ's peace, not as the world gives) to guard, unite, and guide her throughout the world, and then also for the Pope, bishop, and "for all who are orthodox in belief and who profess the Catholic and apostolic faith". In the prayers regarding the sacrifice woven throughout the TLM it is made clear that the sacrifice is offered to atone for the countless sins of the entire body, both living and dead, and it is requested that the sacrifice (described as offered to God out of the gifts He has bestowed upon us) bring honor to the saints and salvation to the Church on earth.
In the NOM, no mention is made regarding the reason for the offering, as if it is unnecessary to beseech God to help and guide His people. The sins of the faithful are mentioned only once, near the beginning with the "I confess", if it is used. The gifts are our offering to God; no humble acknowledgement that everything we have comes from Him. The need to have Jesus, the Victim and Priest atone for our sins is also not mentioned. It is called, in one common version, simply, the "sacrifice of our reconciliation." In the other common version, it is not mentioned at all.
Another very serious problem with the NOM is that it contains erroneous statements; concepts that directly contradict scriptural concepts. Here is an example of four such statements, followed by the scriptural definitions of the concepts:
1. "It is our salvation to give thanks to the Father". St. Paul teaches us that "Our salvation is in Christ Jesus" (2Ti 2:10). It must be worked out with fear and trembling, for God works in us to accomplish it according to His good will (Php 2:12-13).
2. God makes all things holy. Scripture is clear that only some people are (or will become) holy. Of the four examples of the sowing of seed that Jesus teaches in the parable of the sower, only one part brings forth fruit (Mt 13:3-23). The prophet Isaiah speaks of the "sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer" calling them further, "wicked children" and "a false seed" (Is 57:3-5), and Jesus tells the Jews who do not hear or believe in His words that they are not of the seed of Abraham, rather, they are of their father the devil, who is a liar and the father thereof (Jn 8:43-44).
3. God is asked to advance the peace and salvation of all the world. Yet regarding those who would deny Him, Christ warned that He came not to bring peace, but a sword (Mt 10:32). When the heavenly army appeared before the shepherds to announce the birth of Christ, they proclaimed "peace to men of good will" (Lu 2:13-14). Finally, Jesus tells His disciples that the peace He leaves with them is not the peace of the world (Jn 14:27).
4. God gathers a people so that a pure sacrifice may be offered in His name. What does this sentence mean? According to St. Paul, the sacrifice is Jesus Christ. "Holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and made higher than the heavens (Heb 7:26-27). And again, St. Paul proclaims, Jesus Christ appeared for the destruction of sin, by the sacrifice of Himself (Heb 9:26).
This last example shows my first reaction to the statement. However, as the actual text of the Eucharistic Prayer uses the phrase "from the rising of the sun unto its setting", my parish priest pointed out that the mentioned "sacrifice" is actually taken from a prophecy by Malachias:
From the rising of the sun even to the going down, My name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to My name a clean oblation: for My name is great among the Gentiles. (Mal 1:11)
As this passage therefore does prefigure the sacrifice of the Mass with Christ as the Victim, it is unclear how this promise of favor means we are automatically God's chosen people simply by virtue of showing up for Mass, as the phrase in the Eucharistic Prayer would seem to suggest. While this is obviously an important omission, it is especially so in light of the context of Malachias' prophecy. God is angry with the Israelites because they have brought Him an inferior sacrifice; the "rapine, the lame and the sick". They have not brought Him His portion from the best of their flocks, in humble and thankful acknowledgement of His love and great blessing. By the words of the phrase, the congregation may not understand that the mentioned "sacrifice" refers to Christ Jesus. But even if they do, they are not told that they must show their love for God by turning from sin and following His commandments in order to make an acceptable offering.
Finally, there is the change in the wording of the consecration itself, which was originally eat (and drink) all of this. The statement is changed in the NOM to eat (and drink) all of you. Jesus never specified the words "all of you", even though only He and His faithful apostles were celebrating the feast. The effect this new wording could have on the congregation is seriously problematic, as the spirit of humility brought forth in the TLM is replaced by a spirit of entitlement: All should (or may) eat and drink. This is a dangerous concept, for as St. Paul warned, "he who eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation unto himself". This issue of entitlement replacing humility also occurs in the NOM when the priest prays "May we merit to be co-heirs of eternal life." Consider the difference in tone, and the outcome of the TLM version. The priest prays that God might grant the faithful "some share" in the fellowship of the saints--weighing not our merits but granting us pardon. This is scriptural. We are saved by God's grace when we sincerely attempt to live by his commandments. We do not merit our salvation. Overall, the NOM focuses much more attention on communion with the congregation instead of the humble and reverent worship of God. In the NOM, we are the "body of Christ", stated as fact like the Protestants who believe in salvation by a simple statement of belief with no distinction regarding one's current state of grace (and very rarely are the faithful reminded from the pulpit that they must turn from sin).
By now, the NOM has been celebrated in most Catholic Churches for more than 40 years. The faithful still come to worship God. The more devout still believe in the Real Presence. But the meaning of our relationship with God has been obscured by this liturgy. How could this Mass be as pleasing to God as the TLM, and isn't pleasing God the point of our worship? In some of the more "modern" or "liberal" parishes, believers are actually taught to focus on communion with each other instead of the worship of God. When priests (and seemingly, much of the current Church hierarchy) teach the "we are the church" liberation theology, or any form of relativism as pertains to the holy scriptures, they behave in a manner reminiscent of St. Peter's description of the false prophets who would arise within the Church, (2Pet 2:14) "Having eyes full of adultery and sin that ceases not", "alluring unstable souls". All this to promote their own interest in worldly gain. And when this the solemn, holy Mass is turned into a mere meeting of friends, the people are led away from the truth, and the Lord becomes a stumbling block and a rock of offense. They are taught to participate in an inferior sacrifice, perhaps without their knowledge, just like the Israelites participated in the sacrifice instigated by King Saul.
In Salem, Oregon, capitol of one of the most liberal and thus morally destructive states in the union, the TLM is currently available only once per month at 6:45 a.m. at St. Joseph Catholic Church. Despite the early hour, many people attend, even coming from out of town to celebrate this most beautiful and reverent liturgy.
As the Church, under the direction of Pope Paul VI, made the decision to change with the times by imposing the NOM, the resulting man-centered world view adopted by many Catholics has damaged their understanding of how to effect positive change in the secular environment. For many good and sincere Catholics work diligently and tirelessly to fight the evils of the culture of death, the re-definition of marriage and other pertinent issues. Yet without the understanding of relationship with God that comes through the TLM, they are left without proper armor and weapons for fighting the battle.
Many have forgotten that change for good in society can occur only by the power of God when a humble and contrite people--a people willing to reject sin for the love of the commandments of God--offer up prayers and penance. We must remember and believe as absolute truth, that it was God Almighty who parted the Red Sea, who made the walls of Jericho fall down, who gave victory in battle to the lowly many times against tremendous odds, who felled the giant Goliath, and who offers salvation through the precious body and blood of His Son our Lord Jesus Christ. "Our help comes from the Lord, who made heaven and earth".
"Convert us Lord, let us see your face and we shall be saved."This is a fact forgotten by the world in a day when God seems far away. But Catholics above all others need to know and believe and understand. We cannot be like the world because we are to be the light of the world which the darkness cannot comprehend. In order to become what God wants us to be, we need at least the option of attending the Traditional Latin Mass regularly. We need to be reminded of what it really means to be good Christians.
Where does the text say "there was belief" in this sequence of events? It doesn't. (You quoted 11:17, but "the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ" is talking about Peter and the Apostles at Pentecost, not Cornelius. This is clear enough on a close reading of the translation you used; the 1978 NIV is more explicit about referencing the "us" here to Peter and the Apostles: "So if God gave them the save gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. . .") 10:34f quotes Peter's sermon up to verse 43; then in 44 it says that while Peter was talking, the Holy Spirit fell upon Peter's hearers. The key salvific event here is the Holy Spirit coming upon them, which Peter identifies as the baptism of the Holy Spirit in 11:16. "Baptism" does not reduce to water--this is the point I was trying to make. Baptism is most fundamentally a union of the individual Christian with Christ through the Holy Spirit--see Romans 6 again on this. This normally happens at the same time as water baptism, which is why the NT sometimes speaks of baptism or the water of baptism "saving". Cornelius' case simply illustrates that water and Spirit baptism do not necessarily occur at the same time in certain extraordinary cases. But the normal sequence is that illustrated by Jesus' own baptism: water baptism first, then the Spirit descends for spiritual baptism. Jesus' baptism is the role model held up to Christians by Paul, not Cornelius'.
I agree with you (and the Catholic Church agrees) that baptism without repentance and faith is only getting wet. The point I am also making, though, is that repentance and faith are only salvific because of the more central role the Holy Spirit--that is, God Himself in the Third Person of the Trinity--plays in baptism. My human efforts at faith and repentance cannot save me without God's grace, which is poured out by and in the Holy Spirit.
And you are right that genuine faith must bear fruit. However, Luther did introduce a doctrine called Sola fide which some people have taken in that direction, which is why I was refuting that.
Regarding Titus 3:5, I quoted what Paul wrote--how is that taking anything out of context? If you had read the link on baptism of desire I included in my post, you would have seen that it already answers your question about whether a person dying after a car wreck can be saved without water baptism. It sounds like you didn't hear the point I was making on baptism being fundamentally an action of the Holy Spirit. I was not suggesting, and the NT does not teach, that water alone is the salvific agent in baptism. I think we might actually agree on some of that but we are not using the same terminology.
That's "Koine" Greek, not "Kione". I studied both Koine and Classical Greek at the Catholic university I attended. Actually, Roman Catholicism draws heavily from native Greek-speaking theologians called the Greek Fathers, along with Latin-speaking theologians who knew Greek such as St. Augustine and St. Jerome. As for why we spend time in Latin, there are several good reasons for that. One is that Latin was the language of the Roman Empire, and our liturgy preserves the liturgy practiced in the 1st century when Peter and Paul were in Rome and spoke Latin. (We also include a few Greek phrases in our liturgy, for instance when we say the Kyrie.) Another reason we spend time on Latin is because many of the oldest preserved complete NT manuscripts (as well as many of the oldest manuscripts of secular Greek authors such as Homer) are in Latin, not Greek, and often when we do have Greek fragments as counterparts, it turns out the Latin is often closer to the original than some Greek versions. (A parallel case is true of the OT with respect to Greek translations of the OT often being closer to the original than Hebrew versions, due to some peculiarities of the history of the OT Hebrew and Greek traditions.) A third reason is that many of the best ancient and medieval Scriptural commentators and theologians wrote in Latin, which was the dominant language for many centuries.
You did not post the entire verse. I'm not a fan of cutting out part of the verse.
He tells Titus, "He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).
The verse needs to be understood in the context of the passage.
The passage, in context, points towards faith in Him is what saves as noted in 3:7. It is not on the basis of deeds as noted in 3:5.
I agree with you (and the Catholic Church agrees) that baptism without repentance and faith is only getting wet. The point I am also making, though, is that repentance and faith are only salvific because of the more central role the Holy Spirit--that is, God Himself in the Third Person of the Trinity--plays in baptism. My human efforts at faith and repentance cannot save me without God's grace, which is poured out by and in the Holy Spirit.
On this I agree.
And you are right that genuine faith must bear fruit. However, Luther did introduce a doctrine called Sola fide which some people have taken in that direction, which is why I was refuting that.
My understanding has always been that no matter how "good" we are or how many "good deeds" we do those are of no avail without faith in Christ first. I think the point Luther was trying to make is that even those deeds do not save us. They are evidence of our salvation. Ephesians 2:8-9 makes this clear: For by grace you have been saved through faith; and not that of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not as a result of works so that none may boast.
It sounds like you didn't hear the point I was making on baptism being fundamentally an action of the Holy Spirit. I was not suggesting, and the NT does not teach, that water alone is the salvific agent in baptism. I think we might actually agree on some of that but we are not using the same terminology.
I agree the Holy Spirit moves one to salvation.
The normal order of how one comes to Christ:
Hear or read the Gospel message.
Believe the message...not just intellectualize it.
The Holy Spirit falls/enters/comes upon the person.
Baptism.
Fruit is produced.
You may be right....we may be closer on this that we realize.
I'm glad to hear you have studied the Greek. It would seem to put you in a minority in catholicism from what I've seen on this board.
I've rarely seen the ECFs, or Greek Fathers, employ a breakdown of the Greek in their writings. They seem to employ allegory more in their writings that depart from the original intent of the texts. I'm also constantly amazed at how consistently inconsistent the ECFs are on the various issues in catholicism.
My understanding is that the Greek was the universal language of the empire which was a primary contributing factor to the spread of Christianity.(Backgrounds of Early Christianity, Ferguson, Everett, p.617)
Another reason we spend time on Latin is because many of the oldest preserved complete NT manuscripts (as well as many of the oldest manuscripts of secular Greek authors such as Homer) are in Latin, not Greek, and often when we do have Greek fragments as counterparts, it turns out the Latin is often closer to the original than some Greek versions.
The oldest Latin copies of the NT date to 350 AD. These would be the Codices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_Latin_manuscripts
The earliest Greek papyri we have date to ~125. It is P52.
IIRC, I read that we can construct the NT from these papyri.
If you have additional resources on this I would enjoy reading these. Formation of the NT is always an interesting read.
That tangential issue aside, the part of Titus you added to the part I quoted does not change the fact that Paul says, "He saved us through the washing of regeneration of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit," identifying water and Spirit baptism as salvific agents. You say that in context, this phrase "points towards faith in Him is what saves as noted in 3:7," but in fact, here is what 3:7 says: "so that having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life." Paul says, "justified by his grace" here, not "justified by faith"--the word "faith" does not appear anywhere here. (I am not saying faith is not important, by the way, I am simply pointing out that this is not the language Paul uses in this particular passage.) What then is the "grace" he is talking about? If you start back around 3:4 or so and read through to 3:7 in the original Greek--the part you quoted in an earlier post--what emerges is that Paul is using the phrase "saved us with the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit" to describe the means by which God extended the "mercy" mentioned in verse 5--the mercy which Paul contrasts with the "righteous things we had done" immediately preceding in verse 5. It is this "mercy" extended through the "washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit" that Paul goes on to sum up as "this grace" in verse 7. This is a little clearer in the Greek, which reads literally starting back in verse 5:
"not by works in righteousness that practiced we, but according to (κατὰ) his mercy he saved us through (διὰ) the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Spirit Holy, whom he poured richly on us through Jesus Christ the Savior of us, that having been justified by that (ἐκείνου) grace, heirs we should become according to the hope of life eternal."
My point is that in this verse, Paul is identifying "the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit"--that is, water and Spirit baptism (we can infer from the parallel passages where John the Baptist and Jesus use similar terminology)--as the means by which God's grace saved us, and not as a human "work of righteousness". In other words, baptism is not a human "work" for Paul. It is an instrument of God's grace. If you read some of my previous posts in light of this, I hope my meaning will be more clear. I am not denying that Paul also places an emphasis on faith's role in salvation in certain passages. I am simply pointing out that in other passages he places an emphasis on baptism, and that when he does so, he is not identifying it as a human work, but as an instrument of God. God's grace--in the form of the gift of the Holy Spirit--is the ultimate agent of salvation. Baptism is fundamentally an immersion in the Holy Spirit, not in water. The water is used to symbolize the spiritual "washing"--the cleansing of conscience(cf. 1 Peter 3:21)--that the Holy Spirit gives us in baptism. The water used in baptism is merely the "material element" of baptism, as St. Augustine put it. The Catholic Catechism summarizes:
"According to the Apostle Paul, the believer enters through Baptism into communion with Christ's death, is buried with him, and rises with him: 'Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.'(29) The baptized have 'put on Christ.'(30) Through the Holy Spirit, Baptism is a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies. Hence Baptism is a bath of water in which the "imperishable seed" of the Word of God produces its life-giving effect.(31) St. Augustine says of Baptism: "The word is brought to the material element, and it becomes a sacrament.(32)
29 Rom 6:3-4; cf. Col 2:12.
30 Gal 3:27.
31 CE 1 Cor 6:11; 12:13.
32 1 Pet 1:23; cf. Eph 5:26.
33 St. Augustine, In Jo. ev. 80,3:PL 35,1840.
Note the emphasis on "through the Holy Spirit" and the role of "the Word of God" here. The water of baptism is only salvific by virtue of divine action, not as a human work, and not as any property of the water in itself. I think perhaps we have been at odds over this because you were taking my references to the saving role of baptism to be a "justification by works" rather than "by faith". That is not what I was saying; that is not what the Catholic Church teaches. I hope I have cleared that up a bit.
On the sequence of faith in the process of salvation. When I talk about this, I am distinguishing two different aspects of "faith": faith as a gift of the Holy Spirit (from the passage in Ephesians 2:8-9) and faith as a human assent to and cooperation with the Holy Spirit's action. The point I have been trying to make is that the Holy Spirit's action is more fundamental in the process of salvation and that the human assent/cooperation can only come in response to what the Holy Spirit has initiated. This is true by definition if faith is a "gift of God", as the Ephesians passage you quote indicates. Paul similarly mentions faith as one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:9. I am distinguishing this from human cooperation with the Spirit's action. The belief that you mention normally comes before the physical act of immersion in water, I am interpreting passages which refer to that as talking about the human contribution to the baptism process. I hope that makes clearer where we are disagreeing vs. where we are merely using different terminology.
On Greek, etc.: I imagine that in any branch of Christianity, there is a minority who work in the original languages. Fortunately it is not necessary for everyone in the Church to have that gift. However, it is necessary for Scripture scholars to work in the original languages, and Catholic Scripture scholars certainly do. Fr. Mitch Pacwa can quote verses from the NT in Greek off the top of his head without looking it up (and is fluent in 11 other languages). J.R.R. Tolkien, who translated the Book of Jonah for the Jerusalem Bible, knew 35 languages. There are many very knowledgeable Catholics working in the original Biblical languages if you look into it.
On the ECF/Greek Fathers' allegories: Origen gets the most carried away with that (that is one reason he was not canonized by the Catholic Church), but St. John Chrysostom, for example, sticks much closer to the intent of Scripture (and was probably one of the best post-Apostolic exegetes in the first 500 years of the Church, along with St. Augustine and St. Jerome).
On Greek as the universal language of the Roman Empire: Greek became the lingua franca of the Roman upper classes and writers during the Hellenistic period, but Latin was the native language of the Romans (along with a few other related languages spoken on the Italian peninsula), so the lower-class people in Rome spoke Latin, as did the military and government officials when using official documents; and many other people in the Empire were bilingual and used both Greek and Latin, sometimes interchangeably. Some "Greek" manuscripts we have are actually Greek translations of Latin translations of Greek documents! So it was a bit complex. Latin gradually edged out Greek as the common language, and by about the 3rd to 4th century AD, Latin had become the common language, to remain the official language of the military into the 6th century and in widespread military use into the 7th century. Historians are not sure precisely when the Christian liturgy was first translated from Greek into Latin, but it seems to have occurred sometime between the 1st and 3rd century. The earliest description we have outside the NT of the Christian liturgy is from St. Justin Martyr, who was in Rome in the 130s-160s. What he describes there is consistent with what became known as the Latin Rite (the one practiced by the Roman Catholic Church), which has a large number of phrases that are identical with those from Greek-speaking areas (for instance the Antiochene Rite from Syria) when these are translated into Latin.
On Latin manuscripts of the NT: it depends on whether we're talking about fragments and individual books or complete manuscripts, and also whether we're talking about the date that Latin manuscripts were first translated vs. the early copies of the translations we have (two different things). We have Latin fragments from as early as the second century ("Over 10,000 Latin New Testament manuscripts dating from the 2nd to 16th century have been located.": The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts). Also in the second century, Justin Martyr's student Tatian did a Gospel harmony called the Diatessaron which became standard in the Syriac-speaking churches and was also translated into Latin and began circulating in Latin. Various Latin manuscripts from the 2nd to 4th century became known as the Vetus Latina (Old Latin) Bible, which is one of the earliest Bibles: "The "Old Latin" translation of the New Testament, in connection with which one of the Old Testament was executed from the Septuagint, is perhaps the earliest that exists in any language. The Old Syriac alone can rival it in antiquity, and if either may claim the precedence, it is probably the Latin. This version, and afterwards the revision of it by Jerome, was the grand medium through which the Holy Scriptures were known to the Western or Latin churches for more than twelve centuries. It has exercised no small influence on the popular modern versions of Christendom, and it is the great storehouse of theological terms for both Catholic and Protestant Christianity." (Ancient Versions of the New Testament.--there's more at this link on other versions of the Latin Bible that were circulating from the 2nd century on.) St. Jerome began revising the Vetus Latina around 388 A.D., producing what became the standard Latin translation for the next millennium, the Vulgate. The Vulgate remains important for both OT and NT textual criticism: "In translating the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible, Jerome was relatively free in rendering their text into Latin, but it is possible to determine that the oldest surviving complete manuscripts of the Masoretic Text, which date from nearly 600 years after Jerome, nevertheless transmit a consonantal Hebrew text very close to that used by Jerome. . .Damasus had instructed Jerome to be conservative in his revision of the Old Latin Gospels, and it is possible to see Jerome's obedience to this injunction in the preservation in the Vulgate of variant Latin vocabulary for the same Greek terms. . .Given Jerome's conservative methods, and that manuscript evidence from outside Egypt at this early date is very rare; these Vulgate readings have considerable critical interest. More interesting still—because effectively untouched by Jerome —are the Vulgate books of the rest of the New Testament; which demonstrate rather more of supposed "Western" expansions, and otherwise transmit a very early Old Latin text. Most valuable of all from a text-critical perspective is the Vulgate text of the Apocalypse, a book where there is no clear majority text in the surviving Greek witnesses." Vulgate
I am sure I missed something in there I meant to include, but that is quite enough typing for one night/morning!
It is impossible to be saved without the help of the Most Blessed Virgin, because those who are not saved by the justice of God are saved by the intercession of Mary. -St. John Chrysostom
http://www.catholictradition.org/Saints/saintly-quotes23.htm
I would seriously question if he is staying close to the intent of the original intent of Scripture.
There is nothing in the New Testament that remotely hints at our salvation being dependent upon the help of Mary or her intercession.
I've been told too many times on these threads by catholics that "baptism", that is getting wet, is what saves you. Without baptism one is not saved. However, if I understand catholic baptism it is not immersion so is it a legit baptism?
Your position would be in the minority on these threads.
bookmark
How does one come to this point or acquire this?
Again, look at the greater context of not only this passage, but the NT.
It seems like you are avoiding the recognition that the NT was written in Greek as it was the language of commerce among the Empire, especially the East, in order to support the use of Latin over the Greek. Apologies if I am misunderstanding.
First of all, my original point about St. John Chrysostom was that he was an example of an influential Catholic exegete who was a native Greek speaker, which was in response to your claim that Catholics don't study the NT in Greek. If you want to get into Mariology, we are broaching (yet another) new topic. In response to your new point, first, I would encourage you to read St. John's commentaries in the original--for instance, his commentary on the Sermon on the Mount from his Homilies on Matthew--as his work is rather more extensive than the single quote you cite. Second, I will need to track down the original of the quote you give and read it in context to comment on that. I found a passage where St. Alphonsus Ligouri (writing in the 18th century) mentions St. John Chrystotom citing that quote as from Ignatius of Antioch, the third bishop of Antioch and a student of the Apostle John, to whom Jesus said of Mary, "Behold thy Mother." However I am not seeing the original quote in my print version of Ignatius' letters, nor am I readily finding it in online editions (apart from out-of-context quotes like the link where you found it). I would like to see what it actually said and meant in context before commenting on it. Third, for a detailed discussion of what the NT (as well as the OT) says about Mary, I will refer you to Scott Hahn's Hail, Holy Queen and Tim Staples' Behold Your Mother, which will do more justice to the topic than a short post.
On baptism, I cannot comment on other threads here that I have not read. The official Catholic teaching on the topic is found in the Catechism link I included in a previous post. Catholicism regards water baptism as normative for salvation (not because of the water per se but because of the gift of the Holy Spirit's grace that normally occurs during baptism, and because obedience to Christ requires obeying his command to be bapitzed) but also allows for exceptions, as in the case of martyrs who died before baptism (known as baptism of blood). I will also quote the Catholic Encyclopedia on this: "The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood." I will underscore here the key phrase "the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins".
As for baptism and immersion, in Koine Greek "baptism" can mean either "immersion" or "dipping"/"sprinkling"--see for example the characterization of Pharisaic hand-washing practices as "baptism" in Mark 7:3-4a and Luke 11:38. Lidell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon gives the primary definition of βαπτίζω as "to dip" (or "dip, plunge" in the online version of Lidell and Scott, which is apparently an update of the print version I have). The Didache, a first-century Christian document, says: "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.". Similarly, Catholic baptism can be by immersion or by sprinkling/pouring--both are accepted as valid. The idea that baptism exclusively means "immersion" was invented in the 16th century by the Anabaptist movement (ancestral to the Baptists and the Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ).
Regarding your question about how one acquires the washing of rebirth and renewal in the Holy Spirit in Titus 3, one acquires this during the baptism ritual of Christian initiation, which always includes a profession of faith, in both the NT examples of baptism in Acts and in historic Catholic baptism ritual. The roles of faith and baptism in salvation are complementary, not mutually exclusive.
Finally, no, I am not avoiding the recognition that the NT was written in Greek (although one can make a case for Matthew originally being written in Hebrew, as Papias recorded and as James R. Edwards recently argued in his very interesting book The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition). I was giving some reasons why Latin is also important for NT and theological studies. Latin and Greek are not mutually exclusive, either. In the theology program I studied, students had to be able to do research in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Italian, French, and German, so that one could read both the original text and commentaries on the original text by ancient and modern writers. Theologians specializing in certain areas also had to know other relevant languages, such as Aramaic and Coptic, for instance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.