St. Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and Christian Baptism

This is from a sermon delivered by St. Gregory of Nazianzus in Constantinople on January 6, 381. Pretty amazing to still have his words recorded after so many centuries. This message is about the meaning of the sacrament of baptism. 

This is a beautiful summary of the doctrine of the Trinity. Take a moment to contemplate the nature of our great God. “The infinite conjunction of Three Infinite Ones, Each God when considered in Himself. “  

XLI. Besides all this and before all, keep I pray you the good deposit, by which I live and work, and which I desire to have as the companion of my departure; with which I endure all that is so distressful, and despise all delights; the confession of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. This I commit unto you today; with this I will baptize you and make you grow. This I give you to share, and to defend all your life, the One Godhead and Power, found in the Three in Unity, and comprising the Three separately, not unequal, in substances or natures, neither increased nor diminished by superiorities or inferiorities; in every respect equal, in every respect the same; just as the beauty and the greatness of the heavens is one; the infinite conjunction of Three Infinite Ones, Each God when considered in Himself; as the Father so the Son, as the Son so the Holy Ghost; the Three One God when contemplated together; Each Godbecause Consubstantial; One God because of the Monarchia. No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the Splendour of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish Them than I am carried back to the One. When I think of any One of the Three I think of Him as the Whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking of escapes me. I cannot grasp the greatness of That One so as to attribute a greater greatness to the Rest. When I contemplate the Three together, I see but one torch, and cannot divide or measure out the Undivided Light.

The Oration on Holy Baptism.

Preached at Constantinople Jan. 6, 381, being the day following the delivery of that on the Holy Lights.

If a person reads the whole sermon then he or she will see the continuity of doctrine from the time of the early Church to now in the Catholic Church.  Compare this sermon to the summary of the subject of baptism and the Trinity  in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. 

Here is some more explanation of why the Church accepts baptism in the Trinitarian formula even from non Catholic Christian groups. Christian baptism is done in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  Any baptism done with the Trinitarian formula counts as Christian baptism. 

The issue of what to do with converts to Christianity who were baptized in splinter groups was addressed in the Church by Pope Stephen I.  

 "Stephen held that converts who had been baptized by splinter groups did not need re-baptism,...”

- Wikkipedia

Check also the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on St. Pope Stephen I for a more detailed explanation of the issues surrounding his decision. This is the position that became the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church right until our day.  There is an amazing continuity of teachings within the Church. 

St. Augustine also addressed this issue in relation to the Donatist controversy.  He upheld the earlier decision. Here is an excerpt from and article about Christian baptism and why Mormon baptism is no longer accepted for membership in the Catholic Church. 

It has become clear that though Joseph Smith used similar language as other Christian groups, the meaning of the Trinity is quite different. So, since the orthodox trinitarian formula is required for membership in the Catholic Church, Mormons do not really fit the definition. 

That doesn’t mean that Mormons are not welcome to join the Church. They need to straighten out the Trinitarian  theology first, though, and be re baptized.   In the RCIA class, the whole CCC is studied, so Catholic doctrine is made clear to those who wish to join the Church. There were 3 Mormons in my RCIA class. 

Doctrinal errors usually do not invalidate baptismThis explanation becomes even more necessary if one considers that errors of a doctrinal nature have never been considered sufficient to question the validity of the sacrament of Baptism. In fact, already in the middle of the third century Pope Stephen I, opposing the decisions of an African synod in 256 A.D., reaffirmed that the ancient practice of the imposition of hands as a sign of repentance should be maintained, but not the rebaptism of a heretic who enters the Catholic Church. In this way, the name of Christ attains great honour for faith and sanctification because whoever is baptized in the name of Christ, wherever that has taken place, has received the grace of Christ (cf. Denzinger-Hüngermann [DH] 110-111). The same principle was upheld by the Synod of Arles in 314 (cf. DH 123). Well known also is the struggle of St Augustine against the Donatists. The Bishop of Hippo affirms that the validity of the sacrament depends neither on the personal sanctity of the minister nor on his belonging to the Church.

THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF BAPTISM CONFERRED IN THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

Fr Luis Ladaria, S.J.

God is Love - from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

I like the way that this is expressed. “God Himself is an eternal exchange of love.”  God wants mankind to share in that exchange of love.

I like the emphasis that the Catholic Church puts on all of mankind and not just a part of mankind. Sure, all Christians know that not every single individual human being will be willing to receive the love of God offered in Christ.  Many will and do stubbornly reject Christ.

Even so, Jesus came to redeem mankind. That potentially includes every individual. His love is sufficient for the salvation of all, but each one must come individually.

What does a person come to when they receive Christ?  He or she comes to that “eternal exchange of love.”

What a beautiful thought, and what a lovely way to think of the Trinity.



---------------

But St. John goes even further when he affirms that "God is love":⁴⁴ God's very being is love. By sending his only Son and the Spirit of Love in the fullness of time, God has revealed his innermost secret:⁴⁵ God himself is an eternal exchange of love, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he has destined us to share in that exchange.

44.

1 Jn 4:8,16.

45.

Cf. 1 Cor 2:7-16; Eph 3:9-12.

"God Himself is an eternal exchange of love.”

Why Catholic?

I don’t know if any of the guys are Old Life will respond to this, but I can imagine what they will think if they think anything about this short post. 

Maybe they won’t say or think anything!  After all, it’s not all about me. 

I have saved a number of my comments from that blog because it helps me think through some of the issues raised.

You know, there is a lot of tension on the blog, but as I have said a couple of times. At least we are talking and not shooting one another. That is a huge step forward.  

We better get all our disagreeing done down here, because there won’t be any need for it in Heaven. It really will be all about Jesus then. 

The Little Mermaid

Posted January 12, 2016 at 12:39 am | Permalink

Okay, I will address this to everyone if anyone cares to read it. Brother Hart wonders why I joined the Catholic Church. 

It’s pretty simple. I couldn’t defend Protestant ecclesiology anymore. John 17 and Ephesians 4 and 5 contradict the harem “thing” that Protestantism has going on. That is, Christ has one Bride, not many. 

I couldn’t ignore the “onsies” of Ephesians 4 anymore or Jesus ‘ High Priestly prayer, either. Then there were all those little leftover Bible passages that no Protestant interpreter I ever heard knew what to do with – like “upon this rock I will build my Church.” 

So, it was Scripture. Believe it or don’t. 

There is more to it, but that is what it boils down to. There are more Scriptures than that as well, but those are the ones that I could no longer ignore or explain away. 

I have said many times how much I appreciate all the Protestant Bible teachers and preachers I have sat under. I have nothing but gratitude in my heart for those who shared Christ with me. 

I just had to go home.

You don’t know what you got ‘till it’s gone... One more dedicated to TVD

S:
Everyone provokes the other here, which isn’t unual in the reformed blogosphere. (I was just reading some older comments at greenbaggins and sure enough dersion was directed( and approvingly so) at the “Romanists” who comment there too.)>>>>>


See, S, I am doing a bit of penance here. I used to be anti Catholic. I am not proud of that.

I used to be on the side - more or less - of the Reformed people - men and women. I have had a great respect for them, especially because of some in my family who are Reformed and have done a great job of raising their children.

I don’t know what to think of this underlying anti Catholicism that is still so ingrained. I am seeing it from the other side, now. It didn’t seem like that big a deal before. How things change.

I have always had Catholic friends, too, so it wasn’t some personal anti Catholic “thing.”  It’s just built into Protestantism. Maybe it cuts both ways. Maybe after 500 years we can change?

It seems the Lord would want us to.

At least we are not taking up arms against one another anymore. That is a huge deal.

So, thank you, Tom, wherever you are, for all your support here at Old Life. I will never forget that, even though I took your help for granted. Now that it is gone, ... anyway ...

I will look for you at your American Creation blog. I don’t post there ‘cuz I really don’t know much about the history of religious freedom in America. It’s just something we take for granted. Not a good idea in these days we live in where freedom of religion is changed to freedom of worship.

See, the whole St. Thomas Moore thing is a simple epistemology. We all have to trust someone else to tell us what Scripture teaches. We all have the Apostle’s Creed as well as a standard. When someone says that Jesus may have stayed in the grave, just don’t follow that person.

How do we know?  Scripture, Tradition, and the Teaching Magisterium line up on that without fail.

TVD challenged Brother Hart

D. G. Hart
Posted January 6, 2016 at 10:20 am | Permalink
K, I didn’t ban vd, t. He is free to comment. >>>>

What you did, Brother Hart, was put him in the middle of the class with a dunce hat on. The kids can’t talk to him, but all are free to talk about him.

What are you afraid of?  If I remember right, your only responses to him had to do with his hair, his music - which is outstanding - and your dirty little trick played with his name. Oh, and you started the whole “butch” thing. Remember?

So, IOW, you have no arguments to refute anything he said. That seems to have frustrated him. He seems to have expected better of you. He seemed to think you would be a more worthy opponent. He seemed to try to get you to engage. You don’t seem to be able to. Why is that?

You sit in your ivory tower and throw comment bombs at everyone you think is beneath you.

You never really enter the discussion.

You could start right now by explaining where the OPC fits in the “onsies” of Ephesians 4.

More about Tom VanDyke - TVD

See, I read your comments about Tom, and I wonder. You don’t know him, yet you judge him.

Whatever his personal faith is, he seems 100% committed. Just because he refused to talk about his personal beliefs doesn’t mean he doesn’t have them. That is a fallacious line of argumentation. You really don’t know.

I don’t detect  nominalism at all.

I don’t detect agnosticism at all.

I don’t detect a desire to argue just for the sake of arguing at all. Every word he said has a point. No one refuted him, ever. Brother Hart did all he could to slime him. Why is that? Maybe he exposed Brother Hart for what he is.

Brother Hart, for all his knowledge, does not make well thought out arguments - ever.

What do I suspect about Brother Hart?  Well,  I would say he is nihilistic. He mocks everyone’s faith all the time. Nothing in this world is real or has meaning for him. Is it possible for a person to be a Christian nihilist?

I think that Tom has his number. That is why Dr. Hart feels threatened by him. Besides, Tom was the only really interesting thing going on here. Without him, y’all can get back to your regularly scheduled, dreadfully boring disagreements with one another - because that is what Protestants do. If it’s not with the Papists, it is with the Pietists. If it’s not with the Pietists, it’s with the Arminians. If it’s not with the Arminians, it’s with the neo-Calvinists  and the Charismatics and the Episcopalians and the list goes on and on.

So, who are the ones who like to pick fights again? Not Tom. He tried to intervene when y’all got nasty. It worked sometimes.

I think Brother Hart didn’t like it that everyone wanted to talk to Tom and not him.

ni·hil·ism
ˈnīəˌlizəm,ˈnēəˌlizəm/Submit
noun
the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.
synonyms: skepticism, negativity, cynicism, pessimism; More
PHILOSOPHY
extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence.

Homage to TVD - Tom Van Dyke

Z

Posted January 4, 2016 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

Robert, bingo. Like I always said, he was the religious version of the swinging bachelor telling all the marrieds how to do marriage. You’d think a married guy would get that. But he’s also a good example of cultural Christianity–religion is really only useful to build the polis, which should give the resident converts some pause about who’s in their corner, as well as the worldviewers (since he was so enamored with how Calvinism allegedly made America).>>>>>

Well, you know, maybe he saw how empty Calvinism really is and didn’t like the underlying anti Catholic bigotry that drives it. 

I am shocked myself. If I had been here as an impartial observer, seeing how the Catholics handle themselves with grace and kindness - and I’m a new Catholic, so don’t think I’m talking about myself - I probably would have sided with anyone but the Calvinists. 

I am a recovering Protestant who was very interested in the WCF and the Doctrines of Grace for a long time - the TULIP. I  accepted  the Doctrines of Grace as the Gospel, but it really is a dead end. It is close, but not quite true. It promises assurance, but cannot deliver. No one can ever be sincere enough. There is always a fear that maybe my assurance is a false assurance. 

Besides, Tom is the only one who stood up to Brother Hart’s bullying.  Tom is the only one who called you guys on your mistreatment of the Nice Catholic Ladies - especially Susan, and me as well. He even got called names by one of your Reformed women. How can that be?

You really should not be taken seriously, you know. 

All that focus on the sins of the Catholic Church, and brushing off your own abusive tendencies as if they were nothing is not really a good sign. 

So, I am sorry to see Tom treated the way he has been. Yes, I understand your frustration, but maybe not in the way you guys do. You get angry when someone will not bow the knee to you. Tom never bowed, never submitted, never gave in to your bullying. He has more integrity than anyone here - except Susan who is a model of Christian kindness. Well, Kevin, too. Oh, and CvD is outstanding. So was the guy from Texas. I hope I didn’t forget any of the Catholics. Well, Dan is a great guy as well. Me, sometimes, but not so much. 

And, you know, Brother Hart, why you did what you did with his initials. It was a dirty trick. You are not kidding me. 

I do appreciate some who commented, but in general, I’d say you guys are the ones who need to grow up. 

More of my Testimony

We are kindred spirits:)
I always felt a nagging difficulty about the Westminster Assembly being a divine council.
I was a nondenominational Calvary chapelite when I was listening to Rich Mullins and those words ” it is the very truth of God and not the invention of any man” cut me to the core.
Lets reminisce together;)

https://youtu.be/9LR2hFP1yb4>>>>>

Well, this is restful for the Lord’s Day. :-)

Our assurance is grounded in Christ. There is salvation in no other. He gives Himself to us.

“...the Eucharist contains Jesus Christ in the fullness of his divinity and the completeness of his humanity.”
-Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

I am not sure, but I don’t ever remember as a Protestant being hungry for the body and blood of Christ. Sure, I liked taking communion as we did every Sunday. It was special, but not the same.

Mullins never quite made it into the Church, but he does show how a Protestant can appreciate Catholicism without being hostile to her. He sure seemed to be drawn. It’s funny. If we discuss theology, we get all whatever. However, if we sing together and listen to the same songs and same hymns, somehow that is a kind of expression of our underlying unity.

Protestants even sing Faith of Our Fathers with gusto. A Lutheran wrote the Mass in b minor - easily the greatest musical work ever written. What does that say to us?

I look back over my life and see signs I hadn’t noticed before. I had always wondered why, when I was a child I held a rosary in my hand and prayed, “Since you gave Yourself for me, I give myself to you.”

On a Christmas Day, it was. My family did not go to church at all. We certainly were not Catholic. My grandmother was Lutheran. Our family was made up more of skeptics and atheists - yes, real atheists. That’s another story for another day, but I wonder.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Fr. Matthew McGinness reports that by September 1997, Mullins had finally made up his mind: He was going to be received into the Catholic Church. With his busy tour schedule he had a hard time meeting up with his priest-friend. But on Thursday, September 18, Rich phoned Fr. McGinness. “This may sound strange, but I have to receive the body and blood of Christ.” The two planned to meet the following Sunday.

On Friday, September 19, on his return to Wichita, Rich Mullins and fellow Kid Brother Mitch McVicker were involved in a car accident. Their jeep flipped and both men were thrown from the vehicle. A trailing rig swerved to miss the jeep and hit Rich. He died at age forty-one.

The conversion would never be “official” but Rich was, at least, an asymptotic Catholic. He kept approaching the culmination of his journey but never quite made it to the end”at least not in this life.”

http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/03/rich-mullins-asymptotic-catholic

One more on the canon of Scripture

I use the name “The Little Mermaid” because the owner of Old Life started calling me Mermaid and telling me I was all wet. He calls me naive and ignorant. He is pretty insulting. That’s okay. That’s his bad, not mine.

So, I thought I’d just go with it. I like the Little Mermaid. What’s wrong with mermaids?

The Little Mermaid

Posted December 28, 2015 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

J:
The list I provided earlier shows that the deuterocanonicals were not unanimously accepted, nor was there a defined canon. Luther did not “remove.” He chose the more likely correct canon from several offered ones.>>>>

Several points.:

1. It is fascinating for me to study the history of the Protestant canon. Well, maybe study is too strong a word. It is more like taking a fresh look at how Protestantism developed its canon and what happened to those books, anyway? 

2. Luther did do some removal. He removed the deuterocanonical books from their normal place in the Vulgate and put them in the back of his Bible bus. He made it clear that they were good books, but not inspired. 

3. He did something similar with his Antilegomina – which is not the same Antilegomina that contained contested books during the time of the early Church. What was the issue being debated at that time? Whether or not they contained apostolic teaching. That is, were they written by apostles or did the apostles approve of their teachings. Luther questioned the canonicity of 4 of those books – Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. 

Wikkipedia’s entries on the subject seem to be uncontested for the most part. Anyone can Google it and see which books were contested in the early Church and why. Here is part of the entry for Luther’s canon. I won’t link to it, because this format gets kind of weird when it comes to links. 

He also wanted to include the whole book of Esther in his “Apocrypha”, but lost on that score. 

3. The Vulgate was the translation into Latin of the Septuagint. That was the only Bible being offered on a large scale. Anyone studying theology had to do so from the Vulgate. There were translations of the Bible into vernacular languages as well, but the Vulgate was the standard, authorized text. 

For example. The standard Protestant translation of the Bible into Spanish was not the first Spanish translation of the Bible into Spanish. There was already a Catholic version when Reina and his team began their work. The Catholic Church was also doing a translation into German. Luther talks about it in his intro. to his own translation. His criticism of their translation is pretty colorful, shall we say. 

His translation was superior because he was superior. Luther had a very high view of his own abilities, and in large part, he was justified in thinking highly of his own natural abilities. No one denies the fact that he was indeed very clever. He was also a doctor of theology and had been a professor for what was it? 30 years before he nailed his thesis to the church door. He was confident in his own knowledge and one can hardly blame him, really. That did not make him right, but he was sure. 

4. He chose his own canon based on his own conscience and his own theology. Read his intros to his translation as well as his intros to the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation to see exactly what process he was following. He expected everyone to make up his or her own mind on the subject, even. 

5. Now, I have mentioned it several times, but can anyone answer why the KJV and then other Protestant versions do not have the “Apocrypha” even in the back of the Bible bus? Where did they go? They were in Luther’s Bible. In fact, they were in the first KJV Bibles. Who removed them? They were removed. The answer may surprise you. 

Not sure what to do with the WCF stuff

For now I will leave the WCF posts up and the links to Reformed theology resources.

See, the Reformers and their descendants did not jettison all of Christianity when they left the Catholic Church.

Well, it can be argued that Luther was forced out and that he really didn’t want to be. He wanted to bring about necessary change, but he did not set out to establish his own religion.

Calvin, though, left under his own steam. He very definitely wanted to set up his own religion and call it catholic. He wrote his institutes of the Christian religion and his commentaries and all his writings as a kind of teaching magisterium for his new church. He believed he was the true catholic. He believed that the Church of his day was apostate.

All Reformed groups have believed that since his time. They believe themselves to be the true church and everyone else is measured by their Reformed rules of faith and practice. No, not the only  church, but the only church that really represents the Gospel as it should be preached.

No, they don’t say they are the only Christians.  They do believe their standards to be the closest to the truth.

The biggest problem with the Reformed Churches is that most of them have apostatized.  Most of them have “gone liberal."

Of course, Jesus did say that when He comes, He may not find faith on the earth. Apostasy is the rule in many if not most of the churches in both Europe and No. America. We are living in a time of unbelief in many ways, at least in those two continents. This has affected the Catholic Church as well, of course.

See, in these times, I wonder at the wisdom of trying to paint Catholicism as the Whore of Babylon and the Pope as the antichrist, especially when Protestantism is such a mess.

It seems that all who believe in the truth of the Gospel should join forces against our common enemies. These Reformed guys want to keep fighting a 500 year old battle when the enemy is attacking all of us on other fronts. We are all battling apostasy from within and aggressive atheism and secularism from without and within at times. Why can’t we at least accept the fact that we are all in this together?

Well, I must be patient. It wasn’t that long ago that I was anti Catholic as well. So, the Holy Spirit will do whatever it takes to prove the promises of Christ made to the Church to be true.

He stands behind His promises. Read John 16-18 to see, as well as the Book of Acts.

So, I guess for now I will leave the Reformed information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I decided to take down the information about Reformed theology that I had been studying. Why?  Well, I decided not to go the full on Reformed route after all. Since I am now Catholic, it seems strange to have all the Reformed information on my blog.