Letters to the Editor
FAITH Magazine November-December 2007
OUR SACRAMENTAL VISION
Dear Father Editor
Thank you for the last issue of FAITH. I found Fr Nesbitt’s piece on baptism helpful and quite moving – speaking to mind and heart together.
I did have one or two questions concerning the editorial. On the whole it was impressive and presented a coherent vision of the sacraments.
1. Re “In the sacraments matter and spirit are linked in an effective instrumental union – ‘outward signs of inward grace’ but are never identified with each other.In the sacraments, as in the Incarnation,the natures remain distinct and unconfused yet are truly joined in the
person and work of God the Son.”
I can see the point of this and I think the point is well put in the piece concerning the integration of matter to spirit in a unity where neither absorbs the other – in a sense, this is the structural openness to higher unity that characterises all created things in the Unity-Law. But what about the Eucharist? In Baptism the water is the instrument used for the administration of grace but it still remains water in the administration. However in the Eucharist the bread and wine become fully Christ so the Council of Trent teaches us; they no longer ‘remain’ because now they have been assimilated to the Son of God made Man.
2. Re “...the sacraments as objective acts of God which function ex opere operato, rather than just subjective acts of humanity which yearn for, invoke and somehow evoke the divine. Before the coming of Christ that was precisely the situation with the religious rites of Israel. They were ‘sacramentals’ in the wider sense, but they were not guaranteed as saving actions.”
I do not think that we can say that the rites of Israel were subjective acts of humanity. The Passover, for example, was sanctioned by God. In the end the Passover is a type of the true Passover of Christ’s death and Resurrection and of the Eucharist of Christ. Even for the Israelites it was believed to have a participative function in the act of redemption which saved Israel and made them God’s people: it was an anamnesis in the founding event of Israel which continued to found them ever anew each year.
Now this would not mean that this was a Sacrament in the sense of those of the New Covenant: but it was an action sanctioned by God the Son-to-be-made-man in view of its completion in His Incarnation – it was a Rite in view of the sacraments. In that sense this was not the same as the rites of other religions which are, I agree, subjective acts (but care must be taken here too: these too are under the Unity-Law and will have an aspect of the evocation of the Word, though much subverted by the sowing of tares by the Devil). What is said about the Passover must also apply to the other rites of the Jews: they were more than just human formulations. They were part of what Fr Holloway termed “the evocation of the Word” and had some salvific value but only in terms of their prefiguring and participation in the plenary Economy instituted by Christ in Person.
3. Finally, the editorial rightly emphasises the sacraments as action of Christ but we do need to tease out more the role of the Spirit. It is a common concern of the Church in the West. It would be good if Faith Movementcould contribute to developing our understanding of the role of the Spirit in the sacramental economy.
Yours Faithfully
Fr David Barrett
Via dell' Umiltà
Rome
Dear Father Editor
The recent Faitheditorial on Renewing Our Vision of the Sacramentsi n citing the teaching of “the Latin Father Tertullian” in defence of “the sacredness of matter” was, all things considered, infelicitous. Tertullian was the leading exponent of Montanism and died rejecting communion with the Catholic Church. Indeed, one learns that St Thomas Aquinas referred to him only as hæreticus, Tertullianus nomine, cf. Josef Pieper, Zucht und Mass, in Schriften zur Philosophischen Anthropologie und Ethik: Das Menschenbild der Tugendlehre[=Werke Band 4] (Hamburg 1996) 162.
Pieper goes on to emphasise that the extreme austerity of Tertullian as a Montanist, just like that of the Manichaeans and Cathars, is based on the presupposition that what is material, because it is not spiritual, is actually evil.
Having died in heresy, Tertullian was never venerated as a saint, much less recognised as a doctor of the Church. At best, he is considered an ecclesiastical writer, with a particular importance for having enriched theological Latin with numerous neologisms.
Yours Faithfully
Gerard McKay
Tribunale Apostolico della Rota Roma
Piazza della Cancelleria
Rome
Editorial comment: Tertullian did indeed fall into schism at the end of his life, as most students of theology could confirm. But the phrase we quoted is self-evidently from his Catholic period and it sums up succinctly the orthodox vision of his day. Tertullian is freely quoted in Papal documents for the very reason that he expresses very well the patristic theology. We could have quoted St Irenaeus – who is indeed a saint, martyr and great teacher of the Church – at much greater length to exactly the same effect, but the succinctness of Tertullain’s style serves well to express the thought no matter that the man unfortunately left the communion of the Church at the end of his life. The major point still stands that we could do well to recover the patristic vision of the sacraments updated in the light of contemporary insights.
HELPFUL SEX EDUCATION
Dear Father Editor
Apropos Father Fleming’s article on Sex Education here are three points: