THE IMPACT AND RELEVANT OF CHRISTMAS ON THE YOUTH
Christmas is a time we remember the fact that Christ became a native of our land. It is a season of joy, peace, and understanding. At Christmas, we celebrate the fact that God became man and dwelt among us. The Christmas season has a structure namely a preparatory period, a feast climax and a denouement. The preparatory period is a time of penance, a time when man prepares his heart for grace. The climax is the time when God gives the fullness of his grace. During the concluding period, we are to turn the lessons of the mystery into practical, Christian modes of conduct. The purpose of this write up is to assess the relevance and impact of Christmas on the youth.
RELEVANCE
The central point of Christmas is the birth of Christ. He who is the long awaited Messiah; true God and true Man, our savior, “Full of grace and truth; and of his fullness we all have received “(John 1: 14, 16).
Christmas is the feast of mercy and love of God. “For God so loved the world as to give His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him may not perish, but may have everlasting life (John 3:16). Such is the importance which God places on our salvation and our eternal happiness.
It is a time when Christ is born into our souls. Our souls become the new crib into which Christ is born. We are, therefore, called upon to put away our old life and embrace the light of Christ so that the life we live, we live no longer for ourselves but for him who has been born for us. The Lord sets up his throne in our hearts and fills us with His life, His grace and his strength so that the life we live is not ours but Christ lives in us ( Galatians 2:20). That is the purpose and gift of Christmas.
Christmas is also a symbol and a pledge of the glorious coming of Christ which all mankind will witness at the end of the world and which each person will experience individually at the moment of his death. At Christmas He appears among us as the heavenly, glorified Christ, in which form He is once to come to judge the living and the dead.
Christmas is a time Christ is born in us for the first time at the moment of our baptism. He is reborn daily and more perfectly in our souls each time every time we receive him in Holy Communion. Therefore, the birth of Christ through the Virgin Mary is a pledge and a guarantee of the reality of his birth in us, a pledge of our incorporation in his divine life. It assures us of the reality of our function as a branch on the vine of divine life and is a pledge of our eventual resurrection to eternal life and the possession of eternal happiness.
IMPACT
One of the impacts of Christmas on the youth is the virtue of humility is teaches us. If God will leave his glorious throne in order to be a native of our land and above all to save us, then it behoves us to imitate his humility. The circumstances surrounding his birth and his ultimate self- giving to humanity is worth reflecting on.
Christmas should remind us of our own dignity; people created in the image and likeness of God. If we were not precious in the sight of God, THE ONLY SON OF GOD will not have come to die for us. This means that we do not live our lives as if we own our life in our hands. Jesus holds the whole world in his hand and he holds you and me in his hands.
Christmas is again, a time when we are reminded of the forgiving power of God. When we sinned, God did not abandon us to our fate but in the fullness of time, he sent his only begotten son born of a woman to die for us. It is a time to be reminded not to give in to despair whenever we sinned otherwise we render the cross of Christ useless. This is the sin against the Holy Spirit according to the Gospel of John.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
the relevance and impact of Christmas on the youth
THE IMPACT AND RELEVANT OF CHRISTMAS ON THE YOUTH
Christmas is a time we remember the fact that Christ became a native of our land. It is a season of joy, peace, and understanding. At Christmas, we celebrate the fact that God became man and dwelt among us. The Christmas season has a structure namely a preparatory period, a feast climax and a denouement. The preparatory period is a time of penance, a time when man prepares his heart for grace. The climax is the time when God gives the fullness of his grace. During the concluding period, we are to turn the lessons of the mystery into practical, Christian modes of conduct. The purpose of this write up is to assess the relevance and impact of Christmas on the youth.
RELEVANCE
The central point of Christmas is the birth of Christ. He who is the long awaited Messiah; true God and true Man, our savior, “Full of grace and truth; and of his fullness we all have received “(John 1: 14, 16).
Christmas is the feast of mercy and love of God. “For God so loved the world as to give His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him may not perish, but may have everlasting life (John 3:16). Such is the importance which God places on our salvation and our eternal happiness.
It is a time when Christ is born into our souls. Our souls become the new crib into which Christ is born. We are, therefore, called upon to put away our old life and embrace the light of Christ so that the life we live, we live no longer for ourselves but for him who has been born for us. The Lord sets up his throne in our hearts and fills us with His life, His grace and his strength so that the life we live is not ours but Christ lives in us ( Galatians 2:20). That is the purpose and gift of Christmas.
Christmas is also a symbol and a pledge of the glorious coming of Christ which all mankind will witness at the end of the world and which each person will experience individually at the moment of his death. At Christmas He appears among us as the heavenly, glorified Christ, in which form He is once to come to judge the living and the dead.
Christmas is a time Christ is born in us for the first time at the moment of our baptism. He is reborn daily and more perfectly in our souls each time every time we receive him in Holy Communion. Therefore, the birth of Christ through the Virgin Mary is a pledge and a guarantee of the reality of his birth in us, a pledge of our incorporation in his divine life. It assures us of the reality of our function as a branch on the vine of divine life and is a pledge of our eventual resurrection to eternal life and the possession of eternal happiness.
IMPACT
One of the impacts of Christmas on the youth is the virtue of humility is teaches us. If God will leave his glorious throne in order to be a native of our land and above all to save us, then it behoves us to imitate his humility. The circumstances surrounding his birth and his ultimate self- giving to humanity is worth reflecting on.
Christmas should remind us of our own dignity; people created in the image and likeness of God. If we were not precious in the sight of God, THE ONLY SON OF GOD will not have come to die for us. This means that we do not live our lives as if we own our life in our hands. Jesus holds the whole world in his hand and he holds you and me in his hands.
Christmas is again, a time when we are reminded of the forgiving power of God. When we sinned, God did not abandon us to our fate but in the fullness of time, he sent his only begotten son born of a woman to die for us. It is a time to be reminded not to give in to despair whenever we sinned otherwise we render the cross of Christ useless. This is the sin against the Holy Spirit according to the Gospel of John.
Christmas is a time we remember the fact that Christ became a native of our land. It is a season of joy, peace, and understanding. At Christmas, we celebrate the fact that God became man and dwelt among us. The Christmas season has a structure namely a preparatory period, a feast climax and a denouement. The preparatory period is a time of penance, a time when man prepares his heart for grace. The climax is the time when God gives the fullness of his grace. During the concluding period, we are to turn the lessons of the mystery into practical, Christian modes of conduct. The purpose of this write up is to assess the relevance and impact of Christmas on the youth.
RELEVANCE
The central point of Christmas is the birth of Christ. He who is the long awaited Messiah; true God and true Man, our savior, “Full of grace and truth; and of his fullness we all have received “(John 1: 14, 16).
Christmas is the feast of mercy and love of God. “For God so loved the world as to give His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him may not perish, but may have everlasting life (John 3:16). Such is the importance which God places on our salvation and our eternal happiness.
It is a time when Christ is born into our souls. Our souls become the new crib into which Christ is born. We are, therefore, called upon to put away our old life and embrace the light of Christ so that the life we live, we live no longer for ourselves but for him who has been born for us. The Lord sets up his throne in our hearts and fills us with His life, His grace and his strength so that the life we live is not ours but Christ lives in us ( Galatians 2:20). That is the purpose and gift of Christmas.
Christmas is also a symbol and a pledge of the glorious coming of Christ which all mankind will witness at the end of the world and which each person will experience individually at the moment of his death. At Christmas He appears among us as the heavenly, glorified Christ, in which form He is once to come to judge the living and the dead.
Christmas is a time Christ is born in us for the first time at the moment of our baptism. He is reborn daily and more perfectly in our souls each time every time we receive him in Holy Communion. Therefore, the birth of Christ through the Virgin Mary is a pledge and a guarantee of the reality of his birth in us, a pledge of our incorporation in his divine life. It assures us of the reality of our function as a branch on the vine of divine life and is a pledge of our eventual resurrection to eternal life and the possession of eternal happiness.
IMPACT
One of the impacts of Christmas on the youth is the virtue of humility is teaches us. If God will leave his glorious throne in order to be a native of our land and above all to save us, then it behoves us to imitate his humility. The circumstances surrounding his birth and his ultimate self- giving to humanity is worth reflecting on.
Christmas should remind us of our own dignity; people created in the image and likeness of God. If we were not precious in the sight of God, THE ONLY SON OF GOD will not have come to die for us. This means that we do not live our lives as if we own our life in our hands. Jesus holds the whole world in his hand and he holds you and me in his hands.
Christmas is again, a time when we are reminded of the forgiving power of God. When we sinned, God did not abandon us to our fate but in the fullness of time, he sent his only begotten son born of a woman to die for us. It is a time to be reminded not to give in to despair whenever we sinned otherwise we render the cross of Christ useless. This is the sin against the Holy Spirit according to the Gospel of John.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
DID MARY HAVE OTHER CHILDREN ASIDE JESUS? AN ARGUMENT FOR THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY
INTRODUCTION
The text from Mark (Mark 3:31-35) has sparked off an ongoing controversy between Catholic and Protestant Scholars. At present, it even divides Catholics among themselves. In principle, we may not expert from this text a proof or a counterproof of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It simply says that Jesus was a ‘brother to James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon’ and that he had sisters among the inhabitants of Nazareth. This essay seeks to react to this assertion by raising arguments to disabuse the minds of people that Mary had Children after the birth of Jesus.
OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER OBJECTIONS
To begin with, those who think that Mary had children after Jesus and so deny the virginal conception raised three objections according to Bishop Osei Bonsu’ Book, Catholic Beliefs and Practice. Their basis is the infancy narratives of Matthew 1:25. “When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the Angel had commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and called his name Jesus” According to those who object to the perpetual virginity of Mary, the use of the word ‘until’ in the text connotes the fact Mary may have had children after Jesus “However, in Greek and in the Semitic languages, such a negation often has no implication at all about what happened after the limit of the ‘until’ was reached. Here Matthew is concerned only with stressing Mary’s virginity before the child’s birth, so that the prophecy of Isaiah will be fulfilled: it is as a virgin that Mary will give birth to her son. These words reiterate the miracle of conception through the Holy Spirit, and do not lend support to the idea of the subsequent virginity of Mary, although they do not absolutely deny it.”
The second objection to Mary’s perpetual virginity is found in the phrase “first born son” as used in Luke 2:7 “ And she ( Mary) gave birth to her first born Son.” “The use of the “first- born” son might be taken to imply that there were other children born to Mary after Jesus. However, the Greek word translated here as “first born” does not necessarily mean “first- born of many. The term “first-born” was a legal term under Mosaic Law (Exodus 6: 14) referring to the first male child born to Jewish parents regardless of whether any other children followed or not. Hence when Jesus is called the” first- born” son of Mary it does not mean that there were second or third- born children. What it says is merely that no child of Mary preceded Jesus and that he was entitled to have all the privileges and status of the first – born in the Mosaic law (cf. Exod. 13:2; Num. 3:12-13;18:15-16, Deut. 21: 15-17. The word ‘first – born’ son is also mentioned in Colossians 1:15. “He is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation”
The third objection and the most serious of all the objections is based on the mention of the brothers and sisters of Jesus in Mark 3:31-35. “Prior to Mark’s Gospel, Paul made two references to ‘the brothers of the Lord’. ‘ Do we not have the right to marry a believing woman like the rest of the Apostles and the brothers of Lord and Cephas? (1 Corinthians 9:5). ‘Three years after that, I went up to Jerusalem to get to know Cephas with whom I stayed fifteen days. I did not meet any other apostles except James the brother of the Lord’. (Galatians 1:18ff).” “In Hebrew and Aramaic (language spoken by Jesus and his followers), there was no specific word for cousin. So the word for brother was sometimes used for brother, cousin or other relatives. But we know, for example, that the James and Joses mentioned in Mark 6:3 as brothers of Jesus were, in fact, the sons of Mary, the wife of Clopas (Matthew 27:56). Since the Gospels also tell us that Mary of Clopas was the blessed Mother’s sister (John 19:25) that means she was Jesus’ aunt and her sons were Jesus’ cousins.” When one searches the scriptures, one will not find Mary identified as the mother of anyone but Jesus. Her perpetual virginity has been taught by the Church from the beginning and has been reaffirmed by the church since time immemorial. For instance, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 499-501, states that “The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’ birth did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it. And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the’ Ever- virgin’ ” “Our belief today is the same as it was in the fifth century when St. Augustine describe the blessed mother as a virgin who conceives, a virgin who gives birth, a virgin with child, a virgin delivered of child- a virgin ever virgin “ Therefore, it can be said that those mentioned as the brothers and sisters of Jesus or half brothers and sisters of Jesus are not his real brothers and sisters. “ …The Greek words that translated “ brothers and sisters” would normally refer to blood brothers and sisters, yet some scholars think that in the New Testament itself there is some evidence that the ‘ brothers’ were not blood brothers of Jesus. Attention is drawn to the crucifixion scene in Mark 15:40 and Matthew 27:50 where there is a reference to one of the women looking on from afar as “Mary, the mother of James the younger and Joses and Salome.” They point out further that the fact that Jesus left His mother in the care of the apostle John (John 19:26-27) rather than with one of His brothers strongly implies that Mary had no other children. While the Greek language had terms for cousins, step brothers, half brothers and so on, according to Bishop Osei- Bonsu, Hebrew and Aramaic did not have exact terminology for a wide range of family relationships. Rather, they reflected a tribal background, where members of the same tribe, clan or family were regarded as brothers and sisters, irrespective of their precise relationship. A case in point is the use of ‘brothers’ in Genesis 13:8 to describe the relationship between Lot and Abraham, even though Lot was the nephew of Abraham. Therefore, against this background, it could be argued that those referred to as the ‘ brothers’ and ‘sisters’ of Jesus are being described according to a loose Semitic tribal terminology and were, actually, more distant relatives and therefore, not children of Mary.
CONCLUSION
Those who advocate that Mary have had children after the birth of Jesus simply are raising argument to deny the perpetual virginity of Mary. At least I am consoled that they did not deny the virginity of Mary entirely. How can a woman remain a virgin after conception and delivery? She is indeed, a maiden yet a mother, daughter of her son. This is where faith defies logic. If this is possible why are they denying her perpetual virginity? There is no biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word. Can logic accept this?
The text from Mark (Mark 3:31-35) has sparked off an ongoing controversy between Catholic and Protestant Scholars. At present, it even divides Catholics among themselves. In principle, we may not expert from this text a proof or a counterproof of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It simply says that Jesus was a ‘brother to James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon’ and that he had sisters among the inhabitants of Nazareth. This essay seeks to react to this assertion by raising arguments to disabuse the minds of people that Mary had Children after the birth of Jesus.
OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER OBJECTIONS
To begin with, those who think that Mary had children after Jesus and so deny the virginal conception raised three objections according to Bishop Osei Bonsu’ Book, Catholic Beliefs and Practice. Their basis is the infancy narratives of Matthew 1:25. “When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the Angel had commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and called his name Jesus” According to those who object to the perpetual virginity of Mary, the use of the word ‘until’ in the text connotes the fact Mary may have had children after Jesus “However, in Greek and in the Semitic languages, such a negation often has no implication at all about what happened after the limit of the ‘until’ was reached. Here Matthew is concerned only with stressing Mary’s virginity before the child’s birth, so that the prophecy of Isaiah will be fulfilled: it is as a virgin that Mary will give birth to her son. These words reiterate the miracle of conception through the Holy Spirit, and do not lend support to the idea of the subsequent virginity of Mary, although they do not absolutely deny it.”
The second objection to Mary’s perpetual virginity is found in the phrase “first born son” as used in Luke 2:7 “ And she ( Mary) gave birth to her first born Son.” “The use of the “first- born” son might be taken to imply that there were other children born to Mary after Jesus. However, the Greek word translated here as “first born” does not necessarily mean “first- born of many. The term “first-born” was a legal term under Mosaic Law (Exodus 6: 14) referring to the first male child born to Jewish parents regardless of whether any other children followed or not. Hence when Jesus is called the” first- born” son of Mary it does not mean that there were second or third- born children. What it says is merely that no child of Mary preceded Jesus and that he was entitled to have all the privileges and status of the first – born in the Mosaic law (cf. Exod. 13:2; Num. 3:12-13;18:15-16, Deut. 21: 15-17. The word ‘first – born’ son is also mentioned in Colossians 1:15. “He is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation”
The third objection and the most serious of all the objections is based on the mention of the brothers and sisters of Jesus in Mark 3:31-35. “Prior to Mark’s Gospel, Paul made two references to ‘the brothers of the Lord’. ‘ Do we not have the right to marry a believing woman like the rest of the Apostles and the brothers of Lord and Cephas? (1 Corinthians 9:5). ‘Three years after that, I went up to Jerusalem to get to know Cephas with whom I stayed fifteen days. I did not meet any other apostles except James the brother of the Lord’. (Galatians 1:18ff).” “In Hebrew and Aramaic (language spoken by Jesus and his followers), there was no specific word for cousin. So the word for brother was sometimes used for brother, cousin or other relatives. But we know, for example, that the James and Joses mentioned in Mark 6:3 as brothers of Jesus were, in fact, the sons of Mary, the wife of Clopas (Matthew 27:56). Since the Gospels also tell us that Mary of Clopas was the blessed Mother’s sister (John 19:25) that means she was Jesus’ aunt and her sons were Jesus’ cousins.” When one searches the scriptures, one will not find Mary identified as the mother of anyone but Jesus. Her perpetual virginity has been taught by the Church from the beginning and has been reaffirmed by the church since time immemorial. For instance, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 499-501, states that “The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’ birth did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it. And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the’ Ever- virgin’ ” “Our belief today is the same as it was in the fifth century when St. Augustine describe the blessed mother as a virgin who conceives, a virgin who gives birth, a virgin with child, a virgin delivered of child- a virgin ever virgin “ Therefore, it can be said that those mentioned as the brothers and sisters of Jesus or half brothers and sisters of Jesus are not his real brothers and sisters. “ …The Greek words that translated “ brothers and sisters” would normally refer to blood brothers and sisters, yet some scholars think that in the New Testament itself there is some evidence that the ‘ brothers’ were not blood brothers of Jesus. Attention is drawn to the crucifixion scene in Mark 15:40 and Matthew 27:50 where there is a reference to one of the women looking on from afar as “Mary, the mother of James the younger and Joses and Salome.” They point out further that the fact that Jesus left His mother in the care of the apostle John (John 19:26-27) rather than with one of His brothers strongly implies that Mary had no other children. While the Greek language had terms for cousins, step brothers, half brothers and so on, according to Bishop Osei- Bonsu, Hebrew and Aramaic did not have exact terminology for a wide range of family relationships. Rather, they reflected a tribal background, where members of the same tribe, clan or family were regarded as brothers and sisters, irrespective of their precise relationship. A case in point is the use of ‘brothers’ in Genesis 13:8 to describe the relationship between Lot and Abraham, even though Lot was the nephew of Abraham. Therefore, against this background, it could be argued that those referred to as the ‘ brothers’ and ‘sisters’ of Jesus are being described according to a loose Semitic tribal terminology and were, actually, more distant relatives and therefore, not children of Mary.
CONCLUSION
Those who advocate that Mary have had children after the birth of Jesus simply are raising argument to deny the perpetual virginity of Mary. At least I am consoled that they did not deny the virginity of Mary entirely. How can a woman remain a virgin after conception and delivery? She is indeed, a maiden yet a mother, daughter of her son. This is where faith defies logic. If this is possible why are they denying her perpetual virginity? There is no biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word. Can logic accept this?
CELIBACY IS ABOUT RELATIONSHIP
Celibacy is not about the will; it is not about getting busy; it is not that you do not have the urge for sex that makes it possible for you to embrace celibacy. If we were animals the above may be true. Man is the combination of body and spirit. Man has the mind to speculate; a sense of conscience; a longing for something greater than that which exists in this world. Above all man has revelation. As human, our urge is not only to have sex but to have a relationship. This is made manifest in the fact that we have been created in the image and likeness of God and God is a relationship (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Celibacy is, therefore, a choice to be able to find relationship for your spirit with God. Thus, just as we will want to satisfy our body needs, celibacy invites us to satisfy the Spiritual needs. That is why even marriage couples can set aside sometime to avoid sex to satisfy their spiritual urge.
Having sex is not what fulfills but having a relationship. That is why even in marriage, a couple can commit adultery in their heart when one sees the other as a sex tool. Celibacy is a matter of the will in relation with God and not just a matter of the will alone. It is this relation with God that can keep you committed to celibacy and not your ‘busyness’. If you don’t have an urge how can you enter into a relationship?
There are three levels of relationships found in the context of the Priesthood and the Eucharist:
• Intimacy
• Appreciation
• Acceptance
The above are mutually exclusive. Christ maintains these three levels of relationship with us namely he is intimate with us; he appreciates us; he accepts us for who we are. In the Eucharist, when we eat God, we become like him and not he like us. For it said that we become what we eat. Indeed, the Eucharist is the only food that when we eat does not die but remains alive. There is only one person who calls us to a lasting relationship, even when we die his relationship with us is intact. God is that person. Therefore, sacrifice is the catchy word in any relationship. It is only by the power of the Holy Spirit that we can be chaste; that we can be celibate. It is our body that express this reality of the Spirit and that is why God chose to dwell in our bodies (the incarnation)
On the physical and emotional level, celibacy is the ability to know oneself as sexual and to experience some considerable comfort with that knowledge. It is the ability to regard oneself as sexual without experiencing neither the internal or external demand to do something about it- neither the need nor demand to act it out. It is the choice not to act out one’s sexuality in a genital or romantic way.
On the level of relationships, celibacy is the ability to cherish and nurture other people’s being and becoming without establishing bonds of mutual emotional dependence with them. It means not to be married, and not to be pursuing the path which naturally leads to marriage. It is the ability to establish warm and deep relationships with others by loving them and by being loved by them in a non-exclusive and non- possessive way. It is a way of loving which allows the celibate person to say. “They and I are better off for our having been together, but no worse off for our parting.”
On a practical level, celibacy is a way of remaining significantly more available to cherish and nurture others’ being and becoming because of the choice not to take on the responsibilities of establishing and maintaining family units.
On the level of social impact, the prophetic level, it is a way of living which seriously challenges the hedonistic tendencies in all of us. It says that an auto is not something to believe in, that you don’t necessarily deserve a break today, and that self- fulfillment is not the ultimate meaning of life.
On the personal level, spiritual level, celibacy is a commitment to stand ready to enter fully and vulnerably into life’s moments of loneliness because God can be found concrete in such moments. It is a commitment to face the reality in our separateness and incompleteness and to allow ourselves to experience, however momentarily, that our own being and becoming is blessed by God and to discover the radical all- sufficiency of God.
But dissected, into its various levels and parts, celibacy cannot be understood, because religious celibacy is a lifestyle which integrates all of these parts and levels in such a way that speaking only of one or the other aspect of this whole will severely distort the meaning of the experience. And yet each level and aspect of it needs to be verified if an individual is truly to live celibacy.
And finally, on the level of Christian faith, celibacy is this lifestyle taken up and lived in response to a call or invitation one has received from God to live as Jesus did. The call to be celibate is a gift from God. Celibacy as a lifestyle has never been upheld as a value by the Church. It is celibacy “For the sake of the kingdom of God” which has always been promoted. It has always presumed that the individual who takes up the celibate life has had an overwhelming experience of God.
In sum, our ministry is a collaborative one. The celibate life is no exception; it must be lived collaboratively otherwise we will cause scandal to our generation; a scandal which will come from the popular notion that “Everybody for himself God for us all”. We must necessarily provide support for one another; a support which is borne out of
Having sex is not what fulfills but having a relationship. That is why even in marriage, a couple can commit adultery in their heart when one sees the other as a sex tool. Celibacy is a matter of the will in relation with God and not just a matter of the will alone. It is this relation with God that can keep you committed to celibacy and not your ‘busyness’. If you don’t have an urge how can you enter into a relationship?
There are three levels of relationships found in the context of the Priesthood and the Eucharist:
• Intimacy
• Appreciation
• Acceptance
The above are mutually exclusive. Christ maintains these three levels of relationship with us namely he is intimate with us; he appreciates us; he accepts us for who we are. In the Eucharist, when we eat God, we become like him and not he like us. For it said that we become what we eat. Indeed, the Eucharist is the only food that when we eat does not die but remains alive. There is only one person who calls us to a lasting relationship, even when we die his relationship with us is intact. God is that person. Therefore, sacrifice is the catchy word in any relationship. It is only by the power of the Holy Spirit that we can be chaste; that we can be celibate. It is our body that express this reality of the Spirit and that is why God chose to dwell in our bodies (the incarnation)
On the physical and emotional level, celibacy is the ability to know oneself as sexual and to experience some considerable comfort with that knowledge. It is the ability to regard oneself as sexual without experiencing neither the internal or external demand to do something about it- neither the need nor demand to act it out. It is the choice not to act out one’s sexuality in a genital or romantic way.
On the level of relationships, celibacy is the ability to cherish and nurture other people’s being and becoming without establishing bonds of mutual emotional dependence with them. It means not to be married, and not to be pursuing the path which naturally leads to marriage. It is the ability to establish warm and deep relationships with others by loving them and by being loved by them in a non-exclusive and non- possessive way. It is a way of loving which allows the celibate person to say. “They and I are better off for our having been together, but no worse off for our parting.”
On a practical level, celibacy is a way of remaining significantly more available to cherish and nurture others’ being and becoming because of the choice not to take on the responsibilities of establishing and maintaining family units.
On the level of social impact, the prophetic level, it is a way of living which seriously challenges the hedonistic tendencies in all of us. It says that an auto is not something to believe in, that you don’t necessarily deserve a break today, and that self- fulfillment is not the ultimate meaning of life.
On the personal level, spiritual level, celibacy is a commitment to stand ready to enter fully and vulnerably into life’s moments of loneliness because God can be found concrete in such moments. It is a commitment to face the reality in our separateness and incompleteness and to allow ourselves to experience, however momentarily, that our own being and becoming is blessed by God and to discover the radical all- sufficiency of God.
But dissected, into its various levels and parts, celibacy cannot be understood, because religious celibacy is a lifestyle which integrates all of these parts and levels in such a way that speaking only of one or the other aspect of this whole will severely distort the meaning of the experience. And yet each level and aspect of it needs to be verified if an individual is truly to live celibacy.
And finally, on the level of Christian faith, celibacy is this lifestyle taken up and lived in response to a call or invitation one has received from God to live as Jesus did. The call to be celibate is a gift from God. Celibacy as a lifestyle has never been upheld as a value by the Church. It is celibacy “For the sake of the kingdom of God” which has always been promoted. It has always presumed that the individual who takes up the celibate life has had an overwhelming experience of God.
In sum, our ministry is a collaborative one. The celibate life is no exception; it must be lived collaboratively otherwise we will cause scandal to our generation; a scandal which will come from the popular notion that “Everybody for himself God for us all”. We must necessarily provide support for one another; a support which is borne out of
Friday, November 20, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
SOME QUOTES
1. One does not speak of God to people who have entered life’s moments of intimacy fully and vulnerably any more than one speaks of God to those who have entered fully and vulnerably into life’s moments of loneliness. Words intended to inform about who God is or how he is present in our lives are useless and unnecessary when people have found God concrete.
2. Nothing is totally incompatible with Christianity as doing something selfish.
3. True human intimacy is the fusion of personalities that still leaves all personalities intact
4. Mysteries don’t develop but the words used to express those mysteries in doctrinal or dogmatic statements do.
5. If we will look at our lives and recognize that the limitations resulting from our choices and commitments have also opened the possibility of greater depth and if we will pursue that possibility instead of lamenting the limitations, resentment can turn to gratitude.
6. None of us could do what we do for others without being committed to the life we have chosen. Marriage has never worked; the priesthood has never worked. It has only worked for those who have been committed to making it work.
7. Making sense out of our life is something we do with our intellectual powers; committing ourselves to a way of life is something we do with our will.
2. Nothing is totally incompatible with Christianity as doing something selfish.
3. True human intimacy is the fusion of personalities that still leaves all personalities intact
4. Mysteries don’t develop but the words used to express those mysteries in doctrinal or dogmatic statements do.
5. If we will look at our lives and recognize that the limitations resulting from our choices and commitments have also opened the possibility of greater depth and if we will pursue that possibility instead of lamenting the limitations, resentment can turn to gratitude.
6. None of us could do what we do for others without being committed to the life we have chosen. Marriage has never worked; the priesthood has never worked. It has only worked for those who have been committed to making it work.
7. Making sense out of our life is something we do with our intellectual powers; committing ourselves to a way of life is something we do with our will.
IS LAW DIVORCED FROM RELIGION IN THE PROMOTION OF RECONCILIATION, JUSTICE AND PEACE
To say that law and religion are divorced from each other in the life of any society is an understatement. “When prevailing concepts of law and religion become too narrow and hence the links between the two are broken, a society becomes demoralized.”[i] The concept of law and religion is broad. This essay will thus relate it as much as possible to the Ghanaian society especially in our fifty years of independence. How has the interaction of law and religion benefit Ghana as a nation? What values have religion imparted to the Ghanaian as regards respect for the law. Let us define terms and advance reasons to support the view that law and religion are distinctly inseparable; they are a necessary condition for the progress of every nation and that taken individually, they do not stand a fair chance of imparting moral values to the citizens of any nation. St. Thomas Aquinas’ Theory of Law is going to be my point of reference.
To begin with, the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles defined law “As a rule of conduct imposed by a secular authority. The body of rules whether formally enacted or customary, which a particular state or community recognizes as governing the actions of its subjects or members and which it may enforce by imposing penalties.[ii] “The definition of law is based on the notion of the common good, promulgated by one who has the care of the community”[iii] Religion on the other hand comes from the Latin ‘Religare’ meaning ‘ bind fast’. “It is belief in or sensing superhuman controlling powers entitled to obedience, reverence and worship or a system defining a code of living especially as a means to achieve a spiritual or material improvement.”
For St. Thomas Aquinas, there are four kinds of law: the Eternal Law, the Natural Law, Divine Law and Positive Human Law. “The Divine law is the law God has revealed imperfectly to the Jews and perfectly through Christ”[iv] while the law of the state is called positive human law. Therefore, it is the duty of the legislator to apply natural law and support the laws by sanctions. For instance, murder is forbidden by natural law but there are no sanctions attached to it and so the positive human laws are enacted to apply sanctions and make it effective. It follows that positive human law is derived from the natural law and every human law is a true law only as far as it is derived from natural law. It is clear from the above that the foundation of any human law is God himself and so where law and religion appear to contradict in principle, then, it has no chance of imparting values to any citizen.
Ghana seems to be enjoying a meaningful interaction of law and religion in the past fifty years. But one cannot deny the fact that “Our whole culture seems to be experiencing a nervous breakdown.” One major symptom of this threatening breakdown is the massive loss of confidence in law not only on the part of law consumers (citizens) but also on the part of the legislature and the judiciary. A second major challenge is a massive loss of confidence in religion again, not only on the part of those who sit in the pews but also on the part of those who occupy the pulpits. A case in point is the recent call by some Ghanaians for the legalization of prostitution as a means to raising tax for the development of the nation, controlling HIV/ AIDS and people’s behavior. All these are laced in the context of human rights. “It is their right” some say but the advocates of this stand forget that when it is passed, it can lead to the disintegration of the moral fibre of society. This is where law and religion must work concurrently. Religion is fundamental to every human being. Karl Marx says, “it is the opium of the Masses” while J. S. Mbiti says Africans and for that matter Ghanaians are notoriously religious. Today, in Ghana, criminals are walking on the streets freely while innocent people are languishing in prison because religious lawyers and judges have developed blind spots to the sufferings of innocent people. The law which is meant for the common Good has become the preserve of a few. Thus law and religion seem to be divorced from each other. The blame may partly go to both the law schools and the schools of theology, which share a responsibility for the narrowness, and rigidity of our thought on this matter.
If we see law in dictionary terms as a structure or body of rules laid down by political authority and similarly we see religion as a system of beliefs and practices relating to the supernatural, the two seem connected with each other only very distantly or in only a few rather narrow and specific respects. Nevertheless, in reality, both law and religion are interconnected, interdependent and indivisible. “Law is not only a body of rules, it is people legislating, adjudicating, administering, negotiating – it is a living process of allocating rights and responsibilities and thereby resolving conflicts and creating channels of cooperation. Religion is not only a set of doctrines and exercises; it is people manifesting a collective concern for the ultimate and purpose of life. It is a shared intuition of a commitment to transcendent values.”[v]
Law is to give religion its social dimension and religion is to give the law its spirit and direction as well as the sanctity it needs to command respect. Where they are divorced from each other, law tends to degenerate into mere rules to be followed and religion into mere observance of religious rules. “LAW helps to give society the structure it needs to maintain inner cohesion; law fights anarchy. Religion helps to give society the faith it needs to face the future; religion fights against decadence”[vi] The 1992 constitution of Ghana amply demonstrates that law and religion cannot and must not be separated from each other. In the introductory paragraph, there is a portion which reads “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA IN THE NAME OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD…”[vii] I believe that this goes to confirm the fact that law and religion are intrinsically linked.
Indeed, the peace Ghana is enjoying today is partly due to interaction of law and religion. The interaction of law and religion has brought about group solidarity. Ghanaians have come together in recent times to condemn some social evils like rape, homosexuality, lesbianism, occultism, armed robbery, among others. A recent case in point is the passage of the Domestic Violence Bill to protect the dignity of her citizens.
That notwithstanding, it cannot be said that the interaction of law and religion is devoid of problems. Evil continues to show its ugly head in our society. People still commit murder; armed robbery is on the ascendancy, rape and immorality are no exceptions.
The interaction between law and religion, which stresses the common good of the nation, has awakened Ghanaians to condemn anything that breeds inter ethnic conflict. “We cannot sit down and allow a few unscrupulous people to destabilize the peace we are enjoying in this nation.” The interaction of law and religion calls on us to preserve human dignity and to openly condemn all that threatens the sanctity and value of human life.
In sum, “as law without religion loses its sanctity and its inspiration, so religion without law loses its social and historical character and becomes a purely personal mystique.” Indeed, Ghanaians should be lauded for interpreting the law in the spirit of religion. I believe strongly that the teaching of religious and moral education and the essence of the law should be incorporated fully in our curriculum especially at the lower levels of education. In my ardent opinion, when children are brought to accept the role that law and religion play in the life of any nation in their formative years, then, there will be hope for Ghana.
[i] Berman Harold J., The interaction of Law and Religion, Abingdon Press, Nashville New York, 1974, page 12.
[ii] The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles (V.1), edited by Lesley Brown, Clarendon Press, 1973, P. 1544.
[iii] Izu Marcel Onyeocha, Introfil – A First Encounter with Philosophy, the Council for Research in Values and Philosophy, Washington D.C., 1996, p. 189.
[iv] Copleston, Frederick, Sj, A history of philosophy (v.2), Image books, New York, 1962, Page 138
[v]Berman Harold J., The interaction of Law and Religion, Abingdon Press, Nashville New York, 1974, page 24.
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] 1992 constitution of the Republic of Ghana, Assembly Press, Accra.
BIBLIOGRAP
To begin with, the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles defined law “As a rule of conduct imposed by a secular authority. The body of rules whether formally enacted or customary, which a particular state or community recognizes as governing the actions of its subjects or members and which it may enforce by imposing penalties.[ii] “The definition of law is based on the notion of the common good, promulgated by one who has the care of the community”[iii] Religion on the other hand comes from the Latin ‘Religare’ meaning ‘ bind fast’. “It is belief in or sensing superhuman controlling powers entitled to obedience, reverence and worship or a system defining a code of living especially as a means to achieve a spiritual or material improvement.”
For St. Thomas Aquinas, there are four kinds of law: the Eternal Law, the Natural Law, Divine Law and Positive Human Law. “The Divine law is the law God has revealed imperfectly to the Jews and perfectly through Christ”[iv] while the law of the state is called positive human law. Therefore, it is the duty of the legislator to apply natural law and support the laws by sanctions. For instance, murder is forbidden by natural law but there are no sanctions attached to it and so the positive human laws are enacted to apply sanctions and make it effective. It follows that positive human law is derived from the natural law and every human law is a true law only as far as it is derived from natural law. It is clear from the above that the foundation of any human law is God himself and so where law and religion appear to contradict in principle, then, it has no chance of imparting values to any citizen.
Ghana seems to be enjoying a meaningful interaction of law and religion in the past fifty years. But one cannot deny the fact that “Our whole culture seems to be experiencing a nervous breakdown.” One major symptom of this threatening breakdown is the massive loss of confidence in law not only on the part of law consumers (citizens) but also on the part of the legislature and the judiciary. A second major challenge is a massive loss of confidence in religion again, not only on the part of those who sit in the pews but also on the part of those who occupy the pulpits. A case in point is the recent call by some Ghanaians for the legalization of prostitution as a means to raising tax for the development of the nation, controlling HIV/ AIDS and people’s behavior. All these are laced in the context of human rights. “It is their right” some say but the advocates of this stand forget that when it is passed, it can lead to the disintegration of the moral fibre of society. This is where law and religion must work concurrently. Religion is fundamental to every human being. Karl Marx says, “it is the opium of the Masses” while J. S. Mbiti says Africans and for that matter Ghanaians are notoriously religious. Today, in Ghana, criminals are walking on the streets freely while innocent people are languishing in prison because religious lawyers and judges have developed blind spots to the sufferings of innocent people. The law which is meant for the common Good has become the preserve of a few. Thus law and religion seem to be divorced from each other. The blame may partly go to both the law schools and the schools of theology, which share a responsibility for the narrowness, and rigidity of our thought on this matter.
If we see law in dictionary terms as a structure or body of rules laid down by political authority and similarly we see religion as a system of beliefs and practices relating to the supernatural, the two seem connected with each other only very distantly or in only a few rather narrow and specific respects. Nevertheless, in reality, both law and religion are interconnected, interdependent and indivisible. “Law is not only a body of rules, it is people legislating, adjudicating, administering, negotiating – it is a living process of allocating rights and responsibilities and thereby resolving conflicts and creating channels of cooperation. Religion is not only a set of doctrines and exercises; it is people manifesting a collective concern for the ultimate and purpose of life. It is a shared intuition of a commitment to transcendent values.”[v]
Law is to give religion its social dimension and religion is to give the law its spirit and direction as well as the sanctity it needs to command respect. Where they are divorced from each other, law tends to degenerate into mere rules to be followed and religion into mere observance of religious rules. “LAW helps to give society the structure it needs to maintain inner cohesion; law fights anarchy. Religion helps to give society the faith it needs to face the future; religion fights against decadence”[vi] The 1992 constitution of Ghana amply demonstrates that law and religion cannot and must not be separated from each other. In the introductory paragraph, there is a portion which reads “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA IN THE NAME OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD…”[vii] I believe that this goes to confirm the fact that law and religion are intrinsically linked.
Indeed, the peace Ghana is enjoying today is partly due to interaction of law and religion. The interaction of law and religion has brought about group solidarity. Ghanaians have come together in recent times to condemn some social evils like rape, homosexuality, lesbianism, occultism, armed robbery, among others. A recent case in point is the passage of the Domestic Violence Bill to protect the dignity of her citizens.
That notwithstanding, it cannot be said that the interaction of law and religion is devoid of problems. Evil continues to show its ugly head in our society. People still commit murder; armed robbery is on the ascendancy, rape and immorality are no exceptions.
The interaction between law and religion, which stresses the common good of the nation, has awakened Ghanaians to condemn anything that breeds inter ethnic conflict. “We cannot sit down and allow a few unscrupulous people to destabilize the peace we are enjoying in this nation.” The interaction of law and religion calls on us to preserve human dignity and to openly condemn all that threatens the sanctity and value of human life.
In sum, “as law without religion loses its sanctity and its inspiration, so religion without law loses its social and historical character and becomes a purely personal mystique.” Indeed, Ghanaians should be lauded for interpreting the law in the spirit of religion. I believe strongly that the teaching of religious and moral education and the essence of the law should be incorporated fully in our curriculum especially at the lower levels of education. In my ardent opinion, when children are brought to accept the role that law and religion play in the life of any nation in their formative years, then, there will be hope for Ghana.
[i] Berman Harold J., The interaction of Law and Religion, Abingdon Press, Nashville New York, 1974, page 12.
[ii] The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles (V.1), edited by Lesley Brown, Clarendon Press, 1973, P. 1544.
[iii] Izu Marcel Onyeocha, Introfil – A First Encounter with Philosophy, the Council for Research in Values and Philosophy, Washington D.C., 1996, p. 189.
[iv] Copleston, Frederick, Sj, A history of philosophy (v.2), Image books, New York, 1962, Page 138
[v]Berman Harold J., The interaction of Law and Religion, Abingdon Press, Nashville New York, 1974, page 24.
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] 1992 constitution of the Republic of Ghana, Assembly Press, Accra.
BIBLIOGRAP
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
A DAY IN THE SEMINARY
A DAY IN THE SEMINARY
INTRODUCTION
Formation of priest in present day circumstances is challenging hence a day in the seminary will unravel what is being done to meet these challenges. This paper would disabuse the minds of people with the popular conception that the seminary is only a place where we go to read the bible. It will also bring to the fore a day in the life of the seminarian in the Seminary under the following headings: prayer, work, lectures and games.
PRAYER
To begin with, St. John Mary Vianney whose memorial we celebrate on the 4th of August every year once said that “My children, your hearts are small. But prayer will enlarge them and render them capable of Loving God. This profound statement of St. John Vianney sums up the prayer life of the seminarian on campus. Morning, afternoon, evening and night, the seminarian is challenged to pray; to sanctify almost every hour of the day. At 5:30am, the Blessed Sacrament is exposed in the Chapel where every Seminarian is encouraged to go and commune with the Lord for 30 minutes after which we all gather as a community to prayer at 6: 00am during which we ask the Lord to open our lips which literally close the previous night at 11pm. After our morning prayer, a 30 minute of meditation is observed by all to enable each seminarian as it were digest what we have the Psalms we have prayed that morning. The Church believes in silent prayer because it avails much and it exposes our wretchedness to us. That is why I could not agree more with Blaise Paschal when he says ‘ knowing God without knowing your wretchedness leads to pride; knowing God without your wretchedness leads to despair; knowing Jesus bridges the gap between knowing God and your own wretchedness. Silence brings us face to face with our own wretchedness and nakedness and above all makes us dependent on God totally. At 1: 40pm, Seminarians gather again in the Chapel for afternoon prayer. Furthermore, at 5: 30pm, we gather again for evening prayer (Vespers). After prayer, we gather again for spiritual conference or Spiritual reading (Lectio Divina). At night, that is after the seminarian has finished his activities for the day, he is encouraged to pray the night prayer to end the hustling and bustling of the day followed by the grace silence which will carry him through the night till the following day. As you can see, right from the word go, the Seminarian is encouraged to love prayer and so seek closer union with Christ.
WORK
There is dignity in labour as goes the popular dictum. Work is one of the most cherished moments in our formation. It is believed that work itself is prayer as expressed in the saying “laborare et orare (to work is to pray).” Work is part of our human nature because God who created us in His own image and likeness is a homophaber (a worker). The sociologist will say that man is the product of his work. Thus right from the Seminary, one’s attitude towards work is realized. The Seminarian is encouraged to work to the best of his capabilities. Various departments have been created not only to assist the Seminarian to develop and exhibit his talents but also it creates room for others to learn new things. Departments like carpentry, masonry, painting, electrical, plumbing, interior decoration, and so on. Aside these departments, every Seminarian are expected to weed the compound when the need arises. Thus Mondays and Fridays are days earmarked for general work where every seminarian is expected to join the whole school to work. Wednesdays and Saturdays are days when everybody who belongs to a particular department is required to join that department for work (Special work).
GAMES
A healthy mind lives in a healthy body. Once again, every seminarian is encouraged to go for games. Activities such as football, volley ball, basket ball, lawn tennis, jogging, and the likes are undertaken every Tuesdays, and Saturdays at 3:30pm.
INTELECTUAL FORMATION
Lectures begin from 8: 00 and ends at 1:35pm everyday.
Comparing a day in the seminary to a day in a University of which I was a product, I can say without mincing words that a day in the Seminary is really packed; it is demanding. Unlike in the University where after lectures one is free, a day in the Seminary is packed to the extent that time is a scarce commodity like water in the desert. The Seminarian is of course being formed to take care of souls and his formation cannot but be holistic.
Formation in the seminary is supposed to make the Seminarian purpose oriented. To be purpose oriented is to discover that purposes do not come out of the blue. They reflect the voice of God in the inner spirit; they spring from a host of past experiences. This is what the Seminarian is formed to be. Every body can be great because every body can serve. You don’t have to have a college degree to serve. You don’t have to make your subject and verb agree to serve. You do not have to know about Plato and Aristotle to serve. You don’t have to know Einstein’s theory of relativity to serve. You do not have to know the second theory of thermodynamics in Physics to serve. You only need a heart full of grace; a soul guaranteed by love. Prayer, work, games and academic work are all geared towards making the seminarian a man whose heart is full of love and service.
CONCLUSION
A day in the Seminary is interesting and challenging. It is indeed a daunty task to accomplish. However, it is worthwhile taking cognizance of the Herculean task that lies ahead of him.
INTRODUCTION
Formation of priest in present day circumstances is challenging hence a day in the seminary will unravel what is being done to meet these challenges. This paper would disabuse the minds of people with the popular conception that the seminary is only a place where we go to read the bible. It will also bring to the fore a day in the life of the seminarian in the Seminary under the following headings: prayer, work, lectures and games.
PRAYER
To begin with, St. John Mary Vianney whose memorial we celebrate on the 4th of August every year once said that “My children, your hearts are small. But prayer will enlarge them and render them capable of Loving God. This profound statement of St. John Vianney sums up the prayer life of the seminarian on campus. Morning, afternoon, evening and night, the seminarian is challenged to pray; to sanctify almost every hour of the day. At 5:30am, the Blessed Sacrament is exposed in the Chapel where every Seminarian is encouraged to go and commune with the Lord for 30 minutes after which we all gather as a community to prayer at 6: 00am during which we ask the Lord to open our lips which literally close the previous night at 11pm. After our morning prayer, a 30 minute of meditation is observed by all to enable each seminarian as it were digest what we have the Psalms we have prayed that morning. The Church believes in silent prayer because it avails much and it exposes our wretchedness to us. That is why I could not agree more with Blaise Paschal when he says ‘ knowing God without knowing your wretchedness leads to pride; knowing God without your wretchedness leads to despair; knowing Jesus bridges the gap between knowing God and your own wretchedness. Silence brings us face to face with our own wretchedness and nakedness and above all makes us dependent on God totally. At 1: 40pm, Seminarians gather again in the Chapel for afternoon prayer. Furthermore, at 5: 30pm, we gather again for evening prayer (Vespers). After prayer, we gather again for spiritual conference or Spiritual reading (Lectio Divina). At night, that is after the seminarian has finished his activities for the day, he is encouraged to pray the night prayer to end the hustling and bustling of the day followed by the grace silence which will carry him through the night till the following day. As you can see, right from the word go, the Seminarian is encouraged to love prayer and so seek closer union with Christ.
WORK
There is dignity in labour as goes the popular dictum. Work is one of the most cherished moments in our formation. It is believed that work itself is prayer as expressed in the saying “laborare et orare (to work is to pray).” Work is part of our human nature because God who created us in His own image and likeness is a homophaber (a worker). The sociologist will say that man is the product of his work. Thus right from the Seminary, one’s attitude towards work is realized. The Seminarian is encouraged to work to the best of his capabilities. Various departments have been created not only to assist the Seminarian to develop and exhibit his talents but also it creates room for others to learn new things. Departments like carpentry, masonry, painting, electrical, plumbing, interior decoration, and so on. Aside these departments, every Seminarian are expected to weed the compound when the need arises. Thus Mondays and Fridays are days earmarked for general work where every seminarian is expected to join the whole school to work. Wednesdays and Saturdays are days when everybody who belongs to a particular department is required to join that department for work (Special work).
GAMES
A healthy mind lives in a healthy body. Once again, every seminarian is encouraged to go for games. Activities such as football, volley ball, basket ball, lawn tennis, jogging, and the likes are undertaken every Tuesdays, and Saturdays at 3:30pm.
INTELECTUAL FORMATION
Lectures begin from 8: 00 and ends at 1:35pm everyday.
Comparing a day in the seminary to a day in a University of which I was a product, I can say without mincing words that a day in the Seminary is really packed; it is demanding. Unlike in the University where after lectures one is free, a day in the Seminary is packed to the extent that time is a scarce commodity like water in the desert. The Seminarian is of course being formed to take care of souls and his formation cannot but be holistic.
Formation in the seminary is supposed to make the Seminarian purpose oriented. To be purpose oriented is to discover that purposes do not come out of the blue. They reflect the voice of God in the inner spirit; they spring from a host of past experiences. This is what the Seminarian is formed to be. Every body can be great because every body can serve. You don’t have to have a college degree to serve. You don’t have to make your subject and verb agree to serve. You do not have to know about Plato and Aristotle to serve. You don’t have to know Einstein’s theory of relativity to serve. You do not have to know the second theory of thermodynamics in Physics to serve. You only need a heart full of grace; a soul guaranteed by love. Prayer, work, games and academic work are all geared towards making the seminarian a man whose heart is full of love and service.
CONCLUSION
A day in the Seminary is interesting and challenging. It is indeed a daunty task to accomplish. However, it is worthwhile taking cognizance of the Herculean task that lies ahead of him.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
SEEKING TRUE RIGHTEOUSNESS
SEEKING TRUE RIGHTEOUSNESS
“Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For no human being will be justified in His sight by deeds prescribed by Law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin. But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been disclosed and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.
“Yet whatever gains I had these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith…” (cf. Philippians 3: 7-9).Paul sees all that he had attained before encountering Christ as a liability. Paul says that they are a liability because of his encounter with Christ who has made it possible.
St. Paul in his bid to defend the faith of his ancestors or Orthodoxy of his faith was blinded of the human situation. He was so convinced about his faith that he will kill to preserve the faith of his ancestors and will not feel remorse about it. It was only after he encountered Christ on the road to Damascus that he now felt that obedient to the laws alone was not enough. Better still, it blinds but faith in Jesus alone was the surest way to righteousness. Hence his statement in Philippians 3:7-14.
Seeking true righteousness will take away our boast, our pride, and our envy because we come to discover that we are what we are because of the grace of God. Seeking true righteousness does not mean that we throw away the law (cf Roman 3:3). In fact, it enables us to uphold the law. It aids us to give a “human face” to the law because no one is righteousness before God. We can talk about Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Mary, to mention but few.
Furthermore, seeking true righteousness means that we must allow ourselves to be disillusioned about our false conception of who God is. Anyone who thinks that by paying tithes, praying always, and fasting, obeying Church laws to the letter is a righteous person is living in a world of illusion and this false righteousness must be disillusioned. True righteousness comes through faith in Jesus alone though the above obligations are a part. They are not ends in themselves but a means to an end. “He who comes to Him must believe that He exists and He rewards all who diligently seek him” (Hebrew 11:6). The parable of the Merciful Father (Luke 15:11- 32) is my point of departure. The parable of the Merciful Father is a practical example of seeking true righteousness. Specifically the attitude of the Elder brother leaves much to be desired. His righteousness is self- imposed. He thought that by just obeying his father to the letter was to bring him the joy of the Kingdom.
“Then he became angry and refused to go in… v. 28.
Why did he become angry? Two things come to mind namely: he became envious of his younger brother and that he had been working hard for his father and he deserve what perhaps his younger brother is enjoying and even better. Like him you will also be angry too were you to find yourself in that situation. Some of us have been baptized as infants in the Church and have spent all our lives working for the growth of the Church namely paying Church dues and Tithes, cleaning the Church, to mention but few. But when our friends whom perhaps we began life with backslides and he or she comes back and he or she is given attention we are worried and instead of being happy, we become angry and envious. Have we not sought our own righteousness and relegated the righteousness which comes through faith in Jesus to the background?
“His father came out and began to plead with him” v. 28
His father’s plea was to calm his justified anger. Unfortunately his anger blinded him so much so that he did not realize that everything in his father’s house belongs to him. Indeed, he lost everything. In our anger, let us be careful because, we will lose everything, we will lose our son ship in God’s kingdom. The elder son thought that obeying his father and working for him as a slave meant righteousness. Indeed, he complained that his father never appreciated his hard work let alone organize a feast in his honour. But unlike the younger son, he did not ask his father for anything. Sometimes in our self- righteousness, we think that God knows everything we need and so we do not ask. Indeed, he knows everything but we must ask. When those who in our own estimation do not deserve God’s favour are favored because they asked, we became angry like the Elder brother.
“But when this son of yours came back, who has devoured your property with prostitutes; you killed a fatted calf for him… v. 30”
The elder brother is not aware that his brother is a changed person; a transformed man. He is still living in his past; he is holy than thou. His vision has been clouded and obscured by his self- righteousness. Thus instead of rejoicing in his brother’s conversion, he is angry; he is sad and will not even listen to his father’s plea “… Son you are always with me and all that I have is yours, but we must celebrate and rejoice because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life he was lost and has been found (v.31-32).” The impudence with which he says to his father “…When this son of yours came back after devouring your property with prostitutes, you killed the fatted calf for him (v.30) must be condemned. Indeed, his younger brother was a son of his father that is why he is pleased to have him back safe and sound. Our return to God is not to be determined by our past life. Jesus wants to accept us for who we are. Indeed, if angels in heaven will rejoice over one repentant sinner than ninety-nine righteous people who are you, an individual, to be angry about the conversion of someone? If you do that you will lose everything including your years of faithfulness to the Lord. I believe that the Elder brother was overwhelmed by the fact that his father received is wayward brother back with such alacrity. Indeed, in the acts of love, words are lost.
It must be emphasized that by his choice of words, the elder brother lost three things:
• He became an enemy to his brother.
• He lost friendship with his own brother.
• He lost his share of the estate
Knowing God without knowing our wretchedness leads to pride so says Blaise Pascal. This is what happens to most of us. God continues to plead with us to make a return to him but we have allowed jealousy to cloud this beatific vision. What then becomes of the elder brother in the parable? In comparison to his younger brother, who is better placed? Where do you place yourself? Are you broken? The Lord is calling and waiting for you. He is calling tenderly (song).
“Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For no human being will be justified in His sight by deeds prescribed by Law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin. But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been disclosed and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.
“Yet whatever gains I had these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith…” (cf. Philippians 3: 7-9).Paul sees all that he had attained before encountering Christ as a liability. Paul says that they are a liability because of his encounter with Christ who has made it possible.
St. Paul in his bid to defend the faith of his ancestors or Orthodoxy of his faith was blinded of the human situation. He was so convinced about his faith that he will kill to preserve the faith of his ancestors and will not feel remorse about it. It was only after he encountered Christ on the road to Damascus that he now felt that obedient to the laws alone was not enough. Better still, it blinds but faith in Jesus alone was the surest way to righteousness. Hence his statement in Philippians 3:7-14.
Seeking true righteousness will take away our boast, our pride, and our envy because we come to discover that we are what we are because of the grace of God. Seeking true righteousness does not mean that we throw away the law (cf Roman 3:3). In fact, it enables us to uphold the law. It aids us to give a “human face” to the law because no one is righteousness before God. We can talk about Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Mary, to mention but few.
Furthermore, seeking true righteousness means that we must allow ourselves to be disillusioned about our false conception of who God is. Anyone who thinks that by paying tithes, praying always, and fasting, obeying Church laws to the letter is a righteous person is living in a world of illusion and this false righteousness must be disillusioned. True righteousness comes through faith in Jesus alone though the above obligations are a part. They are not ends in themselves but a means to an end. “He who comes to Him must believe that He exists and He rewards all who diligently seek him” (Hebrew 11:6). The parable of the Merciful Father (Luke 15:11- 32) is my point of departure. The parable of the Merciful Father is a practical example of seeking true righteousness. Specifically the attitude of the Elder brother leaves much to be desired. His righteousness is self- imposed. He thought that by just obeying his father to the letter was to bring him the joy of the Kingdom.
“Then he became angry and refused to go in… v. 28.
Why did he become angry? Two things come to mind namely: he became envious of his younger brother and that he had been working hard for his father and he deserve what perhaps his younger brother is enjoying and even better. Like him you will also be angry too were you to find yourself in that situation. Some of us have been baptized as infants in the Church and have spent all our lives working for the growth of the Church namely paying Church dues and Tithes, cleaning the Church, to mention but few. But when our friends whom perhaps we began life with backslides and he or she comes back and he or she is given attention we are worried and instead of being happy, we become angry and envious. Have we not sought our own righteousness and relegated the righteousness which comes through faith in Jesus to the background?
“His father came out and began to plead with him” v. 28
His father’s plea was to calm his justified anger. Unfortunately his anger blinded him so much so that he did not realize that everything in his father’s house belongs to him. Indeed, he lost everything. In our anger, let us be careful because, we will lose everything, we will lose our son ship in God’s kingdom. The elder son thought that obeying his father and working for him as a slave meant righteousness. Indeed, he complained that his father never appreciated his hard work let alone organize a feast in his honour. But unlike the younger son, he did not ask his father for anything. Sometimes in our self- righteousness, we think that God knows everything we need and so we do not ask. Indeed, he knows everything but we must ask. When those who in our own estimation do not deserve God’s favour are favored because they asked, we became angry like the Elder brother.
“But when this son of yours came back, who has devoured your property with prostitutes; you killed a fatted calf for him… v. 30”
The elder brother is not aware that his brother is a changed person; a transformed man. He is still living in his past; he is holy than thou. His vision has been clouded and obscured by his self- righteousness. Thus instead of rejoicing in his brother’s conversion, he is angry; he is sad and will not even listen to his father’s plea “… Son you are always with me and all that I have is yours, but we must celebrate and rejoice because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life he was lost and has been found (v.31-32).” The impudence with which he says to his father “…When this son of yours came back after devouring your property with prostitutes, you killed the fatted calf for him (v.30) must be condemned. Indeed, his younger brother was a son of his father that is why he is pleased to have him back safe and sound. Our return to God is not to be determined by our past life. Jesus wants to accept us for who we are. Indeed, if angels in heaven will rejoice over one repentant sinner than ninety-nine righteous people who are you, an individual, to be angry about the conversion of someone? If you do that you will lose everything including your years of faithfulness to the Lord. I believe that the Elder brother was overwhelmed by the fact that his father received is wayward brother back with such alacrity. Indeed, in the acts of love, words are lost.
It must be emphasized that by his choice of words, the elder brother lost three things:
• He became an enemy to his brother.
• He lost friendship with his own brother.
• He lost his share of the estate
Knowing God without knowing our wretchedness leads to pride so says Blaise Pascal. This is what happens to most of us. God continues to plead with us to make a return to him but we have allowed jealousy to cloud this beatific vision. What then becomes of the elder brother in the parable? In comparison to his younger brother, who is better placed? Where do you place yourself? Are you broken? The Lord is calling and waiting for you. He is calling tenderly (song).
VOCATION: A CALL TO SERVICE
Formation of Priests in present day circumstances is very challenging. This is because our families which are supposed to be places where vocations are nurtured are experiencing broken marriages. That is why we could not agree more with Pope John Paul II of blessed memory in his message ( Faith in the Divine Initiative, the human response Matthew 9:38)on vocations that “The Church’ first duty is to keep alive in families and in parishes, in movements (COSRA, CYO, CATHSU, CHARISMATIC RENEWAL, ST THERESA OF THE CHILD JESUS, CHRISTIAN MOTHERS ASSOCIATION, SACRED HEART CONFRATERNITY, ST ANTHONY’S GUILD, LEGION OF MARY ETC), … and all sectors of Diocesan life this appeal to the divine initiative with unceasing prayer. We must pray that the whole Christian people grow in its trust in God, convinced that the Lord of the harvest does not cease to ask some to place their entire existence freely at his service so as to work with them more closely in the mission of salvation .”
We are here, therefore, first of all, to remind you, our Lay Faithful, on the need to renew your efforts in praying for the increase in vocations to the Priesthood and the Religious Life. It is a divine imperative that demands a corresponding swift response, for the moment you stop praying, vocations will cease. If you doubt what we are saying “… think of the places where people anxiously await a priest and over the years of waiting have never ceased to hope for one. Sometimes they meet in an abandoned shrine …they recite all the prayers of the Mass until they come to the words of the consecration. Then a deep silence falls upon them, a silence sometimes broken by a sob … so ardently do they long to hear the words that only a priest can speak effectively. They long for Holy Communion for which they depend on the ministry of a priest, just as they also long to hear the words of pardon … how deeply do they feel the lack of a priest …” ( Pope John Paul II, Letter to Priests, 6th April, 1979).
Secondly, since prayer alone will not increase vocations, we have decided to meet the youth of this parish after Mass in order to interact with them and to encourage them to embrace this challenge.
We are also here to ask you to kindly support our annual general meeting which affords us the opportunity to gather as brothers to fellowship, to take stock of our lives and to encourage one another. This year’s General Meeting will take place on the 20th -22nd August, 2009 at the Catholic Youth Formation Centre, Lashibi.
We will like to use this opportunity to thank all of you for your unrelenting support for our formation. Be assured of our continuous prayerful support. It is said that those who pave the way for the great, pave the way for their own greatness. God richly bless you.
We are here, therefore, first of all, to remind you, our Lay Faithful, on the need to renew your efforts in praying for the increase in vocations to the Priesthood and the Religious Life. It is a divine imperative that demands a corresponding swift response, for the moment you stop praying, vocations will cease. If you doubt what we are saying “… think of the places where people anxiously await a priest and over the years of waiting have never ceased to hope for one. Sometimes they meet in an abandoned shrine …they recite all the prayers of the Mass until they come to the words of the consecration. Then a deep silence falls upon them, a silence sometimes broken by a sob … so ardently do they long to hear the words that only a priest can speak effectively. They long for Holy Communion for which they depend on the ministry of a priest, just as they also long to hear the words of pardon … how deeply do they feel the lack of a priest …” ( Pope John Paul II, Letter to Priests, 6th April, 1979).
Secondly, since prayer alone will not increase vocations, we have decided to meet the youth of this parish after Mass in order to interact with them and to encourage them to embrace this challenge.
We are also here to ask you to kindly support our annual general meeting which affords us the opportunity to gather as brothers to fellowship, to take stock of our lives and to encourage one another. This year’s General Meeting will take place on the 20th -22nd August, 2009 at the Catholic Youth Formation Centre, Lashibi.
We will like to use this opportunity to thank all of you for your unrelenting support for our formation. Be assured of our continuous prayerful support. It is said that those who pave the way for the great, pave the way for their own greatness. God richly bless you.
Friday, June 12, 2009
SELF ACCEPTANCE IS THE KEY TO SELF TRANSCENDENCE
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn't serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We are born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us, it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.'
SOME QUOTES FOR YOUR REFLECTION
· My children, your hearts are small. Prayer will enlarge them and render them capable of loving God (St. John Vianney).
· Knowing God without knowing your wretchedness leads to pride; knowing your wretchedness without knowing God leads to despair; knowing Jesus Christ is bridge to knowing God and your wretchedness ( Blaise Pascal).
· Those who pave the way for the great pave the way for their own greatness (Igbo Sage).
· Every calling is great when greatly pursued.
· I was not called to be successful but to be faithful (Blessed Teresa of Calcutta).
· Intense love does not measure, it hurts. Give till it hurts with a smile (Blessed Teresa of Calcutta).
·
· Knowing God without knowing your wretchedness leads to pride; knowing your wretchedness without knowing God leads to despair; knowing Jesus Christ is bridge to knowing God and your wretchedness ( Blaise Pascal).
· Those who pave the way for the great pave the way for their own greatness (Igbo Sage).
· Every calling is great when greatly pursued.
· I was not called to be successful but to be faithful (Blessed Teresa of Calcutta).
· Intense love does not measure, it hurts. Give till it hurts with a smile (Blessed Teresa of Calcutta).
·
Thursday, June 11, 2009
REDISCOVERING THE ECCLESIAL DIMENSION OF BAPTISM
PRINCIPLES FOR A CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY OF BAPTISM
BY KURT KOCH
INTRODUCTION
According to Kurt Koch, there is the need to renew the original understanding of the Sacraments of Christian Initiation (Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist). This is because he sees it as a condition sine qua non for the restoration of ecclesial dimension of Baptism. Kurt Koch proposes certain principles for a Christian Theology of Baptism which must not be seen in isolation but complementing each other. The purpose of this essay is to discuss these principles under the following headings: baptism as conveyance to Christ, Baptism as participation in Christ, Baptism and Holy Spirit, Baptismal Christian Living, Reception into Christ’ Body, Theology of Baptism, individualising of Initiation, Revitalizing the Ecclesial Dimension. I will then attempt a synthesis by way of a conclusion.
BAPTISM AS CONVEYANCE TO CHRIST
Kurt, in this section of his article, puts stress on the fact that Baptism cannot be effective without the profession of faith. This profession, he says is based on the belief that the living God raised Christ up from the dead. Hence, for this profession of faith, no other occasion comes into question except Baptism. Kurt further emphasized that baptism is an external profession and it is only when it is accompanied by a belief in the heart that salvation is effected in the life of the individual. Thus Otto Michel could not agree more with Kurt when he says that “Profession and belief are as inextricably conjoined as are occurrence of baptism and the doctrine of justification.” In other words, baptism and profession are distinctly inseparable. For Kurt, the sharp distinction between early Christian Baptism and that of John was that it was carried out “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38, 8:16, and 10:48, 19:5). By the very fact that one is baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” according to Kurt one is conveyed to Christ which means that one now belongs to Christ entirely and no one else.( Galatians 3:29). Thus, for Kurt, baptism presupposes that the baptized person is made subject to his Lord and he is invited to a personal and intimate relationship with his Lord. This new relationship becomes so fundamental that one can gain entrance into the Kingdom only by this means. Kurt draws on an analogy St. Paul uses to describe the new relationship a baptized person has with Christ. “… A person is altogether like a slave who is ‘occupied territory.’ His first lord is sin, which holds him in captivity. Through Baptism, however, he is brought out of slavery and conveyed to a new lord.” Thus for Kurt, Baptism becomes a public seal showing that the baptized person belongs to Christ and for that matter identified as slave of Christ. According to Kurt, this idea of Paul goes back to the historical evolution of the rite of Baptism as found in the early Church. Having assumed a new status, the baptized person is duty bound no longer to serve gods in this world but to serve the true God and the divine plan of salvation for the world. Baptism according Kurt entails two things namely rejection of the gods and demons of pagan society and an entrance into the Church as the territory of Christ’s kingdom. It also involves an ontological change; a change from the fleshy existence of sin and death to the spiritual existence of being led by the Spirit of God; a Spirit which gives true freedom to the baptized. This radical change of life for Kurt, involves even a rejection of those profession that has to do with pagan worship such as acting, prostitution, astrology, gladiators and the like. For those who belong to Jesus Christ must recognize him as their Lord by renewing their manner of living, but most of all by professing faith. Thus for Kurt, faith and baptism belong inseparably together in the early Church. Baptism for Kurt was preceded by a long process of learning and experience and coaching for a new mode of existence.
BAPTISM AS PARTICIPATION IN JESUS
Kurt again lays emphasis on the fact that baptism is not only a complete conveyance of the baptized person to Christ but also a promise that the newly baptized will be included with Christ in the whole process of salvation. For Kurt, Paul’s understanding of baptism means two things namely a participation in being saved from death and a participation in the resurrection of Jesus Christ even though it remains a future event (Romans 6: 4-5). According to Kurt, Paul interprets the sacramental- liturgical immersion of the candidate in the waters of baptism as an immersion into the unfathomable waters of death and in complete solidarity with Jesus who himself had been immersed into these dark waters. Kurt emphasizes that in baptism, a personal Easter takes place for each individual. This means that the baptized person is taken up into the movement of Christ from death to the life of the resurrection. Hence whoever belongs to Christ through baptism also shares in his suffering and death. This is symbolized by St. Paul when he says that wherever we go we carry in our bodies the sufferings and death of Jesus “so that the life of Jesus can become visible in our bodies” ( 2 Corin 4: 10). This means that in Baptism, our own future death is symbolically anticipated and bound up with the death of Jesus, so that we live with him. For Kurt, baptism is the crucial juncture of the life of every Christian and not bodily death which is in the future. This implies for Kurt that baptism is a fundamental moving forward of death and a sacramental experience beforehand of resurrection since in baptism one dies to sin and is raised to life in Christ by God himself; a kind of rebirth. This means that baptism implies that death awaiting Christians at the end of their lives, in the truest and deepest sense no longer counts, because Christians already live now in the body of the risen Christ and baptism turns out to be a much more serious death in which one whole world is given up and a new world opens up. Kurt emphasizes the vital and inseparable link between resurrection and baptism as expounded in 1 John as a passage from death to life. He sees baptism as a sacramental participation in the eschatological passage from death into life with this new life in the resurrection to be lived in the context of righteousness.
BAPTISM AND THE HOLY SPIRIT
According to Kurt, for Christians, the eschatological baptism of the Spirit is no longer a future event but is considered in the light of Jesus’ baptism which is already evident in the baptism of water. The descent of the Holy Spirit in the baptism pericope reveals Jesus as the bearer of the Spirit. Thus in the Early Church, any baptism made was confirmed by the bestowal of the Spirit and its attendant gifts (Acts 2:38). Thus for Paul, baptism is only effective with the reception of the Holy Spirit (1 Corin. 6: 11). Again, through the imparting of the Spirit in baptism is fulfilled the prophecy of Joel who promised that in the messianic end time, God will pour out his Spirit upon all flesh. The Pentecost experience then, becomes a fulfillment of that prophetic promise (Acts 2:16). Thus for Kurt, what was prophesied by Joel in the Old Testament has now found concrete expression in the New Testament where the Spirit is poured out upon all believers and transforms them into a spiritual people endowed with the Spirit of God. This original participation bestowed in baptism upon all believers is a common sharing of the Spirit by the people of God in the end time. This, according to Kurt, becomes the working document of the Christian Church; that which guaranteed acceptance into the Christian community and because the sending of the Spirit is promised in baptism, later NT theology sees baptism as a new birth or a new creation through the Spirit who bestows everlasting life. R. Schnackenberg sees baptism as “The place where the Spirit is received and the eschatological gift of salvation is bestowed by God. Kurt emphasises again, that the pneumatological dimension of baptism is expressed later in baptismal rites in which besides the laying on of hands, an anointing becomes a symbol of the imparting of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 1:21-23).
BAPTISMAL CHRISTIAN LIVING
According to Kurt, by virtue of our baptism, the Spirit effects new life in us (2 Corin 5: 17-18). He emphasizes the NT perspective that forgiveness of sins is completed in baptism as evidenced in Peter’s Pentecostal sermon (Acts 2: 38). The relationship between baptism and forgiveness of sins laid in the fact that in the NT the baptized person’s sin is forgiven once and for all. It also provides an understanding of the NT exhortation and presupposition that Christians after baptism will lead a life without sin (Romans 6: 11-12). According to Kurt, baptism places certain responsibility on the recipient namely that he is not only required to live a morally upright life, but also he must live a life which is worthy of a Christian; a life which must manifest his new status as bestowed on him by Christ. This is what Kurt describes as a Christian ethic. Thus the newness of life as a gift of baptism becomes the basis for all moral imperatives. In Romans 6 and 12, Paul brings out clearly the fact that the basic duty of living a truly Christian life springs from baptism itself. Baptism is, therefore, seen as a radical service to God and a departure from a previous enslavement to the power of sin. Furthermore, Kurt draws our attention to the fact that baptism requires that we live what we profess in our daily encounter with each other. This results into a community in which people link their lives together, act responsibly for each other and carry each others burdens. This idea of community is what Paul developed when he shows that in Christian baptism all historical and human discrimination are dissolved and is made inoperative (Galatians 3: 26-28). Paul reaffirms the ecclesial dimension of baptism and names racism, imperialism and sexism as posing a threat to Christian baptism. For Paul the decisive character of race, imperialism and sexism are overcome in baptism, which marks the irrevocable beginning of the eschatological reestablishment of a truly ordered and interactive society that lives in peace and justice according to God’s will. The Church should be seen as the conscience of society bound together by the baptismal waters of love, peace, justice and solidarity. Also Kurt stresses the fact that the Christian morality in the sense of following Jesus is essentially the morality of baptism. This is because in baptism not only is the following of Jesus made possible but the lifelong and daily following of Jesus is required. R. Schnackenberg puts it beautifully when he says “Baptism entered into with faith is a call to the following of Christ in time after Easter.” Baptism grants to each baptized person a dignity which can never be taken away, either by his own deeds or by the violent claims of others (W. Huber). Kurt concludes this section by bringing to the fore the fact that baptism is carried out in the perspective of accepting individuals into the Christian community and can, therefore, be understood as the public proclamation of the human right to life. It makes the individual a dignified being and this dignity he draws from God. Baptism, according to P. M. Zulehner is “a profound celebration of human dignity and inviolable freedom.
RECEPTION INTO THE BODY OF CHRIST
Kurt lays emphasis on the ecclesial dimension of baptism when he says that baptism does not only mark one’s adoption of the Christian faith but also an entrance into the church. The ecclesia community then becomes a place where the baptize subjects himself to Christ and receives salvation. By virtue of his baptism, the baptized is duty bound to live as a person who has his new home in the community of the Church namely, he acquires basic residence in the church, and his basic vocation is to be a member of the new people of God. According to Kurt, if baptism incorporates us into Jesus as a Son, then entrance into this Son ship of Jesus is entrance into the larger family of all those who are with the Son ( Church). Thus Joseph Ratzinger puts it beautifully when he says that “Then the new birth from God which happens in baptism is likewise a birth into the whole Christ, head and members. Thus for Kurt, baptism into Christ finds concrete expression in being a member of the ecclesia community and this was evidenced in the Early Church when on the day of Pentecost, about three thousand were baptized and added to the community of believers ( Acts 2: 41). This emphasizes again, that from the very beginning baptism and the Church were inextricably linked. Thus baptism presupposed a Church in which one is incorporated; the Church becomes a salvific actuality. Baptism, therefore, brings out clearly the ‘ekklesia’ dimension of the Church as the community of those called together by God and ‘added’ by God to the Church ( Acts 2: 46-47). The Church becomes visible as a missionary and salvific community which accepts all who believe in Christ and wishes to join through baptism. For St. Paul, baptism and the Church are inseparably linked that his vision of the Church as a body of Christ is grounded in baptism (1Corin 12: 13, Eph 4: 4-6). Kurt sees baptism as the entrance gate to the Church and therefore to the ecumenical church as emphasized by the Vatican ll’s Decree on Ecumenism that “For those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church” (#3). Kurt draws our attention to the same Decree which emphasizes the fact that there is a sacramental bond of unity between all who are reborn through baptism in so long as baptism is institutionally administered and received in faith. Kurt concluded on this section by re- emphasizing the Church’s Decree on Ecumenism that baptism is the beginning and starting point of four things namely, the achievement of the fullness of life in Christ, a complete profession of faith, a complete incorporation into the event of salvation such as Christ himself willed it to be and finally towards a complete integration into Eucharistic communion. Thus baptism according to Kurt has become a basis for ecumenical dialogue.
THEOLOGY OF BAPTISM
Kurt reiterates once more that baptism which is incorporation into Christ and an entrance into the Church are inseparably linked if we want to understand Christian baptism. Thus he says that “The ecclesiological significance of baptism is in fact to be understood as a concrete form of its Christological significance on the level of historical experience.” This he explain that to be in Christ and with Christ as a gift of baptism presupposes an ecclesial reality since to be in Christ is not different from being part of the body of Christ. He concluded by stating emphatically that since the Eucharist forms the highest point of the baptismal service, baptism into the body of Christ is likewise baptism into the Eucharist.
INDIVIDUALISING OF INITIATION
In this aspect of the article, Kurt draws our attention to the original unity, inner and outer, of the sacraments of initiation of baptism, confirmation and the Eucharist. For Kurt, the sacraments of initiation make one a member of the Church and liberates him from the dominium of sin. He emphasizes again, that the actual initiation into the Church at baptism was originally completed with first communion. A case in point, as put forward by Kurt is the fact that the unity of the sacraments of initiation can be best appreciated against the back drop of the institution of the catechumenate, by which candidates for baptism had to demonstrate the seriousness of their conversion in which the Christian life had to be learnt and practiced. Kurt is of the view that while the Eastern Church has preserved the unity of the sacraments of initiation, in the Latin Church, the baptism of infants has caused these sacraments to be broken down into separate ceremonies. This he admitted to have been caused by an ecclesiastical political situation. According to Kurt, Emperor Constantine’ declaration of Christianity as a state religion meant that in the first decade of the fourth century, it was no longer the ordinary practice of initiating adults into the Church in which the sacraments of initiation were administered to them at the same time. Infant baptism became the order of the day since Christianity now became a state religion to the extent that Baptism as membership in the Church became, as a practical matter, membership in society. Thus this whole concept of catechumens according to Kurt now had little in common with those candidates preparing for baptism. This is because the instructional aspect was missing due to infant baptism which was on the ascendancy. Again, the comprehensive catechumenate for the unbaptised was replaced by the instruction of children after baptism. Added to this fact is that baptism for infants increased, due to the doctrine of Original sin, since baptism was understood as a necessary liberation from original sin. This, for Kurt meant that baptism was directed at the salvation of the individual and the consequence was that the ecclesial dimension was underestimated. Thus Kurt states emphatically, without mincing words that in the course of history, no other sacrament has been individualized and privatized than the sacrament of baptism. For to this day, he decried, baptism has no longer been understood and celebrated as a sacrament of initiation into the church but is now oriented towards the salvation of individuals. This , he says is evident in the fact that parents still bring their children to be baptized though they do not think much about the Church or may have even withdrawn from it. In fact, parents now see baptism as a way of putting their children in touch with the reality of the divine. Kurt concludes this section by stating emphatically that baptism now serves as a vehicle to take the child into God’s world and to ask God’s blessing for the child.
REVITALISING THE ECCLESIAL DIMENSION
Kurt Koch in this section calls for a revitalization of the ecclesial dimension of baptism. He advanced two reasons namely that infant baptism is theologically justified by the fact that “A gift given ahead of time is nevertheless really a gift (J. Ratzinger) and that there is a threat that the meaning of baptism will be destroyed if the Church no longer understand it as a gift given ahead of time and unfolds afterwards, but merely as a rite closed that is still retained only because it lends a certain solemnity and a ritual celebration to the beginning of life. Kurt, is of the view that the Church is duty bound to revitalize the ecclesial dimension of baptism for two main reasons namely for basic theological reasons and because of the Church’s profoundly changed condition. In the mind of Kurt, the Church today is experiencing the end of Constantinian form of Christianity where Christianity was a state religion. He argues that the Church cannot continue to assume that people (infants) who are baptized into the church will automatically grow in the church as part of the socialization process. The church must recognize that people must learn anew the faith and life in the church. The church must also help people to deepen their personal relationship to Christ and thereby experience how baptism extends throughout their lives and has been bestowed as “ God’s rainbow over our lives” ( J. Ratzinger), as a promise of His great “Yes” and as a guidepost pointing to what it means to be a Christian. Kurt Koch thinks that a rediscovery of the catechumenate offers a pastoral challenge and presents an opportunity which the Church should exploit. Kurt sees in the rediscovery of the catechumenate, the restoration of the original order and unity of the sacraments of initiation. Kurt could not agree more with Pope John Paul II who express in his post- conciliar Apostolic Letter “The Bishop: Servant of the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the Hope of the World” that the Bishops are responsible for Christian initiation. Kurt says that the Pope was convinced that the tradition of the process of Christian initiation especially for adults has proved to be providentially ordained not only for the churches just starting up but also for the countries where Christianity has been established for centuries. Kurt calls for a renewal of the original order of the sacraments of initiation because it restores the ecclesial dimension of baptism. This restoration can only be feasible when adults become members of the Church as a way of rediscovering the catechumenate of the early church. He stressed, however, that a rediscovery of the catechumenate does not deny the validity of infant baptism but it is an endeavor to reunite the sacraments of initiation in infant baptism also. This will bring out the ecclesial dimension of baptism both into the parish church and the universal church as well. Thus baptism proves to be the universal sacrament of the church taken as a whole. To ensure that baptism is experienced this way, Kurt says, is an urgent pastoral duty of our time.
CONCLUSION
Kurt Koch’ article on the “Principle for a Christian Theology of Baptism” calls for the renewal of the order of the sacraments of initiation of Baptism, Confirmation and the Eucharist. He thinks that it is the surest way to rediscover the ecclesial dimension of baptism. I think that Kurt Koch has not proposed anything new but that which is already true of the sacraments of initiation in the early church. A critical look at the principles will reveal the fact that they must be looked at concurrently and not in isolation. In fact, one is a build up on the other. I could not agree more with Kurt Koch on this issue since in our contemporary Churches, there has been this tendency of seeing this sacrament as an individual affair and it is gradually taking over the ecclesial dimension of the sacrament. Parents can just walk into the Church and have their wards baptized without the presence of the ecclesial community. The renewal of the original order of the sacraments of initiation can only be possible when adults become members of the Church so that the catechumenate of the early church can be rediscovered.
AGORSOR AARON AGBESHIE
(THEOLOGY TWO)
BY KURT KOCH
INTRODUCTION
According to Kurt Koch, there is the need to renew the original understanding of the Sacraments of Christian Initiation (Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist). This is because he sees it as a condition sine qua non for the restoration of ecclesial dimension of Baptism. Kurt Koch proposes certain principles for a Christian Theology of Baptism which must not be seen in isolation but complementing each other. The purpose of this essay is to discuss these principles under the following headings: baptism as conveyance to Christ, Baptism as participation in Christ, Baptism and Holy Spirit, Baptismal Christian Living, Reception into Christ’ Body, Theology of Baptism, individualising of Initiation, Revitalizing the Ecclesial Dimension. I will then attempt a synthesis by way of a conclusion.
BAPTISM AS CONVEYANCE TO CHRIST
Kurt, in this section of his article, puts stress on the fact that Baptism cannot be effective without the profession of faith. This profession, he says is based on the belief that the living God raised Christ up from the dead. Hence, for this profession of faith, no other occasion comes into question except Baptism. Kurt further emphasized that baptism is an external profession and it is only when it is accompanied by a belief in the heart that salvation is effected in the life of the individual. Thus Otto Michel could not agree more with Kurt when he says that “Profession and belief are as inextricably conjoined as are occurrence of baptism and the doctrine of justification.” In other words, baptism and profession are distinctly inseparable. For Kurt, the sharp distinction between early Christian Baptism and that of John was that it was carried out “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38, 8:16, and 10:48, 19:5). By the very fact that one is baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” according to Kurt one is conveyed to Christ which means that one now belongs to Christ entirely and no one else.( Galatians 3:29). Thus, for Kurt, baptism presupposes that the baptized person is made subject to his Lord and he is invited to a personal and intimate relationship with his Lord. This new relationship becomes so fundamental that one can gain entrance into the Kingdom only by this means. Kurt draws on an analogy St. Paul uses to describe the new relationship a baptized person has with Christ. “… A person is altogether like a slave who is ‘occupied territory.’ His first lord is sin, which holds him in captivity. Through Baptism, however, he is brought out of slavery and conveyed to a new lord.” Thus for Kurt, Baptism becomes a public seal showing that the baptized person belongs to Christ and for that matter identified as slave of Christ. According to Kurt, this idea of Paul goes back to the historical evolution of the rite of Baptism as found in the early Church. Having assumed a new status, the baptized person is duty bound no longer to serve gods in this world but to serve the true God and the divine plan of salvation for the world. Baptism according Kurt entails two things namely rejection of the gods and demons of pagan society and an entrance into the Church as the territory of Christ’s kingdom. It also involves an ontological change; a change from the fleshy existence of sin and death to the spiritual existence of being led by the Spirit of God; a Spirit which gives true freedom to the baptized. This radical change of life for Kurt, involves even a rejection of those profession that has to do with pagan worship such as acting, prostitution, astrology, gladiators and the like. For those who belong to Jesus Christ must recognize him as their Lord by renewing their manner of living, but most of all by professing faith. Thus for Kurt, faith and baptism belong inseparably together in the early Church. Baptism for Kurt was preceded by a long process of learning and experience and coaching for a new mode of existence.
BAPTISM AS PARTICIPATION IN JESUS
Kurt again lays emphasis on the fact that baptism is not only a complete conveyance of the baptized person to Christ but also a promise that the newly baptized will be included with Christ in the whole process of salvation. For Kurt, Paul’s understanding of baptism means two things namely a participation in being saved from death and a participation in the resurrection of Jesus Christ even though it remains a future event (Romans 6: 4-5). According to Kurt, Paul interprets the sacramental- liturgical immersion of the candidate in the waters of baptism as an immersion into the unfathomable waters of death and in complete solidarity with Jesus who himself had been immersed into these dark waters. Kurt emphasizes that in baptism, a personal Easter takes place for each individual. This means that the baptized person is taken up into the movement of Christ from death to the life of the resurrection. Hence whoever belongs to Christ through baptism also shares in his suffering and death. This is symbolized by St. Paul when he says that wherever we go we carry in our bodies the sufferings and death of Jesus “so that the life of Jesus can become visible in our bodies” ( 2 Corin 4: 10). This means that in Baptism, our own future death is symbolically anticipated and bound up with the death of Jesus, so that we live with him. For Kurt, baptism is the crucial juncture of the life of every Christian and not bodily death which is in the future. This implies for Kurt that baptism is a fundamental moving forward of death and a sacramental experience beforehand of resurrection since in baptism one dies to sin and is raised to life in Christ by God himself; a kind of rebirth. This means that baptism implies that death awaiting Christians at the end of their lives, in the truest and deepest sense no longer counts, because Christians already live now in the body of the risen Christ and baptism turns out to be a much more serious death in which one whole world is given up and a new world opens up. Kurt emphasizes the vital and inseparable link between resurrection and baptism as expounded in 1 John as a passage from death to life. He sees baptism as a sacramental participation in the eschatological passage from death into life with this new life in the resurrection to be lived in the context of righteousness.
BAPTISM AND THE HOLY SPIRIT
According to Kurt, for Christians, the eschatological baptism of the Spirit is no longer a future event but is considered in the light of Jesus’ baptism which is already evident in the baptism of water. The descent of the Holy Spirit in the baptism pericope reveals Jesus as the bearer of the Spirit. Thus in the Early Church, any baptism made was confirmed by the bestowal of the Spirit and its attendant gifts (Acts 2:38). Thus for Paul, baptism is only effective with the reception of the Holy Spirit (1 Corin. 6: 11). Again, through the imparting of the Spirit in baptism is fulfilled the prophecy of Joel who promised that in the messianic end time, God will pour out his Spirit upon all flesh. The Pentecost experience then, becomes a fulfillment of that prophetic promise (Acts 2:16). Thus for Kurt, what was prophesied by Joel in the Old Testament has now found concrete expression in the New Testament where the Spirit is poured out upon all believers and transforms them into a spiritual people endowed with the Spirit of God. This original participation bestowed in baptism upon all believers is a common sharing of the Spirit by the people of God in the end time. This, according to Kurt, becomes the working document of the Christian Church; that which guaranteed acceptance into the Christian community and because the sending of the Spirit is promised in baptism, later NT theology sees baptism as a new birth or a new creation through the Spirit who bestows everlasting life. R. Schnackenberg sees baptism as “The place where the Spirit is received and the eschatological gift of salvation is bestowed by God. Kurt emphasises again, that the pneumatological dimension of baptism is expressed later in baptismal rites in which besides the laying on of hands, an anointing becomes a symbol of the imparting of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 1:21-23).
BAPTISMAL CHRISTIAN LIVING
According to Kurt, by virtue of our baptism, the Spirit effects new life in us (2 Corin 5: 17-18). He emphasizes the NT perspective that forgiveness of sins is completed in baptism as evidenced in Peter’s Pentecostal sermon (Acts 2: 38). The relationship between baptism and forgiveness of sins laid in the fact that in the NT the baptized person’s sin is forgiven once and for all. It also provides an understanding of the NT exhortation and presupposition that Christians after baptism will lead a life without sin (Romans 6: 11-12). According to Kurt, baptism places certain responsibility on the recipient namely that he is not only required to live a morally upright life, but also he must live a life which is worthy of a Christian; a life which must manifest his new status as bestowed on him by Christ. This is what Kurt describes as a Christian ethic. Thus the newness of life as a gift of baptism becomes the basis for all moral imperatives. In Romans 6 and 12, Paul brings out clearly the fact that the basic duty of living a truly Christian life springs from baptism itself. Baptism is, therefore, seen as a radical service to God and a departure from a previous enslavement to the power of sin. Furthermore, Kurt draws our attention to the fact that baptism requires that we live what we profess in our daily encounter with each other. This results into a community in which people link their lives together, act responsibly for each other and carry each others burdens. This idea of community is what Paul developed when he shows that in Christian baptism all historical and human discrimination are dissolved and is made inoperative (Galatians 3: 26-28). Paul reaffirms the ecclesial dimension of baptism and names racism, imperialism and sexism as posing a threat to Christian baptism. For Paul the decisive character of race, imperialism and sexism are overcome in baptism, which marks the irrevocable beginning of the eschatological reestablishment of a truly ordered and interactive society that lives in peace and justice according to God’s will. The Church should be seen as the conscience of society bound together by the baptismal waters of love, peace, justice and solidarity. Also Kurt stresses the fact that the Christian morality in the sense of following Jesus is essentially the morality of baptism. This is because in baptism not only is the following of Jesus made possible but the lifelong and daily following of Jesus is required. R. Schnackenberg puts it beautifully when he says “Baptism entered into with faith is a call to the following of Christ in time after Easter.” Baptism grants to each baptized person a dignity which can never be taken away, either by his own deeds or by the violent claims of others (W. Huber). Kurt concludes this section by bringing to the fore the fact that baptism is carried out in the perspective of accepting individuals into the Christian community and can, therefore, be understood as the public proclamation of the human right to life. It makes the individual a dignified being and this dignity he draws from God. Baptism, according to P. M. Zulehner is “a profound celebration of human dignity and inviolable freedom.
RECEPTION INTO THE BODY OF CHRIST
Kurt lays emphasis on the ecclesial dimension of baptism when he says that baptism does not only mark one’s adoption of the Christian faith but also an entrance into the church. The ecclesia community then becomes a place where the baptize subjects himself to Christ and receives salvation. By virtue of his baptism, the baptized is duty bound to live as a person who has his new home in the community of the Church namely, he acquires basic residence in the church, and his basic vocation is to be a member of the new people of God. According to Kurt, if baptism incorporates us into Jesus as a Son, then entrance into this Son ship of Jesus is entrance into the larger family of all those who are with the Son ( Church). Thus Joseph Ratzinger puts it beautifully when he says that “Then the new birth from God which happens in baptism is likewise a birth into the whole Christ, head and members. Thus for Kurt, baptism into Christ finds concrete expression in being a member of the ecclesia community and this was evidenced in the Early Church when on the day of Pentecost, about three thousand were baptized and added to the community of believers ( Acts 2: 41). This emphasizes again, that from the very beginning baptism and the Church were inextricably linked. Thus baptism presupposed a Church in which one is incorporated; the Church becomes a salvific actuality. Baptism, therefore, brings out clearly the ‘ekklesia’ dimension of the Church as the community of those called together by God and ‘added’ by God to the Church ( Acts 2: 46-47). The Church becomes visible as a missionary and salvific community which accepts all who believe in Christ and wishes to join through baptism. For St. Paul, baptism and the Church are inseparably linked that his vision of the Church as a body of Christ is grounded in baptism (1Corin 12: 13, Eph 4: 4-6). Kurt sees baptism as the entrance gate to the Church and therefore to the ecumenical church as emphasized by the Vatican ll’s Decree on Ecumenism that “For those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church” (#3). Kurt draws our attention to the same Decree which emphasizes the fact that there is a sacramental bond of unity between all who are reborn through baptism in so long as baptism is institutionally administered and received in faith. Kurt concluded on this section by re- emphasizing the Church’s Decree on Ecumenism that baptism is the beginning and starting point of four things namely, the achievement of the fullness of life in Christ, a complete profession of faith, a complete incorporation into the event of salvation such as Christ himself willed it to be and finally towards a complete integration into Eucharistic communion. Thus baptism according to Kurt has become a basis for ecumenical dialogue.
THEOLOGY OF BAPTISM
Kurt reiterates once more that baptism which is incorporation into Christ and an entrance into the Church are inseparably linked if we want to understand Christian baptism. Thus he says that “The ecclesiological significance of baptism is in fact to be understood as a concrete form of its Christological significance on the level of historical experience.” This he explain that to be in Christ and with Christ as a gift of baptism presupposes an ecclesial reality since to be in Christ is not different from being part of the body of Christ. He concluded by stating emphatically that since the Eucharist forms the highest point of the baptismal service, baptism into the body of Christ is likewise baptism into the Eucharist.
INDIVIDUALISING OF INITIATION
In this aspect of the article, Kurt draws our attention to the original unity, inner and outer, of the sacraments of initiation of baptism, confirmation and the Eucharist. For Kurt, the sacraments of initiation make one a member of the Church and liberates him from the dominium of sin. He emphasizes again, that the actual initiation into the Church at baptism was originally completed with first communion. A case in point, as put forward by Kurt is the fact that the unity of the sacraments of initiation can be best appreciated against the back drop of the institution of the catechumenate, by which candidates for baptism had to demonstrate the seriousness of their conversion in which the Christian life had to be learnt and practiced. Kurt is of the view that while the Eastern Church has preserved the unity of the sacraments of initiation, in the Latin Church, the baptism of infants has caused these sacraments to be broken down into separate ceremonies. This he admitted to have been caused by an ecclesiastical political situation. According to Kurt, Emperor Constantine’ declaration of Christianity as a state religion meant that in the first decade of the fourth century, it was no longer the ordinary practice of initiating adults into the Church in which the sacraments of initiation were administered to them at the same time. Infant baptism became the order of the day since Christianity now became a state religion to the extent that Baptism as membership in the Church became, as a practical matter, membership in society. Thus this whole concept of catechumens according to Kurt now had little in common with those candidates preparing for baptism. This is because the instructional aspect was missing due to infant baptism which was on the ascendancy. Again, the comprehensive catechumenate for the unbaptised was replaced by the instruction of children after baptism. Added to this fact is that baptism for infants increased, due to the doctrine of Original sin, since baptism was understood as a necessary liberation from original sin. This, for Kurt meant that baptism was directed at the salvation of the individual and the consequence was that the ecclesial dimension was underestimated. Thus Kurt states emphatically, without mincing words that in the course of history, no other sacrament has been individualized and privatized than the sacrament of baptism. For to this day, he decried, baptism has no longer been understood and celebrated as a sacrament of initiation into the church but is now oriented towards the salvation of individuals. This , he says is evident in the fact that parents still bring their children to be baptized though they do not think much about the Church or may have even withdrawn from it. In fact, parents now see baptism as a way of putting their children in touch with the reality of the divine. Kurt concludes this section by stating emphatically that baptism now serves as a vehicle to take the child into God’s world and to ask God’s blessing for the child.
REVITALISING THE ECCLESIAL DIMENSION
Kurt Koch in this section calls for a revitalization of the ecclesial dimension of baptism. He advanced two reasons namely that infant baptism is theologically justified by the fact that “A gift given ahead of time is nevertheless really a gift (J. Ratzinger) and that there is a threat that the meaning of baptism will be destroyed if the Church no longer understand it as a gift given ahead of time and unfolds afterwards, but merely as a rite closed that is still retained only because it lends a certain solemnity and a ritual celebration to the beginning of life. Kurt, is of the view that the Church is duty bound to revitalize the ecclesial dimension of baptism for two main reasons namely for basic theological reasons and because of the Church’s profoundly changed condition. In the mind of Kurt, the Church today is experiencing the end of Constantinian form of Christianity where Christianity was a state religion. He argues that the Church cannot continue to assume that people (infants) who are baptized into the church will automatically grow in the church as part of the socialization process. The church must recognize that people must learn anew the faith and life in the church. The church must also help people to deepen their personal relationship to Christ and thereby experience how baptism extends throughout their lives and has been bestowed as “ God’s rainbow over our lives” ( J. Ratzinger), as a promise of His great “Yes” and as a guidepost pointing to what it means to be a Christian. Kurt Koch thinks that a rediscovery of the catechumenate offers a pastoral challenge and presents an opportunity which the Church should exploit. Kurt sees in the rediscovery of the catechumenate, the restoration of the original order and unity of the sacraments of initiation. Kurt could not agree more with Pope John Paul II who express in his post- conciliar Apostolic Letter “The Bishop: Servant of the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the Hope of the World” that the Bishops are responsible for Christian initiation. Kurt says that the Pope was convinced that the tradition of the process of Christian initiation especially for adults has proved to be providentially ordained not only for the churches just starting up but also for the countries where Christianity has been established for centuries. Kurt calls for a renewal of the original order of the sacraments of initiation because it restores the ecclesial dimension of baptism. This restoration can only be feasible when adults become members of the Church as a way of rediscovering the catechumenate of the early church. He stressed, however, that a rediscovery of the catechumenate does not deny the validity of infant baptism but it is an endeavor to reunite the sacraments of initiation in infant baptism also. This will bring out the ecclesial dimension of baptism both into the parish church and the universal church as well. Thus baptism proves to be the universal sacrament of the church taken as a whole. To ensure that baptism is experienced this way, Kurt says, is an urgent pastoral duty of our time.
CONCLUSION
Kurt Koch’ article on the “Principle for a Christian Theology of Baptism” calls for the renewal of the order of the sacraments of initiation of Baptism, Confirmation and the Eucharist. He thinks that it is the surest way to rediscover the ecclesial dimension of baptism. I think that Kurt Koch has not proposed anything new but that which is already true of the sacraments of initiation in the early church. A critical look at the principles will reveal the fact that they must be looked at concurrently and not in isolation. In fact, one is a build up on the other. I could not agree more with Kurt Koch on this issue since in our contemporary Churches, there has been this tendency of seeing this sacrament as an individual affair and it is gradually taking over the ecclesial dimension of the sacrament. Parents can just walk into the Church and have their wards baptized without the presence of the ecclesial community. The renewal of the original order of the sacraments of initiation can only be possible when adults become members of the Church so that the catechumenate of the early church can be rediscovered.
AGORSOR AARON AGBESHIE
(THEOLOGY TWO)
INTRODUCTION
According to the “Catechism of The Catholic Church” “Sin is an offence against reason, truth and right conscience; it is a failure in genuine love of God and neighbour caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods.”[1] “In its theological usage, then, the word ‘sin’ is not synonymous with wrong doing, and still less with illegality.”[2] Various theologians have defined sin in different ways. Notable among them is Edmund Hill’s definition of sin as a flaw or distortion in human nature. It must be emphasized that in their bid to explain the origins of sin, theologians have being struggling with the term “Original Sin” as proposed by St. Augustine. Thus some theologians have come to call it Genetic Sin, Hereditary Sin, Inherited Sin, Sin of the World, and a condition of deficiency. I think the problem is semantics and a play on words for it refers to the same thing. The purpose of this essay, therefore, is to mention the names of the proponents of these terminologies and to give a theological critique of these terminologies.
NAMES OF PROPONENTS
Original Sin was propounded by St. Augustine, Genetic Sin, Hereditary Sin and inherited Sin was propounded by Edmund Hill. Sin of the World was by Karl Rahner while Sin as a Condition of Deficiency was by Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler.
A THEOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF THE AFORE-MENTIONED TERMINOLOGIES.
ORIGINAL SIN
“The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the protestant reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adams fault to bad example…” [3] “The classical doctrine was given conciliar expression at the Council of Trent which affirmed that Adam’s sin ‘is one of origin and is passed on by propagation not by imitation’. The Council continues ‘ even children who in themselves could have as yet committed no sin, are therefore truly baptized for the remission of sins, so that by regeneration there may be cleansed in them what they contracted by generation’”[4]
Original sin is known in two senses: the Fall of Adam as the "original" sin and the hereditary fallen nature and moral corruption that is passed down from Adam to his descendants. It is called "original" in that Adam, the first man, is the one who sinned and thus caused sin to enter the world. Even though Eve is the one who sinned first, because Adam is the Federal Head (representative of mankind), his fall included or represented all of humanity. Therefore, some hold that original sin includes the falling of all humanity. Some see original sin as Adam's fallen nature passed to his descendants. "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned," (Rom. 5:12).Original sin is not a physical corruption, but a moral and spiritual corruption. It could be compared to the Reformed Doctrine of Total Depravity which states that sin has touched all parts of what a person is: heart, mind, soul, will, thoughts, desires, etc. There has been much debate over the nature of the sin of Adam and how it affected mankind. Pelagius taught that Adam's sin influenced the human race only as a bad example and that all people are born in the same state as Adam was before his fall. Apart from the traditional meaning of Original sin, some scholars think that the phrase ‘Original Sin’ is misleading because that is not what the Latin word ‘Originale’ means but ‘Originale’ has to do with the beginning. That is why l could not agree more with Edmund Hill when he says that Original Sin “ Is not the first sin nor any particular actual sin which is in no sense a copy of other sins… it means sin which we derive from our origins.”[5] Edmund Hill further opines that Original Sin is the sin in us; the sin of humanity and not the particular sin of the first human being. It is against this background that some scholars prefer the use of the phrase “Originating Sin”. We may here refer to an overwhelming power of corruption that has the capacity to corrupt the human person to miss the mark all the time, hence needing the grace of God to be fully human as the creator had wanted humanity to be. It is therefore not a kind of innate depravity and corruption believed to be transmitted to Adams descendants because of his sin. Edmund Hill argued that it is a Sin we acquire in and through our origins; a sin of our nature as such and not personal or particular sin personally committed and not inherited biologically by others. That is the more reason why St. Augustine could call it “sin of nature or feebleness of nature.
Again, original sin and its impact on the human being makes him aware of the abuse of freedom in human history and its impact on human beings. It is a distortion of the ontological holiness ; a destruction of the innate grace. It calls our attention to the rejection of God’s absolute offer of himself. The Calvinistic view sees one as unable to overcome his sin apart from the power of the Holy Spirit, a power possessed only when one repents of his sin and turns in reliance upon Christ and His atoning sacrifice for sin upon the cross. One problem with this view is in explaining how infants and those incapable of committing conscious sin are saved (2 Samuel 12:23; Matthew 18:3; 19:14), since they are nonetheless held responsible for Adam’s sin. Millard Erickson, author of Christian Theology, feels this difficulty is resolved as follows: “There is a position [view] that...preserves the parallelism between our accepting the work of Christ and that of Adam [Romans 5:12-21], and at the same time, it more clearly points out our responsibility for the first sin. We become responsible and guilty when we accept or approve of our corrupt nature. There is a time in the life of each one of us when we become aware of our own tendency towards sin. At that point we may abhor the sinful nature that has been there all the time...and repent of it. At the very least, there would be a rejection of our sinful makeup. But if we acquiesce in that sinful nature, we are in effect saying that it is good. In placing our tacit approval upon the corruption, we are also approving or concurring in the action in the Garden of Eden so long ago. We become guilty of that sin without having to commit a sin of our own.” The advantage of this doctrine is that it deals with the problem of evil without getting rid of God’s omnipotence, human freewill, or personal responsibility. That human beings are made in the divine image cannot be overemphasised but a flaw has been introduced that they cannot remove on their own. According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, God is humanity’s creator and out of love for his creation, he bestowed on us divine gifts which were not ours by right, but only made available to us through his generosity; those gifts being the complete mastery of our passions, exemption from death, sanctifying grace and the vision of God in the next life. As was his right, God made the loyalty and obedience of the head of the human family, Adam, the condition by which we would continue to receive those gifts throughout perpetuity. God’s love is therefore unconditional. Adam failed to hold up his end of this covenant and therefore those gifts were withdrawn, not only from him but from his children and heirs. But it has been because of God’s unceasing love that he has nevertheless given us the means to regain those gifts in the person of Christ- something he was in no way bound or obligated to do. However, many have raised objections to these namely if God were really good and truly loved us, he would not require anything from us that our failure to provide would bring about any sort of penalty. Again, that the story of the fall is internally inconsistent because the fruit of the tree brought knowledge of good and evil and without that knowledge one cannot sin. Therefore, humanity’s disobedience cannot be held against them. More so, there was an objection about why we are being punished for the wrong we have not done. The aforesaid are genuine objections to the doctrine of Original Sin but, we are all in some sense responsible for the deeds performed by the groups to which we belong. As a Ghanaian, l shoulder some of the responsibility for the action taken by my government and as an individual, l shoulder the responsibility of sin. Thus we do participate in original sin to the extent that we perpetuate it. Every moment of our lives, we are presented with Adam’s choice and more often than not we choose to evade our duties to ourselves, our fellow human beings, and our world and our creator.
Furthermore, in contrast to Jesus, the source of life, Paul painted Adam as the cause of our sinful condition into which all humans are born (original sin).
Genesis chapter three was thought to be the biblical foundation for it. But scholars now admit that the third chapter of Genesis tells us nothing about what happens at the beginning of time. Instead of describing an historical first sin, it presents an ingeniously simple picture of what every sin really is: the human self-assertion of those who want to be God, who want to go their own way in deciding what is right or wrong. The faith- core of the doctrine of original sin is that without grace no human being can rise to the level of existence God has planned for us. Even with grace, we will continually fall, because we are free and grace will always respect our freedom. It is significant that a new rite of baptism no longer emphasises liberation from original sin as a primary purpose of the sacrament, but initiation into the Christian community; an incorporation into the holy body of Christ.[6]
Also, the dogma makes us strictly responsible for the fault of Adam. That is a misconception of our doctrine. Our dogma does not attribute to the children of Adam any properly so-called responsibility for the act of their father, nor do we say that original sin is voluntary in the strict sense of the word. It is true that, considered as "a moral deformity", "a separation from God", as "the death of the soul", original sin is a real sin which deprives the soul of sanctifying grace. It has the same claim to be a sin as has habitual sin, which is the state in which an adult is placed by a grave and personal fault, the "stain" which St. Thomas defines as "the privation of grace" (I-II:109:7; III:87:2, ad 3), and it is from this point of view that baptism, putting an end to the privation of grace, "takes away all that is really and properly sin", for concupiscence which remains "is not really and properly sin", although its transmission was equally voluntary (Council of Trent) .We become responsible and guilty when we accept or approve of our corrupt nature. There is a time in the life of each one of us when we become aware of our own tendency toward sin. At that point we may abhor the sinful nature that has been there all the time...and repent of it. At the very least there would be a rejection of our sinful makeup. But if we acquiesce in that sinful nature, we are in effect saying that it is good. In placing our tacit approval upon the corruption, we are also approving or concurring in the action in the Garden of Eden so long ago. We become guilty of that sin without having to commit a sin of our own.”
GENETIC SIN
This terminology for Original sin was vouched by Edmund Hill. He, however, called for its restricted usage because of its biological implications. Genetic sin is not the personal sin of an individual transmitted to the offspring. What is genetic is passed on through reproduction. The primal sin from Adam is not passed on by reproduction. Referring to it as genetic is very problematic. This is because, the question of guilt and responsibility and what really urged Adam to sin come in here. This term could be well understood from the lenses of the council of Trent as it used the arguments of Augustine against Pelagius to define sin as “… one in origin and passed on by propagation and not by imitation.” And here propagation means the inherent antecedent sinfulness of men and women even before they have been exposed to bad example and have began to sin personally. Thus genetic can be used not in the biological sense but as a spiritual reality affecting man in his real existence, not needing imitation or learning in an environment.
CONDITION OF DEFICIENCY
In the dictionary of Theology, Rahner and Vorgrimler make reference to some scholars who prefer a condition of deficiency. This is comprehensible because creation was considered to be good and later evil came in and so deficiency. But the problem comes when it is explained to mean that we were created deficient. Then we will be accusing God to have created evil. God did not create evil but evil is the privation of the good and this comes about as a result of the moral choices we make. Thus in Adam, man became deficient because of the choice he made. Man, it is said is the synthesis of free will and destiny. In as much as man is destined for salvation, man has the free will to consent to his salvation. St. Augustine puts it succinctly when he said that when God decided to create us, he did not consult us but he cannot save us without our consent.
HEREDITARY SIN
Therefore, some hold that original sin includes the falling of all humanity. Some see original sin as Adam's fallen nature passed to his descendants. "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned," (Rom. 5:12).Hereditary or original or inherited sin does not refer to the so-called inherited sin from Adam. The idea of inheriting real sin from a putative Adam makes a mockery of the Justice of God. It must make those with a strong intuitive perception doubt the truth of such teachings. Hereditary sin was the consequence of the Fall of Man! According to Pope Pius XI original sin “Is the hereditary but impersonal fault of Adam’s descendants, who have sinned in him (Romans 5:12. It is the loss of grace, and therefore of eternal life, together with the propensity to evil, which everybody must, with the assistance of grace, penance, resistance and moral effort, repress and conquer. The passion and death of the son of God has redeemed the world from the hereditary curse of sin and death.” [7] I could not agree more with what the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” teaches about original sin when it says that:
Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death and inclined to sin- an inclination to evil that is called ‘concupiscence’. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’ grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God , but the consequence for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.[8]
INHERITED SIN
During the Protestant Reformation the German reformer Martin Luther and the Swiss reformer John Calvin maintained the Augustinian emphasis on original sin and on God's grace as the means of redemption. The Swiss religious reformer Huldreich Zwingli regarded sin as an inherited disease. This doctrine is called Arminianism. Arminians believe that Adam’s sin has resulted in the rest of mankind inheriting a propensity to sin commonly referred to as having a “sin nature.” This sin nature causes us to sin in the same way that a cat’s nature causes it to meow—it comes naturally. According to this view, man cannot stop sinning on his own; that is why God gives a universal grace to all to enable them to stop. This grace is called prevenient grace. And according to this view, we are not held accountable for Adam’s sin, just our own. This teaching runs contrary to the verb tense chosen for “all sinned” in Romans 5:12 and also ignores the fact that all bear the punishment for sin (death) even though they may not have sinned in a manner similar to Adam (1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 5:14-15,18). Therefore, inherited sin is the physical inheritance of a distorted brain, which if left unchecked will now lead to real sin because the full activity of the unchecked intellect always draws away from God. This is the great hereditary enemy that lies within every man, ready to ruin him and indeed it will if left unchecked.
Therefore, there could not have been anything like the widely held belief of the inheritance of real sin from an Adam. The distorted physical brain leads to a great tendency to sin, nothing more. This does not eliminate our responsibility as individuals to use our free wills for the good.
SIN OF THE WORLD
Augustine taught that men inherit natural corruption from Adam. At the return of Christ and the resurrection of all Christians, the sin nature will be done away with. Thus because it is the sin of the world, Jesus came to die for all and not for some selected few.
CONCLUSION
In as much as man has the propensity towards sin because of the fall, l believe strongly that man has the propensity towards holiness and this should be the project of our lives. Original Sin should not be an excuse for us to continue to remain in sin because “... He chose us before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love.” (Ephesians 1:4). Original Sin is a message of hope for our screwed-up world. It says that the world and each person is created to be good and beautiful and that all the bad things in the world and in us are not part of our nature. The teaching of original sin says that bad things are not inherent in the universe; that the universe was created to be good and only became bad later on. This holds out the hope that the change could somehow be reversed and that harmony can someday be restored.
According to Joseph Komonchak, in his book “New Dictionary of Theology” any satisfactory theory of sin, especially of ‘Original’ sin must reckon with man’s physical, chemical and biological roots in his environment. It was and is, precisely the creationist’s view of human’s origins which disregarded and disregards the pervasive significance of these roots. By reducing biblical mythology to a pseudo- scientific explanation of man’s appearance on earth, the creationists’ have been forced to oppose the findings of modern scientific investigation into the origins man. The question that faces us today is not whether we can jettison the doctrine as an anachronism, but whether we can interpret it in a way which is faithful to its basic insight that it is to be human is to need redemption. (P. 130).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abd-ru-shin, In the Light of Truth: The Grail Message. Stiftung Gralsbotschaft Publishing Company. Stuttgart, Germany.
APA citation. Harent, S. (1911). Original Sin. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
Retrieved December 22, 2008 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
Chapman Geoffrey, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Wellington House, London, 1994.
Glazier Michael, Hellwig Monika K., (Editors), The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1994.
Harrison, Everett F. ed., Baker's Dictionary of Theology, Baker Book House; Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1960, page 488.
Hill Edmund, Being Human: A Biblical Perspective, London, 1984.
Komonchak Joseph A., (Ed), New Dictionary of Theology, Welmington, 1987.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
MLA citation. Harent, Stéphane. "Original Sin." The Catholic Encyclopaedia. Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911.
22 Dec. 2008.
Pius XI, Mit brennender Sorge as quoted in Christian Moral Principles by Germain Grisez, Franciscan Press, IIIinois, 1997.
[1] Geoffrey Chapman, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Wellington House, London, 1994, P. 408.
[2] Joseph Komonchak A., (Ed), New Dictionary of Theology, Welmington, 1987, Page 114.
[3] Ibid, P. 91.
[4] Ibid, P. 122.
[5] Edmund Hill, Being Human: A Biblical Perspective, London, 1984, P. 66.
[6] Michael Glazier, Monika K., Hellwig ( Editors), The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia, Liturgical Press, Collegeveille, Minnesota, 1994, P. 806.
[7] Pius XI, Mit brennender Sorge as quoted in Christian Moral Principles by Germain Grisez, Franciscan Press, IIIinois, 1997, P. 333.
[8] Geoffrey Chapman, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Wellington House, London, 1994, P. 91.
According to the “Catechism of The Catholic Church” “Sin is an offence against reason, truth and right conscience; it is a failure in genuine love of God and neighbour caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods.”[1] “In its theological usage, then, the word ‘sin’ is not synonymous with wrong doing, and still less with illegality.”[2] Various theologians have defined sin in different ways. Notable among them is Edmund Hill’s definition of sin as a flaw or distortion in human nature. It must be emphasized that in their bid to explain the origins of sin, theologians have being struggling with the term “Original Sin” as proposed by St. Augustine. Thus some theologians have come to call it Genetic Sin, Hereditary Sin, Inherited Sin, Sin of the World, and a condition of deficiency. I think the problem is semantics and a play on words for it refers to the same thing. The purpose of this essay, therefore, is to mention the names of the proponents of these terminologies and to give a theological critique of these terminologies.
NAMES OF PROPONENTS
Original Sin was propounded by St. Augustine, Genetic Sin, Hereditary Sin and inherited Sin was propounded by Edmund Hill. Sin of the World was by Karl Rahner while Sin as a Condition of Deficiency was by Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler.
A THEOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF THE AFORE-MENTIONED TERMINOLOGIES.
ORIGINAL SIN
“The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the protestant reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adams fault to bad example…” [3] “The classical doctrine was given conciliar expression at the Council of Trent which affirmed that Adam’s sin ‘is one of origin and is passed on by propagation not by imitation’. The Council continues ‘ even children who in themselves could have as yet committed no sin, are therefore truly baptized for the remission of sins, so that by regeneration there may be cleansed in them what they contracted by generation’”[4]
Original sin is known in two senses: the Fall of Adam as the "original" sin and the hereditary fallen nature and moral corruption that is passed down from Adam to his descendants. It is called "original" in that Adam, the first man, is the one who sinned and thus caused sin to enter the world. Even though Eve is the one who sinned first, because Adam is the Federal Head (representative of mankind), his fall included or represented all of humanity. Therefore, some hold that original sin includes the falling of all humanity. Some see original sin as Adam's fallen nature passed to his descendants. "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned," (Rom. 5:12).Original sin is not a physical corruption, but a moral and spiritual corruption. It could be compared to the Reformed Doctrine of Total Depravity which states that sin has touched all parts of what a person is: heart, mind, soul, will, thoughts, desires, etc. There has been much debate over the nature of the sin of Adam and how it affected mankind. Pelagius taught that Adam's sin influenced the human race only as a bad example and that all people are born in the same state as Adam was before his fall. Apart from the traditional meaning of Original sin, some scholars think that the phrase ‘Original Sin’ is misleading because that is not what the Latin word ‘Originale’ means but ‘Originale’ has to do with the beginning. That is why l could not agree more with Edmund Hill when he says that Original Sin “ Is not the first sin nor any particular actual sin which is in no sense a copy of other sins… it means sin which we derive from our origins.”[5] Edmund Hill further opines that Original Sin is the sin in us; the sin of humanity and not the particular sin of the first human being. It is against this background that some scholars prefer the use of the phrase “Originating Sin”. We may here refer to an overwhelming power of corruption that has the capacity to corrupt the human person to miss the mark all the time, hence needing the grace of God to be fully human as the creator had wanted humanity to be. It is therefore not a kind of innate depravity and corruption believed to be transmitted to Adams descendants because of his sin. Edmund Hill argued that it is a Sin we acquire in and through our origins; a sin of our nature as such and not personal or particular sin personally committed and not inherited biologically by others. That is the more reason why St. Augustine could call it “sin of nature or feebleness of nature.
Again, original sin and its impact on the human being makes him aware of the abuse of freedom in human history and its impact on human beings. It is a distortion of the ontological holiness ; a destruction of the innate grace. It calls our attention to the rejection of God’s absolute offer of himself. The Calvinistic view sees one as unable to overcome his sin apart from the power of the Holy Spirit, a power possessed only when one repents of his sin and turns in reliance upon Christ and His atoning sacrifice for sin upon the cross. One problem with this view is in explaining how infants and those incapable of committing conscious sin are saved (2 Samuel 12:23; Matthew 18:3; 19:14), since they are nonetheless held responsible for Adam’s sin. Millard Erickson, author of Christian Theology, feels this difficulty is resolved as follows: “There is a position [view] that...preserves the parallelism between our accepting the work of Christ and that of Adam [Romans 5:12-21], and at the same time, it more clearly points out our responsibility for the first sin. We become responsible and guilty when we accept or approve of our corrupt nature. There is a time in the life of each one of us when we become aware of our own tendency towards sin. At that point we may abhor the sinful nature that has been there all the time...and repent of it. At the very least, there would be a rejection of our sinful makeup. But if we acquiesce in that sinful nature, we are in effect saying that it is good. In placing our tacit approval upon the corruption, we are also approving or concurring in the action in the Garden of Eden so long ago. We become guilty of that sin without having to commit a sin of our own.” The advantage of this doctrine is that it deals with the problem of evil without getting rid of God’s omnipotence, human freewill, or personal responsibility. That human beings are made in the divine image cannot be overemphasised but a flaw has been introduced that they cannot remove on their own. According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, God is humanity’s creator and out of love for his creation, he bestowed on us divine gifts which were not ours by right, but only made available to us through his generosity; those gifts being the complete mastery of our passions, exemption from death, sanctifying grace and the vision of God in the next life. As was his right, God made the loyalty and obedience of the head of the human family, Adam, the condition by which we would continue to receive those gifts throughout perpetuity. God’s love is therefore unconditional. Adam failed to hold up his end of this covenant and therefore those gifts were withdrawn, not only from him but from his children and heirs. But it has been because of God’s unceasing love that he has nevertheless given us the means to regain those gifts in the person of Christ- something he was in no way bound or obligated to do. However, many have raised objections to these namely if God were really good and truly loved us, he would not require anything from us that our failure to provide would bring about any sort of penalty. Again, that the story of the fall is internally inconsistent because the fruit of the tree brought knowledge of good and evil and without that knowledge one cannot sin. Therefore, humanity’s disobedience cannot be held against them. More so, there was an objection about why we are being punished for the wrong we have not done. The aforesaid are genuine objections to the doctrine of Original Sin but, we are all in some sense responsible for the deeds performed by the groups to which we belong. As a Ghanaian, l shoulder some of the responsibility for the action taken by my government and as an individual, l shoulder the responsibility of sin. Thus we do participate in original sin to the extent that we perpetuate it. Every moment of our lives, we are presented with Adam’s choice and more often than not we choose to evade our duties to ourselves, our fellow human beings, and our world and our creator.
Furthermore, in contrast to Jesus, the source of life, Paul painted Adam as the cause of our sinful condition into which all humans are born (original sin).
Genesis chapter three was thought to be the biblical foundation for it. But scholars now admit that the third chapter of Genesis tells us nothing about what happens at the beginning of time. Instead of describing an historical first sin, it presents an ingeniously simple picture of what every sin really is: the human self-assertion of those who want to be God, who want to go their own way in deciding what is right or wrong. The faith- core of the doctrine of original sin is that without grace no human being can rise to the level of existence God has planned for us. Even with grace, we will continually fall, because we are free and grace will always respect our freedom. It is significant that a new rite of baptism no longer emphasises liberation from original sin as a primary purpose of the sacrament, but initiation into the Christian community; an incorporation into the holy body of Christ.[6]
Also, the dogma makes us strictly responsible for the fault of Adam. That is a misconception of our doctrine. Our dogma does not attribute to the children of Adam any properly so-called responsibility for the act of their father, nor do we say that original sin is voluntary in the strict sense of the word. It is true that, considered as "a moral deformity", "a separation from God", as "the death of the soul", original sin is a real sin which deprives the soul of sanctifying grace. It has the same claim to be a sin as has habitual sin, which is the state in which an adult is placed by a grave and personal fault, the "stain" which St. Thomas defines as "the privation of grace" (I-II:109:7; III:87:2, ad 3), and it is from this point of view that baptism, putting an end to the privation of grace, "takes away all that is really and properly sin", for concupiscence which remains "is not really and properly sin", although its transmission was equally voluntary (Council of Trent) .We become responsible and guilty when we accept or approve of our corrupt nature. There is a time in the life of each one of us when we become aware of our own tendency toward sin. At that point we may abhor the sinful nature that has been there all the time...and repent of it. At the very least there would be a rejection of our sinful makeup. But if we acquiesce in that sinful nature, we are in effect saying that it is good. In placing our tacit approval upon the corruption, we are also approving or concurring in the action in the Garden of Eden so long ago. We become guilty of that sin without having to commit a sin of our own.”
GENETIC SIN
This terminology for Original sin was vouched by Edmund Hill. He, however, called for its restricted usage because of its biological implications. Genetic sin is not the personal sin of an individual transmitted to the offspring. What is genetic is passed on through reproduction. The primal sin from Adam is not passed on by reproduction. Referring to it as genetic is very problematic. This is because, the question of guilt and responsibility and what really urged Adam to sin come in here. This term could be well understood from the lenses of the council of Trent as it used the arguments of Augustine against Pelagius to define sin as “… one in origin and passed on by propagation and not by imitation.” And here propagation means the inherent antecedent sinfulness of men and women even before they have been exposed to bad example and have began to sin personally. Thus genetic can be used not in the biological sense but as a spiritual reality affecting man in his real existence, not needing imitation or learning in an environment.
CONDITION OF DEFICIENCY
In the dictionary of Theology, Rahner and Vorgrimler make reference to some scholars who prefer a condition of deficiency. This is comprehensible because creation was considered to be good and later evil came in and so deficiency. But the problem comes when it is explained to mean that we were created deficient. Then we will be accusing God to have created evil. God did not create evil but evil is the privation of the good and this comes about as a result of the moral choices we make. Thus in Adam, man became deficient because of the choice he made. Man, it is said is the synthesis of free will and destiny. In as much as man is destined for salvation, man has the free will to consent to his salvation. St. Augustine puts it succinctly when he said that when God decided to create us, he did not consult us but he cannot save us without our consent.
HEREDITARY SIN
Therefore, some hold that original sin includes the falling of all humanity. Some see original sin as Adam's fallen nature passed to his descendants. "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned," (Rom. 5:12).Hereditary or original or inherited sin does not refer to the so-called inherited sin from Adam. The idea of inheriting real sin from a putative Adam makes a mockery of the Justice of God. It must make those with a strong intuitive perception doubt the truth of such teachings. Hereditary sin was the consequence of the Fall of Man! According to Pope Pius XI original sin “Is the hereditary but impersonal fault of Adam’s descendants, who have sinned in him (Romans 5:12. It is the loss of grace, and therefore of eternal life, together with the propensity to evil, which everybody must, with the assistance of grace, penance, resistance and moral effort, repress and conquer. The passion and death of the son of God has redeemed the world from the hereditary curse of sin and death.” [7] I could not agree more with what the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” teaches about original sin when it says that:
Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death and inclined to sin- an inclination to evil that is called ‘concupiscence’. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’ grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God , but the consequence for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.[8]
INHERITED SIN
During the Protestant Reformation the German reformer Martin Luther and the Swiss reformer John Calvin maintained the Augustinian emphasis on original sin and on God's grace as the means of redemption. The Swiss religious reformer Huldreich Zwingli regarded sin as an inherited disease. This doctrine is called Arminianism. Arminians believe that Adam’s sin has resulted in the rest of mankind inheriting a propensity to sin commonly referred to as having a “sin nature.” This sin nature causes us to sin in the same way that a cat’s nature causes it to meow—it comes naturally. According to this view, man cannot stop sinning on his own; that is why God gives a universal grace to all to enable them to stop. This grace is called prevenient grace. And according to this view, we are not held accountable for Adam’s sin, just our own. This teaching runs contrary to the verb tense chosen for “all sinned” in Romans 5:12 and also ignores the fact that all bear the punishment for sin (death) even though they may not have sinned in a manner similar to Adam (1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 5:14-15,18). Therefore, inherited sin is the physical inheritance of a distorted brain, which if left unchecked will now lead to real sin because the full activity of the unchecked intellect always draws away from God. This is the great hereditary enemy that lies within every man, ready to ruin him and indeed it will if left unchecked.
Therefore, there could not have been anything like the widely held belief of the inheritance of real sin from an Adam. The distorted physical brain leads to a great tendency to sin, nothing more. This does not eliminate our responsibility as individuals to use our free wills for the good.
SIN OF THE WORLD
Augustine taught that men inherit natural corruption from Adam. At the return of Christ and the resurrection of all Christians, the sin nature will be done away with. Thus because it is the sin of the world, Jesus came to die for all and not for some selected few.
CONCLUSION
In as much as man has the propensity towards sin because of the fall, l believe strongly that man has the propensity towards holiness and this should be the project of our lives. Original Sin should not be an excuse for us to continue to remain in sin because “... He chose us before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love.” (Ephesians 1:4). Original Sin is a message of hope for our screwed-up world. It says that the world and each person is created to be good and beautiful and that all the bad things in the world and in us are not part of our nature. The teaching of original sin says that bad things are not inherent in the universe; that the universe was created to be good and only became bad later on. This holds out the hope that the change could somehow be reversed and that harmony can someday be restored.
According to Joseph Komonchak, in his book “New Dictionary of Theology” any satisfactory theory of sin, especially of ‘Original’ sin must reckon with man’s physical, chemical and biological roots in his environment. It was and is, precisely the creationist’s view of human’s origins which disregarded and disregards the pervasive significance of these roots. By reducing biblical mythology to a pseudo- scientific explanation of man’s appearance on earth, the creationists’ have been forced to oppose the findings of modern scientific investigation into the origins man. The question that faces us today is not whether we can jettison the doctrine as an anachronism, but whether we can interpret it in a way which is faithful to its basic insight that it is to be human is to need redemption. (P. 130).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abd-ru-shin, In the Light of Truth: The Grail Message. Stiftung Gralsbotschaft Publishing Company. Stuttgart, Germany.
APA citation. Harent, S. (1911). Original Sin. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
Retrieved December 22, 2008 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
Chapman Geoffrey, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Wellington House, London, 1994.
Glazier Michael, Hellwig Monika K., (Editors), The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1994.
Harrison, Everett F. ed., Baker's Dictionary of Theology, Baker Book House; Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1960, page 488.
Hill Edmund, Being Human: A Biblical Perspective, London, 1984.
Komonchak Joseph A., (Ed), New Dictionary of Theology, Welmington, 1987.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
MLA citation. Harent, Stéphane. "Original Sin." The Catholic Encyclopaedia. Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911.
22 Dec. 2008
Pius XI, Mit brennender Sorge as quoted in Christian Moral Principles by Germain Grisez, Franciscan Press, IIIinois, 1997.
[1] Geoffrey Chapman, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Wellington House, London, 1994, P. 408.
[2] Joseph Komonchak A., (Ed), New Dictionary of Theology, Welmington, 1987, Page 114.
[3] Ibid, P. 91.
[4] Ibid, P. 122.
[5] Edmund Hill, Being Human: A Biblical Perspective, London, 1984, P. 66.
[6] Michael Glazier, Monika K., Hellwig ( Editors), The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia, Liturgical Press, Collegeveille, Minnesota, 1994, P. 806.
[7] Pius XI, Mit brennender Sorge as quoted in Christian Moral Principles by Germain Grisez, Franciscan Press, IIIinois, 1997, P. 333.
[8] Geoffrey Chapman, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Wellington House, London, 1994, P. 91.
INTRODUCTION
According to the “Catechism of The Catholic Church” “Sin is an offence against reason, truth and right conscience; it is a failure in genuine love of God and neighbour caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods.”[1] “In its theological usage, then, the word ‘sin’ is not synonymous with wrong doing, and still less with illegality.”[2] Various theologians have defined sin in different ways. Notable among them is Edmund Hill’s definition of sin as a flaw or distortion in human nature. It must be emphasized that in their bid to explain the origins of sin, theologians have being struggling with the term “Original Sin” as proposed by St. Augustine. Thus some theologians have come to call it Genetic Sin, Hereditary Sin, Inherited Sin, Sin of the World, and a condition of deficiency. I think the problem is semantics and a play on words for it refers to the same thing. The purpose of this essay, therefore, is to mention the names of the proponents of these terminologies and to give a theological critique of these terminologies.
NAMES OF PROPONENTS
Original Sin was propounded by St. Augustine, Genetic Sin, Hereditary Sin and inherited Sin was propounded by Edmund Hill. Sin of the World was by Karl Rahner while Sin as a Condition of Deficiency was by Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler.
A THEOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF THE AFORE-MENTIONED TERMINOLOGIES.
ORIGINAL SIN
“The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the protestant reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adams fault to bad example…” [3] “The classical doctrine was given conciliar expression at the Council of Trent which affirmed that Adam’s sin ‘is one of origin and is passed on by propagation not by imitation’. The Council continues ‘ even children who in themselves could have as yet committed no sin, are therefore truly baptized for the remission of sins, so that by regeneration there may be cleansed in them what they contracted by generation’”[4]
Original sin is known in two senses: the Fall of Adam as the "original" sin and the hereditary fallen nature and moral corruption that is passed down from Adam to his descendants. It is called "original" in that Adam, the first man, is the one who sinned and thus caused sin to enter the world. Even though Eve is the one who sinned first, because Adam is the Federal Head (representative of mankind), his fall included or represented all of humanity. Therefore, some hold that original sin includes the falling of all humanity. Some see original sin as Adam's fallen nature passed to his descendants. "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned," (Rom. 5:12).Original sin is not a physical corruption, but a moral and spiritual corruption. It could be compared to the Reformed Doctrine of Total Depravity which states that sin has touched all parts of what a person is: heart, mind, soul, will, thoughts, desires, etc. There has been much debate over the nature of the sin of Adam and how it affected mankind. Pelagius taught that Adam's sin influenced the human race only as a bad example and that all people are born in the same state as Adam was before his fall. Apart from the traditional meaning of Original sin, some scholars think that the phrase ‘Original Sin’ is misleading because that is not what the Latin word ‘Originale’ means but ‘Originale’ has to do with the beginning. That is why l could not agree more with Edmund Hill when he says that Original Sin “ Is not the first sin nor any particular actual sin which is in no sense a copy of other sins… it means sin which we derive from our origins.”[5] Edmund Hill further opines that Original Sin is the sin in us; the sin of humanity and not the particular sin of the first human being. It is against this background that some scholars prefer the use of the phrase “Originating Sin”. We may here refer to an overwhelming power of corruption that has the capacity to corrupt the human person to miss the mark all the time, hence needing the grace of God to be fully human as the creator had wanted humanity to be. It is therefore not a kind of innate depravity and corruption believed to be transmitted to Adams descendants because of his sin. Edmund Hill argued that it is a Sin we acquire in and through our origins; a sin of our nature as such and not personal or particular sin personally committed and not inherited biologically by others. That is the more reason why St. Augustine could call it “sin of nature or feebleness of nature.
Again, original sin and its impact on the human being makes him aware of the abuse of freedom in human history and its impact on human beings. It is a distortion of the ontological holiness ; a destruction of the innate grace. It calls our attention to the rejection of God’s absolute offer of himself. The Calvinistic view sees one as unable to overcome his sin apart from the power of the Holy Spirit, a power possessed only when one repents of his sin and turns in reliance upon Christ and His atoning sacrifice for sin upon the cross. One problem with this view is in explaining how infants and those incapable of committing conscious sin are saved (2 Samuel 12:23; Matthew 18:3; 19:14), since they are nonetheless held responsible for Adam’s sin. Millard Erickson, author of Christian Theology, feels this difficulty is resolved as follows: “There is a position [view] that...preserves the parallelism between our accepting the work of Christ and that of Adam [Romans 5:12-21], and at the same time, it more clearly points out our responsibility for the first sin. We become responsible and guilty when we accept or approve of our corrupt nature. There is a time in the life of each one of us when we become aware of our own tendency towards sin. At that point we may abhor the sinful nature that has been there all the time...and repent of it. At the very least, there would be a rejection of our sinful makeup. But if we acquiesce in that sinful nature, we are in effect saying that it is good. In placing our tacit approval upon the corruption, we are also approving or concurring in the action in the Garden of Eden so long ago. We become guilty of that sin without having to commit a sin of our own.” The advantage of this doctrine is that it deals with the problem of evil without getting rid of God’s omnipotence, human freewill, or personal responsibility. That human beings are made in the divine image cannot be overemphasised but a flaw has been introduced that they cannot remove on their own. According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, God is humanity’s creator and out of love for his creation, he bestowed on us divine gifts which were not ours by right, but only made available to us through his generosity; those gifts being the complete mastery of our passions, exemption from death, sanctifying grace and the vision of God in the next life. As was his right, God made the loyalty and obedience of the head of the human family, Adam, the condition by which we would continue to receive those gifts throughout perpetuity. God’s love is therefore unconditional. Adam failed to hold up his end of this covenant and therefore those gifts were withdrawn, not only from him but from his children and heirs. But it has been because of God’s unceasing love that he has nevertheless given us the means to regain those gifts in the person of Christ- something he was in no way bound or obligated to do. However, many have raised objections to these namely if God were really good and truly loved us, he would not require anything from us that our failure to provide would bring about any sort of penalty. Again, that the story of the fall is internally inconsistent because the fruit of the tree brought knowledge of good and evil and without that knowledge one cannot sin. Therefore, humanity’s disobedience cannot be held against them. More so, there was an objection about why we are being punished for the wrong we have not done. The aforesaid are genuine objections to the doctrine of Original Sin but, we are all in some sense responsible for the deeds performed by the groups to which we belong. As a Ghanaian, l shoulder some of the responsibility for the action taken by my government and as an individual, l shoulder the responsibility of sin. Thus we do participate in original sin to the extent that we perpetuate it. Every moment of our lives, we are presented with Adam’s choice and more often than not we choose to evade our duties to ourselves, our fellow human beings, and our world and our creator.
Furthermore, in contrast to Jesus, the source of life, Paul painted Adam as the cause of our sinful condition into which all humans are born (original sin).
Genesis chapter three was thought to be the biblical foundation for it. But scholars now admit that the third chapter of Genesis tells us nothing about what happens at the beginning of time. Instead of describing an historical first sin, it presents an ingeniously simple picture of what every sin really is: the human self-assertion of those who want to be God, who want to go their own way in deciding what is right or wrong. The faith- core of the doctrine of original sin is that without grace no human being can rise to the level of existence God has planned for us. Even with grace, we will continually fall, because we are free and grace will always respect our freedom. It is significant that a new rite of baptism no longer emphasises liberation from original sin as a primary purpose of the sacrament, but initiation into the Christian community; an incorporation into the holy body of Christ.[6]
Also, the dogma makes us strictly responsible for the fault of Adam. That is a misconception of our doctrine. Our dogma does not attribute to the children of Adam any properly so-called responsibility for the act of their father, nor do we say that original sin is voluntary in the strict sense of the word. It is true that, considered as "a moral deformity", "a separation from God", as "the death of the soul", original sin is a real sin which deprives the soul of sanctifying grace. It has the same claim to be a sin as has habitual sin, which is the state in which an adult is placed by a grave and personal fault, the "stain" which St. Thomas defines as "the privation of grace" (I-II:109:7; III:87:2, ad 3), and it is from this point of view that baptism, putting an end to the privation of grace, "takes away all that is really and properly sin", for concupiscence which remains "is not really and properly sin", although its transmission was equally voluntary (Council of Trent) .We become responsible and guilty when we accept or approve of our corrupt nature. There is a time in the life of each one of us when we become aware of our own tendency toward sin. At that point we may abhor the sinful nature that has been there all the time...and repent of it. At the very least there would be a rejection of our sinful makeup. But if we acquiesce in that sinful nature, we are in effect saying that it is good. In placing our tacit approval upon the corruption, we are also approving or concurring in the action in the Garden of Eden so long ago. We become guilty of that sin without having to commit a sin of our own.”
GENETIC SIN
This terminology for Original sin was vouched by Edmund Hill. He, however, called for its restricted usage because of its biological implications. Genetic sin is not the personal sin of an individual transmitted to the offspring. What is genetic is passed on through reproduction. The primal sin from Adam is not passed on by reproduction. Referring to it as genetic is very problematic. This is because, the question of guilt and responsibility and what really urged Adam to sin come in here. This term could be well understood from the lenses of the council of Trent as it used the arguments of Augustine against Pelagius to define sin as “… one in origin and passed on by propagation and not by imitation.” And here propagation means the inherent antecedent sinfulness of men and women even before they have been exposed to bad example and have began to sin personally. Thus genetic can be used not in the biological sense but as a spiritual reality affecting man in his real existence, not needing imitation or learning in an environment.
CONDITION OF DEFICIENCY
In the dictionary of Theology, Rahner and Vorgrimler make reference to some scholars who prefer a condition of deficiency. This is comprehensible because creation was considered to be good and later evil came in and so deficiency. But the problem comes when it is explained to mean that we were created deficient. Then we will be accusing God to have created evil. God did not create evil but evil is the privation of the good and this comes about as a result of the moral choices we make. Thus in Adam, man became deficient because of the choice he made. Man, it is said is the synthesis of free will and destiny. In as much as man is destined for salvation, man has the free will to consent to his salvation. St. Augustine puts it succinctly when he said that when God decided to create us, he did not consult us but he cannot save us without our consent.
HEREDITARY SIN
Therefore, some hold that original sin includes the falling of all humanity. Some see original sin as Adam's fallen nature passed to his descendants. "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned," (Rom. 5:12).Hereditary or original or inherited sin does not refer to the so-called inherited sin from Adam. The idea of inheriting real sin from a putative Adam makes a mockery of the Justice of God. It must make those with a strong intuitive perception doubt the truth of such teachings. Hereditary sin was the consequence of the Fall of Man! According to Pope Pius XI original sin “Is the hereditary but impersonal fault of Adam’s descendants, who have sinned in him (Romans 5:12. It is the loss of grace, and therefore of eternal life, together with the propensity to evil, which everybody must, with the assistance of grace, penance, resistance and moral effort, repress and conquer. The passion and death of the son of God has redeemed the world from the hereditary curse of sin and death.” [7] I could not agree more with what the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” teaches about original sin when it says that:
Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death and inclined to sin- an inclination to evil that is called ‘concupiscence’. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’ grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God , but the consequence for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.[8]
INHERITED SIN
During the Protestant Reformation the German reformer Martin Luther and the Swiss reformer John Calvin maintained the Augustinian emphasis on original sin and on God's grace as the means of redemption. The Swiss religious reformer Huldreich Zwingli regarded sin as an inherited disease. This doctrine is called Arminianism. Arminians believe that Adam’s sin has resulted in the rest of mankind inheriting a propensity to sin commonly referred to as having a “sin nature.” This sin nature causes us to sin in the same way that a cat’s nature causes it to meow—it comes naturally. According to this view, man cannot stop sinning on his own; that is why God gives a universal grace to all to enable them to stop. This grace is called prevenient grace. And according to this view, we are not held accountable for Adam’s sin, just our own. This teaching runs contrary to the verb tense chosen for “all sinned” in Romans 5:12 and also ignores the fact that all bear the punishment for sin (death) even though they may not have sinned in a manner similar to Adam (1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 5:14-15,18). Therefore, inherited sin is the physical inheritance of a distorted brain, which if left unchecked will now lead to real sin because the full activity of the unchecked intellect always draws away from God. This is the great hereditary enemy that lies within every man, ready to ruin him and indeed it will if left unchecked.
Therefore, there could not have been anything like the widely held belief of the inheritance of real sin from an Adam. The distorted physical brain leads to a great tendency to sin, nothing more. This does not eliminate our responsibility as individuals to use our free wills for the good.
SIN OF THE WORLD
Augustine taught that men inherit natural corruption from Adam. At the return of Christ and the resurrection of all Christians, the sin nature will be done away with. Thus because it is the sin of the world, Jesus came to die for all and not for some selected few.
CONCLUSION
In as much as man has the propensity towards sin because of the fall, l believe strongly that man has the propensity towards holiness and this should be the project of our lives. Original Sin should not be an excuse for us to continue to remain in sin because “... He chose us before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love.” (Ephesians 1:4). Original Sin is a message of hope for our screwed-up world. It says that the world and each person is created to be good and beautiful and that all the bad things in the world and in us are not part of our nature. The teaching of original sin says that bad things are not inherent in the universe; that the universe was created to be good and only became bad later on. This holds out the hope that the change could somehow be reversed and that harmony can someday be restored.
According to Joseph Komonchak, in his book “New Dictionary of Theology” any satisfactory theory of sin, especially of ‘Original’ sin must reckon with man’s physical, chemical and biological roots in his environment. It was and is, precisely the creationist’s view of human’s origins which disregarded and disregards the pervasive significance of these roots. By reducing biblical mythology to a pseudo- scientific explanation of man’s appearance on earth, the creationists’ have been forced to oppose the findings of modern scientific investigation into the origins man. The question that faces us today is not whether we can jettison the doctrine as an anachronism, but whether we can interpret it in a way which is faithful to its basic insight that it is to be human is to need redemption. (P. 130).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abd-ru-shin, In the Light of Truth: The Grail Message. Stiftung Gralsbotschaft Publishing Company. Stuttgart, Germany.
APA citation. Harent, S. (1911). Original Sin. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
Retrieved December 22, 2008 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
Chapman Geoffrey, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Wellington House, London, 1994.
Glazier Michael, Hellwig Monika K., (Editors), The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1994.
Harrison, Everett F. ed., Baker's Dictionary of Theology, Baker Book House; Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1960, page 488.
Hill Edmund, Being Human: A Biblical Perspective, London, 1984.
Komonchak Joseph A., (Ed), New Dictionary of Theology, Welmington, 1987.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
MLA citation. Harent, Stéphane. "Original Sin." The Catholic Encyclopaedia. Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911.
22 Dec. 2008.
Pius XI, Mit brennender Sorge as quoted in Christian Moral Principles by Germain Grisez, Franciscan Press, IIIinois, 1997.
[1] Geoffrey Chapman, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Wellington House, London, 1994, P. 408.
[2] Joseph Komonchak A., (Ed), New Dictionary of Theology, Welmington, 1987, Page 114.
[3] Ibid, P. 91.
[4] Ibid, P. 122.
[5] Edmund Hill, Being Human: A Biblical Perspective, London, 1984, P. 66.
[6] Michael Glazier, Monika K., Hellwig ( Editors), The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia, Liturgical Press, Collegeveille, Minnesota, 1994, P. 806.
[7] Pius XI, Mit brennender Sorge as quoted in Christian Moral Principles by Germain Grisez, Franciscan Press, IIIinois, 1997, P. 333.
[8] Geoffrey Chapman, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Wellington House, London, 1994, P. 91.
According to the “Catechism of The Catholic Church” “Sin is an offence against reason, truth and right conscience; it is a failure in genuine love of God and neighbour caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods.”[1] “In its theological usage, then, the word ‘sin’ is not synonymous with wrong doing, and still less with illegality.”[2] Various theologians have defined sin in different ways. Notable among them is Edmund Hill’s definition of sin as a flaw or distortion in human nature. It must be emphasized that in their bid to explain the origins of sin, theologians have being struggling with the term “Original Sin” as proposed by St. Augustine. Thus some theologians have come to call it Genetic Sin, Hereditary Sin, Inherited Sin, Sin of the World, and a condition of deficiency. I think the problem is semantics and a play on words for it refers to the same thing. The purpose of this essay, therefore, is to mention the names of the proponents of these terminologies and to give a theological critique of these terminologies.
NAMES OF PROPONENTS
Original Sin was propounded by St. Augustine, Genetic Sin, Hereditary Sin and inherited Sin was propounded by Edmund Hill. Sin of the World was by Karl Rahner while Sin as a Condition of Deficiency was by Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler.
A THEOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF THE AFORE-MENTIONED TERMINOLOGIES.
ORIGINAL SIN
“The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the protestant reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adams fault to bad example…” [3] “The classical doctrine was given conciliar expression at the Council of Trent which affirmed that Adam’s sin ‘is one of origin and is passed on by propagation not by imitation’. The Council continues ‘ even children who in themselves could have as yet committed no sin, are therefore truly baptized for the remission of sins, so that by regeneration there may be cleansed in them what they contracted by generation’”[4]
Original sin is known in two senses: the Fall of Adam as the "original" sin and the hereditary fallen nature and moral corruption that is passed down from Adam to his descendants. It is called "original" in that Adam, the first man, is the one who sinned and thus caused sin to enter the world. Even though Eve is the one who sinned first, because Adam is the Federal Head (representative of mankind), his fall included or represented all of humanity. Therefore, some hold that original sin includes the falling of all humanity. Some see original sin as Adam's fallen nature passed to his descendants. "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned," (Rom. 5:12).Original sin is not a physical corruption, but a moral and spiritual corruption. It could be compared to the Reformed Doctrine of Total Depravity which states that sin has touched all parts of what a person is: heart, mind, soul, will, thoughts, desires, etc. There has been much debate over the nature of the sin of Adam and how it affected mankind. Pelagius taught that Adam's sin influenced the human race only as a bad example and that all people are born in the same state as Adam was before his fall. Apart from the traditional meaning of Original sin, some scholars think that the phrase ‘Original Sin’ is misleading because that is not what the Latin word ‘Originale’ means but ‘Originale’ has to do with the beginning. That is why l could not agree more with Edmund Hill when he says that Original Sin “ Is not the first sin nor any particular actual sin which is in no sense a copy of other sins… it means sin which we derive from our origins.”[5] Edmund Hill further opines that Original Sin is the sin in us; the sin of humanity and not the particular sin of the first human being. It is against this background that some scholars prefer the use of the phrase “Originating Sin”. We may here refer to an overwhelming power of corruption that has the capacity to corrupt the human person to miss the mark all the time, hence needing the grace of God to be fully human as the creator had wanted humanity to be. It is therefore not a kind of innate depravity and corruption believed to be transmitted to Adams descendants because of his sin. Edmund Hill argued that it is a Sin we acquire in and through our origins; a sin of our nature as such and not personal or particular sin personally committed and not inherited biologically by others. That is the more reason why St. Augustine could call it “sin of nature or feebleness of nature.
Again, original sin and its impact on the human being makes him aware of the abuse of freedom in human history and its impact on human beings. It is a distortion of the ontological holiness ; a destruction of the innate grace. It calls our attention to the rejection of God’s absolute offer of himself. The Calvinistic view sees one as unable to overcome his sin apart from the power of the Holy Spirit, a power possessed only when one repents of his sin and turns in reliance upon Christ and His atoning sacrifice for sin upon the cross. One problem with this view is in explaining how infants and those incapable of committing conscious sin are saved (2 Samuel 12:23; Matthew 18:3; 19:14), since they are nonetheless held responsible for Adam’s sin. Millard Erickson, author of Christian Theology, feels this difficulty is resolved as follows: “There is a position [view] that...preserves the parallelism between our accepting the work of Christ and that of Adam [Romans 5:12-21], and at the same time, it more clearly points out our responsibility for the first sin. We become responsible and guilty when we accept or approve of our corrupt nature. There is a time in the life of each one of us when we become aware of our own tendency towards sin. At that point we may abhor the sinful nature that has been there all the time...and repent of it. At the very least, there would be a rejection of our sinful makeup. But if we acquiesce in that sinful nature, we are in effect saying that it is good. In placing our tacit approval upon the corruption, we are also approving or concurring in the action in the Garden of Eden so long ago. We become guilty of that sin without having to commit a sin of our own.” The advantage of this doctrine is that it deals with the problem of evil without getting rid of God’s omnipotence, human freewill, or personal responsibility. That human beings are made in the divine image cannot be overemphasised but a flaw has been introduced that they cannot remove on their own. According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, God is humanity’s creator and out of love for his creation, he bestowed on us divine gifts which were not ours by right, but only made available to us through his generosity; those gifts being the complete mastery of our passions, exemption from death, sanctifying grace and the vision of God in the next life. As was his right, God made the loyalty and obedience of the head of the human family, Adam, the condition by which we would continue to receive those gifts throughout perpetuity. God’s love is therefore unconditional. Adam failed to hold up his end of this covenant and therefore those gifts were withdrawn, not only from him but from his children and heirs. But it has been because of God’s unceasing love that he has nevertheless given us the means to regain those gifts in the person of Christ- something he was in no way bound or obligated to do. However, many have raised objections to these namely if God were really good and truly loved us, he would not require anything from us that our failure to provide would bring about any sort of penalty. Again, that the story of the fall is internally inconsistent because the fruit of the tree brought knowledge of good and evil and without that knowledge one cannot sin. Therefore, humanity’s disobedience cannot be held against them. More so, there was an objection about why we are being punished for the wrong we have not done. The aforesaid are genuine objections to the doctrine of Original Sin but, we are all in some sense responsible for the deeds performed by the groups to which we belong. As a Ghanaian, l shoulder some of the responsibility for the action taken by my government and as an individual, l shoulder the responsibility of sin. Thus we do participate in original sin to the extent that we perpetuate it. Every moment of our lives, we are presented with Adam’s choice and more often than not we choose to evade our duties to ourselves, our fellow human beings, and our world and our creator.
Furthermore, in contrast to Jesus, the source of life, Paul painted Adam as the cause of our sinful condition into which all humans are born (original sin).
Genesis chapter three was thought to be the biblical foundation for it. But scholars now admit that the third chapter of Genesis tells us nothing about what happens at the beginning of time. Instead of describing an historical first sin, it presents an ingeniously simple picture of what every sin really is: the human self-assertion of those who want to be God, who want to go their own way in deciding what is right or wrong. The faith- core of the doctrine of original sin is that without grace no human being can rise to the level of existence God has planned for us. Even with grace, we will continually fall, because we are free and grace will always respect our freedom. It is significant that a new rite of baptism no longer emphasises liberation from original sin as a primary purpose of the sacrament, but initiation into the Christian community; an incorporation into the holy body of Christ.[6]
Also, the dogma makes us strictly responsible for the fault of Adam. That is a misconception of our doctrine. Our dogma does not attribute to the children of Adam any properly so-called responsibility for the act of their father, nor do we say that original sin is voluntary in the strict sense of the word. It is true that, considered as "a moral deformity", "a separation from God", as "the death of the soul", original sin is a real sin which deprives the soul of sanctifying grace. It has the same claim to be a sin as has habitual sin, which is the state in which an adult is placed by a grave and personal fault, the "stain" which St. Thomas defines as "the privation of grace" (I-II:109:7; III:87:2, ad 3), and it is from this point of view that baptism, putting an end to the privation of grace, "takes away all that is really and properly sin", for concupiscence which remains "is not really and properly sin", although its transmission was equally voluntary (Council of Trent) .We become responsible and guilty when we accept or approve of our corrupt nature. There is a time in the life of each one of us when we become aware of our own tendency toward sin. At that point we may abhor the sinful nature that has been there all the time...and repent of it. At the very least there would be a rejection of our sinful makeup. But if we acquiesce in that sinful nature, we are in effect saying that it is good. In placing our tacit approval upon the corruption, we are also approving or concurring in the action in the Garden of Eden so long ago. We become guilty of that sin without having to commit a sin of our own.”
GENETIC SIN
This terminology for Original sin was vouched by Edmund Hill. He, however, called for its restricted usage because of its biological implications. Genetic sin is not the personal sin of an individual transmitted to the offspring. What is genetic is passed on through reproduction. The primal sin from Adam is not passed on by reproduction. Referring to it as genetic is very problematic. This is because, the question of guilt and responsibility and what really urged Adam to sin come in here. This term could be well understood from the lenses of the council of Trent as it used the arguments of Augustine against Pelagius to define sin as “… one in origin and passed on by propagation and not by imitation.” And here propagation means the inherent antecedent sinfulness of men and women even before they have been exposed to bad example and have began to sin personally. Thus genetic can be used not in the biological sense but as a spiritual reality affecting man in his real existence, not needing imitation or learning in an environment.
CONDITION OF DEFICIENCY
In the dictionary of Theology, Rahner and Vorgrimler make reference to some scholars who prefer a condition of deficiency. This is comprehensible because creation was considered to be good and later evil came in and so deficiency. But the problem comes when it is explained to mean that we were created deficient. Then we will be accusing God to have created evil. God did not create evil but evil is the privation of the good and this comes about as a result of the moral choices we make. Thus in Adam, man became deficient because of the choice he made. Man, it is said is the synthesis of free will and destiny. In as much as man is destined for salvation, man has the free will to consent to his salvation. St. Augustine puts it succinctly when he said that when God decided to create us, he did not consult us but he cannot save us without our consent.
HEREDITARY SIN
Therefore, some hold that original sin includes the falling of all humanity. Some see original sin as Adam's fallen nature passed to his descendants. "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned," (Rom. 5:12).Hereditary or original or inherited sin does not refer to the so-called inherited sin from Adam. The idea of inheriting real sin from a putative Adam makes a mockery of the Justice of God. It must make those with a strong intuitive perception doubt the truth of such teachings. Hereditary sin was the consequence of the Fall of Man! According to Pope Pius XI original sin “Is the hereditary but impersonal fault of Adam’s descendants, who have sinned in him (Romans 5:12. It is the loss of grace, and therefore of eternal life, together with the propensity to evil, which everybody must, with the assistance of grace, penance, resistance and moral effort, repress and conquer. The passion and death of the son of God has redeemed the world from the hereditary curse of sin and death.” [7] I could not agree more with what the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” teaches about original sin when it says that:
Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death and inclined to sin- an inclination to evil that is called ‘concupiscence’. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’ grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God , but the consequence for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.[8]
INHERITED SIN
During the Protestant Reformation the German reformer Martin Luther and the Swiss reformer John Calvin maintained the Augustinian emphasis on original sin and on God's grace as the means of redemption. The Swiss religious reformer Huldreich Zwingli regarded sin as an inherited disease. This doctrine is called Arminianism. Arminians believe that Adam’s sin has resulted in the rest of mankind inheriting a propensity to sin commonly referred to as having a “sin nature.” This sin nature causes us to sin in the same way that a cat’s nature causes it to meow—it comes naturally. According to this view, man cannot stop sinning on his own; that is why God gives a universal grace to all to enable them to stop. This grace is called prevenient grace. And according to this view, we are not held accountable for Adam’s sin, just our own. This teaching runs contrary to the verb tense chosen for “all sinned” in Romans 5:12 and also ignores the fact that all bear the punishment for sin (death) even though they may not have sinned in a manner similar to Adam (1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 5:14-15,18). Therefore, inherited sin is the physical inheritance of a distorted brain, which if left unchecked will now lead to real sin because the full activity of the unchecked intellect always draws away from God. This is the great hereditary enemy that lies within every man, ready to ruin him and indeed it will if left unchecked.
Therefore, there could not have been anything like the widely held belief of the inheritance of real sin from an Adam. The distorted physical brain leads to a great tendency to sin, nothing more. This does not eliminate our responsibility as individuals to use our free wills for the good.
SIN OF THE WORLD
Augustine taught that men inherit natural corruption from Adam. At the return of Christ and the resurrection of all Christians, the sin nature will be done away with. Thus because it is the sin of the world, Jesus came to die for all and not for some selected few.
CONCLUSION
In as much as man has the propensity towards sin because of the fall, l believe strongly that man has the propensity towards holiness and this should be the project of our lives. Original Sin should not be an excuse for us to continue to remain in sin because “... He chose us before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love.” (Ephesians 1:4). Original Sin is a message of hope for our screwed-up world. It says that the world and each person is created to be good and beautiful and that all the bad things in the world and in us are not part of our nature. The teaching of original sin says that bad things are not inherent in the universe; that the universe was created to be good and only became bad later on. This holds out the hope that the change could somehow be reversed and that harmony can someday be restored.
According to Joseph Komonchak, in his book “New Dictionary of Theology” any satisfactory theory of sin, especially of ‘Original’ sin must reckon with man’s physical, chemical and biological roots in his environment. It was and is, precisely the creationist’s view of human’s origins which disregarded and disregards the pervasive significance of these roots. By reducing biblical mythology to a pseudo- scientific explanation of man’s appearance on earth, the creationists’ have been forced to oppose the findings of modern scientific investigation into the origins man. The question that faces us today is not whether we can jettison the doctrine as an anachronism, but whether we can interpret it in a way which is faithful to its basic insight that it is to be human is to need redemption. (P. 130).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abd-ru-shin, In the Light of Truth: The Grail Message. Stiftung Gralsbotschaft Publishing Company. Stuttgart, Germany.
APA citation. Harent, S. (1911). Original Sin. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
Retrieved December 22, 2008 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
Chapman Geoffrey, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Wellington House, London, 1994.
Glazier Michael, Hellwig Monika K., (Editors), The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1994.
Harrison, Everett F. ed., Baker's Dictionary of Theology, Baker Book House; Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1960, page 488.
Hill Edmund, Being Human: A Biblical Perspective, London, 1984.
Komonchak Joseph A., (Ed), New Dictionary of Theology, Welmington, 1987.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
MLA citation. Harent, Stéphane. "Original Sin." The Catholic Encyclopaedia. Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911.
22 Dec. 2008
Pius XI, Mit brennender Sorge as quoted in Christian Moral Principles by Germain Grisez, Franciscan Press, IIIinois, 1997.
[1] Geoffrey Chapman, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Wellington House, London, 1994, P. 408.
[2] Joseph Komonchak A., (Ed), New Dictionary of Theology, Welmington, 1987, Page 114.
[3] Ibid, P. 91.
[4] Ibid, P. 122.
[5] Edmund Hill, Being Human: A Biblical Perspective, London, 1984, P. 66.
[6] Michael Glazier, Monika K., Hellwig ( Editors), The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia, Liturgical Press, Collegeveille, Minnesota, 1994, P. 806.
[7] Pius XI, Mit brennender Sorge as quoted in Christian Moral Principles by Germain Grisez, Franciscan Press, IIIinois, 1997, P. 333.
[8] Geoffrey Chapman, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Wellington House, London, 1994, P. 91.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
