Homily for Wednesday, January 2, Memorial of Saints Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus

St. Basil the Great, from Orthodoxwiki.org

In the first reading, the Apostle John warns us against falling for any of the big lies about Jesus not being the Messiah, or about the Son's relationship with the Father.  Indeed, the faith which the Apostles handed down, and which is still preached and handed down in the Church today, is this: Jesus is the one, true Christ; he is truly God and truly man; and he really lived among us as one of us - was truly born, lived and died, and rose to life again.  This is the foundation of the Gospel and of the Church.

But this faith also contains the great mysteries.  As we continue in this Christmas season, we are face to face with the deepest mysteries of the Incarnation and of the Trinity.  These two great mysteries are at the heart of our faith, and they always seem to give the greatest opportunity for falling into error.

In the fourth century, the biggest crisis in the Church was the crisis of Arianism.  Now the Arians, you'll remember, claimed that God the Son was not God in the same way that God the Father is God; that he was basically a creature.  Every time we say in the Creed that Jesus Christ is "consubstantial" with the Father, we're saying that the Son and the Father share the very same divine essence, that they are both divine in the very same way.  We're rebuking the ideas of the Arians.

The two saints whose memorial we celebrate today, Basil and Gregory, did so much in the fourth century to defend the faith of the Apostles.  As bishops and preachers and theologians, Basil and Gregory taught with great power and compassion the true meanings of these mysteries of the Incarnation and the Trinity.  They rejected the ideas of the Arians, and they both suffered for it, at a time when political authorities were choosing sides in the theological debates of the Church.

Let me offer just one example of how they taught.  St. Basil wrote a treatise called "On the Holy Spirit," a powerful, influential work.  (If you just think for a moment of the differences between the Nicene Creed's paragraph on the Holy Spirit, and the Apostles' Creed, all of what's added about the Holy Spirit, what the Church believes and knows about Him, is clearly stated in this little book.)  But his treatise was also an argument against the Arians, and his basic argument went like this:

When we think about the relationship of the Son to the Father, our thinking is muddied by the fact of the Incarnation, of Jesus's humanity.  So let's look at it in terms of the Holy Spirit.  Does it make any sense, in terms of the apostolic faith, or in terms of Scripture, to say about the Holy Spirit what the Arians say about the Son, that he's not of the same substance as the Father?  No, it doesn't.  How can we say that the Holy Spirit is Lord and Giver of Life, if he is not fully and equally divine with the Father?  But if that's true of the Holy Spirit, it must be true of the Son also, or else there's no Trinity.

St. Gregory Nazianzen, from ewtn.com

This was not the only point against Arianism that needed to be made, but this was, and still is, a very convincing argument about the Trinity.  St. Basil and St. Gregory are still relevant to us in this way.  We live in a culture that tries to claim that the faith is irrational, that we believe things only because the Church tells us to believe.  Certainly we respect the authority of the Church in matters of the faith, but we also believe because we can think through and understand to some extent even the great mysteries.  St. Basil's argument shows an example of this.  Though our reason is finite and the mysteries are greater than what we can understand, still, what we do understand is true.  And so the things that we believe, we not only believe, but also know as true.

[I can't remember how I said it, but I finished with a very brief and positive exhortation to hold and believe the fullness of the apostolic, Catholic faith - it is, after all, the Year of Faith (though I neglected to mention it this time).]

Sacraments class follow-up: Pentecost and Confirmation

In our Sacraments class on Saturday, the question arose, Is the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost the institution by Christ of the Sacrament of Confirmation?  I said that it wasn't - or at least, as I emended later in the class, that one can't see Pentecost just by itself as that institution.  Here's some more information about Pentecost and Confirmation to help us better understand what I said, and implied, and didn't say.

We noted in class that the Holy Spirit is sent to the Church at several points: the Incarnation (Lk 1, see Lumen Gentium 59), the baptism of Jesus, the various promises of Jesus to the Apostles to send the Paraclete, the Easter morning appearance to the ten Apostles (Thomas being absent), and finally Pentecost.  The final coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost marks a profound change for the Apostles (and the other members of the Church, it is clearly implied), moving them from fear and confusion to a dramatic embrace of mission, and from that point, the Church continuously lives and grows under the clear guidance of the Holy Spirit.  Lumen Gentium 19 calls this culmination a "confirmation in mission" for the Apostles: And in this mission they [sc. the College of Apostles under Peter as head] were fully confirmed on the day of Pentecost in accordance with the Lord's promise: "You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you shall be witnesses for me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and in Samaria, and even to the very ends of the earth".

So certainly the power of confirming others, and the effects of Confirmation for the members of Church, taken generally, are implicitly represented in the chain of sending the Holy Spirit culminating in Pentecost.  So if we say, "Pentecost is Confirmation," that's not a false statement -- but it's also not a very precise one, as LG 19 shows.  So the institution of the Sacrament needs a more precise focus, which has traditionally been found in the way the Apostles then use this gift and power to confirm subsequent to baptism -- specifically in Acts 8.  For example:

Pope St. Innocent I, ep. #25 "Si instituta ecclesiastica" to Bp Decentius, 416: That this power [sc. to confirm] of a bishop, however, is due to the bishops alone, so that they either sign or give the Paraclete, the Spirit, not only ecclesiastical custom dictates, but also that reading in the Acts of the Apostles which declares that Peter and James were directed to give the Holy Spirit to those already baptized [by Philip: cf. Acts 8:14-7]. (Denzinger, #98)

Pope Innocent III, letter "Cum venisset" to Archbishop Basil, 1204: The imposition of hands is designated by the anointing of the forehead, which by another name is called confirmation, because through it the Holy Spirit is given for an increase of grace and strength.  Therefore... only the highest priest, that is the bishop, ought to confer [this anointing],because we read concerning the Apostles alone, which successors the bishops are, that through the imposition of hands the gave the Holy Spirit [cf. Acts 8:14ff] (Denzinger, #419)

First Ecumenical Council of Lyons (1245), cited in letter of Pope Innocent IV to his legate in Constantinople, 1254: Moreover, let bishops alone mark the baptized on the forehead with chrism, because the anointing is not to be given except by bishops, since the apostles alone, whose places the bishops take, are read [again, Acts 2 and 8] to have imparted the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands, which confirmation... represents. (Denzinger, #450)

Almost identical wording is found in the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-45), in the 1439 document "Exultate Deo," on the seven sacraments, where the key passage of Acts 8:14-7 is cited in full.  (Here in this fuller treatment, we also see the possibility of a priest being properly delegated to confirm under some circumstances.)  (Denzinger, #697)  Trent didn't add anything to this; of the seven sacraments, Confirmation is the least treated by that council.  Vatican II makes the same point about bishops as ministers of Confirmation (e.g. LG 26), and treats the effects of Confirmation for the faithful elsewhere (e.g. LG 11), without direct reference either to Pentecost or Acts 8.

So the short answer to our original question is that Pentecost is not the institution by Christ of the Sacrament of Confirmation; the use of that power by the Apostles, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and in fulfillment of the intention of Christ, is that institution, as clearly recorded (separate from baptism) in the case of Acts 8:14-17.  The longer answer, though, looks at the whole sequence of the sending of the Holy Spirit, and sees in Pentecost a potent confirming or empowering of the Apostles in their special mission of leading the Church, of which the power to confirm sacramentally is an explicit part.

Verbum Domini 5

We continue with our reading of Verbum Domini. We've been concentrating on what the Holy Father is saying about our encounter with the Word (Jesus Christ) in different ways, and our response to this encounter (namely, ongoing conversion). Paragraph 15 introduces the Holy Spirit's role in this dynamic of encounter and conversion:

In fact there can be no authentic understanding of Christian revelation apart from the activity of the Paraclete. (15)

Note the compelling summary of the Holy Spirit's activity throughout the New Testament which follows. For Christ Himself, for the disciples and Mary, for Paul and the earliest Christians, the Holy Spirit is always present and active. So too for us.

The word of God is thus expressed in human words thanks to the working of the Holy Spirit. The missions of the Son and the Holy Spirit are inseparable and constitute a single economy of salvation. (15)

This means that:

...without the efficacious working of the “Spirit of Truth” (Jn 14:16), the words of the Lord cannot be understood.... Just as the word of God comes to us in the body of Christ, in his Eucharistic body and in the body of the Scriptures, through the working of the Holy Spirit, so too it can only be truly received and understood through that same Spirit. (16)

Pope Benedict notes that this same unity also works liturgically. Firstly, we need the present action of the Holy Spirit in order to hear, receive, and respond to the proclamation of the Word in the readings and homily. From there, this unity of Spirit and Son is the very essence of "Tradition:"

Indeed, since God “so loved the world that he gave his only Son” (Jn 3:16), the divine word, spoken in time, is bestowed and “consigned” to the Church in a definitive way, so that the proclamation of salvation can be communicated effectively in every time and place. (17)

The root of all ministry in the Church, whether priestly, diaconal, or lay, is our fidelity to the real and compelling communion of Spirit and Son in the one economy of salvation. What the Son does and commands us to do, the Spirit likewise does and supports. We cannot follow Christ coherently without the following of the Holy Spirit. (As a tangent, this is why the argument about "spiritual but not religious" is always wrong-headed; it divides the grace of the Son from the grace of the Spirit, into two separate economies of salvation.) But what has the Son commanded us to do?

Jesus Christ himself “commanded the Apostles to preach the Gospel – promised beforehand by the prophets, fulfilled in his own person and promulgated by his own lips – to all as the source of all saving truth and moral law, communicating God’s gifts to them. This was faithfully carried out; it was carried out by the Apostles who handed on, by oral preaching, by their example, by their ordinances, what they themselves had received – whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or by coming to know it through the prompting of the Holy Spirit...” (17, quoting Dei Verbum 7)

This "all" is all-encompassing of the life of the Church. It is the whole of Tradition. It includes the full panoply of Word, Sacrament, and Charity, and all of our charisms and states of life. Notice especially here the implication of unity of communion with the bishops as successors of the Apostles, and of course with the Successor of Peter as head of that College. Apart from that communion, there is no full and comprehensive fulfillment of Christ's command to preach, baptize, and "do this," but only bits and pieces of that single diakonia.

This communion is not the thrust of his development here, but worth our noticing more closely, certainly. This is where he wants to go from here:

Ultimately, it is the living Tradition of the Church which makes us adequately understand sacred Scripture as the word of God. (17)

And, lest we be overwhelmed by such a demanding expectation, the heart of that statement is here:

...sacred Scripture presents itself to us, in the variety of its many forms and content, as a single reality. Indeed, “through all the words of sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single word... (18)

Scripture, despite its complexity of form and content and composition, and no matter what kind of theory one uses to approach it, must always conform to this overarching truth: its meaning is always one, never plural (though that one meaning can of course have many parts, and many different applications). And that one meaning is always the person of Jesus Christ.

In short, by the work of the Holy Spirit and under the guidance of the magisterium, the Church hands on to every generation all that has been revealed in Christ. The Church lives in the certainty that her Lord, who spoke in the past, continues today to communicate his word in her living Tradition and in sacred Scripture. Indeed, the word of God is given to us in sacred Scripture as an inspired testimony to revelation; together with the Church’s living Tradition, it constitutes the supreme rule of faith... (18, citing Dei Verbum 21).

podcast 1

This recording is from a third-year formation class in March 2010, on the Trinity and the Holy Spirit. Three more parts are coming. Clicking on the link will open the MP3 in a new tag, and begin playing it there.

Thanks to Dan Burns for his quick lesson in html commands to make this work more or less like I was imagining it should. I'll get several more of the classes and lectures I've already recorded up soon.