The internet is amazing

Just found the entire corpus of J.P. Migne's Patrologia Latine (and Pat. Gr) online at http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu

Two items of interest for those of you who venture here:

Exorcism ascribed to St. Ambrose of Milan:

http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/04z/z_0339-0397__Ambrosius__Exorcismus__MLT.pdf.html

Anonymous exorcisms [and rites of excommunication]:

http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/04z/z_0660-0660__Anonymus__Formulae_Veteres_Exorcismorum_Et_Excommunicationum__MLT.pdf.html

I wish I had more information about the last set.

Note that part of the first exorcism [Ambrose] appears in the Roman pre-Vatican II Rituale [http://www.ewtn.com/library/PRAYER/ROMAN2.TXT]

It may also appear in the newer Vatican-II Exorcism, but I have not seen that document.

Martyrdom as Combat in the account of Polycarp

The Martyrdom of Polycarp is a record of the death by fire of the Bishop Polycarp in the arena of the Roman Empire. Written by eyewitnesses to the event (15.1), the letter seeks to demonstrate what true martyrdom looks like (1.1). Behind this reflection and account of martyrdom is a theme of warfare with Satan. The martyrs face the tortures of the Roman arena not as political enemies but as spiritual enemies. The Romans are at best pawns of the kingdom of the world ruled by Satan who seeks to destroy the church through persecution. 

Martyrdom is combat directly against Satan who is behind the Roman Empire. In 3.1 the writer says that the “devil did not prevail against any of them” in reference to the martyrs. What the devil had tried, he said, was to destroy their faith through persecution (2.4). This persecution is directly tied to being the persecutions of the Roman state as indicated by the whips that tore their flesh (2.2), death by fire (2.3), and being eaten by wild beasts (2.4). Echoing language in Ignatius and Barnabas, these are the “tortures of this world” that afflict the martyrs. At the same time they seem to be the attacks of Satan. Like Ignatius and Barnabas, the world is under the power of Satan who is seeking to destroy the church. 

Another form of combat seems to be post-mortem inspiration by the testimony of the deaths of the martyrs. Not only does the writer see Satan at war with the martyrs while alive but also as being opposed the collection of their relics, indicating a view where Satan warred against the saints even after death by seeking the destruction of their bodies, and the prevention of their relics from inspiring hope in those still alive. (Gokey, 91) The writer states that after his death, the crowd under the influence of Satan attempted to prevent the church from retrieving his bones (17.2) because the devil was jealous that Polycarp had “won the prize” (17.1). What the Christians wanted to be able to do was to use the relics as an example to imitate (17.3), and treated them as precious objects with which they celebrated the “birthday of his martyrdom” (18.3), and those of all others who have “already fought” and for the “training and preparation of those who will do so in the future” (18.3). Like a great soldier, the death of Polycarp was to inspire others to join the fight against Satan in the arena. He had already won his prize and called others to do so as well.

The account contained in the Martyrdom of Polycarp provides insight into the worldview of the early Christians in the context of their own martyrdom. Polycarp was a soldier of Christ. He fought against Rome and, and in so doing, against Satan who was the power behind Rome (3.1). He died in battle and won the prize of victory. He inspired others to carry on the fight and train for their own combat (18.3). Satan fought with persecution and the Saints fought back with faith and endurance. 

Sources:

The Martyrdom of Polycarp [Holmes. Apostolic Fathers. 3rd ed.]

Gokey. The Terminology for the Devil and Evil Spirits in the Apostolic Fathers

New Book

I recently picked up "The Rite: The Making of a Modern Exorcist" by Matt Baglio from Half-Price Books here in town. Looks very interesting. An Italian reporter writes about an american Roman Priest who is sent by his Bishop to Rome, to train as an Exorcist at the prestgious pontifical university there. 

On a related note, those who may peruse this blog would be interested in this article, which is old yes, but untill I started reading "The Rite" I was unaware:

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1538808/Italian-priests-join-the-war-on-Satanic-crime.html

St. Ignatius: the Victory of the Incarnation

For Ignatius the victory over evil, and so also the grand exorcism of Satan from the Earth, was primarily a focus of the incarnation. This expressed in Ignatius’s threefold statement concerning what was accomplished against evil at the incarnation. (Ign. Eph. 19.3) The threefold deliverance for the world was from magic, ignorance and the old kingdom. Magic and spells represent all evil powers that work against humanity (Lightfoot, 83), ignorance is a contrast with the knowledge of God (Ign. Eph. 17.2), and the “old kingdom” was the dominion that Satan possessed over mankind before Christ. Each of these three evils was connected with Satan and the demonic, so that for Ignatius the demons were defeated by the incarnation (Twelftree, 228). With the destruction of these powers came the opportunity for new life (Ign. Eph. 19.3), which was the central concern of Ignatius, and so this passage reflects his views on the chief exorcistic event of history.

Ignatius draws on Pauline ideas found in such places as Colossians 2:14-15, where he calls “this age” the “ancient kingdom” which was overthrown and defeated by the cross. (Lawson, 118) However, there are some differences between the Pauline idea and Ignatius. First, Ignatius is not only connecting the defeat of the world rulers with the death of Christ but also, and more centrally, with his incarnation. In fact Ignatius says that the ancient kingdom was abolished when “God appeared in human form,” Second, Ignatius’s emphasis is on an entire kingdom defeated, more than Paul seems to demonstrate in Col 1:13. This distinction is important in seeing his worldview shaped by a combat between two kingdoms, not just one kingdom that is ruled by God through Christ opposed to illegitimate rulers.

The Church now awaits the consummation of the victory over Satan that had been won for her. This is not overtly clear in Ephesians 19, nor in Ignatius’s letters in general because, more then eschatology, Ignatius places the incarnation as central due to it being the event in which death itself was abolished (Corwin, 155). However, although the victory has been won, he also talks about a future kingdom of God with punishment for the wicked, (Ign. Eph. 16.1-2) along with a brief statement of the Two Ways doctrine which seems to imply a future end to each of the ways (Ign. Magn. 5.1). Although the powers of evil have been defeated, these powers of the old age will be finally done away with at the Second Advent (Russell, 34).

Lawson, John. A Theological and Historical Introduction to the Apostolic Fathers. New York: Macmillan, 1961.

Lightfoot, J.B. Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp. Vol. 2. The Apostolic Fathers. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1981.

Russell, Jeffrey Burton. Satan: The Early Christian Tradition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981.

Twelftree, Graham H. In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism among Early Christians. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.

Corwin, Virginia. St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1960.

Web Link - See of Rome cracks down on false miracles

Bad picture of the Pope (biased reporter maybe?) but nice bit of information. I'm glad to see Rome is actively investigating these claims and cracking down on false ones.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1113943/Pope-declares-holy-war-people-falsely-claim-seen-Virgin-Mary.html

Biblical criteria for miracles?

Must the Bible define what constitutes a true miracle?

In the sense that Scripture provides the foundation for the Theology of the Church, yes.

But in a legal-type sense, no.

What do I mean by legal sense? This is where the bible is treated like one might treat the US code of law. If I wanted to know how I am supposed to drive, I would look up US and/or state law, and find directives probably along the lines of “the driver of the vehicle shall obey posted speed limits” or some such. As well, if I wanted to know what the meaning of the word “vehicle was” according to the law, I would find a definition spelled out.

However, except for the Torah proper specifically Leviticus and Deuteronomy there is no law code recorded. God does not in scripture give a definition of a miracle. And it is an assumption that only the specific ways that scripture record miracles are the ways that a miracle will always happen.  

This of course deals with issues of the “regulative principle” and systems that use scripture as a law book of sorts to provide a comprehensive system for order in the Church and theology. 

Instead scripture records events and contains occasional letters. Just because they are inspired, doesn’t imply they are to be used in a “regulative” manner in the same way we in the US use the constitution. 

When it comes to miracles, it is important what scripture says about miracles and the supernatural and the nature of God. Not so that the Church will only believe in miracles that fit the exact manner described, but so that in determining a modern day miracle or supernatural occurrence the Church has a solid foundation to analyze it from. 

Just because all miracles in scripture have trait X doesn’t imply that all miracles God ever does have trait X and must have trait X to be considered from God. The results of the miracle (people moved to love a life of grater faith, hope and love) is more important then criteria which scripture never gives us anyway. 

For instance, in the martyrdom of Polycarp there are several supernatural visions that the Christians claim occurred at his death. The text reads as if none of these were seen by the non-Christians present. Yet, just because when miracles in scripture always seem to be public, doesn’t mean when God does miracles he only makes them public. 

This is because miracles don’t exist in the bible, they exist in reality. (see HERE for more argument behind this concept) The bible records miraculous event at certain times, but there is not reason to think it records all of them that God has ever done or that the descriptions are intended to give us a complete picture of what all supernatural events much look like. 

True miracles will first of all be miraculous. When it comes to healings the Catholics have seven criteria developed by Cardinal Prospero Lambertini (latter Pope Benedict XIV):

1.“ Primum est, ut morbus sit gravis, et vel impossibilis, vel curatu difficilis ” – Firstly, the disease should be serious, incurable or difficult to treat. 

2.“ Secundum, ut morbus, qui depellitur, non sit in ultima parte status, ita ut non multo post declinare debeat ” – Secondly, the eradicated disease should not be in its final stage or at a stage whereby it may involve spontaneous recovery. 

3.“ Tertium, ut nulla fuerint adhibita medicamenta, vel, si fuerint adhibita, certum sit, ea non profuisse ” – Thirdly, no drug should have been administered or, in the event that it has been administered, the absence of any effects should have been ascertained. 

4.“ Quartum, ut sanatio sit subita, et momentanea ” – Fourthly, the recovery has to take place suddenly and instantly. 

5.“ Quintum, ut sanatio sit perfecta, non manca, aut concisa ”– Fifthly, the recovery has to be perfect, and not defective or partial. 6.“ Sextum, ut nulla notatu digna evacuatio, seu crisis praecedat temporibus debitis, et cum causa; si enim ita accidat, tunc vero prodigiosa sanatio dicenda non erit, sed vel ex toto, vel ex parte naturalis ” Sixthly, it is necessary that any noteworthy excretion or crisis has taken place at the proper time, as a reasonable result of an ascertained cause, prior to the recovery; under these circumstances the recovery cannot be deemed prodigious, but totally or partially natural. 

7.“ Ultimum, ut sublatus morbus non redeat ” – Lastly, it is necessary for the eradicated disease not to reappear. 

(From De Servorum Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione. liber IV, Cap. VIII, no. 2)

Along with this a miracle from God must glorify God and encourage true faith and good works. These really just follow the rules that one of the few law books in scripture actually gives us in Deut 18:18-22: 

“But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak-- that prophet shall die." You may say to yourself, "How can we recognize a word that the LORD has not spoken?"  If a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it.”

The legal usage of scripture isn’t even used in the legal books. Of course, I could write a thesis on the problems with the regulative principle, but that would be a bit much for this blog. 

These are theological criteria that allow God to show us the supernatural in ways we haven’t seen before yet also keep us out of following everything that claims to be supernatural. Christians shouldn’t be functional Deists (the supernatural only happened back then) or fall into trusting everything (like former Bishop Pike)

Baptismal Exorcism in the Apsotolic Fathers: Barnabas

One of the few places in the corpus of the Fathers that mentions exorcism by concept is in the letter attributed to Barnabas. In the context of answering the question of if there is still a Temple of God (Barn. 16.6), Barnabas describes what a person looked like before salvation in relation to demons (Barn. 16.7-10). The analogy he builds is the person is a temple, which was once full of demons (Barn. 16:7) but after receiving forgiveness and being born anew the person is then dwelt by God. This is salvific exorcism, where the person is purified of the demonic by Christ as part of salvation, and as part of preparation for instead being indwelt by God, thus making the person truly a temple of God. 

Barnabas does not actually say that he has baptism in mind, but based on his sotieriology, baptism is most likely in view. Barnabas’ view of the Old Testament is one of fulfillment, where everything in it, even down circumcision (Barn. 9) and the kosher laws, (Barn. 10) was intended to point to Christ and the New Covenant. In fact, for Barnabas these are the only acceptable interpretations, (Armitage, “Barnabas, Hermas and the Didache” 1926, 10) to take the Old Testament literally was to be deceived by the “evil angel” (Barn. 9.4). If the entire New Covenant was foreshadowed, then he asks “was the water and the cross” (Barn. 11.1) foreshadowed?” This leads to his characteristic allegorical interpretation in defense that the Old Testament testifies to the death of the Messiah and to Baptism. 

First he defends Baptism, saying that Israel would never accept the “baptism that brings forgiveness of sins”. (Barn. 11.1) Baptism in Barnabas is connected with the cross event, brings forgiveness of sins, converts the sinner and brings hope. After quoting several prophets he claims they linked both baptism and the cross together. (Barn. 11.8) Those who are rewarded, the righteous as pointed out in 11.7, are those who in 11.8 “having set their hope on the cross, descend into the water” which brings “conversion and hope to many”. Those who go down into the water “laden with sins and dirt” (Barn. 11.11) obtain both “fruit” in their hearts and hope in Jesus.

Second he comments on how the Old Testament prophets foreshadowed the cross. (Barn. 12) The main focus of his argument comes from Moses and especially the bronze serpent, which was a symbol of the cross. (Barn. 12.2) This is the sign that would bring life (Barn. 12.5) and salvation. (Barn. 12.7) The cross does more then this, as it also brings victory over Satan. Taking the allegory of the serpents in the wilderness to the next level, Barnabas argues that the reason God sent serpents to punish Israel when it was falling was because the “fall happened though the serpent, with the help of eve”. The bronze serpent brought victory over the power of the serpents in the desert the same way that the cross would bring victory over the Satan who deceived Eve. Due to the connections between the cross and Baptism, Barnabas sees the benefits as parallel, particularly that Baptism is the means by which a person receives the benefits of the cross. (Barn. 11.8) This demonstrates that Baptism brought about the victory over Satan to the individual.

Going back to chapter sixteen, the purification of the demonic element is a result of the salvation even of the water and the cross, which happens at Baptism. Barnabas assumes his previous theological assertions when speaking of inner cleansing. There are two sections, the first is the state of the person before salvation, (Barn. 16.7) and the second describes the process of salvation. (Barn. 16.8-10) Before salvation a person is ruled by demons. Their heart, or inner person, was “corrupt and weak”. After the person receives forgiveness of sins they are made new and “God truly dwells” in their “dwelling place”, (Barn. 16.8) which is the heart mentioned earlier. Either a person is indwelt by demons or by God, and the difference is made in being purified though forgiveness and new creation. These are the result of the water and the cross, which are inherently connected for Barnabas. 

Barnabas’ exorcistic views of Baptism in chapter sixteen are very explicit (Kelly, “Devil at Baptism” 2004, 52) on the grounds of his theology of Baptism itself found in 11-12. It would go beyond the evidence to say there was a separate exorcism rite involved in baptism according to Barnabas, although there may have been, but it is certain that he saw baptism itself as exorcistic. This connection between baptism and exorcism is missed by Twelftree when he argues that it is not exorcism but “coming to faith in conversion” (Twelftree, “In the Name of Jesus” 2007, 225) that removes the demonic and that Barnabas’ discussion on baptism fails to mention exorcism. This is true, but Barnabas does connect baptism to the cross, which brings victory over Satan and then latter does connect the same results of baptism to the removal of demons. It is not just faith in the sense Twelftree sees it, but the faith under the rite of baptism that removes the demonic.  Kelly (p52) makes the same mistake by assuming that exorcism must be mentioned at the same point where baptism is for Barnabas to have an exorcistic baptismal theology. The connection is instead made though the forgiveness of sins, which Barnabas sees as being a result of both the Cross and Baptism, (Porter and Cross, “Dimensions of Baptism” 2002, 211) though which is also the cleansing of the inner soul from demonic influence. (Ibid. 221) It is at the moment of the ritual initiation that the person, like the Israelites did with the serpent, looks at the cross and gains victory over the serpent.