Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Origen and/or Rufinus on Original Sin and Infant Baptism

But if it pleases you to hear what other saints also might think about this birthday, hear David speaking, "In iniquity I was conceived and in sins my mother brought me forth," showing that every soul which is born in flesh is polluted by the filth "of iniquity and sin"; and for this reason we can say what we already have recalled above, "No one is pure from uncleanness even if his life is only one day long." To these things can be added the reason why it is required, since the baptism of the Church is given for the forgiveness of sins, that, according to the observance of the Church, that baptism also be given to infants; since, certainly, if there were nothing in infants that ought to pertain to forgiveness and indulgence, then the grace of baptism would appear superfluous.

 Quod si placet audire quid etiam alii sanctii de ista nativitate senserint, audi David dicentem: "In inquitatibus, inquit, conceptus sum, et in peccatis peperit me mater mea;" ostendens quod quaecunque anima in carne nascitur, iniquitatis et peccati sorde polluttur; et propterea dictum esse illud, quod jam superius memoravimus: quia "nemo mundus a sorde, nec si unius diei sit vita ejus." Addi his etiam illud potest, ut requiratur quid causae sit, cum baptisma Ecclesiae pro remissione peccatorum detur, secondum Ecclesiae observantiam etiam parvulis baptismum dari; cum utique si nihil esset in parvulis quod ad remissionem deberet et indulgentiam pertinere, gratia baptismi superflua videretur. 

Origen (as translated/edited to Latin by Rufinus, English translation by Gary Wayne Barkley), Homily 8 on Leviticus (written c. A.D. 238-44, trans. c. A.D. 403-05), at section 3, paragraph (5) (pp. 157-8) (Latin in Migne PG, vol. 12, col. 496, A-B).

Origen and/or Rufinus on Celebrating Days of Physical Birth and Original Sin

But Scripture also declares that one himself who is born whether male or female is not "clean from filth although his life is of one day." And that you may know that there is something great in this and such that it has not come from the thought to any of the saints; not one from all the saints is found to have celebrated a festive day or a great feast on the day of his birth. No one is found to have had joy on the day of the birth of his son or daughter. Only sinners rejoice over this kind of birthday. For indeed we find in the Old Testament Pharaoh, king of Egypt, celebrating the day of his birth with a festival, and in the New Testament, Herod. However, both of them stained the festival of his birth by shedding human blood. For the Pharaoh killed "the chief baker," Herod, the holy prophet John "in prison." But the saints not only do not celebrate a festival on their birth days, but, filled with the Holy Spirit, they curse that day.

Sed et ille ipse qui nascitur, sive virilis, sive feminei sexus sit, pronuntiat de eo Scriptura quia non sit "mundus a sorde, etiamse unius diei sit vita ejus." Et ut scias esse in hoc grande nescio quid, et tale quod nulli sanctorum ex sententia venerit, nemo ex omnibus sanctis invenitur diem festum, vel convivium mangum egisse in die natalis sui, nemo invenitur habuisse laetitiam in die natalis filii, vel filiae suae. Soli peccatores super hujusmodi nativitate laetantur. Invenimus etenim in Veteri quidem Testamento Pharaonem regem Aegypti, diem natalis sui cum festivitate celebrantem, in Novo vero Testamento Herodem. Uterque tamen eorum ipsam festivitatem natalis sui profusione humani sanguinis ernentavit. Ille enim praepositum pistorum, hie sanctum prophetam Joannem obtruncavit in carcere. Sancti vero non solum non agunt festivitatem in die natalis sui, sed et Spiritu sancto repleti exsecrantur hunc diem.

Origen (as translated/edited to Latin by Rufinus, English translation by Gary Wayne Barkley), Homily 8 on Leviticus (written c. A.D. 238-44, trans. c. A.D. 403-05), at section 3, paragraph (2) (p. 156)(Latin in Migne PG vol. 12, col. 495, A-B).

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

Origen and/or Rufinus - Unique Conception of Jesus

Therefore, let these words be for us a confirmation of what we observed that the Lawgiver did not add to Scripture superfluously, "If a woman receives seed and bears a son," but that there is a mystical exception, which separated Mary alone[fn1] from the rest of women whose birth was not by the conception of seed but by the presence "of the Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High."

Haec ergo dicta sint nobis de eo quod observavimus scriptum, quia non superfluo addidit legislator, "mulier si conceperit semen, et pepererit filium;" sed esse exceptionem mysticam, quae solam Mariam a reliquis mulieribus segregaret, cujus partus non ex conceptione seminis, sed ex praesentia sancti Spiritus et virtute Altissimi fuerit.

Origen (as translated/edited to Latin by Rufinus, English translation by Gary Wayne Barkley), Homily 8 on Leviticus (written c. A.D. 238-44, trans. c. A.D. 403-05), at section 2, paragraph (6) (p. 155)(Migne PG, vol. 12, col. 494, C). [fn1: English text has "along" for "alone" but this is clearly a typo in view of the Latin]

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Jerome (347-420): The Body and Blood of Christ are Poured into our Ears

We have read the Sacred Scriptures. I think the Gospel is the body of Christ; Holy Writ, His teaching. When he says: ‘He who does not eat my flesh and drink my blood,’ although the words may be understood in their mystical sense, nevertheless, I say the word of Scripture is truly the body of Christ and His blood; it is divine doctrine. If at any time we approach the Sacrament the faithful understand what I mean and a tiny crumb should fall, we are appalled. Even so, if at any time we hear the word of God, through which the body and blood of Christ is being poured into our ears, and we yield carelessly to distraction, how responsible are we not for our failing? FC, Vol. 48, The Homilies of St. Jerome: Vol. 1, On the Psalms (at Psalm 147), Homily 57 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1964), p. 410.

Monday, February 4, 2013

Jerome (347-420): Arians Controlled the Churches

After these proceedings the Council [i.e. the Synod of Ariminum] was dissolved. All returned in gladness to their own provinces. For the Emperor and all good men had one and the same aim, that the East and West should be knit together by the bond of fellowship. But wickedness does not long lie hid, and the sore that is healed superficially before the bad humor has been worked off breaks out again. Valens and Ursacius and others associated with them in their wickedness, eminent Christian bishops of course, began to wave their palms, and to say they had not denied that He was a creature, but that He was like other creatures. At that moment the term Usia was abolished: the Nicene Faith stood condemned by acclamation. The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian. NPNF2: Vol. VI, The Dialogue Against the Luciferians, §19.

Sunday, February 3, 2013

Jerome (347-420): Church is Defined by Faith, not Walls

The Church does not consist in walls, but in the truths of her teachings. The Church is there where there is true faith. As a matter of fact, fifteen and twenty years ago, all the church buildings belonged to heretics, for heretics twenty years ago were in possession of them; but the true Church was there where the true faith was. Fathers of the Church, Vol. 48, The Homilies of St. Jerome: Vol. 1, On the Psalms, Homily 46 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1964), p. 344. Latin text: Ecclesia non parietibus consistit, sed in dogmatum veritate. Ecclesia ibi est ubi fides vera est. Caeterum ante annos quindecim aut viginti, parietes omnes hic Ecclesiarum haeretici possidebant. Ante viginti enim annos, omnes Ecclesias has haeretici possidebant. Ecclesia autem vera illic erat, ubi vera fides erat. Breviarium in Psalmos, Psalmus CXXXIII, PL 26:1223.

Saturday, February 2, 2013

Jerome (347-420): Pretended Apostolic Tradition is that Lacking Scriptural Support

The sword of God smites whatever they draw and forge from a pretended (quasi) apostolic tradition, without the authority and testimony of the Scriptures. From Jerome’s Commentary on Haggai, Chapter 1 as cited in Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992), Vol. 1, p. 143. Latin text: Sed et alia quae absque auctoritate et testimoniis Scripturarum quasi traditione apostolica sponte reperiunt atque confingunt, percutit gladius Dei. Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologiae Latinae, Commentariorum In Aggaeum Prophetam,1:11, 25:1398 (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1857-87).