Call for Audience Questions

I realize some audience members have submitted questions either at my blog or backchannel to me by email. If there are any further questions that people desire to ask, they need to be submitted by the end of the day on January 31, 2008.

There is a word limit on the questions (100 words), and it would be preferable if the question was clearly directed to either PhatCatholic or TurretinFan.

If you'd like, you can submit the questions via the comments box for this post, although I will end up posting any questions in a new post.

As previously agreed, if the number of questions exceeds 5, PC will pick 3 and TF will pick 2 of the questions to be answered.

Phatcatholic Concluding Statement

Let's begin by listing the various holes and omissions that weaken tfan's defense of the negative position:

• No response to my proof that he exagerated when he said, "the passage cited by PC does not appear in several versions of the Apostolic Constitutions."



• No response to my argument that the anonymity of the author of the Apostolic Constitutions does not itself discredit the statements found therein.



• Nowhere in our cross-examination did he show that the casting out of devils that Bede reports was due to the soil instead of water. Tfan asserted that they were cast out by soil, I told him why they weren't, and he simply repeated his position instead of refuting my answer.



• No response to me when I said that the way in which the water became holy was irrelevant.

We see from this that tfan has done nothing to discredit either the Apostolic Constitutions or Bede's Ecclesiastical History as witnesses from the early Church of the effectiveness of holy water against demons. Keep this in mind whenever you read from him that I didn't provide any evidence from the early Church.

The holes don't stop there:

• No Scripture passage provided that either explicitly or implicitly rejects the use of holy water against demons.



• No response to the proof I provided against his assertion that "special miracles" ceased after the Apostolic period.



• In his haste to disagree with me he contradicted himself on this point, denying that holy things can be effective against demons (here) after he had affirmed the effectivneness of soil (here).



• When I pointed out the irrelevancy of his statement, "'unclean' is simply a figure of speech for the fact that they are evil," I again received no response.



• When I showed that it could just as easily be the holiness of Jesus' name that expels demons as it could be the authority of it....you guessed it, nothing.



• When I explained the exceptions in which the devil and his demons are allowed to be in the presence of holiness, he simply called this a "fall-back position" without actually refuting it.

Note, regarding that last point, that when I said, "Demons are rightly repulsed by anything that is holy," I was speaking normatively, which is just common sense. If we tried to include every single exception whenever we spoke affirmatively, it would take us forever to actually say anything. So, my later statements regarding the examples he provided were hardly a "fall-back position" or an admission that he was right.

What these lists reveal is that tfan has not successfully defended his position on a variety of points. The few arguments that he did actually follow-up on and that I haven't responded to yet will be answered below.

From his rebuttal post:

Using Holy Water to counter demonic forces is undeniably innovative [. . .] and we have seen silence from the Early Church Fathers [. . .]

Noting that the Apostolic Constitutions and Bede's Ecclesiastical History have not been sufficiently discredited, there is also the following testimony from the early Church:

• Under the subheading "Miracles by Holy Water" we read:
  "Sts. Chrysostom, Fortunatus, Theodore, Luthbert, Hegesippus, Anno, Anselm, Bernard, Malachy, Columba, and Edmond healed many afflicted persons from evils both of soul and body" [emphasis mine]. -- Richard Brennan, LL.D, The Means of Grace: A Complete Exposition of the Seven Sacraments, Their Institution, Meaning, Requirements, Ceremonies, and Efficacy (2nd ed., Benziger Brothers, 1894, p. 367)



• "St. Achard [A.D. 687], abbot of Jumieges, in the diocese of Rouen, used to go over his abbey every night when the inmates had retired to their cells, and visit the dormitories with cross and holy water to drive away evil spirits, which often hid themselves in these places to scare the sleepers in their sleep." -- Surius, "Lives of the Saints"; as quoted in A Dictionary of Miracles: Imitative, Realistic, and Dogmatic by Ebenezer Cobham (Chatto and Windus, 1901, p. 505/605)



• "A visitor to St. Sophia in sixth-century Constantinople described water 'gurgling noisily into the air' from a bronze pipe 'with a force that banishes all evils'" [emphasis mine]. -- Ann Wroe, "Holy Water", in America Magazine



• The article on Holy Water from the New Advent Encyclopedia mentions "the Pontifical of Scrapion of Thumis, a fourth-century bishop, and likewise the 'testamentum Domini', a Syriac composition dating from the fifth to the sixth century" [emphasis mine], which contain a blessing of oil and water for the "putting to flight" of "every evil spirit." The article also mentions of a Joseph of Tiberias who blessed some water, and, pouring it on a man, healed him of his "infernal spirit."

It should be obvious by now that the use of holy water is far from "innovative", nor is it an invention of the Middle Ages.

B. Likewise, demons can be cast out by those who are not holy, for a variety of reasons. Chapter II of the Apostolic Constitutions states, “nor will those who cast demons be sanctified by the demons being made subject to them: for they only mock one another, as they do who play childish tricks for mirth, and destroy those who give heed to them.”

But that's not what that quotation means. Just because an exorcist is not sanctified by the act of expelling a demon, that doesn't mean that he was not already holy to begin with.

C. Similarly, canon 79 of the Apostolic Constitutions prohibits ordination of demoniacs, and even prohibits demoniacs from praying “with the faithful.” This would seem to be an utterly unnecessary prohibition if it was believed at that time that demons are repulsed by anything that is holy.

This is not an unnecessary prohibition. You wouldn't want someone ordained who is susceptible to possession by the devil. As for the prohibition from praying with the faithful, there are always sinners in the Church who could be negatively influenced by the demoniac, were the demon to return.

2. It has not been established that “Holy Water” is, in fact, holy.

There's holy water in Scripture (cf. Exo 23:25; Num 5:17; 19:9,13-20; 2 Ki 2:19-22). There's also the examples from the early Church that I have already provided, in which water is blessed and made holy. Water can definitely be made holy, just like oil can (cf. Exo 30:25,31; 37:29; Num 35:25; Psa 89:20).

B. The infidels and pagans also consecrate water, but it should not be deemed “Holy.” Thus, merely consecrating water is not enough to make it holy.

It is when Christians are involved.

Finally, from tfan's Conclusion:

It’s a classic example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy [. . .] It’s also a class example of self-reinforcement [. . .] Finally, to complete the superstitious stool, there is the leg of the statistical fallacy of filtering

There are no logical fallacies involved here. We are both operating under the assumption that if a belief and/or practice is found in the early Church, it is a valid one. That's why tfan has made that a requirement of me. I am simply fulfilling his requirement.

- Unclean Spirits: If we were trying to make unclean spirits clean, sprinkling holy water on them might make sense. But we are not, so it doesn’t. Ritual uncleanness for which the OT prescribed washing is unlike spiritual uncleanness, for which the OT prescribed sacrifice.

This is not true. Scripture specifically said that the "water for impurity" was used "for the removal of sin" (Num 19:9).

PC says that he is not willing to take John Paul Perrin’s word for the fact that the use of holy water against demons was simply a medieval superstition. Perrin however, documented his claim with an appeal to a Roman Catholic doctor (physician) who testified to that fact.

Physicians do not have authority in theological matters.

Furthermore, we have the testimony of other Catholics, such as Erasmus (who was offered the position of cardinal by Paul III), who acknowledge that the medieval era was awash with superstitions (see, for example, “In praise of folly,” pp. 85-87 (link)). One can even find admissions of the extent of superstitions in Europe from Cardinal Newman, who was certainly accepting of a continuity of miracles (see, Lives of the English Saints, Section 3 “Hermit Saints,” p. 57 (link)).

That doesn't mean that holy water was one such superstition.

In closing, I had several quotes from the ECF’s on holy oil that I promised to provide, but the word limit confines me to this single quotation:

• "I know that a young woman of Hippo was immediately dispossessed of a devil, on anointing herself with oil, mixed with the tears of the prebsyter who had been praying for her." --St. Augustine, City of God (413-427 A.D.), Bk. 22

If there was every a doubt that holy things can be used to cast away demons, that should expel it.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

TurretinFan Conclusion to the Holy Water Debate

American baseball players are notorious for their superstitions. Some always enter the batters box the same way, and some have a “lucky” way of digging in their spikes before each pitch. We can write these superstitious traditions off, because we know that it takes strength, speed, and a good eye to be a baseball great, not drinking exactly three ounces of water before warming up with two bats of the same weight. Even if we like the superstitions, we expect baseball managers to play the numbers, not rely on talismans.

In this debate we’re posed with something similar. PhatCatholic (PC) has attempted to defend a resolution that the application of Holy Water is an effective means for stopping demonic forces. It is a superstition (or, at a minimum, PC cannot establish otherwise), and we don’t have a valid basis for accepting it.

I. Scriptures and the Early Church Fathers do not teach the resolution

PC essentially conceded this point from the start. He argues out that they do not say anything contrary either. In other words, there is no testimony from Scripture that demons laugh at holy water. There is also none that they laugh at limericks, but that would not be a valid basis for a resolution: “resolved that limericks stop demons.”

Nevertheless, PC immediately retreated to arguing that demons are “rightly repulsed” by “anything” holy.

II. But Scriptures and the Early Church Fathers do not teach that demons are “rightly repulsed” by “anything” holy

In fact, we saw examples in which Satan was not afraid to tempt Jesus, and appear among the holy angels in the presence of the Father. PC essentially admits this, and thus PC has retreated to a second fall-back position, namely that sometimes God lets demons be in the presence of something holy, and sometimes he doesn’t, holy water being in the latter category.

III. But Scriptures and the Early Church Fathers also do not say that God does not allow demons to be in the presence of holy water

In fact, there’s not even any example from the Scriptures or the Early Church Fathers from which we could infer such a thing, because neither had any concept of such a principle. PC, again, has essentially admitted this, for he turns to a third fall-back position, namely that it has supposedly worked so many times in the course of human history.

Actually, he says “Christian history,” but he might as well say “human history,” for other religions, from Judaism and Islam to Hinduism, Shamanism, and Shinto claim success in opposing demonic forces, some even with “holy water.”

But the fact that all these people succeed in opposing demonic forces, and use holy water in doing so, does not back up his claim. It’s a classic example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, one leg upon which (to one degree or another) superstitions are based. To put in statistical terms: correlation does not establish causality. Wearing women’s shoes is highly correlated with incurring breast cancer, but it would be invalid to conclude that the strappy sandals are the cause.

It’s also a class example of self-reinforcement: it “worked” this time, so I’ll use it next time. In fact, I’ll use it every time. And look: it keeps working. This is the “Dumbo” fallacy: I flew with the feather, so the feather must be magic. That’s a second leg upon which superstitions stand.

Finally, to complete the superstitious stool, there is the leg of the statistical fallacy of filtering. This is the fallacy where only the successes are noticed, and the failures are passed over. This is the sort of fallacy that “Friday the 13th” superstionists engage in. The day does not bring bad luck in itself, but people notice when something bad happens on that day. PC reports hundreds of alleged successes of demon opposition using holy water, but does not indicate any of the failures.

In short, PC’s attempt to harness anecdotal evidence is fallacious. But the careful reader will see that PC has backed even further away from the resolution. In his rebuttal, he finally argues that holy water, plus faith (“in the prayers of the church”) can be effective. Let’s suppose that is the case. PC acknowledged in his very first post that faith is effective at stopping demons. So, it should be no surprise that “holy water” does not destroy faith’s power. Neither does wearing a tin foil hat while we resist demons with faith in God, but that doesn’t make a tin foil hat effective.

There are a few miscellaneous things to be cleared up.

- Apostolic Canons: There is no way to definitively push the cited passage of the Apostolic canons past the 12 century, and, as already demonstrated, there is evidence suggesting insertion. PC’s comment that they were unknown to the Western Church simply means that it was someone in the Eastern Church who made the insertion. They claim to be written by Clement of Rome, and the author claims that they are a collection of the statements of the apostles. Both claims are generally recognized to be false. Furthermore, as already demonstrated, other parts of the same document undermine the idea that demons are afraid of holy things, or consecrated water, such as the prohibition on ordination of demoniacs.

- Origin of the Practice: PC talks about how the practice developed organically. I'm sure it did develop, and I'm glad he acknowledges that. It probably developed from an over-reverance of the water of baptism, and a mistaken belief in baptismal regeneration, which began quite early and quite understandably. How it developed, though, is not the issue for debate.

- Unclean Spirits: If we were trying to make unclean spirits clean, sprinkling holy water on them might make sense. But we are not, so it doesn’t. Ritual uncleanness for which the OT prescribed washing is unlike spiritual uncleanness, for which the OT prescribed sacrifice.

- Anecdotal Evidence: Alternative causality, the placebo effect, and so forth could have been explored in this debate if PhatCatholic’s main argument had been, it has worked hundreds of times. The claims that water works are not verifiable, further more it is suspect, as will be discussed below.

PC says that he is not willing to take John Paul Perrin’s word for the fact that the use of holy water against demons was simply a medieval superstition. Perrin however, documented his claim with an appeal to a Roman Catholic doctor (physician) who testified to that fact.

Furthermore, we have the testimony of other Catholics, such as Erasmus (who was offered the position of cardinal by Paul III), who acknowledge that the medieval era was awash with superstitions (see, for example, “In praise of folly,” pp. 85-87 (link)). One can even find admissions of the extent of superstitions in Europe from Cardinal Newman, who was certainly accepting of a continuity of miracles (see, Lives of the English Saints, Section 3 “Hermit Saints,” p. 57 (link)).

One can even see implicit testimony to that fact from the discontinuance by Catholicism of the public display of relics, from prohibitions on the sale of relics, and the like. Indeed, Trent itself ordered: “that the ordinary bishops of places shall take diligent care, and be bound to prohibit and abolish all those things which [among other things] … superstition, which is a false imitation of true piety, may have introduced.” (link)

IV. In short, the entire remaining case for the alleged effectiveness of Holy Water (unless PC provides a new argument in his conclusion) is anecdotal evidence, evidence that is suspect, because it arose in a time of superstition.

At the end of the day, we need to decide whether to accept the resolution. We don’t have any a priori reason to do so. And if we have this kind of response: “When asked which part of the ritual was most important, he said, ‘You can’t really tell what’s most important so it all becomes important. I’d be afraid to change anything. As long as I’m winning, I do everything the same’,” then we are just superstitious. (source) We are not being rational about the matter, but simply indulging in a variety of statistical fallacies. If we are doing that, we should stop. Either way, we should reject the resolution.

Thanks to PC for his participation in this debate, and I await his concluding argument.

-Turretinfan

Phatcatholic Rebuttal

I am using this rebuttal to respond to your opening statement. In that statement, you wrote the following:

There are three examples of water being used in healing, Naaman in the Jordan, the pool of Bethesda, and the healing of the blind man through the dust/spit paste and subsequent washing in the pool of Siloam. Of course, none of the water involved was consecrated water.

I think the angel consecrated the pool when he "troubled" it (cf. Jn 5:4), but by "consecrated" you probably mean "blessed by a Catholic priest." In that case, you're right, there is no such example. But, in making that statement, I think you have misunderstood my purpose in using those examples.

I wasn't trying to give evidence of something as specific as "water consecrated by a Catholic priest." I already admitted in my opening statement that an explicit example does not exist. But, I also said that without an explicit Scriptural witness (either for or against a practice) we have to work with the implicit witness and the principles that inform the practice.

These examples in Scripture of God using created things to produce supernatural effects, and particularly of His many uses of water, act as the seed from which the practice of using water organically developed. There we find the implicit witness and the principles that inform the practice.

PC makes the argument that if water cleanses, and demons are sometimes called “unclean spirits,” therefore it should be that water “can be put to good use against something as unclean as a demon.” There are a couple of problems with that, but the most obvious is that “unclean” is simply a figure of speech for the fact that they are evil.

My initial reaction was to disagree, which is why I asked for proof in my first question to you. But, now I'm not so sure that your statement really matters. You said that to call a spirit "unclean" is to say that it is evil. So what? In the Old Testament, when someone was declared "unclean" it usually wasn't because they were physically dirty. Instead, it was because they had become spiritually dirty, or unholy, or evil. Water was often used then to "cleanse" such people, or to remove the unholiness, the spiritual filth, the evil.

The same takes place in the use of holy water against demons. Water is being used to remove "unclean spirits," which are spiritual filth within a person or place. In removing these demons, holy water makes a person or place "clean" again. It removes the evil, just like it did in the Old Testament. So, the statement that an "unclean spirit" is a spirit that is evil seems to be irrelevant. I don't see how it refutes anything.

Having disposed of the first two arguments, let us turn to the third. PC argues that demons “are rightly repulsed by anything that is holy or blessed by God, and are expelled by His cleansing grace.” PC asks, “Does this really need a defense?” The answer, of course, is yes.

According to you, since demons don't immediately flee when Jesus shows up, and since Satan was able to appear before God regarding Job and before Jesus during His temptation, this must mean that Satan and his demons are impervious to holy things. But, I disagree. I think there are some times when God allows demons to be in the presence of holiness and other times when He does not.

First, we must note that the devil and his demons are entirely subject to the Power of God. Satan needed God's permission to test Job (cf. Job 1:8-12) and the demons needed His permission to enter the swine (cf. Mt 8:30-32; Mk 5:10-13; Lk 8:31-33). They can't even speak unless God allows it (cf. Mk 1:25; Lk 4:41). Similarly, the devil and his demons were able to be in God's presence only because He allowed it.

However, in other times, with other things, God does not allow it. One of those times is the application of holy water. Throughout the Bible God shows us the spiritual power that He wishes for water to have in our lives. The fact that, in hundreds of instances throughout Christian history demons are expelled and persons/places protected whenever holy water is applied, shows us that when it comes to holy water, God does not allow it. When Christians use holy water with faith in the prayers of the Church, demons flee, or, in the very least, suffer from its presence.

The name of Jesus is significant because it connotes authority. Paul had Christ’s authority, and consequently was able to command the spirits to come out, as were the other apostles. [. . .] Likewise that “in the name” refers to authority can be seen, for example, from Deuteronomy 18:5, 7, 20, and 22 and many other Old Testament texts, as well as – for example – James 5:10.

I posit that demons are expelled just as much by the holiness of the name as by its authority. After all, His name IS holy (cf. Lev 22:32; 1 Chron 16:10,35; 29:16; Psa 30:4; 33:21; 97:12; 103:1; 105:3; 106:47; 111:9; 145:21; Isa 57:15; Lk 1:49), and it is opposed to anything that is evil (cf. Lev 20:3; 22:2; Eze 20:39; 36:20-22; 39:7,25; 43:7-8; Amo 2:7). Also, there are many possible meanings for "in the name of" other than the one you provided.

But some might argue that the explanation about authority does not fully explain the special miracles wrote by Paul’s hands, by which the sick were cured through aprons and handkerchiefs that had been on Paul’s body. The answer is that there were additional special miracles in the apostolic age, but those miracles had already long ceased by the time of Chrysostom (circa 347- circa 407)

I'm surprised that you're willing to become a cessationist in order to discredit the use of holy things against the devil. Unfortunately, this isn’t the place to debate cessationism, but, in my conlusion, I do plan on providing some testimony regarding the use of another holy thing against the devil: oil. Of course, we already have the paragraph from the Apostolic Constitutions, in which oil is given the power to “banish demons.” Even in Old Testament times, David was able to use his lyre to rid Saul of the evil spirit that plagued him (cf. 1 Sam 16:16,23). Such “special miracles” simply are not confined to the apostolic period.

The anecdotal evidence is less than compelling. The Apostolic Constitutions are acknowledged, even by Roman Catholic Historians, to be pseudonymous works (after all, none of the Apostles survived to the fourth century).

As I understand it, the reason it's called "The Apostolic Constitutions" is not because one or more of the apostles wrote it but because it is a collection of the traditions handed on by them. At any rate, the fact that we don't know with certainty who wrote it does not itself discredit the statements found therein.

Furthermore, the passage cited by PC does not appear in several versions of the Apostolic Constitutions, and consequently may be a later medieval addition thereto.

I would like now to respond to your proof for this statement. Regarding the supposed absence of the chapter in question from "several versions", notice that New Advent's entry on the Apostolic Constitutions mentions 7 different versions:

1. a Latin version of a text found in Crete;
2. the complete Greek text of Bovius...
3. ...and that of the Jesuit Father Torres (Turrianus);
4. an early twelfth-century text in St. Petersburg;
5. an allied fourteenth-century text in Vienna;
6. and two kindred sixteenth-century texts, one in Vienna,...
7. the other in Paris

While only the last 4 are extant, it doesn't appear that any of them are the Coptic, Syriac, or Oxford manuscripts that Donaldson mentions. If that is the case, then the number of available versions is 7. Two out of 7 (or potentially 10, if we count the first three) hardly qualifies as "several versions." As for the chapter being a "later medieval addition," this too seems odd, considering that the New Advent entry says that the work "was not known in the Western Church throughout the Middle Ages."

Likewise in the cross-examination, we saw that the citation to the Venerable Bede’s work actually shows dust, not water, being used for expelling demons (and the water involved in the discussion not being water sanctified by a priest, but water that touched a relic).

All you did here was restate the sentiments of Question #3, which I answered here.

That leaves us with no testimony as to the use of holy water against demonic forces until the medieval times.

More on this in my Conclusion.

Furthermore, we have testimony that the use of holy water against demonic forces was simply medieval superstition (see John Paul Perrin, “History off the Ancient Christians” (1847), Book I, pages 33-34).

Please excuse me if I don't take his word for it.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

TurretinFan Rebuttal

Using Holy Water to counter demonic forces is undeniably innovative, (PhatCatholic admits Scriptural silence on the matter, and we have seen silence from the Early Church Fathers, to whom consecration of water for anything but baptism was apparently unknown, Leo IV not having instituted the modern practice of weekly water-blessing) but that alone would not automatically win the debate. We need to address PhatCatholic’s three arguments for efficacy.

Of PhatCatholic’s three arguments, the first two may be admitted without any effect on the debate, as already demonstrated above. It is chiefly the third item that is objectionable.

1. It has not been established that demons are actually “repulsed by anything that is holy or blessed by God.” PhatCatholic’s scriptural argument on this matter first refers to the curing of the sick by the bringing of materials that had been on Paul’s body to them.

A. Even assuming that the “evil spirits” mentioned in Acts 19:12 are demons (which is not necessarily a given), we cannot infer that demons are in fact repulsed by anything that is holy or blessed by God,” since contrariwise Satan, for example, was able to take Christ himself up to a pinnacle of the temple (Matthew 4:5 and Luke 4:9). Likewise it is not the holiness of the name “Jesus” that repulsed devils in the other passages cited by PhatCatholic, but the authority associated with the name, as already discussed above.

B. Likewise, demons can be cast out by those who are not holy, for a variety of reasons. Chapter II of the Apostolic Constitutions states, “nor will those who cast demons be sanctified by the demons being made subject to them: for they only mock one another, as they do who play childish tricks for mirth, and destroy those who give heed to them.”

C. Similarly, canon 79 of the Apostolic Constitutions prohibits ordination of demoniacs, and even prohibits demoniacs from praying “with the faithful.” This would seem to be an utterly unnecessary prohibition if it was believed at that time that demons are repulsed by anything that is holy.

2. It has not been established that “Holy Water” is, in fact, holy.

A. This is a relatively minor point, but the authority to consecrate water for anything other than baptism is simply absent from Scripture or the Early Church Fathers.

B. The infidels and pagans also consecrate water, but it should not be deemed “Holy.” Thus, merely consecrating water is not enough to make it holy.

3. If PhatCatholic is simply saying that it would be right for demons to be repulsed by holy things, then – of course – that would not meet the burden of proof. In the role of the affirmative, PhatCatholic has the burden to show that Holy Water is effective, I do not have the burden of showing that it is ineffective. I would respectfully submit that PhatCatholic has not met that burden.

-Turretinfan

TurretinFan Answer to Question #3

PhatCatholic,

You asked what proof I have that the passage you cited does not appear in several versions of the Apostolic Constitutions, and may be a later medieval addition.

The proof is

1. The testimony of historian James Donaldson, who provides the following footnote for the chapter from which you quoted (it’s a short chapter, only a single paragraph):

This chapter is not found in the Coptic and Syriac. One V. [Vienna] ms. has the following note: “Matthew (probably a mistake for Matthias) taught the doctrines of Christ in Judea, and was one of the seventy disciples. After the ascension of Christ he was numbered with the twelve apostles, instead of Judas, who was the betrayer. He lies in Jerusalem.”

The absence of the chapter from the Coptic and Syriac was the “several versions” to which I was referring.

2. One reasonable inference from its absence from multiple versions is that the chapter was not in the original, but was added later.

3. This hypothesis is confirmed by the fact that the Oxford manuscript of the Apostolic constitutions begins what we label Chapter XXX with “I the same, Simon the Canaanite …” whereas Simon is the ascribed author of the twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth manuscripts, which points to chapter twenty-nine being a later insertion.

4. The number of manuscripts and versions is quite small, which makes the absence from a pair of documents, and evident (or at least arguably evident) insertion in a third more significant. I should point out that I am unaware of the precise total number of manuscripts in existence. The New Advent Catholic encyclopedia claims that there are four manuscripts now in existence, but this seems to be lower than the number of manuscripts available to Donaldson in the 19th century, or possibly merely excludes the other versions as manuscripts. The oldest copy of the text (again, according to the New Advent encyclopedia) is a 12th century manuscript.

From this various testimony, I am inclined to suspect that Chapter XXIX, the one paragraph chapter to which your citation was made, was a latter (i.e. medieval) insertion, and not an original fourth or fifth century writing.

-Turretinfan

Question #3 for Turretinfan

I'm sorry for the delay in posting your third question. In your opening statement, you wrote the following:

Furthermore, the passage cited by PC does not appear in several versions of the Apostolic Constitutions, and consequently may be a later medieval addition thereto.

My question to you is this:

What proof do you have that the passage I cited....

1. does not appear in several versions of the Apostolic Constitutions; and
2. may be a later medieval addition?

The second part of your statement, in particular, seems to be mere conjecture on your part.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

TurretinFan Answer to Question #2

PhatCatholic, you asked for proof that special miracles had long since ceased by Chrysostom's time.

1. John Chrysostom wrote, in Homily IV on Paul's Second Epistle to the Thessalonians:

"Because if he meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly, that even now the grace of of the Spirit, that is the gifts, withhold [the AntiChrist]. And otherwise he ought to have come, if he was about to come when the gifts ceased: for they have long since ceased."

2. Likewise, towards the end of his ministry (circa 428), Augustine wrote:

"For those that are baptized do not now receive the Spirit on the imposition of hands, so as to speak in the tongues of all the peoples; neither are the sick healed by the shadow of the preachers of Christ falling on them as they pass; and other such things as were then done, are now manifestly ceased." (Retractions I, xiii, 7)

3. Or simply, as B.B. Warfield (died 1921) wrote in, The Cessation of Miracles,

"And so we pass on to the fourth century in an ever-increasing stream [of references to supposed miracles], but without a single writer having claimed himself to have wrought a miracle of any kind or having ascribed miracle-working to any known name in the church, and without a single instance having been recorded in detail."

4. Of course, the last item is simply an argument from silence. Nevertheless, that silence confirms the testimony of Chrysostom, who also wrote, this time in his Homily XXIX on Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians:

"This whole place [1 Corinthians 12:1-2] is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity hath produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more?"

Conclusion
So, we have not only the negative testimony of silence (as observed by Warfield's survey of the Early Church Fathers) but the positive testimony of Chrysostom as to the absence of the miraculous gifts.

We can connect the dots as well. The special gifts were a sign that the gifted were messengers from God and that consequently they spoke not their own words, but the words of the Most High. However, with the completion of the Bible, the need for prophets dissipated, and consequently the prophetic and accompanying sign gifts understandably passed away as well.

Thus, we rightly conclude that Chrysostom was right, and that the miraculous gifts had long since ceased.

-Turretinfan

Question #2 for Turretinfan

In your opening statement, you wrote the following:

But some might argue that the explanation about authority does not fully explain the special miracles wrote by Paul’s hands, by which the sick were cured through aprons and handkerchiefs that had been on Paul’s body. The answer is that there were additional special miracles in the apostolic age, but those miracles had already long ceased by the time of Chrysostom (circa 347- circa 407)

My question to you is this:

What proof do you have that the "special miracles" of the Apostolic age had "already long ceased" by the time of Chrysostom?

Thank you for your diligence in answering these questions.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

TurretinFan Answer to Question #1

PhatCatholic, you asked for proof that “unclean” is simply a figure of speech for the fact that the “unclean” spirit are evil. My understanding was that this was a generally understood fact, based on typology from the Old Testament ceremonial “cleanness” and “uncleanness.” Nevertheless, since you asked for demonstration, allow me to demonstrate.

We can see that “unclean” is simply a figure of speech from the facts:

1. That demons are interchangeably referred to as “evil spirits” and “unclean spirits.” For examples of “evil spirits,” see Luke 7:21, Luke 8:2, and Acts 19:12-13;
2. That sin is “spiritual uncleanness” in the historic Christian view, as evidenced even by such late medieval scholastics as Aquinas (Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 80, Article 5, Objection 3);
3. That the ancients seem to concur in this matter with Aquinas
a) Origen seems to equate, “wicked and unclean spirits” (De Principiis, Book I, Chapter V, Paragraph 2),
b) Likewise, in Homily XLIII on Matthew 12:38-39, Chrysostom refers to the same spirits as “unclean” and “evil,” see especially, section 4; and
c) Similarly, we have the testimony of Cyprian: “But if any one is moved by this, that some of those who are baptized in sickness are still tempted by unclean spirits, let him know that the obstinate wickedness of the devil prevails even up to the saving water, but that in baptism it loses all the poison of his wickedness.” (Cyprian, Epistle LXXV, Paragraph 15); or
4. That common sense tell us so – after all, cleanness’ literal sense is physical, but spirits are not physical. Therefore, we understand that “unclean” as applied to spiritual things has a figurative (not literal) sense.

Obviously one could go further and provide an exegesis as to the typological relationship between sin and uncleanness, focusing on, for example, Leviticus 14:19 and Hebrews 9:13 (see, for example, Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary entry for Hebrews 9:13), but - of course - the 500 word limit for this response would not permit a full exegesis of those and the many related texts.

-Turretinfan

Question #1 for Turretinfan

In your opening statement, you wrote the following:

PC makes the argument that if water cleanses, and demons are sometimes called “unclean spirits,” therefore it should be that water “can be put to good use against something as unclean as a demon.” There are a couple of problems with that, but the most obvious is that “unclean” is simply a figure of speech for the fact that they are evil.

My question to you is this:

What proof do you have that “unclean” is simply a figure of speech for the fact that they are evil?

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

TurretinFan - Opening Statement

I stand opposed to the resolution. I see no reason from Scripture to believe that Holy Water (so-called) has any effect at all on demonic forces. Let me first address each of PhatCatholic’s (PC’s) points and then provide some counter-points.

PC provides three main points of argument.

1. God uses the things of the created order to produce supernatural effects in our lives.
2. In Scripture, water is used to cleanse, purify, and heal human beings.
3. Demons are rightly repulsed by anything that is holy or blessed by God, and are expelled by His cleansing grace.

The first point is so general that I can certainly agree to it.

As to the second point, I distinguish. Water is used for physical cleansing, and consequently is used symbolically of spiritual cleansing. Thus, water was used for ritual cleansing/purification (the two being essentially interchangeable) in the Mosaic administration, as well as in the rite of Baptism in the Johanine and Apostolic administrations.

There are three examples of water being used in healing, Naaman in the Jordan, the pool of Bethesda, and the healing of the blind man through the dust/spit paste and subsequent washing in the pool of Siloam. Of course, none of the water involved was consecrated water.

PC makes the argument that if water cleanses, and demons are sometimes called “unclean spirits,” therefore it should be that water “can be put to good use against something as unclean as a demon.” There are a couple of problems with that, but the most obvious is that “unclean” is simply a figure of speech for the fact that they are evil.

Having disposed of the first two arguments, let us turn to the third. PC argues that demons “are rightly repulsed by anything that is holy or blessed by God, and are expelled by His cleansing grace.” PC asks, “Does this really need a defense?” The answer, of course, is yes.

After all, the Devil tempted Christ, and there is no one more holy or blessed by God than the Son of God. This, of course, was immediately after his baptism by John (see Mark 1:9-13). Yet, it seems that Christ’s holiness did not immediately or necessarily repulse the devil. Likewise, we read in Job that the devil even appeared before the Father in heaven, among the holy angels, to give an account of his doings (see Job 1:6-7 and 2:1-2). Furthermore, even when demons were confronted with Jesus presence or name they did not necessarily immediately flee (see Matthew 8:29 and Acts 19:15) and the same for Paul (Acts 16:16-17 and Acts 19:15).

Counter-Points

1. Exorcism is Through Authority not Repulsion
How then do we explain Acts 19:11-12 (where aprons and handkerchiefs from Paul’s body expelled evil spirits), Mark 9:38 (where someone was casting out demons “in [Jesus’] name”) and Acts 16:18 (where Paul casts out demons “in the name of Jesus Christ”)? The name of Jesus is significant because it connotes authority. Paul had Christ’s authority, and consequently was able to command the spirits to come out, as were the other apostles.

Indeed, it was in recognition of this way in which demons are cast out that the slander against Jesus arose that he cast out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils (see Matthew 9:34 and 12:24, and Mark 3:22).

Likewise that “in the name” refers to authority can be seen, for example, from Deuteronomy 18:5, 7, 20, and 22 and many other Old Testament texts, as well as – for example – James 5:10.
2. Special Miracles
But some might argue that the explanation about authority does not fully explain the special miracles wrote by Paul’s hands, by which the sick were cured through aprons and handkerchiefs that had been on Paul’s body. The answer is that there were additional special miracles in the apostolic age, but those miracles had already long ceased by the time of Chrysostom (circa 347- circa 407), who is considered one of the hierarchs of Eastern Orthodoxy and a saint and doctor of the Roman Catholic Church, having a feast day on September 13 (Homily IV on 2 Thessalonians).

3. Anecdotal Evidence
The anecdotal evidence is less than compelling. The Apostolic Constitutions are acknowledged, even by Roman Catholic Historians, to be pseudonymous works (after all, none of the Apostles survived to the fourth century). Furthermore, the passage cited by PC does not appear in several versions of the Apostolic Constitutions, and consequently may be a later medieval addition thereto. Likewise in the cross-examination, we saw that the citation to the Venerable Bede’s work actually shows dust, not water, being used for expelling demons (and the water involved in the discussion not being water sanctified by a priest, but water that touched a relic). That leaves us with no testimony as to the use of holy water against demonic forces until the medieval times. Furthermore, we have testimony that the use of holy water against demonic forces was simply medieval superstition (see John Paul Perrin, “History off the Ancient Christians” (1847), Book I, pages 33-34).

Conclusion
There is simply no mention of the practice of using holy water against demonic forces in either Scripture or the early fathers. It is a superstition based on the mistaken assumption that water consecrated by Catholic priests is “holy,” it is not. The concept of “holy water” is a medieval innovation. It is also based on the mistaken assumption that demons are repulsed or afraid of holy things. They are not. Satan even goes about disguised as an angel of light. They must, however, submit to the authority of God, which is why Michael invoked the Lord’s authority in his argument with the Devil (see Jude 9). Furthermore, we may have boldness against the devils, for we are promised that if we resist them, they will flee from us (see James 4:7). Thus, we need not be afraid, and resort to talismans or the like to protect us from the power of the devil.

-Turretinfan