Cruciform Catholic

Pope Benedict XVI

2005-12-30T14:18:00.000-08:00

There is one sentence from the Holy Father's sermon last week, given during the Midnight Mass, that gives great insight into the texture and trajectory of his theological understanding and teaching. The sentence concerns the Pope talking about how God is not eternal solitude. This simple statement is utterly profound and has major implications as to how we, as God's image bearers, are to image God in the world. God Is a Community of Relationship and as such, we, as God's image bearers, are not isolated individuals living in the solitude of our own existence. Rather we are called to Communion with God and with one another. Enjoy, ponder, reflect, and then act on the wisdom and teaching of our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. This is the Homily From His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI given during Midnight Mass.

"The Lord said to me: You are my son; this day I have begotten you". With these words of the second Psalm, the Church begins the Vigil Mass of Christmas, at which we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ our Redeemer in a stable in Bethlehem. This Psalm was once a part of the coronation rite of the kings of Judah. The people of Israel, in virtue of its election, considered itself in a special way a son of God, adopted by God. Just as the king was the personification of the people, his enthronement was experienced as a solemn act of adoption by God, whereby the King was in some way taken up into the very mystery of God. At Bethlehem night, these words, which were really more an expression of hope than a present reality, took on new and unexpected meaning. The Child lying in the manger is truly God’s Son. God is not eternal solitude but rather a circle of love and mutual self-giving. He is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (emphasis added).
But there is more: in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, God himself became man. To him the Father says: "You are my son". God’s everlasting "today" has come down into the fleeting today of the world and lifted our momentary today into God’s eternal today. God is so great that he can become small. God is so powerful that he can make himself vulnerable and come to us as a defenceless child, so that we can love him. God is so good that he can give up his divine splendour and come down to a stable, so that we might find him, so that his goodness might touch us, give itself to us and continue to work through us. This is Christmas: "You are my son, this day I have begotten you". God has become one of us, so that we can be with him and become like him. As a sign, he chose the Child lying in the manger: this is how God is. This is how we come to know him. And on every child shines something of the splendour of that "today", of that closeness of God which we ought to love and to which we must yield – it shines on every child, even on those still unborn.
Let us listen to a second phrase from the liturgy of this holy Night, one taken from the Book of the Prophet Isaiah: "Upon the people who walked in darkness a great light has shone" (Is 9:1). The word "light" pervades the entire liturgy of tonight’s Mass. It is found again in the passage drawn from Saint Paul’s letter to Titus: "The grace of God has appeared" (2:11). The expression "has appeared", in the original Greek says the same thing that was expressed in Hebrew by the words "a light has shone": this "apparition" – this "epiphany" – is the breaking of God’s light upon a world full of darkness and unsolved problems. The Gospel then relates that the glory of the Lord appeared to the shepherds and "shone around them" (Lk 2:9). Wherever God’s glory appears, light spreads throughout the world. Saint John tells us that "God is light and in him is no darkness" (1 Jn 1:5). The light is a source of life.
But first, light means knowledge; it means truth, as contrasted with the darkness of falsehood and ignorance. Light gives us life, it shows us the way. But light, as a source of heat, also means love. Where there is love, light shines forth in the world; where there is hatred, the world remains in darkness. In the stable of Bethlehem there appeared the great light which the world awaits. In that Child lying in the stable, God has shown his glory – the glory of love, which gives itself away, stripping itself of all grandeur in order to guide us along the way of love. The light of Bethlehem has never been extinguished. In every age it has touched men and women, "it has shone around them". Wherever people put their faith in that Child, charity also sprang up – charity towards others, loving concern for the weak and the suffering, the grace of forgiveness. From Bethlehem a stream of light, love and truth spreads through the centuries. If we look to the Saints – from Paul and Augustine to Francis and Dominic, from Francis Xavier and Teresa of Avila to Mother Teresa of Calcutta – we see this flood of goodness, this path of light kindled ever anew by the mystery of Bethlehem, by that God who became a Child. In that Child, God countered the violence of this world with his own goodness. He calls us to follow that Child.
Along with the Christmas tree, our Austrian friends have also brought us a small flame lit in Bethlehem, as if to say that the true mystery of Christmas is the inner brightness radiating from this Child. May that inner brightness spread to us, and kindle in our hearts the flame of God’s goodness; may all of us, by our love, bring light to the world! Let us keep this light-giving flame from being extinguished by the cold winds of our time! Let us guard it faithfully and give it to others! On this night, when we look towards Bethlehem, let us pray in a special way for the birthplace of our Redeemer and for the men and women who live and suffer there. We wish to pray for peace in the Holy Land: Look, O Lord, upon this corner of the earth, your homeland, which is so very dear to you! Let your light shine upon it! Let it know peace!
The word "peace" brings us to a third key to the liturgy of this holy Night. The Child foretold by Isaiah is called "Prince of Peace". His kingdom is said to be one "of endless peace". The shepherds in the Gospel hear the glad tidings: "Glory to God in the highest" and "on earth, peace...". At one time we used to say: "to men of good will". Nowadays we say "to those whom God loves". What does this change mean? Is good will no longer important? We would do better to ask: who are those whom God loves, and why does he love them? Does God have favourites? Does he love only certain people, while abandoning the others to themselves? The Gospel answers these questions by pointing to some particular people whom God loves. There are individuals, like Mary, Joseph, Elizabeth, Zechariah, Simeon and Anna. But there are also two groups of people: the shepherds and the wise men from the East, the "Magi". Tonight let us look at the shepherds. What kind of people were they? In the world of their time, shepherds were looked down upon; they were considered untrustworthy and not admitted as witnesses in court. But really, who were they? To be sure, they were not great saints, if by that word we mean people of heroic virtue. They were simple souls. The Gospel sheds light on one feature which later on, in the words of Jesus, would take on particular importance: they were people who were watchful. This was chiefly true in a superficial way: they kept watch over their flocks by night. But it was also true in a deeper way: they were ready to receive God’s word. Their life was not closed in on itself; their hearts were open. In some way, deep down, they were waiting for him. Their watchfulness was a kind of readiness – a readiness to listen and to set out. They were waiting for a light which would show them the way. That is what is important for God. He loves everyone, because everyone is his creature. But some persons have closed their hearts; there is no door by which his love can enter. They think that they do not need God, nor do they want him. Other persons, who, from a moral standpoint, are perhaps no less wretched and sinful, at least experience a certain remorse. They are waiting for God. They realize that they need his goodness, even if they have no clear idea of what this means. Into their expectant hearts God’s light can enter, and with it, his peace. God seeks persons who can be vessels and heralds of his peace. Let us pray that he will not find our hearts closed. Let us strive to be active heralds of his peace – in the world of today.
Among Christians, the word "peace" has taken on a very particular meaning: it has become a name for the Eucharist. There Christ’s peace is present. In all the places where the Eucharist is celebrated, a great network of peace spreads through the world. The communities gathered around the Eucharist make up a kingdom of peace as wide as the world itself. When we celebrate the Eucharist we find ourselves in Bethlehem, in the "house of bread". Christ gives himself to us and, in doing so, gives us his peace. He gives it to us so that we can carry the light of peace within and give it to others. He gives it to us so that we can become peacemakers and builders of peace in the world. And so we pray: Lord, fulfil your promise! Where there is conflict, give birth to peace! Where there is hatred, make love spring up! Where darkness prevails, let light shine! Make us heralds of your peace! Amen."

The Power of the Incarnation

2005-12-22T13:14:00.000-08:00

By John McCutcheon

Oh my name is Francis Tolliver, I come from Liverpool
Two years ago the war was waiting for me after school
From belgium and to flanders, germany to here
I fought for king and country I love dear.

Twas christmas in the trenches and the frost so bitter hung
The frozen fields of France where still no christmas songs were sung
Our families back in England were toasting us that day
There brave and glorious lads so far away.

I was lying with my mess mates on the cold and rocky ground
When across the lines of battle came a most peculiar sound
Says I now listen up me boys, each soldier strained to hear
As one young German voice sang out so clear.

Hes singing bloody well you know, my partner says to me
Soon one by one each German voice joined in in harmony
The cannons rested silent and the gas cloud rolled no more
As Christmas brought us respite from the war.

As soon as they were finished and a reverent pause was spent
God rest ye merry gentlemen struck up some lads from Kent
The next thing sang was stille nach tis silent night says I
And in two tongues one song filled up that sky

Theres someone coming towards us now the front line sentry said
All sights were fixed on one lone figure trudging from their side
His truce flag like a Christmas star shone on the plane so bright
As he bravely trudged unarmed into the night.

Then one by one on either side, walked in to no mans land
With neither gun nor bayonet, we met there hand to hand
We shared some secret brandy and we wished each other well
And in a flare lit football game we gave them hell.

We traded chocolates, cigarettes and photographs from home
These sons and father far away from families of their own
Ton sanders played the squeeze box and they had a violin
This curious and unlikely band of men.

Soon daylight stole upon us and France was France once more
With sad farewells we each began to settle back to war
But the question haunted every heart that lived that wonderous night
Whose family have I fixed within my sights.

Twas christmas in the trenches and the frost so bitter hung
The frozen fields of France were warmed, the songs of peace were sung
For the walls theyd kept between us to exact the work of war
Had been crumbled and were gone forever more.

Oh my name is Francis Tolliver, from Liverpool I dwell
Each Christmas comes since world war I
I have learned its lesson well
For the one who calls the shots wont be among the dead and lame
And on each end of the rifle were the same.

The event that took place in 1914 that inspired these lyrics speak to the Power of the Incarnation. If we, and I think of myself and how much I fail to think on this, sit back and think on what it is that we believe as Christians we would be filled with awe, wonder, reverence, and many other thoughts. Indeed as Christians we believe that the God of the Universe entered into this world with us. We believe that the God of the Universe is not a god who is distant, or aloof, or indifferent to the plight of man, far from it, we confess that the God of the Universe is intimately involved in the affairs of men and that He desires fellowship and friendship with us. The story of the Incarnation is the most devastating truth to ever burst upon the world and NOTHING can compare to it. Indeed, the Power of the Incarnation. May our Lord, who in His love became like us in all ways, yet, He without sin, continue to pour out His mercy and comfort in our lives by His intercession, strengthening by the Holy Spirit to the glory of God the Father.

There is Something About Christmas Time!

2005-12-21T17:52:00.000-08:00

We waited all through the year
for the day to appear
when we could be together in harmony

You know the time will come
peace on earth for everyone
and we can live forever in a world where we are free
let it shine for you and me

There's something about Christmas time
something about Christmas time
that makes you wish it was Christmas everyday

To see the joy in the children's eyes
the way that the old folks smile
says that Christmas will never go away

We're all as one tonight
makes no difference if you're black or white'
cause we can sing together in harmony

I know it's not too late
the world would be a better place
if we can keep the spirit more than one day in the year
send a message loud and clear

It's the time of year when everyone's together
we'll celebrate here on Christmas day
when the ones you love are there
you can feel the magic in the air -
you know it's everywhere

There's something about Christmas time
something about Christmas time
that makes you wish it was Christmas every day

To see the joy in the children's eyes
the way that the old folks smile
says that Christmas will never go away
Please tell me Christmas will never go away

Bryan Adams "There's Something About Christmas Time"

As the lyrics of this song make clear; there is something about Christmas time. Christmas time brings out some very strong emotions, ranging from, for some people, great depression and sadness, to great happiness and cheer. Tonight as I listened to this song, I could not help but be filled with both joy and sadness at the same time. Sadness because I wonder if Bryan Adams and those who listen to this song really know what makes this time of year so special. Sadness because so many suffer silently and the season brings constant reminders that their loved ones are not here. Sadness because so many do not know the One who is indeed the reason behind the specialness of this season. Sadness because the human yearning for freedom is found truly and really only in Him. I also was filled with joy as I heard the words wishing that it was Christmas everyday. Indeed, Catholics do not have to wish it were Christmas everyday. Truly, Christmas is about Christ Coming to us, and yes, in great love and mercy, everyday our Lord comes to us, truly, really, and substantially in the Eucharist, presenting Himself, His very Body and Blood. Indeed, Catholics do not have to wish it were Christmas everyday, Catholics have Christmas everyday, for, indeed, in Catholic Churches throughout the world, there is in the Tabernacle the Body of Christ. We are not abandoned, we are not orphaned, for we have been given the Spirit of Comfort that we might share in the One who is life Incarnate, the Lord Jesus Christ. Yes, there is something about Christmas time and may the world know, through the ministry of the Church, in the power of the Holy Spirit, in the name of Christ, to the glory of God the Father, that Christmas is indeed everyday. May all those who are seeking freedom find the true freedom that only Christ can bring.

The Love of Money!

2005-12-21T08:24:00.000-08:00

"And Jesus said to his disciples, 'Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God'" (Matt.19:23-24).

Why is it that most commentators, when commenting on this passage, do not allow the passage to speak for itself? Why is it the case that more often than not people will, in "explaining" this passage, say comment on everything but what Jesus said. Typically what one hears in this passage is what Jesus did not mean to communicate. Jesus is not saying . . . rather than focusing on what He did say, which are very strong words.

The other day, while driving, I was listening to a talk show host commenting about sports ownership and athletes. The caller complained how sports has become all about money. The host laughed and said that the reason why sports is about money is because we the audience care so much about it and since there is such a huge demand for sports there is a lot of money to be made in it. He said that the reason why sports is about money is because it is about the money!!!! He added that the reason why owners in sports are billionaires had to do with the fact that they love money. You just don't one day wake up and discover, "hey, whadda ya know, I am a billionaire." Why do most teams make season ticket holders purchase exhibition games, games that are not part of the regular season, as part of their package? Because there is money involved. It doesn't matter that you are paying for an inferior product, which is admitted by all involved. No, there is money to be made and if you want the season tickets you have to pay for exhibition games that mean nothing in the standings.

Sports is an easy target because it is so public. But what about major corporations? The Supermarket industry is an example of how times have changed. It used to be that a job in the supermarket was a good job. Now, the average supermarket job, except for a handful of employees, are manned by part timers, who are either high school or college students, or someone who is supplementing their income. The average person makes about 8 dollars an hour, if that, in these types of jobs. Because of the part time work, hardly anybody gets any overtime and benefits are not a given. One company that I know of, from having worked in the business, a multi-billion dollar corporation, who gets top dollar for their products does this very thing with their stores. Their stores are very nice, they charge quite a bit, and they are manned by almost all part timers. People in certain levels of management complain that they can't find good help, yet, let's be real and turn the phrase "you get what you pay for" on them. Indeed that is what their apologists will say in their defense, but indeeed, when customer service is lacking, when there is absenteeism in the work place, when work is not getting done top notch, you get what you pay for.

The fact is people love money. One credit card company in their adverstisement says, "we help you live richly." Ahh, indeed, how hard is it for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Only Two Choices!

2005-12-20T11:59:00.000-08:00

Many times in life there are, what we call, "both/and" choices. However, in matters pertaining to the spiritual life there really is only an "either/or" before us. That is to say either we will be conformed to the image of Christ or we will be conformed to the pattern and image of the world. There is no middle ground. St. Paul, in his letter to the Romans, mentions both of these conformings. The first one is in Romans 8, where he writes, "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren", (vs.29) and the other is in Romans 12, where he writes, "Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect", (vs.2). There are two molds in life, the mold that forms us into the image of God's Son, who is the Christ, or the mold that forms us into the image of the world, with its, "lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1st John 2:16). The mold that is easiest to be conformed into is that of the world. To be conformed into pattern of the world takes NO EFFORT. All one has to do is wake up and live naturally. Conforming into the pattern and shape of the world requires no habits, no discipline, and no struggle. Conformity to Christ is hard and takes effort. It requires discipline and struggle. Our Lord says, "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few" (Matt. 7:13-14). Conformity to the world is the wide road; conformity to the image of God's Son, our Lord, is the narrow road. This is why Paul is constantly exhorting the Church, challenging the Church, and commanding the Church to put to death the deeds of the flesh, pray without ceasing, think about the things that are above and not below, not to be presumptuous in their standing before God, because these things do not come naturally to us. You typically order commands to someone who will not naturally do something. A parent commands their child, because if a child is left to their own devices they will not take proper care of themselves. Human beings will always choose what they think is good for them. Sadly, because of sin, in choosing what they think is good for them, they often choose the bad. Without Divine Grace in Christ and by the Spirit and the authority of the Church we too would always choose the bad for ourselves. As the Proverb says, "There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death" (14:12). If left to our own devices we would be conformed to the pattern of the world. Thanks be to God that His grace is offered to us and given to us through His Church in the power of the Spirit in the name of Christ that we might, more and more, put to death the deeds of the flesh and become more and more like our Lord, who is God's Son. Amen.

Does the Catholic Church Preach the Gospel?

2005-12-18T13:52:00.000-08:00

It is common for Evangelicals to charge the Catholic Church guilty for failure to preach the Gospel. Many of these Evangelicals are former Catholics who, after having left the Church for a variety of reasons, will claim that the Church did not preach the Gospel to them. Often times the preaching of the Gospel that the Evangelical has in mind concerns an "invitation", given by the preacher after he has delivered the message, to those in attendance asking them if they would like to "accept" Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. If someone in the audience responds with the answer "yes" to this offer, then they are asked to either come down to the front ("the altar call") or to remain in their seats and say a simple prayer asking Jesus to come into their life. If this is someone's conception of preaching the Gospel then, it is true, the Catholic Church does not preach the Gospel according to this idea because the Church does not typically do that. So how does a Catholic respond to the charge that the Church does not preach the Gospel? Simply by pointing out that the Catholic Church celebrates the Eucharist, and not, as in most Evangelical communities, once a month, but everyday. St. Paul states very clearly in his letter to the Church in Corinth that in the doing of the Supper the death of our Lord is proclaimed, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (1st Cor. 11:26). In the Eucharistic action of the Church, there is evangelization. Indeed at the heart of Gospel preaching is the proclamation of the death of Christ, as St. Paul states a bit later in the same letter, "Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures" (1st Cor 15:1-4). There is no Gospel without the death of Christ and there is no Eucharist without the death of Christ. The Eucharist is a sharing in the death of Christ (Gal.2:20), and a true "fellowship" in the body and the blood of our Lord (1st Cor. 10:16). This is why the Eucharist is not a symbolic reminder that Jesus died for our sins. We don't need gentle reminders to remind us of our Lord's death, we need a real and true partaking of His death, receiving nothingless than His body and blood. The Eucharist makes present the past event of Calvary. Space and time are not obstacles in the Eucharist, for the God who sends the Son and the Spirit is not held captive by space and time. The Eucharistic action of the Church brings into the present the sacrifice of our Lord on Calvary. Thus, the Eucharist proclaims the death of Christ. Evangelicals may criticize the Catholic Church according to their own traditions, but according to the Biblical tradition,failure to preach the Gospel is not one of them.

Advent And The Ascension

2005-12-13T14:07:00.000-08:00

What does the season of Advent have to do with the Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ into heaven? On the surface, it would appear, not much. Yet, as is often the case in matters of depth, if we dig just a bit we can see that Advent and the Ascension have a lot more in common than would appear. It needs to be stated that the doctrine of the Ascension is one of those doctrines that has been neatly tucked away under the"what does this have to do with anything" file, stored away in the filing cabinet. When we encounter the Ascension we usually are left with more questions than answers and the answers we usually get are not very satisfying. So where does the season of Advent fit with the reality of the Ascension? When our Lord descended from heaven in great humility to take on human nature, He did so that in His Ascension He would exalt our human nature. Our Lord lowers Himself in becoming Man in order that He might raise Man back to his proper dignity as the image of God. The Ascension is often understood as pointing toward our Lord's identity as God. Yet, our Lord, pertaining to His Divine Nature, did not need to be exalted as God. What needed to be exalted was our Lord's human nature. In the Ascension of our Lord, humanity begins to exercise dominion over creation as God intended from the beginning. This dominion is exercised "In Christ" and by the Spirit. As Douglas Farrow has pointed out in his book on the Ascension, reflection on the Ascension had led to some allowing our Lord's humanity to be swallowed up by His deity. We must always be careful to remember that our Lord is fully God and fully Man. As has been pointed out by many theologians, Jesus is both the manifestation of the faithfulness of God and the faithfulness of humanity. In Jesus there is God's "Yes" to man, and man's "Yes" to God. Thus, in the one person Jesus of Nazareth, who is the Word made flesh, there is manifested both the reign of God and the reign of humanity. In Jesus God exercises his reign as God and in Jesus humanity exercises their reign as the image of God. In Jesus God rules his world and orders all things and brings them to perfection as He always intended from the beginning through His image, which is humanity (Psalm 8; Heb 2). In Jesus' Ascension to the Father's right hand we can say, without any reservation, there is a Man in heaven, ruling and reigning and fulfilling the mandate of creation, and in the sending of the Holy Spirit, we His people participate in His Ascension (Col 3) bringing about in our bodies the realities of Jesus' reign over the world. Thanks be to God for the Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ. And thanks be to God for the 1st Advent of our Lord, who in great love and humility, shunned not the Virgin's womb and became Man for our sake, so that in Him we might be exalted. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, Amen.

The Great Hymn of Modernity

2005-12-09T13:36:00.000-08:00

Yesterday was the 25th anniversary of the death of John Lennon. I remember the night he died as if it were yesterday; the Patriots were in Miami playing the Dolphins on Monday Night Football. Howard Cosell announced during the broadcast that John Lennon had been killed outside his apartment in New York City. Now I have to admit that I am not the biggest music fan, nor am I a great fan of the Beatles, but I do like some of their songs. Yesterday as I was listening to the radio, a couple of radio personalities threw their two cents in on his death and his legacy. They both stated that since his death, Lennon's lyrics took on added meaning. They also stated that they thought his best song, certainly his best song apart from the Beatles, was the song "Imagine." They said that the words to this song were profound and that if these words were embraced we would all be better off. Since becoming deeply involved in theology and biblical and theological thinking, when I have heard this song playing on the radio thought I have thought long and hard about it. And when I have thought about it, I have to say, it is one of the most depressing, awful, and saddest songs I have ever heard. I also have had another thought about this song, namely, that we do not need to try very hard to imagine this kind of world because it has already been tried, it was called the Soviet Union, and it failed. It failed because ironically enough it stifled imagination. That is the tragic irony of Lennon's words, a song entilted "Imagine" if implemented in the world does the opposite, namely destroy the imagination. The world of "Imagine" is a world closed in itself. The choral for this liturgy is Carl Sagan's, "The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." Indeed, in this world the lame do not walk, the blind do not see, the deaf do not hear, the poor do not become rich, subjects do not become sharers in a kingdom, slaves are not set free, and the dead do not get raised. In the world of this song banality is the gospel, boredom is its discipline, the mundane is all we live for and the status quo is its eschatological vision. This song is tragic beyond words and to be blunt makes me realize all the more why we, those who believe that the world we live in has been broken into from above, specifically in the Incarnate Word Made Flesh and the power of the Holy Spirit, need to witness to this reality every day in our lives. We need to tell others that there is another city and it is coming from above, the city whose builder and maker is God. Read the lyrics to the song "Imagine" and tell me if there is any hope and redemption in these words. May God have mercy on us all!!!

IMAGINE
Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

A Theology of Tears

2005-12-07T07:53:00.000-08:00

Life can be and often is a valley of tears. Who can deny the realities of tragedy and senselessness, stories of children being orphaned or abused. Stories of late night phone calls informing you of to come immediately to the hospital or a visit from the authorities informing you of the loss of a loved one. Or what of children born without limbs or little ones diagnosed with a terminal disease!!! Just read the papers or watch the news or look around your neighborhoods to see and learn of the plight of man and woman, boy and girl, young and old, powerful and poor. To borrow some lines from the cinema, Time is chasing after all of us. And as hard as we try to outrun time, time will indeed close in on all of us. We all become in the end nothing more than food for worms and fertilizer for daffodils. Is this not the sentiment expressed by the "Preacher"? "Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity. What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun? There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of later things yet to happen among those who come after" (Ecclesiastes 1:2-3,11). "For of the wise man as of the fool there is no enduring remembrance, seeing that in the days to come all will have been long forgotten. How the wise man dies just like the fool! So I hated life, because what is done under the sun was grievous to me; for all is vanity and a striving after wind" (2:16-17). "For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again" (3:19-20). Indeed all is vanity and all is pointless, at least from a purely materialistic perspective. There is great grief in this world because this world has been infected by a foreign invader, namely sin and death. Sin and death are enemies, not our friends (1st Cor 15). Sin and death are not "things" we come to grips with, they are realities that need to be defeated. When we look at life from a purely materialistic perspective, in short, as if this world is all there is, we have two basic postures we can take. One is to try to indulge ourselves with every whim and desire and attempt to make the best of a bad situation to find happiness. The other is to prefer death and non-existence for life is intolerable. It is so easy to beat up the Existentialist, especially in its nihilistic form, yet, is that fair? It seems to me that apart from the belief in the One True and ever living God who has made Himself known in this world through Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the existentialist is brutally honest about life and the way things really appear to be. Indeed, apart from the revelation of God in Christ by the Spirit, then all would be vanity, pure vanity. Indeed this God is not the god who creates a world and then sits back and watches, in the words of the popular song, from a distance. This God is not the god who "runs" the world as an absentee landlord, sending some stooges to collect the rent every now and then. No, this God is not a tame god and He is not a god that fits into our neat little categories. This God is not ashamed to be brought to the condition of the crushed and lowly. This God is not ashamed to take up residence in the womb of a Virgin. This God is not ashamed to call us His friends. This God is not ashamed to have nowhere to lay His head. This God is not ashamed to shed tears at the death of His friend. This God is not ashamed to weep over the city He loves. This God is not ashamed to cry in the Garden, sweating drops of blood. This God is not ashamed to identify with the sinner and the forsaken by dying the death of forsakeness on a Friday afternoon. This God is not ashamed to give of His flesh and His blood as our food and drink for the life of the world. Indeed this God, the God we worship as Christians, indeed as Catholics, is not ashamed to meet with us everyday especially in the liturgy and say, "This is My Body broken for you, Take and eat, this is My Blood poured out for you, take and drink." Indeed, it is reality, time is chasing after all of us and eventually overtakes us and then we become food for the worms. But there is something more real than that. Indeed this reality defines and makes sense of all other reality. The God who is outside of Time has entered into time and gave of His flesh and blood for the life of the world. He gave His flesh and blood to us to be our food, the food that is the medicine of immortality. Indeed this is the God we celebrate this Advent Season. This is the God who comes to us. This is the God not ashamed to shed some tears!!!

Theology Is Needed!!!

2005-12-01T05:59:00.000-08:00

It has been said that one can be, "so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good." Many people have, unwittingly, embraced such thinking as if it were biblical thinking. However, such thinking is far from biblical. Since the Church has been raised with Christ in baptism, the Apostle Paul calls the Church to, "seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry" (Col. 3:1-5). The only way for the believer and the Church to be any EARTHLY GOOD is to be HEAVENLY MINDED!!!! If we are not heavenly minded we will fall into the pattern and ways of the world. We will think like the world, act like the world, and be no different than the world. Indeed, we would be worse than the world, for we know, or should know better than the world. The LORD warns His people through the prophet, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee" (Hosea 4:6). It matters how we think, for how we think will impact how we live. For God's people to know how to think in order to live their lives in a godly manner, they must be taught. Theology matters. Doctrine matters. Theology and doctrine are not like options on a car, they are essential to the life of the Christian. Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying every Christian needs to be a highly skilled theologian. I recognize some of us love theology in what can be called a hobby-like manner, yet, God forbid if theology ever becomes a "hobby" or a play thing for us to debate as one debates sports. But the faithful need to have a desire and interest in things spiritual and they need to be informed as to what is spiritual, in the true, biblical and orthodox sense of the word. In order for the Church to know the will of God in their daily lives, the faithful must be engaged in "mind renewal" as the Apostle states, "Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Rom.12:2). Many ask, "what is God's will for my life?" Yet, how many say, "I need to learn more about God."? It hardly ever occurs to us that the practice of renewing our minds, which comes about through actions like prayer, Scripture study, holy conversation and fellowship, is needed to know God's will for our lives. Paul does tell us, "this is the will of God, your sanctification" (1st Thess. 4:3), which should cause us to reflect on what our sanctification should look like in our daily lives. For the Church not only to speak properly about God but to live properly before God, theology needs to be given its proper attention in the LOCAL CHURCH, that is, the Parish. Oh, happy day when the people of God and those who lead the people of God remember the actions of our brothers and sisters in the ancient Church when, "they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers" (Acts 2:42).

Practical Christianity

2005-11-25T11:15:00.000-08:00

Last night, while watching Anderson Cooper's 360 on CNN, I learned that the average life expectancy for an American is 77 years of age, while the average life expectancy for a member of the Seventh Day Adventist communion is 88 years of age. As I pondered this newly aquired information, I was confronted with a couple of choices. One choice was to consider joining the Seventh Day Adventist group. I personally am not a fan of death. I do not look forward to my death. Lest one think me unspiritual for such thinking a fair reading of the Scripture, I believe, demonstates that God is not the God of death but of life. The longer I can put off death, so much the better. Therefore, practically speaking, it made some sense to at least consider becoming a Seventh Day Adventist. As I thought about that option, I realized that, while becoming a Seventh Day Adventist would add approximately 11 years to my life, it would not prevent my eventual death. To be sure, I would be glad to add those eleven years but I would still have to face the fact that I am going to die and my body is going to be seperated from my soul. The other choice that was before me was to bite the bullet and remain as I am, a Catholic, swallowing the fact that I will more than likely lose about 11 years of life compared to the average Seventh Day Adventist. What is the practical decision? What is one to do when faced with such decisions?
To join or to stay, that is the question and so I have concluded that I will stay. I will "suck it up" as they say and confront the fact that remaining a Catholic and not becoming a Seventh Day Adventist means that I will probably die a decade sooner and I don't like that!!! But is living longer, even a healthier life a reason to choose a religion?? Some of you may remember how every now and then a magazine will do a cover story on faith and its positive impact on one's life. I remember a cover story not too long ago on prayer and how people who pray live longer and healthier lives. Are such practical benefits reason enough to be religious or, in the case of becoming a Seventh Day Adventist, choosing a different form of Christianity??? The answer is "NO." Truth is not, nor can it ever be, subject to the test of practicality. The question "does it work?" must be secondary to the question "is it true?" I choose to remain a Catholic, not because it is practical or beneficial in this life, though there are benefits to being Catholic in this life, but because to be Catholic means to have been embraced by the truth, for truth is not an idea or a propisition but a Person who became flesh and dwelt among us and even now, in this life, we receive this truth in the Eucharist. Becoming Catholic for me has been, to be very honest, very inconvenient and impractical. Without going in to many details my life has been made more difficult not less difficult by becoming Catholic, on both a personal and professional level. On a professional level, I love to teach the Bible and Theology, I have not done so for almost 6 months. Lord willing, I will have, someday, the privilege of either becoming a high school teacher of religion or the head of parish religious program. Until then, I wait. Finding a job has been very difficult. I have been looking in the business world and my resume is not the type of resume that makes me an attractive candidate, unless, of course, they are looking to hire a Corporate Chaplain LOL. I had one interviewer tell me very honestly, "You have one of the strangest resumes that has ever come across my desk." He was not being disrespectful, just honestly expressing what I am sure other prospective employers were thinking but didn't say. I write this, not because I feel sorry for myself, but to state very honestly that we must not make choices based on practical benefits but on truth. When Pilate was confronted with the Truth Incarnated he asked, "what is truth?" as if truth could be decided vote or consensus. As a close friend of mine has stated,
"Pilate was the first liberal in many ways. He thought truth could be what the majority decided and that the majority would make the right decision if given the choice." Pope Benedict XVI has called such thinking the dictatorship of relativism. We do not become Catholic because it is the practical thing to do. We do not remain Catholic because it is the practical thing to do. Rather we become Catholic and remain Catholic because it is true and because it is founded on the Truth made flesh. We are Catholic because our Founder remains with us even to this day, and even now continues to give of His flesh and His blood for the life of the world. This may not be the Religion we want, but it is the religion we need and in the end what we need is the most practical of all!!!

Where is that in the Bible?

2005-11-03T06:15:00.000-08:00

When catechizing someone who has been formed and shaped by Evangelicalism the question "where is that in the Bible?" is bound to come up on a regular basis. How does one handle this question? Let's be honest. As Catholics we don't have a verse that says "There is a place called Purgatory and this is the place where believers go who have need for purification prior to seeing the face of God." Ahhh, yes, indeed how much easier would it be were there that verse in my Catholic Study Bible. But there is no verse, so what is a catechetical instructor to do? He is to do the same thing that he should do when dealing with the question of infant baptism, when dealing with the question of the Trinitarian nature of God, or looking at the Person of Christ, which is, to employ, in the words of my friend, a texture, trajectory, and arc hermeneutic of Scripture. As has been stated by many theologians theology and doctrine are not developed by "one verse." No, instead, theology and doctrine are developed by the narrative of Scripture, the worship (liturgy) of the Church, the consent of the Fathers etc. . . . For the Athanasius the question of the deity of our Lord was a liturgical question as much as it was a doctrinal question. If our Lord is not equal to the Father, consubtantial with the Father, then the Church's worship is nothing short idolatry. The Nicene Creed, Chalcedon, etc... were all attempts, contra the liberal mantra that the Councils Hellenized Christianity, to take seriously the Biblical narrative, as Professor Joseph Farrell has pointed out. So what did this instructor do with the question "Where is that in the Bible?" in reference to Purgatory? He looked at the Biblical narrative and in particular some Parables of our Lord, he engaged in a "Q and A" dialogue with the student on the nature of the forgiveness of sins and temporal punishments, and he appealed to the authority of the Church. Would it be easier with that "one verse" ahh, yes, it would mean more time to blog!!! But instead we had an hour conversation about the things of God and in my book it doesn't get any better than that!!!!

All Saints

2005-11-02T08:37:00.000-08:00

One of the great truths of the faith is the fact that what we believe, confess, and seek to live out has been believed, confessed, and lived out by such a number in the past that it is impossible to calculate. What I believe about the faith did not and does not begin and end with me. The Faith is a big faith, it is cosmic, it is universal, it is indeed a big family. Last night on the way into Mass my future step-son and I had a conversation about All Saints Day. I told him that the Church gives us these Feast Days as Days of Obligation as a gift so that in our celebration of them we would be encouraged, reminded, and challenged to live our lives in accordance with the Gospel and the truth of the Church. I told him that we celebrate and remember the Saints who have gone before us in the faith, who even now are members of the same faith with us and indeed pray for us as we on earth pray for each other. Hebrews 12 speaks of our being surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. This great cloud of witnesses are encouraging us and challenging us to live out our faith in Christ. Ephesians 3 informs us that there is one God from whom all people in heaven and on earth are named. God is the God of those who have died and gone to be with Him in heaven and He is God to those who are living on the earth. Heaven and earth meet in the Communion of the Saints. Contra those who believe that nothing can be known about the heavenly world, that is if there is a heaven, the Faith says we are one family in Christ, calling God the Father by the power of the Holy Spirit. We are one family united to the one Head of the Church, Christ. The Saints are not just members of our family who have provided us with good examples, though that much is true, the Saints are family members who intercede before the throne of God praying for us, seeking our good for the glory of God.

Christ Is Culture

2005-10-27T08:22:00.000-07:00

The following is from the pen of Robert Louis Wilken, taken from First Things April 2004 entitled Christ As Culture:

Take, for example, the calendar. I am not thinking primarily of Santa displacing the Christ child or the Easter Bunny replacing the Resurrection; nor do I mean the transfer of festivals that fall in midweek (e.g., Epiphany or Pentecost or All Saints) to the nearest Sunday. I mean the dramatic, wholesale evacuation of Sunday as a holy day. At eleven o’clock on Sunday morning at Home Depot or Lowe’s the lines of folks with cans of paint, two-by-fours, and joint cement stretch almost as far as they do on a Saturday morning. The only lingering difference between Sunday and other days of the week is that the malls open later and close earlier. The churches, particularly the bishops of the Catholic Church, were complicit in the desacralization of Sunday as a holy day when they introduced late Saturday afternoon liturgies, called Vigil Masses. A more fitting name would be McMasses. The faithful can fulfill their obligation by slipping into church for a half hour or so on Saturday afternoon and then have Sunday to themselves without the pesky inconvenience of getting the family up for Mass. Of course, one might retort that in the United States (unlike in Europe) the churches are flourishing and the number of Christians is growing. Yes, there are many Christians in the U.S., but can we still claim to be a Christian society? If one uses any measure other than individual adherence (what people say if asked) or even church attendance, it is undeniable that the influence of Christianity on the life and mores of our society is on the wane. And the decline is likely to continue. Which leads to a question: Can Christian faith—no matter how enthusiastically proclaimed by evangelists, how ably expounded by theologians and philosophers, or how cleverly translated into the patois of the intellectual class by apologists—be sustained for long without the support of a nurturing Christian culture? By culture, I do not mean high culture (Bach’s B-Minor Mass, Caravaggio’s The Calling of St. Matthew); I mean the “total harvest of thinking and feeling,” to use T. S. Eliot’s phrase—the pattern of inherited meanings and sensibilities encoded in rituals, law, language, practices, and stories that can order, inspire, and guide the behavior, thoughts, and affections of a Christian people. When one understands culture in this way, the classical distinction between Christ and culture, popularized in H. Richard Niebuhr’s 1950s book by that title, gives us little help. Some have observed, accurately in my view, that one difficulty with his analysis is that “culture” is really another term for “world,” the unredeemed territory in which human beings live. For Niebuhr the question is how the gospel, Christ, can penetrate the world, culture, without losing its distinctive character. It seems to me, however, that the deficiency with the Christ-and-Culture scheme lies not in Niebuhr’s understanding of culture but in his view of Christ. For Niebuhr, Christ is a theological idea, and most of his book is taken up by an analysis of Christian thinkers who illustrate five basic types of the relation between this theological idea and culture. Niebuhr is largely silent about the actual historical experience of the Church, about culture on the ground, about institutions such as the episcopacy and the papacy (there is no mention of Gregory VII and the investiture controversy), monasticism, civil and canon law, calendar, and the ordering of civic space (the church standing on the central city square). But Christ entered history as a community, a society, not simply as a message, and the form taken by the community’s life is Christ within society. The Church is a culture in its own right. Christ does not simply infiltrate a culture; Christ creates culture by forming another city, another sovereignty with its own social and political life. With these admittedly sketchy observations in mind, let me turn to three moments in the Church’s history to illustrate how Christ becomes culture and endures as culture. By the middle of the second century, Christians were beginning to be known in the Roman world, but they did not bear the marks usually associated with a distinctive community. In the oft-cited passage from the so-called Epistle to Diognetus (it is really an apology), Christians are distinguished from others not by nationality, language, or by custom. They do not have their own cities, and their way of life is inconspicuous. It was known that Christians honored Christ as God, refused to venerate the gods and goddesses of Greece and Rome, and gathered regularly for a ritual meal. Yet there was little else to identify them. They met in the homes of the wealthier members; they used in their worship the language of the city in which they dwelled; they owned no land; they had no temples (in fact, no buildings at all), no cemeteries of their own, and no religious calendar. The bishop was not a public personage and the Church, as a social entity, was invisible. Take, for example, the earliest Christian art. If a Christian living in 200 a.d. wished to have an object in his home that gave artistic expression to Christian belief, what might it be? He would go to a craftsman and select a lamp stamped with a conventional symbol that could yield a Christian interpretation: a dove, a fish, a ship, an anchor, or a shepherd carrying a lamb. When placed in a Christian home, a symbol which had one meaning to the Romans was invested with a Christian meaning: the dove for gentleness; the fish for Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior; the shepherd for philanthropia or Christ the good shepherd. In buying and displaying objects such as lamps or rings or seals, Christians created the first Christian art (of which we have knowledge), but what the symbols represented lay in the eyes of the beholder, not in the object. As far as Roman society was concerned Christianity was invisible. At the beginning of the third century, however, Christians in Rome took a bold stride. They pooled their resources to purchase a plot of land on the Via Appia Antica outside the city; there they constructed an underground burial chamber and commissioned artists to decorate the walls and ceilings with frescoes. A Roman Christian by the name of Callistus, who later became bishop of Rome, oversaw the construction, which today is known as the Catacomb of St. Callistus. Only a few of the paintings have survived, but the catacomb itself is largely intact. It is not simply a few burial niches, but a vast underground cemetery with chapels, ceiling and wall decorations, and paintings that depict persons and stories from the Bible. Its construction represents an organized effort (diggers, designers, plasterers, painters) on the part of the Christian community in Rome to create a distinctively Christian space. The catacombs were not hideouts during persecution; they were burial grounds and places of worship, and their location was not secret. When Christians buried their dead or went to the catacomb to celebrate the Eucharist their activities were evident to their fellow citizens. The construction of a Christian catacomb required planning and money to choose the layout and décor and to pay the workmen. Most of the rooms are square, allowing for a symmetrical design to be imprinted on a ceiling of white plaster. The ceiling generally has a painted medallion at the apex to highlight a prominent image. In some rooms the figure of a young shepherd carrying a lamb on his shoulders occupies this central medallion. Other images portray the figure of Orpheus (understood as Christ) holding his lyre and surrounded by animals (Christ, unlike Orpheus, tames even the wildest of beasts, the human being, said Clement of Alexandria), Daniel as a heroic nude, and Jonah being cast overboard. The form of the images is familiar from Roman art, but by putting them together with wall paintings—Abraham with Isaac, Moses striking the rock in the desert, Daniel in the lion’s den, and Jesus being baptized in the Jordan—these Roman Christians created a uniquely Christian sanctuary. What the Christians undertook on the Via Appia Antica was being done by other Christian communities at about the same time. As the art historian Corby Finney has observed, “A cultural event of some importance was taking place,” and we can see here a “transition from models of accomodation and adaptation that were materially invisible to a new level of Christian identity that was palpable and visible.” For the first time Christians were beginning to create a “material culture,” something that is tangible, occupies space, is public (though underground), and is distinctively Christian. The Christians who planned and built this catacomb had given as much thought to their undertaking as bishops and philosophers had invested in defending the faith, expounding the Scriptures, or meeting the arguments of critics. Significantly, Christian culture first takes material shape in connection with caring for and remembering the dead. Memory, especially of the faithful departed, is a defining mark of Christian identity. The living joined their prayers with the saints’ prayers, which, according to the book of Revelation, were “golden bowls full of incense.” In organizing the community to construct a burial place and in decorating it with pictures depicting biblical stories, Christians were fashioning a communal public identity that would endure over the generations. As the Apostles’ Creed has it (in its earliest meaning), “I believe in communion with the saints.” Their aim was not to communicate the gospel to an alien culture but to nurture the Church’s inner life. A second moment at which we see Christ becoming culture comes from a later period, and here the idiom is not space but time, the creation of a Christian calendar. Theologians and biblical scholars have made much of the New Testament understanding of kairos, the time when something decisive is to happen, an extraordinary moment long awaited. “The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” (Mark 1:15). But there is another kind of time, the marking of days and seasons. For the earliest Christians there was only one day, the day of the resurrection celebrated each time the community gathered, normally on Sunday. Already in the book of Revelation there is mention of the “Lord’s Day,” the Kyriake Hemera (Revelation 1:10) and in the Didache we hear of the “Day of the Lord” (Didache 14). By the middle of the second century, Christians had begun to celebrate a yearly festival, the Paschal Feast (death and resurrection of Christ) that began with a vigil on Saturday evening and continued through the night until the morning. Over time other feasts were added. Christmas had begun to be observed in Rome in the middle of the fourth century. The Chronograph of Rome, a kind of calendar compiled for Roman Christians around the same time, lists Roman holidays, burial dates of Roman bishops and martyrs, and the birth of Christ, all in calendrical, not historical, order. “On the eighth day of the calends of January Christ was born in Bethlehem in Judea.” Christmas was soon complemented by the feast of the Presentation of Christ in the Temple, forty days after his birth. Ascension and Pentecost became fixed days. The Christian year was organized into two major cycles, one centered on Christ’s birth, the other on his suffering, death, and resurrection. Like the earliest (and later) Christian art, the liturgical year (as we now call it) had a narrative shape drawn from the Scriptures, particularly the Gospels. Through ritual it imprinted the biblical narrative on the minds and hearts of the faithful, not simply as a matter of private devotion but as a fully public act setting the rhythm of communal life. At the beginning of the third century, Christians were less than one percent of the Roman empire’s population of some sixty million. By 300 a.d., there may have been six million Christians in the empire, but by mid-century the number had risen to over thirty million, about half of the total population. This rapid growth, with the conversion of the emperor Constantine to Christianity and his vigorous program of building churches, changed public practice. Significantly, the Christian calendar became a civic calendar. In 321 Constantine made Sunday a public holiday. It is shallow and petulant to rail against the political aspects of Constantinianism while ignoring the efforts of Christians of ancient times to stamp the face of Christ upon their society, in the ordering of time, in architecture, and in law (e.g., prohibiting the exposure of infants, a traditional form of “birth control”). The purpose of making Sunday into a holy day was to provide time for Christians to attend public worship, but it had the secondary effect of making Sunday a day of leisure, thereby laying the groundwork for a Christian Sabbath. It should also be remembered that the success of Christianity also altered the marking of historical time. Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian monk in the sixth century, was the first to date events “from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Anno Domini, a.d.). His scheme was adopted in the seventh century in England at the Synod of Whitby and was used by the Venerable Bede in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People. To the calendrical framework of Christmas, Presentation, Pasch, Ascension, and Pentecost were added special days remembering the martyrs and saints. Over time, the turning points in the year—the changing of seasons, the planting and harvesting of crops, the slaughtering of animals—took place on days named for saints or for events in the life of Christ. The liturgical calendar makes religious remembrance habitual and familiar. The repetition of saints’ days and festivals of the Lord is a kind of spiritual metronome helping communal life to move in concord with the mysteries of the faith.
We should not underestimate the cultural significance of the calendar and its indispensability for a mature spiritual life. Religious rituals carry a resonance of human feeling accumulated over the centuries. They cannot easily be created and are hard to recover once left to languish. They touch us more deeply than national commemorations, such as the Fourth of July or Memorial Day. The season of Advent, for example, is a predictable reminder that the Church lives by another time, marked in the home by a simple ritual, the lighting of a violet Advent candle set in an evergreen wreath on a dark evening in early December. Because feast days and sacred seasons run at right angles to the conventional calendar they offer a regular and fixed cessation of activity and, thus, the gift of leisure (a sine qua non of culture, as Josef Pieper has taught us). Feast days become times of reflection and contemplation that open us to mystery and transcendence. How soon, wrote W. H. Auden, “must we reenter, when lenient days are done, the world of work and money and minding our p’s and q’s.” A third mode in which Christianity formed its own culture is language. In his magisterial Saint Augustin et la fin de la culture antique, historian Henri Marrou describes the grammatical and rhetorical milieu in which Augustine was educated in the Roman Empire of the late fourth century; he reports that in Augustine’s day educated Christians were the beneficiaries of an educational system that had been in place for hundreds of years. When Augustine wrote his treatise On Christian Doctrine (an essay on interpreting and expounding the Scriptures), he could assume that his readers knew Latin grammar and the standard rhetorical techniques. But a hundred years later such knowledge could no longer be taken for granted. Few cities could any longer meet the expense of paying teachers and maintaining schools. Beginning in the sixth century a number of distinguished educators emerged in the Church, persons such as Boethius, Cassiodorus, Benedict of Nursia, Isidore of Seville, and the Venerable Bede. Their task was not, as Augustine’s had been, to transform what had been received; it was, rather, to preserve and transmit what was being forgotten or to translate what could no longer be read. Christianity now assumed responsibility for managing the mechanisms of the Latin language. Cassiodorus was born in 485 to a southern Italian senatorial family. During his middle years he served in the court of the Ostrogothic kings of Italy, putting his literary talents to work compiling edicts and official letters and recording notable events. When he was seventy years old he returned home and founded a monastery at Squillace on the southernmost coast of Italy. There he moved his library and gathered a company of scholars to make copies of the Scriptures and the classics of Latin Christian literature, to translate Greek works, and to write a compendium of Christian and secular learning. Cassiodorus’ compendium is markedly different from the writings of Augustine, Ambrose, or Jerome. Its chief purpose was to provide his readers with elementary instruction in “divine letters.” So Cassiodorus begins with a listing of the books of the Bible, the order and division of the books, how they are to be interpreted, and brief comments on Christian teachers, such as Hilary, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Jerome. But then one comes upon a chapter entitled, “On Scribes and the Remembering of Correct Spelling.” In the second part of the book, on “secular letters,” he devotes a section to grammar, which he calls “the foundation of liberal studies.” His aim was to transmit the basic skills of grammar and rhetoric for the purpose of copying the Scriptures accurately, because “every word of the Lord written by the scribe is a wound inflicted on Satan.” When Cassiodorus was ninety years old he wrote OnOrthography, a spelling handbook for his copyists. (The Latin letters v and b were particularly troublesome to copyists who worked by ear.) Another writer known almost wholly for his grammatical, linguistic, and encyclopedic studies is the Spanish bishop Isidore of Seville. Though not a thinker of the first rank, he is comfortably seated in the second. (Dante places him in the fourth heaven, along with the Venerable Bede and Richard of St. Victor.) Born into the landed gentry of Cartagena, he was educated in a monastic school in Seville under the supervision of his brother Leander, who was the bishop of Seville. In 600 he succeeded his brother as bishop and subsequently had a profound influence on the liturgy and laws of the Spanish Church.
Isidore’s Etymologies is an immense encyclopedia, an attempt to summarize all knowledge by drawing on the vast reservoir of classical writers, and his Liber differentiarum sive de proprietate sermonum deals with the meanings of words and the distinctions one must make to use them correctly (something like a Fowler’s Modern English Usage). Isidore recognized that grammar, “the science of expressing oneself correctly,” is crucial not only for reading, writing, and speaking, but also for thinking and understanding. Grammar is knowledge of the way language works and of the rules that govern the relation of words and concepts. Without grammar there can be no transmission of the text of the Scriptures and no understanding of its content; hence, no grammar, no Christian culture. Culture lives by language, and the sentiments, thoughts, and feelings of a Christian culture are formed and carried by the language of the Scriptures. St. Augustine, for instance, believed that there was a distinctively Christian language, what he called the Church’s way of speaking (ecclesiastica loquendi consuetudo). He considered the term “martyr” (witness) to be a word sanctioned by the Bible (notably in the early chapters of the Acts of the Apostles) and hallowed by early Christian usage. It would be “contrary to the usage of the Church,” said Augustine, to replace it with the conventional Latin term for hero, vir. Salvator (savior) is also a biblical word with pronounced Christian overtones: natus est vobis hodie Salvator, qui est Christus Dominus. In conventional Latin salus meant health, not salvation. Christians, however, coined the words salvare (to save) and salvator (savior); in doing so they began to create a Christian language formed by the Scriptures.
There are some words and phrases in Christian culture that are simply irreplaceable. Words and phrases such as “obedience,” “grace,” “long-suffering” (the biblical form of patience), “image of God,” “suffering servant,” “adoption,” “will of God”—when used again and again—form our imagination and channel our affections. The recitation of the psalms day after day, week after week, transforms the words of the psalmists from texts to be interpreted into words we use to praise, beseech, confess, thank, and adore God—as well as words by which we know ourselves before God, “O Lord, Thou has searched me and known me! . . . Even before a word is on my tongue, lo, O Lord, Thou knowest it altogether.” If there is a distinctly Christian language, we must be wary of translation. We cannot hand on to the next generation what the words signify if we do not hold fast to the words. Jerusalem cannot become Paris or Moscow or New York without losing its rootedness in the biblical narrative. Certain words must be used as they have been received in Christian speech, e.g., “Father,” “Son,” “Holy Spirit,” “Lord” (as in “Lord, have mercy”), “glory” (as used in the Gospel of John for Christ’s passion), “sin” (“against thee only have I sinned”), “emptied” (as in “emptied himself taking the form of a servant”), “resurrection” (as in “raised from the dead on the third day”), “flesh” (as in “works of the flesh,” i.e., mental acts such as idolatry and jealousy, not only sins of the body, such as fornication), even “self” (as in the parable of the elder brother—“he came to himself”). It will not do to erase the term “self” and put in its place “came to his senses,” as the current Catholic lectionary has it; nor will it do to reword, out of ignorance and ideology, the first verse of Psalm 1, turning “blessed is the man,” into “blessed are those who” (as the New Revised Standard Version does), thereby excluding the ancient christological reading of the psalm. Material culture and with it art, calendar and with it ritual, grammar and with it language, particularly the language of the Bible—these are only three of many examples (monasticism would be another) that could be brought forth to exemplify the thick texture of Christian culture, the fullness of life in the community that is Christ’s form in the world. Nothing is more needful today than the survival of Christian culture, because in recent generations this culture has become dangerously thin. At this moment in the Church’s history in this country (and in the West more generally) it is less urgent to convince the alternative culture in which we live of the truth of Christ than it is for the Church to tell itself its own story and to nurture its own life, the culture of the city of God, the Christian republic. This is not going to happen without a rebirth of moral and spiritual discipline and a resolute effort on the part of Christians to comprehend and to defend the remnants of Christian culture. The unhappy fact is that the society in which we live is no longer neutral about Christianity. The United States would be a much less hospitable environment for the practice of the faith if all the marks of Christian culture were stripped from our public life and Christian behavior were tolerated only in restricted situations. If Christian culture is to be renewed, habits are more vital than revivals, rituals more edifying than spiritual highs, the creed more penetrating than theological insight, and the celebration of saints’ days more uplifting than the observance of Mother’s Day. There is great wisdom in the maligned phrase ex opere operato, the effect is in the doing. Intention is like a reed blowing in the wind. It is the doing that counts, and if we do something for God, in the doing God does something for us. The poet Dana Gioia, the current director of the National Endowment for the Arts, puts it nicely in the poem “Autumn Inaugural”:

There will always be those who reject ceremony,

who claim that resolution requires no fanfare,

those who demand the spirit stay fixed like a desert saint,

fed only on faith, to worship in no temple but the weather.

Gioia acknowledges the point:

Symbols betray us.

They are always more or less

than what is really meant.

Then:

But shall there be no processions by torchlight because we are weak?

Praise to the rituals that celebrate change,

old robes worn for new beginnings,

solemn protocol where the mutable soul,

surrounded by ancient experience,

grows young in the imagination’s white dress.

Because it is not the rituals we honor

but our trust in what they signify,

these rites that honor us as witnesses—

whether to watchlovers swear loyalty in a careless world

or a newborn washed with water and oil.

If Christ is culture, let the sidewalks be lit with fire on Easter Eve, let traffic stop for a column of Christians waving palm branches on a spring morning, let streets be blocked off as the faithful gather for a Corpus Christi procession. Then will others know that there is another city in their midst, another commonwealth, one that has its face, like the faces of angels, turned toward the face of God.

What Is There To Say?

2005-10-26T20:05:00.000-07:00

We have hit the number of 2000 dead American Servicemen and women in Iraq. When you consider that 139 of the 2000 deaths occurred before the May 1, 2003, declaration that the combat phase of the war was over, President Bush and his Cabinet have to be taken aback by the mounting number. Any time a President orders the military into combat he knows that there will be death. That is the sobering and awful responsibility that he has as Commander In Chief. I could not imagine being in his shoes with the heavy burden he has to carry. Knowing that decisions you make are literally matters of life and death has to be overwhelming. He does indeed need our prayers and guidance. To those who have lost loved ones, a spouse, a parent, a child, no words can do justice to what you feel and have felt. It was and is so easy to look at the number as statistics but these numbers are not statistics, they are brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters. When the War started many can remember the "Shock and Awe" air campaign. It was like watching a reality video game and we sat glued to our sets as "Imbed" reporters covered the movements of our troops on the ground. Yet, as the War has continued, we are made ever aware that War is, in the words of a General, "hell." War is not "sterile" and certainly is not something that is to be viewed as the latest sporting event. There was and is something a bit disconcerting about our desire to watch the War almost as if we were watching the Football game. Indeed, war brings death. This fact hit close to home this past Feburary. Someone very special to me lost a cousin in Iraq. His mother, I am sure, to this day feels nothing but the piercing of her soul as she mourns the loss of her youngest son. Those who have endured this loss of loved ones are in need of our prayers. May God bring comfort to those who have suffered by comforting them with His love as it has been and is revealed in the face of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Snow Today and Tonight!!!

2005-10-25T20:31:00.000-07:00

It did snow today depending upon where you were in elevation. There was ice on cars this morning and they are saying maybe three inches of snow tonight. This is crazy!!!

Let's see how many PA's can we count? We have NEPA, WEPA (ok a stretch for Western Pa), CEPA (Central PA, ok another stretch, but I am going somewhere with this), SEPA (stay with me, that's Southeast Pa), but what's the only PA that counts in the state???? Joe PA!!! As in the Brooklyn born Italiano who is the best college football coach in history. I am biased, he is from New York and he is Italian. But c'mon he beat Illinois 63-10 and it could have been much worse. Penn St. was leading at the half 56-3!!! O.K. O.K. my use of the PA's was over the top, I plead guilty.

Finished painting the two bedrooms. Applied 6 coats of paint in the two rooms combined. I like painting, used to paint when I got out of high school. I enjoy doing the trim work with the brush.

Snow For Tomorrow???

2005-10-25T02:40:00.000-07:00

Frost yesterday morning, pouring today, and a chance for snow tomorrow morning. NEPA, as they call it, not to be confused with the NAPA Valley in California, is a very interesting neck of the woods.

The reality of holiness is a theme that runs througout the Scripture. The people of God are called to be holy, as Exodus and 1st Peter state. In the Old Testament, however, there was an inaccesablity to holiness in the Old Testament. What do I mean by that? I mean that holiness was very difficult to come into contact with. In the Old Testament we see that "things" are primarily holy, for example, the Ark. What happened when Uzzah touched the Ark unlawfully? He died. If one came into contact with the holy "things" in an unlawful manner, the holy "thing" was in some way defiled, or polluted. That is to say, contact with the holy "things" made them in some way "unholy." Now think of the New Testament and the coming of our Lord. He is the One who is full of grace and truth. He is the Holy One of God. In one Gospel narrative, Mark 5, we read,

"One of the synagogue officials, named Jairus, came forward. Seeing him he fell at his feet
and pleaded earnestly with him, saying, "My daughter is at the point of death. Please, come lay your hands on her that she may get well and live." He went off with him, and a large crowd followed him and pressed upon him. There was a woman afflicted with hemorrhages for twelve years. She had suffered greatly at the hands of many doctors and had spent all that she had. Yet she was not helped but only grew worse. She had heard about Jesus and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak. She said, "If I but touch his clothes, I shall be cured." Immediately her flow of blood dried up. She felt in her body that she was healed of her affliction. Jesus, aware at once that power had gone out from him, turned around in the crowd and asked, "Who has touched my clothes?" But his disciples said to him, "You see how the crowd is pressing upon you, and yet you ask, 'Who touched me?'" And he looked around to see who had done it. The woman, realizing what had happened to her, approached in fear and trembling. She fell down before Jesus and told him the whole truth. He said to her, "Daughter, your faith has saved you. Go in peace and be cured of your affliction." While he was still speaking, people from the synagogue official's house arrived and said, "Your daughter has died; why trouble the teacher any longer?" Disregarding the message that was reported, Jesus said to the synagogue official, "Do not be afraid; just have faith." He did not allow anyone to accompany him inside except Peter, James, and John, the brother of James. When they arrived at the house of the synagogue official, he caught sight of a commotion, people weeping and wailing loudly. So he went in and said to them, "Why this commotion and weeping? The child is not dead but asleep." And they ridiculed him. Then he put them all out. He took along the child's father and mother and those who were with him and entered the room where the child was. He took the child by the hand and said to her, "Talitha koum," which means, "Little girl, I say to you, arise!" The girl, a child of twelve, arose immediately and walked around. (At that) they were utterly astounded. "

Now here is what is fascinating. Notice that our Lord came into contact with the woman who had the issue of blood and with the little girl who had died. Under the Old Covenant these two events would cause the one coming into contact with them to become unclean. Here with our Lord the opposite happens. He who He comes into contact with, instead of Himself coming unclean, He makes clean, He makes whole. Holiness, true Holiness, not the type, but the anti-type of Holiness, Holiness Incarnate, the same Holiness beheld by Isaiah (Is 6, John 12:41) comes to earth and comes into contact with disease and death, two realities that under the Old Covenant made one unclean, and rather than becoming unclean, Holiness Incarnate makes those He touches clean. Indeed, this is Good News. Holiness touches us and rather than ripping us to shreds and blowing us apart, we are made clean. We become holy in and through Christ, really and truly, and not just "legally." Holiness touches the woman with blood and our Lord realizes power has come out of Him and flowed to her. She has been made clean. The lifeless little girl is touched by our Lord and Life comes to her, she arose IMMEDIATELY!!!! Holiness touches death and death is undone!!!!!!!!! Holiness touches disease and disease is made no more!!!!! Indeed, In Christ, that is the hope; the Hope that in Him God has truimphed over all the forces of darkness, including the last enemy, death!!! Yes, those who come into contact with our Lord are made clean. Those who find their hope in Him are made whole. Indeed, those who put their trust in Him will never be put to shame, indeed, death will not have the final word in their lives. No! Death will be defeated and the dead will be raised and those who belong to Christ will enter into the joy of the Kingdom, where we shall behold the Face of God!!!!!

Off To Paint

2005-10-24T03:58:00.000-07:00

I am getting set to head out to the job and paint. The other day we spackled and sanded three rooms and now two are ready to be painted. As I walked in the door the other after having spackled and sanded, with the pole and by hand, my 6 year old niece says, "You like a clown."

Love

2005-10-21T11:35:00.000-07:00

Every culture tells stories. The stories they tell shape, form, texture, and ground their existence and their place in the world. America, for example, tells the story of their Independence from the power of Britain. The quest for freedom is America’s story and this story shapes, forms, textures, and grounds, in her mind, America’s place in the world. America’s self-professed aim is to export freedom and democracy around the world. In popular culture we tell our stories typically through the visual media. The television and the cinema have become our favorite storytellers. We live and die with our favorite characters, living vicariously through their triumphs, failures, or whatever else comes their way. The visual media shapes, forms, textures, and grounds our existence and provides us with the lens whereby we look at our own lives and the world. The lines are blurred between the world of the screen and the world of reality. Is it any wonder that in this blurred world that “reality” television has captured our attention the way it has? Yet, is it really reality when the cameras are on? Our contemporary conceptions of love, for example, are more formed, shaped, textured, and grounded by the cinema than any other medium at our disposal. The dashing and charismatic leading man, who reads his fabricated, cleverly written, and witty lines so convincingly that he never misses a cue, wins the heart of the woman he desires. In the world of the cinema the characters we see “fall” in and out of love, meet their “soul mate,” lose their “soul mate,” in the span of two hours. Often times their love is very complicated. Many times it is something like, “Two” are vying for the love of the “one.” The “one” is torn between the “two.” Typically of the “two” there are contrasts that make the decision for the “one” difficult. There is conflict in need of resolution and we the audience silently choose sides as to who we think the “one” should choose. If the character makes the “right” choice, that is to say, the one we wanted, the audience goes away happy. The movie that best describes the power of the cinema in shaping our cultural conception of love is “Bridges Over Madison County.”
The story of love as told through the medium of the cinema is not only the story of love that is competing for our attention. The Jewish people also told a story of love and this story shaped, formed, textured, and grounded her existence and place in the world. The story was the story of the creator God, the only God, who, out of His own good pleasure, set His love upon Israel and chose her to be His very own people in the world. This relationship with Israel is described in different ways in Scripture. Two of those ways are Israel as God’s Son (Hosea 11:1) and Israel as God’s bride (Ezekiel 16). Israel’s response to God, often many times in her history, was to be a wayward Son and a faithless bride. This love for Israel by God was not built for a sprint. Rather, it was an everlasting love, a love so strong and true that God enacted a covenant with Israel as a sign of His fidelity and commitment to Israel as His very own possession. Despite Israel’s many failures, God did not abandon her and send her away. For the sake of His Name God was going to keep that promise (Ezekiel 36). Indeed, God so condescends in His love for Israel that He says if even if it were possible for a mother to forget her child, He could not and would not forget Israel (Isaiah 49:14-15). Why is God’s love so faithful, so enduring, so patient (literally long-suffering), with Israel? While we get a glimpse of the answer to this question in the Old Testament, it is to the New Testament we must turn in order to better answer this question. The answer is simply this; God is love (1st John 4:16). Now what does it mean to say God is love? For starters, it does not mean “love is god.” Many erroneously believe this. That would make “love” god and thus, any form of love would then be legitimate and good, in and of itself, because love would be god. If love is god then you could do and should do, as the pop song tells us, “anything for love.” It is this conception of love is god that lurks behind the contemporary push for homosexual marriage and same-sex unions. If two people “love” each other then who are you to stand in their way of love? Love, however, contra our contemporary world, is not god. God is, however, love and because God is love He is not only the ultimate object of our love, He is also the One who deems and establishes what true love is. Thus, any “love” that God forbids cannot be love in any meaningful sense of the word. So what then does it mean to say God is love? As has been stated by many others, God has not always been Creator but He has always been Father. In saying that, we are not saying that creation did not always exist in God’s mind but that there was a time when creation did not exist. Creation is not eternal. God, however, is from everlasting to everlasting. There never was a time when God was not. And there never was a time that God was not Father. Now in saying that there was not a time that God was not Father, we are implying that there is One whom God is Father to. If the Arian heresy were right that Jesus Christ was a creature, the highest of creatures, but a creature nonetheless, and if Islam is right in their understanding of God, then that would mean God is only one person, and as such, there would have been a time when God was not Father, for there would be no one to be the Father of. That also would mean that there was a time when God was not also a God of love, for there to be love there requires an object of love, a beloved. But the Scriptural description of God presents to us God who is always Father and God who is love. Who is God always Father to? His Son, who is the Beloved Son. The fact that God has always been Father means that the Son has always been the Son, that is to say the Son is consubstantial with the Father and the object of the Father’s love. The Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father and the Holy Spirit is the bond of love between the love of the Father and the Son. The Father gives glory to the Son, the Son gives glory to the Father, and the Holy Spirit glorifies both the Father and the Son in the divine economy. Therefore, before there ever was a creation to love, God was already a God of love. He did not need a creation in order to become a God of love. He also did not have a need for creation as though He were lonely, as I once heard someone preach. That is wrong. As St. Paul told the Athenians, God has no needs. God is completely sufficient within Himself which is what makes the love of God all the more profound and glorious. This love between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is offered to us to share in with God, as the Scripture says, “See what love the Father has bestowed on us that we may be called the children of God” (1st John 3:1). This love is opened up to us through God’s Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, by the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. In Christ alone are we adopted into God’s family as His children and made partakers of the divine nature and by the Holy Spirit God’s children are led (Romans 8). Since God has always been love, love must be enduring, persevering, lasting. Love, if it is love, is not fleeting. It does not come and go. Contrary to our cinematic presentations of love which depict love as something one “falls” into or out of, those who belong to Christ, calling God “Father,” by the Holy Spirit, are to be shaped, formed, textured, and grounded by this love, God’s love. If this is not the case, then why does Paul root marriage in Christ and His love for the Church? Love that not is shaped and formed by the love of God is a false imitation of love. The famous “Love” chapter in 1st Corinthians tells us that love is the greatest of faith, hope, and love. Why? For love will forever remain. Love will never be done away with. How could love be done away with if God is from all eternity a God of love? Since those who trust in Christ are called to be imitators of God, then the love we have must reflect the love of God in the world, in the here and now. Thus, our love must be faithful, enduring, lasting. It must seek the good of those we love. Love does not seek its own interests but the interest of the beloved. Just as Christ sought not His own interests but ours, so too our love must seek the interests of those we love. This good is most evident when we assist those we love in their love for God. In turn, this assistance to those we love will lead to a stronger and more faithful love with each other.

35 Kids and a Birthday Party!!!

2005-10-21T05:23:00.000-07:00

Yesterday there was a birthday for my niece. It was her first one. Anyway, there was probably 35 kids running around the house, which is no small thing considering the size of the house!!! I was watching the older ones, as in from the age of 4 and up outside. I counted 21 playing soccer in the backyard, which again no small feat considering the size of the backyard. No injuries, or fights, which is always a good thing. Only a couple of times where I had to intervene.

There was a 4 year old named Ian. So I tell him to not play in a certain area. I say, "Ian come over here." He says, "My name is not Ian." I said, "What's your name then?" He says, "Ian with an "x." His middle name is Xavier. Who knew???

I made the chili for the party. It all went almost 5lbs of it.

I got a temporary job, as in over the next five days, working for a contractor. I am going to paint and spackle a house he has just finished.

2005-10-19T07:51:00.000-07:00

Oh Lord, I have made you a place in my heart
among the rags and the bones and the dirt.
There's piles of lies, the love gone from her eyes,
and old moving boxes full of hurt.
Pull up a chair by the trouble and care.
I got whiskey, you're welcome to some.

Oh Lord, I have made you a place in my heart,
but I don't reckon you're gonna come.
I've tried to fix up the place, I know it's a disgrace,
you get used to it after a while
-with the flood and the drought and old pals hanging out
with their IOU's and their smiles.
bare naked women keep coming in
and they dance like you wouldn't believe.
Oh Lord, I have made you a place in my heart,
so take a good look - and then leave.

Oh Lord, why does the Fall get colder each year?
Lord, why can't I learn to love?
Lord, if you made me, it's easy to see
that you all make mistakes up above.
But if I open the door, you will know I'm poor
and my secrets are all that I own.
Oh Lord, I have made you a place in my heart
and I hope that you leave it alone.

Greg Brown 1994 "Poet Game"

The words to this song express the contradiction that is fallen humanity. The words hearken one to St. Augustine's famous, "O Lord, You have made us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in You." The sense of despair and contradiction flow forth from the lyrics, wanting the Lord to come and yet wanting the Lord to leave. He recognizes his way of life as a mess, he has tried to clean it up, but has failed to do so. He knows, it seems, that only the Lord can really clean up his life and this fact scares him. "If I come clean and come before you, you will know how poor I really am and the only things I own are my secrets." He then ends with a note of despair, "Lord, leave me alone." Again the words of St. Augustine, "O Lord, make me holy, but not yet."

Grading Math

2005-10-19T07:39:00.000-07:00

While grading some Math work today done by my niece, I said, "You got too many wrong." She replied, "Just mark them wrong and I'll do them over." I then said, "They're not really wrong, you just made some mistakes."

My youngest niece turns one tomorrow, so there will be a birthday party. It's funny to see her follow me around. It used to be if I put my hands out for her she wouldn't come, but that aint true anymore!!!!

Neo-Tribalism, Christology, and the Trinity

2005-10-17T15:33:00.000-07:00

There is no doubt that modern society has been divided up into various interests groups and sub-cultures. Advertisers label this demographics. Each group is placed into a category and within this category advertisers and companies learn what each category of people “need” in order to “survive” in contemporary society. Thus, young people, middle-aged people, older people etc… are hermitically sealed off from each other, as though each had nothing to learn from and contribute to the other. Within these categories based on age, we also have sub-categories based off nationality, sex, sexual preference, income level, educational achievement, location of residence, and the like. We all remember the language of the last two presidential elections, “red state versus blue state.” The reason behind our fascination and love affair with demographics has to do with our devotion to consumerism. It is much easier for advertisers to spend money selling commercials if they can have an idea in advance as to who is going to be watching those commercials. You would be hard-pressed to find a candy commercial running during a broadcast of the evening news, just as you are more than likely to find commercials selling home cleaning materials during day time soap operas. Why? The audience watching. Another reason behind our embrace of a demographical world also has to do with our incessant clamor for “rights.” We all have “rights” and by hook or I am going to get what I have a right to have. Thus, women’s groups fight long and hard to keep intact the earned “right” to a safe and affordable abortion. Homosexual groups lobby legislatures and courts for the “right” to marry and adopt children. Ethnic groups shout for “fairness” and “equality” based exclusively on race and not on excellence. Men and Women oppose each other solely on the basis of their different sex. Does anyone think the “Battle of the Sexes” has been good for society as a whole and the family in particular? Divorce, infidelity, abuse tear apart our nation’s families all under the guise of “asserting my rights.” All this clamoring for rights can be called Neo-Tribalism. This new tribalism is at the heart of who we are as a people and a society and more importantly, this new tribalism is every bit a reality in the Church world as the pagan world.
Now what does all this talk on demographics and “rights” have to do with Christology and the Trinity? On the surface, one may think, “none.” But that would be a mistake, indeed a horrible mistake. In the world of the New Testament there existed a great divide. That great divide was between the Jewish people and Gentiles. The Jews thought of the Gentiles as “dogs” and the Gentiles returned the thought in kind. There was no love lost between these two groups of people. It is into that world that the Apostle Paul announced that in Jesus Christ God has made a new humanity (Eph 2:15). God made this new humanity by breaking down the dividing wall of enmity through the flesh of Jesus Christ. The flesh that our Lord takes upon Himself is that of human nature. Our Lord does not assume a human person. Therefore, the flesh that he takes upon Himself is humanity’s nature. God accomplished this through the cross of Christ. Thus, the death that Christ dies brings with it the death of the old divides. The death that Christ dies destroys not only death but division. Those who have been baptized into Christ participate in this new humanity. Paul says that if any man be in Christ there is a new creation.
If we go back to the creation account there are two events that we need to call to our attention. The first event is the creation of man. In the creation of man, before there was a fall, God says that it is NOT good for man to be ALONE. This has profound implications for community. The other event is the fall of man and woman. What happened when Adam and Eve fell into disobedience? Their relationship with God was broken. God cast them out of the garden. But not only was their relationship with God broken, their relationship with each other was fractured. The fall not only had a relational divide vertically, but also horizontally. At the heart of the fall of man and woman was divided relationships. It should be no surprise then that for the Apostle Paul the work of Christ impinges upon relationships. Not only has our relationship with God been repaired through the cross of Christ, but human relationships as well. Indeed, this is why Paul takes the division between Jews and Gentiles in the Church so seriously. Failure to get this right results in a failure to be grasped by the Gospel. For Jews to insist that Gentiles need to become Jews in order to be Christians is to deny the impact of the Gospel. For Gentiles to gloat and look down on the Jews is to deny the reality of the Gospel. The defining mark of the Church is not ethnicity but baptism into Christ. This baptism creates a new humanity, a humanity that shares in Christ. The phrase “In Christ” is not used by Paul because he has nothing better to say. Far from it. The phrase “In Christ” is the controlling identity for the people of God. This is why the Church cannot talk about God apart from Christ. To do so is to deny the One through whom God has reconciled the world, not only to Himself, but toward each other. As we have stated, the fall of man and woman resulted in a relational rupture both vertically and horizontally. In Christ, God has put to death the divide between us and Him and Jews and Gentiles. The work of Christ, we have noted, defines not only our relationship with God but with one another. Again, as is usual in the Church’s teaching, redemption and reconciliation are not placed into “either/or” categories. They are “both/and.”
This brings us to the Trinitarian reality of God. God is a relational God. He is a relational God because He is a community of persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If one were asked to give one practical implication of the doctrine of the Trinity, that person may be hard-pressed to answer. The doctrine of the Trinity is primarily, for most of us, an abstract doctrine, a strange doctrine, that says God is One in a way that He is not Three, and He is Three in a way that He is not One. The doctrine of the Trinity however, far from being impractical is very practical and as such has profound implications for us in very practical and concrete ways. First it means that God is a relational God. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are in relationship. There is a distinction of persons yet unity. As one theologian has written, “By connecting the Son’s being with the very substance of God, Athanasius also transformed the very idea of substance. . .To say that the Son belongs to God’s substance implies that substance possesses almost by definition a relational character. ‘Has God ever existed without His own (Son)?’. . . If God’s being is by nature relational and if can be signified by the word “substance,” can we not then conclude almost inevitably that given the ultimate character of God’s being for all ontology, substance, inasmuch as it signifies the ultimate character of being, can be conceived only as communion?” If being is communion, as this theologian contends, this has profound implications for our understanding of Biblical anthropology. Think back once again to the Genesis account concerning the creation of man. God, before the fall, says, “It is not good for man to be alone.” Man’s state of aloneness, prior to the fall, is declared by God as not good. Now was this creation of man in aloneness an oversight on the part of God? Almost as though man’s aloneness being not good caught God off-guard, therefore, God quickly acts to rectify this deficiency! God forbid!!! Such thinking is foolishness. Rather, God’s creation of man in aloneness informs us that God’s intention in creating man is to create man for relationship and communion, not only with God but with each other. No human being can truly live apart from communion. It is impossible to do so. From the very moment of conception a human being is in communion. In the case of the womb, the child is in communion with the mother. The child’s conception was not the “product” of random chance. The child conceived is created through the intimate and communal act between man and woman. Thus, the child is always in communion and is created through communion. We tend to think, “you first are and then relate.” This conception of being is utterly and hopelessly individualistic. The phrase, “I think therefore I am,” makes the world, truth and reality subjective and not objective. There can be no objective reality in this world. There is no “other” outside of me in whom I am in communion with and in need of. Instead I am the master of my world, the creator of my destiny, my own man/woman. In this world, everything begins and ends with me. Freedom is the buzz-word for this worldview. This is the essence of the fall. Man and woman in their disobedience declare their independence from God. Man and woman seek to replace God with themselves as the ultimate point of reference. Foolishly thinking that if they disobey God they can become gods themselves, they not only fracture their relationship with God but with each other. The yearning for freedom and independence of the man and the woman causes their relationship to be ruptured, for each now will seek their own way and not the way of God or the “other.” Strife, rupture, and discord are manifestations of the original fall played out in history. The fall causes a fracture in communion. In today’s world we have seen many cases where someone has gone off the proverbial “deep-end.” Typically, when the profile comes in on the person we learn that he was a loner who cut himself off from communion with the “other.” We must be careful to realize that while these cases are extreme and thankfully rare, many of us everyday live out this reality of the fall. In fact, the tragedy is that the horror and devastation of strife, discord, and rupture in relationships is so accepted as natural. It has a banality about it. We have to just come to accept this as the way things are. However, this tragedy may be true of the world, for those in the Church to think and live this way in reference to relationships is nothing short of a contradiction. St. John writes, “If anyone says ’I love God,’ but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen” (1st John 4:20). John roots the love of God in the love we have for the “other.” Our relationships, whether they be marital or otherwise, are to foster and assist us in our love for and communion with God. And, as we are assisted by the “other” in our communion with God, strangely enough, we will find our relationship with the “other” to be strengthened and solidified. This is why marriage cannot but be a Sacrament. Sure, marriage is rooted in the creation under the Old law, but under the New law it is governed and sanctioned by the Church and as such is given the supernatural grace of God. Man and woman, joined in marriage, are to exhibit the reality of the Gospel. Paul centers the marital relationship in Christ and His love for the Church. So too, says Paul, is a husband to love his wife. A high calling, to be sure. A demanding calling, no doubt, but for the Apostle there can be and is no other way. Why root marriage in something that is at best a parody of the love of Christ for His Church? As we have stated, all good relationships we have must assist us in our communion with God and in turn with each other. With marriage, it is all the more so, and Paul’s rooting of marriage in Christ and His love for the Church demonstrates this. Indeed, to combat the neo-tribalism that has been unleashed upon the world and our lives, we need nothing less than a robust Christology, and a healthy dose of Trinitarian doctrine. The rampant individualism of our day can only be challenged by a message and a way of life that says, “No, there is a different way of being human, there is a different way of living. It is found in the Person of Jesus Christ, through whom God has brought down the divide by creating a new humanity.” Theology is by definition practical and if it isn’t then it isn’t theology. Indeed, theology is so practical that it impinges upon the very things closest to us, our relationships, with God and with each other.

A Monday Morning

2005-10-17T06:32:00.000-07:00

My brother asks my niece, "Why was Jesus' cross so heavy?" My niece, "Dad, because it was made of wood."

This morning my nephew and I played Candy Land. He gets Queen Frostina on the first turn. He didn't want the card. So I asked him, "Why don't you want Queen Frostina?" My nephew, "I don't always want to win." Me, "Why don't you always want to win?" My nephew, "Because if I win then I have to clean up."

By the way, will we ever see the sun in this neck of the woods!!!

Speaking of Candy Land, how has that game made millionaires out of many people? I mean, c'mon what's to the game!!!

Candy Land reminds me of the Chipwich, the ice cream sandwich with two chocolate chip cookies around it. Who didn't do that when they were kids??? You take two Chips A'Hoy (did I spell that right?) and some ice cream and make a sandwich. And whadda ya know, some guy decides to market it and becomes a millionaire!!!

Silence

2005-10-15T11:51:00.000-07:00

Hello, darkness, my old friend I've come to talk with you again
Because a vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision That was planted in my brain Still remains
Within the sound of silence
In restless dreams I walked alone
Narrow streets of cobblestone
Beneath the halo of a street lamp
I turned my collar to the cold and damp
When my eyes were stabbed
By the flash of a neon light
That split the night
And touched the sound of silence
And in the naked light
I saw Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share...
And no one dare Disturb the sound of silence.
"Fools," said I, "you do not know Silence like a cancer grows."
"Hear my words that I might teach you,
Take my arms that I might reach you."
But my words like silent raindrops fell,
And echoed in the wells of silence.
And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made.
And the sign flashed out its warning
In the words that it was forming.
And the signs said: "The words of the prophets Are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls,
And whisper'd in the sound of silence."

How true are the words of this song. We are made for communication. The word communication is related to the word communion. Without communication there can be no communion. This communion takes place only within the sphere of communication. Think of it this way, God is in His being in communion. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are a community of relationship. The Son speaks only what He hears the Father say and does what the Father does, as the Gospels tell us. Thus, human beings, who are made in the image and likeness of God, are called to reflect the image of God and one of the ways they do so is engaging in communion with each other and this happens through communication. Now we always need to be careful when talking about God. We are like God and thus we reflect this reality of God but in saying we are like God we must remember that we are also saying we are not like God. However, the point stands. God, who is in His essence a God of Communion and Communication, communicates not only within Himself but with His creatures. He speaks and He acts as Psalm 19 tells us day by day speech is poured forth. This is why when human beings fail to communicate relationships suffer. Indeed, silence like a cancer grows. Have you ever wondered why so many people are into "entertainment?" Sports, movies, television etc.... these all have a place, but, what do they really provide as far as communication within a family? Which is better entertainment? A family reading together, a family praying together, a family playing games together among other things, help create a source of communication and relationship. These things cause active communication, which help build strong foundations of communication. Too much television etc... of these things cause passivity in communication. Something else is the source of the communication (the t.v. etc...). These are "passive" forms of entertainment. Think of the words of the song, "and the people bowed and prayed to the neon god they made." The neon god of entertainment contibutes to the sounds of silence. Compare this neon god we have made with the God who sends His Son, the "Word" made flesh.

Talking on the Phone

2005-10-13T20:14:00.000-07:00

Tonight, as I was talking on the phone with a good friend of mine, my niece Anna-Colette, she is the one who has changed my name, sees me walking in the room to sit down and talk. She ran to me as if she hadn't seen me in days, saying "My Tom, My Tom" and sat on my lap. No easy task to talk on a cell phone with an almost three year old on your lap while you have the phone plugged in to keep it charged while talking about theology. She really liked that cord. Who says I can't juggle a few things at once!!!

Some Observations

2005-10-12T10:16:00.000-07:00

What do those old racing sets that you got as a kid and an 11 month old baby have in common? You always have to stop and put them back on track. Yes, that's right, those 11 month old babies always seem to "go" where you don't want them to go. They also always seem to "find" things that you can never find. In fact, detectives have nothing on 11 month old babies. I have also discovered that 11 month old babies have a particular appreciation for going after cat food.

What does an almost 3 year old little girl have in common with greedy business tycoons? Everything and everyone belongs to them. In fact, my niece has come to the conclusion that I belong to her. I have, without my knowledge, had my name changed, in fact. Yes, a name change. My new first name is "My" and my last name is "Tommy."

Everyday In Our Country!

2005-10-12T06:41:00.000-07:00

The recent events that have devastated the Gulf Coast region of our country, especially in New Orleans, have caused me to reflect on something I find revealing and horrible. The non-stop media coverage allowed us to catch a glimpse of the horror that was taking place. Reporters interviewing people who had lost everything, helicopter shots from above looking down on a city that had become a virtual wasteland. The media, understandably so, kept reminding us of how families had been torn apart, lives were forever changed and would never be the same, families losing everything, including every memory of a former life that, just a few short days before, now seemed as but a distant memory. The only memories left, instead of bringing joy and smiles, now only brought despair and loss. So what does this have to do with anything that I have been thinking about in reflecting on the devastation of the Gulf Coast? Lots. You see, what happened on the Gulf Coast and New Orleans in such a massive way, happens everyday in our land. Oh, to be sure, I don't mean a Hurricane roaring through with 100 mile an hour winds, nor do I mean waters swallowing a city; No, I am talking about something more insidious, something that flies just beneath the radar screen. So what happens everyday in this land? Families get torn apart, lives are forever changed never to be the same, memories of a former life leave now only despair and pain. Yes, indeed, everyday in our country, in our nation's courts, lawyers and judges huddle around with husbands and wives, and unlike natural disasters, inflict upon themselves this horror and devastation. Where is the out-cry? Where is the media coverage? Where are the reporters on the scene with misty eyes talking to these people? Where are the fundraisers and telethons calling attention to the horror and devastation? Where are the helicopter shots from above as moving vans come and go and those left behind in the carnage are left to themselves to pick up the pieces of their shattered dreams? No, of course not, there is no media coverage. How foolish of me, what am I thinking. . . except for those "high profile" divorces that we just love to follow so we could find out who the next star is partnering up with. You see, that is why a Papal Encyclical on the Kingship of Christ is so needed for today; for indeed can a nation be good that allows it citizens to so easily destroy and wreak havoc on the lives of others, their own, and their families? Indeed can a nation be good that allows such a horror as no-fault divorce?

A Papal Encyclical????

2005-10-12T06:27:00.000-07:00

So why post a Papal Encyclical?
1. I wanted to copy and past the Encyclical and claim the work as my own but soon realized that there were way too many "we" 's and "our" 's to edit.
2. My sources tell me that what a Pope has to say is more important than what I have to say.
3. If you are like me, you haven't read many, if any, Papal Encyclicals.
4. If you are like me, you do not realize the depth, the insight, and profundity that resides in Papal Encyclicals.
5. This particular Encyclical speaks so clearly to our curent world, despite the fact it was written 80 years ago, which in a very real way speaks to the charism that resides in the Chair of Peter, and states boldly and without apology the Kingship of Christ, the authority of the Church which He established (which is the Catholic Church with the Bishop of Rome as its head), and that Christ's Kingship extends over every sphere of life, the Church, the family, culture, politics, and the nation.

Christ The King

2005-10-11T20:37:00.000-07:00

It has often been asserted that the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ is not FOR this world. The Kingdom that our Lord cares about is only spiritual and has nothing to do with the temporal affairs of men and nations. Yes indeed the modern consensus is certainly that this is the case. But does our Lord ever say that His Kingdom is not concerned about this world? In the Gospel of John our Lord told Pilate that His Kingdom is not FROM this world. Is this the same thing as saying that His Kingdom is not FOR this world? No! Our Lord was essentially telling Pilate, “You get your authority from the Emperor, whereas I get My authority from Heaven. My Kingdom is not from this world. The Kingdom I bring will invade this world.” Our Lord NEVER said His Kingdom was not for this world. Indeed, those who think that our Lord’s Kingdom does not impinge upon the world, whether it be the family, the state, government or anything for that matter should then cease praying the words, “On earth as it is in heaven,” for why should one pray for something that our Lord does not care about? You see, if our Lord’s Kingdom and His rule does not extend over every sphere of life, then why pray, “on earth as it is in heaven?” It is with that in mind that I post the following Papal Encyclical of the Holy Father Pope Pius XI.

ON THE FEAST OF CHRIST THE KING
QUAS PRIMAS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS Xl DECEMBER 11, 1925

To Our Venerable Brethren the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Ordinaries in Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See.
Venerable Brethren, Greeting and the Apostolic Benediction.

1.In the first Encyclical Letter which We addressed at the beginning of Our Pontificate to the Bishops of the universal Church, We referred to the chief causes of the difficulties under which mankind was laboring. And We remember saying that these manifold evils in the world were due to the fact that the majority of men had thrust Jesus Christ and his holy law out of their lives; that these had no place either in private affairs or in politics: and we said further, that as long as individuals and states refused to submit to the rule of our Savior, there would be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations. Men must look for the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ; and that We promised to do as far as lay in Our power. In the Kingdom of Christ, that is, it seemed to Us that peace could not be more effectually restored nor fixed upon a firmer basis than through the restoration of the Empire of Our Lord. We were led in the meantime to indulge the hope of a brighter future at the sight of a more widespread and keener interest evinced in Christ and his Church, the one Source of Salvation, a sign that men who had formerly spurned the rule of our Redeemer and had exiled themselves from his kingdom were preparing, and even hastening, to return to the duty of obedience.
2. The many notable and memorable events which have occurred during this Holy Year have given great honor and glory to Our Lord and King, the Founder of the Church.
3. At the Missionary Exhibition men have been deeply impressed in seeing the increasing zeal of the Church for the spread of the kingdom of her Spouse to the most far distant regions of the earth. They have seen how many countries have been won to the Catholic name through the unremitting labor and self-sacrifice of missionaries, and the vastness of the regions which have yet to be subjected to the sweet and saving yoke of our King. All those who in the course of the Holy Year have thronged to this city under the leadership of their Bishops or priests had but one aim -- namely, to expiate their sins -- and at the tombs of the Apostles and in Our Presence to promise loyalty to the rule of Christ.
4. A still further light of glory was shed upon his kingdom, when after due proof of their heroic virtue, We raised to the honors of the altar six confessors and virgins. It was a great joy, a great consolation, that filled Our heart when in the majestic basilica of St. Peter Our decree was acclaimed by an immense multitude with the hymn of thanksgiving, Tu Rex gloriae Christe. We saw men and nations cut off from God, stirring up strife and discord and hurrying along the road to ruin and death, while the Church of God carries on her work of providing food for the spiritual life of men, nurturing and fostering generation after generation of men and women dedicated to Christ, faithful and subject to him in his earthly kingdom, called by him to eternal bliss in the kingdom of heaven.
5. Moreover, since this jubilee Year marks the sixteenth centenary of the Council of Nicaea, We commanded that event to be celebrated, and We have done so in the Vatican basilica. There is a special reason for this in that the Nicene Synod defined and proposed for Catholic belief the dogma of the Consubstantiality of the Only-begotten with the Father, and added to the Creed the words "of whose kingdom there shall be no end," thereby affirming the kingly dignity of Christ.
6. Since this Holy Year therefore has provided more than one opportunity to enhance the glory of the kingdom of Christ, we deem it in keeping with our Apostolic office to accede to the desire of many of the Cardinals, Bishops, and faithful, made known to Us both individually and collectively, by closing this Holy Year with the insertion into the Sacred Liturgy of a special feast of the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This matter is so dear to Our heart, Venerable Brethren, that I would wish to address to you a few words concerning it. It will be for you later to explain in a manner suited to the understanding of the faithful what We are about to say concerning the Kingship of Christ, so that the annual feast which We shall decree may be attended with much fruit and produce beneficial results in the future.
7. It has long been a common custom to give to Christ the metaphorical title of "King," because of the high degree of perfection whereby he excels all creatures. So he is said to reign "in the hearts of men," both by reason of the keenness of his intellect and the extent of his knowledge, and also because he is very truth, and it is from him that truth must be obediently received by all mankind. He reigns, too, in the wills of men, for in him the human will was perfectly and entirely obedient to the Holy Will of God, and further by his grace and inspiration he so subjects our free-will as to incite us to the most noble endeavors. He is King of hearts, too, by reason of his "charity which exceedeth all knowledge." And his mercy and kindness which draw all men to him, for never has it been known, nor will it ever be, that man be loved so much and so universally as Jesus Christ. But if we ponder this matter more deeply, we cannot but see that the title and the power of King belongs to Christ as man in the strict and proper sense too. For it is only as man that he may be said to have received from the Father "power and glory and a kingdom," since the Word of God, as consubstantial with the Father, has all things in common with him, and therefore has necessarily supreme and absolute dominion over all things created.
8. Do we not read throughout the Scriptures that Christ is the King? He it is that shall come out of Jacob to rule, who has been set by the Father as king over Sion, his holy mount, and shall have the Gentiles for his inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for his possession. In the nuptial hymn, where the future King of Israel is hailed as a most rich and powerful monarch, we read: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the scepter of thy kingdom is a scepter of righteousness." There are many similar passages, but there is one in which Christ is even more clearly indicated. Here it is foretold that his kingdom will have no limits, and will be enriched with justice and peace: "in his days shall justice spring up, and abundance of peace...And he shall rule from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth."
9. The testimony of the Prophets is even more abundant. That of Isaias is well known: "For a child is born to us and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, God the mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace. His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace. He shall sit upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom; to establish it and strengthen it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth and for ever." With Isaias the other Prophets are in agreement. So Jeremias foretells the "just seed" that shall rest from the house of David -- the Son of David that shall reign as king, "and shall be wise, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth." So, too, Daniel, who announces the kingdom that the God of heaven shall found, "that shall never be destroyed, and shall stand for ever." And again he says: "I beheld, therefore, in the vision of the night, and, lo! one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven. And he came even to the Ancient of days: and they presented him before him. And he gave him power and glory and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve him. His power is an everlasting power that shall not be taken away, and his kingdom shall not be destroyed." The prophecy of Zachary concerning the merciful King "riding upon an ass and upon a colt the foal of an ass" entering Jerusalem as "the just and savior," amid the acclamations of the multitude, was recognized as fulfilled by the holy evangelists themselves.
10. This same doctrine of the Kingship of Christ which we have found in the Old Testament is even more clearly taught and confirmed in the New. The Archangel, announcing to the Virgin that she should bear a Son, says that "the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father, and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."
11. Moreover, Christ himself speaks of his own kingly authority: in his last discourse, speaking of the rewards and punishments that will be the eternal lot of the just and the damned; in his reply to the Roman magistrate, who asked him publicly whether he were a king or not; after his resurrection, when giving to his Apostles the mission of teaching and baptizing all nations, he took the opportunity to call himself king, confirming the title publicly, and solemnly proclaimed that all power was given him in heaven and on earth. These words can only be taken to indicate the greatness of his power, the infinite extent of his kingdom. What wonder, then, that he whom St. John calls the "prince of the kings of the earth" appears in the Apostle's vision of the future as he who "hath on his garment and on his thigh written 'King of kings and Lord of lords!'." It is Christ whom the Father "hath appointed heir of all things"; "for he must reign until at the end of the world he hath put all his enemies under the feet of God and the Father."
12. It was surely right, then, in view of the common teaching of the sacred books, that the Catholic Church, which is the kingdom of Christ on earth, destined to be spread among all men and all nations, should with every token of veneration salute her Author and Founder in her annual liturgy as King and Lord, and as King of Kings. And, in fact, she used these titles, giving expression with wonderful variety of language to one and the same concept, both in ancient psalmody and in the Sacramentaries. She uses them daily now in the prayers publicly offered to God, and in offering the Immaculate Victim. The perfect harmony of the Eastern liturgies with our own in this continual praise of Christ the King shows once more the truth of the axiom: Legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi. The rule of faith is indicated by the law of our worship.
13. The foundation of this power and dignity of Our Lord is rightly indicated by Cyril of Alexandria. "Christ," he says, "has dominion over all creatures, a dominion not seized by violence nor usurped, but his by essence and by nature." His kingship is founded upon the ineffable hypostatic union. From this it follows not only that Christ is to be adored by angels and men, but that to him as man angels and men are subject, and must recognize his empire; by reason of the hypostatic union Christ has power over all creatures. But a thought that must give us even greater joy and consolation is this that Christ is our King by acquired, as well as by natural right, for he is our Redeemer. Would that they who forget what they have cost their Savior might recall the words: "You were not redeemed with corruptible things, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled." We are no longer our own property, for Christ has purchased us "with a great price"; our very bodies are the "members of Christ."
14. Let Us explain briefly the nature and meaning of this lordship of Christ. It consists, We need scarcely say, in a threefold power which is essential to lordship. This is sufficiently clear from the scriptural testimony already adduced concerning the universal dominion of our Redeemer, and moreover it is a dogma of faith that Jesus Christ was given to man, not only as our Redeemer, but also as a law-giver, to whom obedience is due. Not only do the gospels tell us that he made laws, but they present him to us in the act of making them. Those who keep them show their love for their Divine Master, and he promises that they shall remain in his love. He claimed judicial power as received from his Father, when the Jews accused him of breaking the Sabbath by the miraculous cure of a sick man. "For neither doth the Father judge any man; but hath given all judgment to the Son." In this power is included the right of rewarding and punishing all men living, for this right is inseparable from that of judging. Executive power, too, belongs to Christ, for all must obey his commands; none may escape them, nor the sanctions he has imposed.
15. This kingdom is spiritual and is concerned with spiritual things. That this is so the above quotations from Scripture amply prove, and Christ by his own action confirms it. On many occasions, when the Jews and even the Apostles wrongly supposed that the Messiah would restore the liberties and the kingdom of Israel, he repelled and denied such a suggestion. When the populace thronged around him in admiration and would have acclaimed him King, he shrank from the honor and sought safety in flight. Before the Roman magistrate he declared that his kingdom was not of this world. The gospels present this kingdom as one which men prepare to enter by penance, and cannot actually enter except by faith and by baptism, which, though an external rite, signifies and produces an interior regeneration. This kingdom is opposed to none other than to that of Satan and to the power of darkness. It demands of its subjects a spirit of detachment from riches and earthly things, and a spirit of gentleness. They must hunger and thirst after justice, and more than this, they must deny themselves and carry the cross.
16. Christ as our Redeemer purchased the Church at the price of his own blood; as priest he offered himself, and continues to offer himself as a victim for our sins. Is it not evident, then, that his kingly dignity partakes in a manner of both these offices?
17. It would be a grave error, on the other hand, to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to him by the Father, all things are in his power. Nevertheless, during his life on earth he refrained from the exercise of such authority, and although he himself disdained to possess or to care for earthly goods, he did not, nor does he today, interfere with those who possess them. Non eripit mortalia qui regna dat caelestia.
18. Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: "His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ." Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ. In him is the salvation of the individual, in him is the salvation of society. "Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved." He is the author of happiness and true prosperity for every man and for every nation. "For a nation is happy when its citizens are happy. What else is a nation but a number of men living in concord?" If, therefore, the rulers of nations wish to preserve their authority, to promote and increase the prosperity of their countries, they will not neglect the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ. What We said at the beginning of Our Pontificate concerning the decline of public authority, and the lack of respect for the same, is equally true at the present day. "With God and Jesus Christ," we said, "excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation."
19. When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony. Our Lord's regal office invests the human authority of princes and rulers with a religious significance; it ennobles the citizen's duty of obedience. It is for this reason that St. Paul, while bidding wives revere Christ in their husbands, and slaves respect Christ in their masters, warns them to give obedience to them not as men, but as the vicegerents of Christ; for it is not meet that men redeemed by Christ should serve their fellow-men. "You are bought with a price; be not made the bond-slaves of men.” If princes and magistrates duly elected are filled with the persuasion that they rule, not by their own right, but by the mandate and in the place of the Divine King, they will exercise their authority piously and wisely, and they will make laws and administer them, having in view the common good and also the human dignity of their subjects. The result will be a stable peace and tranquillity, for there will be no longer any cause of discontent. Men will see in their king or in their rulers men like themselves, perhaps unworthy or open to criticism, but they will not on that account refuse obedience if they see reflected in them the authority of Christ God and Man. Peace and harmony, too, will result; for with the spread and the universal extent of the kingdom of Christ men will become more and more conscious of the link that binds them together, and thus many conflicts will be either prevented entirely or at least their bitterness will be diminished.
20. If the kingdom of Christ, then, receives, as it should, all nations under its way, there seems no reason why we should despair of seeing that peace which the King of Peace came to bring on earth -- he who came to reconcile all things, who came not to be ministered unto but to minister, who, though Lord of all, gave himself to us as a model of humility, and with his principal law united the precept of charity; who said also: "My yoke is sweet and my burden light." Oh, what happiness would be Ours if all men, individuals, families, and nations, would but let themselves be governed by Christ! "Then at length," to use the words addressed by our predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, twenty-five years ago to the bishops of the Universal Church, "then at length will many evils be cured; then will the law regain its former authority; peace with all its blessings be restored. Men will sheathe their swords and lay down their arms when all freely acknowledge and obey the authority of Christ, and every tongue confesses that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father."
21. That these blessings may be abundant and lasting in Christian society, it is necessary that the kingship of our Savior should be as widely as possible recognized and understood, and to the end nothing would serve better than the institution of a special feast in honor of the Kingship of Christ. For people are instructed in the truths of faith, and brought to appreciate the inner joys of religion far more effectually by the annual celebration of our sacred mysteries than by any official pronouncement of the teaching of the Church. Such pronouncements usually reach only a few and the more learned among the faithful; feasts reach them all; the former speak but once, the latter speak every year -- in fact, forever. The church's teaching affects the mind primarily; her feasts affect both mind and heart, and have a salutary effect upon the whole of man's nature. Man is composed of body and soul, and he needs these external festivities so that the sacred rites, in all their beauty and variety, may stimulate him to drink more deeply of the fountain of God's teaching, that he may make it a part of himself, and use it with profit for his spiritual life.
22. History, in fact, tells us that in the course of ages these festivals have been instituted one after another according as the needs or the advantage of the people of Christ seemed to demand: as when they needed strength to face a common danger, when they were attacked by insidious heresies, when they needed to be urged to the pious consideration of some mystery of faith or of some divine blessing. Thus in the earliest days of the Christian era, when the people of Christ were suffering cruel persecution, the cult of the martyrs was begun in order, says St. Augustine, "that the feasts of the martyrs might incite men to martyrdom." The liturgical honors paid to confessors, virgins and widows produced wonderful results in an increased zest for virtue, necessary even in times of peace. But more fruitful still were the feasts instituted in honor of the Blessed Virgin. As a result of these men grew not only in their devotion to the Mother of God as an ever-present advocate, but also in their love of her as a mother bequeathed to them by their Redeemer. Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy. We may well admire in this the admirable wisdom of the Providence of God, who, ever bringing good out of evil, has from time to time suffered the faith and piety of men to grow weak, and allowed Catholic truth to be attacked by false doctrines, but always with the result that truth has afterwards shone out with greater splendor, and that men's faith, aroused from its lethargy, has shown itself more vigorous than before.
23. The festivals that have been introduced into the liturgy in more recent years have had a similar origin, and have been attended with similar results. When reverence and devotion to the Blessed Sacrament had grown cold, the feast of Corpus Christi was instituted, so that by means of solemn processions and prayer of eight days' duration, men might be brought once more to render public homage to Christ. So, too, the feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus was instituted at a time when men were oppressed by the sad and gloomy severity of Jansenism, which had made their hearts grow cold, and shut them out from the love of God and the hope of salvation.
24. If We ordain that the whole Catholic world shall revere Christ as King, We shall minister to the need of the present day, and at the same time provide an excellent remedy for the plague which now infects society. We refer to the plague of anti-clericalism, its errors and impious activities. This evil spirit, as you are well aware, Venerable Brethren, has not come into being in one day; it has long lurked beneath the surface. The empire of Christ over all nations was rejected. The right which the Church has from Christ himself, to teach mankind, to make laws, to govern peoples in all that pertains to their eternal salvation, that right was denied. Then gradually the religion of Christ came to be likened to false religions and to be placed ignominiously on the same level with them. It was then put under the power of the state and tolerated more or less at the whim of princes and rulers. Some men went even further, and wished to set up in the place of God's religion a natural religion consisting in some instinctive affection of the heart. There were even some nations who thought they could dispense with God, and that their religion should consist in impiety and the neglect of God. The rebellion of individuals and states against the authority of Christ has produced deplorable consequences. We lamented these in the Encyclical Ubi arcano; we lament them today: the seeds of discord sown far and wide; those bitter enmities and rivalries between nations, which still hinder so much the cause of peace; that insatiable greed which is so often hidden under a pretense of public spirit and patriotism, and gives rise to so many private quarrels; a blind and immoderate selfishness, making men seek nothing but their own comfort and advantage, and measure everything by these; no peace in the home, because men have forgotten or neglect their duty; the unity and stability of the family undermined; society in a word, shaken to its foundations and on the way to ruin. We firmly hope, however, that the feast of the Kingship of Christ, which in future will be yearly observed, may hasten the return of society to our loving Savior. It would be the duty of Catholics to do all they can to bring about this happy result. Many of these, however, have neither the station in society nor the authority which should belong to those who bear the torch of truth. This state of things may perhaps be attributed to a certain slowness and timidity in good people, who are reluctant to engage in conflict or oppose but a weak resistance; thus the enemies of the Church become bolder in their attacks. But if the faithful were generally to understand that it behooves them ever to fight courageously under the banner of Christ their King, then, fired with apostolic zeal, they would strive to win over to their Lord those hearts that are bitter and estranged from him, and would valiantly defend his rights.
25. Moreover, the annual and universal celebration of the feast of the Kingship of Christ will draw attention to the evils which anticlericalism has brought upon society in drawing men away from Christ, and will also do much to remedy them. While nations insult the beloved name of our Redeemer by suppressing all mention of it in their conferences and parliaments, we must all the more loudly proclaim his kingly dignity and power, all the more universally affirm his rights.
26. The way has been happily and providentially prepared for the celebration of this feast ever since the end of the last century. It is well known that this cult has been the subject of learned disquisitions in many books published in every part of the world, written in many different languages. The kingship and empire of Christ have been recognized in the pious custom, practiced by many families, of dedicating themselves to the Sacred Heart of Jesus; not only families have performed this act of dedication, but nations, too, and kingdoms. In fact, the whole of the human race was at the instance of Pope Leo XIII, in the Holy Year 1900, consecrated to the Divine Heart. It should be remarked also that much has been done for the recognition of Christ's authority over society by the frequent Eucharistic Congresses which are held in our age. These give an opportunity to the people of each diocese, district or nation, and to the whole world of coming together to venerate and adore Christ the King hidden under the Sacramental species. Thus by sermons preached at meetings and in churches, by public adoration of the Blessed Sacrament exposed and by solemn processions, men unite in paying homage to Christ, whom God has given them for their King. It is by a divine inspiration that the people of Christ bring forth Jesus from his silent hiding-place in the church, and carry him in triumph through the streets of the city, so that he whom men refused to receive when he came unto his own, may now receive in full his kingly rights.
27. For the fulfillment of the plan of which We have spoken, the Holy Year, which is now speeding to its close, offers the best possible opportunity. For during this year the God of mercy has raised the minds and hearts of the faithful to the consideration of heavenly blessings which are above all understanding, has either restored them once more to his grace, or inciting them anew to strive for higher gifts, has set their feet more firmly in the path of righteousness. Whether, therefore, We consider the many prayers that have been addressed to Us, or look to the events of the Jubilee Year, just past, We have every reason to think that the desired moment has at length arrived for enjoining that Christ be venerated by a special feast as King of all mankind. In this year, as We said at the beginning of this Letter, the Divine King, truly wonderful in all his works, has been gloriously magnified, for another company of his soldiers has been added to the list of saints. In this year men have looked upon strange things and strange labors, from which they have understood and admired the victories won by missionaries in the work of spreading his kingdom. In this year, by solemnly celebrating the centenary of the Council of Nicaea. We have commemorated the definition of the divinity of the word Incarnate, the foundation of Christ's empire over all men.
28. Therefore by Our Apostolic Authority We institute the Feast of the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ to be observed yearly throughout the whole world on the last Sunday of the month of October -- the Sunday, that is, which immediately precedes the Feast of All Saints. We further ordain that the dedication of mankind to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which Our predecessor of saintly memory, Pope Pius X, commanded to be renewed yearly, be made annually on that day. This year, however, We desire that it be observed on the thirty-first day of the month on which day We Ourselves shall celebrate pontifically in honor of the kingship of Christ, and shall command that the same dedication be performed in Our presence. It seems to Us that We cannot in a more fitting manner close this Holy Year, nor better signify Our gratitude and that of the whole of the Catholic world to Christ the immortal King of ages, for the blessings showered upon Us, upon the Church, and upon the Catholic world during this holy period.
29. It is not necessary, Venerable Brethren, that We should explain to you at any length why We have decreed that this feast of the Kingship of Christ should be observed in addition to those other feasts in which his kingly dignity is already signified and celebrated. It will suffice to remark that although in all the feasts of our Lord the material object of worship is Christ, nevertheless their formal object is something quite distinct from his royal title and dignity. We have commanded its observance on a Sunday in order that not only the clergy may perform their duty by saying Mass and reciting the Office, but that the laity too, free from their daily tasks, may in a spirit of holy joy give ample testimony of their obedience and subjection to Christ. The last Sunday of October seemed the most convenient of all for this purpose, because it is at the end of the liturgical year, and thus the feast of the Kingship of Christ sets the crowning glory upon the mysteries of the life of Christ already commemorated during the year, and, before celebrating the triumph of all the Saints, we proclaim and extol the glory of him who triumphs in all the Saints and in all the Elect. Make it your duty and your task, Venerable Brethren, to see that sermons are preached to the people in every parish to teach them the meaning and the importance of this feast, that they may so order their lives as to be worthy of faithful and obedient subjects of the Divine King.
30. We would now, Venerable Brethren, in closing this letter, briefly enumerate the blessings which We hope and pray may accrue to the Church, to society, and to each one of the faithful, as a result of the public veneration of the Kingship of Christ.
31. When we pay honor to the princely dignity of Christ, men will doubtless be reminded that the Church, founded by Christ as a perfect society, has a natural and inalienable right to perfect freedom and immunity from the power of the state; and that in fulfilling the task committed to her by God of teaching, ruling, and guiding to eternal bliss those who belong to the kingdom of Christ, she cannot be subject to any external power. The State is bound to extend similar freedom to the orders and communities of religious of either sex, who give most valuable help to the Bishops of the Church by laboring for the extension and the establishment of the kingdom of Christ. By their sacred vows they fight against the threefold concupiscence of the world; by making profession of a more perfect life they render the holiness which her divine Founder willed should be a mark and characteristic of his Church more striking and more conspicuous in the eyes of all.
32. Nations will be reminded by the annual celebration of this feast that not only private individuals but also rulers and princes are bound to give public honor and obedience to Christ. It will call to their minds the thought of the last judgment, wherein Christ, who has been cast out of public life, despised, neglected and ignored, will most severely avenge these insults; for his kingly dignity demands that the State should take account of the commandments of God and of Christian principles, both in making laws and in administering justice, and also in providing for the young a sound moral education.
33. The faithful, moreover, by meditating upon these truths, will gain much strength and courage, enabling them to form their lives after the true Christian ideal. If to Christ our Lord is given all power in heaven and on earth; if all men, purchased by his precious blood, are by a new right subjected to his dominion; if this power embraces all men, it must be clear that not one of our faculties is exempt from his empire. He must reign in our minds, which should assent with perfect submission and firm belief to revealed truths and to the doctrines of Christ. He must reign in our wills, which should obey the laws and precepts of God. He must reign in our hearts, which should spurn natural desires and love God above all things, and cleave to him alone. He must reign in our bodies and in our members, which should serve as instruments for the interior sanctification of our souls, or to use the words of the Apostle Paul, as instruments of justice unto God. If all these truths are presented to the faithful for their consideration, they will prove a powerful incentive to perfection. It is Our fervent desire, Venerable Brethren, that those who are without the fold may seek after and accept the sweet yoke of Christ, and that we, who by the mercy of God are of the household of the faith, may bear that yoke, not as a burden but with joy, with love, with devotion; that having lived our lives in accordance with the laws of God's kingdom, we may receive full measure of good fruit, and counted by Christ good and faithful servants, we may be rendered partakers of eternal bliss and glory with him in his heavenly kingdom.
34. Let this letter, Venerable Brethren, be a token to you of Our fatherly love as the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ draws near; and receive the Apostolic Benediction as a pledge of divine blessings, which with loving heart, We impart to you, Venerable Brethren, to your clergy, and to your people.
Given at St. Peter's Rome, on the eleventh day of the month of December, in the Holy Year 1925, the fourth of Our Pontificate.

The Liturgy of the Eucharist And Our Journey

2005-10-11T10:51:00.000-07:00

The letter to the Hebrews tells the story of the New Covenant people of God centered in the Son of God as a people on a journey. This journey described by the letter employs the Exodus narrative as the paradigm in which the New Covenant journey takes place. The letter to the Hebrews, like the Exodus story, follows this line of thinking: 1. The Exodus from Egypt brought about the deliverance of the Old Covenant people of God. In Hebrews the deliverance of the people of God has been brought about through the cross and resurrection of the Son of God. 2. The intended goal of the Exodus deliverance was to bring the people of God into the promised land of Canaan. The intended goal of the deliverance by the Son of God is to bring the people of God into the promised land of heaven. 3. In the Exodus account we learn that the delivered people of God do not enter the promised land right away. They first must go through the wilderness. The wilderness was a place of testing for the people of God. The journey in the wilderness was also a place where the delivered people of God were to serve the Lord (Exodus 7:16). Pope Benedict XVI points out in his book The Spirit of the Liturgy in reference to the Exodus, “we also hear repeatedly of another goal. God’s original command runs as follows: ‘Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness’ (Ex 7:16).” Just as the Exodus people of God were called to serve the Lord in the wilderness, so too the letter to the Hebrews makes it clear that the New Covenant people of God are called to serve the Lord in the wilderness here on earth as they live between the two worlds of deliverance through the cross of our Lord and the consummation of all things on the last day. The Christian is called to serve the Lord in obedience during the sojourn on earth. This service on earth is not an option for the Christian, as sadly many Protestants believe by the doctrine of “once saved always saved.” If the Protestant doctrine were biblical, the letter to the Hebrews makes no sense. The whole force of the letter loses its potency if the Protestant doctrine is biblical, which militates against the Protestant notion being biblical. Now, what does a comparison between the Exodus and the letter to the Hebrews have to do with a discussion of the Liturgy of the Eucharist? Much. You see there is a journey involved in both events. That journey requires faithfulness in the wilderness on the way to the promised land. As with all journeys, sustenance is needed to get you along the way to the intended goal. In the Exodus the Lord provided the people with Manna from heaven. In the New Covenant we learn of the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who tells us that he is true bread that has come down from heaven. What is that bread that comes down from heaven? His flesh which he will give for the life of the world. One theologian has remarked that the Lord‘s prayer is a journey prayer for the sojourning people of God. The prayer that our Lord gives to us, calls us to be a people who ask God to bring to earth the kingdom of heaven. The prayer also summons us to ask God to give us this day our daily bread, to forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us, and to lead us not into temptation but to deliver us from evil. If you break the prayer down you have 1. The request that God will bring about heaven on earth (the promised land). 2. We are on a journey, therefore, we need bread for the journey. 3. On this journey we will stumble along the way, therefore we need forgiveness. 4. In order to receive this forgiveness we must forgive those who have transgressed us. 5. During this journey we run the risk of falling into temptation, therefore we must be vigilant and be on guard and ask God to keep us from falling away from Him. The Lord’s prayer is a wilderness prayer and it is the wilderness prayer of the people of God. This is why the Our Father comes just prior to the Eucharist in the movement of the Liturgy. We ask God to give us our daily bread as we make our journey towards the promised land of heaven. In but a few short moments after the reciting of the Our Father we receive that daily bread needed for our journey. This is why the Eucharist IS NOT a symbol of that daily bread but is that daily bread itself. If the Eucharist is but a symbol then one might as well say that the Christian life is nothing but a symbol. If the Eucharist is a symbol then life is but play-acting, there is no real journey in need of real food to get us toward the goal of a real heaven. A symbol provides us with no nutrition for that journey. Just as in our physical lives where we need real food that provides real nutrition, so too in our spiritual lives we need real food that provides us with real nutrition. To call the Eucharist a symbol is like saying that a steak is a symbol of protein. No, the steak is the protein itself that provides the body with the necessary nutrients to grow. The Eucharist is the Bread of Angels that provides us with the power to sustain us in our journey toward heaven. The Eucharist is nothingless than the body and blood, soul and divinity of our Deliverer, the Savior, the Messiah, the Son of God, who is our Lord Jesus Christ, who says to us that his flesh is real food and his blood real drink. Nothingless than the flesh and blood of our Lord will do, as we journey here on earth in service to the Lord as we make our way toward the promised land of heaven.

The Incarnation of God In Judaism

2005-10-07T06:51:00.000-07:00

Jacob Neusner's "Incarnation of God" has been one of the more influential books that I have read. Now a little needs to be said about Neusner. He is quite possibly the foremost Jewish scholar in the world. He is a professor at Bard College in New York and has written over 800 books. He was a classmate of Dr. Harold O.J. Brown, a former professor of mine at the Seminary. Neusner, as is obvious, is not a Christian and is not in the business of doing "apologetical work" for the Church's Christological claim. This is what makes the following quote all the more profound from his book The Incarnation of God, "The authorships of the Hebrew Scriptures would not have been surprised that in the final unfolding of the canonical writings of the Judaism dual Torah (Neusner defines Dual Torah from what we call the Old Testament and oral and also written traditions of the 2nd Temple period up to the Rabbinic period) God gained corporeality and personality and so became incarnate." Neusner goes on to explain that when the Jewish teachers of the 2nd Temple period spoke of God coming to save Israel from her enemies and rule Israel, "they reentered that realm of discourse about God that Scripture had originally laid out." He adds, "Israel's Scriptures picture of God as incarnate, that personality who said to make us 'in our image, after our likeness.' Dr. Joseph Farrell's translation of the Disputation with Pyrrhus of our Father Among the Saints Maximus the Confessor is worth buying for the Introduction alone. Farrell writes, and please keep in mind Neusner's words from his book, "In order for there to be fulfillment of the Old Testament, their must be a repetition and recontextualization of its themes in the life of Christ, and where necessary a reversal of them. This presupposes certain principles in order for typological exegesis to take place. Types are like leitmotifs in music; they are repeated, and with each repetition, recontextualized, reaching their fulfillment in Christ. Not only does this repetitional fulfillment of types occur in reference to the events of the Old Testament, but also in reference to the principal stages of human life. . ." A footnote he writes makes this point, "This highlights another principal vital to Recapitulation, that of the unity between the Old and New Testaments. For St. Irenaeus, this principle, and therefore the whole doctrine of Recapitulation underpins his polemic against the Gnostics and the Marcionites, both of which seperated the God and Author of the Old Testament. . . from the God of the New, who, being spiritual and therefore good, could not have authored the Old. . . St. Irenaeus' recapitualtion response which presupposes their unity in Christ would thus seem to weaken the oft-repeated axiom that the Fathers "Hellenized" Christianity."

Who Is God. . . to us? Part Three

2005-10-06T13:55:00.000-07:00

The other day we talked about how God is known in His actions and His actions reveal who God is. There is no distinction between the God who is and the God who acts, they are the one and the same God. Now in saying that, we are not saying that the actions of God reveal to us who God is exhaustively. To say that we know God exhaustively or fully is foolishness for indeed who can know God exhaustively or fully but God alone? We do not even know ourselves exhaustively, how many of us remember our time in our mother’s womb? Just as in our human relationships where the actions of a person reveal who that person is, that in no way means we know everything there is to know about that person. What we are saying is this; to deny that the actions of God reveal truly who God is, is to deny any form of revelation from God. To deny that we can come to truly know and experience God is to deny that God has ever acted in this world. God in past times, as the writer of Hebrews tells us, revealed Himself in various manners, including the patriarchs, the types of the Old Covenant, the prophets, and other ways. These revelations were shrouded and murky. True revelations and true light but light that was concealed by the shadows. Yet, in these last days, the writer of Hebrews tells us, God has made Himself known explicitly in the Person of His Son, who is the exact representation of His being. The Son, the Eternal Word, became flesh and dwelt among us. The Logos assumed not a human person but a human nature. For if the Son assumed a human person then there would be two persons, the Son and Jesus and thus, we would have God in a man and not God is a Man. If the Son assumed a human person then we would not know God, for the revelation of Jesus would not be the manifestation of God but only the life a single, solitary Jewish peasant. This was the great problem and failure of the Nestorian doctrine. There was no problem with affirming that the Virgin Mary was the mother of Christ but one could not say nor should they say the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God. Yet, if the Virgin is the Mother only of the Christ then who was in her womb? Was the person in her womb God or was the person in her womb only a man or was the person in her womb God in a man? The answer of the Church was the Virgin Mary is nothingless than the Theotokos, the God Bearer. The baby in her womb was no less than the Word made flesh. If this was not true then the words of our Lord to Philip could not have been uttered, “Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). For to behold the Man Jesus is to behold very God of very God, true God from true God. If the Son assumed a human person and not a human nature then the prayer in the Garden on the night our Lord was betrayed is not the prayer of humility but arrogance, for who could say to the Father, except the Son, “Now glorify Me, Father, with you, with the glory that I had with you before the world began” (John 17:5). The fact that the Son assumed a human nature has deep implications for our salvation. This means that since the Son has taken upon Himself human nature then humanity’s nature has been divinized. Human nature has been taken up into the Divine Nature. That is why St. Peter can say, “you may come to share in the divine nature” (2nd Peter 1:4). For indeed so great is the love of God that He is not content to give us as little as possible. The Son’s assumption of human nature is done so that in turn we might share in the Divine Nature. The Church teaches this glorious and devastating truth, “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God. For the Son of God became man so that we might become God. The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in His divinity, assumed our nature, so that He, made man, might make men gods” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 460). This is not the only implication of this truth, as if that were not enough. The assumption of human nature on the part of the Son means that the death that our Lord dies is one in which He tastes death for everyone, as the writer of Hebrews states (Heb 2:9). If our Lord assumed a human person then the fallen nature of humanity would not have been healed. As Dr. Joseph Farrell writes, “Indeed, the very fact of Christ’s human nature which is consubstantial with all men implies an apokatastasis, for if in Adam all have died, in Christ there is a certain predetermination that all shall be made alive.” He adds, “the doctrine of recapitulation strikes at the heart of any doctrine of limited atonement, ie, at any doctrine which would limit the efficacy of Christ’s redemptive work to a number of elected and predestined individuals who are predestined prior to and apart from consideration of that work. If Christ’s redemptive work is limited in this fashion, then His humanity will also be consubstantial only with that predetermined number of elected individuals. But since Christ is the 2nd Adam, this implies that there are some individuals who, not being in the Second, will neither be found in the First Adam. Not being in the First Adam, they will not be subject to ancestral sin, and will therefore have no need of Christ.” The fact that our Lord, the Eternal Word made flesh, assumed human nature means that in the Incarnated Son we behold the living and true God. As one theologian has said, “there is no God behind the back of Jesus Christ.” To meet this Man, Jesus of Nazareth is to encounter the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. To encounter this Man is to encounter the God enfleshed for all the world to taste, touch, and see, “the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world” (John 6:51). This is not ordinary flesh. This is life-giving flesh. This is the flesh of God. The reality of the Word made flesh impacts us even to this day and indeed for all eternity. For indeed in the Eucharist we receive not bread and wine but the body and blood, soul and divinity, of the One who assumed not a human person but human nature. And when we meet this Man, we meet the God/Man and in our fear, like Moses in drawing close to the burning bush, like Peter who begged our Lord to depart from him for he is a sinful man, we come weakly to His altar, and behold what do we encounter? “Come to Me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me. . .and you will find rest for yourselves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light” (Matt 11:28-30). Why? “For I am meek and humble of heart” (Matt 11:29). Indeed in this Man, Jesus of Nazareth, we learn who God is, “He is meek and humble of heart.”

Who Is God. . . to us? Part Two

2005-10-05T06:35:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I posted about Phil 2 and how our Lord gave Himself over in love. This giving over in love is not an option for the faithful. Indeed it is something we are summoned to do, as our Lord said, pick up your cross and follow Me. A great passage, besides Phil 2, that demonstrates just what our Lord did for us in His Incarnation is 2nd Cor 8:9. In this sentence Paul says a mouthful, "For you know the gracious act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that for your sake he became poor although he was rich, so that by his poverty you might become rich." Here we see in vivid colors just what Christ did and does for us. Our Lord, who is rich, became poor. In so doing, we who are poor, have become rich. Here we see how our Lord's giving over of Himself in love, in humility and obedience even to the point of death enriches us. That is the way of self-giving love. Self-giving love does Not take away from the other but enriches the other. In this case, our Lord's emptying of Himself, the pouring out of Himself in love for our sakes, seeks the good of the other thereby enriching us. In this act of self-giving love, the self-offering of Lord, we see our Lord giving His whole life, body, blood, soul, and divinity, over for our sakes. Those who embrace this self-offering love of Christ are made sharers in His self-offering, thus, the faithful's lives are defined as living sacrifices (Rom 12). We talked yesterday of how Paul's teaching on Jesus' emptying of Himself was understood by some liberal theologians as refering to Jesus laying aside His deity. This is nothing short of foolishness and heresy. On the other hand it needs to be said that this does not truly refer to Jesus laying aside the use of His Divine rights. We see Jesus in His ministry exercise His right as God to forgive sins. The word for emptying is the word Kenosis. The Kenosis of our Lord was the total self-giving, the complete offering up of His whole life in love, not for Himself, but for others. Our Lord's life, His Incarnation is not for His sake but for our sake. His Incarnation is also for His Father, for His meat and drink was not do His own will, but the will of the Father. Think of it this way; when our Lord emptied Himself, He poured Himself out, leaving nothing, holding back nothing, but giving all of Himself. What were some of things our Lord did that demonstrate this emptying? 1. He became a slave. 2. He became Man. 3. In becoming Man He identified and shared in the very life of His creatures. 4. He humbled Himself, enduring hardship, not because He had to, but because He was resolved to give Himself over in love, which caused, as the prophet has stated, Him to be a Man of Sorrows aquainted with grief. 5. He was obedient to the point of death and not just any death but a death that identified Him with the rebellious and sinful by dying on the cross. This emptying of Himself was the giving over of His whole Person. This is why the Eucharist is nothingless than the reception of the whole Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity. The gift of the Eucharist is not like other gifts. Gifts are but signs or tokens of our love for another. Gifts, when given, say to the other I care for you, I love you, therefore, I give you this gift as a token or sign of my love. The Eucharist is the gift of gifts in that we do not receive them as tokens or signs of Christ's love for us. The bread and wine of Protestantism point beyond themselves to the "real" gift, Jesus dying on the cross for us. The bread and wine of Protestantism are tokens or signs that are nothing more than a "gift' that reminds of that Christ died for us. The Lord's Supper of Protestantism is at best a reminder that Jesus died for me. The gift in Protestantism of the Lord's Supper is almost like the gifts we give to each other, tokens that remind the other that we love and care for them. The true Eucharist is not a gift that only reminds us of Christ's love for us. Far from it!!!! The Eucharist is the very self-giving over of our Lord in the sacrament to us by feeding us His very body and blood, as He Himself says, My Flesh is Real Food and My Blood Real Drink. This is why the Church, and in particular Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, state that the Eucharist constitutes the Church and why the faithful's lives are to be Eucharistic. I really couldn't understand what they meant about our lives being Eucharistic. What do they mean, I wondered? As I was pondering this self-emptying of our Lord, the light bulb went off (I confess to being a bit slow LOL) and it dawned on me; "Yes, to be Eucharist to one another means the self-giving of our lives over to one another." To be Eucharist is to live out the way of the Cross. We can see how much easier it is to give a gift that says "I care." Indeed it is much harder to give your whole life over. The one is safe and demands a little. The other is scary and demands our all. Indeed, the One who is Rich, who became Poor, so that we, who are poor, in Him might become rich can have it no other way.

Who Is God. . .to us?

2005-10-04T05:14:00.000-07:00

Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus, Who,though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend,of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth,and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Who God is determines what God does. What God does reveals who God is. These two statements are rather clear. The God who is, is known in His actions and those actions manifest to us who God is. Think of it this way; a person is known by what he/she does. What a person does reveals who they really are. The actions of an individual reveals who that individual is. Who that individual is determines what they will do. You can see how the "who" and the "what" work in hand in hand. In the passage we have quoted from Philippians 2 we can see how this applies. In this passage we learn some very profound things about who God is and what God does. The Man Christ Jesus is in His very nature equal to God and despite this great truth He does not grasp or cling to who He is. Think back to Adam in the garden. Adam, who is in the image of God, is a creature given life by God. Everything he has is by grace, pure gift. What does Adam do? He gives into the temptation by the evil one to eat of the tree because he is promised that if he does so he will become like God knowing good and evil. He grasps at what does not belong to him. In the Second Adam, our Lord Jesus Christ, we have the opposite. Though He is equal to God He does not grasp at what does belong to Him by right. This action demonstrates the humility of God.
We then read of our Lord emptying Himself. He becomes a slave, He becomes like the very creatures He has created, human beings. Some people have claimed that this emptying refers to our Lord ceasing to be God in the Incarnation. This is blasphemey. The whole point is the fact that the One who is doing this is God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. This understanding also begs the question; how can someone cease to be who they essentially are. Can a dog cease to be a dog and become a cat? Can a man cease to be a man and become whale? This is crazy talk yet some claim and have claimed that this is what happened. No that is not what happened. What happened was God took on an additional nature. Jesus does not assume a human person He assumes a human nature. He already is Person prior to the Incarnation. In the Incarnation He adds to His Person human nature. Thus, our Lord is both fully God and fully Man. He is two distinct natures in One Person. This emptying of our Lord reveals again who God is. God gives Himself over to love. God pours Himself out in love. God does not hold back. God is the giving God. The Holy Trinity is a community of love between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each Person of the Trinity gives over to the other in love. The Father seeks to glorify the Son, the Son seeks to glorify the Father, and the Holy Spirit brings glory to the Father and the Son and is indeed the bond of union between the Father and the Son. This reality of who God is made manifest in the Incarnation of the Son who empties Himself in love. These actions of God, which reveal who God is, are to determine and define who we are and what we do. Notice how Paul brings these truths out about the Incarnation not as some theology 101 where we learn some nice ideas about God. Nor does Paul appeal to the idea of being "nice" to each other because, bless His heart isn't Jesus just so nice and sweet! Rubbish! Pure Junk and when people understand theology divorced from everyday life or when people think that Christian ethics are to be "nice" and "sweet" they so short circuit the drama and devastation of the Incarnation and the reality of the Blessed Trinity. We are not "nice" and "sweet" to each other because that is just a good way to live and keeps us out of trouble. Keep your "nice" and "sweet" and bless your heart. Nice and Sweet does not become flesh and dwell among us. No, instead, One who empties Himself becomes flesh and dwells among us. The giving over in love, becoming a slave, being humble, and pouring one's self out even to the point of death is love, true love. "Nice" and "Sweet" is safe and cute and bless your heart is pointless. Emptying yourself to the point of death for love is hard and difficult and painful. Who ever said our Faith was safe. Was it not Lewis who said, "Safe. No he isn't safe. But he is good." Indeed, these actions of our Lord Jesus Christ reveal to us He indeed is not safe. But He is good. Why is He not safe? For He does not give you and me an out. He calls us, all of us to pick up the cross and follow Him. He calls all of us to this self-giving, emptying love that gives to the point of death. This is not "nice" and "sweet" nor is it the love that pop songs are made of. This type of love is not safe. It is indeed scary. To entrust yourself to the other in love. But, there is no other way. Why? For this is who God is. And we are called to be strive for nothing less than becoming like the God who is. To quote one friend of mine, "we are called to become like the God we worship."

The Forgotten John Paul

2005-10-01T08:48:00.000-07:00

These words are from Pope John Paul I given on September 28, 1978.

In welcoming you with deep affection, we wish to recall a passage found in the Breviary. This passage has struck us forcefully. It concerns Christ, and was spoken by Paul VI on his visit to the Phillipines: "I must bear witness to his name: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God... he is the king of the new world; he is the secret of history; he is the key to our destiny". On our part we hope to sustain you, support you, and encourage you in the great mission of the episcopate: to proclaim Jesus Christ and to evangelize his people. Among the rights of the faithful, one of the greatest is the right to receive God's word in all its entirety and purity, with all its exigencies and power. A great challenge of our day is the full evangelization of all those who have been baptized. In this, the Bishops of the Church have a prime responsibility. Our message must be a clear proclamation of salvation in Jesus Christ. With Peter we must say to Christ, in the presence of our people: "You have the words of eternal life". For us, evangelization involves an explicit teaching about the name of Jesus, his identity, his teaching, his Kingdom and his promises. And his chief promise is eternal life. Jesus truly has words that lead us to eternal life. Just recently at a general audience, we spoke to the faithful about eternal life. We are convinced that it is necessary for us to emphasize this element, in order to complete our message and to model our teaching on that of Jesus. From the days of the Gospel, and in imitation of the Lord, who "went about doing good", the Church is irrevocably committed to contributing to the relief of physical misery and need. But her pastoral charity would be incomplete if she did not point out even "higher needs". In the Philippines Paul VI did precisely this. At a moment when he chose to speak about the poor, about justice and peace, about human rights, about economic and social liberation - at a moment when he also effectively committed the Church to the alleviation of misery - he did not and could not remain silent about the "higher good", the fulness of life in the Kingdom of heaven. More than ever before, we must help our people to realize just how much they need Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Mary. He is their Savior, the key to their destiny and to the destiny of all humanity. Dear Brothers, we are spiritually close to you in all the efforts you are making on behalf of evangelization: as you train catechists, as you promote the biblical apostolate, as you assist and encourage all your priests in their great mission at the service of God's word, and as you lead all your faithful to understand and to fulfill the requirements of justice and Christian love. We greatly esteem these and all your endeavors on behalf of the Kingdom of God. In particular, we fully support the affirmation of the missionary vocation, and earnestly hope that it will flourish among your youth. We are aware that the Philippines has a great vocation in being the light of Christ in the Far East: to proclaim his truth, his love, his justice and salvation by word and example before its neighbors, the peoples of Asia. We know that you have a privileged instrument in this regard: Radio Veritas. It is our hope that the Philippines will use this great means and every other means to proclaim with the entire Church that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Savior of the world. Our greetings go to all your local Churches, especially to the priests and religious. We encourage them to ever greater holiness of life as a condition for the supernatural effectiveness of their apostolate. We love and bless the families of your Dioceses and all the laity. We ask the sick and the handicapped to understand their important part in God's plan, and to realize just how much evangelization depends on them. To all of you, Brothers, we impart our special Apostolic Blessing, invoking upon you joy and strength in Jesus Christ.

Righteousness

2005-09-30T10:20:00.000-07:00

Righteousness is one of those words that is hard to define as to what it really is, despite the fact that it is used quite a bit in our vocalbulary. What does it mean to be righteous? How does one become righteous? Can we become righteous and if not, why even bother at all? It is essential for those of us who believe in the One who is Righteousness Incarnate to seek our understanding of what righteousness might look like according to the Scripture. In order to do this, we must go back to the creation of man and woman. Adam was created from the dust of the earth and formed by the Lord, "then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature" (Gen. 2:7). This creation by God was different from all his prior creation. This creation of man would be God's image in the world, "Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. . . So God created man in his own image,in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Gen.1:26-27). It is VERY EASY to overlook the polemical nature of the story. While we know the Genesis account is written well after the actual creation, it is easy to forget that when we read the text. Genesis is written in a world that believed strongly in gods and they had a god for every situation. The gods were represented by frogs, gazelles, bulls, kings, mythic warriors etc... There would often be a statue (an IMAGE) of the god and the presence of the god was said to reside in some sense in the statue. Lest we make fun of the ancients for their strange and wicked beliefs, we know in our "so-called sophisticated" world that we have our gods. Think of Iraq and the ubiqitous images of Saddam Hussein spread throughout the country. Those images were not Hussein himself but to be sure they communicated his presence very well. I digress. Genesis is not originally written for the world, though it is the world's story, but for Israel. Who is Israel and why are they God's people? Genesis is the story that explains that to them. So Moses gives Israel the story that details for them how she came to be and why she has been chosen to be God's people. That story reveals, contrary to the pagan nations around them, that the image of God in the world does not reside in beasts or constellations or anything of the sort but in man and woman. God has his image in the world and it is humanity. Think back to images (idols); the image was not the god itself but the place in which the god's presence made its abode. The pagan nations did not view humanity, in and of itself, as the image of the gods but rather animals, or things in the heavens, or some kingly figure. In Genesis the opposite is true. Man is formed from the earth by God. The Lord has this image that he has just formed and he breathes His life into the image and the image comes to life. Is it a stretch to say that God's presence takes up residence within the man? That is to say the man as God's image is made to reflect God into the world. As one theologian commented, "If there is a sacramental reality, something uniquely or especially fitted to mirror the divine, it is the human race." In the midst of the story of man's creation we are told that it is not good for man to be alone. Here we have something that lies at the heart of being human; relationships with others. The man and woman are told to rule the world for God. They are righteous, that is to say they are in right relationship to their Creator the Lord God, with each other and they are to perform the tasks assigned to them. They are to cultivate the land, name the animals, populate the world and multiply themselves. This righteousness is not STATIC but fluid. It is creative (Doesn't Adam name the animals?), it is dynamic (They are to cultivate the land) it is eschatological. The Creation of the world is Eschatological, that is to say the world is to go somewhere and not stay put. The "Very Good" creation by the Lord is entrusted to his image bearer, man and woman to "perfect" the world. The man and woman are to bring to fruition what God had made. If this is an overstretch on my part, I would suggest why would the man and the woman be told "be frutiful and multiply?" Certainly the God who made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them could have just as easily made the world populated and full in an instant. But he doesn't. I propose that he doesn't do this because he is a patient God. He creates with a purpose. There is a telos to the creation. If I may be allowed to equivocate on the words "eschatological" and "soteriological" I think I could make the point this way; the creation was made with salvation in view. By this, I don't mean redemption. Redemption comes in to view after the fall. I mean prior to the fall God created with a purpose toward salvation, to take the world into perfection with his image, both man and woman at the very heart of that plan. This means that culture at its very core is to be engaged in the "ART" of perfecting that which was made "Very Good." To fail at that task is improperly reflect the image of God in the world. God, if you will, begins the work and entrusts his image to enage in the completion of that work. The Spirit of God is at work in the world through the image of God man and woman bringing glory to God shaping the creation toward the ends in which it was made.
So here we have the image of God entrusted with the task to bring to perfection the very good world made by God. To be man and woman means to participate in what the LORD has done, is doing, and will do. The story tells us that Adam and Eve failed in their fidelity to the LORD. They were not content to be under the LORD but to be equal to the LORD, deciding for themselves what was good and evil. They overstepped their bounds, if you will, and forgot that God is wholly other than them. They came from God, not God from them. Is that not the heart of sin; establishing for ourseleves what is good and evil and thus standing in judgement over good and evil, refusing to submit to what God deems is good and evil? Colin Gunton put it this way, "The essence of sin consists in wanting to be like God otherwise than in the way he invites and enables us to be like him." Adam and Eve fail in their vocation to live out the image of God and reflect in the world and by consequence back to God his glory and honor. God had made the world eschatologically, that is to say for salvation. Because of Adam and Eve's sin the only way for that eschatological, soteriological purpose to be realized is through redemption. I quote again the late Colin Gunton, "The purposed end of the story is the perfection of the 'work of art' to the glory of its creator." That is what redemption of the world is to produce. It is to set everything to rights, from the universe to human beings to ecogology, whatever exists that needs to be restored is included in the redemption. The New Testament informs us that Jesus Christ is the one in whom and through whom and for whom the world was created (e.g. John 1 and Col 1). This begs the question, would Jesus have come if there was no fall? We speak here where angels dare not tread, for it is dangerous to speculate on such matters but is it a stretch to say, since the world was created for the Son, through the Son, as a gift from the Father to be perfected in the Spirit, that Jesus would have come to the world even if there was no need of redemption? Though, I will say this: if the world was created for the Son, through the Son, by God to be perfected with the work of the Spirit, then two things need to be said, 1) that is why God does not DESTROY the world because to do so negates the gift of creation for the Son 2) it is appropiate that since the world was made for the Son that the Son would come to the world and become Man and not the Father or the Spirit. The eschatological purpose of God, to bring the world to perfection (salvation), is begun, or shall we say put back in place and brought back to course, in the life of Jesus. Israel's calling and election as the answer to Adam and Eve has come into the world in the man Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, the redemptive election of Israel is fulfilled in Jesus, who himself says, "salvation is of the Jews." Why is salvation of the Jews? Because they were the people entrusted to be the ones in whom God would set to right the world, in short the answer to Adam. That is why Paul calls Jesus the Second Adam. That is why Jesus calls himself the Son of Man. Think of what Paul writes concerning Jesus, "He is the image of the invisible God" (Col.1:15). Now our default setting when reading that is to think of this as pertaining solely to Jesus' deity. I propose that it is, however, a throughly Pauline way of saying Jesus is the true human. NT Wright says it best, "Humanity was made as the climax of the first creation (Gen. 1:26-27): the true humanity of Jesus is the climax of the history of creation, and at the same time the starting point of the new creation. . . the man Jesus fulfills the purposes which God had marked out both for himself and for humanity. Upon Jesus Christ, then, has come the role marked out for humanity, and hence for Israel." Ben Witherington puts it this way, "Jesus is the eschatolgical Adam. All of what Paul says has an eschatological flavor." Pope John Paul II called our Lord the true human being and the true destiny of the human race. Our Lord is, as the Pope said, the answer to the question that is every human life. In a very real sense, Jesus is starting a new creation, beingthe firstfruits from the dead. But in another sense he is the end and the goal of the whole human race. . . He is bringing in the last age, the new creation, the end of God's plan. . . Jesus is the second human being. So what does all this have to do with righteousness and being righteous? Well for starters, those who are in Christ particpate in his righteousness. Those who have been grafted into the 2nd Adam share in his life. The purpose of Jesus' coming to redeem the world was to set the world back on course, we could argue that it is even better because of who Jesus is, but suffice to say, that at the very least Jesus came to overturn what Adam did restoring and refashioning (My imagination thinks of the image of God being broken in pieces and Jesus coming into that broken world and broken image and refashioning and remaking it from the inside. Jesus does not come to the place where Adam started in the Garden of Eden but where Adam finished, cast into exile from the Garden, thus the body that Jesus receives is a broken body that is in the likeness of sinful flesh that he might destroy the fracturedness of this world from the inside out) humanity back to their rightplace as God's image bearers in the world. That is why the Church is the Body of Christ. The Church particpates in the Image of God as revealed in the Incarnate Son. We are united to him that we might particpate in the eschatolgical purpose of God. And what is that eschatological purpose of God: to perfect the very good creation of God and reflect God's glory into the world and back unto God. When Paul says that we are the righteousness of God, among the many things that he is saying is that we participate in the new creation, the new humanity (Eph. 2:15). We are participating in the eschatological, soteriological purpose of God as it has been manifested in the One who is both God and Man, Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore, we who are in Christ must be a people who bring to bear upon the world this truth. We thus care about the arts. We care about populating the world. We care about the sciences. These are righteous endeavors that bring glory to God. They need NO JUSTIFICATION. We celebrate and worship the God who creates the world and yes restores the world by participating in the body of Christ and in turn live out in our spheres the Kingdom of God, wherever that might be.

If Not We'll Have To Do A Biopsy!

2005-09-30T09:29:00.000-07:00

Just got back from the doctor to get checked for something on my skin. The doc sees me and is not sure what it could be and says he wants me to take some pills and apply a cream for a few weeks. He then says he wants to see me within the month and if the condition is not better he says, "We'll have to do a biopsy."

The Answer To Adam

2005-09-29T12:36:00.000-07:00

The Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner in his book on Judaism in the time of early Christianity, Judaism when Christianity Began (WJK 2002) writes that all the various forms of Judaism in the 2nd Temple period saw Israel as the answer to the Adam problem. The literature of the day all points to the fact that they saw themselves as God's answer to undo what Adam had done. Israel's self understanding was this; they were the people in whom God chose to reverse the fall of Adam. Why was Israel Israel? They were, to be sure, the children of the promise to Abraham, but the whole calling of Abraham was, in the first place, a call to undo what had happened in the Garden with Adam. That is why all the different Jewish groups of the day agreed on this basic fact. When we read the New Testament we may find ourselves wondering why, for example, the Apostle Paul mentions Adam. On the surface it may appear strange that he brings up Adam's name. What does Adam have to do with the argument he is constructing in Romans? Everything! You see, if Israel was correct in her self-understanding that she was the people chosen by God to undo the problem and failure of Adam, then, it is as if Paul is saying, "yes Israel you are the people that God used to undo the failure of Adam but this was done not through you as a nation, for you too Israel are in Adam (Rom 2;3) but the Messiah, our representative, has done for us what we could never do." Paul's Adam/Christology is not some curve ball in the plan of redemption but in line with Jewish expectation and belief. Paul, most likely a Shammiate Pharisee, trained in that tradition would know of this teaching. Paul appears to be drawing on such teaching when he makes the Adam/ Christ comparison. Paul's point is that God has kept His promise to Israel to use her to overturn Adam's failure but He has done it through Messiah, who is Jesus of Nazareth. That is why Paul writes in Romans 10 that the Jewish people have a zeal for God but not according to knowledge because they have not recognized that her history has devolved and fell into the lap of her Messiah, who was God's annointed representative to bear the burden of Israel, namely to be the answer to the problem of Adam and in so doing this for Israel God has kept His promise to redeem the world. Good News for Israel is by definition Good News for the world!

Reflections

2005-09-27T12:46:00.000-07:00

The last few days I have played the role of homeschool uncle. I have done 1st and 4th grade math, spelling, vocabulary, writing, and religion. We talked about the image of God and why that makes us different than Jack and Fiona (the family cats). After all the work is done it looks like Game Cube is the entertainment of choice. Over the last couple of weeks I have learned about myself 1. I definitely have NO DESIRE to go back to school. Not that I have a problem with school I just don't want to go. 2. I would like, if I have the privilege, to teach on either a parish or high school level to get my income. If it is not possible to get an income from teaching I would be fine working a regular job and volunteering one day a week to teach something in a parish. Why do I say this? Because when I made the move to rejoin the Catholic Church I made the move with my eyes open. I knew that my options for teaching would decrease and I was and am fine with that. The Catholic culture is a much different culture than the Evangelical culture. In the Evangelical culture most church-goers have their favorite bible teacher, full service Sunday School programs, small group Bible studies etc. . . The Catholic culture doesn't typically think and act in those categories. Anyway, I do know school is not for me.

Still In Exile After The Return

2005-09-27T07:08:00.000-07:00

Some scholars claim the idea that Israel saw herself in exile during the 2nd Temple period even after returning to the land is overblown. I had one professor say that too much is made of that idea. I, however, am incredulous that anyone would think that Israel did not see herself in exile after her return from Babylon despite her being in the land. An excellent example of how Israel felt during this period is contained in the great prayer recorded in Nehemiah 9. Read this prayer and then say that Israel did not see herself in bondage despite being in her own land.

“You are the Lord, you alone. You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them; and you preserve all of them; and the host of heaven worships you. 7 You are the Lord, the God who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans and gave him the name Abraham. 8 You found his heart faithful before you, and made with him the covenant to give to his offspring the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Perizzite, the Jebusite, and the Girgashite. And you have kept your promise, for you are righteous. 9 “And you saw the affliction of our fathers in Egypt and heard their cry at the Red Sea, 10 and performed signs and wonders against Pharaoh and all his servants and all the people of his land, for you knew that they acted arrogantly against our fathers. And you made a name for yourself, as it is to this day. 11 And you divided the sea before them, so that they went through the midst of the sea on dry land, and you cast their pursuers into the depths, as a stone into mighty waters. 12 By a pillar of cloud you led them in the day, and by a pillar of fire in the night to light for them the way in which they should go. 13 You came down on Mount Sinai and spoke with them from heaven and gave them right rules and true laws, good statutes and commandments, 14 and you made known to them your holy Sabbath and commanded them commandments and statutes and a law by Moses your servant. 15 You gave them bread from heaven for their hunger and brought water for them out of the rock for their thirst, and you told them to go in to possess the land that you had sworn to give them.16 “But they and our fathers acted presumptuously and stiffened their neck and did not obey your commandments. 17 They refused to obey and were not mindful of the wonders that you performed among them, but they stiffened their neck and appointed a leader to return to their slavery in Egypt. But you are a God ready to forgive, gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and did not forsake them. 18 Even when they had made for themselves a goldencalf and said, ‘This is your God who brought you up out of Egypt,’ and had committed great blasphemies, 19 you in your great mercies did not forsake them in the wilderness. The pillar of cloud to lead them in the way did not depart from them by day, nor the pillar of fire by night to light for them the way by which they should go. 20 You gave your good Spirit to instruct them and did not withhold your manna from their mouth and gave them water for their thirst. 21 Forty years you sustained them in the wilderness, and they lacked nothing. Their clothes did not wear out and their feet did not swell.22 “And you gave them kingdoms and peoples and allotted to them every corner. So they took possession of the land of Sihon king of Heshbon and the land of Og king of Bashan. 23 You multiplied their children as the stars of heaven, and you brought them into the land that you had told their fathers to enter and possess. 24 So the descendants went in and possessed the land, and you subdued before them the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, and gave them into their hand, with their kings and the peoples of the land, that they might do with them as they would. 25 And they captured fortified cities and a rich land, and took possession of houses full of all good things, cisterns already hewn, vineyards, olive orchards and fruit trees in abundance. So they ate and were filled and became fat and delighted themselves in your great goodness.26 “Nevertheless, they were disobedient and rebelled against you and cast your law behind their back and killed your prophets, who had warned them in order to turn them back to you, and they committed great blasphemies. 27 Therefore you gave them into the hand of their enemies, who made them suffer. And in the time of their suffering they cried out to you and you heard them from heaven, and according to your great mercies you gave them saviors who saved them from the hand of their enemies. 28 But after they had rest they did evil again before you, and you abandoned them to the hand of their enemies, so that they had dominion over them. Yet when they turned and cried to you, you heard from heaven, and many times you delivered them according to your mercies. 29 And you warned them in order to turn them back to your law. Yet they acted presumptuously and did not obey your commandments, but sinned against your rules, which if a person does them, he shall live by them, and turned a stubborn shoulder and stiffened their neck and would not obey. 30 Many years you bore with them and warned them by your Spirit through your prophets. Yet they would not give ear. Therefore you gave them into the hand of the peoples of the lands. 31 Nevertheless, in your great mercies you did not make an end of them or forsake them, for you are a gracious and merciful God.32 “Now, therefore, our God, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who keeps covenant and steadfast love, let not all the hardship seem little to you that has come upon us, upon our kings, our princes, our priests, our prophets, our fathers, and all your people, since the time of the kings of Assyria until this day. 33 Yet you have been righteous in all that has come upon us, for you have dealt faithfully and we have acted wickedly. 34 Our kings, our princes, our priests, and our fathers have not kept your law or paid attention to your commandments and your warnings that you gave them. 35 Even in their own kingdom, enjoying your great goodness that you gave them, and in the large and rich land that you set before them, they did not serve you or turn from their wicked works. 36 Behold, we are slaves this day; in the land that you gave to our fathers to enjoy its fruit and its good gifts, behold, we are slaves. 37 And its rich yield goes to the kings whom you have set over us because of our sins. They rule over our bodies and over our livestock as they please, and we are in great distress. “Because of all this we make a firm covenant in writing; on the sealed document are the names of our princes, our Levites, and our priests.”

The prayer speaks for itself. You can see the covenantal structure of the prayer. The "reminding" of God and His call to Abram to make a great nation from him. The "reminding" of the great act of liberation in Israel's history, The Exodus. The infidelity of the leadership and the people that caused Israel to be punished and placed into exile. We also can see the cry of being in bondage despite the fact that Israel was in the land that God gave her. In fact, if anything, this type of bondage was worse than being sent off to Babylon, for at least Babylon was the land of the Gentiles and Israel was not to be in that land. The fact of her being in exile in her own land is almost oxymoronic which is precisely what makes it much more painful. It is as if they are having salt rubbed into their wounds. This type of mockery is too much to bear. Pagan rulers ruling Israel in her own land! It is into that world that our Lord Jesus Christ came. In the midst of Israel being held hostage in her own land, this time by the Romans, in the fulness of time God sent His Son into the world. Into an Israel that was yearning for her liberation God sent His Son to deliver His people from their bondage. As our Lord Himself says, "He who the Son sets free is free indeed." The hope of Israel, namely another Exodus, came in the flesh and indeed not only Israel but the world has been set free, for He who the Son sets free is free indeed!

A Poem By A Friend

2005-09-27T06:54:00.000-07:00

The following is a poem written by my friend Robert, a classmate from school.

I turned on the TV on that September day
My son had gone for his first job interview
“Ladies and Gentlemen a plane has just crashed…”
You know how it goes
Why God, Why did my only son have to die?

He came to my door today dressed in his finest clothes
I knew what he would say before I even opened to door
“The Secretary of the Army regrets to inform you…”
You know how it goes
Why God, Why did my only son have to die?

The phone rang late, I guessed who it was
My son had been out
“We need you to come to downtown…”
You know how it goes
Why God, Why did my only son have to die?

It has been nine months and the day has finally come
We have been at the hospital for hours
“We’re sorry, but…”
You know how it goes
Why God, Why did my only son have to die?

I have lived in the hospital with him for a year
No child should suffer like this
“You have to decide now…”
You know how it goes
Why God, Why did my only son have to die?

He was my beloved Son;
the Son of a Virgin
I sent him to you and you killed him,
but…He has risen again…
so your Son will live again
“It is finished…”
“Father forgive…”
You know how it goes

Modern Technology

2005-09-26T19:18:00.000-07:00

I called my cell phone company to pay my bill. The contract is up but I will still have one bill sent for one day of service. I informed them that my address changed and to send that bill (if one can call that a bill) to the new address. They informed me that they could not guarantee that because the bills are sent by computer. The fascinating thing is this; the bill cycle is not yet done. I find that funny. You would think that it would be easy to change the address on something that has not yet been sent out. What I will wind up doing anyway is pay the bill over the phone but it was still sort of ironic.

Reality Isn't Always As It Seems

2005-09-25T18:29:00.000-07:00

There is an old saying that says, "Truth is stranger than fiction." If there is anything that can be said about the faith we hold and claim it is this; it is devastating. At the Mass I attended today, Father focused his attention in the homily on the reality of the Divine Liturgy. The Divine Liturgy is not so much about us being taken up into heaven as it is the heavenly liturgy coming down to us. The heavenly liturgy meets us in the here and now in the midst of our fears, our pain, our joy, and our tears. The heavenly liturgy is incarnated breaking into our sphere. It is, to be sure, to the skeptic "crazy talk." Where are the angels and saints that you claim are here? Where is the voice of God that you alledge that is heard? Where is the flesh and blood of Christ that you say is offered to you? Where is this Holy Spirit that you state is within your assembly? This brings us back to what we were saying about reality not always being as it seems. It often seems, at least to many, as if God is absent from this world of ours and even, some may say, from our lives. The hope of our faith says, "No! God is not absent. Indeed He is here. He comes to meet us to feed us and make us His own." The Divine Liturgy makes present to us the reality of God and the heavenly Liturgy. We are in communion with the host of heaven and the saints that have gone before us. We are brought together with the gathered here on earth. The Eternal invades the temporal and the temporal is remade. The first fruits of the new heavens and the new earth (Is 66) are anticipated in the Divine Liturgy made present. The Already meets the Not Yet and the Already will have the final word, for through and with Christ and In Christ the world has already begun to be recreated. The pains and tears and griefs of this world will be swallowed up for in Christ they do not have the closing argument. Lest anyone think that our faith is sterile and banal let them think on the Divine Liturgy. If they think this too difficult for God, then what of a dead Man raised from the tomb on the third day? If they think this too strange then what of the words of having entertained angels unaware (Heb 13:2)? Indeed Truth is stranger than fiction and reality isn't always as it seems. And thank God for that!

Happy Anniversary Mom and Dad

2005-09-22T07:04:00.000-07:00

Today is my mother and father's 48th wedding anniversary. As I think on their marriage I am so thankful for what they have taught me, not only by their words but by their actions. From my Mother I have learned love that gives and gives even when it hurts. From my Father I have learned what it means to provide for a family not only materially but with time. I learned from my Dad that it is o.k. to show emotion as a man. From them I have learned what committed love means. Does that mean there were never problems? That would be a lie. Far from it. They have suffered the loss of two children, had financial burdens, and the typical problems of a fallen world. What I learned from them is that through the pain and difficulty of life love means you wrestle through and work out your problems. My Mother told me once that when she lost her two children, my brother and sister, she couldn't accept it. One day when she was looking at a crucifix, which she had seen many times in her life, she saw Mary our Blessed Mother at the foot of the cross seeing her Son die. It was if Mary turned to her and said, "I understand what you feel." She learned to accept the loss not by living in denial or forgetting, for who could forget such a thing? No, acceptance meant that it was ok to move forward and love again. Acceptance meant that it was o.k. to embrace life again as a precious gift from God. So to my Mother and Father on your 48th anniversary, I say thank you. Thank you for your love, thank you for your example, and thank you for your committment to love.

Math Scores and Theology

2005-09-20T10:49:00.000-07:00

I just went to the bank and deposited two checks. As I gave my stuff to the teller she thanked me for doing the math. I then remarked that I was happy to know I got it right. That got me to thinking about something that really bothers me. It has to do with the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) tests that are needed in order to enter into graduate studies. Now, I understand the reason behind giving the exams (e.g. is this student capable of doing this work). That makes sense. If one is going to work on a Math degree etc... then the GRE may give the school indication that their skills are up to the task. The problem I have is this; why is the GRE needed when you would like to do graduate work in, for example, Theology. What does knowing the prime numbers of #362 have to do with the Social and Relational Implications of the Blessed Trinity? I know the scholars out there may find my reasoning faulty. To them, I apologize that I don't know the answer to the aforementioned math problem. I still ask, what does that have to do with thinking and reflecting on why it is important that we say and teach that the Word did not assume a human person but rather became Man? I am not really wanting to do more graduate work. I think about it but in my heart I have no desire to be in the class room reading and studying for exams. I would much more prefer to work on the parish level heading up the Religious Education, teaching the Catechism and helping the people of God on the parish level to understand and apply the truth. That's not to say I don't love learning but I would rather have a good book, ponder it and reflect on it and discuss it with a good friend who has the same interests. Thankfully, I have that outlet. In fact, not to dismiss formal education, I found my time in seminary to be laborious. The stuff I wanted to read we didn't read and that frustrated me. I also felt that the classes were more about giving back the professors ideas and notes. I did not, and this is not meant as an attack against the seminary I attended, find that the goal of the seminary was to assist me, the student, to think creatively and critically about the subject matter we were dealing with. I found it to be mostly a "hoop" that one has to go through to say "I have been certified" to teach this material. To those who do graduate work I salute them and I am thankful for them. I do, however, wonder about the "need" to do something like the GRE before one can do graduate work in theology.

I Want THEIR Life

2005-09-19T07:59:00.000-07:00

One of the things that fascinates me about humanity is our proclivity to want what other people have or better yet, percieve them to have. I am struck by Seinfeld for that reason. People loved that show, but why did we? I mean it was four people basically hanging out in an apartment yet they made it seem like so much fun. How many shows could have an episode where the whole thing takes place in a restauraunt waiting for a table? My life isn't "that much fun." In fact, sometimes I feel myself going crazy as I look at the four walls staring me in the face. What is so fascinating with entertainment and the love affair with it, is that we sit and live vicariously through fabricated, cliched characters thinking "oh if I only had their life". What are we to make of the fact that we have cable television shows and magazines dedicated only to the latest gossip of such and such a star? We watch and read and get fascinated, intrigued and think "oh if I only had their life". We don't live our lives, so often, we live them through the stars, and the celebrities, the athletes. We know more about Demi and Ashton than we do about our neighbors who live next door. And that is so darn weird and pathetic. We know more about our favorite team than we know about the neighborhood we live in. We live in a world with fractured relationships, broken promises, and heartache. The pain of "reality" causes us to retreat into the sanctuary of entertainment, shopping, sports. We find our relationships in a fabricated world and that is why our real relationships are a mess. Life without love is death. That is why I love barbeques and friends and friends who play music in small neighborhood bars. That is why I love to talk over coffee, good conversation, including the discussion of the story of Jesus, our Lord. We were made for community and we were made for direct interaction and involvement in the lives of others. Life is nothing if it is not the giving of self to the other. That is why I love the imagery that the writer of the Hebrews portrays for the Church (Heb 10). I picture when I read that passage a community nestled together, huddled side by side moving forward toward the new heavens and the new earth. They need each other, they are tied to each other. Yet, so often, especially in contemporary suburban America, our Church life is anything but. We see each other once a week and say "Praise the Lord" and that's about it. That's one reason why I find Luke's Gospel so interesting, he writes of Jesus sharing meals with people. They sit down and break bread and smile and talk and laugh and interact. In fact, there is dispersion cast upon Jesus for eating these meals with tawdry characters, "how dare He break bread with these types of people." "How dare He be present at these gatherings and get close to these people." Isn't it an utter tragedy that that same Luke tells us that the post-resurrected Jesus is recognized, not in the reading of the Scripure but in the breaking of the bread (to be sure after the breaking of the bread the reading of the Scripture made sense to them, "did not our hearts burn"). I thank God for the community of the saints. I thank God for food and drink, and smiles, laughs, and even tears. I thank God that I have been given the privilege to participate in the life of Christ and taken up into the very life of the Blessed Trinity. That is the life I want, one that shares in the very life of God as manifested in the Man, Jesus of Nazareth, in the power of the Holy Spirit. That is Living!!!

The Road To Emmaus As Formative For The Divine Liturgy

2005-09-16T12:10:00.000-07:00

As has been noted, the Gospels are not only records of history. To be sure, they are history but they are also more than history. That is, the Gospels are also formative writings. They are records of the historical events concerning the life of our Lord Jesus Christ. They are also given in order that we who believe in the Gospel of our Lord would be formed and shaped by the Gospel story. The true home for the Gospels are not in the religious departments of the academy but the Church. The story in Luke's Gospel, known as the Road to Emmaus, is one such example of the formative role that the Gospels play in the shaping of the Church. In this case, the formation and the shaping has to do with the pattern of the Divine Liturgy. Let's take a look at the text:

Now that very day two of them were going to a village seven miles from Jerusalem called Emmaus, and they were conversing about all the things that had occurred. And it happened that while they were conversing and debating, Jesus himself drew near and walked with them, but their eyes were prevented from recognizing him. He asked them, "What are you discussing as you walk along?" They stopped, looking downcast. One of them, named Cleopas, said to him in reply, "Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know of the things that have taken place there in these days?" And he replied to them, "What sort of things?" They said to him, "The things that happened to Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, how our chief priests and rulers both handed him over to a sentence of death and crucified him. But we were hoping that he would be the one to redeem Israel; and besides all this, it is now the third day since this took place. Some women from our group, however, have astounded us: they were at the tomb early in the morning and did not find his body; they came back and reported that they had indeed seen a vision of angels who announced that he was alive. Then some of those with us went to the tomb and found things just as the women had described, but him they did not see." And he said to them, "Oh, how foolish you are! How slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spoke! Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them what referred to him in all the scriptures. As they approached the village to which they were going, he gave the impression that he was going on farther. But they urged him, "Stay with us, for it is nearly evening and the day is almost over." So he went in to stay with them. And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. Then they said to each other, "Were not our hearts burning (within us) while he spoke to us on the way and opened the scriptures to us?" So they set out at once and returned to Jerusalem where they found gathered together the eleven and those with them who were saying, "The Lord has truly been raised and has appeared to Simon!" Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread. (Luke 24:13-35 emphasis added).

The first thing to note in this story is that the two disciples were prevented from recognizing Jesus (vs.16). This failure has nothing do with them, according to the story. They are prevented. This prevention of recognizing our Lord becomes very important at the end of the story. As these two disciples walk along talking about the events that have transpired our Lord draws near to them. He asked them what they were discussing. Cleopas responds with incredulity, "Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know of the things that have taken place there in these days?" Jesus then responds with another question, "what sort of things?" In what becomes a comical scene, the two start explaining the events concerning our Lord to our Lord. Talk about ironic! Our Lord then rebuked them, which probably came across a bit harsh to them, considering they still had no idea who it was they were talking with. Our Lord then spoke to them the Scriptures interpreting them concerning the things pertaining to Himself and His mission as Messiah of Israel. Though the text gives us no hint what they were thinking of His Scriptural interpretation at the time, they were probably impressed with His command of the Scriptural story. They, upon seeing that our Lord was going to go on ahead, ask Him to stay with them and have a meal. Then, as they were about to eat, our Lord, a guest in someone else's home, does something rather odd; He assumes the role of host. He took the bread, He gave the blessing, He broke the bread, and gave the bread out. Remember that the two disciples still have no idea that it is our Lord who is with them. Think about that for a second. Could you imagine someone invited to your home for dinner taking it upon himself to say the blessing? Typically, the head of the house does that and if he doesn't he decides who will. The text suggests that the Lord took the initiative in saying the blessing and distributing the bread. The text then informs us that when our Lord gave out the bread the eyes of the two were opened and they recognized but, and this is profound, our Lord vanished from their sight. They were with Him the whole time and did not recognize Him. The moment He vanishes from their sight, they recognize Him. The disciples, in reflecting on the encounter, inform us that they recognized Him in the breaking of the bread.
The pattern of the Divine Liturgy follows this pattern of the Road to Emmaus. First, the Church gathers to hear God's Word, partaking of the Liturgy of the Word. Then, the Liturgy of the Word gives way to the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The reading, hearing, and preaching of the Word is essential to the Liturgy, as is the Liturgy of the Eucharist. They belong and are joined together. The one pointing us to Christ and the other truly giving us Christ. The Scriptures teach and lead us to Christ and the Eucharist gives us our Lord, present substantively, body, blood, soul, and divinity.

Response To Tragedy

2005-09-16T07:19:00.000-07:00

The following is from my friend Paul, who wrote this in response to Hurricane Katrina. In a very real way it applies to many things we suffer in our lives.

Save your people, Lord, and bless your inheritance;
Govern and uphold them, now and always.
Day by day we bless you;
We praise your name for ever.
Lord, keep us from all sin today;
Have mercy on us, Lord, have mercy.
Lord, show us your love and mercy;
For we put our trust in you.
In you, Lord, is our hope;
And we shall never hope in vain.

What shall we say? What can we say about the recent devastation in New Orleans, Biloxi, Gulport, Mobile, Hattisburg and various other cities?
A proper response in the midst of these times is often just one of pause and reticence, sometimes in awe and wonder, while at other times in dissonance and horror. Certain events defy simple objectification and in times of crises and tragedy we ought not be surprised to find that our thoughts and words often fail us.
Wherever any death occurs there exists not only loss but a great mystery. Mysteries touch upon something deep within us and do not afford us the luxury to view them as mere spectators. They impinge upon our very existence and repel any effort to securely get our thoughts around them. We do not grasp hold of mysteries they lay hold of us.
Now in the Christian tradition tragedy and death have always been cast on a much larger stage than just the suffering and loss they bring. The early chapters of Genesis provides us with some perspective. It tells us of how the God of Israel, the creator of the cosmos, brought this world and its inhabitants into existence. The details go on to narrate how the good land God created to house humanity suffered catastrophic consequences from the entrance and infection of sin and evil. The result was an exile from God’s beatific presence, a withdrawal of the world‘s hospitality towards us, and the entrance of death and disaster.
As you know, the storyline continues as humanity was not left to itself in its crisis. Out of this situation, Yahweh, takes several steps to bring resolution to the world’s dilemma so as to bring about an ‘age to come’ in which the frailties and infidelities of this ‘present age’ pass away. The details are formulated around the history of Israel including a people called to be a unique possession of God, giving them a law, enabling them to conquer of a land, providing for a monarchy, and guiding through prophets. Included in the story-line that holds their history together is the theme of a time of great suffering. Israel and the world must pass through a dark valley in order to see the light of a new life dawn.
Ultimately God walks that path through the sending of Jesus empowered by the Spirit. He surrendered his own prerogatives and interests for our sake on a cross and by doing so he broke the curse of death by letting it do its worst to him. The via dolorosa ironically was turned into a triumphal procession, a celebration of his victory over death instead of the other way around.
The full scope of that redemption has yet to be entirely realized and so the glories of the age to come is still struggling in tension with the tragedies of the present age. And so there is suffering still to be undergone, not in addition to Christ‘s suffering but as an ongoing extension of it. The Apostle Paul builds on this when he states, "I celebrate in my sufferings for you, and am completing in my physical body — on behalf of his body, the church — whatever still remains of the sufferings of Christ" (Col 1.24).
So we also hold on loosely to our personal interests and offer our lives unqualifiedly for the sake of others. As such, we not only symbolically manifest God’s redemptive purposes for the world but also contribute to the enactment of it.
God’s people are people of a drama and the Christian drama is not one in which we only recount historical events. Instead, we are thrown onto the stage as participants as it unfolds. We have a vocation to bear the suffering of others. In so doing a great mystery takes place: our suffering on behalf of others become Christ’s suffering too and as such they form the birth pangs of a new humanity for a new world. So whatever we find ourselves saying about these recent tragedies let it be our charity and self-abandonment for the sake of others be that which is heard.

Question?

2005-09-16T07:09:00.000-07:00

I have gotten a couple of blogger comments that are obviously not genuine. I don't know how to delete those comments.

The Paschal Mystery

2005-09-13T09:17:00.000-07:00

St. Paul writes to us the following words in his letter to the Romans,
"Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life. For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection." (Rom 6:3-5).

In just these couple of sentences, the Apostle has just stated a mouthful. As a friend of mine has recently pointed out, the Apostle Paul states that the baptismal action places us into Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and Easter Sunday, in short, baptism places us into the Paschal Mystery of our Lord. Notice how Paul mentions that baptism unites us into the death of Christ. Baptism is an execution. Baptism is a death sentence. Baptism places us into the Good Friday Passion of our Lord. The baptized person dies in baptism. That's not all that Baptism is. It is also a burial. At Baptism a funeral takes place. Notice how Paul says that we were buried with Christ through baptism. Baptism places us into the haunting silence of Holy Saturday. Baptism unites us with Christ as he laid in the tomb in between his death and resurrection. And Baptism is resurrection. Notice how Paul says that baptism unites us to the resurrection of our Lord. Baptism brings new life. But before it brings new life, it brings with it a death and a burial. Baptism unites us to and makes present to us the past events concerning our Lord of Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and Easter Sunday. Baptism, much like the Eucharist, is a making present the past redemptive acts of God that took place in the life of the Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord. In Baptism, Christ's death becomes our death. In Baptism, Christ's burial becomes our burial. In baptism, Christ's resurrection becomes our resurrection.

Time Away

2005-09-12T14:02:00.000-07:00

The past few days of my life have been hectic. Without going into any details I ask for your prayers. The following is something I wrote a couple of years ago and seems so appropiate now (with some modifications).

Hello but what's the point, when goodbye is just around the bend. Faceless faces that slip into some endless oblivion. One thing about life that I find tough to swallow is the sad fact that many of the people you meet and get to know often don't wind up staying in your life. The reasons for this are many but it is just the same, the fact that people move in and out of our lives. There is something that really stings about this reality. Who among us has not felt this? Who among us has not wondered at various times about all the people they have met along the path of life? It is so easy, against the backdrop of this truth, to give up on life and love. It is the easy and cowardly way to escape by cutting ourselves off. Sure it makes good common sense to withdraw because nobody wants to get hurt, but, if one allows these fears to dominate them, then, they close themselves off to love and life without love is not life but death. If we allow ourselves to shut down in the face of love because of fear and the risk of pain, then we have become less than what we were made to be. We were made to love and to be loved and if there is not love then there is not life as it was intended. The Supreme manifestation of this is God's own love for us and in turn our own love for God. When I get in these moments of reflection, I am reminded and encouraged by the Scripture, especially how for the Apostle Paul time and space are no longer obstacles, but instead they have collapsed, in some mysterious manner, for those who are "In Christ." There is something comforting, NO greatly comforting, about the fact that those who are in Christ share the same Spirit and are joined and united to Christ by the Spirit to the glory of the Father and by virture of this union with Christ participate in his very life living out in the body the life of Christ offered in the Spirit as a living sacrifice to the glory of the Father. It is this truth of life as a living sacrifice offered in Christ to the Father through the Spirit that frees us to give our lives away in love.

The Pauline Problem of Protestantism

2005-09-04T12:40:00.000-07:00

One of the main, if not the main, principles of Protestantism is the notion that, while there are some essential doctrines, there are allowable doctrinal differences between Christians. These differences are termed "non-essential" doctrine. As to who gets to decide what is essential and non-essential and to what is essential and non-essential doctrine invites many questions. These types of questions often do not get answered in any substantive or satisfying manner. That being said, the Apostle Paul says that he made it his business to teach the same things in every church (1st Cor 4:17). If Paul sought to teach the same things in every church, then it appears that Paul did not know of any such notion of "essential" and "non-essential" doctrine. All teaching, at least a plain reading of Paul suggests, is important and it is equally important that this teaching be held by every church. It seems almost silly to remind ourselves of the fact that it was very difficult to do this, especially in Paul's day. This effort was extremely laborious to say the least. There was no "easy" way to communicate, considering travel was difficult and often dangerous, writing material was in short supply, there were no fax machines or telephones, no internet, no printing presses or copy machines. At the risk of being pedantic it is important that we keep these realities before us, for it is so easy for us to read the Scriptures as though they dropped out of heaven and right into our hands. If there was ever a time that the Church could focus her attention on a couple of essential doctrines this was it. However, that is not what we find. Instead we meet an Apostle who labors strenuously to teach the same things in every church. We meet one who believes it is essential that every church not only embrace the same teaching but also teach the same thing. We meet an Apostle who, quite frankly, is not like us, one who has not been taught the saying "to each his own." This Apostle would not recognize denominationalism. This is not only something that a Catholic would affirm. RTS professor John Frame (whom I had the privilege of sitting in a classroom under), according to Peter Leithart, also believes that denominationalism is foreign to Scripture. In a short-lived dialogue I had with a Presbyterian minister from the OPC, he conceded that fact as well. So, my question is, if it is true that denominationalism is foreign to Scripture, what are you going to do about it? It does one no good to admit such a fact and then maintain the status quo. You cannot do that and then claim to be faithful to Scripture. If denominations and doctrinal differences among the Church are not Scriptural and have no basis in Scripture, then by definition they cannot be faithful to Scripture, no matter how good intentioned. As Father Neuhaus said to me this past January, "Did Jesus Christ intend one visible church with a codified teaching and practice? If the answer is "yes" and I believe he did, then by definition all Protestant denominations cannot be that church because not one of them claims to be that church." In some of my "bad" moments, I yearn to see a Catholic/Protestant debate with a variety of participants on each side. On the one side there would be the Catholic apologists, those faithful to the teaching and practice of the Church. On the other side there would be a conservative Reformed (e.g. PCA, URC etc...), a conservative Lutheran (e.g. LCMS), and a Particular Baptist (e.g. someone from the Founders Movement of the SBC). The Protesant team would go first and state their points. Then the Catholic side. Just prior to making their case, the Catholic side would step aside from the podium, just like a pitcher in baseball stepping off the pitching rubber to make an appeal to a base, and say, "Now in order for this debate to be fair our side needs to know who and what we are debating against. Before we continue this debate, it is best that the three of you have a debate amongst yourselves. Now Mr. Lutheran you believe baptism regenerates, is that correct? Now Mr. Baptist you think that is a pernicious teaching, what do you say to that? Now Mr. Presbyterian you believe Jesus died only for a select number, namely the elect, so Mr. Lutheran what do you say to your debate partner?" Of course, many other doctrinal differences could be mentioned but you get the point. You see, the best that Protestantism can do is play the gadfly. Protestantism, much like someone who is always pointing out the negative but never offering a move forward, is only capable of setting forth a "negative" position. It can never get out of its own way and set forth a "positive" position. Protestantism has a very difficult time setting forth a theology of the Church. Questions like, what is the Church? What is ordination and where and who gets to decide ordination? are not usually touched. In my seminary education, at RTS Charlotte, we never discussed a theology of ordination. We never discussed the relationship between the structure of the Church and the members of the Church. We never discussed how, in the day and age of denominations, heresy is decided. People may think that I am engaging in hyperbole. I wish I was. The fact is, it is not uncommon in Protestantism for people to believe that church is optional. It is not uncommon to hear "I don't do church, I am into relationship," or, "I am not into Churchianity". It is not uncommon for people to gather in someone's living room on a Sunday, say 10-20 people, and do what is called "house church." The Church is viewed the way one views the menu at a diner or the list of options on a new car. Protestantism cannot make sense out of these words, "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings;. . . . that tradition derived from the Apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul; as also the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops." (St. Irenaeus Against Heresies as quoted by Stephen Ray in Upon This Rock pp 14-15). May God be pleased to open up the hearts of those who oppose the Church in many ways to see that this is His Church being built by our Lord Jesus Christ and led by the Holy Spirit and that many would find refuge and comfort in her bosom as a child does with his mother. Amen.

The Final Leg

2005-08-29T15:54:00.000-07:00

Luke 9:28-36:
"About eight days after he said this, he took Peter, John, and James and went up the mountain to pray. While he was praying his face changed in appearance and his clothing became dazzling white. And behold, two men were conversing with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his exodus that he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem. Peter and his companions had been overcome by sleep, but becoming fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. As they were about to part from him, Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it is good that we are here; let us make three tents, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." But he did not know what he was saying. While he was still speaking, a cloud came and cast a shadow over them, and they became frightened when they entered the cloud. Then from the cloud came a voice that said, "This is my chosen Son; listen to him." After the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. They fell silent and did not at that time tell anyone what they had seen."

The backdrop of the New Testament, and in particular the Gospels, is the story of the Exodus. The Exodus is the great act of liberation in Israel's history and it was what Israel was yearning for God to do again. What God did to the Egyptians was what, they hoped, God would do to the Romans. The prophet Isaiah, as has been noted by many, speaks of "another exodus" after the Babylonian exile. Israel would be "returned" to her land and set free. It is not an accident that when our Lord began his ministry he began by quoting the prophet Isaiah and he spoke of his mission as one that would proclaim liberty to the captives (Luke 4:18). What was the Exodus? It was, as we noted, the great act of liberation. What did Isaiah prophesy? That God would act to bring about another exodus, another act of liberation. This hope was what sustained Israel during her often dark and tragic history. What was Israel seeking at the time of our Lord? Liberation. And what was the Lord's mission, in his own words? To proclaim liberty. So what does all this have to do with the Transfiguration of our Lord as recorded in Luke 9? Everything! What is fascinating when you look at the text in Luke concerning the Transfiguration is the fact of Moses and Elijah appearing on the mount with Jesus and conversing with Him. This story, with the appearance of Moses and Elijah, is so deep and vivid. Why does Moses and Elijah appear and not, for example, Abraham and David? In Moses and Elijah you have the emodiment of Torah and the Prophets. You have in their appearance the symbolic story world of Israel. Peter, in seeing this event, says something that he essentially gets rebuked for: let's build three tents for the each of you. Peter missed the point of the appearance of Moses and Elijah, but in fairness to Peter he doesn't have any idea what was discussed between the three of them. As Peter is finishing his comments, a cloud engulfs them and a voice is heard and fear is all around. It is the voice of God the Father, "This is My Chosen Son" who else was God's Chosen Son? Israel (Hosea 11) and God's King (Ps 2). In the person of Jesus we meet both Israel and Israel's King. Jesus is the true Davidic King, the Messiah. And he is the representative of Israel. It's as if the Father is saying "this man in your presence, Peter, is My Israel, this Man, Peter, is My King." For what purpose was Israel chosen? To overturn the sin and failure of Adam. Israel understood her existence as being the people God chose to be the answer to the problem of Adam. Israel was God's chosen people to redeem the world. As our Lord himself said, "salvation is from the Jews." Think of Ezekiel 36 where despite the fact that Israel had shamed the Name of the Lord, the prophet declares that God would still work through Israel for the sake of His Name. Why? Because God made a promise to Israel that he would use Israel to redeem the world. Being chosen by God would not and did not involve a life of ease, far from it, it was a heavy calling. And how would God bring this about for Israel? He would do it through the Messiah. The vocation of choseness is a difficult burden and it is dangerous and this vocation ultimately was going to fall upon the shoulders of Jesus. God is essentially telling Peter, "Peter, in this Jesus, your teacher, your friend, I have My Chosen One to overturn the sin and rebellion and curse and bondage of the world. Peter it is in Him that the world will be set to rights and Peter you better listen to Him." God appears to be informing Peter of what was discussed by Moses, Elijah, and Jesus. As readers we have an advantage over Peter, James, and John. Luke tells us that they were discussing Jesus' Exodus that he was going to accomplish at Jerusalem. Did you catch that? Moses, Elijah, and our Lord were discussing the Exodus that our Lord would accomplish at Jerusalem. Jesus is going to accomplish an exodus. Jesus is going to deliver and liberate Israel. The promise of God to do another exodus for his people was going to take place and it was going to take place through God's chosen Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Peter, in making his comment, only saw the tail end of the encounter and was unable to make sense of what he had witnessed but he wanted to do what he thought best by wanting to build three tents. This offer by Peter suggests that he failed to understand the uniqueness of Jesus. He certainly understood Jesus as a great figure in Israel, definitely, at least, on par with Moses and Elijah. He failed to see that in essence Moses and Elijah, if you indulge the analogy, are handing off the baton of Israel's history to Jesus. Think of a relay race. Israel has been running the first 2/3 of the race and Moses and Elijah, symbolizing Israel, hand off the baton to Jesus to finish off the race. The race is now in Jesus' hands to accomplish what Israel was unable to accomplish and finish. Jesus must finish it off (think of Romans 10 as Jesus being the end or telos of the law).Therefore, when Peter, in a very well meaning way says that it is good for them to have witnessed what they witnessed and that they will build three tents for them, the Father's voice enters the scene to tell Peter that would be to miss the whole point of the conversation of Moses, Elijah and Jesus. The point of that encounter is to reveal that Jesus is Unique. God essentially tells Peter that it is to Jesus that the story of Israel will reach its climax, its goal, its purpose and its fulfillment. He will accomplish this New Exodus and finish the course and overturn the plight of the world. To build three tents would be like going backwards and not forwards. It would be like starting the race all over again. No, says the Father, Jesus is my chosen Son, listen to him. If you look ahead in Luke 9 you will notice what Luke tells us about what Jesus is getting ready to do; he writes of Jesus beginning His march toward Jerusalem (vs 51). The Exodus that Jesus is about to accomplish at Jerusalem is coming. It's as if Luke is saying, "I want you to get this. This march to Jerusalem is it, it is coming near. Jesus' march toward Jerusalem is the beginning of the end of the race, it is drawing near, Israel's journey is heading towards its final leg and her Messiah and our Lord is heading down the final turn to enter Jerusalem so that he might bring about the New Exodus."

The Doctrinal Seed of Scripture

2005-08-28T07:56:00.000-07:00

Many Protestants object to the Church's teaching on a variety of matters, not least of which the Blessed Virgin Mary, by saying, "Where do you find that in the Bible?" As has been noted by many others, even some Protestants, doctrine and practice usually are not defined because there exists that "smoking gun verse." The practice of infant baptism, as I have noted to a Presbyterian minister in a dialogue we had, is one such example. There is no verse that reads, "baptize your infants" but, that does not mean that the practice of infant baptism is unbiblical. Instead, doctrine is borne out of the Church's life, her reflection and her experience. The doctrine of the Trinity, for example, was not so much a doctrine that was "proved" as it was experienced within the life of the Church. To be sure, the experience of the Trinity conformed to the teaching on the Trinity, but the teaching of the Trinity was also informed by the experience of the Church. The following quote from the well-known and respected Church historian, Jaroslav Pelikan, demonstrates just how doctrine and practice developed and are being developed in the life of the Church. In this quote, Pelikan makes the point, and I agree with him, that when you, especially as a Protestant, embrace the homoousion of Nicaea, how and where do you draw the line on doctrinal development. Once you accept Nicaea, or for that matter, the canon of the New Testament, as my former denomination the Presbyterian Church in America does, have you not conceded too much to the authority of the Church? Many conservative Evangelicals are frustrated by the liberals and their propensity to deny "orthodox" doctrine, thus, in the opinion of many Evangelicals the liberals are heretics (that is why the PCA was formed in 1973). Yet, it must be stressed, that the liberals are only being consistent. You see, once you have deconstructed Ecclesiastical authority, it is darn near impossible to call something or charge someone with heresy. "Heresy according to who?" is the liberal response to the Evangelical. Let's now read Pelikan's quote:

[T]he New Testament, certainly no less than the Old, has continually taken on new meanings in the course of the history of its interpretation, meanings that have sometimes been the consequence of what it did not say as much as of what it did. For to both Testaments we may apply the sage comment of a scholar of the Hebrew Bible who has illumined some special chapters in the history of its interpretation. “Just as a pearl results from a stimulus in the shell of a mollusk,” Louis Ginzberg observed, “so also a legend may arise from an irritant in the scripture.” Whether as stimulus or irritant or inspiration, Scripture has dominated attention to the Virgin Mary though it has not always controlled it. . . . For biblical scholarship, the fact that “in the course of centuries Mariology has had an enormous development” may be something of a problem. But for historical scholarship, that development is also an enormous resource. To be sure, Mariology was not the only doctrine to have undergone such a development; in fact, it would be impossible to identify a doctrine that has not done so. The most decisive instance of the development of doctrine, and the one by which the fundamental issues of what could by now be called “the doctrine of development” have been defined, is the dogma of the Trinity. For the doctrine of the Trinity was not as such a teaching of the New Testament, but it emerged from the life and worship, the reflection and controversy, of the church as, in the judgment of Christian orthodoxy, the only way the church could be faithful to the teaching of the New Testament. It did so after centuries of study and speculation, during which many solutions to the dilemma of the Three and the One had surfaced, each with some passage or theme of Scripture to commend it. The final normative formulation of the dogma of the Trinity by the first ecumenical council of the church, held at Nicaea in 325, took as its basic outline the biblical outline of the so-called great commission of Christ to the disciples just before his ascension. . . But into the framework of that New Testament formula the Nicene Creed had packed many other biblical motifs, as well as the portentous and non-biblical technical term for which it became known. . . . “one in being with the Father [homoousios toi patri].” With characteristic acuity, therefore, John Courtney Murray once formulated the implications of this for the ecumenical situation: “I consider that the parting of the ways between the two Christian communities takes place on the issue of the development of doctrine. . . . I do not think that the first ecumenical question is, what think ye of the Church? Or even, what think ye of Christ? The dialogue would rise out of the current confusion if the first question raised were, what think ye of the Nicene homoousion?” If the Protestant churches acknowledged the validity of the development of doctrine when it moved from the great commission of the Gospel of Matthew to produce the Nicene Creed, as all of the mainline Protestant churches did and do, on what grounds could they reject development as it had moved from other lapidary passages of the Bible to lead to other doctrines?. . . . For having thus developed out of Scripture, the trinitarian perspective had in turn become a way- or, rather, the way- of interpreting Scripture. As it was systematized at least for the West chiefly by Augustine, this method of biblical exegesis was cast in the form of a “canonical rule [canonica regula].” The several passages of the Bible that appeared directly to substantiate the dogma of the Trinity, such as above all the baptismal formula the close of the Gospel according to Matthew and the prologue about the divinity of the Logos at the opening of the Gospel according to John, mutually reinforced each other to form the biblical proof for church doctrine. Conversely, however, any passage that, taken as they stood, appeared to contradict church teaching were subject to the “canonical rule” and required careful handling. When several chapters after the solemn prologue, “And the Word was God,” the Gospel of John had Jesus say of himself, “My Father is greater than I,” Augustine had to bring his heaviest weapons into action. If the Protestant Reformers and their descendants were willing to hold still for such a manipulation of the New Testament passages in the interest of upholding a doctrinal development that had come only in later centuries- and they were- what stood in the way of such manipulation when the passage in question was “This is my body” or “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church?”

The Church Mirrors Mary

2005-08-21T17:22:00.000-07:00

Narrative Theology is the field of theology in which theology is done by way of story. That is to say that the narrative (story) is not merely a means to an end, namely, theology, but that the narrative is the theology and the theology is the narrative. The Gospel writers, for example, are not just mere recorders of history. The history they record is not incidental to the theological task but is itself theology. In Luke's Gospel we learn a lot about Mary from the narrative history and that narrative history is formative for a theological understanding of Mary and the Church. Luke records for us:

"In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary. And coming to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." But Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?" And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. And behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren; for nothing will be impossible for God." Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word." Then the angel departed from her. During those days Mary set out and traveled to the hill country in haste to a town of Judah, where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled."

In this story we learn many things about Mary. The first thing we learn is that she is the one who is full of grace. We then learn from the story that the Holy Spirit will overshadow Mary. This is the only time in Scripture where the Holy Spirit is described as overshadowing any individual. However, it is not the only time in Scripture that the Holy Spirit overshadows something. That something was nothingless than the Ark of the LORD (1st Kings 8; 2nd Chron 7). The Lord's presence overshadowed the Temple so much that the priests could not minister because the presence of the Lord was so great. The Ark housed the presence of the Lord and it was there that the Lord would manifest His presence (Exodus 25:21-22). What happens to the Ark happens to Mary, she is overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. Now why is she overshadowed by the Holy Spirit? For she is the Ark of the Lord and like the Ark of the Lord in the Old Testament, she will house the very presence of God, namely, she will house the very Son of God, the Word made flesh, in her womb. Unlike the Ark of the Lord in the Old Testament, which is the type of what was to come, Mary is the antitype, that is to say Mary is the reality that the Ark was pointing towards and now finds its fulfillment. Mary's womb will house the Son of God, the holy one. Luke then engages in theological artistry and tells us that like the Ark of old, Mary sets out for a journey toward Judah (2nd Samuel 6). And like the Ark of old that spent three months in the home of Obededom the Gittite, Mary spends three months in the home of Elizabeth. Here we see narrative theology at work. Storytellers do not need to punch their readers in the nose to make sure they get the point of the story and in this case Luke is no different. He does not need to say, "Now Mary is the Ark of the Covenant." Storytelling typically does not work that way. What Luke does is paint a streak here and paint a streak there and the dots are connected. Any Jewish person who is aware of the meta-narrative of the Old Testament would be able to piece together Luke's story about what happens to Mary. A Jewish person would more than likely not agree with what is Luke writing, but he would know that Luke is describing Mary like the Ark of the Lord. If Luke is describing Mary as the Ark, and I believe that he is, then, you can see how and why the Church teaches the Immaculate Conception and perpetual virginity of Mary. The Ark of the Lord was holy, pure, immaculate, and not to be touched by just anyone (the story of Uzzah makes this point 2nd Samuel 6). If this was true of the type, then how much more so is the antitype holy, pure, immaculate, and not to be touched. Why was the Ark these things? For, as we mentioned, the Ark housed the presence of God. Who does Mary house? The very Son of God, the Word made flesh, God in the her womb. We see the Church mirror Mary, in that, as Mary was the one in whom God chose to make His Son, Jesus Christ, manifest to Israel, so too the Church is God's chosen vessel in which He continues to make His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, manifest to the world.

This is not all that we learn about Mary from this story in Luke. We learn of her cousin Elizabeth's reaction to her coming; awe and unworthiness. Elizabeth says, "and how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" ( emphasis added). The emphasis, as noted, in her words is on Mary visiting her. Elizabeth knows that there is something special, very special about Mary; Mary houses Elizabeth's Lord! We also learn something else about Mary; when the baby in Elizabeth's womb, John the Baptist, hears Mary's voice he leaps for joy. What do we learn? Mary introduces her Son, our Lord Jesus, to John the Baptist. Here we see how the Church is to mirror Mary. Just as by her voice Mary introduced her Son, our Lord, to John, so too the Church through her voice introduces the Lord Jesus Christ to the nations.

The narrative in Luke goes on to tell us, after the birth of her Son and our Lord, that Mary kept these things and reflected on them in her heart (Luke 2:19;51). Just as Mary kept these things and treasured them in her heart and reflected on them, so too the Church mirrors Mary in keeping these things and treasuring them and reflecting on them in her heart. The Church keeps the memory of our Lord alive in the world in many ways and in the supreme way by making present His death on the cross through the Eucharistic Sacrifice, "Do This, In Memory of Me." The Church, like Mary, keeps, treasures, and reflects on the things of Christ that she might teach the nations, instructing them in the way of Christ and the path of salvation. Mary does not keep these things to herself, rather she shares them with the Church, and in this specific case with Luke, that they might be shared with the world. Mary does not reflect on these things for herself, rather she shares her reflections with the Church, so that in turn, the Church would reflect with others on the things of Christ. This keeping, treasuring, and reflecting of Mary is shared with the Church and this sharing is a wellspring of refreshing water that flows out from Mary to the Church, which guarantees the Church's motherhood. The Church is taught her motherhood by keeping, treasuring, and reflecting with Mary, and in exercising her Motherhood she continues to keep, and treasure and reflect so that she might nurture and feed her children on the things pertaining to Christ.

There is another story in the Gospels where we see the Church mirror Mary. John tells us of the wedding at Cana. In that story we learn of Mary making a request to her Son. We also learn of Mary telling the servants at the wedding to do whatever her Son tells them to do. The Church, like Mary, recedes into the background in order to introduce Christ. Just as Mary points the servants to her Son, "do whatever he tells you," so too the Church as Mother points us to the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, telling her children, "do whatever he tells you."

One can see how through the narrative of Scripture an understanding of Mary and her role in redemptive history can be demonstrated. One can see how through the narrative of Scripture an understanding of the Church as mirror of Mary can be formed. Many people are "afraid" of Mary and the Church because they worry that an emphasis on either obscures the Lord Jesus Christ. To those who are "afraid" need to be reminded that it does no good to pit Mary against her Son, as if they are in opposition, nor does it do any good to pit the Church against our Lord. Rather, Mary points us to Christ, and the Church points us to Christ. For where Mary is, there is her Son, and where the Church is, there is our Lord Jesus Christ. Thanks be to God the Father, for His marvelous love in uniting us to His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and giving to us the Holy Spirit that we might continue to be conformed day by day into the image of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Part 2 of Israel Must Die In Order to Be Resurrected

2005-08-20T07:11:00.000-07:00

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states this about the plight of Israel and her exile, "The forgetting of the Law and the infidelity to the covenant end in death: it is the Exile, apparently the failure of the promises, which is in fact the mysterious fidelity of the Savior God and the beginning of a promised restoration, but according to the Spirit. The People of God had to suffer this purification. In God's plan, the Exile already stands in the shadow of the Cross, and the Remnant of the poor that returns from the Exile is one of the most transparent prefigurations of the Church." (CCC 710 emphasis added). You can see the connection that the Catechism makes between death and exile and you can also see how the Church teaches that Israel had to suffer this exile, this death. The prophet Hosea records the people's hope of resurrection after their demise, "After two days He will revive us; on the third day He will raise us up, that we may live before Him" (6:2) There is much debate as to whether or not the people really meant what Hosea records them saying, but, regardless of their original motives, this passage became a paradigm in which Israel understood her hope for resurrection. The Apostle Paul borrows this passage in 1st Cor 15 in order to explain that Messiah was raised up on the Third Day according to the Scriptures. Their need for resurrection is predicated on the fact that Israel must suffer and die, as the text states, that Israel will need to revived (i.e. returned from exile because they are in exile) but on the third day they will be raised up (resurrected from exile, exodus language of return) that they may live before the LORD, that is, in the presence of YHWH. (Think back to the blessing imagery where the face of the LORD is shining upon Israel, and when the LORD's presence was upon Israel, Israel was not in exile but free, she was not dead but alive). One can see how this language in Hosea echoes in the life of our Lord Jesus Christ, especially when our Lord says, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." (emphasis added). Jesus' declaration would be understood by his hearers as a claim on the part of our Lord that he is the representative of Israel. What is done to him is done to Israel. And that is why his questioners are angry at Him. In fact, he states that an attack on him is greater than an attack on the Temple. For the Jews, an attack on the Temple was an attack on God and yet Jesus is essentially saying that that Temple must go, because he, himself, is the true Temple. And just as Israel must die before she is resurrected, so too, our Lord must die before he can be resurrected. Jesus the true Temple of God, the One who is the very presence of God, must go to destruction but unlike that Temple in Jerusalem which will lay in ruins, his Temple, which is his body, will be raised up in three days. Notice what Hosea 6:2 says will happen to Israel after she is raised up by God on the third day; she will then live before God. What has happened to our Lord after he was raised on the third day? Our Lord has gone before us in his ascension and lives before the face of God, standing in the very presence of God, in the true holy of holies, ever living to make intercession for us, presenting his sacrifice before God (Rev 5). One can see the intimate connection between Israel and our Lord. What has happened to Israel must also happen to our Lord. He too must die in order to be resurrected. However, what happens to our Lord happens to Israel. His death is Israel's death and his resurrection is Israel's resurrection. The events that took place in the life of our Lord took place according to the Scriptures (Luke 24:25-27). The Pharisees and Jesus both presented themselves to Israel as the answer to the problem of exile. But it was Jesus of Nazareth, our Lord, and not the Pharisees, who was God's answer to Israel's problem of exile, for Jesus of Nazareth was none other than the Word made flesh, the true Son of God, who was sent from the Father to be Israel's long awaited Messiah and the world's true Lord.

Israel Must Die In Order To Be Resurrected Part 1

2005-08-18T13:46:00.000-07:00

This will be a two-part post:

When the Scriptures speak of the word "death", they often communicate the idea of God's favorable presence being turned from you (think of the opposite of Numbers 6:24-26), in short, having God forsake you, turning his "face" away causing exile. The Scriptures do not speak of "death" in the way most people think of "death"; as ceasing to exist. Think of Adam and Eve in the Garden. God promised Adam and Eve that in the day they ate of the tree of knowledge and good evil they would die. However, Adam and Eve do not appear to "die" in the text, if you think of death as a ceasing to exist. They are still alive. But if death means to be cast away from God's presence causing exile then it appears that they most certainly "die." The text tells us, "the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life" (Gen. 3:23-24). They are cast out and exiled from the garden. The great redemption in Israel's history was the Exodus from Egypt. In fact, the Exodus from Egypt was the paradigm that Israel understood her future liberation from Pagan oppression. Think of how the prophet Ezekiel described Israel's state when God found her, "And as for your birth, on the day you were born your cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water to cleanse you, nor rubbed with salt, nor wrapped in swaddling cloths. No eye pitied you, to do any of these things to you out of compassion for you, but you were cast out on the open field, for you were abhorred, on the day that you were born. And when I passed by you and saw you wallowing in your blood, I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ I made you flourish like a plant of the field" (Ez. 16 4-7). In short, the prophet seems to be saying that Israel was dead (exile) but God made her alive! The prophets proclaim the death of Israel throughout their writings. Amos writes, "Hear this word that I take up over you in lamentation, O house of Israel 'Fallen, no more to rise,is the virgin Israel; forsaken on her land, with none to raise her up'” (5:1-2). God will go after the high places of Isaac and Israel's sanctuaries and He will come against the house of Jeroboam with the sword (7:9). Many other passages in Amos could be used as evidence to show that God will utterly destroy Israel and cast her into exile. Hosea seems to undo Israel's great salvation by saying that Israel shall RETURN to Egypt (8:13-14). Israel will be, according to Hosea, utterly destroyed by the Lord (13:7-9).

The prophetic writings are loaded with language of Israel going into exile. The LORD will turn against His own people, coming against them in judgment and abandoning them to their enemies. They will be cast out from the land and plunged into exile. Again, if being cast into exile means "death" because at its heart, death is to have the LORD turn his face from you, withdraw His favor from you, in short, God forsakes you, then surely Israel Must Die. Yet, death is not the final word in the prophetic writings. The regathering of Israel from her exile is always in view. Israel will not be forsaken by God forever. She will be restored and vindicated for who she really is, the chosen of God, the elect, indeed the son of God. Isaiah speaks of God coming to Israel and overturning her exile (death) and bringing her back to the land (life). "Comfort, comfort my people, says your God. Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that her warfare is ended,that her iniquity is pardoned, that she has received from the Lord's hand double for all her sins. A voice cries: “In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God." (Is 40:1-3). This voice is speaking of another Exodus that will take place. The language of the wilderness would conjure up the wilderness journey that Israel traveled through on her way to Canaan after she had been delivered by the LORD from her bondage and exile in Egypt. God will be with Israel coming to her to lead her back home, bringing her to life. A very clear passage about Israel being abandoned by God (exile) and being brought back by God (exodus) is in Isaiah 54, "For a brief moment I deserted you, but with great compassion I will gather you. In overflowing anger for a moment I hid my face from you, but with everlasting love I will have compassion on you,”says the Lord, your Redeemer" (54:7-8). The LORD admits that he turned from Israel. He admits that he hid his face from them. Again, think back to the heart of death; to be forsaken by God. When God turned his face from Israel, she could not help but die, to be cast into exile. However, this is not the whole story. God will come in great compassion and gather (exodus) Israel unto himself. He will restore Israel back unto himself and place his face upon them once again with an everlasting love.
Thus, there is the Israel story in Scripture. There is another story in Scripture; the Jesus story. These two stories in Scripture, the Israel story and the Jesus story, work together. The story of Jesus should be understood in light of the Israel story. The Israel story, as has been noted, is in desperate need for an ending. When those stories are read through the lens of the exile/exodus paradigm you cannot help but see how Jesus is treated by the New Testament writers as the answer to the Israel story. Thus, the story of Jesus, in their minds, is Good News to the Jew first and then the Greek. Why? Because Israel was the one in whom God would redeem the world. Israel was the chosen of God, if God did not act on her behalf there is NO GOOD NEWS for the world!!!!

Death and resurrection in the Scriptures are viewed through the lens of Israel's Exile and Exodus. That is why we must, in order to better understand our Lord and his Messianic Mission, read the New Testament and, in particular, the Gospels in light of Israel's story of Exile and Exodus. Israel saw herself, rightly, as the answer to Adam and the people that God had chosen to overturn the fracturedness of the world. Israel, however, is in a bit of a quandary; how can she be the answer to Adam and the people who overturn and restore the world to wholeness, if she, herself, is in exile? Enter the Pharisees. Who are the Pharisees and where do they come from? Why are they so important to the Gospel story, unlike the Essenes, or the Saducees? One answer may be that the Pharisees see themselves proactively as an answer to the Exile problem. The Saducees were an aristocratic lot. If any group in 1st century Israel had an advantage over the rank and file it was them. Now in fairness to the Saducees we know next to nothing about them but they don't play a great role in the story of Jesus and outside of a couple of examples, they don't appear to have many conflicts with Jesus. The Essenes, it appears, may well have been related to the Saducees but withdrew from the larger community because they saw the Temple and the sacrifices as polluted and invalid. They awaited liberation from the pagans but were quietist (oversimplification) in their approach. The Pharisees, on the other hand, were active in their desire to overturn the exile. They wanted God to act and restore the world to rights. They did not like Herod and they were not afraid to voice their feelings (Gedalyahu Alon "The Attitude of the Pharisees to Roman Rule and the House of Herod"). The Pharisees' answer to the Exile problem was to extend the purity laws into the whole of daily life in Israel. The Pharisees also traveled abroad because they wanted to extend their sphere of influence to include Jewish people in the Diaspora and also make inroads in the Gentile world (Lawrence Schiffman FromText to Tradition). So, you could imagine, their anger at Jesus considering that their approach to being Israel conflicted with Jesus' approach to being Israel. The Pharisees want God to end their exile and Jesus is coming along and messing it up, in their minds that is! Jesus and the Pharisees are each offering themselves as answers to the problem of Israel's exile.

My New Job

2005-08-17T13:17:00.000-07:00

I recently was blessed with a job. I will be working on lawns (chemical treatments etc. . .). It was hard finding one considering there just are not many jobs out there that are looking for an unemployed Pastor with an MDiv LOL. I am getting married (words do not do justice to how I feel about her and what a blessing she has and will be to me) in about 10 weeks so, this new job will, Lord willing, allow us to get settled and then at some point down the road see if there may be a teaching position (teach Scripture, Theology etc. . .) at a Catholic High School or something. I hope to be able to blog as much as I have been able to recently. Mostly I love to blog about something from Scripture and ponder the Scripture's theologial implications.

Today's Gospel

2005-08-14T16:54:00.000-07:00

"Then Jesus went from that place and withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman of that district came and called out, "Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter is tormented by a demon." But he did not say a word in answer to her. His disciples came and asked him, "Send her away, for she keeps calling out after us." He said in reply, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But the woman came and did him homage, saying, "Lord, help me." He said in reply, "It is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs." She said, "Please, Lord, for even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from the table of their masters." Then Jesus said to her in reply, "O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed from that hour."

This Gospel reading demonstrates Matthew's brilliance in telling the story of Jesus. One of the ways that the writers of the Gospels tell the story of Jesus is by placing stories side by side, usually a teaching by our Lord where He explains a certain truth followed by an encounter that proves what He just taught. This allows the reader to "get the point." The writers of the Gospels are creative and dynamic story tellers. They are subtle, witty, and artistic. A good story teller doesn't have to "explain" the point, the listener (in our case the reader) just "gets it." Think of a joke teller: if he has to "explain" the joke he hasn't told it very well. The Gospels are alot like that. Here in Matthew's Gospel we see an example of his subtlety and profoundness. If you look at the surrounding context of this story, in particular from the beginning of Chapter 15:1 up until 16 vs. 5, you will get a better understanding of this story concerning the Canaanite woman. At the beginning of Matthew 15, Matthew tells the story of Jesus and the Pharisees getting into an exchange about the nature of holiness and what it meant. Jesus then explains what it really means to be clean or unclean. The disciples report back to Jesus informing our Lord that the Pharisees were very offended at our Lord's teaching. Jesus was not fazed by this bit of information and He told the disciples that the Pharisees were blind. If you fast forward just a bit to Chapter 16:1 Matthew informed us of the Pharisees and the Saducees coming to test Jesus demanding that he "authenticate" himself to them by showing them a sign from heaven. Of course, as the reader, your jaw drops thinking, "Are you kidding me. Show a sign from heaven. Hello!!! What have you seen taking place?" The Pharisees and Saducees live out, unknowingly, what Jesus had said of them concerning their blindness. These two encounters form an inclusio in which we are able to see the profundity of today's Gospel reading. Sandwiched in the middle of these stories about holiness and blindness and arrogance is the story of a Canaanite woman. Yes, that's right, a Canaanite woman. A woman who is not clean, in fact, to the Jewish mind she would be the epitome of uncleaness. A woman who would be considered to be less than human, more like an animal. In fact, there is a sense in which Jesus played off this Jewish belief by speaking of not giving the children's bread to dogs (15:26). Now, it can be said that Jesus is playing off this depiction not so much because he believes this to be the case, but to make a point to the disciples who more than likely were aghast that he has started talking to her. They demanded earlier that he tell her to leave them alone. Now think about this within the context of the larger story. A Canaanite woman comes to Jesus and pleads for him to heal her daughter of a demon. She COMES to Jesus. She pleads with him to help her. He, at least in her mind, makes things difficult for her by first ignoring her by staying silent and then second telling her that he has come for the lost sheep of Israel. She is not detered but pleads "Lord help me." He tries again to make it difficult for her by saying it isnt right to give the children's bread to the dogs. As the reader we are thinking, "when is she going to give up and be on her way?" Yet, she is unwavering in her request. She says that even the dogs get the crumbs that fall. She IS not blind!!! She can see. She is not unholy but holy!!! Why? Because she sees Jesus for who he truly is: the One who has been sent by God into the world to heal and save and redeem. She is not arrogant. Neither does she try to trap Jesus by demanding a sign but rather with great angst she requests and pleads for Jesus to heal her daughter because she knows that he can with one simple word. And Jesus blesses her, this Canaanite woman, and commends her for her Great Faith. This woman would not be denied. She knew that in Jesus there was indeed love and mercy. There was indeed in our Lord, as Matthew told us earlier, meekness and lowliness of heart. She knew that in Jesus she had met the One who had come into the world to absorb onto himself the infirmities and failings of fallen humanity. She knew, she could see Jesus for who he truly was, the One sent to heal and save and fix what was broken. Yes, he was sent for the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but she knew that he had also come for others, for even the dogs get the crumbs from the Master's table. As you read this story within the larger context in Matthew's Gospel you can see the artistic and subtle ways that Matthew "teaches" us. Matthew has, no doubt, purposely weaved these stories together and we the reader or listener "get it." Like a good story teller or a good joke teller, he doesn't tell us, the reader, as the narrator how we should think per se, rather the story of the Canaanite woman hits us between the eyes allowing us to see the strangeness of the whole thing. A Canaanite woman, she can see, she is not blind, she is not arrogant, she is humble, she is not unclean, she is clean. Thanks be to God for the Glorious Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Strange Power of God

2005-08-13T09:29:00.000-07:00

The morning dawn gave way to overcast skies and as the day slowly progressed the skies became gloomier and gloomier. Just outside the city there is a darkness on the edge of town. Many different emotions fill the air. There is a buzz as people make last minute preparations for the feast that they will begin celebrating later in the day. Military units are poised all around as many people have visited the area doubling the number of inhabitants in the city. There is the potential for some trouble with all the people gathered in one area. Some residents may be plotting an uprising and the army has their eyes on the lookout for the chance that several revolutionaries may be zealous enough to fire the first strike. The scene shifts to a melancholy band of men. They are gathered in a home, finally out of harm's way, pondering the last 12 hours or so. They have that ‘day after' look on their faces, the feeling one gets when the adrenalin settles down and you begin to pick up the pieces, trying to sort out what is going on. They talk amongst themselves in hushed tones, the kind of talk one engages in when they are reflecting. They are wondering what is happening in the city with their friend who was arrested the night before. They wrestle with the strange events that they have witnessed, not only from the night before, but the last three years of their lives. They are trying their best to make sense of it all. They shake their heads and say, "But we heard His words...We heard Him say He was the One...We saw Him heal many it was amazing...He even calmed the seas..." A lonely voice in the room pipes in, "Yeah but what about last night...that was strange wasn't it? I mean He started talking about His body being broken...and then, of all things, His blood being poured...I don't know about you but it was getting a bit bizarre...Remember that time when He said for us to eat His flesh and drink His blood?" Another one of the group chimes in, "I should have listened to His relatives...remember when they came for Him because they thought He was out of His mind? It was then I should have said I am leaving Him...three years of my life for what? So my countrymen can mock me and the Romans kill me!!!" A voice from the back speaks up, "Yeah that might all be true...maybe we were wrong...maybe He isn't the One but we should not have abandoned Him. We made a vow and swore to stay with Him and we all fled...every last one of us."

The story shifts to another character...a mother...weeping as she sees her Son being bound and whipped...bloodied and beaten...His face is beyond recognition...she can hardly look but she can't look away...this is her Son. Thoughts rush in her mind like a tidal wave...thinking back to promises made to her concerning her Child. He will be a king and receive the throne of His father David and He shall be called the Son of the Most High. Maybe she thought she had gotten it all wrong. Her soul is aching as she drops to her knees from the pain...another thought overwhelms her...a sword will pierce through your own soul, she remembers. She thinks to herself, could this be what that person meant? Her thoughts do not console her...she is only able to sob as she watches her Son go to His death.

As I ponder about Jesus' path to and his eventual crucifixion and death cry, "My God My God why have You forsaken Me" I am struck by the hidden power of God. So often we (or at least I) run the risk of thinking that in order for God to be at work it must be something outwardly grande, glorious, and obvious, but the cross tells us that is not often the case.

Pope John Paul II wrote in reference to this cry of Jesus, "On Calvary it came natural to Jesus to make use of the psalmist's question to God when he felt completely worn out by suffering. But on Jesus' lips the "why" addressed to God was also more effective in expressing a pained bewilderment at that suffering which had no merely human explanation, but which the Father alone held the key. . . the question contained a theological significance in regards to the sacrifice whereby Christ, in full solidarity with sinful humanity, had to experience in himself abandonment by God. . . Jesus also established a new manner of solidarity with us who are so often moved to raise our eyes and words to heaven to express our complaint and even desperation. In hearing Jesus crying out "why," we learn indeed that those who suffer can utter this same cry, but with those same dispositions of filial trust and abandonment of which Jesus is teacher and model. There is no semblance of a reproach to the Father, but the expression of the experience of weakness, of solitude, of abandonment to himself, made by Jesus in our place. . . Jesus' human soul was reduced to a wasteland. He no longer felt the presence of the Father, but he underwent the tragic experience of the most complete desolation. . . If sin is seperation from God, Jesus had to experience in the crisis of his union with the Father a suffering proportionate to that seperation. On the other hand in quoting the beginning of Psalm 22, which he perhaps continued to recite mentally during the passion, Jesus did not forget the conclusion which becomes a hymn of liberation and an announcement of salvation granted to all by God. . . From this thought his soul took strength and joy in the knowledge that at the very height of the drama of the cross, the hour of victory was at hand" (Jesus Son and Savior Volume 2 Pauline Books and Media pp. 471-473).

The hidden power of God at work...the hidden power of God defeating the principalities and powers through the dirty, painful, and bloody death of a 1st century Jewish man named Jesus of Nazareth. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, for the glorious work of redemption. Amen.

The Hope of Life

2005-08-12T08:54:00.000-07:00

When the Sadducees come to Jesus and seek to trip him up with their question concering the nature of the resurrection, one can't help but notice, just how far removed they were from the Scriptural story of Israel. Now of course, it may seem a bit arrogant for a 21st century American to dare say that they were ignorant of the Scriptural story of Israel, considering that they would know their tradition much better than I would, but, it seems that they rejected much of the Scriptural story, accepting only the Torah. Why they did, who knows? Some suggest that because they tended to be an aristocratic group they liked the keeping of the status quo, because "freedom fighters" were more likely to believe in resurrection. Whatever their reason, the point is they denied belief in the resurrection. However, it seems strange that one who is Jewish would deny belief in the resurrection. Think of Israel's history, much of Israel history was a tragic history. She had been given great promises and she had been promised that she, of all the nations and the peoples of the earth, would be Yahweh's light in the world. Yet, at almost every twist and turn, she is nothing more than a flickering light at best and a burnt out light at worst. Her father Abraham was promised that he would indeed be the father of a great nation and that his descendants would be more numerous than the stars in the sky. If death is the end of the story, how does Abraham have descendants more numerous than the stars in the sky? If only the here and now matters, then what does it matter if you keep Torah or accept Torah?

There are many out there today who are telling us that we need to rethink a plot for Jesus. One such individual is Robert Funk (of Jesus Seminar fame), "The plot early Christians invented for a divine redeemer figure is as archaic as the mythology in which it is framed. A Jesus who drops down out of heaven, performs some magical act that frees human beings from the power of sin, rises from the dead, and returns to heaven is simply no longer credible. The notion that he will return at the end of time and sit in cosmic judgment is equally incredible. We must find a new plot for a more credible Jesus." In another place, he states, "The resurrection of Jesus did not involve the resuscitation of a corpse. Jesus did not rise from the dead, except perhaps in some metaphorical sense. The meaning of the resurrection is that a few of his followers—probably no more than two or three—finally came to understand what he was all about. When the significance of his words and deeds dawned on them, they knew of no other terms in which to express their amazement than to claim that they had seen him alive." And again he writes, "The expectation that Jesus will return and sit in cosmic judgment is part and parcel of the mythological worldview that is now defunct. Furthermore, it undergirds human lust for the punishment of enemies and evildoers and the corresponding hope for rewards for the pious and righteous. All apocalyptic elements should be expunged from the Christian agenda." Yet, this same man writes, "Jesus advocates and practices a trust ethic. The kingdom of God, for Jesus, is characterized by trust in the order of creation and the essential goodness of neighbor. Jesus urges his followers to celebrate life as though they had just discovered a cache of coins in a field or been invited to a state banquet. For Jesus, the kingdom does not require cultic rituals to mark the rites of passage from outsider to insider, from sinner to righteous, from child to adult, from client to broker. In the kingdom, forgiveness is reciprocal: individuals can have it only if they sponsor it."

How Funk can talk about forgiveness is mind boggling to me. The slightest mention of it seems disingenuous. I mean, did he not state that the idea of a cosmic judgement is a now defunct idea? If you want to read more of Funk's "counsel" you can check it out under his 21 theses for a radical reformation at westarinstitute.org.

Funk may think that we need a new plot line to make Jesus and the story of Israel more credible, but to Funk and those who follow him, may we say with the Psalmist, "To you, O Lord, I cry, and to the Lord I plead for mercy:What profit is there in my death if I go down to the pit? Will the dust praise you? Will it tell of your faithfulness? Hear, O Lord, and be merciful to me! O Lord, be my helper!” Indeed, though death may come and turn us to the dust, our God will bring us back from the dust and indeed resurrect us from the dead, for our Lord Jesus Christ has been raised. May we say, "He is Risen!!! He is Risen, Indeed!!!! Amen.

The Historical and Ecclesiastical Jesus

2005-08-11T15:16:00.000-07:00

Most of this post is from my blog when I was in seminary at RTS. What is interesting, for me, is that as a Protestant I felt an uncomfortable tension about my indebtedness to the Church as the historical witness to the life of Christ. In short, without the Church I would not know who Jesus is, and as a Protestant that fact made me ponder questions that I didn't really want the answers to. That being said, now having come back home to the Church established by our Lord, namely the Catholic Church with the Bishop of Rome as its head, the following post can be said without any sense of tension concerning our indebtedness to the Church. As one convert said, "The Catholic Church made an honest man out of me."

When scholars attempt to study the historical Jesus divorced from the ecclessiastical Jesus, the result is often unbelief. One of the reasons for this has to do with the fact that it is impossible to get at the historical Jesus apart from the ecclessiastical Jesus. The reason why it is impossible to get at the historical Jesus apart from the ecclesiastical Jesus has to do with the fact that the historical Jesus is only known because of the Church's confession about him. The historical Jesus was crucified, dead, buried, and rose from the dead. We know this because of the ecclessiastical witness to this historical event. The ecclessiastical witness must be trusted as a credible witness to the history of Jesus, in order to be able to study about him. The documents that record the history of Jesus, the Gospels, are written precisely because there is an ecclessia. Robert Jenson states it well, "For outside the church, no such entity as the Christian Bible has any reason to exist. It is not merely that exegesis of the Bible is likely to be mistaken in one way or another when done outside the church; interpretation of the Bible outside the church must be arbitrary, uncontrollable, and finally moot." The New Testament writings were written and then preserved by the Church to assist the Church in the keeping of her message, namely, that the God of Israel has raised his servant Jesus from the dead (Jenson pg.27 The Art of Reading Scripture). Jenson reminds us that much of academic exegesis has alienated itself from the Church. Richard Bauckham has pointed out that the Gospels were written to the ecclessia as a whole. Those scholars who attempt to do an end around the ecclessiastical Jesus to study the historical Jesus find themselves in nothing less than a quagmire of unbelief and cynicism. The difference between say a Tom Wright and a John Dominic Crossan or a Robert Funk is this: Wright humbly places his feet within the world of the Church, whereas, a Crossan and a Funk attempt to look at Jesus by going outside the Church and raising their heads above the Church. As Wright has said in a lecture, much of, "historical Jesus studies were undertaken originally to be a weapon against orthodox Christianity." This is where analogies like the Church as Mother really speak and shed light for us. Would it be improper to say that the faith I possess has been handed down to me by Mother Church, who has spoken to me as her son, and said, "he is risen, he is risen indeed!!!"

What In Fact Is Theology?

2005-08-10T14:49:00.000-07:00

The following is a quote from then Cardinal Ratzinger given on the occassion of his be awarded an honorary doctorate degree, as found in the Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church As Communion, pp. 31-36:

"But now the next question arises: What does this advantage, which was given in advance, look like–this answer that alone can get our thinking under way and that shows it the way? This authority is a word, we can say to start with. Given the subject we are dealing with, that is quite logical: the Word comes from understanding and is intended to lead to understanding. The advantage given to the seeking human spirit is the Word, which is quite reasonable. In the procedure of science, the idea comes before the word. It is translated into the word. But here, where our own thinking fails, down to us from the eternal reason is thrown the Word, in which is hidden a splinter of its splendor-as much as we can bear, as much as we need, as much as human speech can encompass. To perceive the meaning in this Word, to understand this Word-that is the ultimate basis of theology, something that can never be entirely absent from the path of faith, not even from that of the most humble believer.
The advantage, what is given in advance, is the Word thus, it is Scripture, we might say, and we might at once ask: Beside this essential authority of theology, can there be any other? The answer would seem to have to be No: this is the critical point in the dispute between Reformed and Catholic theology. (emphasis added). Nowadays, even the greater part of evangelical theologians recognize, in varying forms, that sola Scriptura, that is, the restriction of the Word to the book, cannot be maintained. On the basis of its inner structure, the Word always comprises a surplus beyond what could go into the book. (emphasis added). This relativizing of the scriptural principle, from which Catholic theology also has something to learn and on account of which both sides can make a new approach to each other, is in part the result of ecumenical dialogue but, to a greater degree, has been determined by the progress of historico-critical interpretation of the Bible, which has in any case learned thereby to recognize its own limits. Two things have above all become clear about the nature of the biblical word in the process of critical exegesis. First of all, that the word of the Bible, at the moment it was set down in writing, already had behind it a more or less long process of shaping by oral tradition and that it was not frozen at the moment it was written down, but entered into new processes of interpretation–"relectures"–that further develop its hidden potential. Thus, the extent of the Word's meaning cannot be reduced to the thoughts of a single author (emphasis added) in a specific historical moment; it is not the property of a single author at all; rather, it -lives in a history that is ever moving onward and, thus, has dimensions and depths of meaning in past and future that ultimately pass into the realm of the unforeseen. It is only at this point that we can begin to understand the nature of inspiration; we can see where God mysteriously enters into what is human and purely human authorship is transcended. Yet that also means that Scripture is not a meteorite fallen from the sky, so that it would, with the strict otherness of a stone that comes from the sky and not from the earth, stand in contrast to all human words. Certainly, Scripture carries God's thoughts within it: that makes it unique and constitutes it an "authority". Yet it is transmitted by a human history. It carries within it the life and thought of a historical society that we call the "People of God", because they are brought together, and held together, by the coming of the divine Word. There is a reciprocal relationship: This society is the essential condition for the origin and the growth of the biblical Word; and, conversely, this Word gives the society its identity and its continuity Thus, the analysis of the structure of the biblical Word has brought to light an interwoven relationship between Church and Bible, between the People of God and the Word of God, which we had actually always known, somehow, in a theoretical way but had never before had so vividly set before us. The second element that relativizes the scriptural principle follows from what we have just said. Luther was persuaded of the "perspicuitas" of Scripture-of its being unequivocal, a quality that rendered superfluous any official institution for determining its interpretation. (emphasis added). The idea of an unequivocal meaning is constitutive for the scriptural principle. For if the Bible is not, as a book, unequivocal in itself, then in itself alone, as a book, it cannot be what was given in advance, which guides us. It would then still be leaving us again to our own devices. Then, we should still be left alone again with our thinking, which is helpless in the face of what is essential in existence. Yet this fundamental postulate of Scripture's unambiguousness has had to be dropped, on account of both the structure of the Word and the concrete experiences of scriptural interpretation. It is untenable on the basis of the objective structure of the Word, on account of its own dynamic, which points beyond what is written. It is above all the most profound meaning of the Word that is grasped only when we move beyond what is merely written. (emphasis added). Yet the postulate is also untenable from its subjective side, that is to say, on the basis of the essential laws of the rationality of history. The history of exegesis is a history of contradictions; the daring constructions of many modern exegetes, right up to the materialistic interpretation of the Bible, show that the Word, if left alone as a book, is a helpless prey to manipulation through preexisting desires and opinions. (emphasis added). Scripture, the Word we have been given, with which theology concerns itself, does not, on the basis of its own nature, exist as a book alone (emphasis added). Its human author, the People of God, is alive and through all the ages has its own consistent identity. The home it has made for itself and that supports it is its own interpretation, which is inseparable from itself. Without this surviving and living agent, the Church, Scripture would not be contemporary with us; it could then no longer combine, as is its true nature, synchronic and diachronic existence, history and the present day, but would fall back into a past that cannot be recalled; it would become literature that one interpreted in the way one can interpret literature. And with that, theology itself would decline into literary history and the history of past times, on one hand, and into the philosophy of religion and religious studies in general, on the other. It is perhaps helpful to express this interrelationship in a more concrete way for the New Testament. Along the whole path of faith, from Abraham up to the completion of the biblical canon, a confession of faith was built up that was given its real center and shape by Christ himself. The original of existence of the Christian profession of faith, however, was the sacramental life of the Church. It is by this criterion that the canon was shaped, and that is why the Creed is the primary authority for the interpretation of the Bible. Yet the Creed is not a piece of literature : for a long time, people quite consciously avoided writing down the rule of faith that produced the Creed, just because it is the concrete life of the believing community. Thus, the authority of the Church that speaks out, the authority of the apostolic succession, is written into Scripture through the Creed and is indivisible from it. The teaching office of the apostles' successors does not represent a second authority alongside Scripture but is inwardly a part of it. (emphasis added). This viva vox is not there to restrict the authority of Scripture or to limit it or even replace it by the existence of another-on the contrary, it is its task to ensure that Scripture is not disposable, cannot be manipulated, to preserve its proper perspicuitas, its clear meaning from the conflict of hypotheses. Thus, there is a secret relationship of reciprocity. Scripture sets limits and a standard for the viva vox; the living voice guarantees that it cannot be manipulated. I can certainly understand the anxiety of Protestant theologians, and nowadays of many Catholic theologians, especially of exegetes, that the principle of a teaching office might impinge upon the freedom and the authority of the Bible and, thus, upon those of theology as a whole. There is a passage from the famous exchange of letters between Harnack and Peterson in 1928 that comes to mind. Peterson, the younger of the two, who was a seeker after truth, had pointed out in a letter to Harnack that he himself, in a scholarly article entitled "The Old Testament in the Pauline Letters and the Pauline Congregations", had for practical purposes expressed the Catholic teaching about Scripture, tradition, and the teaching office. To be precise, Harnack had explained that in the New Testament the "authority of the apostolic teaching is found side by side with ... the authority of 'Scripture', organizing it and setting limits to it", and that thus "biblicism received a healthy correction". In response to Peterson's pointing this out, Harnack replied to his younger colleague, with his usual nonchalance: "That the so-called 'formal principle' of early Protestantism is impossible from a critical point of view and that the Catholic principle is in contrast formally better is a truism; but materially the Catholic principle of tradition wreaks far more havoc in history." (emphasis added).

The Hopeful Expectation

2005-08-09T17:28:00.000-07:00

Sunday night, I attended a concert with my family. There was a deaf boy, about seven or so, in attendance with his family. I was struck by the joyful look on this child's face. I wondered how much, if at all, he was able to hear. What was neat, as he sat in his seat he was imitating the actions of the band, pretending to play the trumpet. One of the thoughts I had as I sat there watching him, was thankfulness to God for the gift of hearing. It also made me yearn for the coming of the day when that little boy shall hear the shouts of heaven and earth resounding in praise to God. One of the most fascinating and powerful truths of the Incarnation is that in Christ our infirmities have been taken up into the life of God. We not only share in Christ's sufferings but Christ shares in our sufferings. Christ's suffering not only becomes ours, but our suffering becomes His. Isaiah 53 informs us that the Messiah will bear our griefs, our sorrows, and our sins. Christ first takes our sufferings upon Himself and makes them His own, sharing them with us, then He allows us to take part in His sufferings and afflictions, thus, Paul can say that his suffering fills out the sufferings of Christ (Col 1). The God we worship is no God detached from our plight, but instead the God we worship has touched down into the depth of our condition and is remaking us new from the inside out. What a glorious hope we have for we hold that there will come a day when deafness, blindness, disease, and death will ultimately be done away with, for in Christ, through Christ, and with Christ God has truimphed over the forces of sin and death. Thanks be to God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit for this most glorious hope.

These Testify of Me

2005-08-06T15:47:00.000-07:00

The following encounter is a fascinating encounter between Jesus and His opponents. Many Protestants base their anti-traditional position off our Lord's attacks against the Pharisees. Ironically enough, the following passage reveals our Lord speaking about the Scriptures in such a manner that must be strange to their ears.

"I have testimony greater than John's. The works that the Father gave me to accomplish, these works that I perform testify on my behalf that the Father has sent me. Moreover, the Father who sent me has testified on my behalf. But you have never heard his voice nor seen his form, and you do not have his word remaining in you, because you do not believe in the one whom he has sent.
You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf. (emphasis added).But you do not want to come to me to have life. "I do not accept human praise; moreover, I know that you do not have the love of God in you. I came in the name of my Father, but you do not accept me; yet if another comes in his own name, you will accept him. How can you believe, when you accept praise from one another and do not seek the praise that comes from the only God? Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father: the one who will accuse you is Moses, in whom you have placed your hope. For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed me, because he wrote about me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" (Gospel of John 5:36-47)

Notice how our Lord in this passage says, "you search the Scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them." Our Lord's opponents failed to understand the purpose of the Scriptures, namely to point beyond themselves to the Messiah who was to come. It was as if the their heads were buried looking down while in their midst was the Word made flesh. It would be like ordering your meal in the restauraunt based on the delicious picture on the menu and when the meal came you refused it for the picture on the menu. The Scriptures, at least in this case, were not enough, in fact, the Scriptures in this case were being used wrongly and their purpose was misunderstood. The Scriptures were never given to bring life, rather they were given to point beyond themselves toward the Word made flesh, Jesus of Nazareth. Notice also how this passage comes just prior to our Lord's strong words in John 6. Notice also our Lord's words to them, "how will you believe my words?" What happened in John 6? Tragically and sadly many who had been following our Lord turned away from Him because they could not believe His words about His body being real flesh and His blood real drink. They could not embrace His call to eat His flesh and drink His blood, saying, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" They could not endure such a hard saying. They could not believe His words. When our Lord turns to the others He asks, "Do you also want to leave?" And then we learn, that despite the difficulty of believing such words, Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." We learn in these two stories that our the Scriptures are not an end in themselves, rather they point us to Jesus Christ. And we learn that we too must, depite their difficulty, believe His words and eat His flesh and drink His blood, for His flesh and His blood are are true food and true drink.

Dialogue with A Pastor

2005-08-04T12:50:00.000-07:00

I am currently engaged in a dialogue with a former ministerial colleague who is in a conservative presbyterian communion. The following is a letter I sent him, which is in response to a letter he sent me, which was sent in response to a letter I sent him. . . you get the point! I have taken his name off so as to protect his identity.

Dear Pastor,

I thank you for the willingness to engage in a dialogue on these very important matters. The nature of the Church and the rightful authority of the Church are very important matters, and because of this, it would be an arduous task to say the least to discuss them without a true and open discourse. I hope and pray that our dialogue will be fruitful.
In your response to my letter, you wrote, “I find your claim that there is no such thing as Protestantism, only protestantisms, silly.” I have to confess as to being somewhat bemused by that charge. I find the accusation interesting. What makes the claim silly? Is there such a thing as Protestantism? If there is, then where is the singular, codified, and authoritative Protestant Confession of Faith and Doctrine? Where is the single Protestant dogma and discipline to be found? There is none, therefore, there is no such thing or entity as Protestantism. There is no defining doctrinal and disciplinary statement of faith that speaks for Protestantism. Thus, properly speaking there is no such thing as Protestantism. If one seeks to find an entity as Protestantism they could never find it because it doesn’t exist. If you say it does exist, then I ask you, who speaks for it? Does the United Methodist, or the PCUSA, or the ECUSA, or ELCA, or OPC etc…? If my claim were not accurate and didn’t describe things as they are, then sure, call it silly. But, the claim is accurate, because there is no single, codified, and authoritative body known as Protestantism and since there is none, then, there is no one to speak for it and define it! Thus, the attempt to compare Catholicism with Protestantism is not possible in any meaningful manner. Who speaks for Protestantism in the comparison with Catholicism? That is why I made the claim and stand by the claim that there is no such thing as Protestantism but only Protestantisms. The claim is not silly. Rather, the claim speaks to the scandalous rupture between the Protestantisms. One example shall suffice to make the point; who represents and speaks authoritatively for Presbyterianism, let alone the whole of Protestantisms? Does the PCUSA General Assembly? Or the OPC or PCA, or RPCNA, or ARP? If one is OPC or PCA or RPCNA, or ARP the thought of the PCUSA speaking and representing faithful Presbyterianism is scandalous, but is it scandalous to the PCUSA? Of course not, which only begs the question, who represents and speaks authoritatively for Presbyterianism in the United States?
As to the ground rules for the discussion, I admit that I am not surprised but fascinated that you wrote, “But I propose this be done on the basis of Scripture alone—it is pointless to bring in theologians whom we could multiply ad infinitum. Understand though, I cannot support the use of the apocrypha.” I understand the desire to root our discussion in Scripture and certainly to root our interpretation in the Scriptural story, but, will not our interpretation of Scripture come from outside the Scripture, namely, from us, the interpreters? When you say that our discussion is to be kept to Scripture alone, you do not mean by that, that you and I will not interpret the Scripture. I suspect that when we attempt to interpret the Scripture we will engage in a variety of tasks such as, the type of literature, the author, the audience, the time frame/cultural context, the Old Testament story, and our own understandings and background. It is impossible to divorce ourselves from the hermeneutical endeavor. When you propose that this discussion be done on the basis of Scripture alone, in other words, the discussion is to be engaged in without reference to the Church Councils or Church Fathers, are we not denying those who have gone before us in the faith the right to interpretation yet affirming it for ourselves? Therefore, I ask, why would you and I deny the Church Councils and the Church Fathers the very right that we will claim for ourselves, namely, the right to interpret the Scripture?
Without the aid and guidance of the Church Councils, how will you and I know if we are interpreting the Scripture right? When you and I disagree on an interpretation, where will our court of appeals be found? Who will be the pillar and ground of the truth for us in our dialogue? If you say that the Scripture interprets the Scripture, that only begs the question, whose interpretation of Scripture? Certainly the argument that the clearer passages are to interpret the less clear passages sounds plausible on the surface. However, as you know from Church history, it was the so-called clear passages that the Arians appealed to in order to deny the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (e.g. Matt 24:36 used to deny that Our Lord cannot be God because He is not all-knowing; John 14:28 used to affirm that Jesus is less than God, therefore not equal to God; John 1:18 used to deny that to see Jesus is to see God; 1st Cor 15:28 to deny that the Son shares essential equality with the Father; 1st Cor 11:3 used to deny that Jesus shares equality with God; etc…).
It is interesting to note that the Arians engaged in the methodology of “Scripture Alone.” “If you produce from the divine scriptures something that we all share, we shall have to listen. But those words which are not found in the scriptures are under no circumstances accepted by us, especially since the Lord warns us, saying, In vain they worship me, teaching human commandments and precepts (Mt 15:9),”said Maximinus the Arian in a debate against St. Augustine. He also stated, “All divinely inspired scripture is useful for teaching (2 Tim 3:16). For that reason, not one least letter or one particle of a letter will pass away (Mt 5:18). The Lord said, Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away (Mt 24:35).” He said also, “Even if one produces from testimonies from the divine scriptures all day long, it will not be truly counted against one as wordiness. But if one uses some literary skill or cleverness of mind and makes up words which the holy scriptures do not contain, they are both idle and superfluous.” (Arianism and Other Heresies Roland Teske translator and John E. Rotelle editor, from Joseph Gallegos “What did the Church Fathers Teach?” in Not By Scripture Alone pg. 430-31). Of course, the words and teachings that he would not affirm nor agree to because they were not to be found in the Scripture were the words and the teachings concerning the “Trinity” and “homoousios” in reference to the Nicene Creed confessing that our Lord Jesus Christ is of one being with the Father. On the issue of using Scripture alone, apart from the Church Fathers and the Church Councils, for the defining and teaching of doctrine, one wonders how we know if we have the right interpretation of Scripture. Where does Scripture teach that Scripture is her own interpreter? Where does Scripture teach what is Scripture, that is to say, how do we know what is or isn’t Scripture? Are there not beliefs about Scripture that you hold that are not known in Scripture? Certainly when you and I say that Matthew, or Mark, or Luke, or John, are the writers of the four Gospels, we know that not from Scripture but from the tradition of the early Church. Some may say that authorship is not important, what’s important is that the documents themselves are Scripture. But, the fact of the matter is, authorship mattered greatly to the early Church and the authorship of the four Gospels is known in the tradition.
The Scripture bears witness to an authority outside of itself, specifically oral tradition (1st Cor 11:2; 1st Thess 2:13; 2nd Thess 2:15). The authority of the oral tradition was every bit as authoritative as the written tradition. What are we to make of John’s writing in 2 John 12, “Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink. Instead I hope to come to you and talk face to face, so that our joy may be complete,” and 3 John 13-14, “I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink. I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face,”? That John saw oral teaching every bit as authoritative as written teaching is evident by his desire to talk to them face to face and not with pen and ink. Do we or do we not have access to this oral tradition that existed side by side with the written tradition? One may say that we don’t have access to it, and another may say that even if we did have access to the oral tradition we would not be bound by it because it is not authoritative.
The Church is an organic entity whereby she is as every bit related to her past as she is her present. The Church is a living organism and because she is a living organism she has a memory and the oral tradition of the Church lives within her memory. That is why the Catholic Church has access to the oral tradition. The Catholic understands not only in theory but in actual history that the Scriptures work within the matrix of the Church. The problem with the various strands of Protestantims is that their understanding of Scripture is ahistorical. The impression given by many Protestants is that the Scriptures, and, in particular, the New Testament preceded the Church. The fact is, and this cannot be disputed, the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ caused the Apostles to proclaim Him as the Messiah of Israel and the world’s true Lord. This proclamation of the Gospel gave birth to a community, namely, the Church. This community, the Church, in its formation centered in Jesus Christ, empowered with the Holy Spirit to the glory of the Father, needed instruction. This instruction came in two ways; oral and written. The written instruction is known as the New Testament and comprises one aspect of the deposit of the faith. The oral instruction comprises the other aspect of the deposit of the faith.
Where, you ask, is an example of this oral instruction and practice growing up side by side with written instruction within the matrix of the Church? Infant Baptism is one doctrine and practice that makes this point. There is no single passage that states, “baptize your infants,” or, “infants are to be baptized.” You cannot make the case for infant baptism from Scripture alone. If you have ever discussed the practice of infant baptism with a credo-baptist you know how difficult they can be when trying to defend the practice of infant baptism. How does one go about making the case for infant baptism? The case is made for infant baptism, not by some text-proofing of passages, e.g. “baptize your infants,” by an appeal to the texture and trajectory of the Scriptural story and the practice of the early Church. If a Jew in that day came to faith in Jesus as Messiah and brought their child with them to be baptized it would be very strange indeed if they were told that the child is not receive the sacrament of baptism. However, we don’t know that from Scripture, rather, we know that from the culture of the Jewish people. Today, both the paedo-baptist and the credo-baptist argues from silence for their position and as such, are forced to read into the Scripture their belief. The Baptist argues, “show me where the Bible says to baptize infants,” and the paedo-baptist says, “show me where the Bible says we are not to baptize infants.” The fact of the matter is, however, that infant baptism was the practice of the early Church and the first evidence that there is any opposition to the practice is Tertullian in the early 3rd century.
What about the belief that the Sabbath day has been changed from the seventh day to the first day of the week? Where is the Scripture passage that informs us of this change? There is no Scripture passage that says, “the Sabbath day has changed from the seventh day to the first day of the week.” The Scripture itself bears witness to an oral living tradition that existed side by side with it. You say, where does Scripture bear witness to this oral tradition? In the Old Testament a passage from 2nd Chronicles 29:25 informs us that Hezekiah, “stationed the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, harps, and lyres, according to the commandment of David and of Gad the king's seer and of Nathan the prophet, for the commandment was from the LORD through his prophets.” Where is the command to do this found in the Scripture? There is no command to be found, yet, it was a command nonetheless and Hezekiah knew of it and implemented it. Or what about the reference in Matthew’s Gospel about how what was spoken of by the prophets was fulfilled in that Jesus shall be called a Nazarene (Matt 2:23)? Where do we find this reference of Jesus being called a Nazarene in the prophets? We do not find this fulfilled prophesy in the Old Testament, that is, the written tradition, but we find it within the prophetic oral tradition of Israel and Matthew quotes it as a fulfilled prophesy. Certainly the Scriptural data in these two passages informs us of at least this; there existed an oral and authoritative tradition side by side with the writings.
What are we to make of Jude’s words in verses 14 and 15 of his letter, “It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” Where do we find this prophesy of Enoch? We find it the book of 1st Enoch 1:9, “And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgment upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” How is Enoch described as speaking? As prophesying, yet, the dating for 1st Enoch is set some time in the 2nd Temple period before the time of the Macabees and just prior to our Lord’s birth. So how would anyone know that Enoch prophesied about this? Not from Genesis, but from an extra-biblical source, passed down from generation to generation.
As to the issue of Church authority you wrote, “the issue of authority in the Church, it is clear to me that the authority of the church is ministerial and declarative of Christ’s Word.” I ask you, what verse or passage teaches that? The authority that Jesus gives to the Church is the power to bind and loose, is it not? You said that my, “interpretation and conclusions on the subject of authority have come out at the wrong end because you started with your experience.” You also said that I confused church and denomination. You have already admitted in an email to me that denominations are not taught in the Bible, so are you not also guilty of the same thing in principle, that is the idea of denominations come from personal experience and have to be read into the Biblical data and are not drawn out of the Biblical data? So, in fairness, how could you make the accusation that I have confused the issue of church and denomination, when, by your own admission the denominations are not to be found in the Biblical data? Correct me if I am wrong, but when you admitted that the Bible does not teach denominations, are you admitting that the Bible assumes one Church, with one authority, with one codified teaching on the matters of dogma and practice? For, as you admitted, and I agree with you, that the Scripture knows no such thing as denominations, then can we not agree that the Scripture assumes one visible Church with a codified teaching and practice?
On the matter of Peter you wrote that you agreed with my exegesis until I stated that our Lord named Peter as Prime Minister. You said that there is no way to get this from the text or the context. Are you sure that there is no way to get this from the text or the context? What does Jesus say to Peter after Peter tells Jesus that He is the Christ (the Messianic King)? Now, I agree that there is no verse that says, “And you Peter are the Prime Minister,” but, certainly, you agree that we don’t need a verse like that to prove a truth? The practice of infant baptism is, as I have already mentioned, similar. The text reveals that our Lord tells Peter, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Our Lord speaking in the singular, that is to Peter, gives Peter the keys to the kingdom. What does Peter get the keys to? The Kingdom. Where is the concept of a prime ministerial function in Israel? If you read Isaiah 22:15-25 you will see this. F. F. Bruce calls Peter, in reference to this passage, the chief steward over the royal house (The Hard Sayings of Jesus 143-44 as quoted in Jesus, Peter, and the Keys pg. 41). The Prime Minister was the one who is over the house in the Monarchy (Ancient Israel R. De Vaux pg.129-132). We see this Prime Ministerial function in the ancient near east including Israel. In Egypt we see this happen with Joseph and Pharaoh (Genesis 41:37-43). The Lutheran Oscar Cullmann makes the connection between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16: “In Matt.16:19 it is presupposed that Christ is the master of the house, who has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, with which to open those who come in. Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord lays the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of His servant Eliakim, so Jesus commits to Peter the keys to His house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby installs Him as administrator of the house.” (Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, pg 203). Now, you may still insist that there is “no way to get this from the text or context.” I have made the case, there is a biblical way to get this from the text and the context. How does one make the case? The same way that a Presbyterian makes the case for a practice like infant baptism; covenant, cultural context, how it would be understood by original audience, etc… , in other words, you would make a texture, trajectory and arc type of argument. The onus on you is not to just assert your case without any exegesis, which, with all due respect, is what you did. When you wrote, “It is not the whole group of the 12 who respond but Peter, speaking for all of them” (emphasis added), I ask you, where do you get that from the text? Does Jesus respond by saying, “Blessed are you, all 12 of you, for Peter has represented what you all were going to say, thus, I give to all of you the keys to the kingdom of heaven?” No, the text says that Jesus speaks to Peter in the singular and gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Ironically enough, your understanding would not, by the way, militate against the Catholic understanding of the text, because Peter can stand in his person as speaking for all the Church, which is what the Church means by ex cathedra.
In reference to the passage in Luke, you wrote, “You ask, Why would Jesus pray for Peter in a manner that He clearly isn’t praying for the other Apostles? 1. It is not so clear that Jesus did not pray the same for the others—we are not told one way or another. 2. Peter needs this prayer because he will deny Jesus while the others will not. “ Your response was two-fold: it is not clear that Jesus did not pray the same for the others and that Peter needs this prayer because He will deny Jesus. Again, as I mentioned earlier, the passage begins in the plural, that is Satan had demanded to sift you (plural “you” in reference to the group) and then changes to the singular but I have prayed for you that your faith would not fail so that he would then strengthen the others, namely that our Lord has prayed for Peter alone for a purpose; to strengthen the others. Again, the whole point of Luke is to make it clear that Peter is being prayed for in a way that the others aren’t. The onus is on you to prove why the shift from the plural you to the singular you does not mean that. Secondly, you wrote that Peter needs this prayer because he denied Jesus while the others didn’t. Is that why Jesus prays for Peter, because He will deny Him? If the prayer was for Peter’s denial, then the prayer didn’t keep Peter from denying our Lord. Are you implying that the others had a stronger faith than Peter, in that they didn’t deny our Lord but Peter did? You know the story; they all fled from Jesus, at least Peter made it down into the courtyard with Him, so that he at least could deny Him, the others were nowhere to be found, rather they headed for the hills abandoning the Lord. Contextually, the prayer seems to be for the purpose that Peter’s faith would not ultimately fail in order that he would strengthen them. Peter is told by our Lord to do just that. What’s my point? My point is this; the Lord gives to Peter alone the burden of strengthening the others.
Now in reference to John 21 you wrote, “Again, your exegesis starts off well but finishes on the wrong note. Why would Jesus ask Peter if he loved them (I think you had a typo there) more than all the other apostles? Matthew 26:33 and Mark 14:29 answer the question for you—Peter had claimed to love him more than all of the other Apostles.” The reason why our Lord asked Peter if he loved Him more than all the other Apostles, you contend has to do with the fact that Peter claimed to love Jesus more than all the other Apostles. If you read Matthew 26:35 and Mark 14:31, the impression given is that all of them said the same type of thing as Peter. Did Jesus go to all the disciples and sit down with them and do just as He did with Peter? I am not really sure as to your point; are you saying that Jesus spoke to Peter because He wanted to remind Peter that he really didn’t love Jesus like he thinks he does? Or are you saying that Jesus does this with Peter to point out that, indeed Peter is being called to a higher love for Jesus than all the others? You wrote that you believe that this happened because Jesus wants Peter to see that he sinned and needs to repent. Where do you get that from the text? Are you saying that Peter didn’t know already that what he did was sin and in need of repentance? Let’s look at the overarching story: Peter already knew that he sinned, in fact, he wept bitterly after denying our Lord (Matt 26:75; Mark 14:72). Also, this encounter was the third time that the Lord had been revealed to the disciples (John 21:14). So, are you thinking that in the two prior encounters, and we know Peter had already seen the risen Lord, Peter didn’t already repent of his denial, that it wasn’t until this encounter that he knew that he needed to repent of his sin? Again, the context is Jesus calling Peter to a higher love for Him. Unless you think that when our Lord asks Peter, “Do you love me more than these?” that our Lord is asking Peter if he loves Jesus more than he loves the other Apostles. Something like this: Do you, Peter, love me more than you love your fellow apostles? How do you interpret the “than these”? It appears that the “than these” refers to the other Apostles and specifically their love for Jesus. It appears that Jesus is asking Peter something like this: Do you love me more than the others love me? So, I stand by what I wrote that Jesus is calling Peter to a higher love for Him than the other Apostles and tied to this higher love is the call to be the universal shepherd of the Lord’s flock. Peter has a burden to bear, namely he has the burden of unity for all the Church.
In regards to what you wrote, you are the first person I have ever met who believes that Peter was not even given a symbolic role of leadership. I would find it interesting to see if you asked any of your former professors if they agree with that? I mean, can’t we at least agree that the change of name from Simon to Peter implies at least a symbolic place for Simon. It’s not everyday that someone gets a change of name in Scripture (in fact, I think you would agree that the precedent in Scripture for the change of someone’s name has profound implications, thus, if past history is any helpful hermeneutical guide the change from Simon to Peter is profound).
All I can say in reference to your response on Paul is that you try to make him sound like a Protestant who cared little for the ecclesiastical and structural authority of the Church. If you think my response is too hard, let me quote for you what you wrote, “Notice how he dismisses any idea that any apostle was of great importance for his authority… Paul was not after validation from the Apostles so much as being sure he was not conflicting with their message. And they, all of the influential members of the body (whom Paul did not see as being of importance beyond the office Christ gave them), told him his message was not in conflict (emphasis added).” I can see how your personal experience of denominationalism can affect how you read this passage, but, you have already conceded that denominationalism is unbiblical, thus, I am not sure if Paul is as anti-ecclesiastical as you make him sound. I understand the move you make because if you can make Paul into a proto-Protestant who sees the Church as essentially invisible and only secondarily visible then you believe you have disproven the Catholic Church. What I find interesting is that liberals say the same things about the early Church. Paul had a different version of Christianity than John and Matthew had a different version of Christianity than Luke, and so on, the liberals claim. Paul, of course, is trumpeted as the anti-ecclesiastical and independent zealot. There was no one faith, or one creed of the Church, but rather Christian faith was pluriform. The liberals are consistent on this point, they claim that since there has never been “one” Christian truth, nobody has the right to call someone or something a heresy. Unfortunately, Paul doesn’t make it that easy for the Protestant, considering that he zealously desires to teach the same things in every Church (1st Cor 4), so much for the legitimacy of doctrinal division, believes that oral tradition is every bit as authoritative as written tradition (2nd Thess 2:15), believes that the Church and not the Bible is the pillar and ground of the truth (1st Tim 3:15).
In reference to your comment on our relationship with the other Apostles you stated, “As for our relationship with the remaining apostles, they are equally the foundation of the church—i.e., their inspired writings in Scripture.” (emphasis added). Now are you saying that our relationship to the other Apostles, and by the other Apostles do you mean the other eleven besides Peter, is tied exclusively to their inspired writings in Scripture? So we don’t have a relationship with any Apostle except Matthew, John, and Peter? We have no access to what the others taught, (obviously Judas Iscariot not included)? So because they did not write (maybe they did, maybe they didn’t) Scripture their teaching is not authoritative? What about the communities that they helped establish? Did not those believers have access to the deposit of the faith? Certainly you don’t think that they had access to the Sacred Writings, considering the printing press was not to come until some 1400 or so years later? How would these early believers have access to the deposit of the faith? They would have it through oral tradition, or so it would seem. Let’s take the following position to its logical conclusion: if one believes that the whole content of God’s revealed will for the ongoing instruction of His Church was committed “wholly to writing,” so that no unwritten residue of divinely inspired instruction survived from the oral teachings of Jesus and His Apostles that remained binding on God’s people after the New Testament was written, which is the position of the WCF Chapter 1, what was the Church to do after the last Apostle died? If all bindingly authoritative instruction ended with the death of the last Apostle and if the early Churches did not have copies of all the New Testament until a significant time later , who spoke for the Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles in the interim? What are we to do with the early believers who would have remembered the oral instruction of the Apostles, the Eucharistic liturgy being one such example? Were they to simply “forget” the oral teaching because the oral teaching did not make it in to the New Testament canon? Remember back to 2 John and 3 John about his desire not to commit to instructing with pen and ink but face to face orally, and Paul’s own words about holding fast to the oral tradition, and Paul’s word to the Corinthians about setting thing in order when he comes in person (1st Cor 11:34) (read Dr. Philip Blosser’s chapter in Not By Scripture Alone, particularly from pg. 45-46 for an excellent treatment of this topic, and I am indebted to Dr. Blosser, for the words in italics are his ideas and thoughts and writing).
As to your claim that the only thing you accept from the council of Nicea “are those things that accord with Scripture, i.e. the Creed they drafted,” I have to ask in response to what you wrote; so you accept that the Creed is in accord with Scripture? It doesn’t contradict or deviate from Scripture? Is this a fair conclusion of what you wrote? So you believe, I take it then, in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins? I gather you also believe, in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church? If you do, how do you account for the many denominations, especially considering you and I have already agreed that denominations are foreign to the Biblical data? The other thing I have to ask is how could you accept the Creed of Nicea but not the Canons of Nicea? It’s not as if the Council gathered, came up with a creed, and then came up with canons. It’s more like that they came up with the canons then out of those canons flowed the summary of doctrine in the creed. I also believe you misunderstood what I wrote about Chalcedon. You wrote, “I also declare on the basis of Scripture that Leo’s declaration was and is heretical (not to mention self-serving!)” (emphasis added). The declaration that Peter has spoken through Leo was made by those at Chalcedon when Leo’s Tome was received and read.
Of course, when dialoging it is helpful and important to try to keep the discussion limited to a couple of points, thus, I will touch only a bit on what you wrote in reference to baptism and the authority to forgive and retain sins. On baptism you wrote that not one of these passages speaks to the issue of regeneration (1st Pet 3:21; Rom 6:4; Col 2:12). Aside from the fact that you did no exegesis except to assert your conclusion, and did not answer any one of my questions to you on these passages, all I have to say is, well of course, 1st Peter 3:21 does not speak to regeneration if you want to emasculate the passage of any meaning. Point in fact is that Peter writes, “baptism which corresponds to this now saves you.” If you look back at what you wrote, you will notice that you really didn’t come down and say what it means, in fact you wrote, “it is not a stretch too far to say that it could mean it is an answer of a good conscience—meaning that faith has been exercised in Christ for the forgiveness of sins and thus the believer is baptized as a sign and seal of God’s promise to justify him” (emphasis added). So, the only thing I can deduce is that you are not really sure what it means but only what it could mean. Thus, your confidence that not one of these passages speaks to regeneration is not legitimate. Paul also writes of baptism placing the believer into union with Christ (Gal 3:27).
The passage on John 20:22-23 is another case where you and I will have to agree to just disagree on whether or not you answered what I wrote on the passage and the questions that I posed. The fact is, the practice of a corporate confession of sin and corporate declaration of pardon is not the same authority as Jesus gave to the Apostles. You also wrote, “they (Apostles) also passed on that authority to others (Paul to Timothy for example)” (my addition). Exactly. The Apostles did pass their apostolic authority onto others, that is why Apostles are also Bishops, as you have pointed out with Paul handing on his authority to Timothy, what is known as Apostolic Succession, and as such, it mattered where Timothy got his authority from, specifically it mattered where his ordination came from.
You also wrote of what you deemed as my, “very confused thinking on the differences among Evangelicals. “ I am perplexed by this charge. Now why is my thinking confused? I am confused as to what? That there are major differences between Evangelicals on a variety of matters, some of which are on essential matters. Now, let me see if I have this straight: I am confused but the plethora of theological and doctrinal positions which often times contradict each other poses no confusion?
Now, here is where I confess confusion: you wrote, “I can honestly say that anyone of them who trust in Christ alone for salvation (not the church or a sacrament) is my brother in Christ. “ I ask you: if I asked you if you pit the Church against Christ or the Sacraments against Christ, what would you answer? I suspect you would say that you don’t, so I ask you, why are you so quick to throw the Church and the Sacraments to the side? If you don’t ultimately pit the Church against Christ and the Sacraments against Christ why did you write, “who trust in Christ alone for salvation (not the church or a sacrament)?” Is not Christ alone being pitted in at least some sense against the Church or the Sacraments? Does not Christ work primarily and ordinarily in and through the Church and the Sacraments to bring about salvation? If the Church and the Sacraments play no role in primarily and ordinarily bringing about the salvation of God in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit, then I ask you, what role does the Church play in salvation? What role do the Sacraments play in salvation? If the answer is none, then, have you not effectively cut the branch off from which you sit, for what then is the purpose of a pastor?
As to asserting that I was wrong about what the Catholic Church teaches about the Mass I confess confusion as to what you are claiming I am wrong about. Are you saying that the Catholic Church teaches Christ is re-sacrificed, or re-crucified in the Mass? May I quote from Carl Olson from Ignatiusinsight.com, “Over the centuries objections to belief in the Eucharist have been made, most notably by certain Protestants. One objection is that the Eucharist cannot be the true Body and Blood of Christ because no perceptible change can be seen after the consecration of the gifts. Evangelical author James McCarthy, a former Catholic and author of The Gospel According To Rome, writes that "there is not even the slightest indication that either the bread or the wine changed at the Last Supper. The same is true at the Mass today. The bread and wine before and after the consecration look exactly alike. Furthermore, they smell, taste, and feel the same. In fact, all empirical evidence supports the interpretation that they do not change at all." (The Gospel According To Rome, 133). This reliance on "empirical evidence" raises difficult questions for the Evangelical critic. Since when does Christianity rest exclusively on scientific evidence? Where is the empirical evidence for the Virgin Birth? Angels? The Holy Spirit? Heaven? And where is the scientific proof that Jesus was completely God, completely man? How is the miracle of the Eucharist more unbelievable than the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, the death and resurrection of Jesus or the Trinity? Then there are the teachings of Jesus, who stated at the Last Supper, "Take; eat; this is My body" and "Drink from it...for this is My blood..." (Matt 26:26-30), and in the Bread of Life discourse: "My flesh is true food and My blood is true drink" (Jn 6:51-59). This is not metaphorical language and neither is this rhetorical question asked by Saint Paul about the Eucharist: "Is not the cup of blessing we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:14-22). In fact, no Christian interpreted these words of Jesus and Paul metaphorically until some one thousand years after they were written. Another criticism is that the Catholic Church allegedly teaches that Jesus must be "re-crucified" at every Mass. Presbyterian theologian Loraine Boettner claims that the Mass is "is in reality a re-crucifixion of our Lord over and over again, in an unbloody manner" (Roman Catholicism). This is a faulty understanding of what the Church teaches, which is that the Eucharistic sacrifice brings into present time the saving effects of the once for all time death of Jesus. While the work of the Cross is indeed finished and will never be repeated, its benefits and power are applied today through the sacrament of the Eucharist, according to the commands of our Lord. Ironically, the idea of Christ’s past work being efficacious in the present is not novel to many Evangelical Protestants. They believe that when a man "accepts" Christ into their heart, or has a "born-again" experience, the work of Christ on the Cross is applied to him through faith. Some will say that they have been "washed in Jesus’ blood," but they don’t believe Jesus is re-crucified every time a Christian makes a profession of faith. Unwittingly, they implicitly believe what the Catholic Church teaches: that the effects of Christ’s death on the Cross are just as powerful and present today as they were two thousand years ago.”
I am not sure what you believe I am wrong about pertaining to the Catholic teaching on the Mass but suffice it to say, the Catholic Church does NOT teach that Jesus is re-sacrificed or re-crucified or dies all over again in the Mass!
As to your claim in email correspondence that your baptism in the Catholic Church did not place you under any obligation to be faithful to the Catholic Church since you did not ask to be baptized as an infant but rather your godparents made the vow, I ask you what about when you baptize an infant? Does the child have any obligation to live out their baptism? In a discussion of baptism at the 2005 Auburn Avenue Conference, Dr. Gaffin and Dr. Wright were agreed that, regardless of what one believes happens in baptism, this much can be said, the baptized baby has two options in front of him, either to live out their baptism with a life of faith or be an apostate, but they don’t have the option of being a rank pagan. I ask you another question, were you confirmed?
In closing, I will end with a response to your charge of blood being on Rome’s hands. Are you familiar with the history of the state of Maryland? Let me quote from answers.com (if you type in Maryland you can find the information), “Religious conflict was strong in ensuing years as the Puritans, growing more numerous in the colony and supported by Puritans in England, set out to destroy the religious freedom guaranteed with the founding of the colony. A toleration act (1649) was passed in an attempt to save the Catholic settlers from persecution, but it was repealed (1654) after the Puritans seized control. A brief civil war ensued (1655), from which the Puritans emerged triumphant. Anti-Catholic activity persisted until the 19th cent., when in an unusual reversal of the prevailing pattern many Catholic immigrants came to Baltimore.” I also quote from Dave Armstrong’s site, which can be found at http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ247.HTM ,

“Catholic Maryland: The First Tolerant American Colony
A. Martin Marty (P)
Baltimore . . . welcomed, among other English people, even the Catholic-hating Puritans . . . In January of 1691 . . . the new regime brought hard times for Catholics as the Protestants closed their church, forbade them to teach in public . . . but . . . the little outpost of practical Catholic tolerance had left its mark of promise on the land.
(Pilgrims in Their Own Land: 500 Years of Religion in America, New York: Penguin, 1984, 83, 85-86)
Lord Baltimore allowed several hundred Puritans, unwelcome in Episcopalian Virginia, to enter Maryland in 1648 (see Ellis, below, p. 37).
B. John Tracy Ellis
For the first time in history . . . all churches would be tolerated, and . . . none would be the agent of the government . . . Catholics and Protestants side by side on terms of equality and toleration unknown in the mother country . . . The effort proved vain; for . . . the Puritan element . . . October, 1654, repealed the Act of Toleration and outlawed the Catholics . . . condemning ten of them to death, four of whom were executed . . . From . . . 1718 down to the outbreak of the Revolution, the Catholics of Maryland were cut off from all participation in public life, to say nothing of the enactments against their religious services and . . . schools for Catholic instruction . . . During the half-century the Catholics had governed Maryland they had not been guilty of a single act of religious oppression.
(American Catholicism, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1956, 36, 38-39)

C. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (P)
In the 17th century the most notable instances of practical toleration were the colonies of Maryland, founded by Lord Baltimore in 1632 for persecuted Catholics, which offered asylum also to Protestants, and of Rhode Island, founded by Roger Williams.
(Cross, 1383)
Stories of Protestant intolerance in America prior to 1789 could be multiplied indefinitely. Jefferson and Madison, in pushing for complete religious freedom, were reacting primarily to these inter-Protestant wars for dominance, not the squabbles of post-Reformation Europe. Here we are concerned with the immediate era of the Protestant Revolution -- roughly 1517 to 1600, so the above anecdotes will have to suffice as altogether typical examples.”
Factmonster.com informs us, “Religious conflict was strong in ensuing years as the Puritans, growing more numerous in the colony and supported by Puritans in England, set out to destroy the religious freedom guaranteed with the founding of the colony. A toleration act (1649) was passed in an attempt to save the Catholic settlers from persecution, but it was repealed (1654) after the Puritans seized control. A brief civil war ensued (1655), from which the Puritans emerged triumphant. Anti-Catholic activity persisted until the 19th cent., when in an unusual reversal of the prevailing pattern many Catholic immigrants came to Baltimore.”
I only bring up this one example of the state of Maryland, for certainly one did not really enjoy much freedom as a Catholic in England, or how about being a Catholic in the deep south in the early 1900’s?
As to your writing, “I find your foundation of [letting] personal experience be the court of appeals for truth in conflict with Scripture. The church is supposed to be the pillar and ground of the truth not experience,” I wrote the exact opposite in what I wrote to you. I wrote that we must not let personal experience be the court of appeals for truth, and if I didn’t I made a massive typo. I am confident that I wrote the exact opposite of what you say I wrote but since I don’t have access to my files I can’t prove it. Suffice it to say, we must NOT let personal experience be the court of appeals for truth. What I do find ironic, is that you appealed to the church being the pillar and ground of the truth to refute what you thought I had written. Yet, earlier in your letter you denied that any one denomination (which we both have agreed is not found in Scripture, thus, unbiblical) can make the claim to be the true church because all have imperfections. So I ask you, how do you discern where those imperfections are to be found doctrinally, as it pertains to the truth? If I am reading you right, you would concede that not only does the OPC, for example, not have all the truth, but that they actually teach error, because they are a denomination, and as such, they have their imperfections. Is that correct? And if so, what errors or imperfections in teaching does the OPC contain? So what kind of pillar and ground of the truth is the Church? How is the Church the pillar and ground of the truth? In what way would this manifest itself, considering, you believe not one visible church has it all right, nor can make the claim to be the one true Church? Who decides what the essentials are?
You also wrote, “Any Protestant who leaves his or her faith and enters that institution is denying their faith and Christ and his death once for all for their sins.” I know that you have a caricature of the Catholic Church and what it is you want her to say, but the fact of the matter is the Catholic Church says this, “At the heart of catechesis we find, in essence, a Person, the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, the only Son from the Father. . .who suffered and died for us and who now, after rising, is living with us forever." To catechize is "to reveal in the Person of Christ the whole of God's eternal design reaching fulfillment in that Person. It is to seek to understand the meaning of Christ's actions and words and of the signs worked by him."' Catechesis aims at putting "people . . . in communion . . . with Jesus Christ: only he can lead us to the love of the Father in the Spirit and make us share in the life of the Holy Trinity." (CCC 426).
There was also something in an email where you, in attempting to refute the Catholic Church, charged them with teaching that conversion is needed for salvation. Pastor, with all due respect, this is where this stuff gets very strange. Are we really going to say that the Bible does not call people to conversion? Does conversion obscure the work of Christ? As to your exegesis of James 2 and the discussion on faith and works, the idea that James is talking about justification from a horizontal perspective, that is, before men, in that works prove or vindicate the believer as to actually having faith, exegetically where or how do you get that from the passage? In order to make his point, James borrows from the story in Genesis where Abraham is about to offer Isaac on the altar. So the Abrahamic story becomes the paradigm in which to understand James, and when Abraham was about to offer Isaac up there were no witnesses to the event except for Abraham, Isaac, and the angel of the LORD, and God. Thus, how could James mean that justification by works really just means that my works prove or vindicate my faith before men, when the story that he borrows is not about the vindication of one’s faith before men? The witness to the scene and the One in whom Abraham is vindicated before is not men, but God (Gen 22:12). If one says that this event is but a vindication of Abraham’s initial justification, then how does Rahab fit in the story, for James says, “in the same way” in reference to her and her justification, considering Rahab did not have a so-called initial justification in which her faith could be proven?
In closing, when you sent me the book by William Webster you wrote on the envelope that intellectual honesty demanded that I read it. Pastor, does not intellectual honesty demand that you also read on these matters? Why not try with “Not By Scripture Alone” or “Upon This Rock” by Stephen Ray, or “Jesus, Peter, and the Keys,” or Dave Armstrong’s books such as “A Biblical Defense of Catholicism” or Thomas Howard’s “On Being Catholic” or his “Evangelical is not Enough” or Louis Bouyer’s “The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism.” Anyone one of these books would be a start.

Sincerely in Christ’s love,
Tom

Not The Last Time

2005-08-02T08:38:00.000-07:00

The story of David and his sin with Uriah and Bathsheba is truly a tragic story but it is also a story of the wonder of God's forgiveness. The following is from 2nd Samuel 12:7-18: Nathan said to David: "You are the man! Thus says the LORD God of Israel: I anointed you king of Israel. I rescued you from the hand of Saul. I gave you your lord's house and your lord's wives for your own. I gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were not enough, I could count up for you still more. Why have you spurned the LORD and done evil in his sight? You have cut down Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you took his wife as your own, and him you killed with the sword of the Ammonites. Now, therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah to be your wife.' Thus says the LORD: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'" Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." Nathan answered David: "The LORD on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the LORD by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." Then Nathan returned to his house. The LORD struck the child that the wife of Uriah had borne to David, and it became desperately ill. David besought God for the child. He kept a fast, retiring for the night to lie on the ground clothed in sackcloth. The elders of his house stood beside him urging him to rise from the ground; but he would not, nor would he take food with them. On the seventh day, the child died."
As we have noted, this story is both awful and beautiful. David is confronted with his horrible sins, the murder of Uriah and adultery with Bathsheba. Nathan the prophet tells him a story and gets David to admit, unwittingly, that he deserves death for what he did. Verse 13 informs us that instead of David dying for these sins, someone else will die in his place, his son. This is not the last time that a son of David died for David's sins. The greater Son of David, Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah of Israel and David's and the world's true Lord, took the sins of the world upon Himself. The burden of the world's sin could be handled by no other, for none other than the Very Son of God, the Word made flesh, could deal with the world's sin. We thank you O God and Father for sending Your Son, Jesus Christ, to die for the sins of the world. We thank You for your love and mercy. We ask that You would lead and guide us all into the fullness of His Truth, which is found in the Church He founded upon Peter and His Apostles. We ask this through Jesus Christ, our Lord and Your Son, Who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God forever and ever. Amen.

What Is the Church?

2005-07-30T08:08:00.000-07:00

Life is full of many questions, such as, "why am I here?," "what is the meaning of life?," that often spur many people to grapple with finding answers to such questions. These types of questions are important and require much thoughtful reflection. The answers that one comes up with will more than likely impact their life greatly. An equally important but often unasked question by many that requires just as much, if not more, thoughtful reflection is the question, "what is the Church?" Many Christians view the Church as nothing more than a voluntary association of like-minded individuals. The Christian's relationship to the Church is secondary to the Christian's relationship to Jesus Christ. Thus, the question, "what is the Church?" takes a back seat to the question, "do you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?" The Christian often does not see a neccessary connection between Jesus Christ and the Church. In fact, many Christians believe that the Church has often gotten in the way of knowing Christ. Therefore, there is often a distrust for the Church. The problem with this mode of thinking is this; the Church is pitted against Christ, as though they stand in opposition to each other.
The reason that many well meaning Christians can pit the Church against Christ has to do with the fact that many Christians believe in the "invisible Church" which is often at odds with the "visible Church." A good number of Christians believe that the primary nature of the Church is invisible (WCF 25:1). In fact, the invisible nature of the Church is of the essence of the true Church. Thus, the visible nature of the Church takes a back seat to the invisible Church which is the true Church. Martin Luther wrote, "The first (reality) which is essentially, fundamentally, and truly the Church, we name spiritual and interior Christianity. The other, which is a human creation and an exterior phenomenon, we shall call corporeal and exterior Christianity." If this is one's conception of the Church, then it is no surprise that the true Church is invisible and the visible Church is nothing more than a human creation capable of failure just like all human creations.
Since many Christians believe this about the nature of the Church, then we should not be taken aback by the many splits and divisions that exist within Christianity. If the visible Church can and often does fail, and even in some cases is deemed apostate, then the only recourse that one has is to break away from it and start another church that will be more faithful than the prior church. The rallying cry of such groups is to get "back to the Bible." This belief to get back to the Bible is borne from the notion that only the Bible can provide the support needed in which to construct a church. While it is commendable to get back to the Bible, it needs to be stressed that almost all the break away groups shout that same cry, and yet, there are as many break away groups as there are interpretations of the same Bible. The difficulty with such thinking is that the very Bible that is used to make such a claim never makes the claim for itself. The Bible does, however, make such a claim for the Church and, in particular, the Church's leadership (e.g. 1st Tim 3:15; Heb 13:17; 1st Peter 5:1-5). The Church, not the Bible, is the pillar and ground of the truth. The leaders, not private interpretation, are the authority in which believers are to be in submission. This notion of Church is, admittedly, foreign to the ears of modern Christians, even many Catholics. It does, however, make sense that it is foreign to our modern ears if the visible and instituitional Church is nothing more than a human creation. But, if the Church's nature is essentially invisible and only secondarily visible, it begs the question as to why the Apostle Paul would labor so strenuously to teach the SAME THINGS IN EVERY CHURCH (1st Cor 4:17)? If complete doctrinal agreement which manifests itself visibly is not essential to the nature of the Church, then Paul's passion to teach the same things in every Church seems misguided. Why make things so difficult if complete doctrinal unity is a non-essential? Why is there such distrust toward the Church, yet, not the same distrust toward the Bible? The very Bible that many erroneously think is the "pillar and ground of the truth" is the same Bible that actually does say that it can be mishandled and warns against such actions (2nd Peter 3:16-17). Why is it that people will have a jaundiced eye toward one who says, "the Church teaches," yet, so readily embrace the one who says, "the Bible teaches," especially in light of Peter's warning to the Church to be on guard against those who distort and misinterpret the Scriptures? There is an excellent reason as to why the Bible is not distrusted; it is of God. The Scriptures, like the Incarnation, are both divine and human. The humaness of the Scriptures does not militate against them being inerrant and infallible and trusted because they are also divine. Can the same not also be said for the Church? Is it erroneous to believe that the Church, like the Scriptures and the Incarnation, is both divine and human? Is it erroneous to believe that the humaness of the Church does not militate against it being infallible? If the humaness of the Scriptures does not militate against them being infallible, why would the humaness of the Church militate against her being infallible? One might counter and say that the Church is not described this way in Scripture, but the Church is called the pillar and ground of the truth, which is a very strong description of the trustworthiness of the Church. The description of the Church as being the pillar and ground of the truth, in fact, begs the question as to how can she be described this way if she were not infallible? How or why would Paul point Timothy to the Church being the pillar and ground of the truth is the Church could just slide into error and even apostasy? What kind of pillar and ground of the truth would that be if the Church could do that? When our Lord Jesus told the Apostles that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide them in all truth (John 14:26; 16:13) are we to think it a stretch that the promise of infallibility is not co-joined to that pledge? Is it a misguided imagination that posits that our Lord Jesus would safeguard and keep His Church from teaching and sustaining error? Is it faulty to be confident that our Lord's promise to Peter and the Church (Matt 16:18) means that He will keep His Church from teaching error? These are not stretches if one recognizes that the visible Church is every bit as Divine as the so-called invisible Church. Of course, these are stretches if one cannot SEE that the visible Church is nothing more than a human creation. The Scriptures know no such entity as the invisible Church, as Fr. Louis Bouyer has pointed out, "an invisible Church is the same thing as no Church at all." So then, what is the Church? Is the Church essentially invisible or is it essentially visible? Is the visible Church nothing more than a human creation that is a voluntary association of like minded individuals? Or is the visible Church nothingless than the pillar and ground of the truth, the house of the living God? Scripturally the Church mirrors the Trinitarian reality of God (1st Cor 12:4-6; Eph 4:3-6). The diversity of the Church does not nullify the Church's oneness, just as the diversity of the persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit do not negate the oneness of God. The Church also mirrors the Incarnation of the Son, thus, the essential nature of the Church is visible. When one speaks of the essential nature of the Church being invisible they run the risk of implicitly denying the Incarnation. With all due respect toward those who hold to the essential and primary nature of the Church as invisible, there is an implicit gnosticism in this definition of the Church. This definition of the Church runs roughshod over the visible, Incarnational reality of the Son, for the One Christ who became flesh is the same Christ who is the Head of His Body which is the Church. The whole point of the Incarnation is that the invisible God was made visible in the Word made flesh (John 1:14; Col 1:15). The Incarnational reality of the Word made flesh continues in the Church across space and time, thus, the Church is called "the body of Christ" (1st Cor 12:27). The reality of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus is still operative in the life of His Body the Church. The Church shares in the whole Christ, and, as such, the Church is a community that participates and manifests the offices of the whole Christ. The Church has a duality, that is to say that there is a "both/and" character and nature to the Church. This duality does not mean that there are two Churches, but, rather that this duality is manifested in the One Church. The Church is both teacher and disciple, possessor of the deposit of the faith and the faithful, shepherds and sheep, pastors and flock. These categories of person flow out of an Incarnational ecclesiology. We see this duality in the life of our Lord. He is both the manifestation of God's faithfulness to humanity and humanity's faithfulness to God. Jesus Christ is God's answer to man and He is man's answer to God, as Pope John Paul II said, "Jesus Christ is the answer to the question that is every human life." He is the good Shepherd (John 10), the way, the truth and life (John 14) and He is also the obedient Son who's food is to do the Father's will (John 4:34; 5:30). The implications of this participatory Christology are evidenced in the life of the Church. Christ is the one who received the promised Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33), thus, the Church receives the Holy Spirit (John 14; 16; Acts 2). Christ is the Chief Shepherd (1st Peter 5:4) thus, the Church has under-shepherds (1st Peter 5:2). Christ is the faithful, obedient and humble Son, thus, the Church is called to model His life (Phil 2:1-11). Christ is the King, thus, the Church has a Prime Minister (Is 22; Matt 16). The salvation that our Lord wrought came through suffering (Heb 2:10; 1st Pet 2:20-24) thus, the Church is called to share in and complete His suffering for(Acts 9; Rom 8:17; 1st Peter 2:20; 2nd Cor 4:10-11; Col 1:24). There are many implications that can be teased out in reflection on participatory Christology, but for the sake of brevity we have touched just the surface of the implications. Suffice to say, there is a connection between Christ and the Church that is manifested in the whole Church, that is to say, its structure, instituition, hierarchy, and faithful. Christ cannot be any more distilled from the life of the Church than the U.S. Constituition can be distilled from our government. This is why students of Scripture must be very careful when they speak about the Church, specifically when they speak against the Church. At the end of the day the authority of Christ is made known in the Church He founded upon Peter and the Apostolic College.
One of the more interesting aspects about the "Reformation" is its very description "Reformation." A reformation of something should look like the thing it was and is reforming. Allow me to explain what I mean by way of example. This example is purely make believe. Let's pretend that there was a company that made soft-drinks, say Coca-Cola, that announced that they were going to reform the practices of their company. In order to keep a tighter reign on spending and increase company profits they issued a reform that would now require department heads to spend money only after approval from the Chief Financial Officer. No longer could money be spent without first getting approval. This would constitute genuine reform. This reform would allow the company to keep a tighter reign on all department spending and would help the company be more profitable. But what if the company announced that they were going to reform the company and revealed that they were going to get out of the soft drink industry and get into the carpet cleaning business but they were going to keep their same name? Would that be a reform? No it would not, instead, it would be a deconstruction of what made "Coca-Cola" Coca-Cola. The whole history of Coca-Cola would be deconstructed and something entirely new would come in and replace it, despite the fact that the name would remain the same. Coca-Cola would still be the name of the Company but it would no longer be the same Coca-Cola. The Reformation, with all due respect, was and remains to this day much like our example. The names Christian and Church have been kept but most everything that the name Christian and Church stood for have been changed. Apostolic succession has been changed to Apostolic Faith. Bishops have been scrapped for local church rule, the Divine Liturgy has been replaced with the worship service, the Eucharistic Sacrifice at the altar has been discarded for the memorial at the table, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist has been thrown out for a symbol. Baptism, at best, only brings possible new life, not real new life. The Sacraments which communicated real grace are now at best only signs of grace. The family in heaven, populated by the saints and comprising our communion with them, have been torn asunder for only the family on earth. The authority of the Church has been replaced with the authority of the conscience. The authority and universal bishopric of the Bishop of Rome has been overturned with many popes, countless popes, all contending for their own interpretation on faith and morals. Many will object to this description of the Reformation and its fruit. The fact of the matter is, sadly, how I have painted it. When the doors of the barn of authority were opened by Martin Luther, and the horse was let out, NOT ONE Reformer, save possibly for Melancthon, tried to get the horse back in the barn. The sad and tragic fact is that each "reformer" tried their hand at riding the horse and this created nothing but doctrinal anarchy. You had Luther challenging the canon of Scripture and the Papacy, to Zwingli denying the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, to Munser claiming new revelations of the Spirit, to the Anabaptists claiming the need to be re-baptized, to Brenz calling Calvin a heretic, to Calvin setting himself up as the true interpreter of what Christianity really is, "The Institutes of the Christian Religion," of course, the first printing being when he had reached that ripe wise age of 27. Despite their contradictory teachings they all had in common their disdain for the Pope. A plain reading of history reveals that the "Reformation" was NEVER united in matters of faith (doctrine) and practice except for the Pope. Once the authority of the Church and the Papacy was overthrown, all that was left was every man for himself and his own personal and private interpretation and that has been the tradition handed down to this day. Who says the Protestants are against tradition! The question we must ask is this; "Does this independent spirit faithful to the tone and texture of the New Testament?" The answer to that question should be obvious but I realize it is only obvious if you believe that our Lord Jesus Christ established and intended one, visible Church with a codified teaching and practice. If your conception of the Church is that it is essentially invisible, I readily concede, you would not be able "to see it" for who can "see" an invisible Church?

2005-07-26T14:40:00.000-07:00

There were a number of factors that took place that led to my reversion. The one factor, however, that really hit me was the Catholic teaching on the Mass. The following is a small paper I wrote that I sent to some former seminary classmates and two Presbyterian ministers. The letter to the Hebrews is viewed as the Scriptural book that puts to death the Catholic notion concerning the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The reasoning goes like this; the letter to the Hebrews is arguing against the need for any sacrificial offering before God because Jesus, on the cross, put an end to all sacrifices. Therefore, the Protestant argues that any notion of sacrifice is at best an insufficient understanding of Calvary or at worst a grotesque distortion of Calvary. My proposal is this; instead of the letter to the Hebrews being the letter that calls into question the Catholic teaching on Eucharistic sacrifice, the letter to the Hebrews actually provides the fertile ground in which the Catholic position makes sense of the Eucharistic language of the New Testament as a whole. The letter to the Hebrews is written, as the letter implies, to Hebrew Christians. Hebrew Christians would be well aware of the sacrificial aspect of Judaism. Many of these Hebrew Christians were running the risk of falling away from Jesus and returning back to the sacrificial system of Judaism. Their reasons for turning away from Jesus had to do with the fact that they were facing persecution. This persecution may have caused them to question the Messiahship of Jesus, or it may have caused them to question Jesus's sacrifice because He was not Levitical high priest, and since the Temple function appears to be an option (I take Hebrews written prior to 70 A.D. because the letter gives this impression), the Hebrew Christians may have deduced that God was accepting these sacrifices and not the sacrifice of Jesus. It is interesting to note that the writer of Hebrews spends the overwhelming amount of his time appealing to Jesus's continuing, present work as the great high priest of God and hardly any time on proving Jesus's Messiahship. In fact, aside from Revelation, the letter to the Hebrews is the New Testament book paints the picture of Jesus's continuing work in the presence of God as the great high priest, in such vivid colors. In fact, one might conclude, were it not for the letter to the Hebrews, that when Jesus Ascended into heaven He ceased from all His priestly work and is now waiting up in heaven until He returns to earth. The letter to the Hebrews does not allow for such a conclusion. The letter to the Hebrews stresses over and over again that our Lord still serves as the great high priest over the house of God. In fact, the writer stresses that Jesus holds His priesthood permanently because Jesus continues forever (Heb 7:24), unlike the priests under the Aaronic order who could not continue as priests because of their deaths (Heb 7:23). Our writer, in emphasizing our Lord's continuing high priestly work, also makes it clear that Jesus's high priesthood is not like that of Aaron. How does our writer accomplish that? Under the Old Covenant the high priest was to enter the holy place but once a year on the Day of Atonement. The high priest would first sacrifice the bull as a sin offering and then he was to take the blood and enter the most holy place inside the veil and present the blood in front of and on the mercy seat. He then was to do the same with the goat (Leviticus 16). It is important to note that the sacrifice WAS NOT complete until the high priest presented the blood of the sacrifice in the most holy place inside the veil. Failure to enter inside the veil presenting the blood would have been an insufficient sacrifice. Indeed, there would have been no sacrifice.When Jesus enters into heaven upon His Ascension, He enters, not into the type or shadow of the most holy place, into the true holy place, of which the earthly Temple was but a copy. Like every high priest upon entering He too must offer something (8:1-3). The offering that Jesus offers and presents is not the blood of bulls and goats, but nothingless than His very own blood (9:11-12). Another major difference between Jesus's high priesthood and the Aaronic priesthood is that the Aaronic high priest must LEAVE the holy place inside the veil after the presentation of the blood. The Aaronic priest is NOT allowed to stay in behind the veil lest he would die. Jesus, however, upon entering and presenting His blood in the heavenly holy place, which is the true holy place, inside the veil in the very presence of God, never leaves. Jesus remains continually in the holy place by His blood and it is only because Jesus is presently doing this that we can enter into the holy places (10:19-21). In order for the high priest to enter back into the earthly holy place inside the veil he must offer another sacrifice. He could not enter based off the past sacrifice. He must do the same thing as was done in the past on the Day of Atonement. Jesus on the other hand does not need to come back to earth, suffer, sacrifice Himself again on Calvary, be Resurrected, Ascend and then re-enter the holy place by presenting His blood. That is why our writer says in 9:25-28, "Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him."Our Lord's superior priesthood is evidenced in that He never leaves the holy place in the presence of God. He is continually in the presence of God presenting His blood, namely, His sacrifice of Calvary finds its culmination in His current priestly presentation of His blood before the Father's throne. He does not cease to present His blood, for He has no need to. He has no need to leave the heavenly holy place for His priesthood is eternal. In fact, our writer makes it clear that if Jesus were still on earth He would not be a priest (8:4). It is in our Lord's Ascension that He is a priest permanently (7:24). It is precisely because our Lord does not need to offer His sacrifice daily, that is His death, that He can stay forever in the holy place by the continued presentation of His blood.Throughout the letter to the Hebrews, the writer's line of thought is from the lesser to the greater. The greater sacrifice of Jesus is evidenced in the fact that He can continually and perpetually stays in the holy place by His blood in the presence of God because His priesthood is permanent. Thus, the objection to the Catholic notion of the sacrifice of the Mass is unfounded. The Catholic Church does not believe that Jesus is re-sacrificed in the Mass. There is no need to crucify Jesus all over again and the Catholic Church rejects such teaching as blasphemous. Most objections against the Catholic position believe that the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus suffers and dies all over again in the Mass. Yet, never has that been the teaching of the Catholic Church and such attacks are at best ignorant and at worst dishonest. The Catholic Church teaches that the sacrifice of the Mass is nothingless than a making present, a participation in the once for all sacrifice of Calvary of Jesus. The Mass is a bringing into the present the continual high priestly ministry of Jesus Christ. As we have learned our Lord never leaves the holy place in which He presents His blood to the Father because He is a priest forever.Think of it this way: the earthly aspect of our Lord's sacrifice concerned His death as the sacrificial victim. It is at Calvary that our Lord is the sacrifice. The heavenly aspect of our Lord's sacrifice concerns His work as priest, in which He presents the sacrifice, specifically, His blood in the heavenly holy place. Without our Lord's ascension, entering into heaven to present His blood, His sacrifice on Calvary would have been insufficient. Thus, Jesus is still presenting His once for all sacrifice of Calvary, for He never leaves the holy place but continues as a priest forever. The Mass is both a remembrance and a present participation in our Lord's two fold sacrifice in which He is both priest and victim, sacrificer and sacrifice. In the Mass we remember and presently participate in Calvary. We remember His once for all sacrifice on Calvary and we participate in His current priestly work of the presentation of His blood in the heavenly holy place before God. Thus, in the Mass, heaven and earth meet, they are interconnected. The heavenly liturgy is made present on earth. The Mass is a participation in the present heavenly priesthood of Jesus Christ, inside the holy place behind the veil, in the presence of God, which is made present through His ordained priest on earth. In the Mass we receive nothingless than the very body and blood of our Lord in the Eucharist.To recap just a bit, let's think back to the work of the high priest on the Day of Atonement. First, he offered the sacrifice of the bull, which did not take place inside behind the veil. He then did the same with the goat. Second, the high priest then took the blood and presented it in the most holy place inside, behind the veil, and after presenting the blood he had to leave or he would die. Jesus, at Calvary, offered Himself as a living sacrifice. It is at Calvary that He is The SACRIFICE. Then, upon His Ascension, our Lord begins and continues His priestly work when enters into the holy place inside the veil presenting the blood of the Sacrifice, which is no less than His very own blood. His superiority is evidenced in that He never has to leave the holy place with His blood because He is a priest forever. It is also helpful to remember that our Lord is the Passover Lamb and at Passover there was a meal. It is also helpful to know that the Aaronic priests ate of the sacrifices. It is also helpful to know that there is in the Old Covenant "The Bread of the Presence", literally, "the Bread of the Face" in Hebrew (Ex 35:13, 39:36, Numb 4:7, 1st Sam 21:6, 1st Kings 7:48). In a very real sense these Old Covenant realities converge and compress and find their fulfillment in the Eucharist We must keep these ideas in mind, and now see why our Lord can say, "This is My Body," and "This is My Blood," in reference to His institution of the Eucharist. Now we can see why our Lord tied His Ascension in with His Eucharistic words in John 6:53-62. Notice that in that passage Jesus makes a cryptic reference to His Ascension in response to the unbelief and grumbling concerning His words about body and blood being real food and real drink. What do we do in the Lord's Supper? We eat of the once for all sacrifice of Jesus which is nothingless than a present participation in His body and blood. Thus, Paul can say, that the bread and cup are a PARTICIPATION in the body and blood of our Lord. He is also clear that unworthy reception is tied to a failure to discern the Lord's body, such that those who fail to discern the Lord's body are guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. How can Paul use the word "profaning" in reference to the Eucharist if the Eucharist is not OBJECTIVELY holy? One can only profane something that is holy. Let us consider 1st Cor 10 in reference to Paul's discussion on the Eucharist. Paul makes it clear that the Eucharist constitutes the Church, "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread"(vs.17). Notice that the emphasis is on the one bread and we are one body because we partake of one bread. It is not we are one body therefore we are one bread. There is only one Eucharist. Therefore, there are not many breads because the one bread and the one cup is a participation in the body and blood of our Lord (vs.16). Thus, there cannot be many breads or many cups because there are not many Christs but one Christ in whom we participate and since there is but one Christ, and one bread, there is but one body. This one bread and one cup for Paul is nothingless than a participation in the body and blood of Christ and the one body partakes of it. Thus, the Eucharist is the center of unity. There is but one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph 4). This Eucharist is for Paul a participation in the body and blood of our Lord. That is to say, the Eucharist is intertwined with the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ in which He gives His flesh and blood for the life of the world. Now, where does Paul say the Eucharist is a present participation in the once for all sacrifice of Christ? Notice within this passage in discussing the Eucharist how Paul ties it together by comparing the participation in the body and blood of our Lord with both Jewish and Pagan sacrifices. Now why does he draw on the notion of sacrifice both Jewish and Pagan in reference to the Eucharist, these analogies would be strange if he is not thinking in terms of the Eucharist being a present experience in the sacrifice of Christ through which we participate in the body and blood of our Lord through eating? As we shall see, it is because the present participation in the body and blood of our Lord comes by a sharing in His once for all sacrifice on Calvary which is made present in the eating. He rhetorically asks, "Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?" (vs.18) (emphasis mine). Notice also how he does the same with Pagan sacrifice, "What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons" (19-20) (emphasis mine). Those in Israel who eat of the sacrifices are participants in the sacrifice. Those who eat of the Pagan sacrifices offered to idols participate in the sacrifice with demons. Notice the examples that Paul culls, they are sacrificial. He compares his discussion on participation in the body and blood of our Lord to the Jewish and Pagan sacrifices, in which, through those sacrifices those who ate of them participated in the sacrifice. Thus, contextually, following Paul's analogy of participation in the sacrifice through eating, then the participation in the body and blood of the Lord is a sharing in His once for all sacrifice through eating. This participation is a present participation in the very body and blood of our Lord. That is why he says in the strongest of terms that, "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons" (vs.21). Now one can see why our Lord can say in no uncertain terms, "This is My body," and "This is my blood." Now we can we why John, in the Revelation, "saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain" (Rev 5:6 emphasis mine). Who is the Lamb? Our Lord Jesus. What does the Lamb picture? Sacrifice. What does the standing posture communicate? Present activity. And notice that the Lamb standing (presently) is a Lamb that had been slain in the past (the Greek phrase is in the perfect tense and is a participle The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek N.T.). The perfect tense communicates a past event that has continuing effects into the present. For example, I have received my driver's license is a past even that has continuing effects in the present. John is communicating that Jesus, our Lamb, is currently standing in the presence of God, continually presenting His past sacrificial offering on Calvary. Thus, the Eucharistic Sacrifice is both a memorial and a making present of the once for all sacrifice on Calvary. This is why the Apostle Paul can say things like, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes (1st Cor 11:26). Paul is saying in the doing of the Supper is the proclaiming of Calvary. The Eucharist is a both/and in that the making present is tied to the past event which is presently being offered to the Father. And why he can write, "You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? (Gal.3:1). Compare what Paul says in 1st Corinthians with what he says here. Certainly we don't think Paul took out a piece of paper and drew a picture of the cross. What he says here fits very nicely with what he says in Corinth about the doing is the proclaiming and it fits very nicely with the picture painted concerning what is presently happening in the Eucharist. The Eucharistic sacrifice is tied to the one sacrifice, thus, it is not a different sacrifice, but the same sacrifice that is made present solely by the love and grace of God.

Recent Revert

2005-07-24T11:26:00.000-07:00

Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Tom and, until recently, I was an ordained minister in a Presbyterian denomination. I am a graduate (2004)from a seminary that embraces the Westminster Confession of Faith. I hope to blog a bit on this site, mostly because I like to write on theology and dialogue about theology. It is my desire to still teach theology as a Catholic in the future, if the Lord allows me the privilege. I am not new to the blogging world. While in seminary I blogged at another site that I established on blogger. I look forward to posting some of the stuff I have written.