Sola Scriptura ; Solo Traditio ; Sola Papa - Three Bad Answers to Some Good Questions

"so I send this commentary to your reverence, not because I think it due and worthy, but because I remember you asked for it and I promised to send it. Whatever your holiness finds half-baked or crude in its pages, please forgive it all the more quickly" - Pope St. Gregory the Great , teaching infallibly on matters of faith and morals ;)

The more of the Church Fathers I read, the less I feel bound to their authority. They seem adamant on telling us NOT to trust them on their own basis. The notion that they had some kind of hidden wisdom apart from Scripture, or were a part of the Word of God, as Papa Benny 16 likes to say, would probably seem blasphemous to them. Certainly the doctrine of justification by faith alone would seem blasphemous to a writer like St. Gregory (though not Chrysostom), but what seems always clear to me is how off course the Western Tradition went after St. Augustine. The Orthodox (I think at the moment) are quite accurate in their assertions that the Latin Tradition of theology is very different from the patristic consensus. If the Protestant Reformation went off course, then it had long precedence from the See of Rome, which changed many things, to the point that the generally acknowledged first tradition of the Church (The Sign of the Cross) was changed by Papal decree by Pope Innocent III. St. Augustine of Canterbury, St. Benedict, St. Patrick, all did it the 'wrong' Orthodox way.

This is where you'd normally expect to see me talking about visiting my local Antiochan parish, but no, I don't find the Orthodox way convincing to the point of necessary conversion. I think in a contest of Tradition they'd beat the Romans, but the discrepancies between the two seem to only further my Latin/Catholic notions that Tradition -while important- should not have the last say in matters of faith and morals.

After all, if in the Sacred Tradition of the Church, the Pope tells us not to trust his dogmatic writing if it is in error, then what are we to use as the standard? Answering that question is fraught with problems, however I've chosen Sacred Scripture, and used a hearty textual realism to defend myself from the textual relativist claims of Rome. Everyone must make a choice though, and thus everyone must become a heretic (one who chooses). Though the heresies of today are not like those of Old. To be a Baptist is heretical, true enough, but even Baptists can sign the formula of Chalcedon, and assent to the Council of Ephesus (451) which in a sense makes them more 'Traditional', 'Catholic', and 'Orthodox' than the Coptic Church and all its bishops. It seems to be a realm where 'you pay your money and you take your chance' as an old pastor used to say.

You could 'pan' any of the Fathers for 'Confessional gold' and come up with some argument in your favour. So perhaps the Orthodox would use the initial quotation to attack Papal Supremacy and show the equality of bishops. Roman Catholics might look use this passage: "[Job's friends] speak to Job as if on the Lord's behalf, but they are not approved by the Lord; for all heretics struggle to defend God but really offend him." to show how Orthodox and Protestant heretics/Christians are in wanton disobedience to the papacy. Finally, Protestants who look for a self-verifying canon of Scripture against Catholic-Orthodox apologetics could read: "The authority of this book is made clear from the unshakeable sacred page itself." and shout Aha! Our Bible has been vindicated against the traditions of men.

To end things very Lutheran-ly, I'd say all of these modes are theologies of glory. There are many mysterious things which we do not perceive while we 'see through a glass darkly', but the fundamental character and substance of God remains apparent to Christians. Faith, Hope, and Charity are found in every communion, and in these, as in Christ we are to abide. For my part, I look at myself knowing that like Job's sons 'perhaps I have sinned in my heart'. I know I am a sinner, but I trust in the fact that Christ has christened, confirmed, confessed, and communed me Himself. That all my sins are his and all his righteousness is mine. I glory not in my own theological and historical polemics but in my Saviour and his cross.

I found most illuminating, a passage of St. Gregory's on the typology of Jobs daughters as weaker Christians (which is a horribly misogynistic spiritual reading perhaps, but still useful).

"And three daughters were born to him. (1.2)
"What shall we take the daughters for, if not the flock of less-gifted faithful? Even if they do not stay the course for the perfection of good works by strength and virtue, they cling tenaciously to the faith they know in the trinity." XIV. 20



May the Holy Spirit, the only author of faith, who proceeds from the Father, through the Son, make us all tenaciously cling to whatever faith has been graciously given us, and trust in the Holy Trinity in every trouble.

An Old Lutheran Ecumenical Statement on Eastern Orthodoxy

"It was to destroy this sort of religion that Jesus Christ suffered himself to be nailed to the cross, and now we find it re-established under his name..." - Adolf von Harnack

Anselmian Substitutionary Atonement in the Church of the East?

"Jesus Christ walked in the flesh thirty-three years on the earth, O King. In the thirtieth year he repaid to God all the debt that the human kind and angels owed to Him. It was a debt that no man and no angel was able to pay, because there has never been a created being that was free from sin, except the Man with whom God clothed Himself and became one with Him in a wonderful unity." - Catholicos Timothy I, Patriarch of the Church of the East (here)

The Church of the East ; Philip Jenkins ; Cornelius

No one has been sent to us Orientals by the Pope. The holy apostles aforesaid taught us and we still hold today what they handed down to us. -Rabban Bar Sauma c. 1290

I read way too much of this book tonight, instead of doing my homework.

It's funny because the more I read about Orthodoxy both Eastern and Oriental, and the more Confessional Anglicans and Lutherans I read, the more I am overwhelmed by the fact that we all confess the same traditional faith. Where we diverge is obviously important, but the fact that we all agree on the Trinity, largely the first 7 ecumenical councils, and to differing degrees, the Old and New Testament, there's actually a lot in common by way of heritage.

And it's also funny because at the same time, I'm amazed at how absent Christ can be in faiths that bear his name. Suddenly one's identity becomes based on who is the true catholicos, or who is the real head of the church. In reality, I think we should be looking to the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. As a Protestant Christian I also think the bishops of the world should stop claiming to be "more bishop-y than other bishops" (to quote my old Reformed professor of religious philosophy). If a bishop or a pastor is a shepherd, this should always be remembered to be at best a visible analogy or sign of Christ who is the True head of the Church, the real universal shepherd.

You can have all the unified ecclesiastical bodies in the world and yet lose your soul.

I'm struck by the story of Cornelius in Acts 10, who was an unbaptized gentile that prayed. And yet when St. Peter arrives at his door, he exclaims so beautifully:

"So Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ ( he is Lord of all), you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear, not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."

While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days."

This is my new ecclesiology.


(John Woo is a Chinese-American Lutheran, just threw him in here to show an 'eastern Christian')

Good Shepherd Iconography

Roman Catholic Jesus (The Good Shepherd)

My commentary here seems to be the way that Western Christian art de-masculinizes Jesus. Sometimes to the extreme. For instance, the Western mystics speak about Christ nursing them at times. (St. Bernard claimed to have nursed from the Blessed Virgin, but I'm not touching that issue). I sometimes enjoy these portrayals of Christ, and I think they were produced to show the approachability(?) of Christ, and his meekness. I like this image a lot, and after spending enough time in the RCC, I have come to identify with it's once foreign iconography and art. It's a very kind Jesus.


East Orthodox Jesus (The Good Shepherd)

There's no one quite like Orthodox Jesus. Half Putin, half Goliath. That sheep is being dragged with Him whether it likes it or not (paradoxically contradictory to the EO view of predestination, but I guess sometimes lex orandi lex credendi non est). Sometimes I feel like I'm looking at Vlad the Impaler, rather that our blessed Lord, but other times I'm impressed by the authority and power of Christ. This icon reminds me of his strong words: "[m]y sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me". If I heard this man shouting at me (with a heavy Russian accent?) I would certainly stop what I was doing, and listen.



Synthesis / Protestant(?) Jesus


This image is a nice rapproachment between the East & West. It's an image from a Lutheran church in my province. I won't say it's the best because of it's denominational affiliation, after all, it might've just been a public domain image that they slapped on their website. However, I think it does a good job of capturing the humanity of Christ (while keeping him masculine), and also the sheep over his shoulders is quite significant to me, and is more reminiscent of Lk 15:5 "when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing."

Christ is my Good Shepherd, who leaves the 99 to find me, a wayward sheep, one which doesn't heed his voice, and wanders my own way, but whom the Lord graciously picks up and carries home himself.

Ecumenical Starting Grounds & 3 Kinds Of Christians

As someone who lives in the realm of Catholic-Protestant (and to a much lesser extent) Orthodox dialogue and debate I just thought I should point out what we all can agree on:

Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament

Trinity and entire conciliar understanding of the nature of God (minus the Filioque). This always gets underrated, but SERIOUSLY, we agree on who God is, this is a big deal.

Prayer (for the most part, minus Protestants on saintly intercession)

Ethics (conservatives in each group all hold biblical values on most ethical issues, liberals are another matter)

Love and Social Justice

Justification by Grace

Metaphysics (I don't think Protestants or Orthodox disagree with Catholics here, but I might be wrong).

The Apostles and Nicene Creed (except for non-Lutheran Protestants objecting to "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins")

This really is alot if you think about it.

Right after discussing how divided Christendom is over prayers to the saints C.S. Lewis writes:

"I sometimes have a briht dream of reunion engulfing us unawares, like a great wave from behind our backs, perhaps at the very moment when our official representatives are still pronouncing it impossible. Discussions usually separate us; actions sometimes unite us." - C.S. Lewis "Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer" Ch.3

I love this image. C.S. Lewis was such a genius. I think there are 3 kinds of Christians out there in terms of ecumenism:

1. Triumphalists. These are the people who actually enjoy the divisions of the church. They like to go on and on about how they are the only remnant left and how God is unknown to everyone else. I think they remind me of Mark Twain's joke about putting a Roman Catholic, a Presbyterian, and a Baptist in a cage and them all killing each other. Indeed those 3 seem to compete for the title of least ecumenical.

2. Compromisers. These are people who want to gloss over every difference imaginable, if they can't outright ignore it. These are the opposite to the triumphalists. But at least the compromisers do something together, whether it's social justice stuff or charity work, they do something. Along with those who know the differences and ignore them, here I'll include those who are simply ignorant of theological divisions.

3. Segregationists. These are people who understand the differences between the different churches/denominations and know why they are _______ists or ________ans but they anxiously await and seek reunion. They believe we are segregated on earth here and now because of our honest disagreement, but that God's grace and the Holy Spirit work universally and that while they may say "outside the church there is ordinarily no salvation" (WCF) but at the same time admit that ordinarily is the key word.

I hope I'm in group 3 and that if I've chosen the "wrong" church after all that He'll be gracious and merciful.

I was watching this movie "The Lilies of the Field" today with Sidney Poitier and it's about a Baptist construction worker / general labourer guy who helps a group of Nuns build a chapel. There's a beautiful scene where he rebukes the Mother Superior and asks if they ever have any joy amidst their "religion" (bad connotation in this usage). It ends with them all singing the Negro Spiritual "Amen" together and smiling as Sidney Poitier is 'lining' the life of Jesus while they sing Amen. Even though it was just a movie, it gave me hope that maybe one day God will teach us to have the Joy of black Baptists and the holiness of German Nuns in perfect harmony.

Lord help us.

7 Issues - Vulgate, Saints, Development, Works, Communion, Unity, Tradition

I've just picked 6 random things to discuss concerning the Christian Tradition that I've thought about recently. I could write for pages and pages about them, but I'll try to sum up the thoughts as briefly as possible.

Vulgate
Bible translations are in general deceptive. The Vulgate and the NIV are the 2 archetypal mistranslations I can think of that SEEM (note this word) to be translated solely for the purpose of deceiving people about the bible. It horrifies me to know how much Mariology was based on the Vulgate's rendering of Genesis 3:15 which makes it appear that Mary not Jesus would crush Satan. The issue is of course, how much Latin Mariology has to do with this passage, as the Greek's seem to have given Mary similar titles like "mediatrix". This brings me to my next point.

Mary and Mediation
While the Greeks also teach ALOT more about Mariology than Protestants would like to admit, they've still not reached Rome. It seems like from the 10th to 12th century (this is all according to Pelikan's book I haven't read alot here) there is this native Mariology that is intrinsically tied to Christology. As a former Protestant it boggles my mind as there is always a dichotemy between Mary and Christ, and just when I see these proto-protestant descriptions by St. Bernard of Christ's righteousness as being our righteousness, and justification being his remission of our sins alone, there it is! an entire book with the title abbreviated as (De Laud. Virg.) Now my one year of Latin reminds me that the verb Laudo Laudere Laudatum Laudatavi or something like that means to worship. So obviously this isn't a secret protestantism if he's worshipping Mary by his own word choice. But I just find it annoying how Catholicism while it allows you to seek mediation solely through Christ, it always encourages you to seek saintly mediation. It always tries to shove as many people in line as possible. Now this doesn't mean they're wrong or whatever, and Catholic apologists have answers to each of these issues, but at the same time, I have to add an amen to N.T Wright who says:

"(after saying that saintly intercession is not in the New Testament or in "the earliest Fathers" he writes) ... we should be very suspicious of the medieval idea that the saints can function as friends at court so that while we might be shy of approaching the King ourselves, we know someone who is, as it were, one of us, to whom we can talk freely and who will maybe put in a good word for us. The practice seems to me to call into question, and even actually to deny by implication, the immediacy of access to God through Jesus Christ and in the Spirit, which is promised again and again in the New Testament...you have a royal welcome awaiting you in the throne room...why would you bother hanging around the outer lobby trying to persuade someone there, however distinguished, to go in and ask for you? To question this, even by implication, is to challenge one of the central blessings and privileges of the gospel." - Bp. N.T. Wright "Surprised By Hope" p. 172 (Purgatory, Paradise, Hell)

I read the exact same critique of C.S. Lewis in his book "Letters to Malcolm" -who even though he believes in Purgatory - denies any purpose to praying to saints. Even Maccabbees only has praying for the dead, not asking saints to pray for us.

Development of Doctrine
Are the Eastern Theologians correct in attacking the development of doctrine. The Protestant argument only makes sense - as the Catholic argument only makes sense, if we hold to the development of doctrine. The Easterners kind of deny it or at least set a point which it cannot move past. I'm not decided on this issue yet, but it's an interesting point. Penal Substitution / Substitutionary Atonement models of Calvin and other Reformed theologians I see as a development of Anselmic Satisfaction doctrines, and the penitential system of Catholicism is a development from the general principle of repentance and temporal punishment for sin. The Orthodox seem to have ended doctrinal development with 1054, and this may be a result of their fracture and disunity, but it might be an interesting opposing theory to the idea that doctrine develops.

Works
It was Anglican Divine Richard Hooker who finally showed me how there is no such thing as a doctrine of salvation by faith and works. If you attach works as necessary for salvation, you are teaching salvation by works. This seems to go against Romans 4:5... But I still think James 2 teaches it. St. Augustine teaches it. All the Fathers teach it. So really the Protestants may be right that we all (Orthodox and Catholics) teach salvation by works, but the question then becomes, does the bible? This of course leads to other issues and questions about the defectibility of the Church, tradition, etc. But it's still a valid issue I have to think more about, and whether there is a Pauline vs. Augustinian (and even Patristic) issue here.

Communion in both kinds
I hate that the Latins don't do communion in both kinds. It's pretty stupid, and I didn't realize they did it when I started, because when I was confirmed I was allowed to partake of the cup and I assumed I'd always have that privilege. The Orthodox are clearly more faithful to the command "take this all of you and drink from it"

Unity
But in spite of all else, I am constantly reminded of the Patristic and early medieval doctrine of Church Unity. St. Augustine says that there is never, any, just reason for schism. Never.... so was he wrong? (as well as Eph. 4 one bread, one faith, one body, one Lord, etc) The invisible Church thing is just B.S. to me right now, he started a visible Church.

Tradition
I think Tradition is important to the point of being beyond important, I think whatever your doctrines of Soteriology and Sacraments, they cannot alienate the majority of the Church throughout the ages. As long as the canon issue is unresolved, the authority of Tradition remains.

Questions I Still Have

I'm trying very hard to be Roman Catholic without being triumphalistic, which is usually the key feature of converts, John Donne was so right when he wrote "the heresies men leave are the one's they hate most" - obviously Donne wasn't referring to Protestantism (a Catholic convert to Anglicanism himself), but the point is, I don't want to seem over-zealous, but still remain firm in my faith.

So I figured, I'd post a bunch of questions I still have of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism (Hopefully many of which will be answered as I read more Church History).

1. How on earth do you justify "satisfaction" as a part of penance? (I'm reading St. Anselm's "Cur Deus Homo" on this)

2. Why on earth does the Roman Church still use the Vulgate and claim it is accurate, and translate to English based on it (Douay-Rheims, Ronald Knox) when manifest errors remain in it that they know about like "do penance", and a mistranslation of Genesis 3:15 which claims Mary instead of Christ will crush Satan's head? (I'm guessing an argument about the indefectibility of the Church will be used to go against the facts in support of the Vulgate)

3. What is the importance of the "filioque" and what did the Fathers say about the procession of the Holy Ghost? (probably divided)

4. If it's the Holy Spirit that transforms the elements at consecration in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition (as the Reformed keep arguing it is) then why do they believe a valid priest is necessary?

5. How do the Reformed justify their ecclesiology from Tradition?

6. How do Anglicans justify their Church's authority outside of England?

7. What do the Lutherans believe the "point" of their confessions and absolutions are?

8. What did the Fathers teach about Mary? specifically, the orthodox Fathers.

9. Aren't C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright correct that while the invocation of the saints is not anti-biblical it's emphasis can practically deny the New Testament doctrine of Christ's intercesion for us and our direct access to God?

10. How does Catholicism understand predestination? What is Molinism?

11. Why do the Orthodox believe God stopped defining things in 1054?

12. Why do the Reformed love the Eastern Orthodox, when the Eastern Orthodox clearly deny salvation by faith alone and the validity of Reformed Churches?

13. How did the reunion of Eastern-Rite Catholic Churches occur?

14. Is Lutheranism or Roman Catholicism more Augustinian?

15. Why should we care so much about Augustine? Didn't all the other fathers (expecially the Greeks) deny Original Sin?

Oh what a friend we have in Pelikan

So I finally got my volumes 3 and 4 of "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine" and have been flying through volume 3. In less than a day I'm on page 130 of 307 and I am enjoying it alot, but it scares me because it's so challenging, I'm realizing that my "education" in medieval and late medieval history that I received at university was almost nothing more than Modern Humanist Propoganda. I also learned that Roman Catholic attitudes that Protestantism is COMPLETELY innovative are also incorrect.

Don't Sweat the Small Stuff
In complete honesty Pelikan I find is very fair, but does clearly read like an Orthodox Christian who was educated by Lutherans. My bold assertion there is based on a few facts. He likes to point out the Western acceptance of the filioque as kind of a universal 'accident' and talks about how the West (Anselm particularly) F-ed up Christology pertaining to the 2 wills of Christ. He also talks about the "seeds" of the Lutheran Law-Gospel distinction in the 10th century preaching of "consolation and warning" and the "two-fold fashion" and sacramental nature of preaching. So yes he seems very fair, but it's just interesting to note those hints of the traditions he's most familiar with. (I think he's awesome I'm not trying to call him biased).

There's Something about Augustine:
His story-like telling of the history of Western Dogma is very kindred of my favourite historians who at the price of possibly over-simplifying, commit the sin of "making History interesting" by telling it as a narrative (Gibbon's account of the Roman Empire was the same). But the narrative seems to be all about St. Augustine of Hippo. Augustine is always the source and summit (to borrow the phrase on the Eucharist from the Catholic Catechism) of theology. Everyone is always fighting about Augustine and the story which ends up as a tragedy with the Reformation seems to be all because of Augustine. Pelikan's Lutheranism also is evident in his constant affirmations that the catholic faith was always "prima scriptura" scripture as the highest authority followed by the fathers (mostly Augustine) and then reason.

So it seems VERY interesting to me to know more about Pelikan's conversion as he had spent so much time studying the West and how to become East Orthodox you ultimately have to say that this whole Augustinian school of thought that becomes the centre of every debate was just wrong from the start. Original Sin is untrue, Predestination is only a mystery, etc. I really need to buy his volume on the East.

What's it to Me?
The interesting thing is seeing his sort of commentary on authentic developments and inauthentic developments of tradition. For example he seems to be completely Orthodox in his assessment in this book. He notes wherever the supremacy of Peter or the Papacy is called into question but unlike a Lutheran, he always asserts that it was the bishops who held this equal authority with Peter having Primacy but not Supremacy (a very Orthodox assertion). He also always notes that the belief in Justification by faith alone was an innovation and not to be found in medieval teaching (a very non-Lutheran assertion). But he also talks about penance and the penitential system with great disdain (a very Orthodox and Lutheran assertion), and talks about the constant belief in the objective efficacy of the sacraments (an everyone but Reformed and Anabaptist assertion).

So maybe he's just recording history. I'm just too stuck in polemics. It's great to have a challenge though. During this whole conversion process things would've been much better if people told me to read more Church History and used more Church History to sway me. Oh well, nothing is set in stone, it's good to have this 'dead theologian' Pelikan to 'dialogue' with through his writings, perhaps if I ever gain Slavic citizenship the Orthodox might eventually consider me worthy of attending their eucharistic celebrations and I could see what he was 'on about'.

The Joys of Catholicism (1)- The Unity Of The See Of Peter

Today I was reading Pope Benedict XVI's theology in a book I bought which holds a collection of his writing. He's a theological genius in my opinion, the smartest man I've ever read, and the most biblical Roman Catholic theologian I've ever read. He is totally a man of resourcement theology (a return to biblical and patristic sources for theology - rather than Neo-Scholasticism). Today as I sat in the Cathedral at Mass I realized, I'm in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, Papa Benny 16. We're one body, it's as if we were sharing in communion together, along with all the Roman saints in Heaven, St. Thomas More, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. I have had temptations to Anglo-Catholicism recently again (luckily Anglicanism has continued to kill itself, if there are any anglo-Catholics left), but as I thought about it, I enjoy the unity and doctrinal clarity of "romanism".

My self-hating Evangelical friends talk about East Orthodoxy as if it were the Celestial City, personally I'd become Missouri-Synod Lutheran before crossing the Bosphorus. Aside from the racism of Orthodoxy, there's the whole mess of jurisdiction, and the controversy of the Antiochan Orthodox Church in America right now: http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090713/NEWS16/907130324

We had priests rape children, but no bishops who got drunk in casinos and grabbed womens...well just read about it. That was a bit of a red-herring and an unfair shot at the Greeks. We`re all sinful. Anyway, I was just reminded of how much I enjoy the unity that comes from the Monarchical Rule of the Papacy, for all the evil it can do when we have a bad pope, it makes times sweet when we have an awesome Pope like Benny (this is true of all Monarchy really).

God be with the Successor of Peter, the Servant of the Servants of God, Papa Benny 16. Augustinian, German, and Cat-lover. Who would`ve thought that a former Nazi and head of the Inquisition (Congregation of Faith) would make such a lovable grandpa figure Pope.

I have grown to hate Roman Triumphalism, and have tried to avoid it in this blog (though failed on MANY occasions), but I found this Chesterton quote expresses my affinity for my Roman Catholicism well:

So far as a man may be proud of a religion rooted in humility, I am very proud of my religion; I am especially proud of those parts of it that are most commonly called superstition. I am proud of being fettered by antiquated dogmas and enslaved by dead creeds (as my journalistic friends repeat with so much pertinacity), for I know very well that it is the heretical creeds that are dead, and that it is only the reasonable dogma that lives long enough to be called antiquated. - G. K. Chesterton

Feast of the Annunciation

Today is the Feast of the Annunciation, when the St. Mary the mother of God became the theotokos/Mother of God because St. Gabriel the Archangel (don't ask me how angels are saints they just are) told her that she would be 'with child' or whatever the Hebrew equivalent would be, and she started singing what would eventually become the Beattles song "Let it Be".

But most importantly as in the case of any liturgical celebration it has become a time for the Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox and others to come together and to bicker about who has the "Real" Church of the Annunciation on the actual location. I wonder if they'll be another fight like the epic Church of the Holy Sepulcher's 'battle on the burial ground' slugfest of '08 (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004362684_christians21.html)

Anyway, getting back to the original annunciation we have this photo either taken by Nazarene Paparrazzi at the time or drawn by some Italian artist who is actually depicting goddess worship in hopes that Dan Brown might one day write a book about it. To clear things up, contrary to what the picture portrays, there is no conclusive proof that Our Lady had down syndrome but that the creator of it merely took artistic license and went with it to add some drama.

But cynicism and joking and blasphemy I'll have to be absolved for aside, here's the story according to the not-eyewitness St. Luke the evangelist:

"In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, ‘Greetings, favoured one! The Lord is with you.’ But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. The angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.’ Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I am a virgin?’ The angel said to her, ‘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 holy; he will be called Son of God. And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren. For nothing will be impossible with God.’ Then Mary said, ‘Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.’ Then the angel departed from her. " - Luke 1:26-38

Blessed Virgin Mary, pray for me that God might forgive me for blasphemy, it was for humor's sake, and I'm willing to do some more purgatory for it if necessary. Amen

Malachi's Lenten Message

"For I hate divorce, says the Lord, the God of Israel, and covering one’s garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless.
You have wearied the Lord with your words. Yet you say, ‘How have we wearied him?’ By saying, ‘All who do evil are good in the sight of the Lord, and he delights in them.’ Or by asking, ‘Where is the God of justice?’
See, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple. The messenger of the covenant in whom you delight—indeed, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts. But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears?
For he is like a refiner’s fire and like fullers’ soap; he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the descendants of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, until they present offerings to the Lord in righteousness. Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the Lord as in the days of old and as in former years.
Then I will draw near to you for judgement; I will be swift to bear witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired workers in their wages, the widow, and the orphan, against those who thrust aside the alien, and do not fear me, says the Lord of hosts.
For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, have not perished. Ever since the days of your ancestors you have turned aside from my statutes and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you, says the Lord of hosts. But you say, ‘How shall we return?’" - Malachi 2.16-3.8

A few things stick out to me here. God is talking about St. John the Baptist obviously with the messenger who purifies, and the offering of Judah as Christ's crucifixion - that's the offering - Or the Eucharistic Sacrifice (because it says it is of Old, and in Mal 1, it has the verse about a perfect sacrifice).... In any case, the Sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the mass are the same sacrifice, so it's still being presented which makes sense of the verse, or perhaps it is just that it stretched through all time past and future. But again as John judged the hypocritics of his day as Christ did, so the final judgment is foreseen here where some are purified (purgatory for Catholics, whatever the hell the Orthodox believe in -they probably all disagree-, or sanctification for Protestants).

I like that verse about the Lord not changing and therefore the true covenant people will not change. So the Church being the new israel in the covenant will be purified - but they will be saved - and they will be cleansed of sin and Christ's pure sacrifice will be theirs which will please God.

At least that's what I got from it. I'm probably going to get destroyed by the covenant theologians wanting the great wall of China between OT and NT covenants, and the Catholics who try to make everything a proof-text for later developed doctrine.

Whatever..... what it practically means is God is kicking my ass right now with bad stuff that's happened this week and i need some explanation so i go back to the scary part of the Old Testament which makes more sense than this week's readings of "In him (Christ) every one of God's promises is a yes" -which sounds nice, but isn't really true, as I'm still praying for what I've been praying for for the last 3 years, etc.

Hence why the Old Testament and Lent makes sense. God obviously still has discipline and wrath to dish out, even to his kids. But eventually we'll be able to say that this cosmic child abuse 'made us the men we are today'. Blah blah C.S. Lewis problem of pain....blah blah Ken Gire Sanctification... blah blah life sucks at times.

yep. good thing everyone stopped reading this blog. heh.

I'll close on a good quote from Rabbi Abraham Heschel (who the emergents all love): God remains unreal to those who view him as anything less than a consuming fire. (or something like that.)

Now off to class.

St. Ignatius and Bishops

St. Ignatius of Antioch (50-117AD *at the latest) was a bishop in the VERY early Church, he was the 3rd in line of succession to the apostles themselves as bishop of Antioch meaning that the church there was ruled by St. Peter then Evodius, then Ignatius, he was a friend of Polycarp (a disciple/successor of St. John himself, who lived with and was taught by Christ).

All this to say, he was in very early church history. By the end of the second century there were bishops over the priesthood/presbyteries in all areas of Christendom.

"Plainly therefore we ought to regard the bishop as the Lord Himself" - St. Ignatius (epistle to the Ephesians 6:1.)

"It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil." - Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 9

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. " -Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8

In the beginning of Acts we see Judas' place in the apostles filled in with the Consecration of Matthias in his place. Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Traditional Anglican teaching say that this is the first consecration of a bishop, and thus has the line of bishops proceeded until this very day, and that in essence they are the successors to the apostles, not equal in power or authority, but authorized as their successors, and as such have the authority to cast out demons (authorize exorcisms), interpret Scripture (church councils/ecumenical councils, as well as things like the Lambeth conference), discipline the church and excommunicate (see Catholic bishops and Pro-Choice politicians), and appoint priests.

St. Irenaeus said that the bishop had "charisma veritatis certum" - that is "an infallible charism (gift) of truth", and St. Cyrian... well we all know what he thought about them. And clearly St. Ignatius challenges the idea that we can have a valid priesthood/pastorate, Eucharist/Communion, or any assurance of truth without being subordinate to a bishop in the line of the apostles. So the question is -for one who respects the Tradition of the Early Church- Catholic? Orthodox? Anglican? (or European Lutheran)?

sorry Presbyterianism, and Congregationalism, you've been put on notice! (as St. Stephen Colbert would say)

The Gift of God - Covenent, Salvation and Christology

I have been struggling with the age old issue that seperates Protestants and Catholics: What place do works have in salvation? I find that there are 3 key texts for understanding this (in my pathetic opinion) James 2, Ephesians 2, and Matthew 25.

I've already done James 2, and I must say that Catholics win some ground in that it does *sound like a refutation of Sola Fide, although Calvin and Jared compose a good counter-argument. The main problem is the fact that if they are right (Catholics), how on earth do faiths retain our justification. That's when we step from the biblical to the traditional, suddenly we find a phrase like 'retain our justification' and then we fall into this weird sphere which leaves us with a God who cares more about physical actions then the position of the heart, in essence a pharisaical (is that a word?) legalism, which many Catholic complain to me about (actually only 3 but still). On the other side, we have of course the free-grace-r's, whom Bonhoeffer dismisses quite effectively as well in his chapter on "Cheap Grace".

I read through the other 2 passages today and here are my thoughts and conclusions - at least for now, which shockingly place me in the sphere of Protestantism, something I haven't seen in a while. It appears I might be reshaking Luther's hand again, before all is said and done.

Ephesians 1-2.
I've been trying REALLY hard not to read my bible in the way I was taught as a reformed baptist, and been actively trying to make my bible sound like Catholicism, I have of course a strange Wesleyan-Orthodox theology, and so reading Ephesians 1 - the Calvinist gospel, yielded an interesting result for me.

Now, I go with the Arminians in that when I read Ephesians 1 and everything about predestination I see St. Paul discussing more of a category, rather than individuals. I think he's discussing the church as a whole, the new covenant group, and that God somehow has pre-destined (for a God outside time and space, I don't see how foreknowledge without predestination is possible) the church. So, it says in v4 that we are chosen to be "Holy and Blameless" meaning sanctification. In these chapters St. Paul contrasts the 'others', the pagans, those ignorant of Christ, and the Elect. Those whom God chose to reveal Christ to. Those in the new covenant. So he sealed them with the Holy Spirit and these are God's people.

He keeps saying though things like 'heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation' and that the people 'believed in him'. Very Protestant (i'm not honestly saying St. Paul was protestant or Catholic, I'm just saying it is points on their side. He seems to be saying that the formula is: 1. you were bad, 2. luckily God predestined you to be holy, 3. (because) you heard the gospel and believed. Paul always talks about faith and grace in these chapters and rejects the notion that the people of God/the church/believers really had anything to do with it. He is saying (in my opinion) that Christ achieved it all.

Riches is another key theme, it is that when Christ came and died he 'drew men unto himself' (Jn 6:44) and that they could become 'in Him' and 'in Christ'. The amazing thing to me is the pattern, it is that CHRIST earned it, NOT us. There can be no merit. The Catholic position is the opposite in some ways, in that they believe in salvation by grace, but that we can still merit our salvation. As St. Thomas Aquinas states:

"Man, by his natural endowments, cannot produce meritorious works
proportionate to everlasting life; and for this a higher force is needed, viz.
the force of grace. And thus without grace man cannot merit everlasting life"
(St. Thomas Aquinas ST I-II:109:5)

However in Ephesians 3:13-14 it says "in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility" (ESV). This is of course Christology, talking about how the blood of Christ brings unity between the believers. But I am always amazed at how throughout the letter the theme is always - Christ achieves eternal life, he distributes grace, and in his crucifixion he has bought all of the elect, they HAVE BEEN saved, in the Past tense. Somehow, mysteriously Christ bought the salvation of St. Thomas Aquinas, over 1000 years before he was born, because he was one of the elect, he 'believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness'.

It says in Chapter 2:4 "even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ - by grace you have been saved" (ESV). It is a reoccuring theme that Christ has made us alive, not us. How do we know those who have been made alive? they have heard the gospel, they believe, they are being made holy. Again St. Paul hammers it out 'by grace you have been saved through faith and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.' It seems clear to me that the case is closed for Paul, salvation is seperate from holiness, from works, from boasting.

Now I know Catholics will argue 2 things here. 1. Works means - works of the law of moses, etc. blah blah N.T. Wright, 2nd temple judaism, blah. I know. I've heard it. However, if the ESV was translated properly (I have no clue if it is), it says 'not your own doing', rather than Works/works of the law of moses. 2. This is talking about 'initial justification' blah blah Lutheran-Catholic joint declaration on Justification blah. I know. I've heard it. However, Paul doesn't seem to understand Trentine Catholicism, in that he says in v.6 "and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ". It goes straight from justification by grace, to glorification, theosis etc. This left my Catholic-side screaming: 'For the love of God Paul, don't you know about meritous good works! don't you know about Purgatory and indulgences! don't you know that you are one of the greatest of the saints, and that if you look at yourself in the mirror and say a hail mary you will earn 1000 years out of purgatory because of the merits of ... well you and the saints'. I realize this is one passage, but still, if you were in Ephesus, this was all the church really knew outside the basic life of Jesus, and the OT. It seemed enough for them.

Good Lord, I seem like a Calvinist. Ephesians 1 will do it to all of us... 'he desireth that all men might be saved' come on Andrew, remember 'sins of the world-not sins of the elect' ... just repeat it over and over again.... There we go, Wesleyan once more. Moving on.

Now the other thing is, I didn't discuss Chp 2:10, in typical Protestant style. "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." But again, this says nothing about Salvation, it only seems to me to be pointing to proof of justification, proof of election, proof that you are in God's covenant. There is my protestant reading of Ephesians 1-2, may God have mercy on my soul, I defy the position of the church.

I was always guilted by Catholics and Orthodox who would say that if this IS the gospel, if this is the message, why did no one preach it throughout church history until Martin Luther in the 16th century. Why? How could the Gospel be lost. That is why I bought into Catholic interpretation, because it is a good argument. However when I honestly look at the text and at the life of Protestant and Catholic churches in my city and elsewhere, I have to embarrassingly say along with Luther that I really do think this is the gospel. I really do think that Christ lived, died, and rose to save us, to make dead people alive, not to empower us to be better, not to gain victory and then make us gain victory ourselves, not to make bad people pull themselves up. I think the fundamental premise is that they can't, ever. And even Christ's victory over death still has each Christian die. And even his victory over sin can't in this life free us from sin. I think it's a noble ideal, that we somehow become like Christ and merit our salvation. However, I can't do it. Me, personally, I can't be that way. Only Christ can I think, I will always be the same selfish fat bastard. But Christ is so much more, and when I give up everything and let Christ work through me, when I admit that I am rubbish, and give up my hope that I can save myself, then God changes me. I have to much faillure to be triumphalistic. My good works were predestined by God, and they don't merit anything other than thanksgiving to Him.

Matthew 25.
If Ephesians 1 was the Calvinist Gospel, then Matthew 25 is the social gospel. Now the idea of Covenant is still something I don't truly understand, but here is my underdeveloped view of it. Belief, faith, baptism, communion, are all things we do to enter into the covenant, but the key is really submission to Christ and trust in his ability to save us. Now the thing I never noticed before is that at the beginning Christ seperates the sheep and the goats, sheep on the right. Sheep on the right. Christ = The Good Shepherd (Ez.34, Jn.10), believers = Sheep, those in his covenant, those who believe, those who are saved. And on the left he seperates the goats, goat typically associated with Satan. As 1 John tells us, all who sin are children of the devil, which means, everyone except Christians and the Blessed Virgin Mary (Gen 3:15 + 1Jn3:8 = sinless Mary) are goats/children of the devil.

Now I was always taught that those who looked after the poor, who did everything 'for the least of these', were the ones who go to Heaven, and the others who neglected the poor, hungry, and naked, were the ones who went to Hell. HOWEVER, it says that to the ones on the right that they served him well, that they did the work of Christ, but they are judged TOGETHER, or Corporately. The Church itself is judged as Righteous on Judgement day, not the individul. Those outside the Church who do not share in it's corporate blessings, those who have not stayed in Christ, are the ones who are judged to go to "eternal punishment".

Thus, my believe is that we must stay "in Christ". I've always said that Predestination doesn't honestly matter, because if we are predestined not to believe in predestination, there's no changing our minds anyway. I am thinking that St. Paul's theme the more and more I read and re-read, is that we must be "In Christ" and those the people who are saved and will be made holy through sanctification, and that it is by grace, through faith, the good gift, salvation, the gift of God.

Heresy, Scripture, and Tradition

I found a guy's blog with this quote in it and I thought I should put it up for discussion, it is from St. Vincent of Lerins "Commonitorium" written in 434 CE/AD:

"But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason,—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors."

I'm not trying to say this means that the Catholic church today in the 21st century led by Pope Benedict XVI is THE only church, as the Eastern Orthdox could read this quote without a problem. You have to remember that at the time, EVERY orthodox christian church was one, the Catholic church, and then it subsequently split. So the Anglicans and Orthodox and Lutherans today all come from this original Catholic church, we would all be Catholics back then, and this is all of our heritage. So we don't simply default to the modern Catholic church because there is the same word used, which means Universal, or According to the whole. It is still an argument of who are the true Catholics. Presbyterians think they are, and Lutherans think they are, and modern Roman Catholics think they are.

But this is an interesting quote from church tradition that scripture is to be interpretted by the church as a whole. This slaps Congregationalism in the face as well as SOME interpretations of 'priesthood of all believers'. But for those international denominations and churches who decide what scripture means, through tradition, still have a fighting chance.

What I take from St. Vincent's quote is this: Scripture is the Word of God, however it must be interpretted, and it is interpretted through Tradition. Tradition is that which has been believed by all, everywhere, always. This is why the church as a whole must search through tradition and examine what scripture means.

I think the Orthodox are correct in that we cannot understand more about Christianity than the apostles did at the time. Of course the debate now is about what the apostles believed. And that is why we need Tradition.

Eastern Orthodoxy

Eastern Orthdoxy seems like the near perfect version of Christianity. I think they have an amazing balance of Tradition and Scripture. Scripture is still allowed to critique traditions and it is held in high esteem (even if the communion as a whole can't agree on the canon of it).

I love the fact that they allow for mystery, and that they seem so ancient in how they do things. At the Catholic Church I occassionally attend they use modern Christian music. But I remember listening in History class to the Liturgy of St. Anthony, and the beauty of the churches. I love the Icons which constantly remind me of the Great Cloud of Witnesses. I think if I ever went into one of those churches it would feel like that line in the Apostles' Creed "The communion of the saints", the one covenent body on Earth and in Heaven. It's a great image.

As well the Filioque issue to me is in favor of the East Orthodox (for those unfamiliar with it, the Orthodox belive the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, whereas the Catholics add, or the Orthodox remove - depending on your position of course - the Filioque, which is latin for 'and the Son', thus Catholics believe the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.) In my reading of scripture I believe it is the Father. (but of course, I haven't read intensively on it).

I think their position on Tradition is what I like the most. The fact that they ordain married priests, and that they seem to have an amazing reverence for God. I also really like a few of their saints. I enjoy the Eastern Mysticism, and frequently pray the Jesus prayer (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner) as they do, and find it beneficial.

Of course the closest Orthodox church is a 45-50 minute drive away, and I hear they're even less welcoming than the Catholics (which would mean probably not letting me in the door). And the Church is split up into about 19 churches all claiming episcopal authority over the same diocese, and they are ridiculously nationalistic (quite like Catholics as well except substitute Irish and Italian, for Greek and Russian).

I remember my grandmother telling me a story about how in the Ukraine in my great grandmother's time, the Mennonites and the Ukranian Orthodox used to come after church and bake together and that's how alot of Mennonite recipes came to be. I like that kind of ecumenism. Two totally different theological viewpoints, both heretics in the eyes of each other's dogma, but they can come together as one body on the Sabbath and bake. We need more ecumenical baking, and I wish there was an Orthodox church in town...

Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/orth_cath_diff.asp

Here is a great article written by an Orthodox Christian just about all of the differences that exist between The Eastern and Western churches. It is interesting to me that after reading it, I realized that the Orthodox church and Roman church are actually more separated in many ways than the Protestant and Catholic churches. I find this really interesting, especially since Catholics forever tell us Protestants that we are the first and only schismatics.

I still have no clue which church I'll end up in it could be any of them, but it is interesting to know how different their views really are, and also astonishing to see how quickly one group will brand another with the title of 'heresy'. I guess it's inherent in Christianity because we believe so much in absolutel truth which is non-negotiable, it only makes sense that none of us can figure out what the absolute truths are.