St. Ignatius of Antioch again

I already read and went over another one of St. Ignatius' letters and his strong Ecclesiology shone through. A friend is meeting me tomorrow because she is Catholic and dating a Reformed Protestant and wants to show him the proof of the Real (physical) Presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the Early Church. So I quickly thought of the Apostolic Fathers and it amazes me how overwhelmingly Catholic they are. I just began reading St. Ignatius' letter to the Trallians and he writes almost immediately:

"without the bishop you should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ" Ch.2

"In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. Concerning all this, I am persuaded that you are of the same opinion" Ch. 3 - here he even links the Episcopate to an assembly of Apostles verifying the doctrine of Apostolic succession and he says apart from the Bishops there is no Church. Wow... this man was quite possibly St. John's Disciple. Theodoret writes that St. Peter himself appointed him as bishop of Antioch. He says here that there can be no Church without the bishop and that we are to obey them as we would Christ. Fairly strong attack on Presbyterianism and Congregationalism...

mmmm.....apostolic authority....nothing more delicious (just joking St. Ignatius)

" continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the enactments of the apostles. He that is within the altar is pure, but he that is without is not pure; that is, he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons, such a man is not pure in his conscience." Ch. 7 - he says that obeying these things will cure the 'poison of heresy'

Then I read part of his epistle to Polycarp and he writes again:
"Give heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. My soul be for theirs that are submissive to the bishop, to the presbyters, and to the deacons, and may my portion be along with them in God!" Ch. 6

Wow he really isn't budging on this submission to the Church bit. I really am having a hard time understanding where this divine mandate of broken communion and 'reformation' comes into play. If the "Reformation" saught to restore early Christianity where is the Ecclesiology which St. Ignatius can't seem to get rid of.

Finally I moved onto his Epistle to the Philadelphians, and he opens with:

"to the Church of God... which I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, who is our eternal and enduring joy, especially if [men] are in unity with the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, who have been appointed according to the mind of 'Jesus Christ, whom He has established in security, after His own will, and by His Holy Spirit." Greeting

Man this guy doesn't shut up about Christ's establishment of the Bishops and their security and authority etc. But then here comes the icing on the cake:

"For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.]" Ch. 3

Wow... if anyone follows a schismatic they are damned. . . St. Ignatius is like a 1st century John MacArthur. These are strong words against denominations outside of the historic episcopate *cough - non-Anglican/Orthodox/Catholic cough*.

Moving on he continues to stress Ecclesiology but also throws in some Real Presence stuff:
"Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth ] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons" ch. 4

" Yet it is not I, but Jesus Christ, for whose sake being bound I fear the more, inasmuch as I am not yet perfect. But your prayer to God shall make me perfect" Ch. 5 - Completed Sanctification anyone? - a little purgatory proof as I call it. He seems to be under the 'delusion' that sanctification must be completed...no imputed righteousness here.

"But the Spirit proclaimed these words: Do nothing without the bishop; keep your bodies as the temples of God; love unity; avoid divisions; be the followers of Jesus Christ, even as He is of His Father." Ch. 7 - Man now he's saying that the Holy Spirit is proclaiming his message "DO NOTHING WITHOUT THE BISHOP" - we get it St. Ignatius, shout it at the people talking about a Priesthood of all Believers.

" For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop. " Ch. 8 - Again in the Early Church division is a HUGE sin. There isn't alot of Ecumenical dialogue, just the orthodox and the heretics.

ok there were even a few more references to honoring bishops, presbyters, and deacons but I spared you.

Thus in conclusion as I read the faith of the Apostolic Fathers I am once again reaffirmed that no man has the authority to go against the Church Christ established and there is no 'invisible' body theory for the ancients, just a visible communion under the bishops. Lord have mercy on everyone else, and on those beneath the bishops. This is the catholic faith, once delivered to the saints.

Moses before the Call (Exodus 1:8-3:1)

So as I read Exodus 1-3 prior to Moses' burning bush experience, a few things stuck out as interesting:

"But the midwives feared God...And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families." 1: 17, 21 - I never realized till I looked in the notes of my "Scholarly" study bible and saw that the Midwives weren't Hebrews, they were Gentiles/Egyptians and they feared God and he blessed them.

"The daughter of Pharaoh" 2:5 - I never realized that this was Pharoah's actual daughter, not like Moses was pharoah's son. I always thought she was one of the hundreds of adoptee's but I guess she was actually his daughter, meaning that she was closer to her father and probably more likely to report the child to be killed.

"He looked this way and that, and seeing no one he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand" 2:12 - I remember Mr. Franz a teacher I had in High School (I went to a Mennonite High School) teaching us that this verse should be a key in our morality. If you have to look around before you do something to see if anyone is watching, it's probably a clear sign you shouldn't do it. I still think of that.

"Who made you a ruler and judge over us?" 2:14 - this hebrew who says it to Moses would've stung greatly as Moses later DID have to rule and judge them as a deliverer and leader in the wilderness. It probably rung in his ears as God called him to leadership in the burning bush.

"When Pharaoh heard of it, he sought to kill Moses." - 2:15 - I never knew Pharoah actually wanted to kill him, my version of this story is tainted by the Prince of Egypt in which the Pharoah's son / his (step?) brother isn't angry with him. So Moses actually had to flee.

"seven daughters...came to draw water...[b]ut some shepherds came and drove them away. Moses got up and came to their defence and watered their flock." - Moses has a bit of a Jesus complex and jumps in to help again and this gets him 'in' with the Priest of midian (Jethro) and he gets to marry one of his daughters.

The whole story ends with this line - which is so beautifully a human way of viewing God:

"The Israelites groaned under their slavery, and cried out. Out of the slavery their cry for help rose up to God. God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God looked upon the Israelites, and God took notice of them."

And then we end with Moses an exile, working for his father-in-law and a murderer doomed never to return. And after all those years finally God was ready to say something. I need to contemplate this further.

Monergism and Romans 3:23-28

I was reading my Grandpa's Bible that was given to him in 1946 when he married my Grandma. It's an old King James with all his written notes. I was also listening to Tony Evans tonight who I love, what a great Protestant Preacher. And I've been at the point where I constantly think 'i'm going to hell' so I opened up at Romans. I read this passage:

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." - Romans 3:23-28

The phrase "That he might be just, and the justifier" utterly clashes with all of modern Catholicism. It is complete Monergism. The idea that God does EVERYTHING and humans do NOTHING. This is what St. Paul seems to be making abundantly clear. There is no simpler way of putting it apparently. It would seem that God is just, and that he justifies those who believe in him. They don't justify themselves. It's not that they believe and are justified, it's that God justifies them and they believe. It's almost like he predestined them or something crazy like that, almost as if they had no say in the matter. This doesn't mesh with my Theology

I picked up Calvin again and he echoes this theme well, he quotes St. Boniface saying: "Human beings are the work of God insofar as they are human, but they are under the control of the devil insofar as they are sinners, unless they are rescued from there through Christ" (Bondage and Liberation of the Will pp 40-41)

And then Calvin adds of his own "the godly, being thoroughly emptied of all misplaced confidence in themselves, [an attitude] which is true humility indeed, make room for the grace of God, from which they may draw strength. Therefore in issuing commands and exhortations God does not take account of our strength, since he gives that very thing which he demands and gives it for the reason that by ourselves we are helpless." (Bondage and Liberation of the Will pp 41-42)

Interesting thoughts on the passage. If only they were right. Calvin may claim to be an Augustinian, but his Ecclesiology is entirely un-Augustinian. Thus I shall continue in Catholicism, for as St. Augustine said, "The Church is a whore, but she's my mother". God never gives us the choice of making a new church. So Ecclesiologically I must remain Catholic, but I still enjoy Calvin. He makes me feel redeemed even though I've done nothing Christ-like for probably a year. In my mind sola fide + election = apathy and sin = Calvin/Luther. But I'm glad some folks like Jared and the many Presbyterians I know can get a great deal from it. For me I doubt anything will work.

God bless my friends.

The Church Against the Nazis

I've always been taught that Hitler was a Catholic and that the Catholic Church practically smiled upon the Holocaust or at least mindlessly acted as a puppet signing agreements with the Reich government. But I was reading today Pope Pius XI's Mit Brennender Sorge - "With Burning Concern" and it's very interesting to realize that it was the last message of the Pope read in all the Catholic parishes in Germany before their persecution by the Nazis (which was of course minimal in comparison to other religious persecution - Jews, and shared by Protestant Christians as well - see Confessing Church, Barmen Declaration, Bonhoeffer and Barth). I just found a few passages interesting that debunked what I'd been taught.

Against Racism
"10. This God, this Sovereign Master, has issued commandments whose value is independent of time and space, country and race. As God's sun shines on every human face so His law knows neither privilege nor exception. Rulers and subjects, crowned and uncrowned, rich and poor are equally subject to His word. From the fullness of the Creators' right there naturally arises the fullness of His right to be obeyed by individuals and communities, whoever they are. This obedience permeates all branches of activity in which moral values claim harmony with the law of God, and pervades all integration of the ever-changing laws of man into the immutable laws of God."

Against Deism and Spinoza
"7. Take care, Venerable Brethren, that above all, faith in God, the first and irreplaceable foundation of all religion, be preserved in Germany pure and unstained. The believer in God is not he who utters the name in his speech, but he for whom this sacred word stands for a true and worthy concept of the Divinity. Whoever identifies, by pantheistic confusion, God and the universe, by either lowering God to the dimensions of the world, or raising the world to the dimensions of God, is not a believer in God. Whoever follows that so-called pre-Christian Germanic conception of substituting a dark and impersonal destiny for the personal God, denies thereby the Wisdom and Providence of God who "Reacheth from end to end mightily, and ordereth all things sweetly" (Wisdom viii. 1). Neither is he a believer in God. "

Against Racism
8. Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community - however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things - whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.

THIS IS MY FAVOURITE:

On the Cross of Christ:

"26. The cross of Christ, though it has become to many a stumbling block and foolishness (1 Cor. i. 23) remains for the believer the holy sign of his redemption, the emblem of moral strength and greatness. We live in its shadow and die in its embrace. It will stand on our grave as a pledge of our faith and our hope in the eternal light."

Against "Secular" Morality/State Ethics and the banning of Catholic/Christian Education:

"29. It is on faith in God, preserved pure and stainless, that man's morality is based. All efforts to remove from under morality and the moral order the granite foundation of faith and to substitute for it the shifting sands of human regulations, sooner or later lead these individuals or societies to moral degradation. The fool who has said in his heart "there is no God" goes straight to moral corruption (Psalms xiii. 1), and the number of these fools who today are out to sever morality from religion, is legion. They either do not see or refuse to see that the banishment of confessional Christianity, i.e., the clear and precise notion of Christianity, from teaching and education, from the organization of social and political life, spells spiritual spoliation and degradation. No coercive power of the State, no purely human ideal, however noble and lofty it be, will ever be able to make shift of the supreme and decisive impulses generated by faith in God and Christ.... A merciful God, who as Legislator, says - Thou must! - also gives by His grace the power to will and to do. To let forces of moral formation of such efficacy lie fallow, or to exclude them positively from public education, would spell religious under-feeding of a nation. To hand over the moral law to man's subjective opinion, which changes with the times, instead of anchoring it in the holy will of the eternal God and His commandments, is to open wide every door to the forces of destruction. The resulting dereliction of the eternal principles of an objective morality, which educates conscience and ennobles every department and organization of life, is a sin against the destiny of a nation, a sin whose bitter fruit will poison future generations. "

I love my Church.

Andrew the Reprobate - Why I can never be a Humanist

Although I've read and continue to read alot of the pagan philosophers (Aristotle, Plato, etc) and the Enlightenment thinkers (Tom Paine, Gibbon, Rousseau, etc) I have to say that there's one reason I cannot be a Humanist in the modern sense of the word. I absolutely disagree with the idea that man is inherently good or even neutral. In the words of the genius Karl Barth "Man is not good, man has never been good, and man will never be good". I know above all else that I myself am a reprobate.

As much as I've divinized these men, the Church Fathers did teach some strange things. Origen for example said, "The power of choosing good and evil is within the reach of all.". A more simple definition of the Pelagian heresy could hardly be put forth.

As much as I've villainized the men, Luther and Calvin have taught things which resonate deeply with my Christian experience. I am disgusted with reading all this Jesuit/Molinist/Humanistic garbage about the goodness of man and his ability to triumph. I'm at the point where I'm obliged to believe that everyone is made Imago Dei and to downplay the fall to a slight mistake, so my current theology is that while I cannot apply St. Paul's, St. Augustines, Blaise Pascal's, Martin Luther's, or John Calvin's theologies of human nature to the world at large I can apply them to myself.

I know and have learned in the last year that above all I am a reprobate. I don't actually read Calvin alot anymore so i'm not trying to show off -as if I found this myself- but I found this online and liked it alot. It totally slaps Catholicism in the face, but only post-trent semi-pelagian Catholicism.

"...our nature is not only destitute of all good, but is so fertile in all evils that it cannot remain inactive. Those who have called it concupiscence have used an expression not improper, if it were only added, which is far from being conceded by most persons, that everything in man, the understanding and will, the soul and body, is polluted and engrossed by this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that man is of himself nothing else but concupiscence." (Institutes, Vol. I, Bk. II, Chap. 1, Para. 8; Allen translation.)

We had to listen last week in RCIA to a lecture on not being able to sin without willing it or wanting to, which I thought was the most anti-Augustinian thing I'd ever heard, and so I wanted to meditate on some Calvin. In Catholicism we say only some actions have concupiscence or we are culpable - blameable for. Here Calvin is saying that man is NOTHING but guilt and willful sin. lol. it's sad because it's true.

I find it funny that when I discussed theology last night it was in an intense debate with a Protestant Pastor, I was challenging him with the high ethical standards of scripture when I realized that I had spent the entire day in sin, utter chosen sin, and here I was preaching. It was at that moment that I remembered St. Paul in Philippians talking about those who preach for benefit or personal glory. I myself I think do it out of habit or for the sake of argument, there is no genuine desire for real virtue or godliness, just winning an argument, or shattering someone's certainty.

A Buddhist I debated last month said to me "Are you so closed minded as to think ONLY Christians go to Heaven!?" and I actually laughed and said "Far from it, I don't even believe all Christians are going to Heaven, I don't even think I'm going to Heaven (I'm currently in a state of Mortal sin and haven't confessed to a priest and received absolution so in Catholicism I am hell-bound)". Frank Schaeffer once got alot of flak for saying "I hope God exists, I hope I go to Heaven but my faith is less certainty and more hope" - or something to that effect. Well I know God exists philosophically, I know there is a standard, and I know that I do not measure up to it, as Calvin says: "soul and body, is polluted"

Thus while I may not be able to say much from scripture without hypocrisy, on that fateful day when it is read from the pulpit "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure." (Jer 17.9) I can add an "Amen".

And when I look at the world I see everyday I have to agree with the observation that: "The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain."

The Utter Inclarity of Scripture

Tonight at our house a bunch of my parents friends from my old Baptist church came over for a dinner party. I was listening to my mother trying to defend the doctrine of purgatory by calling it a harmless 'extra' to the real Christian faith and that even a man like C.S. Lewis could be misled into such popery. Then someone said to me "I was reading the story of Jesus with Nicodemus and being born again and honestly it's SO simple Andrew, it's not difficult to understand". I respect the person who said this very much and so I didn't want to argue theology, my dad also covered his face in anger as we were about to hear a lecture on Redemptive Baptism and I excused myself so that I wouldn't ruin the night.

All of this pointed out to me the utter inclarity of scripture. One Protestant doctrine is "The Perspicuity of Scripture" or the Clearness of Scripture. I decided to show how ridiculous that idea is by beginning with John - which I've been told my whole life is where we are supposed to start. A professor once said to me at Brock, 'I have no problem with the Bible but you can make it say anything you want, it isn't incorrect, it's just ambiguous'.

John 1:1-14 - The Word
This passage which describes Jesus as the Word is one of the most debated passages in all of scripture. Jehovah's witnesses think that it says "and the word was A god" not "and the word was god". Aside from translation, what does 'word' or logos mean. Logos is a platonic term that carries with it lots of baggage. Does it mean 'the word of God' as in his voice in Genesis 1 or his word - like the eternal law. OR does it mean the logos -the logic of the world personified. Is it the goddess Sophia - Who knows!

"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" v 14 - Enter Gnosticism, Docetism, Arianism, and John Shelby Spong/modern liberalism. Very few people believe Jesus 'actually' was God incarnate, or the rational principle of the universe incarnate etc and see it as an impossibility etc.

"No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." 1:18 - every world religion is wrong because only Christ has shown us God?

1:32 "John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him" - is this the moment Jesus became the son of God as Adoptionism teaches and many believe?

"I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God." 1:34 - Does Son of God mean God incarnate or does it mean political leader as Dominic Crossan and others have proposed. How could God have a Son?

John 1:49 "Then Nathanael declared, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel." How is Jesus the King of Israel? he has no political power. Does this show that Nate thought Jesus would become a political ruler or does it mean Israel as in 'God's people'?

1:51 "He (Jesus) then added, "I tell you the truth, you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man." - When did Philip see heaven open up? The ascension? maybe it's not mentioned, is this a lie? who knows? What is Jesus referring to?

John 2:4 "Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come." - then Jesus performs a miracle... was he lying, how had his time not come but then he did it anyway. How does God change his mind? isn't he omniscient (all knowing) so why would he say his time hadn't come if it actually had and isn't that a lie, and how can God lie? (see Descartes). With Catholics, why is Jesus so dismissive of Mary, but then bends to her will? is this proof of Mary's greatness or inferiority?

"In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables." - How isn't beating people with a whip a sin? Ya I've heard 'righteous anger'...don't think it works.

3:5 "no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit" - Here's the clear verse that was clearly about baptism for over 1000 years. Now being born again apparently means going to a Billy Graham crusade. I've argued about this before but I'm tired, and I'm clearly right, it's about Baptism, give it up. And what kind of a controversial passage is this? You have to be baptized for salvation? Crazy as the thief on the cross wasn't baptized. Catholics fix this with 'baptism by desire' as the Calvinists and Pentecostals fix it with 'baptism of the Spirit'.

3:13 "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man" Does this mean that no Jews went to heaven? what about David, what about Abraham who is apparently feasting with God (see parable of the rich man and lazarus). What about Enoch, Elijah, etc? and those who ascended to heaven.

3:15 "everyone who believes in him may have eternal life" - What about James 2 which says that even the Demons believe and tremble. do they have eternal life?

this one is interesting:
3:18 "God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world...but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son" - So God didn't send Jesus/Himself? to condemn the world but because he came into the world everyone who doesn't believe in him (the overwhelming majority of the world) stands condemned. Quite contradictory.

I obviously believe it does have a true meaning as infallibly interpretted by the Catholic Councils and the Magisterium, but I just find the idea that any individual can fully understand the bible or that it is 'clear' in meaning, ridiculous.

Christmas Eve Marian Devotion

I have to run out the door to work but I figured I'd let St. Athanasius do the talking for me and remind us of a central (not THE central) figure in the Christmas story, that's right a little holiday Marian devotion from the Father of Orthodox Theology:

"It becomes you to be mindful of us, as you stand near Him Who granted you all graces, for you are the Mother of God and our Queen. Help us for the sake of the King, the Lord God Master Who was born of you. For this reason you are called 'full of Grace'..." (373 St. Athanasius)

Merry Christmas.