So as I was examining the premises of both systems, I noticed that the Roman Catholic system is primarily based on an appeal to history and traditions as well as biblical arguments. It cannot argue on the basis of the bible alone, in the same way Reformed Theology cannot argue on the basis of tradition alone.
BUT the only way either group can argue, is by crossing over to the other's territory. So the only way Reformed Protestants will be able to grab Roman Catholic attention is by citing St. Augustine's doctrine on predestination perhaps, or the Council of Orange. Likewise, the only way Roman Catholics will ever get Reformed folks attention is by arguing about things like Federal Vision hermeneutics, Scott Hahn's arguments from scripture, and perhaps old issues like the biblical case for infusion rather than imputation.
I was making a list of prospective fights that could occur and this is what I've got so far (let me know if I'm missing a good one):
-supremacy of love / not sola fide / theological virtues
-obedience of faith / transformational righteousness/ infusion
-loss of justification/salvation?
-baptism
Showing posts with label Sacraments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sacraments. Show all posts
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Friday, October 30, 2009
St. Ambrose for Friday
"They affirm that they are showing great reverence for God, to Whom alone they reserve the power of forgiving sins. But in truth none do Him greater injury than they who choose to prune His commandments and reject the office entrusted to them. For inasmuch as the Lord Jesus Himself said in the Gospel: Receive the Holy Spirit: whosesoever sins you forgive they are forgiven unto them, and whosesoever sins you retain, they are retained, John 20:22-23 who is it that honours Him most, he who obeys His bidding or he who rejects it?
7. The Church holds fast its obedience on either side, by both retaining and remitting sin; heresy is on the one side cruel, and on the other disobedient; wishes to bind what it will not loosen, and will not loosen what it has bound, whereby it condemns itself by its own sentence. For the Lord willed that the power of binding and of loosing should be alike, and sanctioned each by a similar condition. So he who has not the power to loose has not the power to bind. For as, according to the Lord's word, he who has the power to bind has also the power to loose, their teaching destroys itself, inasmuch as they who deny that they have the power of loosing ought also to deny that of binding. For how can the one be allowed and the other disallowed? It is plain and evident that either each is allowed or each is disallowed in the case of those to whom each has been given. Each is allowed to the Church, neither to heresy, for this power has been entrusted to priests alone. Rightly, therefore, does the Church claim it, which has true priests; heresy, which has not the priests of God, cannot claim it. And by not claiming this power heresy pronounces its own sentence, that not possessing priests it cannot claim priestly power. And so in their shameless obstinacy a shamefaced acknowledgment meets our view.
8. Consider, too, the point that he who has received the Holy Ghost has also received the power of forgiving and of retaining sin. For thus it is written: Receive the Holy Spirit: whosesoever sins you forgive, they are forgiven unto them, and whosesoever sins you retain, they are retained. John 20:22-23 So, then, he who has not received power to forgive sins has not received the Holy Spirit. The office of the priest is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and His right it is specially to forgive and to retain sins. How, then, can they claim His gift who distrust His power and His right?" - St. Ambrose "Concerning Repentance" (Bk. 1, Ch. 2)
later he says:
"God does not make a distinction, Who has promised His mercy to all, and granted to His priests the power of loosing without any exception. But he who has heaped up sin must also increase his penitence. For greater sins are washed away by greater weeping." - St. Ambrose "Concerning Repentance" (Bk. 1, Ch.3)
and a comforting passage to the English recusants and others no doubt:
"it is possible that a man overcome by torture may deny God in word, and yet worship Him in his heart."
and finally a little gospel to close:
"His indignation, then, is not the carrying out of vengeance, but rather the working out of forgiveness, for these are His words: If you shall turn and lament, you shall be saved. He waits for our lamentations here, that is, in time, that He may spare us those which shall be eternal. He waits for our tears, that He may pour forth His goodness. So in the Gospel, having pity on the tears of the widow, He raised her son. He waits for our conversion, that He may Himself restore us to grace, which would have continued with us had no fall overtaken us. But He is angry because we have by our sins incurred guilt, in order that we may be humbled; we are humbled, in order that we may be found worthy rather of pity than of punishment." - Ch. 5, 22
7. The Church holds fast its obedience on either side, by both retaining and remitting sin; heresy is on the one side cruel, and on the other disobedient; wishes to bind what it will not loosen, and will not loosen what it has bound, whereby it condemns itself by its own sentence. For the Lord willed that the power of binding and of loosing should be alike, and sanctioned each by a similar condition. So he who has not the power to loose has not the power to bind. For as, according to the Lord's word, he who has the power to bind has also the power to loose, their teaching destroys itself, inasmuch as they who deny that they have the power of loosing ought also to deny that of binding. For how can the one be allowed and the other disallowed? It is plain and evident that either each is allowed or each is disallowed in the case of those to whom each has been given. Each is allowed to the Church, neither to heresy, for this power has been entrusted to priests alone. Rightly, therefore, does the Church claim it, which has true priests; heresy, which has not the priests of God, cannot claim it. And by not claiming this power heresy pronounces its own sentence, that not possessing priests it cannot claim priestly power. And so in their shameless obstinacy a shamefaced acknowledgment meets our view.
8. Consider, too, the point that he who has received the Holy Ghost has also received the power of forgiving and of retaining sin. For thus it is written: Receive the Holy Spirit: whosesoever sins you forgive, they are forgiven unto them, and whosesoever sins you retain, they are retained. John 20:22-23 So, then, he who has not received power to forgive sins has not received the Holy Spirit. The office of the priest is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and His right it is specially to forgive and to retain sins. How, then, can they claim His gift who distrust His power and His right?" - St. Ambrose "Concerning Repentance" (Bk. 1, Ch. 2)
later he says:
"God does not make a distinction, Who has promised His mercy to all, and granted to His priests the power of loosing without any exception. But he who has heaped up sin must also increase his penitence. For greater sins are washed away by greater weeping." - St. Ambrose "Concerning Repentance" (Bk. 1, Ch.3)
and a comforting passage to the English recusants and others no doubt:
"it is possible that a man overcome by torture may deny God in word, and yet worship Him in his heart."
and finally a little gospel to close:
"His indignation, then, is not the carrying out of vengeance, but rather the working out of forgiveness, for these are His words: If you shall turn and lament, you shall be saved. He waits for our lamentations here, that is, in time, that He may spare us those which shall be eternal. He waits for our tears, that He may pour forth His goodness. So in the Gospel, having pity on the tears of the widow, He raised her son. He waits for our conversion, that He may Himself restore us to grace, which would have continued with us had no fall overtaken us. But He is angry because we have by our sins incurred guilt, in order that we may be humbled; we are humbled, in order that we may be found worthy rather of pity than of punishment." - Ch. 5, 22
Monday, October 19, 2009
The Real Absence of Christ in the Eucharist & Other Queries
Ironically I've started a very very small Reformed fight with my anti-Calvin Lutheran arguments about the Eucharist.
To be honest, I don't think the Real Presence or Absence of Christ in the Eucharist is really an issue (as we Catholics don't even believe they have a valid Eucharist, so really it IS just bread and wine). The real arguments are:
1. How dare you say we don't have a valid eucharist! / Does confecting the Eucharist require Holy Orders?
2. Is the Eucharist a Sacrifice (the biggest question)?
3. Is grace bestowed (and venial sin forgiven) through the Eucharist
To be honest, I don't think the Real Presence or Absence of Christ in the Eucharist is really an issue (as we Catholics don't even believe they have a valid Eucharist, so really it IS just bread and wine). The real arguments are:
1. How dare you say we don't have a valid eucharist! / Does confecting the Eucharist require Holy Orders?
2. Is the Eucharist a Sacrifice (the biggest question)?
3. Is grace bestowed (and venial sin forgiven) through the Eucharist
Why Luther and I Think Calvin Is Wrong About The Eucharist
Ascension doesn't pose a problem unless you're a modernist who doesn't believe Jesus actually multiplied the loaves and fish in the feeding miracles, God can create as much of his body as he wants (which I'm sure is what GODzilla's redemptive message was). As well we can choose to or not to heed St. Augustine's warning that it is dangerous to think too greatly about the Ascension (and he didn't even know about the stratosphere, space, etc).
But to add more Augustine:
"For just as he remained with us even after his ascension, so we too are already in heaven with him, even though what is promised us has not yet been fulfilled in our bodies.
Christ is now exalted above the heavens, but he still suffers on earth all the pain that we, the members of his body, have to bear. He showed this when he cried out from above: Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? and when he said: I was hungry and you gave me food.
Why do we on earth not strive to find rest with him in heaven even now, through the faith, hope and love that unites us to him? While in heaven he is also with us; and we while on earth are with him." - St. Augustine of Hippo "Sermon on the Feast of the Ascension)
This however is my argument that oldest and most hated of Christian arguments: It's a mystery!
Luther's response is much more Biblical and difficult to refute:
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" - 1 Corinthians 10:16
Now unless St. Paul was really throwing us through a loop and the rhetorical answer was "no" it would appear that all Calvinist and Zwinglian interpretations which basically make it the Holy Spirit are at a loss here. It's the communion of the BODY and BLOOD of Christ NOT the SPIRIT of Christ. There. don't blame me, blame Sts. Paul, Augustine, and (un-st. ?) Martin Luther, and possibly God.
But to add more Augustine:
"For just as he remained with us even after his ascension, so we too are already in heaven with him, even though what is promised us has not yet been fulfilled in our bodies.
Christ is now exalted above the heavens, but he still suffers on earth all the pain that we, the members of his body, have to bear. He showed this when he cried out from above: Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? and when he said: I was hungry and you gave me food.
Why do we on earth not strive to find rest with him in heaven even now, through the faith, hope and love that unites us to him? While in heaven he is also with us; and we while on earth are with him." - St. Augustine of Hippo "Sermon on the Feast of the Ascension)
This however is my argument that oldest and most hated of Christian arguments: It's a mystery!
Luther's response is much more Biblical and difficult to refute:
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" - 1 Corinthians 10:16
Now unless St. Paul was really throwing us through a loop and the rhetorical answer was "no" it would appear that all Calvinist and Zwinglian interpretations which basically make it the Holy Spirit are at a loss here. It's the communion of the BODY and BLOOD of Christ NOT the SPIRIT of Christ. There. don't blame me, blame Sts. Paul, Augustine, and (un-st. ?) Martin Luther, and possibly God.
Friday, October 16, 2009
The Book of Concord/Luther on the Real Presence
"Dr. Luther has also more amply expounded and confirmed this opinion from God's Word in the Large Catechism, where it is written: What, then, is the Sacrament of the Altar? Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine, which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink. 21] And shortly after: It is the 'Word,' I say, which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament, so that it is not mere bread and wine, but is, and is called. the body and blood of Christ. 22] Again: With this Word you can strengthen your conscience and say: If a hundred thousand devils, together with all fanatics, should rush forward, crying, How can bread and wine be the body and blood of Christ? I know that all spirits and scholars together are not as wise as is the Divine Majesty in His little finger. Now, here stands the Word of Christ: "Take, eat; this is My body. Drink ye all of this; this is the new testament in My blood," etc. Here we abide, and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken. 23] It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word, or regard it without the Word, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive." - The Book of Concord on the Holy Supper 20.
My friend is becoming Lutheran, and I am excited for him, but I just thought I'd post Luther's view on the Eucharist because it has actually helped me understand the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence from the medieval stance. Pelikan shows in his book on the catholic tradition in the medieval times, it was the words of Christ/the promise which was the guarentee of his presence. When I am having trouble believing in the Real Presence (more like trouble FEELING rather than Believing/Intellectually assenting), I think back to my Baptist roots and the infallibility of Scripture and the fact that Christ said it, and it is so. That usually gets me, and Luther says it great here so plainly, the Calvinists and the Zwinglians can talk about a Presence but it isn't Christ's presence, it's equivocation and the Spirit not the Body of Christ, and so he reminds us not only that Jesus cannot lie, but also cannot deceive.
My friend is becoming Lutheran, and I am excited for him, but I just thought I'd post Luther's view on the Eucharist because it has actually helped me understand the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence from the medieval stance. Pelikan shows in his book on the catholic tradition in the medieval times, it was the words of Christ/the promise which was the guarentee of his presence. When I am having trouble believing in the Real Presence (more like trouble FEELING rather than Believing/Intellectually assenting), I think back to my Baptist roots and the infallibility of Scripture and the fact that Christ said it, and it is so. That usually gets me, and Luther says it great here so plainly, the Calvinists and the Zwinglians can talk about a Presence but it isn't Christ's presence, it's equivocation and the Spirit not the Body of Christ, and so he reminds us not only that Jesus cannot lie, but also cannot deceive.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Marked
I was reading a funeral liturgy in my missal the other day and I liked the part where it said something to the effect of:
Lord receive your servant, who whilst he lived, was marked with the seal of the holy Trinity. Enter not into judgment of him for in your sight no man shall be justified. (Ps 143:2)
I thought 2 things were interesting, the idea of being "marked" with the holy Trinity, it reminds me of a suitcase or something with God's name written on it, and secondly, the idea of non-imputation of sin which I'm finding more and more in Catholicism, and which according to Jaroslav Pelikan is an orthodox belief emphasized by Aquinas.
I think of the parable of the fish where God's angels sort out the good and the bad into piles and wonder if maybe I am marked by God through baptism, confirmation, etc. I dunno, but I just thought it was an interesting idea, nothing to revolutionary.
Lord receive your servant, who whilst he lived, was marked with the seal of the holy Trinity. Enter not into judgment of him for in your sight no man shall be justified. (Ps 143:2)
I thought 2 things were interesting, the idea of being "marked" with the holy Trinity, it reminds me of a suitcase or something with God's name written on it, and secondly, the idea of non-imputation of sin which I'm finding more and more in Catholicism, and which according to Jaroslav Pelikan is an orthodox belief emphasized by Aquinas.
I think of the parable of the fish where God's angels sort out the good and the bad into piles and wonder if maybe I am marked by God through baptism, confirmation, etc. I dunno, but I just thought it was an interesting idea, nothing to revolutionary.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Personal Post: My Sin, and Why Jared/Owen Might Be Right
I'm tired of dancing around the issue, and I don't have a reputation to lose (which works out in this case). This will be a personal blog, so if you're not comfortable getting to know me, then please stop reading this. I'm even giving you a bunch of time to look away.
..........................
..........................
..........................
for the last 5 years I've been in a pattern of habitual sin which to use it's Victorian name would probably be: 'impurity'. Computer + Young Male + Depression - Friends = bad results. I've tried everything, even went to a Christian counselor (is that how you spell it?) for months. In the end I was told it's just a will issue.
My Protestant pastor told me that every action I did was a sin and so I shouldn't feel bad about it because I have Christ's righteousness and my works meant nothing to God. This was unsatisfying to say the least. I've subsequently learned from some Reformed guys that this is not Classic Protestantism. In Catholicism where I now dwell, both 'components' of this sin are mortal, I.E. if you do them you go to Hell. But if you ask most modern priests they'll say that after Vatican II it some how got less sinful. (don't ask me how)
So it'd been 10 days since my last confession and being in a constant state of guilt isn't the most fun place to be. So today I woke up at 5:50AM and went to the Latin Mass place to go to confession. I went through the list said the words got absolved and received advice I'd heard a thousand times from Christian speakers and websites.
I did my penance and it felt so empty, I couldn't even stay for Mass, I didn't feel like I had anything to contribute to the sacrifice and didn't feel comfortable infront of the presence. So I went home.
Within less than 12 hours I had already put myself in a state of Mortal Sin again. Now just because it's not comforting doesn't mean it's not true. As one Catholic said to me, 'just because you aren't holy now, doesn't mean holiness is impossible', and the saints are proof of that. But personally/pastorally/spiritually this sacrament with all of it's grace left me feeling nothing. Maybe this is a stupid pop-psychological/Neo-Evangelical critique of Penance but it just reminded me of Luther.
So here I sat in my room thinking "why couldn't I have died on my way home from Church...". The Catholic reading this is probably furious because it sounds like a typical Protestant critique of the Sacrament. Indeed Catholic teaching is that habit and immaturity both lessen the culpability of an act and can even remove it altogether in rare cases. So the educated Catholic would say: "no you are probably not in a state of Mortal sin". So I'm not saying Penance doesn't work, I'm just saying today, for me, it didn't seem to help.
But then I went downstairs and saw I had a package delivered to my house. My friend from Bible School mailed me a trilogy of Evelyn Waugh books and a card in latin (luckily she translated it for me) with encouragement.
Even in my sinful life I still attach theological meaning to everything, and it was such a significant existential moment I basically started to cry.
I don't understand God's grace, he gives it when he shouldn't, and even when I curse him, he still blesses me.
So I've repented and I'll confess later and the priest will probably tell me again that I just need to try harder and it's probably true, but I think gracefullness would be a much more effective tool on me at least, than moral exhortation.
Now this is where I start getting comments about sola fide and Luther and the Reformation from Protestants telling me to repent of my false religion and that this is a sign, and I get emails from Catholics telling me I've abandonned the faith by being honest and not just saying what is expected.
But I'm a person, not an ideology, and it seems that God no matter how much I ask him will not tell me which "side" is right (Protestant or Catholic). So I follow logic, Tradition, and Scripture and make my choice, and just when I think God will fit in my new theological system because he didn't fit in the old, he appears where he shouldn't. It would've made sense for me to have had an experience of grace at Confession this morning, not after I'd wilfully sinned against him. In the midst of so much theology and religion it's almost frightening when God shows up, you get so used to absence that you almost forget what His presence is like and then out of left field there he comes.
Anyway, that's why I think John Owen/Jared might be right, and I don't know how my life fits with my theology but I know that the sacraments work ex operare opero according to tradition and God's promise, but I experience God's grace sporadically and inexplicably, so I remain confused...
..........................
..........................
..........................
for the last 5 years I've been in a pattern of habitual sin which to use it's Victorian name would probably be: 'impurity'. Computer + Young Male + Depression - Friends = bad results. I've tried everything, even went to a Christian counselor (is that how you spell it?) for months. In the end I was told it's just a will issue.
My Protestant pastor told me that every action I did was a sin and so I shouldn't feel bad about it because I have Christ's righteousness and my works meant nothing to God. This was unsatisfying to say the least. I've subsequently learned from some Reformed guys that this is not Classic Protestantism. In Catholicism where I now dwell, both 'components' of this sin are mortal, I.E. if you do them you go to Hell. But if you ask most modern priests they'll say that after Vatican II it some how got less sinful. (don't ask me how)
So it'd been 10 days since my last confession and being in a constant state of guilt isn't the most fun place to be. So today I woke up at 5:50AM and went to the Latin Mass place to go to confession. I went through the list said the words got absolved and received advice I'd heard a thousand times from Christian speakers and websites.
I did my penance and it felt so empty, I couldn't even stay for Mass, I didn't feel like I had anything to contribute to the sacrifice and didn't feel comfortable infront of the presence. So I went home.
Within less than 12 hours I had already put myself in a state of Mortal Sin again. Now just because it's not comforting doesn't mean it's not true. As one Catholic said to me, 'just because you aren't holy now, doesn't mean holiness is impossible', and the saints are proof of that. But personally/pastorally/spiritually this sacrament with all of it's grace left me feeling nothing. Maybe this is a stupid pop-psychological/Neo-Evangelical critique of Penance but it just reminded me of Luther.
So here I sat in my room thinking "why couldn't I have died on my way home from Church...". The Catholic reading this is probably furious because it sounds like a typical Protestant critique of the Sacrament. Indeed Catholic teaching is that habit and immaturity both lessen the culpability of an act and can even remove it altogether in rare cases. So the educated Catholic would say: "no you are probably not in a state of Mortal sin". So I'm not saying Penance doesn't work, I'm just saying today, for me, it didn't seem to help.
But then I went downstairs and saw I had a package delivered to my house. My friend from Bible School mailed me a trilogy of Evelyn Waugh books and a card in latin (luckily she translated it for me) with encouragement.
Even in my sinful life I still attach theological meaning to everything, and it was such a significant existential moment I basically started to cry.
I don't understand God's grace, he gives it when he shouldn't, and even when I curse him, he still blesses me.
So I've repented and I'll confess later and the priest will probably tell me again that I just need to try harder and it's probably true, but I think gracefullness would be a much more effective tool on me at least, than moral exhortation.
Now this is where I start getting comments about sola fide and Luther and the Reformation from Protestants telling me to repent of my false religion and that this is a sign, and I get emails from Catholics telling me I've abandonned the faith by being honest and not just saying what is expected.
But I'm a person, not an ideology, and it seems that God no matter how much I ask him will not tell me which "side" is right (Protestant or Catholic). So I follow logic, Tradition, and Scripture and make my choice, and just when I think God will fit in my new theological system because he didn't fit in the old, he appears where he shouldn't. It would've made sense for me to have had an experience of grace at Confession this morning, not after I'd wilfully sinned against him. In the midst of so much theology and religion it's almost frightening when God shows up, you get so used to absence that you almost forget what His presence is like and then out of left field there he comes.
Anyway, that's why I think John Owen/Jared might be right, and I don't know how my life fits with my theology but I know that the sacraments work ex operare opero according to tradition and God's promise, but I experience God's grace sporadically and inexplicably, so I remain confused...
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Objectivity of the Sacraments and Intention: How Can They Coincide?
I was reading a bit on Apostolicae Curiae (I don't think that's the correct title because those are two 1st declension genatives in Latin), anyway, it's the 1896 one that declares Anglican Holy Orders "null and void". I was also thinking about my baptism which I've written a blog on before (It was done in the Baptist Church as a believer).
Donatism is described briefly by the great Wikipedia as:
"the Donatists were rigorists, holding that the church must be a church of saints, not sinners, and that sacraments, such as baptism, administered by traditores (Christians who surrendered the Scriptures to the authorities who outlawed possession of them) were invalid. Probably in 311, a new bishop of Carthage was consecrated by someone who had allegedly been a traditor; his opponents consecrated a short-lived rival, who was succeeded by Donatus, after whom the schism was named. In 313, a commission appointed by Pope Miltiades found against the Donatists, but they continued to exist, viewing themselves, and not what was known as the Catholic Church, as the true Church, the only one with valid sacraments."
They believed that the sacrament of Penance could not remove the contamination that these clerics had brought upon themselves and that their sacraments were invalid.
Now in response to this the Catholic party declared the sacraments worked:
"The Catholic position has always been ex opere operato — from the work having been worked; in other words, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the holiness of God, the minister being a mere instrument of God's work, so that any priest or bishop, even one in a state of mortal sin, who speaks the formula of the sacrament with valid matter and the intent of causing the sacrament to occur acts validly."
The key word here is "intent". The declaration that Holy Orders had been improperly conferred with the Anglicans was because of their intent being faulty. But the question remains, how does this not fall under at least a semi-donatist interpretation.
For example, heresy, a mortal sin if held obstinately and knowingly against Church doctrine would effect the intent of a minister. But the statement says that mortal sin doesn't effect the procuring of the sacraments. So for an example:
Fr. X is a modernist who denies the sacraments have any "magical" power and just reads the formula but doesn't actually believe anything is happening. The validity of the sacrament would not be questioned if he had been a theologically orthodox murderer, but it is questioned because he is a heretic.
This seems to be the Roman position at least up until 1896. But this seems to be full of problems, because who can know the intentions of the heart except God? Theoretically any sacrament could be called into question. I've heard Priests say "we don't baptize babies because they're sinful" (which is heresy, St. Augustine clearly shows they are born with Original Sin), so does this mean all of the baptisms done in that parish are invalid?
The issue is even further complicated when you leave the Roman fold. For example, in my baptism at the Baptist church they made a speech before I went up saying "this is just an empty symbol of his profession of faith, it does not do anything spiritual" and then I was baptized with the trinitarian formula. So the formula was right, but obviously the intention was not.
But when I consulted our Monsignor (a man who has his masters in theology with emphasis in Canon Law), he showed me the document that stated that the Fellowship Baptists of Canada have been declared by the Canadian Council of Catholic bishops as valid.
Chesterton, Tolkien, and everyone before the last 30 years or so was given conditional baptism when they converted. So what has changed since the Donatists and 1970? Has the meaning of the word intent changed?
It's a very small but important point I'm trying to figure the answer out to. For if the church declares Protestant baptisms valid in Vatican II, why don't they declare Anglican ordinations valid as well? (obviously it's useless now as they're ordaining women)
Canon Law will be the death of me.
Donatism is described briefly by the great Wikipedia as:
"the Donatists were rigorists, holding that the church must be a church of saints, not sinners, and that sacraments, such as baptism, administered by traditores (Christians who surrendered the Scriptures to the authorities who outlawed possession of them) were invalid. Probably in 311, a new bishop of Carthage was consecrated by someone who had allegedly been a traditor; his opponents consecrated a short-lived rival, who was succeeded by Donatus, after whom the schism was named. In 313, a commission appointed by Pope Miltiades found against the Donatists, but they continued to exist, viewing themselves, and not what was known as the Catholic Church, as the true Church, the only one with valid sacraments."
They believed that the sacrament of Penance could not remove the contamination that these clerics had brought upon themselves and that their sacraments were invalid.
Now in response to this the Catholic party declared the sacraments worked:
"The Catholic position has always been ex opere operato — from the work having been worked; in other words, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the holiness of God, the minister being a mere instrument of God's work, so that any priest or bishop, even one in a state of mortal sin, who speaks the formula of the sacrament with valid matter and the intent of causing the sacrament to occur acts validly."
The key word here is "intent". The declaration that Holy Orders had been improperly conferred with the Anglicans was because of their intent being faulty. But the question remains, how does this not fall under at least a semi-donatist interpretation.
For example, heresy, a mortal sin if held obstinately and knowingly against Church doctrine would effect the intent of a minister. But the statement says that mortal sin doesn't effect the procuring of the sacraments. So for an example:
Fr. X is a modernist who denies the sacraments have any "magical" power and just reads the formula but doesn't actually believe anything is happening. The validity of the sacrament would not be questioned if he had been a theologically orthodox murderer, but it is questioned because he is a heretic.
This seems to be the Roman position at least up until 1896. But this seems to be full of problems, because who can know the intentions of the heart except God? Theoretically any sacrament could be called into question. I've heard Priests say "we don't baptize babies because they're sinful" (which is heresy, St. Augustine clearly shows they are born with Original Sin), so does this mean all of the baptisms done in that parish are invalid?
The issue is even further complicated when you leave the Roman fold. For example, in my baptism at the Baptist church they made a speech before I went up saying "this is just an empty symbol of his profession of faith, it does not do anything spiritual" and then I was baptized with the trinitarian formula. So the formula was right, but obviously the intention was not.
But when I consulted our Monsignor (a man who has his masters in theology with emphasis in Canon Law), he showed me the document that stated that the Fellowship Baptists of Canada have been declared by the Canadian Council of Catholic bishops as valid.
Chesterton, Tolkien, and everyone before the last 30 years or so was given conditional baptism when they converted. So what has changed since the Donatists and 1970? Has the meaning of the word intent changed?
It's a very small but important point I'm trying to figure the answer out to. For if the church declares Protestant baptisms valid in Vatican II, why don't they declare Anglican ordinations valid as well? (obviously it's useless now as they're ordaining women)
Canon Law will be the death of me.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Peter Kreeft: Oh How The Mighty Have Fallen
As I read more and more Catholic theology on non-Protestant issues like the Sacrifice of the Mass, Penance, and Sacramentology I think more and more that Dr. Peter Kreeft is outside the realm of Catholic orthodoxy and that he is either unknowingly an Arminian Protestant or a Jansenist. He teaches Penal Subsitution as a Catholic atonement model, and refuses to mention the necessity of the sacraments when writing a book on God's love. In his commentary on the Catechism, "Catholic Christianity" he seems to accept Mortal Sin, but tends to say that as long as you're sorry, then you aren't condemned. I don't mean to single Kreeft out too much, because most modern Catholics will say similar things, but the problem is that Trent - the byword of all Christendom - is still Magesterial teaching. So in the spirit of Catholic Traditionalism and ungrace, I'll roll out some statements Kreeft makes and then quote Trent so that you, the reader, can decide.
Salvation without the Sacraments, or even desire of them:
"The only thing that can keep us out of Heaven is not sin but refusal to accept God's cure...God does it all, in Christ; we only have to accept it...Faith saves us, but good works follow" - Peter Kreeft "The God Who Loves You" p. 156-7
"CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism... is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taught; let him be anathema."
Assurance of Salvation:
This one I admit isn't as clear and he could be using that prized Catholic doublespeak we all enjoy, because Aquinas teaches we can have assurance, but only in God's goodness and only in hope not certainty of receiving grace.
"...[Jesus'] Spirit will give me that absolute certainty personally [of salvation] if I ask Him...just as Jesus promised He would for all who ask" Peter Kreeft "The God Who Loves You" p. 195
"CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema."
The Reformation
He then trivializes the Reformation to a point I think ridiculous, though with the way our Pontiffs have been speaking these days, you'd think Bellarmine didn't understand Calvin or that it was all an honest mistake. They knew, they disagreed, they condemned and killed each other over the differences.
"...the most liberating idea I have ever heard I first learned from Martin Luther. Pope John Paul II told the German bishops that Luther was profoundly right about this idea. He said that Catholic teaching affirms it just as strongly and that there was no contradiction between Protestant and Catholic theology on this terribly important point, which was the central issue of the Protestant Reformation. I speak, of course, about "justification by faith" and its consequence, which Luther called "Christian liberty" or "the liberty of a Christian" in his gem of an essay by that name" - Peter Kreeft "The God Who Loves You" p. 23
"CANON XIX.-If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free...let him be anathema"
Kreeft has probably twisted the words of JPII (I can't check as he has no citation), and it is Catholic doublespeak in that he doesn't say "justification by faith ALONE" just like all the Catholics are doing today, and I think it's dishonest.
Conclusion
The Protestant gospel is centred on this truth: the only thing necessary for salvation is fiducia (trusting faith without love) in Christ and that God will forgive you because of Christ. This is salvation by grace (not God's help or work within the soul, but his loving disposition) alone for them.
This is where Catholics and Protestants have disagreed 'yesterday, today, and forever'. This is the same deceit we see in the Catholic-Lutheran Joint Declaration on Justification. What is faith? What is grace? What is justification? Even a preliminary inquiry into the differences we have here will tell you that we do not agree.
If JPII and Catholicism throughout the ages believe in sola fide and sola gratia IN THE SENSE THAT THE REFORMERS DID (as we have our own teaching on faith alone and grace alone but in Catholic language), the obvious question is: why do we still have the penitential system, purgatory, doctrine of merit, canonized saints, mariology, etc. The reason we still have those, is because we do not believe that a man is justified by faith alone without baptism or the desire of baptism.
Tolkien said rightly in a letter to his son: "It was against this [transubstantiation] that the W. European revolt (or Reformation) was really launched – 'the blasphemous fable of the Mass' – and faith/works a mere red herring."
Now he is speaking specifically here about the Eucharist, which makes the point debatable, but it is a traditional Catholic view that the Reformation was a revolt against the sacramental system. In fact, many Protestants would probably agree. I think this is why Kreeft is wrong.
I feel bad if I've mistreated Peter Kreeft who was so influential in my conversion, but I genuinely think he's giving people a false view of Catholicism and the Sacraments. God is not limited to them, but he ordinarily works through them.
Salvation without the Sacraments, or even desire of them:
"The only thing that can keep us out of Heaven is not sin but refusal to accept God's cure...God does it all, in Christ; we only have to accept it...Faith saves us, but good works follow" - Peter Kreeft "The God Who Loves You" p. 156-7
"CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism... is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taught; let him be anathema."
Assurance of Salvation:
This one I admit isn't as clear and he could be using that prized Catholic doublespeak we all enjoy, because Aquinas teaches we can have assurance, but only in God's goodness and only in hope not certainty of receiving grace.
"...[Jesus'] Spirit will give me that absolute certainty personally [of salvation] if I ask Him...just as Jesus promised He would for all who ask" Peter Kreeft "The God Who Loves You" p. 195
"CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema."
The Reformation
He then trivializes the Reformation to a point I think ridiculous, though with the way our Pontiffs have been speaking these days, you'd think Bellarmine didn't understand Calvin or that it was all an honest mistake. They knew, they disagreed, they condemned and killed each other over the differences.
"...the most liberating idea I have ever heard I first learned from Martin Luther. Pope John Paul II told the German bishops that Luther was profoundly right about this idea. He said that Catholic teaching affirms it just as strongly and that there was no contradiction between Protestant and Catholic theology on this terribly important point, which was the central issue of the Protestant Reformation. I speak, of course, about "justification by faith" and its consequence, which Luther called "Christian liberty" or "the liberty of a Christian" in his gem of an essay by that name" - Peter Kreeft "The God Who Loves You" p. 23
"CANON XIX.-If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free...let him be anathema"
Kreeft has probably twisted the words of JPII (I can't check as he has no citation), and it is Catholic doublespeak in that he doesn't say "justification by faith ALONE" just like all the Catholics are doing today, and I think it's dishonest.
Conclusion
The Protestant gospel is centred on this truth: the only thing necessary for salvation is fiducia (trusting faith without love) in Christ and that God will forgive you because of Christ. This is salvation by grace (not God's help or work within the soul, but his loving disposition) alone for them.
This is where Catholics and Protestants have disagreed 'yesterday, today, and forever'. This is the same deceit we see in the Catholic-Lutheran Joint Declaration on Justification. What is faith? What is grace? What is justification? Even a preliminary inquiry into the differences we have here will tell you that we do not agree.
If JPII and Catholicism throughout the ages believe in sola fide and sola gratia IN THE SENSE THAT THE REFORMERS DID (as we have our own teaching on faith alone and grace alone but in Catholic language), the obvious question is: why do we still have the penitential system, purgatory, doctrine of merit, canonized saints, mariology, etc. The reason we still have those, is because we do not believe that a man is justified by faith alone without baptism or the desire of baptism.
Tolkien said rightly in a letter to his son: "It was against this [transubstantiation] that the W. European revolt (or Reformation) was really launched – 'the blasphemous fable of the Mass' – and faith/works a mere red herring."
Now he is speaking specifically here about the Eucharist, which makes the point debatable, but it is a traditional Catholic view that the Reformation was a revolt against the sacramental system. In fact, many Protestants would probably agree. I think this is why Kreeft is wrong.
I feel bad if I've mistreated Peter Kreeft who was so influential in my conversion, but I genuinely think he's giving people a false view of Catholicism and the Sacraments. God is not limited to them, but he ordinarily works through them.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Immutability of God & The Sacrifice and Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
"Every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change." - Epistle of St. James Chapter 1, Verse 17
This verse was in the reading of the Mass tonight, I've been thinking about it alot ever since I read how influential it was in the catholic medieval tradition in Jaroslav Pelikan's third volume on the Christian Tradition.
I was thinking about going to the Latin mass and the way the priest opened up the tabernacle and how every eye was fixed on the inside. Then I realized how the Sacrifice of the Mass is tied to the Immutability of God.
I was reminded of Bp. N.T. Wright's book where he talks about the parousia of Christ, the second advent/second coming, and how it really seems to mean in Greek the idea of something that is already a reality being revealed. It's as if something was already there (the Kingdom of God) and suddenly everyone realizes the hidden reality.
I was thinking that the sacrifice of the mass is like that. At the consecration we are given a glimpse into the window of the changeless nature of Christ's eternal self-giving love. Christ's Spirit which is present within our souls in an invisible matter, is suddenly joined by Christ's body and blood in a real physical manner for a few moments. It's as if when the tabernacle is opened, we see through it as a window into the scene of the Crucifixion, we offer our sorrow for our sins, and the sacrifice of worship, as St. John and the Blessed Virgin did at the foot of the cross.
God's immutability and simplicity of nature are a mystery, and the beatific vision always reminds me of a beautiful painting which we'll all enjoy in perfect satisfaction forever. And the promise is from "the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change"
...but maybe that's just a stupid or heretical idea...
This verse was in the reading of the Mass tonight, I've been thinking about it alot ever since I read how influential it was in the catholic medieval tradition in Jaroslav Pelikan's third volume on the Christian Tradition.
I was thinking about going to the Latin mass and the way the priest opened up the tabernacle and how every eye was fixed on the inside. Then I realized how the Sacrifice of the Mass is tied to the Immutability of God.
I was reminded of Bp. N.T. Wright's book where he talks about the parousia of Christ, the second advent/second coming, and how it really seems to mean in Greek the idea of something that is already a reality being revealed. It's as if something was already there (the Kingdom of God) and suddenly everyone realizes the hidden reality.
I was thinking that the sacrifice of the mass is like that. At the consecration we are given a glimpse into the window of the changeless nature of Christ's eternal self-giving love. Christ's Spirit which is present within our souls in an invisible matter, is suddenly joined by Christ's body and blood in a real physical manner for a few moments. It's as if when the tabernacle is opened, we see through it as a window into the scene of the Crucifixion, we offer our sorrow for our sins, and the sacrifice of worship, as St. John and the Blessed Virgin did at the foot of the cross.
God's immutability and simplicity of nature are a mystery, and the beatific vision always reminds me of a beautiful painting which we'll all enjoy in perfect satisfaction forever. And the promise is from "the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change"
...but maybe that's just a stupid or heretical idea...
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Eucharistic Faith
I've greatly enjoyed being Catholic so far, I'm getting comfortable with the new phraseology , instead of "as believers" I hear "by virtue of our baptism", etc. I feel like God has been teaching me very new things, different from what I am used to. I don't feel like he's teaching me theology so much as he is giving me experiences. I've been reading the parables more and I've found it amazing how important images were in explaining God and his Kingdom. I've therefore been trying to dig deep into the blessed sacrament and understand what it means to me.
I've been learning recently, what is commonly called in the Anglican and Catholic spheres "Eucharistic Faith". It's a faith fed by the Eucharist - Christ himself. As much as I love Aristotelian Metaphysics I don't like talking about Transubstantiation - though I believe it - but I like talking about 'The Real Presence' and how I meet Jesus in the sacrament. Instead of going into a hack job defense of transubstantiation, I'm just going to leave that to the Catholic apologists and tell the stories.
This morning at mass I was feeling a little cynical, I was feeling as though God would never talk to me or care about me, and at the same time praying that he would. I felt as though my prayers were screamed at a wall or lost somewhere in the space between earth and heaven. And in honesty when the Priest holds up the host and says "behold the lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world" my first thought is not usually "amen", but "I do believe, Lord help my unbelief". Today as the bishop consecrated the hosts I looked up at a picture of Jesus at the last supper and remembered in my mind the words of St. John Chrysostom that the banquet we celebrate now and the banquet of Christ's last supper are "in no way different". I love those words "in no way different". And I imagined that as I took the communion I was sitting at the table with Jesus. As I received Christ physically I knelt in my pew and closed my eyes. I began to pray to Jesus and it felt as if he was right there, words fail me in describing it, other than to say RIGHT THERE, within me, as if I was whispering my prayer into his ear. I felt like I was in another world as I made my words known to the Word of God and when I finally opened my eyes, suddenly I felt back on earth. I can't explain it, no one will probably understand it, Protestants will probably find it blasphemous and from Satan, and Catholics will probably find it trite and stereotypical.
But it was the most real spiritual experience I've had in a while. And so I understand the Eucharistic faith, and Holy Communion remains for me a light in the darkness. I was thinking today of the spiritual depression I'd had and then thinking about 2 lines from Tolkien "in the darkness a light still shines" and "may it be a light to you, when all other lights fail". So I've felt incredibly blessed to be Catholic - not to say others can't have meaningful experiences, maybe I'm missing out on the way God is speaking to them. However for my part, I'm learning to love the Eucharist and to meet Jesus there, and it fills me with hope to think that my faith can physically be fed in communion and that it remains a sign that God has not abandoned us, and that Christ will be with us, until the very end of the age.
May the Lord grant you an encounter with the risen Christ in the Eucharist, the good gift, the mysterium fidei.
I've been learning recently, what is commonly called in the Anglican and Catholic spheres "Eucharistic Faith". It's a faith fed by the Eucharist - Christ himself. As much as I love Aristotelian Metaphysics I don't like talking about Transubstantiation - though I believe it - but I like talking about 'The Real Presence' and how I meet Jesus in the sacrament. Instead of going into a hack job defense of transubstantiation, I'm just going to leave that to the Catholic apologists and tell the stories.
This morning at mass I was feeling a little cynical, I was feeling as though God would never talk to me or care about me, and at the same time praying that he would. I felt as though my prayers were screamed at a wall or lost somewhere in the space between earth and heaven. And in honesty when the Priest holds up the host and says "behold the lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world" my first thought is not usually "amen", but "I do believe, Lord help my unbelief". Today as the bishop consecrated the hosts I looked up at a picture of Jesus at the last supper and remembered in my mind the words of St. John Chrysostom that the banquet we celebrate now and the banquet of Christ's last supper are "in no way different". I love those words "in no way different". And I imagined that as I took the communion I was sitting at the table with Jesus. As I received Christ physically I knelt in my pew and closed my eyes. I began to pray to Jesus and it felt as if he was right there, words fail me in describing it, other than to say RIGHT THERE, within me, as if I was whispering my prayer into his ear. I felt like I was in another world as I made my words known to the Word of God and when I finally opened my eyes, suddenly I felt back on earth. I can't explain it, no one will probably understand it, Protestants will probably find it blasphemous and from Satan, and Catholics will probably find it trite and stereotypical.
But it was the most real spiritual experience I've had in a while. And so I understand the Eucharistic faith, and Holy Communion remains for me a light in the darkness. I was thinking today of the spiritual depression I'd had and then thinking about 2 lines from Tolkien "in the darkness a light still shines" and "may it be a light to you, when all other lights fail". So I've felt incredibly blessed to be Catholic - not to say others can't have meaningful experiences, maybe I'm missing out on the way God is speaking to them. However for my part, I'm learning to love the Eucharist and to meet Jesus there, and it fills me with hope to think that my faith can physically be fed in communion and that it remains a sign that God has not abandoned us, and that Christ will be with us, until the very end of the age.
May the Lord grant you an encounter with the risen Christ in the Eucharist, the good gift, the mysterium fidei.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Rant: The Sacrifice of the Mass
So tonight was Maundy Thursday Mass of the Lord's Supper, and the Bishop just went on and on about how we have to believe in the Sacrifice of the Mass and Transubstantiation and how people don't talk about it anymore but we have to believe it. Then he lamented over the poor communities that "only" had the bible/gospel and worship and works of charity. Indeed, how sad to think of a biblical community spreading the gospel, worshipping the Lord, and loving their neighbours, what a deficient ecclesial community. Seriously man, it's communion, everyone has it, everyone eats it, and everyone agrees, it tastes like wine and bread (or in parts of the Evangelical tradition, goldfish crackers and cool-aid). He went on and on to quote Trent about the Sacrifice of the Mass, etc. But here's my beef: I think Trent just ratified the Church Fathers - see this proof text/quote mine of Roman Catholic apologetics (http://www.catholic.com/library/Sacrifice_of_the_Mass.asp)
But what does it matter that it is a sacrifice? That's my question. How does that make it any different? Because if you ask Catholics about it they have no answers, and if you look at the Catechism etc, it just says that it's not a 're-sacrificing' so what is it then. It's just a word. Sacrifice. Oblation. It's not even a 'real' sacrifice anyway because it's not taking away anyone's sins, it's like if someone took a picture of the crucifixion and said this is a re-displaying of the Sacrifice, and then everyone bowed down to the photo and we had the Liturgy of the Kodak and we all sat around talking about the Sacrifice of the Photo.
I just don't get it. For me the only reason the Sacrifice of the Mass is at all meaningful is because of the Sacrifice of Calvary. As Bp. N.T. Wright says, 'Jesus didn't give us a theological exposition to understand his death, he gave us a meal'. So I believe it's the body and blood of Christ, because Jesus says so, and if his spirit and body cannot be separated then if he is spiritually present he is bodily present, and all the Church Fathers all unilaterally agree on the Real Presence. So to me, the doctrine's full meaning is that Christ is present with us and actually dwells in us and we receive Him physically.
But what's the point of all the bowing and worship. I mean the Apostles lived with him and they didn't kneel before him / genuflect. They didn't bow down and worship him all the time. No, he washed THEIR feet - which we did tonight. Christ was trampled for our sake. In fact I think it would be a better tradition to take the host and smash it, or stomp on it. Because that's what happened to Jesus. He was pierced for our transgressions, he died for OUR sins. By his wounds we are healed. So why are we going through all of this ritual, Jesus said it himself "For even the Son of Man did not come into the world to serve but to be served and give his life as a ransom for many".
So our thoughts should be, "Jesus died for us", crucifixion, etc. The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's death, not of the Eucharist. Jesus' purpose was not to eat a meal for the sake of eating a meal. Again it, like all of his life, was pointing to the cross, and our reconciliation and communion with God.
So that's how I feel, and that's why I get frustrated when I have to say the words "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed of God" for my confirmation, because while I agree with Rome, St. Catharines is a long way from Rome...
St. Thomas Aquinas Pray that we would truly understand the Eucharist, that it would lead us to Christ and not traditionalism and sacramentalism for their own sakes.
But what does it matter that it is a sacrifice? That's my question. How does that make it any different? Because if you ask Catholics about it they have no answers, and if you look at the Catechism etc, it just says that it's not a 're-sacrificing' so what is it then. It's just a word. Sacrifice. Oblation. It's not even a 'real' sacrifice anyway because it's not taking away anyone's sins, it's like if someone took a picture of the crucifixion and said this is a re-displaying of the Sacrifice, and then everyone bowed down to the photo and we had the Liturgy of the Kodak and we all sat around talking about the Sacrifice of the Photo.
I just don't get it. For me the only reason the Sacrifice of the Mass is at all meaningful is because of the Sacrifice of Calvary. As Bp. N.T. Wright says, 'Jesus didn't give us a theological exposition to understand his death, he gave us a meal'. So I believe it's the body and blood of Christ, because Jesus says so, and if his spirit and body cannot be separated then if he is spiritually present he is bodily present, and all the Church Fathers all unilaterally agree on the Real Presence. So to me, the doctrine's full meaning is that Christ is present with us and actually dwells in us and we receive Him physically.
But what's the point of all the bowing and worship. I mean the Apostles lived with him and they didn't kneel before him / genuflect. They didn't bow down and worship him all the time. No, he washed THEIR feet - which we did tonight. Christ was trampled for our sake. In fact I think it would be a better tradition to take the host and smash it, or stomp on it. Because that's what happened to Jesus. He was pierced for our transgressions, he died for OUR sins. By his wounds we are healed. So why are we going through all of this ritual, Jesus said it himself "For even the Son of Man did not come into the world to serve but to be served and give his life as a ransom for many".
So our thoughts should be, "Jesus died for us", crucifixion, etc. The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's death, not of the Eucharist. Jesus' purpose was not to eat a meal for the sake of eating a meal. Again it, like all of his life, was pointing to the cross, and our reconciliation and communion with God.
So that's how I feel, and that's why I get frustrated when I have to say the words "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed of God" for my confirmation, because while I agree with Rome, St. Catharines is a long way from Rome...
St. Thomas Aquinas Pray that we would truly understand the Eucharist, that it would lead us to Christ and not traditionalism and sacramentalism for their own sakes.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Word and Sacrament Scripture and Patristics of the Day
"About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them. Suddenly there was an earthquake, so violent that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were unfastened. When the jailer woke up and saw the prison doors wide open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, since he supposed that the prisoners had escaped. But Paul shouted in a loud voice, ‘Do not harm yourself, for we are all here.’ The jailer called for lights, and rushing in, he fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. Then he brought them outside and said, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ They answered, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.’ They spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. At the same hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds; then he and his entire family were baptized without delay. He brought them up into the house and set food before them; and he and his entire household rejoiced that he had become a believer in God." Acts 16
I was always taught this passage as a quintessential message of salvation and I still always like to read "believe on" or "believeth on" rather than "believe in" because as one fundamentalist Baptist pastor explained to me, to believe in is to refer to yourself and your heart, to believe ON is to believe on what Jesus has already done on the cross. But as a Catholic I also like to see that St. Paul also had the sacramental side as well.
St. Augustine, On Baptism, Book 5 Chapter 28 (39): "Wherefore, if those appear to men to be baptized in Catholic unity who renounce the world in words only and not in deeds, how do they belong to the mystery of this ark in whom there is not the answer of a good conscience? Or how are they saved by water, who, making a bad use of holy baptism, though they seem to be within, yet persevere to the end of their days in a wicked and abandoned course of life? Or how can they fail to be saved by water, of whom Cyprian himself records that they were in time past simply admitted to the Church with the baptism which they had received in heresy? For the same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For Cyprian himself says, "The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in all simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her pale." If not by water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. It is therefore possible that some who have been baptized without may be considered, through the foreknowledge of God, to have been really baptized within, because within the water begins to be profitable to them unto salvation; nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water. And again, some who seemed to have been baptized within may be considered, through the same foreknowledge of God, more truly to have been baptized without, since, by making a bad use of baptism, they die by water, which then happened to no one who was not outside the ark. Certainly it is clear that, when we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body, since all who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark through the same water, through which all who are in heart without, whether they are also in body without or not, die as enemies of unity. As therefore it was not another but the same water that saved those who were placed within the ark, and destroyed those who were left without the ark, so it is not by different baptisms, but by the same, that good Catholics are saved, and bad Catholics or heretics perish."
I just highlighted the interesting word that Thomists/Augustinians, and Calvinists alike despise "foreknowledge" and also that in the end St. Augustine says baptism saves but ultimately what makes the baptized saved or unsaved is the position of the heart.
Once again, may our hearts be better than our heads.
I was always taught this passage as a quintessential message of salvation and I still always like to read "believe on" or "believeth on" rather than "believe in" because as one fundamentalist Baptist pastor explained to me, to believe in is to refer to yourself and your heart, to believe ON is to believe on what Jesus has already done on the cross. But as a Catholic I also like to see that St. Paul also had the sacramental side as well.
St. Augustine, On Baptism, Book 5 Chapter 28 (39): "Wherefore, if those appear to men to be baptized in Catholic unity who renounce the world in words only and not in deeds, how do they belong to the mystery of this ark in whom there is not the answer of a good conscience? Or how are they saved by water, who, making a bad use of holy baptism, though they seem to be within, yet persevere to the end of their days in a wicked and abandoned course of life? Or how can they fail to be saved by water, of whom Cyprian himself records that they were in time past simply admitted to the Church with the baptism which they had received in heresy? For the same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For Cyprian himself says, "The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in all simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her pale." If not by water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. It is therefore possible that some who have been baptized without may be considered, through the foreknowledge of God, to have been really baptized within, because within the water begins to be profitable to them unto salvation; nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water. And again, some who seemed to have been baptized within may be considered, through the same foreknowledge of God, more truly to have been baptized without, since, by making a bad use of baptism, they die by water, which then happened to no one who was not outside the ark. Certainly it is clear that, when we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body, since all who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark through the same water, through which all who are in heart without, whether they are also in body without or not, die as enemies of unity. As therefore it was not another but the same water that saved those who were placed within the ark, and destroyed those who were left without the ark, so it is not by different baptisms, but by the same, that good Catholics are saved, and bad Catholics or heretics perish."
I just highlighted the interesting word that Thomists/Augustinians, and Calvinists alike despise "foreknowledge" and also that in the end St. Augustine says baptism saves but ultimately what makes the baptized saved or unsaved is the position of the heart.
Once again, may our hearts be better than our heads.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Why I'm Not Finished My Journey - Constant Conversion
WARNING!!!!! - Personal/spiritual post rather than Polemical/religious post - Ye who enter here abandon all hope
The Humility of a Hero
"Christ’s death redeemed man from sin, but I can make nothing of the theories as to how!"-C.S. Lewis
As I gave my thoughts on the Substitutionary Atonement and how I had to more or less 'give it up' for Catholicism, I realized that one of my favorite Anglicans had also given it up. Borrowing from another blog: "In The Allegory of Love Lewis referred to a poem whose "theology turns on a crudely substitutional view of the Atonement." In Mere Christianity Lewis indicated that he did not accept the substitutionary view of atonement." (http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2000i/townsend2000e.htm)
But I love Lewis' humility. He was clearly an Anglican/Protestant Arminian and accepted Sola Fide/Faith Alone but he tried to find a middle ground for which all Christians could come together on.
For me, I just need to accept that there is much that I haven't decided on and that this indecision is OK.
What I 'know'
When it comes to Theology Proper (Trinity, Who God is, etc) I think all Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox agree. And regarding Ecclesiology and the Sacraments my position is staunchly Roman Catholic, which of course will never allow me to leave the Church, but will also give me a plaguing of constant fear and guilt until I get to have my first confession, communion, and confirmation.
What I don't 'know':
But even if I am settled in my mind on the Catholic view of Conversion and the work of the Holy Ghost, I still can't actually invision it practically. I never know anyone who actually changes. Just sinner saints as Luther would say. I would completely doubt the truth of regeneration if it weren't for the few months of it I experienced in Bible School 3 years ago, and a few of my friends who are doing much better than I. But all of them aren't Roman Catholic, and many aren't even baptized. So how does that fit with my theology? it doesn't seem to. Again I just don't know.
And just ask me about Creation, Theistic Evolution, Young Earth, Old Earth, etc. I have absolutely no idea. I don't think I fit into any category because I think they all have problems. I could write an entire blog on this issue (maybe I'll do that next), but currently I find the Christian narrative and the Scientific narrative at odds, and I don't like picking sides because I -like Galileo- think science will vindicate God if it is true, and I believe all truth is God's truth. So I'm waiting around right now, and utterly confused on the matter.
So it's ironic that I started this blog saying "I'm a Christian looking for a Church" and now I say "I found a Church, but I'm looking for a Christian".... hmm. I wonder what I'll be saying in 2 years from now. I started off a "saved and justified bible-believing Christian" at the beginning, and now I appraise myself a "repentant Roman Catholic candidate in a state of damnation (mortal sin)".
I'm still in the purgatory between Protestant and Catholic and working out all these glitches as it were and confused ideas. But I knew I was in a Catholic mindset when people asked me 'so are you going to trust Jesus or the Church' and I immediately thought "false dicotemy" and primarily, the Church.
Comfort
There are some things that bring me comfort however.
1. Mere Christianity. That I at least gotten over the worst of the family strife over my conversion - C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" is now our household religion. My dad and I when we discuss the faith still speak only with regards to this shared grounds. I also make comments about how there are a great many 'unsaved' people in the Catholic Church and him and I agree on it. (though we use slightly different criteria). And I must say that I've never departed the teaching I received as a child that the Lord looks at the heart first, and so we view in my family now, "true Christianity" not as sola fide or sola ecclesia but as a living trust in Jesus. Pope Benedict XVI calls this the "constant call to conversion" that each Christian has. And while I might not be 'sacramentally' in a state of grace, God knows - I am sure - that my heart is in the right place. And I think that's more important than anything.
2. Kyrie Eliesen. That God is merciful - two of my favourite verses in the bible are: "The sacrifice acceptable to God, is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise" (Ps 51.17) - a verse I emphasize when I talk to Muslims and Jews about salvation. And Jesus' promise "anyone who comes to me I will never drive away" (Jn 6:37). I also have taken comfort in the words of St. Gregory Nazianzen "God's joy in giving is greater than our joy in receiving".
3. Hope. While I cynically doubt I will ever be regenerate and suffer from constant feelings of guilt and inadequacy, I still take comfort in hope, which St. Paul says "will not disappoint" (Rom 5:5). President Obama -who ever Christian seems to hate- wrote a book called "The Audacity of Hope". I read some of it, and regardless of political views here, I just wanted to use the title for something. As Christians we do have the Audacity to hope. It is audacious because all signs point to despair. Hope is probably my favourite thing in the world, it's one of those words that for me has special meaning. It reminds me of Tolkien and his writing for Hope against despair. It's like the word repentance (which for many people is bad) which for me is a beautiful word. And so I try to pray each day for the Gift of the Holy Ghost which Jesus says the Father will give to us if we only ask, and maybe I'm already receiving it without knowing, but right now I have the audacity to hope for the zoe the supernatural and indwelling life of Christ, which I long for above all else.
Conclusion:
I'm still on the Journey, I'm not finished, and I need to spend some time enjoying the mystery of God, and I find it appropriate to quote the words of C.S. Lewis again:
"Relying on God has to begin all over again every day as if nothing had yet been done..."
Thus begins another day.
The Humility of a Hero
"Christ’s death redeemed man from sin, but I can make nothing of the theories as to how!"-C.S. Lewis
As I gave my thoughts on the Substitutionary Atonement and how I had to more or less 'give it up' for Catholicism, I realized that one of my favorite Anglicans had also given it up. Borrowing from another blog: "In The Allegory of Love Lewis referred to a poem whose "theology turns on a crudely substitutional view of the Atonement." In Mere Christianity Lewis indicated that he did not accept the substitutionary view of atonement." (http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2000i/townsend2000e.htm)
But I love Lewis' humility. He was clearly an Anglican/Protestant Arminian and accepted Sola Fide/Faith Alone but he tried to find a middle ground for which all Christians could come together on.
For me, I just need to accept that there is much that I haven't decided on and that this indecision is OK.
What I 'know'
When it comes to Theology Proper (Trinity, Who God is, etc) I think all Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox agree. And regarding Ecclesiology and the Sacraments my position is staunchly Roman Catholic, which of course will never allow me to leave the Church, but will also give me a plaguing of constant fear and guilt until I get to have my first confession, communion, and confirmation.
What I don't 'know':
But even if I am settled in my mind on the Catholic view of Conversion and the work of the Holy Ghost, I still can't actually invision it practically. I never know anyone who actually changes. Just sinner saints as Luther would say. I would completely doubt the truth of regeneration if it weren't for the few months of it I experienced in Bible School 3 years ago, and a few of my friends who are doing much better than I. But all of them aren't Roman Catholic, and many aren't even baptized. So how does that fit with my theology? it doesn't seem to. Again I just don't know.
And just ask me about Creation, Theistic Evolution, Young Earth, Old Earth, etc. I have absolutely no idea. I don't think I fit into any category because I think they all have problems. I could write an entire blog on this issue (maybe I'll do that next), but currently I find the Christian narrative and the Scientific narrative at odds, and I don't like picking sides because I -like Galileo- think science will vindicate God if it is true, and I believe all truth is God's truth. So I'm waiting around right now, and utterly confused on the matter.
So it's ironic that I started this blog saying "I'm a Christian looking for a Church" and now I say "I found a Church, but I'm looking for a Christian".... hmm. I wonder what I'll be saying in 2 years from now. I started off a "saved and justified bible-believing Christian" at the beginning, and now I appraise myself a "repentant Roman Catholic candidate in a state of damnation (mortal sin)".
I'm still in the purgatory between Protestant and Catholic and working out all these glitches as it were and confused ideas. But I knew I was in a Catholic mindset when people asked me 'so are you going to trust Jesus or the Church' and I immediately thought "false dicotemy" and primarily, the Church.
Comfort
There are some things that bring me comfort however.
1. Mere Christianity. That I at least gotten over the worst of the family strife over my conversion - C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" is now our household religion. My dad and I when we discuss the faith still speak only with regards to this shared grounds. I also make comments about how there are a great many 'unsaved' people in the Catholic Church and him and I agree on it. (though we use slightly different criteria). And I must say that I've never departed the teaching I received as a child that the Lord looks at the heart first, and so we view in my family now, "true Christianity" not as sola fide or sola ecclesia but as a living trust in Jesus. Pope Benedict XVI calls this the "constant call to conversion" that each Christian has. And while I might not be 'sacramentally' in a state of grace, God knows - I am sure - that my heart is in the right place. And I think that's more important than anything.
2. Kyrie Eliesen. That God is merciful - two of my favourite verses in the bible are: "The sacrifice acceptable to God, is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise" (Ps 51.17) - a verse I emphasize when I talk to Muslims and Jews about salvation. And Jesus' promise "anyone who comes to me I will never drive away" (Jn 6:37). I also have taken comfort in the words of St. Gregory Nazianzen "God's joy in giving is greater than our joy in receiving".
3. Hope. While I cynically doubt I will ever be regenerate and suffer from constant feelings of guilt and inadequacy, I still take comfort in hope, which St. Paul says "will not disappoint" (Rom 5:5). President Obama -who ever Christian seems to hate- wrote a book called "The Audacity of Hope". I read some of it, and regardless of political views here, I just wanted to use the title for something. As Christians we do have the Audacity to hope. It is audacious because all signs point to despair. Hope is probably my favourite thing in the world, it's one of those words that for me has special meaning. It reminds me of Tolkien and his writing for Hope against despair. It's like the word repentance (which for many people is bad) which for me is a beautiful word. And so I try to pray each day for the Gift of the Holy Ghost which Jesus says the Father will give to us if we only ask, and maybe I'm already receiving it without knowing, but right now I have the audacity to hope for the zoe the supernatural and indwelling life of Christ, which I long for above all else.
Conclusion:
I'm still on the Journey, I'm not finished, and I need to spend some time enjoying the mystery of God, and I find it appropriate to quote the words of C.S. Lewis again:
"Relying on God has to begin all over again every day as if nothing had yet been done..."
Thus begins another day.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
The Sacraments: Are They A Lie?
I think that the Reformation initially retained a Sacramental Piety, however I've come to realize once more how important the Sacraments are in the discussion of theology. If the sacraments are means of communicating grace (Catholicism) or if they are superstitious and empty rituals.
This is also not so much a Catholic - Protestant issue, as it is a more specific Calvinist & Zwinglian versus Catholic and to a lesser extent Lutheran and Anglican.
The question is not simply one of whether there are 7 Sacraments: Baptism, Communion, Confirmation, Penance, Marriage, Extreme Unction, and Holy Orders, or just the first 2. It is also a question of what do the sacraments do? what is their purpose. The question after that though is one of the very character of God. Does God care about the outward and physical or is he only concerned with the inner and spiritual.
The problem is that our Christian Ethics are Ontological rather than Teleological - they are based on the motive of the doer, rather than just the outcome. Was it T.S. Eliot who said the greatest sin was doing the right thing for the wrong reason? (if not it was some other British poet). SO one has to question why God would imbue special powers to actions.
The Calvinist position as I understand it is that God works effectually outside the sacraments in that the baptism which forgives you is the baptism of the Holy Spirit which occurs at the moment of saving faith. The infant baptism is just a covenantal sign, but ultimately it has no purpose other than marking the visible from the invisible church, but since in Calvinistic Ecclesiology (doctrine of the Church) the 'true' church is always the invisible church anyway, so there really isn't any point in being in the 'visible' church.
The Catholic position as I've argued before is that the sacraments have power. They actually are objective means of receiving grace. Every time you receive the Eucharist you are recieving the physical body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ (I don't know how one receives his soul if it's his body, but there is probably something about it in Aquinas or a Scholastic, so I won't argue it...maybe I got it wrong by including his soul, nevermind). Likewise when you are absolved and forgiven of your sins by a priest you are forgiven by God Himself.
There are many biblical and historical arguments I've already listed in favour of a literal interpretation of Christ's words about the Holy Communion, and the Sacrament of Confession/Penance, and an argument for regenerative baptism (it forgives your sins). If you wish to see more just check out one of these sites: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/10/topical-index-pages.html, or http://www.phatmass.com/directory/
The basic question though is why God would promise such Power to the Church? Why would he give frail men the ability to bind and loose, why would he give the keys of the Kingdom to St. Peter and allow men to determine who enters the Kingdom of Heaven. In all honesty, it gives me two thoughts:
1) God has stupidly given too much power to the Church
2) The Bible must be written by the Church as a means to claim supernatural power
The third option of course is that the Sacraments actually do have power and are efficatious, that God does care about physical actions. As C.S. Lewis put it in his defense of grace through the sacraments in Mere Christianity, God has no problem with matter, he created it, and it's no use trying to be more spiritual than God.
I was thinking the other day about Rob Bell's "The gods aren't angry" and how he proposes that none of the Israelite offerings in the Old Covenent satisfied God as he didn't 'need' blood. He also asked the question "Does your God need to hurt someone so that he can love?" it sounds like a great atheistic question and I've finally come to believe (as all Christians holding to either Calvin's Substitution or St. Anselm's Satisfaction theology of Atonement should) that yes God does have to hurt so that he can Love. But in essence he hurts himself, in Christ, he provides the sacrifice, which becomes an eternal part of his nature (Christ's eternal sacrifice).
I also remembered the 2 stories of God's anger towards violations of his covenants. The Second is of course 1 Corinthians 11 where St. Paul writes that those who partook of the Eucharist in an unworthy manner 'drank God's wrath against themselves' and 'were guilty of the body and blood of our Lord' and that this misuse resulted in illness and death. The first however is more obscure, I read about it in Exodus 4 at Capernwray Bible School and it was a blessing to be 'forced' to read the whole bible so that now I am more aware of all these extra stories.
The story is about Moses going into Egypt after receiving his mission from God in the Burning Bush, Zipporah and Moses are travelling with their son when we hear this:
"On the way, at a place where they spent the night, the Lord met him and tried to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched Moses’ feet with it, and said, ‘Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me!’ So he let him alone. It was then she said, ‘A bridegroom of blood by circumcision.’ "" - Exodus 4:24-26
It seems odd to us that God would plan on killing Moses for not performing this outward circumcision rite. We are constantly taught in the New Testament that "circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth anything" (Gal 5) and likewise by St. Stephen the Martyr that we are to have 'circumcised hearts' not dead rituals. However it seems that in this story God disagrees, not in a way contradictory to the New Testament but in a way contradictory to my former interpretation. What if God really does care about the Sacraments about his Covenantal signs and realities. It isn't all bad though, it's also a huge gift, for maybe God really does work through the sacraments. Maybe that is why the Eucharist means 'the Good Gift' (or at least that's what someone told me).
The real question then is why no angel killed Zwingli? but I guess 'where sin abounded grace abounded all the more' (Rm 5.20)
An interesting book on this topic which I hope to buy soon is Dr. Scott Hahn's "Swear to God: God's Promise and Power of the Sacraments" http://www.amazon.com/Swear-God-Promise-Power-Sacraments/dp/0385509316/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221099823&sr=1-11.
This is also not so much a Catholic - Protestant issue, as it is a more specific Calvinist & Zwinglian versus Catholic and to a lesser extent Lutheran and Anglican.
The question is not simply one of whether there are 7 Sacraments: Baptism, Communion, Confirmation, Penance, Marriage, Extreme Unction, and Holy Orders, or just the first 2. It is also a question of what do the sacraments do? what is their purpose. The question after that though is one of the very character of God. Does God care about the outward and physical or is he only concerned with the inner and spiritual.
The problem is that our Christian Ethics are Ontological rather than Teleological - they are based on the motive of the doer, rather than just the outcome. Was it T.S. Eliot who said the greatest sin was doing the right thing for the wrong reason? (if not it was some other British poet). SO one has to question why God would imbue special powers to actions.
The Calvinist position as I understand it is that God works effectually outside the sacraments in that the baptism which forgives you is the baptism of the Holy Spirit which occurs at the moment of saving faith. The infant baptism is just a covenantal sign, but ultimately it has no purpose other than marking the visible from the invisible church, but since in Calvinistic Ecclesiology (doctrine of the Church) the 'true' church is always the invisible church anyway, so there really isn't any point in being in the 'visible' church.
The Catholic position as I've argued before is that the sacraments have power. They actually are objective means of receiving grace. Every time you receive the Eucharist you are recieving the physical body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ (I don't know how one receives his soul if it's his body, but there is probably something about it in Aquinas or a Scholastic, so I won't argue it...maybe I got it wrong by including his soul, nevermind). Likewise when you are absolved and forgiven of your sins by a priest you are forgiven by God Himself.
There are many biblical and historical arguments I've already listed in favour of a literal interpretation of Christ's words about the Holy Communion, and the Sacrament of Confession/Penance, and an argument for regenerative baptism (it forgives your sins). If you wish to see more just check out one of these sites: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/10/topical-index-pages.html, or http://www.phatmass.com/directory/
The basic question though is why God would promise such Power to the Church? Why would he give frail men the ability to bind and loose, why would he give the keys of the Kingdom to St. Peter and allow men to determine who enters the Kingdom of Heaven. In all honesty, it gives me two thoughts:
1) God has stupidly given too much power to the Church
2) The Bible must be written by the Church as a means to claim supernatural power
The third option of course is that the Sacraments actually do have power and are efficatious, that God does care about physical actions. As C.S. Lewis put it in his defense of grace through the sacraments in Mere Christianity, God has no problem with matter, he created it, and it's no use trying to be more spiritual than God.
I was thinking the other day about Rob Bell's "The gods aren't angry" and how he proposes that none of the Israelite offerings in the Old Covenent satisfied God as he didn't 'need' blood. He also asked the question "Does your God need to hurt someone so that he can love?" it sounds like a great atheistic question and I've finally come to believe (as all Christians holding to either Calvin's Substitution or St. Anselm's Satisfaction theology of Atonement should) that yes God does have to hurt so that he can Love. But in essence he hurts himself, in Christ, he provides the sacrifice, which becomes an eternal part of his nature (Christ's eternal sacrifice).
I also remembered the 2 stories of God's anger towards violations of his covenants. The Second is of course 1 Corinthians 11 where St. Paul writes that those who partook of the Eucharist in an unworthy manner 'drank God's wrath against themselves' and 'were guilty of the body and blood of our Lord' and that this misuse resulted in illness and death. The first however is more obscure, I read about it in Exodus 4 at Capernwray Bible School and it was a blessing to be 'forced' to read the whole bible so that now I am more aware of all these extra stories.
The story is about Moses going into Egypt after receiving his mission from God in the Burning Bush, Zipporah and Moses are travelling with their son when we hear this:
"On the way, at a place where they spent the night, the Lord met him and tried to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched Moses’ feet with it, and said, ‘Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me!’ So he let him alone. It was then she said, ‘A bridegroom of blood by circumcision.’ "" - Exodus 4:24-26
It seems odd to us that God would plan on killing Moses for not performing this outward circumcision rite. We are constantly taught in the New Testament that "circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth anything" (Gal 5) and likewise by St. Stephen the Martyr that we are to have 'circumcised hearts' not dead rituals. However it seems that in this story God disagrees, not in a way contradictory to the New Testament but in a way contradictory to my former interpretation. What if God really does care about the Sacraments about his Covenantal signs and realities. It isn't all bad though, it's also a huge gift, for maybe God really does work through the sacraments. Maybe that is why the Eucharist means 'the Good Gift' (or at least that's what someone told me).
The real question then is why no angel killed Zwingli? but I guess 'where sin abounded grace abounded all the more' (Rm 5.20)
An interesting book on this topic which I hope to buy soon is Dr. Scott Hahn's "Swear to God: God's Promise and Power of the Sacraments" http://www.amazon.com/Swear-God-Promise-Power-Sacraments/dp/0385509316/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221099823&sr=1-11.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)