Calvin on the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” And he took the chalice, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
~ Mark 14:22–24 ~

[It] is necessary, first of all, that [Jesus] be given us in the Supper, in order that the things which we have mentioned may be truly accomplished in us. For this reason I am wont to say, that the substance of the sacraments is the Lord Jesus, and the efficacy of them the graces and blessings which we have by his means. Now the efficacy of the Supper is to confirm to us the reconciliation which we have with God through our Saviour’s death and passion; the washing of our souls which we have in the shedding of his blood; the righteousness which we have in his obedience; in short, the hope of salvation which we have in all that he has done for us. It is necessary, then, that the substance should be conjoined with these, otherwise nothing would be firm or certain… For after commanding us to eat his body and drink his blood, he adds that his body was delivered for us, and his blood shed for the remission of our sins. Hereby he intimates, first, that we ought not simply to communicate in his body and blood, without any other consideration, but in order to receive the fruit derived to us from his death and passion; secondly, that we can attain the enjoyment of such fruit only by participating in his body and blood, from which it is derived.
~ John Calvin and Henry Beveridge (Translator), Tracts Relating to the Reformation, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1849), 169–170 ~

But if we give as much as we ought to Christ and his word, there is no doubt that as soon as these words are added to the bread and the wine, the bread and wine become the true body and true blood of Christ, so that the substance of bread and wine is transmuted into the true body and blood of Christ. He who denies this calls the omnipotence of Christ in question, and charges Christ himself with foolishness. 
~ John Calvin and Henry Beveridge (Translator), Tracts Relating to the Reformation, vol. 3 (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1851), 214 ~

Blessed Feast of the Nativity!

Neo-Nazis Become Orthodox Jews

CNN is playing a documentary on a couple of Polish Neo-Nazis who discovered that they were actually Jews. Their families had hidden their ethnicity & religion during the Nazi era. Now, they have converted to Orthodox Judaism!

It's amazing what we forget about who we truly are. We were created in the image of God. Those who passed through the baptismal waters have had that image repristinated by being grafted into Christ.

What would happen if the Church - you and me and all the baptized - were to, like this couple, rediscover who we really are? Would it require a radical break with who we were? Would it require a reorientation of our priorities? Our daily life?

What would need to change for you?

Church Unity and the Future of Anglicanism

One of the reasons I was eager to join the Anglican Communion was because I became convinced that it was the way forward - for realizing the unity among catholic and reformed impulses in the church. Dr. Peter Kreeft - a Dutchman who made the journey all the way to Rome from the Reformed camp - lays out the issues beautifully. I wanted to give you the opportunity to read for yourself. (Source: the Layman.)

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Boston College’s Dr. Peter Kreeft, a professor of philosophy, kicked off Southern Evangelical Seminary’s 16th annual National Conference on Christian Apologetics with a call and challenge.

Openly acknowledging his perspective from “one side of the confessional,” Kreeft set out an argument for visible Christian unity that would strengthen the witness of the Christian Church in the world.

Kreeft was speaking at the 2009 National Conference on Christian Apologetics at Hickory Grove Baptist Church in Charlotte, N.C. Approximately 2,500 attended the two-day conference, “Apologetics and the Local Church,” held Nov. 13-14 and sponsored by Southern Evangelical Seminary.

“The devil is very clever. He attacks the Church from within and from without,” Kreeft reminded the audience of pastors, seminary students and committed Christians. “His tactic is to divide and conquer. If you can get your enemies to fight with each other then you win without much effort.”

To answer that attack, Kreeft proposed an “apologetic for Church reunification” based on Jesus’ appeal for unity in John 17 and the theology of the body of Christ.

“For 1,000 years,” he said, “the Church was one. So, it is possible …. Once upon a time Humpty Dumpty was sitting on the wall, in one piece. So, just because we cannot see how to get him back into one piece does not mean that it is impossible.”

Kreeft then asked the question that was reasonably on the minds of everyone in the room, “How?” “Well,” he answered, “first we have to want to do it.”

“Sometimes you only see the roadmap after you’ve traveled it. Love is like that and faith … the mind sees God only after believing, not before. The motor that drives the mind is always the heart, the will. When the Pharisees asked ‘how can we understand your teachings?,’ Jesus replied that one must do the will of the Father – it’s a matter of the will, then the mind,” Kreeft opined.

Kreeft argued that the original “split” in the Church of Jesus Christ, that between the Eastern and Western varieties of Christianity, was more about politics than theology. “But the 1517 division,” Kreeft acknowledged, “that split was theological. And theology is a non-negotiable thing. Are we saved by faith alone or by faith plus good works? Luther argued the former; the Council of Trent settled on the later.” What resulted was the reality of the Protestant and Catholic division of the body of Christ.

Why? What was so important that the visible unity of the Church would suffer such fracture? Kreeft’s answer was simple, “theology.”

“Theology is about absolutes. Politics is about relativities. So, you can never solve theological problems with politics. It will not work. You cannot compromise on theology. Ever,” Kreeft affirmed.

Then he declared, “You may not have heard this, but the Reformation is over.” Kreeft then presented “The Decree on Justification” approved by the Vatican, the Anglicans, the Lutherans, the Methodists and others as evidence. The decree declares that Christians, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, “really do agree in essence on the issue of justification, without compromise.”

Kreeft continued, “No one 50 years ago thought that was possible. Except one guy, who in the 1950’s wrote Luther and Aquinas on Justification, arguing that they were both arguing from the same source, namely, the Bible. So they are both right without contradiction and without compromise.”

Luther, argued that those who are saved are saved by faith alone through grace alone in Christ alone, made his arguments from Romans and Galatians. “So,” Kreeft affirms, “he’s right.”

“The Council of Trent, arguing that those who are saved are saved by faith and good works, made their argument from James and I Corinthians 13. So, they too, are right.”

The real conversation, Kreeft contended, is in the definition of faith. “By faith,” he asks, “do you mean ‘justified’ or do you mean ‘perfected?’”

“Justification is achieved by grace alone, yes; sanctification by grace plus works, yes. We’re saved but we’re not fully sanctified. His work in us and our work in response. The roots are not yet fruits,” he said.

Kreeft then led the audience through a philosophical exploration of the question, “What is faith?” He acknowledged that faith is both essentially an intellectual apprehension (one must believe) and essentially an act by which you accept Jesus Christ into your soul … which inevitably produces good works. This combination, Kreeft contends, “is saving faith.”

Challenging his audience to consider an ecclesiastical apologetic for reunification, Kreeft pleaded, “We need each other. The body needs all its organs. The Church is not an organization. It is an organism. … to tear apart the body of Christ is a blasphemy, an obscenity against the body of Christ.”

Kreeft’s theology of the body seeks to teach Protestants and Catholics alike. “Christ does not have more than one body, one house. The house may have been divided by sin, but the integrity of the unity of the house still stands. And “everyone in the whole house needs the precious things that now exist in different parts of the house.”

Kreeft then outlines the things that Catholics need to learn from Protestants – things they have forgotten, including:

• Primacy of Jesus: Christ is not one element among many. He is everything. He is the center. He is the foundation.
• Primacy of faith: You cannot have fruits without roots.
• Primacy of Scripture: All other authority is based on the authority of Scripture.
• Importance of evangelism and the diversity of gifts.
  

He then enumerated things that Protestants need to learn from Catholics:

• The body of Christ is physical, literal and concrete. It’s not an ideal – that’s Gnosticism and it’s a heresy. God has a physical life, forever. Christ did not get out of His body when He rose again – He rose physically. The second person of the Trinity has a human body, forever.
• What is saved is the Church, not just individuals. Salvation is simultaneously individual and collective.
• Absolute importance of works of love. It is part of the Gospel, part of the main course, not dessert.
• The Scripture is always taught by a teacher – the teacher and the book go together. We do not worship the book, we worship God. The Word comes alive in the hands of a living teacher.
• Christ is present in the Eucharist. You can debate “how” but you cannot debate “whether.”
  

In conclusion, Kreeft asserted that “we have to be open to the mysterious and unknown and something we cannot see, yet. Stop being a control freak and let God be God. Who knows what will happen?”

The philosopher showed through arguing, “now, it has to be a ‘more’ not a ‘less.’ Catholics will become more Catholic by greater exposure to and cooperation with Evangelicals. Evangelicals will become more Evangelical by greater exposure to and cooperation with Catholics.”

Kreeft acknowledged that very idea of Church reunification is too big and too much for many people to even consider. “Our problem should always be that which we consider ‘too big,’ lest we settle for things that are ‘too small.’”

Kreeft challenged his listeners, “You have to be a fanatic. Good fanaticism – you cannot love God too much. You cannot love love too much. You cannot love unity too much. You cannot love the lost too much. It cannot be overdone – it is your fidelity to God, alone.”

How, you ask? Kreeft answers, “One foot up and one foot down. Make a step in the direction of God’s desire: unity.”

Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., is a professor of philosophy at Boston College and at the King’s College (Empire State Building), in New York City. He is a regular contributor to several Christian publications, is in wide demand as a speaker at conferences, and is the author of more than 55 books including: Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Christianity for Modern Pagans and Fundamentals of the Faith. For more information about him or his books, visit his Web site.

Diversity & Tolerance

Originally posted at the parish blog:

If you immediately condemn anyone who doesn’t quite believe the same as you do as forsaken by Christ’s Spirit, and consider anyone to be the enemy of truth who holds something false to be true, who, pray tell, can you still consider a brother? I for one have never met two people who believed exactly the same thing. This holds true in theology as well.

- Martin Bucer

To my friends who insist that AC-NA will spin apart because of evangelical and catholic and charismatic Anglicans coming together, I say: PHOOEY. How much more classically Anglican can you get than Martin Bucer, a man who started out as a Dominican priest and worked tirelessly to bringing conciliation among the leading lights of the Lutheran, Genevan/Swiss, & English Reformations?

Happy Bonfire Day!

Happy Guy Fawkes Day, everybody!

Remember, remember the Fifth of November,

The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,

I know of no reason

Why the Gunpowder Treason

Should ever be forgot.

Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, t'was his intent

To blow up the King and Parli'ment.

Three-score barrels of powder below

To prove old England's overthrow;

By God's providence he was catch'd

With a dark lantern and burning match.

Holla boys, Holla boys, let the bells ring.

Holla boys, Holla boys, God save the King! (Queen)

(Now that's some parliament funk!)

Here's to 492 years of the Gospel recovered, and 404 years of the Gospel in England providentially defended!

My Response to the Recent Apostolic Constitution

Is best taken from Anglican Divine, Bp. Jeremy Taylor (sometimes known as the "Shakespeare of Divines" for his poetic style of expression):

"What can be supposed wanting in our Church in order to salvation? We have the Word of God, the Faith of the Apostles, the Creeds of the Primitive Church, the Articles of the four first General Councils, a holy liturgy, excellent prayers, perfect sacraments, faith and repentance, the Ten Commandments, and the sermons of Christ, and all the precepts and counsels of the Gospels. We … require and strictly exact the severity of a holy life. … We communicate often, our priests absolve the penitent. Our Bishops ordain priests, and confirm baptised persons, and bless their people and intercede for them. And what could here, be wanting to salvation?”

- Jeremy Taylor, Bp. of Down & Connor (1613-1667)

Spong is Wrong

Recently, John Shelby Spong has shot his most recent salvo across the noses of those who continue to hold the catholic faith and ethic. He calls us the "b" word (bigot) and lumps us in with flat-earthers and slavery defenders (nice strawman). Just as he won't hold dialogue with flat-earthers or slavery defenders (which are where, again?) - so he won't discuss the ethics of same-sex erotic relationships with those who take the opposite side.

I have been part of this debate for years, but things do get settled and this issue is now settled for me. I do not debate any longer with members of the "Flat Earth Society" either.

In the Episcopal Church - of which he remains some sort of high-ranking ecclesial officer in good standing - this is called "openness" and indaba. (In other words, you need to be open to our innovations on the faith and discipline of the Church, and then listen while we tell you you're an oppressive, morally bankrupt simpleton.) Here are some more excerpts:

I have made a decision. I will no longer debate the issue of homosexuality in the church with anyone. I will no longer engage the biblical ignorance that emanates from so many right-wing Christians about how the Bible condemns homosexuality, as if that point of view still has any credibility....I have been part of this debate for years, but things do get settled and this issue is now settled for me. I do not debate any longer with members of the "Flat Earth Society" either.

Even advocates of the revisionist position* admit that the biblical evidence is on the side of the historic faith. But Mr. Spong cares little about the evidence, and even less about the authority of the Scriptures. (In spite of any vows he made to defend them as - some sort of high-ranking ecclesial officer in good standing.) Spong has already admitted that Scripture condemns homosexuality. You can watch it, but here's what he says:

Spong: But let me say that I do not disagree that homosexuality is condemned in Scripture. I do not agree with that.

Ankerberg: Yes, you’ve said that before.

Spong: I think that is obvious. It’s in Leviticus; it’s in the Sodom and Gomorrah story; it’s in the Pauline corpus at least, and probably some other places…

Ankerberg: All right, we’re…

Spong: The issue in my mind is not that. The issue is whether or not the people who lived at the time of the Bible and who wrote about homosexuality understood the scientific meaning of homosexuality.

But, as Jude warned us:

¹⁰ But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively. ¹¹Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error and perished in Korah’s rebellion. ¹²These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; ¹³ wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.

Speaking of casting up foam to their own shame...

I will no longer temper my understanding of truth in order to pretend that I have even a tiny smidgen of respect for the appalling negativity that continues to emanate from religious circles where the church has for centuries conveniently perfumed its ongoing prejudices against blacks, Jews, women and homosexual persons with what it assumes is "high-sounding, pious rhetoric."

Yeah...we conservative types are the sort that keep condemning the Jews with "high-sounding, pious rhetoric." Oh wait...that's the TEC revisionistas.

He even takes on Abp. Duncan, who has already responded to Mr. Spong's errors (begining with his 1998 12 Feces...er, Theses).**

I will dismiss as unworthy of any more of my attention the wild, false and uninformed opinions of such would-be religious leaders as Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Albert Mohler, and Robert Duncan.

Yeah...real nuanced. All of those guys are so practically alike as to make no distinction possible, much less desirable.

To be honest, Spong's problems go much deeper than his disregard for the Scripture's teaching on homosexual behavior. His big problem is with God Almighty. Spong casts scorn on the whole notion of theism, and has such an unnuanced fundamentalist materialist bent to his mindset that he's incapable of making any sense of the Resurrection or Ascension (much less the Incarnation).

And because of that, he is to be pitied. Because, one thing is sure - the striving is over. The battle is won, and there's no need to argue about it. Rather, it's time to simply proclaim the dogma and live into that truth. So here's some help to do just that.

	Woodley Ensemble - The Strife is O'er (Palestrina)
	Found at bee mp3 search engine

* Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition, p. 30, and Spong himself during the “Martin/Spong Debate on Sexual Ethics,” transcript from The John Ankerberg Show.
cf. J. Gordon Melton, The Churches Speak On: Homosexuality; Official Statements from Religious Bodies and Ecumenical Organizations (Detroit: Gale Research, 1991), xxii.

** John Spong: An apostle no longer

Beloved in the Lord,

It was with the most profound sorrow that I received and read the twelve theses of John Spong, recently published. At point after point these few sentences contain an explicit denial of the Christian faith. The incarnation and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ are denied; the efficacy of prayer and the work of the Holy Spirit are declared null; scripture and creeds are no longer trustworthy guides.

The man set aside as Bishop of Newark for the last twenty years has placed his theses before the Christian world and called for debate. The debate will be between those who profess the Christian faith and one who offers some other religion.

As I travel about our diocese, I see the pain and confusion which this shepherd-become-wolf is causing my people, not to mention that wider fellowship which is all the baptized in Christ Jesus. What this errant brother is doing must be named for what it is, not apostolate but apostasy.

What John Spong proposes as a reformed Christianity abandons every revealed essential. It is not Christianity. It is a counterfeit.

Everything I promised to do at my ordination requires that I speak clearly at this moment. Most especially pastoral compassion and gospel witness require a timely word both to the people of God and to the world at large.

We in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh -- like Christians in every age -- have our disagreements about how the boundaries of Christian response to the cultures and peoples among which we minister are to be shaped. When we disagree here, it is because of our deep conviction for and experience of the One God -- both transcendent and immanent -- revealed in Scripture, Tradition and Reason as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is not the circumstance with which John Spong confronts us. We are confronted now by one who has become an outsider, one who by his philosophical, intellectual and credal shifts no longer reasons out of that bedrock of Christian faith that always shapes our local debates.

Pray for the Episcopal Church and for our Anglican Communion as the bishops prepare to gather at Lambeth. We are a worldwide fellowship of immense missionary faithfulness and of magnificent local diversity. Nevertheless, we must also be a communion that can recognize when an apostle is one no longer, or when a teaching must be declared utterly false

Faithfully your bishop,

+Robert VII Pittsburgh

ReForm Responds re Rome

Reform Initial Response To ‘Apostolic Constitution’ Announcement

Revd Rod Thomas, chairman of Reform, makes four points as an initial response to today’s announcement from the Archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster:

“Anglicans concerned about protecting the basic Christian faith need not go to Rome, because we now have the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA (UK)) which holds together those who want to stop the orthodox faith being eroded. We can remain Anglican. Furthermore, the FCA Primates have recognised that problems with episcopal oversight are arising here in the UK. They have expressed the hope that these will be solved locally, but if not, they are willing to step in.”

“This development highlights the need for robust legislative provision to cater for those who cannot agree to women bishops, such as that recently suggested by the Revision Committee.”

“If priests really are out of sympathy with the C of E’s doctrine (as opposed to the battles we are having over women’s ministry and sexuality), then perhaps it is better they make a clean break and go to Rome. However, when they do, they will have to accommodate themselves to Rome’s top-down approach to church life, whereas the C of E has always stressed the importance of decision making at the level of the local church.”

“It is illusory to pretend that this development is an outcome of ecumenical dialogue. It illustrates the difficulties the C of E faces and the need for stronger leadership, rather than the ‘softly softly’ approach so far taken to those holding liberal views who are splitting the church.”

No Place Like Rome

Big news from the See of Rome and the See of Canterbury. Details here.

THE VENERATION OF HOLY IMAGES

LIGHTING A CANDLE.

In English cathedrals these days it is common to find stands of lighted candles. In York Minster there is just such a stand.On a table nearby there is a notice saying that it is a nice idea to light a candle and pray. The use of candles has become very popular, not only as a symbol of prayer, but to mark various kinds of aspirations-for the freedom of hostages, to emphasize all manner of political and social issues, and as a mark of public sorrow. Lights of various kinds are used in a number of world religions. and Christians are heirs, to a certain extent, of ancient Jewish customs. Is there, then, a specific Christian use of candles and lamps?

THE LIGHT OF CHRIST.

Beyond the obvious practical need to give light in dark buiIdings, there are two uses which have special Christian significance. The first is the symbolic use, representing Christ as the Light of the world. The gift of a lighted candle at Baptism, the blessing of candles at Candlemass and the ceremonies of the New Fire and the Easter Candle are all examples of this use of lights.

LIGHTS OF HONOUR.

The second use is that of candles and lamps in the sanctuaries of churches and those which are placed in front of statues and pictorial images (icons). It is thought that this custom originated in the ancient Roman manner of honouring their chief magistrates, the Consuls, by carrying lighted candles or torches before them in public. This honorific custom was adopted by the Roman emperors, and then passed over into the ceremonies of the Church. The candIes which now stand on our altars are permanent versions of the candles carried in procession at the beginning of Mass and in full ceremonial, the solemn reading of the Gospel is still attended by portable lights. This second use is intended to mark out with honour objects and actions of special sacredness-for this reason we keep a light burning permanently before the Blessed Sacrament when it is reserved.

LIGHTS BEFORE THE IMAGES.

The same idea of paying honour is attached to the lighting of candles or lamps before the images which depict Our Lord and His Holy Mother, and the Saints. Such acts have a special significance and history attached to them.

THE THREAT TO THE GOSPEL.

We are only too familiar with the unhappy fact that most Churches are sliding toward secularism. Faith in the living Christ becomes a mere philosophy. The joy of the Holy Spirit is replaced by the dullness of humanistic moralism. This is not the first time the Gospel has been threatened in this way-although, in our day, it may have been taken to greater lengths than before.

THE ATTACK ON THE IMAGES.

The threat appeared clearly for the first time some twelve hundred years ago and the distance in time makes no difference to the effect. A Byzantine Emperor, Leo Ill, unleashed an attack on the use of images in the worship of the Church. Leo and his followers accused orthodox Christians of idolatry, and demanded that, in obedience to the Second of the Ten Commandments, the use of the images should cease. Many people agreed with Leo-his message seemed simple, honest, and pious too. It was true that there were people who acted as though the images had some supernatural power of their own. The supporters of Leo's movement became known as "The Destroyers of the images (icons)" or 'Iconoclasts'. Few realised that Iconoclasm was actually an attack on the True Faith. For one thing it put the clock back to the Old Testament-making Christianity a religion of rules and not of salvation through grace. Again it made Christianity out to be either a coldly intellectual thing, or a mere matter of emotional response.

HONOUR NOT WORSHIP.

Those who wished to honour the images knew that they had centuries of Christian tradition to support them. They knew also that the honour they paid to the icons was quite different from their worship of the Holy Trinity (they even had distinct words to make sure that there was no confusion). There was, though, need for someone to point out to orthodox believers the deeper significance of honouring the icons. The man who did this was a Christian monk who had at one time been a high government official representing the Christian subjects of the Caliph of Damascus.

ST. JOHN OF DAMASCUS.

St John of Damascus pointed out that the Incarnation of the Son of God as Jesus of Nazareth changed completely our understanding of God's relationship with His creation and of the Second Commandment against idolatry. "In earlier times, he wrote, "God, who is without form or body, could never be depicted. But now, when God is seen in the flesh conversing with men, I make an image of the God I see. I do not worship matter: I worship the Creator of matter Who became matter for my sake. Who willed to take His abode in matter: Who worked out my salvation through matter. Never will I cease honouring the matter which wrought my salvation. I honour it, but not as God ... Because of this I salute all remaining matter with reverence, because God has filled it with grace and power." St John could see that the attack on the images concealed a denial of the reality of the Incarnation of Christ and a rejection of the sacramental way in which the new life in Christ is received by us. At the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which restored the place of images in the life of the Church, a senior bishop exclaimed of Iconoclasm. "This is the worst of heresies because it includes them all."

THE REVIVAL OF ICONOCLASM.

The calling of the Seventh Ecumenical Council proved a turning point in the struggle against Iconoclasm-a battle which, nevertheless, still had many years to run. In the later Middle Ages when the true significance and use of the images tended to be obscured by superstition, there was a revival of Iconoclasm and this attitude became part of the Reformation programme. In consequence the older formularies of post-Reformation Anglicanism are definitely Iconoclastic in character and this is why Anglicanism has never accepted officially the decisions of the Seventh Council.

MODERN ICONOCLASM.

The modern influence of Iconoclasm is not to be seen in church buildings with plain walls and clear glass, but in a reducing of the Faith to 'rational' principles, an emphasis on secular issues at the expense of spiritual need. The lighting of a candle in a cathedral becomes an expression of the human need to pray, not an acknowledgement of the Christ to Whom we pray. In an Anglican Catholic Church we find should always find an opportunity provided to light a candle before an image of Christ, His Holy Mother, or one of the Saints. Here we have prayer meaningfully directed and honour rightly bestowed. Such shrines are a practical fulfilment of the decrees of the Seventh Council which the ACC has never hesitated to accept.

A WINDOW ON HEAVEN.

An image is never an invitation to idolatry. It may depict Our Lord. or His Holy Mother. It may represent Our Lady with the Child Jesus, again it may represent one of the Saints, a scene from the Scriptures. or an incident in the subsequent life of the Church. In all cases the image is a window upon the realities of the Heavenly Kingdom, never an object of adoration in itself. St. Basil the Great said that the honour paid to the image passes to the original. So when we light candle in front of an image we are honouring Christ Himself, recalling his Incarnation and the way in which, through His Death and Resurrection, He lives, by the power of the Holy Spirit, in the lives of His Saints. Our prayers through or to the Saints are prayers to Christ Himself and, in Christ, to the Holy Trinity.

THE FULLNESS OF THE GOSPEL.

When we honour the images we are honouring the fullness of the Gospel Faith. The proclaiming of this Gospel, in word and deed, is our task as members of the Body of Christ. It is to the fullness of the Gospel that, as members of the ACC in fellowship with all Catholic believers, we have a joyful commitment-a commitment we renew every time we light a candle before the holy images.

h/t The Allentown Tracts

Church History on the Quick

4 minute video of 2000 years of church history!

The worst part...I know a seminary where you can get an MDiv and you don't even have to know as much history as is in this!

Theology of Icons

The standard charge of meticulously-Protestant Christians is that catholics are idolatrous because they will reverence icons, altars, the sacrament and other persons. If we thought that these things were gods, that would be a valid charge. Indeed, there are badly instructed catholics who may have superstitious ideas about such things (particularly in places like the Philippines, Latin America, etc.). However, the biblical case for holy images is, I believe, overwhelming when one takes everything into account. Furthermore, it’s been settled by the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicea II in 787), which many Protestants claim to adhere to!

Nicea II based its argumentation upon the writings and argumentation of Ss. Theodore of Studium, Germanus of Constantinople, and John of Damascus. St. John of Damascus’ famous treatise in defense of holy icons forms the basis for the argument below. I will also include some quotes from various Fathers defending images, showing that this is part of the undivided practice and faith of the church.

1. Really the only apparent biblical argument against images is the Second Commandment. It is argued that there are to be no images made of God, or anything in heaven or earth. In response to this charge, it is important to note that this view is actually inconsistent and impossible. We should be careful to note that the literal wording of the Command forbids all making of any images of anything in heaven, earth, sea, etc. Reformed theologian Charles Hodge mentions a reformed colleague of his at Princeton who actually refused to use maps that pictured things like mountains, lakes, etc. This is a consistent outworking of the Protestants position. Such a position is totally ridiculous, but he was attempting to be as consistent with his heretical reading of the Second Command.

Two points refute this:

• First, the Commandment specifically mentions heaven, earth, sea, etc. God seems to be pointing out the type of worship the Israelites encountered in their pagan neighbors like Egypt, Babylonia, Philistia, Canaan, etc. In other words, “heavens,” meaning astrology, “earth,” meaning animism and nature worship, and “sea” meaning various forms of aquatic idolatry, such as Nile worship. So, God is not railing against the inherent evil of an image, but against the practices of the Israelite neighbors, which included any or all of the above.
• Second, God himself commands many holy images to be placed inside the Holy of Holies! 1 Kings 6 describes how ornate the inside of the Holy of Holies was, replete with images of Cherubim and Seraphim, and of course the Ark itself had two huge, golden Cherubim over its lid.
  

If images were inherently evil, God wouldn’t command His own tabernacle/temple to be full of them. Therefore, the Second Command cannot mean absolutely no religious images. It forbids pagan idolatry, and clearly the temple worship which had images was not idolatry.

2. Following in this same train, when the Israelites were in the wilderness and were bit by the snakes, God commands Moses to make an image of a bronze serpent and put it on a pole and all the Israelites are to look in faith to this image. This is recounted in Numbers 21. Once again, this is clearly a religious image because Jesus explains it as a type of His crucifixion in John 3:14-15. All who will look to His Holy Cross will be saved from the bite of the real serpent, the devil. So, we have here a vindication of the use of the crucifix. That’s why St. Paul sees power in the Cross of Christ (see Colossians 2:13-15) to disarm the devil’s fallen hierarchy of fallen angels. That’s why crucifixes are used in exorcisms. And it's a rare church that doesn't have a single cross in the place.

(Ironically, many will allow an American flag - replete with eagle at the top, symbol of Roman power - to be in their places of worship without a peep!)

3. The Bible itself is full is symbolism, which is merely another form of the use of images. Thus, the Holy Spirit appears in the form of a dove at Christ’s baptism. A dove, then, is legitimately used as an image of the Holy Spirit. The paschal lamb is an image of Christ, and so on. God presents Himself to us in Scripture through a variety of images. Human fathers, then, are an image of our heavenly Father. St. Paul, in Colossians 1:15, says that Christ is the image (Greek is “ikon”) of the invisible God. It was, in fact, the Jews who were enraged at Christ’s claim of divinity, a claim that provoked their erroneous zeal against holy images. How could the invisible Jehovah be Incarnate in a human image? To the Pharisees this was idolatry. But the catholic view gives due honor to the Incarnation by recognizing the validity and holy nature of images as part and parcel of the Incarnation, and this was the reasoning of Nicea II.

4. Some Protestants may hold to the validity of images, but deny the reverence paid to them as idolatry. We must ask, then, does Scripture provide any warrant for reverencing anything created? All are agreed that worship (latria) is to be paid only to God. But what about reverence, as in dulia? Is it licit to give homage, reverence, even prostration to any created thing/image? I believe the biblical answer is yes, since we see several times in Scripture men in authority being reverenced. For example, Joseph, as a ruler in Egypt, deserves the homage of his brothers and sisters, and thus they “bowed themselves before him with their faces to the ground” (Gen. 42:7). The company of the Lord’s prophets bow down before Elijah in reverence in 2 Kings 2:15. Surely if it were inherently wrong to bow before a created thing (and Joseph and Elijah were created), they would have rebuked others for so doing. But, there are numerous examples of this in Scripture. St. Paul says to give “honor to whom honor is due” (Romans 13:7), and if anyone is due honor, it is the clergy - especially bishops - who labor in the word (of double honor according to Paul in 1 Tim. 5:17).

5. In Acts 19:11-12, cloths and handkerchiefs are touched by St. Paul, and are then placed upon those possessed and the spirits are driven out by these “relics.” Likewise, the woman with an issue of blood touches the hem of Jesus’ garment and “virtue goes forth from him” to heal her. The bones of Elisha even resurrect a dead soldier (2 Kings 13): this is the entire principle behind relics. Things–matter–stuff can be consecrated/sanctified for a holy purpose. Thus, Jesus spits in the sand and makes clay, rubbing it on the blind man’s eyes to heal him. Jesus could have simply spoken a word and healed the man, but in this instance He chose to use mud–stuff, to do the miracle. We call this the “Incarnational Principle.” It is the same thinking behind all sacramental practice.

6. Likewise, in the OT period, even places were holy. Places like Mt. Sinai, the Temple, etc. But this practice is not rejected in the NT, contrary to what many Protestants may think. In John 5, there is a pool where an angel stirs up the water and the first to enter the pool is healed. This is the principle behind shrines and healing icons. In 2 Peter 1:16-18, St. Peter calls the mountain that he witnessed the transfiguration on the “holy mountain.” So, even in the New Testament the principle of holy places is not abolished as something strictly Old Testament. One sees, then, that there is biblical basis for the catholic practices of relics, images and icons. If there is discernment, it must lie not with strict prohibition, but with regard to application.

7. The Early Church Fathers are also very clear:

“We do not worship, we do not adore [non colimus, non adoramus], for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the Creator, but we venerate [honoramus] the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore Him whose martyrs they are.” Against Riparium -St. Jerome

“We by no means consider the holy martyrs to be gods, nor are we wont to bow down before them adoringly, but only relatively and reverentially.” Against Julian -St. Cyril of Alexandria

And St. Augustine against Faustus the Manichaean:

“We, the Christian community, assemble to celebrate the memory of the martyrs with ritual solemnity because we want to be inspired to follow their example, share in their merits, and be helped by their prayers. Yet we erect no altars to any of the martyrs, even in the martyrs’ burial chapels themselves.”

No bishop, when celebrating at an altar where these holy bodies rest, has ever said, “Peter, we make this offering to you”, or “Paul, to you”, or “Cyprian, to you”. No, what is offered is offered always to God, who crowned the martyrs. We offer in the chapels where the bodies of those he crowned rest, so the memories that cling to those places will stir our emotions and encourage us to greater love both for the martyrs whom we can imitate and for God whose grace enables us to do so. This is part of what we mean when we confess the communion of the saints.

But the honor strictly called “worship”, or latria, that is, the special homage belonging only to the divinity, is something we give and teach others to give to God alone. The offering of a sacrifice belongs to worship in this sense (that is why those who sacrifice to idols are called idol-worshipers), and we neither make nor tell others to make any such offering to any martyr, any soul, or any angel. If anyone among us falls into this error, he is corrected with words of sound doctrine and must then either mend his ways or else be shunned.

Even the incense that is sometimes burned in front of ikons is merely a reiteration that we believe the whole church triumphant prays for us and cheers us on in our run of faith. The saints themselves forbid anyone to offer them the worship they know is reserved for God, as is clear from the case of Paul and Barnabas. When the Lycaonians were so amazed by their miracles that they wanted to sacrifice to them as gods, the apostles tore their garments, declared that they were not gods, urged the people to believe them, and forbade them to worship them.
The truths we teach are one thing, the abuses thrust upon us are another.

heavy h/t to Jay Dyer

Libera sings the Sanctus to Pachelbel

Here's what they're singing:

Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus

Dominus Deus Sabaoth.

Pleni sunt caeli et terra gloria tua.

Hosanna in excelsis.

Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini.

Hosanna in excelsis.

Why can't these boys show up and assist at the liturgy every Sunday?

Iconography for Michaelmas

Today is Michaelmas (the feast of Michael and the Holy Angels). It's pronounced "MICK-el-mus" and is a traditional starting time for school. In God's providence, it also falls immediately after Yom Kippur this year.

Collect: Everlasting God, who have ordained and constituted in a wonderful Order the ministries of angels and mortals: Mercifully grant that, as your holy angels always serve and worship you in heaven, so by your appointment they may help and defend us here on earth; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

Readings: Psalm 103; Genesis 28:10-17; Revelation 12:7-12; John 1:47-51

	Cathedral Choral Society, Washington National Cathedral - Ye watchers and ye holy ones 17c
	Found at bee mp3 search engine

Ye watchers and ye holy ones,
bright seraphs, cherubim, and thrones,
raise the glad strain,
Alleluia!
Cry out, dominions, princedoms, powers,
virtues, archangels, angels' choirs,
Refrain:
Alleluia! alleluia! alleluia!
Alleluia! alleluia!

O higher than the cherubim,
more glorious than the seraphim,
lead their praises,
Alleluia!
Thou bearer of the eternal Word,
most gracious, magnify the Lord, Refrain

Respond, ye souls in endless rest,
ye patriarchs and prophets blest,
Alleluia,
alleluia!
Ye holy twelve, ye martyrs strong,
all saints triumphant, raise the song, Refrain

O friends, in gladness let us sing,
supernal anthems echoing,
Alleluia,
alleluia!
To God the Father, God the Son,
and God the Spirit, Three in One, Refrain
In the days before widespread literacy, the Church taught with images. Cultural commentators tell us that images are making a come-back (TV, YouTube, etc.) as the power of the written word seems to diminish among the hoi polloi. While this is to be lamented, all is not lost. Again - the Church taught the faith this way for over a millenium.

Today, as I reflect on the Feast of St. Michael and All Angels, I'm struck by what the iconography teaches about our spiritual warfare. Look at these pictures and tell me what you notice.

Seeing a common theme, yet?

Try noticing where the spear is placed.

Do you see it?

ALWAYS AT THE MOUTH.

(The same is true in the iconography of St. George, Patron protector of England, whose shield has been adopted as the symbol for the Anglican Church in North America.)
Why?

Because Satan's greatest tool is deception!

Our spiritual warfare consists of being sanctified in the truth and casting down arguments that hold themselves up against the truth of Christ. It's not easy - and in an age that appreciates the appearance of substance rather than substance itself - it can get you labeled as "mean" or "intolerant" or "narrow-minded."

But remember that the highest messenger of God (literal translation of archangel) is so because he constantly destroys the lies of the devil, robbing him of power in the world.

Go and do likewise.

(Here's some help.)

Holy Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray; and do you, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who wander through the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

The Prayer of Leo XIII
to be said after Mass

Saintly Good King Wenceslas

One of the best loved Christmas Carols is "Good King Wenceslas." In 1853, John Mason Neale chose Wenceslas as the subject for a children’s song to exemplify generosity. It quickly became a Christmas favorite, even though its words clearly indicate that Wenceslas ‘looked out’ on St. Stephen’s Day, the day after Christmas. So Good King Wenceslas is actually a Boxing Day carol! For a tune, Neale picked up a spring carol, originally sung with the Latin text ‘Tempus adest floridum’ or ‘Spring has unwrapped her flowers’ (see below). This original spring tune was first published in 1582 in a collection of Swedish church and school songs.

Jolly Old St. Wenceslas

Who was King Wenceslas anyway? Wenceslas was the Duke of Bohemia who was murdered in 929 AD by his wicked younger brother, Boleslav. As the song indicates, he was a good, honest, and strongly principled man. The song expresses his high moral character in describing King Wenceslas braving a fierce storm in order to help feed a poor neighbour. Wenceslas believed that his Christian faith needed to be put into action in practical ways. Wenceslas was brought up with a strong Christian faith by his grandmother St. Ludmila (herself a convert of Saints Methodius and Cyril). Wenceslas’ own mother Drahomira, however, joined forces with an anti-Christian group that murdered Wenceslas’ grandmother, and seized power in Bohemia. Two years later in 922 AD, the evil Drahomira was deposed, and Good King Wenceslas became the ruler.

His mother secured the apostasy and alliance of her second son, Boleslas, who became henceforth her ally against the Christians. Wenceslas in the meantime ruled as the brave and pious king of Bohemia. When his kingdom was attacked, the prince of the invading army, which had been called in by certain seditious individuals, was approaching with a lance to slay him. This prince, named Radislas, saw two celestial spirits beside him; he had already seen him make the sign of the cross and then heard a voice saying not to strike him. These marvels so astonished him that he descended from his horse, knelt at the feet of Wenceslas and asked his pardon. Peace was then reestablished in the land.

In the service of God Saint Wenceslas was constant, planting with his own hands the wheat and pressing the grapes for Holy Mass, at which he never failed to assist each day. He provided for the poor and himself took what they needed to them at night, to spare them the shame they might incur if their poverty became public knowledge. He desired to introduce the Benedictine Order into his kingdom, but was struck down by a violent death before he could do so and himself enter a monastery, as he wished to do.

His piety provided the occasion for his death. After a banquet at his brother’s palace, to which he had been treacherously invited and where he manifested great gentleness towards his brother and mother, he went to pray at night before the tabernacle, as he was accustomed to do. There, at midnight on the feast of the Angels in the year 938, he received the crown of martyrdom by the sword, at the hand of his own brother.

He became Bohemia’s most famous martyr and patron saint. His picture appeared on Bohemian coins, and the Crown of Wenceslas became the symbol of Czech independence.

Intergenerational Appeal

Even as a young child, I remember feeling moved as I sung this jaunty, unusual carol. Recently the phrase ‘Fails my heart, I know not how, I can go no longer’ really spoke to me. It reminded me that sometimes there are times in our lives when life and its stresses seem to overwhelm us, and we feel that ‘we can go no longer.’ The response of Good King Wenceslas was most interesting. He said: ‘Mark my footsteps, my good page, Tread thou in them boldly: Thou shalt find the winter’s rage freeze thy blood less coldly.’ Wenceslas reminds us that when we are all alone, life can feel very bleak. It is at such times that solidarity with another human being can help ‘our blood freeze less coldly’. Wenceslas affirms that we are not alone, and subtly points to the basic Christmas message that Jesus our Master will never leave us in the cold.

Further, the appeal to walk in the steps that others have forged for us is being used in Benedict XVI's appeal - on this Feast of St. Winceslas - to Europe to recover her Christian patrimony before she reverts to barbarism.

In His Master’s Steps

In the last verse are the memorable words: ‘In his master’s steps he trod, where the snow lay dinted.’ The author John Neale, an Anglican priest, shows us here that the essence of true living is learning to walk in our Master’s steps. All of us need a Higher Power to help guide us along our journey. Jesus said: "If anyone would come after me (and tread in my steps), he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." Our challenge each Christmas is to look beyond the toys and tinsel, to see ‘the Master’s steps.’

	Good King Wenceslas (76.76D)
	Found at bee mp3 search engine

Sources 1, 2, 3, & 4.

Litany in Honor of the Holy Cross

There's no better way to start off this day than with the greatest processional / recessional of all time, Lift High the Cross!

	Lift High the Cross
	Found at bee mp3 search engine

Readings for the Feast of the Holy Cross are found here.

Lord, have mercy.
Christ, have mercy.
Lord, have mercy.

Christ, hear us.
Christ, graciously hear us.

God, the Father of Heaven,
have mercy on us.
God the Son, Redeemer of the world,
have mercy on us.
God, the Holy Spirit,
have mercy on us.
Holy Trinity, One God,
have mercy on us.

The word of the Cross is folly to those who are perishing,
but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

God forbid that I should glory save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,
by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

Reflection: Jesus has many who love His Kingdom in Heaven, but few who bear His Cross. He has many who desire comfort, but few who desire suffering. He finds many to share His feast, but few His fasting. All desire to rejoice with Him, but few are willing to suffer for His sake.

God forbid that I should glory save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,
by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

Reflection: Why do you fear to take up the Cross, which is the road to the Kingdom? In the Cross is salvation and life, protection against our enemies, infusion of Heavenly sweetness; in the Cross is strength of mind,joy of spirit, excellence of virtue, perfection of holiness. There is no salvation of soul, nor hope of eternal life, save in the Cross.

God forbid that I should glory save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,
by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

Reflection: Take up the Cross, therefore, and follow Jesus, and go forward into eternal life. Christ has gone before you, bearing His Cross;He died for you on the Cross, that you also may bear your cross,and desire to die on the Cross with Him. For if you die with Him,you will also live with Him. And if you share His sufferings, you will also share His glory.

God forbid that I should glory save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,
by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

Reflection: See how in the Cross all things consist, and in dying on it all things depend. There is no other way to life and to true inner peace, than the way of the Cross.Go where you will, seek what you will; you will find no higher way above nor safer way below than the road of the Holy Cross.

God forbid that I should glory save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,
by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

Reflection: The Cross always stands ready, and everywhere awaits you. You cannot escape it, wherever you flee; for wherever you go,you bear yourself, and always find yourself. Look up or down, without you or within, and everywhere you will find the Cross. And everywhere you must have patience, if you wish to attain inner peace, and win an eternal crown.

God forbid that I should glory save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,
by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

Lamb of God, Who take away the sins of the world,
spare us, O Lord!.
Lamb of God, Who take away the sins of the world,
graciously hear us, O Lord!
Lamb of God, Who take away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us.

Let us pray.

Lord Jesus Christ, strengthen us to follow Thee not only to the Breaking of Bread but also to the drinking of the Cup of Thy Passion. Help us to love Thee for Thine own sake and not for the sake of comfort for ourselves. Make us worthy to suffer for Thy name, Jesus, our Crucified and Risen Lord and Savior, now and forever. Amen.

If you haven't taught your children to remember their salvation using the sign of the cross (a duty Martin Luther put especially on fathers), why not today? For further reflection, I recommend ECatBedside's reflection piece.

Denominational Schizophrenia

Ever noticed how the stuff coming from the highest levels of church government in the mainline (or legacy) denominations always seems to skew left, while the folks in the pew underneath keep tellin' em to keep right?

Honor Christenings on the Rise in Some Churches

I'm sure this has been all over the media.

KINGSTON, Ontario: Police say they are investigating whether the soakings of three teenage sisters and a 50-year-old woman found in a car in a church parking lot last month were an "honor christening" by relatives.

Kingston Police Chief Stephen Tanner said Thursday a father, his wife and their son are charged with four counts of first-degree watering.

The three sisters and the man's first wife were found in the car in the Rideau Canal near Kingston, Ontario on June 30.

Tanner said one overseas family member believes it could be an "honor christening." Experts say such baptisms are still accepted among some Christians.

The family, originally from Shrewesbury, England spent 15 years in London before moving to Montreal two years ago.

The accused are Jeremy Upton, his wife Valerie and his 18-year-old son Ashley.

Mr. Upton had told police the baptisms occurred as the family was headed home after vacationing in Niagara Falls and had stopped for the night at a Kingston hotel.

He said the family was traveling in two cars and that he awoke to find one car missing. He reported the car missing to police and said his eldest daughter was known to take the family car without permission or a licence.

Police said their investigation proved that allegation to be false, and that in fact all three accused had operated the vehicle that wound up parked near a church.

"All shared the rights within our great country to live without fear, to enjoy safety and freedom ... and yet had their coifs ruined by members of their own family," Tanner said.

The victims are Meredith, 19, Lilly, 17, and Gwynneth, 13, along with Susan Epston.

Both parents described the eldest, Meredith, as a rebellious and secular young woman.

(source and another) I just "christofascianized" the regular practice for our children and placed it on the story of Islamic "Honor Killings" happening in increasingly secularized western democracies. Some people want to pretend that all religious extremism is the same, and that Christianity has no claim of better behavior in the modern world than any other religion. They assure us that this has nothing to do with the Muslim religion.

Amin Muhammad, a Memorial University expert who is preparing a paper on the topic for the federal Justice Department, says honour killing is not religiously motivated.

"Nothing in the Muslim religion would justify this. Nothing in any religion would justify this," he said. "It's based on personal agendas, personal egos, personal mindsets."

Sure...you see it all the time in Christian households.

The practice dates back hundreds of years to rural and tribal areas of Pakistan and is generally committed by family members against women who have engaged in illicit pre-marital or extramarital relations. In some cases, it can even target victims of sexual assault.

Right. You know...some religions that emphasize spreading the Love of God stamped that out of their rural tribal life a long time ago.

A man who feels such an act has dishonoured the family will kill the woman in question as a means of restoring that honour. Motives for honour killing, however, have started to expand beyond female adultery, targeting women for enjoying basic freedoms, Mr. Muhammad said.

Funny...most Christian parents in similar settings decide to help their daughters enter the bonds of holy matrimony instead. I guess these are equivalent...who am I to judge, right?

"In some cases, they just don't want the woman to have the liberty to choose her own lifestyle," he said.

The practice exemplifies a deeply entrenched gender bias against women, said Angela Henderson, an expert on domestic violence at the University of British Columbia. In most cases, men who similarly breach cultural norms tend to be subjected to less severe punishments.

Right...it's all about gender bias, which is why all those mouth-breathing, anti-feminist conservatoid Christian haters in the Southern Baptist Convention are doing it.

You know...it just might have to do with the fact that the religions of the world demand sacrifice and blood atonement for sin, and Christianity has already finished that in the work of Christ. You think?

But the intense public spotlight that follows killings -- which often focuses on the perceived clash between Western and Middle Eastern values -- deflects attention from a much larger issue, she said. "I don't think you can [simply] put it down to culture," Ms. Henderson said. "Eleven per cent of women can expect to experience some form of violence from somebody they know in their lifetime ... it's about power and control, a way of enforcing what a man thinks a woman should be doing."

Face it, folks...secularism isn't going to be able to stand up to the mind virus of Islamic extremism. Look at how we've bought into the narcissistic apocalypticism of anthropogenic global warming. From a purely secular point of view, Christianity serves as a mild inoculation against such radicalism - and has a proven history of transforming societies towards democracy and improving the lot of women.