The Ark, the Ethiopians, and the Monophysites

I just read an article from WND again and it goes into more elaborate explanation and actually talks about some "experts" in the field. It's worth a read. You can find it here.

Honestly I feel like I'm one of those trashy newspapers you see at the grocery store check-out because I keep posting all of this. In fact, until it hits real news I think I'm gonna lay off of it. It's great and interesting, but when this last article started quoting bible prophecy "experts" from TBN and the like I decided that I'm not going to pass anything else along.

However, I should address the questions I raised about the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. One of my good Orthodox friends pointed me a page I missed on the Ethiopian Church website. In these pages (here and here) it explains how and why the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is not in communion with either the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. I would suggest reading both the articles, but the first is much more explanatory.

To give you a quick summary (for those of you who don't want to read the articles) the Ethiopians are non-Chalcedonian in their creedal heritage. What this means is that while all of Christianity embraces the 7 major ecumenical councils the Ethiopian Orthodox do not embrace the council of Chalcedon.

The council of Chalcedon (451 and the 4th council) declared that Christ had two distinct natures (Divine and Human) united in one person (hypostasis). Traditionally the Ethiopians would be referred to as monophysites which were condemned as heretics at the council. The monophysites taught that Christ had only one nature (divine and human combined together like a milkshake) and one person. If you read the article you will realize that the Ethiopians really don't like to be called monophysites and prefer the term "miaphysite." While their description is much closer to the orthodox Christian description given at the council and they are correct in rejecting monophysite teaching they are still, as a result of this disagreement still not in full communion with the Christian churches that hold to the 7 ecumenical councils.

I hope that brief description helps and doesn't confuse anyone. This discussion is heavy and sometimes I confuse myself. So if any of you all are more educated in this than I am please feel free to provide input.

All that to say that the Ethiopians are not in communion with the Orthodox and the Catholics and as such it is a huge step that the Ethiopian patriarch is talking to Rome and is willing to show the pope what the Ethiopians believe to be the true Ark of the Covenant.

The Ark of the Covenant!

If you grew up in the church, read the Old Testament, or even seen the Indiana Jones movie Raiders of the Ark you know about the Ark of the Covenant. The container of Aaron's staff, the Ten Commandments (not the movie), and some manna is said to have disappeared a long long time ago.

There have always been rumors that the Ark made its way to Africa in the time of King Solomon and the queen of Sheba and then somehow (the rumors aren't too clear) found its way into an Ethiopian church much later in history. The legends and even some discovery channel specials have alluded that the Ethiopian church has closely guarded and kept secret the official place of the ark. Over the years the Ethiopian church has refused to allow anyone except for a few choice monks and patriarchs to see the ark but has confirmed reports that they are in possession of it. Well, apparently all of this is about to change.

According to "World Net Daily" (here: hat-tip to Laura Hubel via facebook) the Patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is going to allow the bishop of Rome (read: Pope) and the rest of the world to view the Ark of the Covenant.

Now, I'm not sure how reputable "World Net Daily" is. For all I know this could be a fake news site like the Onion, but it doesn't seem to read like one. I will continue to search for info on this and pass it along as I find it. But if this is indeed a credible story think about how amazing it is that the Ark, if this is the true Ark, is finally being allowed to be seen. Making this even more awesome is that the unveiling of this will be an ecumenical event and will help to mend the strains dividing the Catholic and Orthodox churches (providing the Ethiopian church is not in schism... could one of my Orthodox friends help me with this?).

While this is a great event and I rejoice in it, it also raises some pretty big questions, especially if this really is the true Ark of the Covenant.

• Given the New Covenant given to us by Jesus does the Ark still need to be handled in the same manner as the OT prescribed and if so who will fulfill this priestly duty?
• If the Ark does need to still be handled with in the same manner does the fact that the Ethiopian church can transport it validate their claim on being the true apostolic church?
• Will they allow anyone who is not special Ethiopian clergy to touch the Ark thus testing to see if if it validates their church?
• Will the church allow the Ark to be tested and historically dated?
• What will be the Jewish reaction to this claim? (I'm guessing complete rejection of the validity)
• Will they open the Ark?
  
• Will this produce a multitude of converts? To Christianity in general? To Orthodoxy? To Catholicism?

The questions are really endless and my mind is consumed by the multiple scenarios that this has to offer and thus my productivity at work has screeched to a halt even though I'm not 100% certain of the validity of this story. But think about it, either this is the true Ark of the covenant or it isn't.

I just found another story online that provides the report from INN (I think that stands for Israeli National News). Click Here.

Hopefully I'm not just posting a bogus story, but I was too excited by this not to put it on here. I'll post updates as I find them.

Blessings,

- Ben

Political Sainthood?

I was just reading my friend Paul's blog (here) where he mentions that the canonization process is in place for Julius Kambarage Nyerere the African ruler who brought about the creation of Tanzania.

Paul links to an article from the Sunday Monitor which provides some details. Click here for that article.

I find this potential canonization very interesting. While I do not know a whole lot about Africa or the political happenings there, I do find it interesting that the church would consider canonization of a person who rose to political power via a military coup and who seems to be just a political figure.

I guess I don't have as many thoughts regarding this as I do questions:

- Is this the work of liberation theologians that are striving to carry their legacy through the Catholic church via the remembrance of political saints?

- Does this political figure truly represent sainthood? We have other political saints such as Constantine in the east and the many political/religious popes in the west, but these individuals were not just political ideologues they also served as guardians of the faith.

- Is political achievement enough to merit sainthood? How does this fit with the way that the early Fathers viewed the Christian's role in government?


This is surely and interesting case and it will be interesting to see if the process is completed. If I hear any more information on this I will pass it on, especially if I am able to find anything about this person's spiritual qualification for canonization.

Glorious Feast!

Today the church exhorts us to join in a great paradox of feasting even in the midst of our Lenten fasting since today is the feast of the Annunciation. Today is the day that we celebrate and remember that glorious day when the Angel Gabriel came to the Virgin and proclaimed:

Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you...Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And now you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of the his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end....The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God....For nothing will be impossible with God. (Luke 1:30-33,35,37 NRSV)

Today is the day when we can see the full spectrum of our salvation. We look ahead to Good Friday when we remember our Lord's death, and we even glance beyond Good Friday longingly looking toward Easter Sunday, the feast of feasts, when we celebrate our Lords glorious resurrection. We look ahead like this today as we think of the angel's visitation to the Virgin. We recognize today, maybe more fully than at any other point, that our Lord came as a child to die and rise again for us and for our salvation.

The Lord and maker of the heavens, he who is uncontainable humbled himself so much that he allowed himself to take on flesh and to be contained in a womb. He who knows the expanse of the universe and who spoke to the darkness at creation is the same incarnate word that came and took on flesh as a fetus (if such an impersonal word can be used). We celebrate this day the incorporeal Son, the second person of the Trinity, taking on flesh so that humanity may be united to God. We rejoice in the fact that Christ our God took on every part of what it means to be human and yet was without sin. Our Lord took upon himself not only our flesh, but also our will - assuming everything that is intrinsic to us, for as St. Basil states: "that which was not assumed cannot be redeemed."

Today we also remember Mary's response to the Angel: "Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word" (Luke 1:38). We remember that her response was a free choice and that it was not forced upon her. In this same way we remember that we are called to emulate her and to respond to God daily with the same words. Theotokos, the God-bearer, that is the title given to Mary by the early church, not as a sign of her exultation but to proclaim the mystery we celebrate today that God himself, in the person of the Son chose to be born. The uncreated one who is without beginning chose to unite himself to humanity so thoroughly that we can say with confidence that Mary bore God in her womb. To say this statement is hard and absurd is true, and yet it is also beautiful in the truth it proclaims. Christ is the fullness of God, and yet also the fullness of humanity and today we proclaim his love. We can see this love clearly as we remember his incarnation and look toward the cross and resurrection.

Glory to God in the Highest! Our redemption is at hand, for Christ our God is conceived in the womb of the virgin so that he may cleanse us from our sin.


Sadly this holy-day is forgotten in most of Protestantism probably due to a number of reasons, chief of which may be (and I'm just offering a hypothesis here) connected to the staunch rejection of anything having to do with the Virgin Mary at the time of Luther's reformation. I believe it would do us well to remember this day with our Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters. I believe this feast helps us to think more accurately about the incarnation of our Lord. It helps us to avoid the heresy of adoptionism and some gnostic tendencies that run deep in some of our traditions.

So let us today join with our Catholic and Orthodox friends and boldly sing the praises of God. For today we can see both the incarnation and the crucifixion/resurrection clearly. Let us praise God for his redemption of humanity for today we celebrate the coming of grace as the Son of God becomes the Son of the Virgin!

What?

My friend JD (here) recently posted a youtube video of a fashion show in Britain for church ministers. I watched the short video and it made me sad. Not only did the whole fashion show deal make me sad, but the comments made by the deaconess interviewed couldn't be any more contrary to what vestments and worship is all about.

If you watch the video (here) listen to the comments that the deaconess makes at the :35 mark and following. If my hearing is correct she says:

"I've always worn bright(?) clothes and I think the clothes I want to wear as a clergy person should really reflect that...should really reflect my personality and should also reflect the glory of God's creation."

In my understanding the goal of vestments is to not only hide the individual, but also to draw one's attention toward the things of God. She is placing herself and her personality at the center of leading worship. Nothing could be further from the goal of worship. Worship is about ascribing glory to a God that is holy and glorious. It is about asking our loving Father to have mercy on us through his Son. Worship is about laying aside all earthly cares so that we may receive the King who comes invisibly - namely Jesus Christ.

If we begin to desire to see ourselves in worship then we begin to become anthropocentric instead of theocentric. We will undoubtedly begin to worship ourselves and our preferences and as such we will surely lose our souls.

Lord Have Mercy!

Post Super-Bowl Thoughts

Contrary to what the title may convey, this post is more about theology and popular piety than it is about the Super Bowl.

For the past three years up until I moved to NC I attended an Orthodox church. In this church I've been fed and nourished in the faith. I have come to love Orthodoxy very much (even though I don't have any current plans to convert) and I believe that those of us who belong to the Western Church would greatly benefit from a strong dose of Eastern theology and piety.

As friends and family visited me and attended church with me one of the major points of questioning, curiosity, and ridicule (though very rare) was that things (in particular holy things) were venerated through kissing. For example: icons, the chalice, and other things of theological and liturgical significance are kissed as a sign of reverence.

As I watched the Super Bowl Trophy presentation the other day I couldn't help but notice that almost every player and coach anxiously awaited his chance to not only touch the trophy but to kiss it as well. As I watched these grown men kissing this small metallic trophy I recounted sport event after sport event where this same scenario has played itself out. Whether it be the World Series, the Stanley Cup, the NBA Finals, or the Super Bowl, each year I see grown men kiss a trophy and I have never heard a single individual remark how odd, weird, or creepy it is.

I'm not mentioning all this to condemn anyone, but rather just as an observation. It's interesting how some actions can cause us distress in one setting while in a completely different setting they seem perfectly normal. I especially think this whole concept is odd when you consider it from a Protestant perspective.

Conservative Protestants are typically the first group of people to criticize Catholics and Orthodox for their ritual movements and posturing. They criticize when they cross themselves, when they kiss holy objects, when they repeat written prayers, and when they kneel repeatedly during services. Yet these same conservative protestants are the first ones to salute the American flag, put their hand over their heart during the national anthem, say the pledge of allegiance, and kiss super bowl trophies and the like.

I find it very interesting that we can support and accept a set of actions when they are directed toward a nation-state or a championship trophy, but yet utterly reject them when they are directed toward the holy things of God.

I'm sure there are many more reasons for this disparity but I thought I'd begin the discussion here.

Eccumenical Awesomeness!!!

His Eminence Bartholomew, ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, delivered the linked address to the synod of Catholic bishops at the Sistine Chapel on October 18, 2008. I love how the Catholics and Orthodox continue to dialogue about unification. Remember that they have been separated from each other since 1054 AD. (Some scholars debate the dating of this schism but we'll allow it to stand since it is fairly accepted.) This is very significant since it is, as Bishop Bartholomew states, "the first time in history that an Ecumenical Patriarch is offered the opportunity to address a Synod of the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, and thus be part of the life of this sister Church at such a high level."

It warms my heart that these two churches continue to seek unification after so many years and so many divergent issues. Let us continue to pray that one day all of the Christians may be unified under one banner.

Read the address here.

Thanks for Greg Sigountos who passed it along to me.


Some of my favorite quotes from the address:

We regard this as a manifestation of the work of the Holy Spirit leading our Churches to a closer and deeper relationship with each other, an important step towards the restoration of our full communion.

Mission and evangelization remain a permanent duty of the Church at all times and places; indeed they form part of the Church’s nature, since she is called “Apostolic” both in the sense of her faithfulness to the original teaching of the Apostles and in that of proclaiming the Word of God in every cultural context every time. The Church needs, therefore, to rediscover the Word of God in every generation and make it head with a renewed vigour and persuation also in our contemporary world, which deep in its heart thirsts for God’s message of peace, hope and charity.

This duty of evangelization would have been, of course, greatly enhanced and strengthened, if all Christians were in a position to perform it with one voice and as a fully united Church. In his prayer to the Father little before His passion our Lord has made it clear that the unity of the Church is unbreakably related with her mission “so that the world may believe” (John 17, 21)

For “hearing, beholding and handling the Word of life” (1 Jn 1.1) are not first and foremost our entitlement or birthright as human beings; they are our privilege and gift as children of the living God. The Christian Church is, above all, a scriptural Church. Although methods of interpretation may have varied from Church Father to Church Father, from “school” to “school,” and from East to West, nevertheless, Scripture was always received as a living reality and not a dead book.

In the context of a living faith, then, Scripture is the living testimony of a lived history about the relationship of a living God with a living people. The Word, “who spoke through the prophets” (Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed), spoke in order to be heard and take effect. It is primarily an oral and direct communication intended for human beneficiaries. The scriptural text is, therefore, derivative and secondary; the scriptural text always serves the spoken word. It is not conveyed mechanically, but communicated from generation to generation as a living word.

The entire world is a prologue to the Gospel of John. And when the Church fails to recognize the broader, cosmic dimensions of God’s Word, narrowing its concerns to purely spiritual matters, then it neglects its mission to implore God for the transformation – always and everywhere, “in all places of His dominion” – of the whole polluted cosmos.

Within the life of the Church, the unfathomable self-emptying (kénosis) and generous sharing (koinonía) of the divine Logos is reflected in the lives of the saints as the tangible experience and human expression of God’s Word in our community.

And within the communion of saints, each of us is called to “become like fire” (Sayings of the Desert Fathers), to touch the world with the mystical force of God’s Word, so that – as the extended Body of Christ – the world, too, might say: “Someone touched me!” (cf. Mt 9.20) Evil is only eradicated by holiness, not by harshness. And holiness introduces into society a seed that heals and transforms. Imbued with the life of the sacraments and the purity of prayer, we are able to enter the innermost mystery of God’s Word.

When the world does not share the joy of Christ’s Resurrection, this is an indictment of our own integrity and commitment to the living Word of God.

As we struggle – in ourselves and in our world – to recognize the power of the Cross, we begin to appreciate how every act of justice, every spark of beauty, every word of truth can gradually wear away the crust of evil. However, beyond our own frail efforts, we have the assurance of the Spirit, who “helps us in our weakness” (Rom. 8.26) and stands beside us as advocate and “comforter” (Jn 14-6), penetrating all things and “transforming us – as St. Symeon the New Theologian says – into everything that the Word of God says about the heavenly kingdom: pearl, grain of mustard seed, leaven, water, fire, bread, life and mystical wedding chamber.” Such is the power and grace of the Holy Spirit...

Glory to God! Amen.

More Lenten Thoughts

If my recent post entitled "Approaching Lent" provoked some thoughts then check out my friend Nathaniel's blog entry (here).

He, being Orthodox, does a better job than I in describing the Orthodox approach to lent. His post is short and thorough so pop over there and hopefully that will give you a little better understanding of what I'm talking about.

- Ben

Approaching Lent

I know this post may be a little late (seeing as how most of you who are reading this blog have been in Lent for the past 2-3 weeks) but I've been pondering this for a while and figured late is better than never.

A little over a month ago I was in New Orleans on my way back from Mexico and my friends and I decided to take in a Mardi Gras parade (don't worry there was none of the stereotypical decadence). As I sat watching the parade and thinking about the sites from New Orleans that I had seen earlier I began to think about the evolution of Mardi Gras and wondered how it began. I also, and maybe more so, began to contemplate the difference in both Eastern and Western approaches to the pre-Lenten days.

Most of us are fairly familiar with the Western tradition of Mardi Gras and especially Fat Tuesday (I must sadly confess a favorite of mine). Thinking about this tradition I find it interesting that many Western traditions approach a time of intense fasting/drawing near to God with gluttonous and decadent festivals. As I thought about this I wondering if this was the case with Global Catholicism (not that I'm trying to single out our Catholic friends, most merely associate Mardi Gras with Catholicism - even if it is nominal Catholicism) or if this was merely a pocket of American Catholicism that has been syncretized. Is this practice common in France? Italy? Spain? I also wondered about the development of things such as the infamous beads of Mardi Gras. Did they evolve from (heaven forbid) Rosary beads?

As I continued to think about this I thought about the practice of anticipating Lent that I see in the Orthodox Church. I don't see and emphasis akin to Mardi Gras. The Orthodox practice, as far as I understand it, is to approach Lent gradually by emptying one's house of meat two weeks prior to lent (thus there is a week of eating a lot of meat) and then emptying one's house of dairy products one week before lent (thus a week of a lot of milk and cheeses). While this practice could turn into two weeks of gluttony I have yet to see it manifest itself as such. I do admit, however, that my experience is from a very small sample size and I am forced to wonder if these two weeks manifest themselves in Mardi Gras fashion in countries that are more heavily (and possibly nominally) Orthodox such as Russia, Greece, Turkey (though this is just a question not an assertion). If, however, this doesn't manifest itself like Mardi Gras in other places I find the approach to lent in both traditions (Eastern and Western) to be in stark contrast.

I wonder if the difference in approach between the Eastern and Western traditions is founded in a possible difference that the traditions may approach the Law or laws and thus atonement. I confess that I would need to study this more, but I am wondering if the highly juridical and very Anselmic emphasis in the West has led to the laws or rules of the church being see as a hindrance and something that keeps us from fun, enjoyment, etc. While the East with a not so juridical and not as influenced by Anselm approach tends to view law as life-giving and freeing.

In the West we tend to often view the effects of sin like breaking a law and thus something remedied legally. In contrast the East, and I may be wrong, tends to view the ramifications of sin as something more akin to a cancer or disease that is healed. Thus, and I am hypothesizing here, maybe the Western approach is more easily justified because if they break a law they will easily be rectified during Lenten confession and fasting, while in the East the approach differs because they would not want to break a law that is life-giving and thus put the cancerous sin into their souls.

Please let me be clear that I am trying to tread very carefully in that any point of this thought process could be wrong and thus end up being an over generalization or fallacy. But maybe it makes sense. If I'm correct in my assumptions and assertions I do indeed find the Eastern approach to be much more healthy for the Christian and for the Church as a whole.

I hope that is at least moderately clear. I'm just trying to process through some of these thoughts between the two traditions. This is something that I've been pondering for a little while and was more recently brought to the forefront of my mind as my Orthodox friends begin to prepare for lent.

- Ben

One for the Road

I don't' know when I'll get the chance to post again and since it's 1:20am and I leave for the airport at 3:45am I thought that I would write a post instead of getting some sleep. As is usually the case with my longer posts, you'll have to forgive a lack of structure as I just string together a bunch of things I've been thinking about lately.

-----------

Today in church we sang a hymn that said "As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." That is really apropos of nothing, except for the fact that it was really cool. I may have been going somewhere with that, but I'm not sure now so we'll move on.

----------------------------

A while ago I attended a training seminar for my summer job and they constantly emphasized that they do what they do because they "love the church." While I support their foundation of love for the church (because I do love the church) it started me thinking about what it means to really be the church. This is an issue I've been wrestling with for a while. I think I started to think about this during my time at Houghton and then it really started to take off since I started going to St. Athanasius. I know that many of my Orthodox friends will have ready answers for these questions as their tradition has a well developed ecclesiology, but I'm sure I'm not the only protestant who lays awake at night and thinks these thoughts (don't laugh because I really do lay awake and think stuff like this).

So here are some of the thoughts I jotted down while in my seminar.

1. Is the church primarily institutional?
   
   
2. If the church is institutional is that institution contingent on a constant line of Apostolic Authority (i.e. The apostle Peter lays hands on Jim, who lays hand on Bob, who lays hands on Jeffy, etc.) or is it primarily tied to the apostolic tradition and teaching?
   
   
3. How big of a role to authority play into where the church is? If Apostolic succession and authority are necessary for one to be in the church then are all of us in the west outside of the church because of the rebellious act of inserting the Filioque ('and the Son') clause into the Nicene Creed?
   
   
4. To be part of the visible church does one need to celebrate the sacraments? If so then are we forced to eliminate the Salvation Army and other non-sacramental groups from "church" status?
   
   
5. Does one need to affirm all 7 ecumenical councils to be part of the church? If so what about the groups that are ignorant of the councils or don't accept one or more of them, but are still orthodox in their teaching?
   
   
6. Is the church primarily visible or invisible? If it is invisible then what is the point of visible sign acts like the Eucharist and baptism?
   
   
7. Does one need to be baptized in order to be accepted into the church? (Necessary for salvation? - Talk amongst yourselves).
   
   
8. If we assert that celebrating the sacraments are a necessary action for the visible church (and I think they are) does authority then also become essential? (cf. St. Ignatius of Antioch [ca. 150AD] - "Do nothing without the Bishop")
   
   
9. If the sacraments are given to the visible church can they be celebrated and acted outside of the church? (i.e. can they be separated from the Liturgical and Authoritative acts of the Church proper?)
   
   
10. What doctrines are essential for one to be the church? Is Trinity (I think yes)? What view on predestination or other disputed theological matters?
    
    
11. If correct doctrine is essential then is correct action essential? Can action and doctrine (orthopraxy and orthodoxy) even be separated? (I doubt they really can.)

One may ask how we can truly love the church if we have so many "if" statements. I content that even if we're not sure (as I'm still working through this) we can still love the church by loving the people of God, or rather, loving those who call upon God in Trinity and profess to be the "church."

So there are some thoughts on the church. I hope this doesn't cause anyone to have an ecclesiological crisis but these are some things to think on for sure. I'm sure we could even add more to the list, but we'll let that simmer for a while.

-----------------------------------------


Laying aside my questioning I will not turn to some asserting. But first...a back-story.

When I went home for my Grandpa's funeral a few weeks back I was outside with my 10 yr. old cousin and we were talking away. He asked me if I was seriously going to be a Catholic priest like I had told him I was a day or two prior (I like to mess with him like that). I told him no, but asked him why he cared. Oh and I should note that he's a fairly smart 10 yr. old. He proceeded to tell me that all the problems with the Catholic church and how they didn't believe like "we" (i.e. protestants) believed and thus they probably weren't Christians.

Now, I don't want to pick on my little cousin, because he is after all only 10 and that's not really a fair fight (he'd probably own men). But I am fairly certain that these thoughts didn't originate within himself. In fact, to be honest, I had many of the same thoughts in myself before I went to Houghton.

I tried to tell him that Catholics really don't believe some of the things that he claimed, but the big question that came to my mind is why protestants have such a beef with Catholics. I'm sure they'd have beef with Orthodox too, if they actually knew what they were. As I thought about this I came to a few conclusions. I think that many of the protestants who rail against catholics have had very minimal interaction with catholics, catholic services, and catholic writings. I also think that protestants have unfairly characterized catholics. I believe this characterization stems from not knowing what they believe, but also from being intimidated by the authority structure that is in place within Catholicism. I am willing to contend (and to be fair I would need to do much more research) that much of the negative reaction to Catholics by protestants is not really concerning beliefs (because most protestants don't really know what Catholics believe) but because they don't understand authority and have been taught that to have any priest other than oneself is of the devil.

I say this because one of the most common critiques of Catholicism that I hear is against confession. I am absolutely befuddled by the number of protestants who will go to their small group meetings and share that they are struggling with "sin A, B or C" and ask for prayer to help them, and then turn around and condemn Catholics for seeing a priest and confessing to him. What an absurd hypocrisy.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that much of protestantism has a sever problem with submitting to authority. It's sort of appropriate considering we still define ourselves as "protest-ant" (i.e. one's who are protesting against something - namely authority). Yes, authority can be taken too far. Yes, there have been some bad Popes, Bishops, and Priests. But there have also been some very godly and saintly Popes, Bishops, and Priests. In fact, one of the most saintly men that I have ever had the chance to meet was Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa. Fr. Cantalamessa visited Asbury in the fall and is the preacher to the Papal Household. Yes, that means he preaches to the Pope. Granted my interaction was limited, but I could tell from my limited interaction that this was a Saintly man who loved and served the Lord with great zeal. It was my delight to receive a blessing from him before he left.

So all that to say that I hope my cousin and most of protestantism will come around and appreciate the good that Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) has to offer. I think that this move has begun, but let us hope that it continues as good dialogue with Christian traditions and doesn't move into dialogue with non-Christian religions such as Mormonism and Jehovah Witnesses.

-----------------------------------------

Book Review:

I finished St. Cyril of Jerusalem's Lectures on the Christian Sacraments a few weeks ago and it was great. The lectures are relatively short and one could easily read them all in one setting. Cyril writes his lectures around 348AD and so these lectures are a great insight into early sacramental thought. Cyril writes on beginning Catechism, The Eucharist, Baptism, and Holy Unction (not in that order).

There were so many good things allow me to just quote a few passages:

Speaking to catechumens concerning preparation for Baptism:

And what Solomon spoke of others will suit you also; for he said, There is a time to bear and a time to die; but to you, on the contrary, the time to die is also the time to be born; and one and the same season brings about both of these, and your birth went hand in hand with your death.
O strange and inconceivable thing! We did not really die, we were not really buried, we were not really crucified and raised again, but our imitation was but in a figure, while our salvation is in reality.

Concerning the Eucharist:

Since then He Himself has declared and said of the Bread, 'This is My Body,' who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has affirmed and said, 'This is My Blood,' who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?
He once turned water into wine, in Cana of Galilee, at His own will, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood?...
Therefore with fullest assurance let us partake as of the Body and the Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Win His Blood; that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mightest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are diffused through our members, thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, 'we become partakers of the divine nature.'...
Contemplate therefore the Bread and Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord's declaration, the Body and the Blood of Christ; for though sense suggests this to thee, let faith stablish thee. Judge not the matter from taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that though has been vouchsafed the Body and Blood of Christ.

I'm not sure what else to say concerning the book, except that it is a good read and sheds some very good light on early liturgical practice and belief in the early church in Jerusalem.

-------------------------------------

St. Cyril serves as a nice transition into the next (and likely the last) topic: the Eucharist.

Since my senior and maybe junior year at Houghton I have been rethinking and reforming my sacramentology. Much of this formation has occurred in my view of the Eucharist since it is one of the most important things the church does. Since Houghton my view of the Eucharist moved from a strictly Zwinglian/memorialist view of Communion that holds that it is just a time where I remember Christ, to a more Lutheran/Methodist view of 'real presence' meaning that God is truly present in Spirit and imparts some sort of grace during the act.

I have continued to think on this over the past year and have pursued the issue in my research into early Church history. Although I am not sure if I am 100% committed, I do believe that I am leaning toward a sacramentology that posits not only real presence, but also real Body and real Blood. You may be asking why I believe I am coming to this conclusion. Here are a few reasons:

• As Luther wrote on the table when arguing with Zwingly: "hoc est corpus meum" or "It is my body." Jesus Christ said in the Gospel accounts that it was his body. While this could be metaphoric it seems to me that the evidence points that it is not.
• The evidence in the earlier sources suggests a very high eucharistic view and probably that of literal body and blood. We saw above that this view is fully articulated in St. Cyril in 348AD, but I believe we can see traces of this in St. Ignatius, and other second century saints.
• There is no biblical argument against it.
• There is no reason why we should not accept it. A paradigm that rejects the transformation of bread and wine into body and blood is likely entrenched in modernism and in the enlightenment emphasis on the scientific method. This worldview leaves no room for miracles and thus one might as well reject the resurrection if one rejects the miracle that is the transformation of the elements in the Eucharist.
• The emphasis in the earliest liturgies is that the Holy Spirit is the agent of change within the elements. This places the emphasis off of humans and back onto the gracious action of God for his people.
• Receiving grace in the eucharist is not juridical grace (i.e. salvific) but rather the grace of God's presence. A view that posits all grace as juridical is highly Anselmic and is not founded in the biblical worldview of grace.
• Even though it doesn't taste like it, as St. Cyril says, we must believe in faith. To help address this 'problem' one of my Orthodox friends says that it is more of a revealing than a changing. That is: Is it still bread - Yes. Is it still Wine - Yes. Is it real body - Yes. Is it real blood - Yes. It seems that this view posits that it is body and bread, and blood and wine all at the same time.

The reasons given above are why I am very close to believing that it is literal body and literal blood. I say 'very close' because it is a big move to change a whole paradigm and changing my mind to this is quite a task.


-----------------------------------------

Today was Pentecost Sunday. How many of your churches celebrated that instead of memorial day? Probably not many. That makes me sad. Just FYI.

-----------------------------------

Well I think that is it. I can't think of anything else to write. I am leaving for Minnesota tomorrow to work for Youthworks for the summer. I will be living in Duluth, Minnesota and will return back to KY on August 17th. I will try to blog throughout the summer, but I'm not sure how much time I'll have. If you need to get a hold of me just call my cell (if you have it) or post a comment and I'll get it when I check my email.

Concerning the reading list: Kung, Dostoyevsky, JND Kelly, and Witherington aren't going to make the flight because the first three are too big and the last one is low on the priority list. Maybe I'll get at these during the time between the end of youthworks and the beginning of school.


Blessings to you all in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit!,


Ben