Folsom City Fair: Sadomasochist Blasphemy

This is a clean video about the Folsom Street Fair that is causing so much controversy. Catholics are calling for a boycott against Miller Beer since Miller is sponsoring the event. The fair has made a blasphemous mockery of the Last Supper by transforming it into a sadomasochist advertisement. Father Jonathon Morris does a great job breaking it down for Fox News. Check out the video above.

Cardinal O'Malley's Pilgrimage to the East

His Eminence Sean Cardinal O'Malley of Boston just finished a pilgrimage to Rome, Constantinople, and Moscow with Metropolitan Methodios of the Greek Orthodox Church in Boston. The pictures are awesome. Check it out at the Cardinal's blog.

Hat tip to Amy Welborn.

The "Long" Saint Michael's Prayer

You may also like:

• Cherubim Are Not Fat Babies
• Angels as Mediators of the Old Covenant

Happy feast day of St. Michael and All Angels (Michaelmas). Most people know the "short" St. Michael prayer that is sometimes said after Holy Mass ("Saint Michael, the archangel, defend us in battle..."). Here is the "long" St. Michael prayer from the Raccolta:

O Glorious Archangel St. Michael, Prince of the
heavenly host, be our defense in the terrible warfare
which we carry on against principalities and powers,
against the rulers of this world of darkness, and
spirits of evil. Come to the aid of man, whom God
created immortal, made in His own image and likeness,
and redeemed at a great price from the tyranny of the
devil. Fight this day the battle of the Lord, together
with the holy angels, as already thou hast fought the
leader of the proud angels, Lucifer, and his apostate
host, who were powerless to resist Thee, nor was there
place for them any longer in heaven. That cruel, that
ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan, who
seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with
his angels.

Behold, this primeval enemy and slayer of men has
taken courage. Transformed into an angel of light, he
wanders about with all the multitude of wicked
spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the
name of God and of His Christ, to seize upon, slay and
cast into eternal perdition souls destined for the
crown of eternal glory. This wicked dragon pours out,
as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on
men; his depraved mind, corrupt heart, his spirit of
lying, impiety, blasphemy, his pestilential breath of
impurity and of every vice and iniquity. These most
crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall
and bitterness the Church, the Spouse of the
Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her
most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself,
where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter
and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world,
they have raised the throne of their abominable
impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the
Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.

Arise then, O invincible Prince, bring help against
the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God,
and give them the victory. They venerate Thee as their
protector and patron; in Thee Holy Church glories as
her defense against the malicious power of hell; to
Thee has God entrusted the souls of men to be
established in heavenly beatitude. Oh, pray to the God
of peace that He may put Satan under our feet, so far
conquered that he may no longer be able to hold men in
captivity and harm the Church. Offer our prayers in
the sight of the Most High, so that they may quickly
conciliate the mercies of the Lord; and beating down
the dragon, the ancient serpent who is the devil and
Satan, do Thou again make him captive in the abyss,
that he may no longer seduce the nations. Amen.

V. Behold the Cross of the Lord; be scattered, hostile
powers.
R. The Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered, the
root of David.
V. Let Thy mercies be upon us, O Lord
R. As we have hoped in Thee.
V. O Lord, hear my prayer.
R. And let my cry come unto Thee

LET US PRAY
God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we call upon
Thy holy name, and we humbly implore Thy clemency,
that by the intercession of Mary, ever Virgin
Immaculate and our Mother, and of the glorious
Archangel St. Michael, Thou wouldst deign to help us
against Satan and all other unclean spirits, who
wander about the world for the injury of the human
race and the ruin of souls. Amen.

Pope Leo XIII, 1888
Raccolta 1933

You may also like:

• Cherubim Are Not Fat Babies
• Angels as Mediators of the Old Covenant

The Hallelujah Diet

This is a bit strange.

The Rev. George Malkmus surveys the crowd of nearly 400 packed into a former college auditorium and finds that people have come from all over the country -- and even from Nigeria -- to hear him preach the Gospel. But it's not his approach to scripture that draws this crowd. It's his diet: "the Hallelujah Diet." Read it all from ABC News.

Has anyone heard of this "Hallelujah Diet"? Is it the newest fad? Here is a critique of the Hallelujah Diet by Reformed Chicks Babbling.

In Defense of Bishop Jeffrey Steenson

I have read quite a few hard words against Episcopal Bishop Jeffrey Steenson on account of his desire to leave the Episcopal Church and enter into full communion with the Catholic Church

I've been following the posts and comments throughout the blogosphere. I have observed a few things. There are basically four responses to Steenson's conversion:

1) Yeah! Welcome home! Yet another smart Protestant has become a Catholic! (from Catholics)

2) I feel betrayed. Steenson became a bishop not too long ago and he was supposed to help protect us from the liberals. Now he is "abandoning his sheep". (from conservative Anglicans)

3) I am hurt and/or confused. This is another example of how bad things are in the Episcopal Church. (from conservative Anglicans)

4) Good. Perhaps this will facilitate future advancement of the Pastoral Provision and/or Anglican reunion with the Holy See (from conservative Anglo-Catholics who are Romeward minded)

I am primarily concerned with response #2 because that seems to be the one most often aired online.

People do not understand how a bishop could possibly walk away from his charge to protect the flock from error. However, when one is a cleric in the Episcopal Church, one is constantly having to make decisions of compromise. As an Anglican layman, I could avoid many of those compromises. However, when I became an Episcopal priest, these compromises became amplified. Take for example Chrism Mass in my old diocese of Fort Worth. Here I found myself standing with my bishop and my brother priests of the diocese. It was a glorious event...but the bishop was flanked by female "deacons". Many don't have a problem with women "deacons". "They don't offer Mass so it doesn't effect the sacraments." But Holy Orders is a sacrament and it does effect that sacrament. It reveals a deficient understanding of Holy Orders in general. Did Bishop Iker want to make this compromise. No. But as an Episcopal bishop, "he had to do what he had to do for the sake of more important things." You can see how slippery this whole business is, especially for Episcopal bishops.

So what do you do? You stand there and suffer through it. Next week you're asked to marry a woman to a man who has been married three times. You know it's not Catholic, so what do you do? You just justify it somehow so that you can "keep ministering to the faithful without causing scandal." Over time these little compromises grow.

Steenson is simply tired of the compromises. He is tired of the games. For crying out loud, he had to have Bishop Frank Griswold consecrate him to the episcopate. A man comes to a point where his conscience just cannot take it anymore.

So in defense of Jeffrey Steenson, let me just say that he likely came to his love for the Catholic Church not in spite of his being an ECUSA bishop but because he had the inhuman job of trying to be an "orthodox leader" in a sea of compromise. Nobody wants a magisterium as badly as conservative Anglican clergy because they have to teach with authority when they have no magisterial authority to back them up. A quick look at the "orthodox" groups in ECUSA reveals that doctrinal compromise is everywhere. Forward in Faith is hand in hand with groups that ordain women to the priesthood or who deny the objective real presence of the Eucharist. Why did they do that? Because "one has to do what he has to do in order minister to the remnant in ECUSA."

I know several Anglicans who are hurt over this and all the other hardships occurring in ECUSA. However, let us show charity toward Jeffrey Steenson. Everyman must follow his conscience.

Father George Rutler vs. Christopher Hitchens

I wish that I could have seen this:

Eyewitnesses report that Hitchens erupted into a drunken rage at a recent promotional event for his book. Hitchens reportedly descended from the stage, visibly inebriated, approached a Roman Catholic priest (Rev. George Rutler) in the audience, and began shouting at him, only inches from his face. Hitchens’ manner appeared so physically menacing, witnesses say, that a plainclothes bodyguard on duty at the event rushed in and escorted the drunken scribe from the room.

Read more from Poe.

Hat tip to Curt Jester.

Orthodox Priest on Clerical Immorality

As I know several people who are theologically inclined toward Catholicism but repulsed by clerical sins committed by priests of the Catholic Church, I thought this (Eastern Orthodox) perspective on clerical immorality was interesting:

Aren't we disgusted with the shocking number of high-profile cases of priests engaged in pedophilia, homosexual activity, and adultery? Some excuse this behavior with the platitudes "a sin is a sin" and "we are all sinners." Uh, excuse me?

Persons who say "a sin is a sin" don't live in the real world. My wife is more than forgiving when I snap at her for no reason. I don't think that she would be that charitable if I were to come home smelling of another woman's perfume.

I concede that we are all sinners, but clergy relinquish the right to even think of engaging in certain classes of sin. When a priest sins sexually he damages the Church the way that crooked judges, lawyers, and police officers damage the legal system. How can anyone not understand this?

Looking back on my seminary years, nobody ever told me that I shouldn't put my hand on an altar boy's private parts, leave my wife for a man, or go to bed with someone other than my wife. Come to think of it, they didn't tell me not to eat yellow snow, either. The faculty assumed that we all knew better.

There's a saying about the word assume. If you don't know it, ask somebody who served in the military to explain it to you. So, rather than assume that seminarians and young clergy know right from wrong with regard to sexual matters, here are some essential rules of behavior for those preparing for and serving in the priesthood:

Read the whole article here by Father Metrakos.

Hat tip to Rod Dreher.

The Ministerial Functions of Levitical Priests

• offering of incense twice daily (Ex 30:7)
• weekly renew of the Bread of Presence on the golden table (Lev 24:9)
• clean and fill the oil-lamps on the golden candlestick (Lev 24:1).
• maintain the sacred fire on the altar for burnt sacrifices (Lev 6:9 sqq.)
• offer the daily morning and evening sacrifices, especially of the lambs (Ex 29:38 sqq.)
• present the cursed water to wives suspected of adultery (Num 5:12 sqq.)
• sound the trumpets on holy days (Num 10:1 sqq.)
• declare the lepers clean or unclean (Lev 13-14; Deut 24:8; cf. Mt 8:4)
• dispense people from vows
• appraise all objects vowed to the sanctuary (Lev 27)
• offer sacrifice for those who broke the law of the Nazirites, i.e. a vow to avoid all grape produces and every uncleanness (especially dead corpses) and to let one’s hair grow long (Num 6:1-21).
• explain the law to the people (Lev10:11; Deut 33:10)
• preserve carefully the Book of the Law (Deut 17:18)
• judge over difficult lawsuits (Deut 17:8; 19:17; 21:5)

Episcopal Bishop Jeffrey Steenson is Going to Rome

Bishop Jeffrey Steenson was rector of St. Andrew's Episcopal in Fort Worth before I was curate at St. Andrew's. Thus far, St. Andrew's Episcopal Church has produced a great number of converts to the Holy and Roman Catholic Church. He holds a doctorate in Patristics from Oxford and will be a great asset to the Church. Welcome home!

From the Steenson's pastoral letter to his diocese:

I believe that God’s call to us is always positive, always a to and not a from. At the clergy conference next week I hope to be able to share something of this. Many of you already know of my love for the Catholic Church and my conviction that this is the true home of Anglicanism. I will not dwell on this, however, so as not to lose sight of my responsibility to help lay a good foundation for the transition that you must now lead.

May his reception into the Church be a stimulant for future reconciliation between the Holy See and Anglicanism.

In related news, the Pastoral Provision is holding its Roman pilgrimage this week in order to celebrate in Rome the feast of Our Lady of Walsingham.

Adultery, Idolatry, and Dust Rituals

In Exodus 32:20, Moses breaks up the golden calf and pulverizes it into dust. Next he mixes it with water and has Israel drink it. This passage is clearly analogous to Number 5:12-31 where dust is mixed with water and then drunk in order to discover miraculously the guilt of a suspected adulterous wife.

Here is my conjecture and I'm looking for some helpful (or critical) comments. Could it be that the potion made by Moses serves as a "judging potion" that reveals who in the camp is guilty of idolatry. The Levites seem to know who to kill and who not to kill. The guilty are marked out somehow. From the literary structure, it seems that the drinking of dust water leads to the execution of the guilty.

In any event, the idolatrous act of calf-worship is an act of adultery against God. The spouse of God committed adultery against God through idolatry, she is tested with a dust potion and found guilty. The executioners are the Levites who then become priests.

St John Chrysostom on the Evils of Contraception

"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well…Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws?…Yet such turpitude…the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks."

- St. John Chrysostom Homilies on Romans, 24 (ca. A.D. 391).

Reformed Comments at Canterbury Tales

I'd like to make an observation. There is a considerable number of Reformed brothers that come to this blog and make comments. They are welcome and I appreciate their constructive criticisms and theological rigor. However, some of them do not write comments that contribute to the discussion. Moreover, their criticisms (which I appreciate and expect) don't deal with the subject matter at hand but resort to personal attacks. Other than a few good men (e.g. David Cassidy), they almost always resort to name calling, polemics, ad hominem arguments.

I've had to delete posts from Reformed Christians as a result of this. It is shameful. There is an assumption that anyone who disagrees with Reformed Theology: 1) isn't educated enough; 2) doesn't *really* understand Reformed theology and never has; and 3)
that those who disagree with Reformed Theology should not be allowed the courtesy of an honest dialog.

So from now on, if all you have to say is that certain people are "theological lightweights", "deceitful", "insane", or "completely ignorant of true Reformed Theology", then please refrain from leaving such remarks in the comments' boxes.

Covenant or Federal Theology according to Cocceius, Amyraut, and the Catholic Church

Covenant or Federal Theology became formally articulated in the Calvinistic theological tradition, beginning in the 17th century. This was the era of "Reformed Scholasticism". Beginning especially with Theodore Beza, Aristotlian methods of theological speculation began to take root in Calvinist circles (whether they were conscious of it or not). As a result, Calvinism in the 1600s began to morph in a number of ways.

17th century Calvinism became increasingly focused on predestination and "eternal decrees" - much more so than John Calvin himself had been. I think it is safe to say that Calvin presented soteriology in a more Christological way than his later followers. Later Calvinism pushed the locus of salvation out of history and into the Godhead. This also led to a fully articulated doctrine of limited atonement (i.e. that Christ's atoning death was only accomplished for the elect and not all mankind). This "decretal" perspective also diminished the role of the sacraments in the Calvinistic tradition. Unconcerned with questions about predestination, Lutheranism was disinterested or hostile to growing influence of covenantal theology in continential Calvinism. By the 17th century, covenant or federal theology was being called the "marrow of theology" by Reformed theologians.

The Federal Theology of Cocceius
The focus on salvation arising from eternal decrees and not from redemptive history led to the development of a late medieval notion of the pactum. Dutch Calvinist theologian John Cocceius taught that God the Father and God the Son entered into a eternal pactum by which Christ agreed to be testator of an eternal testamentum. History is thus divided into two covenantal eras: the covenant of works (foedus operum) and the covenant of grace (foedus gratiae). The covenant of works is the time before the Fall of Adam. The covenant of grace is the era of redemption in which the eternal pactum is anticipated by the Old Testament and executed in history by Christ.

The Federal Theology of Amyraut
Moses Amyraut (father of Amyraldianism or what is called "four point Calvinism") was also a Dutch Calvinist of the 17th century. He put forth a competing covenant theology that was also triplex. However, Amyraut put forth three historical covenants corresponding to redemptive history. This model is historical, less esoteric, and more Catholic. He posited the foedus naturale (from Adam to Moses), the foedus legale (from Moses to Christ), and the foedus gratiae (from Christ forward). Anyone familiar with Thomas Aquinas' treatment of the law will notice that this basically follows the triplex model of Thomas: Natural Law, Old Law, New Law.

It was however the model of Cocceius that won the day. The covenant theology of Cocceius was enshrined in the Westminster Confession of Faith as the Covenant of Redemption (pactum salutis), the Covenant of Works (foedus operum), and the Covenant of Grace (foedus gratiae).

What Does This Mean for Catholic Theology?
Nothing really. However, we can see in these models a failure to appreciate the ecclesial and familial language of Sacred Scripture. Covenantal theology of 17th century Calvinism is heavily contractual. Calvinists rightly gravitated toward the biblical model of the covenant but they filled it with their forensic presuppositions of extrinsic righteousness and legal, courtroom imagery. The Catholic Church, while not possessing an advanced "covenant theology", has maintained the substance of what a covenant is - a unitive bond that creates a real ontological or familial union between God and man and man and man.

Seven Questions on Justification

It seems that the correct doctrine of justification must be able to satisfactorily account for the following seven questions:

1. How does an adult receive justification in relation to Christ our Lord?
2. How does iustitia grow or increase in the justified?
3. How does justification relate the eschatological General Judgment?
4. How does justification relate to the sacraments, particularly baptism and penance?
5. How does justification relate to those who have lapsed from justification? That is, how do we account for "re-justification"?
6. How do we understand justification in relation to sanctification and regeneration?
7. Given that Original Sin is a reality, how do we account for the justification of infants?

Calvin on Justification and Union with Christ

I recently came across a very interesting line in Alister McGrath's Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification:

Where Zwingli and Bucer tended to make justification depend upon the believer's regeneration through the renewing work of the Holy Spirit, which enabled him to keep the law and imitate the (external) example of Christ, Calvin understands both justification and sanctification to be the chief beneficia Christi, bestowed simultaneously and inseparably upon the believer as a consequence of his insitio in Christo.

McGrath may exaggerate this a little since Calvin would understand union with Christ to be regeneration. Nevertheless, it seems to me that Calvin's move is one step toward Catholic soteriology with one step backward.

First, Calvin properly placed soteriology in the context of the believer's union with Christ. This mystical union is what leads to the reception of the "benefits of Christ", that is to say, justification and sanctification. This ontological model is "more Catholic" in that it makes the forensic transfer of benificia dependent on a real union with Christ.

At the same time, however, Calvin distances himself from Catholic soteriology in two ways. First, he maintains that justification and sanctification (while received together) are absolutely distinct. Second, and most importantly, Calvin maintains that the benificia Christi ("benefits of Christ") are non in nobis sed in Christo - not in us but in Christ. The shame is that while Calvin taught that the believer enters into a mystical union with Christ that is real and seemingly ontological, he teaches that the benefits of salvation are strictly extrinsic! Unfortunately, Calvin comes close to Catholic soteriology but falls just short of it. Calvin breaks with the nominalist model and moves toward a realist model, but then retains Luther's extrinsic understanding of iustitia Christi aliena (the alien/extrinsic righteousness of Christ). So Calvin ends up with this: "I am one with Christ, but not one with his righteousness." As a Catholic, I find this conclusion ridiculous. It is simply Calvin's way of puting a band-aid over Luther's initial mistake. It still doesn't heal the problem.

Anglican Missal Online and Downloadable!

Even though I'm not an Anglican priest anymore, this kind of thing still gets me excited. The Anglican Missal is now online and download-able.

Hat tip to Serge the Young Fogey.

Peter Leithart, Irenaeus, and Bishops

Peter Leithart, a man for whom I have tremendous respect, recently wrote something on how the doctrine of Apostolic Succession articulated by Irenaeus. Irenaeus explains that unbroken line of ordinations from the laying on of hands from the Apostles to the Catholic Church's bishops (the doctrine of Apostolic Succession) ensures that the doctrine of Christ will be preserved in the Catholic Church against Gnostics and heretics. Leithart seeks to show that this succession was not proper to the bishops but also to the presbyters. Leithart writes:

Irenaeus is cited as one of the early proponents of apostolic succession through episcopal ordination. Only bishops who could reconstruct a line back to the apostles could claim apostolic authority: "With the succession of the episcopate they received the assured gift of truth." Yet, according to K. J. Woollcombe, "in the earliest days, it is likely that bishops were elected and consecrated by their fellow-presbyters. Irenaeus can only have been consecrated to succeed the martyred Pothinus of Lyons by his fellow-presbyters. The Bishops of Rome were probably consecrated in the same way at least until the middle of the second century."

Woollcombe loads the deck of cards to prove his point and Leithart follows his reasoning. They have left out one piece of history, but I'll get to that next.

Woollcombe tells it like this:

1) Pothinus was the bishop of Lyons. (This by the way, presumes that Lyons had a monarchical episcopate, which was of course the case. Lyons like all other local churches had a bishop who oversaw the presbyterate.)
2) Pothinus the bishop of Lyons died a martyr's death, presumably before he could consecrate a bishop to succeed him.
3) Irenaeus became the bishop after Pothinus and since there were no other bishops in Gaul, the presbyters of Lyons must have "consecrated" Irenaeus to the episcopate.
4) This proves that Apostolic Succession is passed down through the presbyterate and not through a separate office of the episcopate. This last claim is the goal of the Presbyterian or any other Protestant who wishes to deny or undermine the Catholic doctrine that the episcopate is fullness of the priesthood and that it alone transmits apostolic succession.

Woollcombe leaves out one very important detail! The presbyters of Lyons sent Irenaeus to Rome in 177/178 with a letter of endorsement to meet the Bishop of Rome Pope Eleuterus. We are told that when Irenaeus returned to Lyons, he was received as the bishop of Lyons.

The presbyters elected Irenaeus, but they didn't dare consecrated him to the episcopate. They recognized that they as presbyters could not themselves elevate a fellow presbyter to the episcopate and so they sent their candidate with a letter of commendation to the Pope so that the Pope would then consecrate Irenaeus as their bishop.

The Pope is Coming to New York!

The Holy Father is coming to the United States!

Mary's Aggies

I am a proud graduate of Texas A&M. I just came across a great blog: Aggie Catholics, aka Mary's Aggies. Check it out. I was not a Catholic while at Texas A&M, but I have learned that Texas A&M has one of the most potent Catholic college ministries.

About Taylor Marshall

[Please read Taylor's Conversion Story from the Anglican Priesthood to Catholicism by clicking here.]

Or listen to the Story of Taylor's Conversion to Catholicism (Audio Version. Click on the triangular “play” button.)

Curriculum Vitae of Taylor Marshall.

Dr. Taylor Marshall was an Episcopal priest in Fort Worth, Texas before being received with his wife into the Catholic Church by Bishop Kevin Vann of Fort Worth on May 23, 2006.

Dr. Marshall has appeared on EWTN's The Journey Home with Marcus Grodi, Catholic Answers Live, Al Kresta in the Afternoon, Deep in Scripture, Immaculate Heart Radio, SonRise Morning Show, and a number of radio shows. He is the author of The Crucified Rabbi - Judaism and the Origins of Catholic Christianity (Fall 2009) and The Catholic Perspective on Paul (Fall 2010).

Dr. Marshall is the Dean of the Fisher More College where he is also Professor of Philosophy. He was formerly the Assistant Director of the Catholic Information Center in Washington, D.C., located three blocks north of the White House, where he lectured regularly.

He earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy at University of Dallas. The title of his dissertation is "Thomas Aquinas on Natural Law and the Twofold Beatitude of Humanity." He is a graduate of Texas A&M University (BA in Philosophy), the University of Dallas (MA, Philosophy), Westminster Theological Seminary (MA in Religion/Theology), and Nashotah Theological House (Certificate in Anglican Studies).

Taylor and his wife live in Dallas, Texas with their six children. They are parishioners of Mater Dei Catholic Church in the Diocese of Dallas.

He blogs at Canterbury Tales {taylormarshall.com}. 

He is the author of two books: The Crucified Rabbi and The Catholic Perspective on Paul (available through amazon.com)

Please also visit Taylor's new site: The Catholic Perspective on Paul.

Read a brief account of Taylor's conversion from the Episcopal priesthood to the Catholic Church.

The Story of my Conversion to Catholicism (Audio Version)

Luther on Bishops and Authority

Mike Spreng over at Anglican Thought has a post on Protestant Reformers and the ancient order of bishops. Mr. Spreng writes of Luther:

Luther, speaking concerning the authority which Bishops would have among the Reformers, says if any of them should adopt reformed principles, “We would acknowledge them as our fathers, and willingly obey their authority, which we find supported by the Word of God.”

The problem with this is that Luther also said that the "princes of Germany" had "replaced" the bishops of the Church because the the Catholic bishops had forfeited their apostolic authority - sort of a reverse Donation of Constantine.

Basically, Luther was saying "If anyone agrees with me (i.e. is theologically "Lutheran"), then we'll submit." That is not submission, but rather cooperation. This reveals that magisterial Protestantism does not have a true doctrine of ecclesiastical authority. It basically boils down to, "I'll submit whenever I decide that the authority is worthy of submission." Thus, it is merely a matter of private judgment and submission to one's own personal authority.

Welcome to Eurabia

This video shows how citizens in Brussels attempted to have one minute of silence in honor of the victims of 9/11. The Mayor of Brussels’ mayor, Freddy Thielemans, was afraid that Muslims might be offended so he sent in the police to rough up and arrest the "protesters".

This confirms my claim that the liberals of the West suffer mostly from a lack of the cardinal virtue of fortitude. They fear Islam and so they bow to it. Inwardly, I think they hate Islam, but their false "love for Islam is the only way to preserve themselves from the inevitable consequence of social liberalism: Islamic domination.

The Christian should be assured that the West can in fact overcome Islam - not through war or "conservatism" but by sanctity and evangelism. Yes, evangelism. Why do we Christians implicitly assume that Muslims cannot be converted from Islam to Christ, receive baptism, and join Christendom? It is disturbing how "conservatives" think the answer to "the problem is Islam" is birth-rates, democracy, or war.

Are There Any Anglo-Sedevacantists?

Serge over at Conservative Blog for Peace wonders aloud whether their could be Anglican sedevacantism.

Serge sets forth a probable summary of this type of Anglican sedevacantism:

The Pope is not only our patriarch but the Vicar of Christ on earth... but the See of Peter has been vacant since 19__. We show we are not under the current claimant by remaining in the Church of England/Episcopal Church etc. and working and praying for reunion with a future true Pope.

Inner-City Friars

Interesting little piece on the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal in Newark, NJ by Jeff Diamant in the Washington Post.

Hat tip to Fr. Jim @ Dappled Things.

The Once and Future Christendom by James Pinkerton

There is an interesting article in The American Conservative entitled The Once & Future Christendom by James Pinkerton.

I have hope for Europe. However, if it falls, that is not the end of Christendom. North Africa was Christian. It fell. Egypt was Christian. If fell. Asia Minor (the region enveloping the area containing most of the churches addressed by St Paul's epistles) also fell.

Christendom is, in a sense, the inhabited home of Christians.

Sometimes you you sell your house and move to a new neighborhood. However, the gates of Hell cannot burn down the house inhabited by the Christians.

Duns Scotus vs. Thomas Aquinas on the Soul

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that the soul is the substantial form of man, so as to exclude the later teaching of Blessed Duns Scotus that the human body without the soul has its own form, the forma corporeitatis.

How the Federal Vision Made Me Catholic

Another "testimony" on how The Federal Vision Movement Made Me Catholic by Matt Yonke.

Here's my take on it.

The Holy Kiss and the Pax-Brede

So what ever happened to the holy kiss?

St. Paul commands the faithful to greet one another with a holy kiss (en philemati hagio) four different times in his writings. St. Peter uses similar language of a "kiss of love" (en philemati agapes; 1 Pet 5:14). This appears to be a non-liturgical practice, but something one would do when meeting another baptized Christian.

St. Ambrose Ambrose says that these "holy kisses" were exchanged publicly between members of the opposite sex. Tertullian recounts how a pagan husband was reluctant that his Christian wife should "meet one of the brethren with a kiss" (alicui fratrum ad osculum convenire, "Ad Uxor.", ii, 4).

This practice was formalized and included in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - perhaps the kiss of peace (not the handshake of peace) originates with the Apostles.

One of my favorite items from liturgical history are the various versions of the pax-brede. The pax-brede or pax-board was an instrument with a handle that had an image on it (often the Agnus Dei). First the celebrant kissed it and then the members of the parish would kiss it. It was a sort of "virtual" kiss of peace.

Today, the kiss of peace is exchanged formally between clerics by holding the elbows of one another and bowing forward twice - the first time to one side of the face, the second time to the other side of the face. When I was Anglican, I saw this occasionally. The picture above illustrates the practice.

Does God Want Joel Osteen to be Rich?

Great new article in Time: Does God Want You to be Rich by David Van Biema and Jeff Chu. This quote by a follower of Osteen is disturbing:

"I'm dreaming big--because all of heaven is dreaming big," Adams continues. "Jesus died for our sins. That was the best gift God could give us," he says. "But we have something else. Because I want to follow Jesus and do what he ordained, God wants to support us. It's Joel Osteen's ministry that told me. Why would an awesome and mighty God want anything less for his children?"

I'm a father who loves his children, but that doesn't mean that my kids get to "dream big" and go to Toys 'R Us every weekend. We tend to call children with this mentality "brats".

I was at a Texas Ranger game yesterday and the people in the row behind me were talking about how "awesome" Joel Osteen is. I'm disturbed. Is this what American "Christianity" is coming to?

Hat tip to my sister Amber.

Duns Scotus and Forensic Justification

There is a great post over at the Smithy on Duns Scotus and the doctrine of justification as it relates to the Sacrament of Penace. Is Scotus the Father of Forensic Justification? Read the post and find out.

So I Went to the Byzantine Divine Liturgy

I recently learned that there is a Byzantine Catholic Church about a mile from my new house, St. Basil the Great Byzantine Catholic Church. So my family went there this morning. This was my second time to attend the Divine Liturgy in the Catholic Church. The first time was a Melkite parish.

To be honest, it can be a bit intimidating at first. Everything is a little different. Early in the liturgy I realized that there would be no way for me to follow the books so I did my best and tried to participate by watching and listening. I was amazed by the priest. He didn't have a deacon. He sang (excepting the homily) for about an hour and a half. Moreover, the role of the Byzantine priest is a very active one. When I was an Episcopal clergyman, we either sat or stood at the altar. This priest had two processions around the church and lots of sensing. Plus, he occupied himself with bowing and other gestures. It was impressive.

I was brought to tears during the anaphora, or Eucharistic canon. I know that Christ is present at every Mass, but in the context of the Divine Liturgy, it is unmistakable. My eyes filled with tears of humility as I considered how Christ rested upon the altar for my sake. Christ had deigned to be present for us.

Receiving the Holy Eucharist was even more moving. I haven't much employed my Confirmation name "John" since I came into the Church, but as I bowed my head before the Blessed Sacrament and uttered my Catholic name "John", I heard the priest announce aloud, "The servant of God John receives the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ." The priest did this for each and every communicant. The priest then blessed my children, not with a simple gesture, but rather by making the sign of the cross with the chalice over the head of each one of them.

In the typical Novus Ordo parish I receive the ineffable mystery of Christ's body from a various layman - sometimes a nicely dressed man in a suit, sometimes a grandmother in a pant-suit, once from a woman in a short miniskirt. It makes a difference when you receive from a priest and especially when you're standing before the iconostasis with people chanting "Receive the Body of Christ and taste the Fountain of Life!"

Those words sunk in as I received Christ - "Taste the the Fountain of Life!" The Precious and Life-Giving Blood flowing from the side of Christ is the Fountain of Life. (If you like typology, nobody does it better than the East!)

My children were more attentive during the Divine Liturgy. There is more to watch, and I especially appreciated how they were able to receive the antidoron (blessed bread - not the Eucharist) after the Liturgy. My five-year-old son has begun to recognize how he is "not invited" to receive the Eucharist and so this was a nice consolation. (Paedocommunion or "child communion" is a beautiful thing. One of these days I'll do a post on the Patristic witness of this ancient and venerable practice of the East.) My children love Christ and know that Christ is present in the Eucharist. Do they understand "transubstantiation"? No - but neither do I!

Anyway, it was wonderful and I am grateful that the Church has preserved this beautiful patrimony of devotion. I could go on and on, especially about the Marian dimension and the Theotokion. The people were kind and hospitable. Will I go back? Most likely. I'm still a big fan of English hymns and rectangular churches, but I have a feeling that I might be at St. Basil's this Friday for the Feast of the Holy Cross.

Peggy Noonan on Ron Paul

Peggy Noonan has an interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal on the Republican presidential debates, particularly the continued interest in Ron Paul (or at least what he represents). I leave you with this quote:

When a thousand Republicans are in a room and one man [Ron Paul] of the eight on the stage takes a sharply minority viewpoint on a dramatic issue and half the room seems to cheer him, something's going on.

Saint Boethius or Saint Severinus?

I just learned something interesting. I had not known that Boethius, the author of the Consolation of Philosophy, is actually a canonized saint in the Catholic Church. He is "Saint Severinus" and he is commemorated on October 23. Saint Severinus derives from the full name of Boethius: Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius.

The Davidic Identity of Daniel

There is a great post over at Singing in the Reign concerning the Davidic identity of Daniel.

The ability of Daniel to provide justice and solve riddles (especially in the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel, e.g. Susanna) points to Daniel's "Davidic wisdom". Also, the inability of lions to injure Daniel corresponds with David's power over lions. For example:

And David said, "The LORD who delivered me from the paw of the lion." (1 Sam 17:31)

Brant Pitre mentions the vision of the beastly lion, but he doesn't list Daniel's most obvious connection to lions - the story of Daniel and the lion's den. The story shows how physical lions can't harm Daniel (just like they could not harm David). The story also shows how the metaphorical beast of the lion (i.e. Babylon) cannot "snuff out" the Messianic line and promise. The moral of the story is that lions, who are either political or animal, cannot touch the Davidic line.

Daniel is placed in the den of lions. This is an image of exile. A Jew placed in among the beastly Babylonian Gentiles. Yet Daniel comes out of the den. He comes out of exile, unscathed and so he is resurrected. This is a type of the Messianic line that went into exile through the agency of Babylon but is restored (and literally resurrected) in Christ.

Duns Scotus Buried Alive

The Franciscan theologian Blessed John Duns Scotus died in Cologne in 1308. According to some Dominicans (wink, wink) when the vault in which his corpse resided was opened, he was found lying outside the coffin. This had led to belief that Scotus was buried alive since there is no other explanation for how his body got out of his coffin.

This story, however, is late and probably originated with naughty Dominicans trying to undermine Scotus' influence.

Apparently, the famous Thomas a Kempis, author of Imitation of Christ, may have been truly buried alive.

On a related note, fear of being buried alive led to the invention of the safety coffin.

Duns Scotus was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1993. Scotus is best known today for his argument in favor of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which Pope Pius IX dogmatized in 1854 with the apostolic constitution Ineffabilis Deus. The argument of Scotus (and hence Pius IX) goes like this: Mary as a daughter of Adam required redemption like all other human beings, but through the foreseen merits of Christ's death, given in advance, she was conceived without the stain of original sin.

This Semester at the University of Dallas

I just registered for the following Ph.D. courses:

1. Dante and Milton - 3 hrs
2. John Duns Scotus - 3 hrs
3. Plato's Trilogy (Theaetetus, Sophist, Statesman) - 3 hrs

I can't wait!

Curt Jester's Liturgical Referee

I don't usually post on humor, but I just read one of the most hilarious posts that I've ever seen in the blogosphere. The Curt Jester has called for the institution of a liturgical referee along with all the appropriate hand signals. Let me know what you think.

Hair, Beards, Knives, Tools, and Altars

Jim over at Lutheran Guest has a post on the parallel between how the Israelites were commanded to make their altars and care for their bodies. Since St. Paul says that the body is a Temple or, by extension, the body is an altar and locus of rational sacrifice (cf. Rom 12:1), it would seem fitting that the Old Law would prefigure this mystery. So Jim couples the following passages:

"If you make an altar of stone for me, you shall not build it of cut stones, for if you wield your tool on it, you will profane it." (Ex 20:25)

"You shall not round off the sides of your heads not harm the edges of your beard. You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD." (Lev 19:27-28)

I think Jim has a point here. Using tools on something highlights the fact that man, not God, has fashioned something. (Consider how the original copy of the Ten Commandments had been carved not by a tool but by "the finger of God".) That is why we read "if you wield your tool on it, you will profane it."

There is only one problem with this theory. The ceremonial rite of circumcision is the ultimate act of "wielding a tool or knife" on your body and yet it is the quintessential rite of the Old Covenant. Perhaps not cutting the hair around the Israelite man's head is a sign that he is circumcised. ("I'm not cut around my head up here because I am cut around down there.") This may fit with the idea that monastic tonsure is a kind of "exposed circumcision" designating that a man is consecrated the Lord (an idea found in the "tonsure" of the Old Covenant Nazirites).

Litanies of the Saints

In the West we are familiar with the standard "Litany of the Saints". Litanies invoking the saints have their origin in Patristic forms. Invoking saints in litanies goes back to AD 270 with St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (d. ca. 270) (Basil, Ep. lxiii; Socrates, VI, viii, Sozomen, VIII, vii) and St. Basil the Great (d. 379). Invocation of the saints are also found in the "Litania Septiformis" of St. Gregory the Great.

The Author of Hebrews

Danny Garland over at Irish-Catholic and Dangerous has an interesting post on the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Here is a hint: It has something to do with Paul.

The Pope's Visit to Russia and Alexei II

Patriarch of Russia, Alexie II told an Italian paper that a first meeting with Pope Benedict would only make sense if the Vatican gave up any missionary ambition to spread Catholicism in his country. (Alexander Natruskin/Reuters)

This is becoming ridiculous. Alexei II operates with a double standard. For Alexei, it is a cardinal sin of the Holy Father to have priests working in Russia. On the other hand, the Russian Orthodox Church is openly evangelizing people traditionally Catholic countries, such as Mexico, and rather ironically, Italy. If the Russian Orthodox are recruiting former Catholics, why is the Pope is accused of sheep-stealing. Moreover, why is Russia the only "off-limits" nation of the world?