Tags
One of the pleasures of answering the ‘Easter Challenge’ was that it plunged me back into parts of Scripture which I do not usually read this time of the year; that was refreshing, and a reminder that good though it is to follow a lectionary, there is something to be said for reading other parts of Scripture at all times. But there was something else too.
We are so used to reading Scripture with our intellects, that we (maybe I mean just me?) forget that it is testimony to the great event which transformed history – the Risen Lord. Whilst reading the narratives closely to understand the differences and, where necessary, reconcile them, it was impossible not to be struck by the force of what had happened that first Easter Sunday.
It was a point where our language and the Infinite collided, and I had a real sense of the Evangelists trying to capture something they knew in their experience, but which was hard to put into words. Words are things worn smooth with everyday use, and here was something which was not only not usual, it was unique. It was the moment at which the Evangelists began to make sense of what Jesus had said about the Temple being destroyed and rebuild in three days; the point at which what had been obscure began to be clear – but not as clear as it would become at the first Pentecost. There is, about the narratives, an air, still, an air of bafflement, of an incomprehension which is beginning to shift, but hasn’t quite.
Was it significant that it was the women who saw and immediately believed, whilst it was the men who, for all their speed, took more time to comprehend? Mary Magdalene recognised the Risen Lord by His voice, it was not the visual, but the aural memory which prompted her knowing who it was who was speaking to her. We can see from the Gospels her love for Jesus, instinctively she anointed Him, as for death, that first Maundy Thursday, and in her grief her eyes were blind; but her ears heard and responded to His voice; His sheep knew the voice of the Master.
In that there is a lesson for us, too, and that is that for all our study of Scripture, for all our need to give a reason for the hope that is in us, it is the hope itself – the Grace God gives us, which turns us to Him. Much though I love my Bible, it is in prayer, and most of all at the breaking of the bread and the serving of the wine that I encounter Him. I cannot say, with Bosco, that He tells me what to do, but I feel HIm at that moment and know He is in me as the bread and wine are His body and His blood. How this is, I know not, and really don’t need an explanation for that feeling that is in me at that moment and immediately after.
Mary knew Him by His voice, we know Him by His body and His blood – and in the stories of that first easter, we can capture the awe, the wonder, and the rekindled hope that remains with us, now, and until He comes again in Glory.
NEO said:
This:
“…we can capture the awe, the wonder, and the rekindled hope that remains with us, now, and until He comes again in Glory.”
Far too often we get off into the the objective, technical world that we inhabit day-to-day, and we forget the awe of God become man, and killed by man, FOR us.
And in a very real sense, Bosco has much right, because here is the foundation of our faith. If we don’t have this, we have nothing.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Very true, dearest friend π xx
LikeLike
NEO said:
Thanks, dearest friend π xx
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
π xx
LikeLike
NEO said:
π xx
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
My priest was ordained by a bishop, who was ordained by both an Anglican and an Old Catholic bishop – ‘valid’ or not?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Well, I fear I prefer a priest who believes in the physical resurrection, transubstantiation and will be celebrating a special Eucharistic adoration this afternoon for the consecration, to my local Catholic one, who, whatever his orders, believes and does none of these things.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Not even that would get me to such a church.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I can only go where I am sent. As my Catholic parish don’t want me, it would be hard to go there.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
That is all I have here and within reach. At my own church we have high Mass, and this afternoon, Eucharistic adoration as the Pope was consecrating the world.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Not so, my friend. My priest believes all that we need to be saved – my Catholic one will not receive me, nor will his bishop respond – so what am I to do?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I receive real comfort from the Eucharist – and know who it is I encounter there. If your theology says He is not God, then your theology is wrong – I know who He is.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
No Mass where I encounter the Risen Lord is invalid. If a theology says it is, then I am obliged to The Lord I meet, not to those who say He is not there.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
And I am told the same by Orthodox friends. So, I take my comfort in The Lord, and let all you men with your cetprtainties argue. I know at the Eucharist and the Rosary in whose presence I am. The rest, well, as you say, I leave to guidance. I am where I am, and if that is not where I thought, it is not my doing.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I don’t, I simply have not been vouchsafed the revelation that it is confined to churches in communion with Rome – a view held solely, and self-interestedly, by Rome.
I am told by my local Catholic priest (a former abbot) that I am not wanted in his church. His bishop does nothing – I cannot force myself on these people.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
One difficulty in all of this is that it doesn’t help to present a partisan version of the origins of the C of E as though it was history; we can all convince ourselves of whatever it is we want, but that does not make it true.
The C of E has never accepted the polemical charge that it is not of divine institution, or that its sole origin in Henry VIII’s wishes. My Church, like many others in Western Europe, is a reformed version of the Catholic Church; your part of the Catholic Church finally caught up with the necessary reforms about 350 years later, and no doubt will eventually do so in other areas.
You mix up Catholicism and Romanitas. When we believe in the Real Presence, and when we adore Our Lady, was do so as part of the tradition of the Church, a Church which is wider than Rome is quite prepared to admit in so many words, but which, in its contacts with the Orthodox and the Anglicans, it tacitly admits; after all, if we are all the equivalent of Pagans, why is it talking to us at all? You seem to object to that, well your Church doesn’t, so you are, perhaps, yourself, not far from disobedience? The language you use about your own Pope is surely not that which a loyal Catholic would use? Is it not a cause of scandal?
Myself, I bear witness as part of the Catholic Tradition; which is not solely Roman, never was, and never will be. Many of the problemns in your own Church have been caused by this confusion, and it is one of the reforms which still needs to take place it your Church.
LikeLike
Rob said:
Jess: Could you explain briefly why you wish to belong to the RCC which you consider to be in need of reform in its claim to be the only true church and also defend the legitimacy of the Anglican Church to which you belong.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I would be very happy to be part of the RCC – if it would have me – because I consider it part of the Catholic Church, and like my own priest, I worry about the direction of my own Church.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
No, I believe that the Christian family is divided – which is obvious.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
No, I believe that if we properly understood what Christ means, we would understand that we are part of the same body. We see as through a glass darkly. You would confine the definition of Christian to those in communion with Rome, that is not what Christ or the early Church said.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
No, the boundaries of that church are known to God alone.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I have not mentioned an invisible church. There is a visible church and the Romans think they are the whole of it. When their leaders learn humility, they will see otherwise.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
No, we in our limited vision think it is divided. I agree with St Paul, we see as through a glass darkly.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
You may be misusing metaphor. The church is not an actual body, but a metaphorical one.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
It is visible, and it is divided – which explains its otherwise inexplicable failure to evangelise the world.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
That is your view, not mine.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Christianity embraces more than Rome.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I know who I meet at the Eucharistic Feast. That is why I know my priest’s orders are valid.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
It is not the Devil whom I encounter at the Eucharist. That is not subjective, for I know Him. He is in me, and that fills me with a peace the world cannot give. This is not a sign of the Evil zone.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I obey Him. If He is present at the Eucharist that is not the work of heretics.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Is it Church teaching that Our Lord is present in Satanic Masses? I can find no confirmnation of that in the Catechism.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I don’t see how a Satanic Mass can confect Christ – and I suspect you have zero evidence to show it.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
The intention of a satanic Mass cannot be correct.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Ask your priest – he will tell you rightly.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Well, I’d better find one then.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
If it is a valid Mass and what I go to isn’t?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Speaking in Florence in February, 1965, Archbishop Lefebvre was reported as saying, βCertainly for a few years Luther said a valid Mass, while he was still not against the idea of Sacrifice, while he was more or less a Catholic; but later, when he rejected the Sacrifice, Priesthood and Real Presence, then his Mass was no longer valid.
Still, perhaps the Archbishop knew less than your priest?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Well, I know nothing about black masses – and your comparing it with the Mass I go to is ill- conceived.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Yes, you are right, I am allowing my personal experience of the Risen Lord a priority over arid terms of scholastic origin. You are helping me see that the Roman Catholic Church, at least in your portrayal of it, is not the place for me.
I do not know if you have experienced Christ at the Eucharist, but if you have, I am surprised you are not more influenced by Him.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
If you intend to raise Satan, how do you get Jesus?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Well, I know who I encounter at Mass – and it isn’t Satan.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
If I encounter Jesus, that is all that matters to me- the rest is works of men.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
If, in your theology, a black mass is ‘valid’, there is something very wrong with your theology.
I am hearing the voices of frightened men trying to hold on to power, who have never listened to the words f the One who died on the Cross. ‘Valid’, ‘licit’, are these terms the early church used, or ones which came in at a time of the church’s lowest spiritual ebb?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I prefer to rely on He whom I encounter at Mass. I know nothing of the evil of which you speak.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I avoid such evil, as we are taught to.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Mark 16:16 .
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Could you point out the part there where it tells us that only those who believe and are in communion with Rome will be saved?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
That is what your Church says, of course. It is not what mine, or the Orthodox Church says, neither is it what the Fathers said.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I can read the Fathers, as you can; they are not the ‘Roman Fathers’ they are the ‘Church fathers’ and the common property of Catholics everywhere.
The Orthodox take exception to the unauthorised insertion of a clause into the Creed, and to the mind-set which produced that. No one in the early Church acknowledged the Bishop of Rome as universal bishops, and my Church, like the Orthodox, will happily acknowledge his primacy of honour once he gets over trying to be what he never was.
I don’t know if you know any Orthodox in real life, but they seem pretty lively to me – and don’t have a probloem if the man they elect as bishop turns out to be a bit odd. That is because they stick to the practice of the Church from old, which is that where the bishop is, there is the Church. No one, outsiode of a few self-interested Roman Catholics ever parsed that as reading ‘where the Bishop of Rome is’.
This is a fiction which does much harm to Christian unity, and it is to be hoped that, as current trends continue, it is one which will be dropped.
Fathers command obedience in love, not by the sword. The attempts to do it by the sword were met by the sword, and always will be. Such attempts have damaged Christ’s Church in the eys of the world and cause great scandal. They are also stupid, because Rome does not command overwhelming physical force and if it really tried your line, would simply be squashed.
LikeLike
Rob said:
Jess said: βFathers command obedience in love, not by the sword. The attempts to do it by the sword were met by the sword, and always will be. Such attempts have damaged Christβs Church in the eys of the world and cause great scandal. They are also stupid, because Rome does not command overwhelming physical force and if it really tried your line, would simply be squashed.β
I am concerned that it may be these very circumstances rather than a moral change that that has led the RCC to forsake the means of violence and coercion.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I believe what is clear to most – which is that there are divisions within the Christian family.
LikeLike
Rob said:
Q: There are division and divisions.
The body itself is not divided but it is divided in opinion, certain allegiances and modes of functioning. This is acknowledged by Saint Paul when he tells the Corinthians
βThere needs to be divisions amongst YOU so that those who are approved of God may be made manifestβ.
There was no indication ion in Paulβs words that any faction were not true Christians, or part of the church, just that some were bigoted in making choices for particular teachers. His point was that all of the teachers listed were gifts to the whole body and those preferring one above the other were being divisive.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Excellent points, Rob. If we saw clearly, as God does, we’d know that there is one body.
LikeLike
Rob said:
Thatβs how I see it and itβs how I seek to serve Christ by serving His body wherever I find it and wherever access is allowed this has included Roman Catholic, Anglican, Non Conformist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Pentecostal and Charismatic churches β one body.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
God, and God alone, knows where the boundaries of His Church are – and when we become more like Him, so will we. Until then, I make no attempt to speak for HIm.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
What must be believed is what Jesus told us in Mark 16:16, not what some man in Rome told us in 1616.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I hope you slept well.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I do.
LikeLike
bgpery said:
Jessica, I really feel for you, your local Catholic priest is a heretic but in ‘good standing’ and visible communion with the pope while your local Anglo-Catholic priest is orthodox and sane. I will offer up a rosary for you.
I do find it difficult to understand how a serious Anglo-Catholic(Anglo-papist?) cleric (your priest) can remain in what is essentially a state church which contains conflicting theology and officially rejects Catholic beliefs/practices in its 39 articles. I donβt see how this can be a long term solution.
Cling to Jesus. I wish you the best, God bless.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
It may well not be – but for now, it is the only one I have – thank you for your kind wishes π x
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Indeed, Jess, I pray that your next priest is not a priestess. Have you considered your reaction to that circumstance should it arise? I think that would scare me the most: the future of the local Anglo parish itself is tenuous in todays environment. That of course does not mean that many Catholic parishes are as tenuous as this, as well. For instance, I wonder if many of the Masses I have attended, the priest actually intends to do what the Church intends. In that case our sacrament is not what it is supposed to be: it is invalid and nothing more than a symbol. Unfortunately I have heard that up to 40% of the priest have reservations concerning transubstantiation and tend toward trans-signification or or trans-finalization which would make their Mass invalid.
Also, in speaking about the Satanic Black Mass above it is my understanding that most of these are performed with pre-consecrated hosts stolen from a tabernacle within a Church or received illicitly by attending Mass and pocketing the species. In this case the host is truly the Body and Blood of Christ and Christ truly suffers the desecration.
Now if QVO is speaking of a Black Mass conducted by an ordained priest, he may have the intention of making Christ present but that is quite different than having the intention of the Church which is wider in its meaning and is our belief. Also, had he become a priest with the intention of desecrating Christ, his ordination would also be called into question. Therefore, I believe the Holy Spirit protects us from the evil intentions of those who would try to desecrate our Lord by such means. However, I certainly didn’t see the point of QVO bringing up such a sick practice as an example at all; or am I missing his point?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
On the last point, my thoughts are with your own. On the first, yes, I know this is a haven and a resting place, but for now, that will have to do me π
LikeLike