Category Archives: Bible

Unclean lips: Sunday reflection

10 Sunday Feb 2019

Posted by in Bible, Faith, Reading the BIble

≈ 29 Comments

Tags

, ,

Isaiah 6:1-8; 1 Cor 15:1-11; Luke 5:1-11

Isaiah, like SS, Peter and Paul, knows he is not worthy. “Who, me Lord?” Paul is the “least” of the Apostles, while Peter is sceptical of Jesus’ advice to go back out and cast his nets in the deep. He knew himself to be a “sinful man.” And of course he was right.

Despite Jesus’ trust in him, when he was most needed in Gethsemane he was asleep, and later he lied about even knowing Jesus. In a conscious echo of that first calling, Jesus once more advises Peter about his fishing, and it is that which makes him realise to whom he is speaking. Thrice the Lord asks Peter if he loves him, and thrice Peter affirms it; ransomed, healed, restored forgiven, the Apostle is charged with the care of the sheep. He no longer protests he is not worthy. Why is that?

It is certainly not because Peter feels any more worthy than he had had the beginning; indeed if anything Peter knew he had not lived up to the promises he had made. The contrast here with Judas Iscariot is worth noting.

Peter and Judas both betrayed Christ. Judas despaired of the evil deed he had done and, in despair, hanged himself. He could not forgive himself and he did not believe that forgiveness could be had. His pride told him that there was no remedy for his sin; so he destroyed himself, throwing back to God the gift he had been given. He had not been there when Jesus had prayed to the Father for forgiveness for those who “knew not what they do.” Not had Peter. But there was a critical difference.

Peter, like Isaiah and Paul, had the humility not to let his own pride come between him and forgiveness. We have all sinned, not one of us has reached perfection. How easy it is to hide and evade, and even lie, when we have gone wrong and done bad things and then, when we are found out, to despair. It is as though by going to the very depth of despair we make some sort of amend. But that is to judge as men do, and as with Judas, it can be to put a barrier up to the actions of God’s grace.

There is one odd thing about love; you cannot ever deserve it. Even at the secular, physical level, one cannot make the object of one’s love, love you. One can hope that by paying attention to the beloved, one might receive favourable notice, but one cannot compel or deserve love. Love, like God’s grace, is uncovenanted. God’s love is freely available to us; we did not love Him first, He loved us from the beginning.

Christ came to show us what love will do. He died for us, though we are sinners. A man might die for his family or his friends, or even for a cause. But few if any of us die for our enemies, let along for those whom we do not know. Christ did that because He is God, and we see in His atoning sacrifice a glimpse of the Glory of God; for me He did that?

Peter faced the music, so did Isaiah. Sometimes when we have gone wrong, it is easier ti run away, to take the blames, to become the sacrificial lamb. How much harder it is to face the music and to carry on living.

We are not told what Peter did after the crucifixion, just that he ended up back where he had begun, working the family fishing boats, a sadder if not a wiser man. Perhaps he reflected that it would have been better for all if Jesus had listened to him when he had said he was a sinful man? But, of course, Jesus had listened. He who, alone, knows the devices and desires of our own hearts, knew that Peter had the ability to grow spiritually, if only he would learn humility. Well, that he did.

Peter remained, like us, deeply flawed. He thought that it would be fine to eat non-kosher with Gentiles and did not see why the Jewish dietary laws should apply to all followers of Jesus. But when James and the Church in Jerusalem took a dim view of that, Peter backed away and supported them. It was left to Paul to call Peter out and contradict him. Peter let that happen. He had indeed learnt humility, if not always wisdom.

We are all of us sinners. The moment one stops knowing that, then the way os open to all sorts of sins which come from pride. But today’s Bible passages remind us  that sin can have its own pride, and that if our guilt makes us think we are beyond redemption and God’s love, then we need to think again. We have unclean lips and we are a stiff-necked and sinful people. But God loves us, and if we will but receive the message His Son brought to us about love, then all will be well, and all manner of things will be well.

A Short Reflection on The Word and Biblical Inerrancy.

04 Sunday Mar 2018

Posted by in Bible

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

I believe that scripture is the word of God, I believe that limited Biblical inerrancy is a mistaken approach due to the failure to properly understand the historiography of ancient writings. Any modern failure in properly understanding the words of eternal life stems from our cultural loss of ancient Judaism and Christian historicism.

It’s important to understand that scripture, inspired by God and written without error, is limited by the cultural identity of the Biblical writers. Simply, Biblical authorship that was needed for worship and evangelization from Babylonian Captivity to 1st Century A.D. that incorporated ideas of 21st Century positivism–that especially predated Herodotus and Thucydides–would have been dead on arrival during the period of their authorship. In this manner of understanding, it is important to put trust in God’s grace, our faith and the traditions of the Church.

As Lent approaches

11 Sunday Feb 2018

Posted by in Bible, Catholic Tradition, Faith, Lent

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

, , ,

jesus-christ-good-shepherd-religion-161289.png

Lent is a chance to reassess where we are; a time of penance.

If press of business at work was the primary reason to refrain from blogging, there was a secondary one. It seemed impossible to blog and remain spiritually calm. The invasion of modern culture wars into the realm of religion was inevitable, but becomes wearing to one who finds it difficult to define himself in those terms.

At the heart of my own faith is the encounter with Christ in the Eucharist. That is the Christ who I encounter in the Holy Scriptures, who tells us that we will eat of His body and drink of His blood, and that He is the Way, the Truth and the Light. Were that not the case then there would be a disconnect between reason and experience, and my own Christianity rests on those two pillars- reason and experience. But these two are mediated through the Church and its traditions. I do not understand these things solely by the light of my own reason, although I constantly test them against it; I am part of a living tradition. I am but one of a great cloud of witnesses.

The spoken Word matters to me a great deal. Without Scripture I would be lost. But to interpret it by the sole light of my own reason would also be to risk becoming lost. Christ became man so that I, like other sinners, might receive life, and life eternal. My experience tells me that the Christ of Scripture is the one I encounter at the Eucharist; the Church reinforces that and provides me with a sacramental understanding of what, and who, I have received; it is a memorial of His saving Passion; but it is Him too not simply a memorial. I know this through what I feel; but I find reinforcement and validation for what I feel in the tradition and teaching of the Church.

Modern critical theorists of Scripture made the attempt to make it conform to their own limited, non-sacramental understanding of the world; ruling out miracles on the a priori ground that they could not exist. That was to insert one’s own understanding in place of that of the Church, which has always had the humility to accept what the Scripture it received described; it does not attempt to know better than the eye-witnesses. One’s unaided understanding might lead one astray. Had the Lord Jesus wished us to get our teaching about Him from a book alone, then undoubtedly He could have written that book. Instead He inspired His followers to write and collect what was written, providing, through the Church He founded, an infallible interpreter in cases of doubt.

In all of that, there is for me, only one culture war – that of the World against that of the Church. Of the mystery of the existence of many churches, I have no opinion. I have met better men and women than myself in many other Churches, and I leave any verdict on their ultimate fate where it belongs, with the Only Just Judge. I observe, with no further comment, that there are Anglicans and Orthodox with whom I have more in common than some Catholics I know. We share the characteristic of trying to balance faith, reason and tradition, and of not trying to give priority to whatsoever might be novel, whilst, at the same time, not turning our face against the fact that Spirit is at work in the Church

As I prepare for Lent, I am drawn back to this place and to the fellowship it provides.

The First Letter of John (No Podcast This Week)

09 Thursday Nov 2017

Posted by in Bible, Faith

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

1john1.jpg

I apologize due to the upcoming American holiday of Veteran’s Day; there will be no podcast for I was mandated for overtime work this morning. However, I will like to post the introduction of the First Letter of John. In prayer, this morning, I was reading it in a form of Lectio Divina, something called to me to do so, and I couldn’t help but reflect on how beautiful this letter is to the faithful.

The First Letter of John

1 ¶* That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—2 the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship† with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 ¶ And we are writing this that our joy may be complete.

God Is Light

5 ¶ This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him is no darkness‡ at all. 6 ¶ If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth; 7 ¶ but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 ¶ If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Christ Is Our Advocate

2 ¶ My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 ¶ and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. 3 ¶ And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments.§ 4 ¶ He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5 ¶ but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: 6 ¶ he who says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

A New Commandment

7 ¶ Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment which you had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard. 8 ¶ Yet I am writing you a new commandment, which is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining. 9 He who says he is in the light and hates his brother is in the darkness still. 10 ¶ He who loves his brother abides in the light, and in it there is no cause for stumbling. 11 But he who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

12 I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his sake. 13 ¶ I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the Evil One. I write to you, children, because you know the Father. 14 I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the Evil One.

15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If any one loves the world, love for the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world. 17 And the world passes away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides for ever.

1.The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version; Second Catholic Edition (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006), 1 Jn 1:1–2:17.

 

The Importance of Moses and the Exodus

04 Friday Aug 2017

Posted by in Bible, Faith

≈ 12 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Dura_Europos_fresco_Jews_cross_Red_Sea.jpg

I began to be interested in the topic after conversations with several Atheists who make the claim that Moses isn’t real. In fact, these gentlemen would make the claim that the historical consensus has dictated that Moses is a myth.[1] In this regard, they would be correct, the historical consensus would indicate that the Exodus account didn’t take place. However, when presented with contrary evidence, the atheist scholar indicates that they will only accept unbiased work, which means they will only accept a historical thesis by a none Abrahamic believer. The truth of the matter though is that all people have biases when it comes to forming the narrative and conclusions on historical events, a historian learns this in historiography 101. It’s natural that the secular scholar will not actively search for a result that contradicts their beliefs, but expects scholars of faith to do so.

Where’s the evidence? Now, this isn’t a philosophical discussion that relies on the metaphysical like the discussion whether there is a supreme being or not. The thesis being discussed is whether Moses was a living breathing actor in the temporal world. The secular assertion is mostly based on the lack of archaeological evidence, notwithstanding, I personally, as one who has operated in the field of history, do not believe that archaeology has the final say on all events—especially ones where archaeological evidence would be hard pressed to find—in deserts spanning over three thousand years. This debate is as important, if not more, than the metaphysical debate of the existence of God. The ramifications, of course, are that those who wish to discredit the historicity of Moses expand their assertion to the understanding that if Moses is fictional then Christianity is fiction, due largely to the Transfiguration of Christ, among other events. It’s important for our ability to make fishers of men to refute such secular biased scholarship. Egyptologist K.A. Kitchen writes, “Throughout the Hebrew Bible, there is no single event (or theme, if the status of ‘event’ be denied) to which its various writers hark back so pervasively as the tradition of the ancestral Israelites being liberated from servitude in Egypt, then forming a community under their deliverer deity YHWH.”[2]

Scholars to fully consider whether Moses is truly a historic actor must understand that it’s certainly okay as scholars, and furthermore as the faithful, to disregard the consensus, especially if one is seeking to argue against it. There are other modern scholars who have argued for the case for a historical Moses and are basing their findings on archaeological evidence. One of them by the name of Gerard Gertoux who is Ph.D. candidate in France, who based on his biography at Academic.edu has been black balled by French academia, not by his dissertation on Moses and Exodus, but because he is a Jehovah Witness. Gertoux has published another essay on the topic writing:

“Some atheists refuse to take into account the Bible because that book states clearly the existence of God as well as miracles. However, in my opinion, searching the truth must be the fundamental purpose of any honest historian.“What is truth” Pilate said to Jesus (Jn 18:38). For honest and scientific historians, “truth” is based on two main pillars: 1) an accurate chronology anchored on absolute dates(Herodotus’ principle) and 2) reliable documents coming from critical editions(Thucydides’ principle)”[3]

 Again, as one who has worked in the field of history, I thoroughly support Gertoux on the above statement. After explaining what Gertoux considers truth he runs through a list of scholarly experts making claims that the Exodus story and Moses are fiction.

Here is an example:

Modern archaeology has shown that the concept of archives kept in Jerusalem with writings of the tenth century, is an absurdity based on a biblical witness and not on factual evidence. Bible stories would rank therefore among national mythologies, and would have no more historical foundation than the Homeric saga of Ulysses, or that of Aeneas, founder of Rome, sung by Virgil –Israel Finkelstein, Israeli archaeologist[4]

Gertoux makes a clear distinction in his essay by stating, “An objective reader should note that most reasons put forward by these prestigious scholars are ideological, not based on any verifiable factual data”[5]

Now it’s important to note that I am not necessarily endorsing Gertoux’s thesis, if this were the case I wouldn’t be interested in researching the topic myself. However, I do agree with is introductory comments on the topic. Here is his thesis:

“According to Egyptian accounts the last king of the XV the dynasty, named Apopi, “very pretty” in Hebrew that is Moses’ birth name (Ex 2:2), reigned 40 years in Egypt from 1613 to 1573 BCE, then 40 years later hemet Seqenenre Taa the last pharaoh of the XVII the dynasty and gave him an unspecified disturbing message.”[6]

However, there are two particulars of the debate that I would like to discuss and one of them is the term myth. The modern understanding of this word often renders that anything labeled as a myth is fiction; however, this is an incomplete definition of the word. Most ancient oral traditions that would be considered myths effectively conveyed truth to folks who continued to tell the events–a method that was vital before the advent of writing.  The Book of Exodus, and the Bible, are not supposed to be read as a historical account per say. It’s merely an account, albeit a cultural one that is a reflection of those who wrote it, of the revelation of God to man. Thus, it is the empiricists who have difficulty understanding that with those who continue to look to this collection of books that appear to reject empirical evidence for valuable information. Empiricists will do their best to dismiss the entirety of the Bible as a credible source, but they negate the fact that it was written by authors who would have recorded events from oral histories that predate the invention of modern historical research and writing. The second part, perhaps broken into subparts, is that does Christianity—due to the Transfiguration—require Moses to be truly historic, and how much of the account of Exodus has to be factual due to oral traditions? (An important point throughout the entire Exodus narrative)
[1] William G. Dever ‘What Remains of the House That Albright Built?,’ in George Ernest Wright, Frank Moore Cross, Edward Fay Campbell, Floyd Vivian Filson (eds.) The Biblical Archaeologist, American Schools of Oriental Research, Scholars Press, Vol. 56, No 1, 2 March 1993 pp.25-35, p.33:’the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure.’

 

[2] K.A. Kitchen On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 2003), 241.

[3] Gertoux, Gerard. “Moses and the Exodus: What Evidence?” Moses and the Exodus: What Evidence? Accessed March 24, 2016. https://www.academia.edu/13001480/Moses_and_the_Exodus_what_evidence.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

Politics & Religion

07 Friday Jul 2017

Posted by in Bible, Faith, Politics

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, ,

When I was young, my father, who rarely spoke about such things anyway, advised me never to talk about politics or religion, so running a blog which combines the two is not, it is safe to say, what he’d have advised. Most of us will be familiar with the claim that ‘social justice’ was at the heart of what Jesus came to do, and that to be a Christian means to be left-wing. Catholics are not the only Christians to be aware that their leaders speak with more confidence on such matters than they do on doctrine and dogma. But is it so?

The Gospel is directed at each of us, and it brings us the good news not that we are saved in this world and that all will be well, but that we are loved by God and that through His Son He has wrought our salvation. It is aimed at converting us, at changing our hearts and minds, and by doing that, by conforming us more to God’s will, helping us be part of a change. Were each of us to behave as God wants us to behave, then the world would become a better place. But our impact, we might complain can only be local; local is good, and is better than no impact. We exist in a society profoundly suspicious of Christians and Christianity, and if we are honest we’d have to admit that the behaviour of some in all churches is part of what has created that atmosphere. As ever when one group in society preaches a moral reformation, any shortcomings in its members will be used mercilessly to smear the vast majority of people in that church who lead blameless and even praiseworthy lives; the critic with a hostile agenda is not interested on those people, he obsesses only on the black sheep. But, of course, he does so not for the reasons Our Lord did – to save them – but to use them as sticks with which to beat others.

Which, of course, brings us back to where we started, which is that our faith becomes a political weapon in the hands of those who would seek to mobilise us for agendas which are not our agenda. Attempts to do this are best resisted. The individual can make up his or her mind as to how much their faith would let them vote for candidate x or y – but no one should pretend that that will advance the kingdom of God as much as dealing with their own sense of sin and walking with God’s laws would. It is a mark of our sinful nature that men and women should have so much more certainty in their secular political solutions than they appear to have in the teachings of orthodox Christianity.

Recently, at my Church, we had a missionary priest, who spoke of his work in the poorest, and some of the most dangerous parts of Africa. He did not talk of bringing social justice, but of bringing Christ to those who had not known Him, and what the people who received Him got from that great gift. I had no idea what his politics were, but I knew a real Christian when I met one. He spoke of the need to witness to the hope that is in us – I just wish I could do it as well as he did.

Who is saved?

05 Wednesday Jul 2017

Posted by in Anglicanism, Anti Catholic, Bible, Catholic Tradition, Faith

≈ 53 Comments

Tags

, ,

Yesterday’s post began a discussion of what it means to ‘be saved’ and ended touching on the thorny question of who will be saved; here I want to continue with that for a while.

Contrary to the impression given by some, we are not Christians by ourselves, we are Christians in the Church; if we are saved by coming to Christ, we live our life as a Christian in a community. To what extent does that impact on our spiritual lives?

In my time I have belonged to a number of churches, but with one possible exception, none of them have done very much for my spiritual life, which has been largely led elsewhere. That may well be my own fault, but it has left me pondering all the same.

As some of you know, my eldest son is a Baptist Pastor in the Potteries of England. His preaching is, to my own mind, impeccably orthodox, and yet he is not a Catholic, neither is there any chance of his becoming one. If, as seems to be the case, I am asked to conceive of a situation in which someone who has devoted his whole life to Christ is liable not to be saved because he cannot accept and believe all that the Catholic Church believes, then that makes me stop and think. It is hard enough to accept, as some would say I must, that my father, a man who had thrown at him just about every misfortune life can afford, and who as a result of the sort of experiences which would now lead to a court case, rejected priests, vicars and the whole of what they represented, might be barred from Heaven, but to accept that my son, and his twin brother, another God-fearing young man, are also subject to the same fate is one against which every decent instinct revolts. What does Jesus say?

“Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.” John 5:24

I well understand the struggle in the early church to preserve orthodoxy, and the fact that often, it was only in relation to unorthodoxy that orthodoxy needed to be defined. The Church has always been Trinitarian, but it did not always feel the need to define and defend that position; it was only when men came along and tried to say otherwise that a defence and explanation became necessary.

My own spiritual journey has led me across the Tiber. It would have been easier for me if that had taken place when the Ordinariate had existed, but it was not ease I sought, but the Truth in its fulness. But it took me very many years to get there, and if I look back, I see Grace in every step of the way, as well as my own blindness – which makes the Grace all the more amazing.

I hope that the ‘field hospital’ that is the Church is providing me with the spiritual medication of which I stand in need. But when I look at Anglican friends, or at my sons, I see people as devoted, if not more so, to God and to His Word, who, for whatever reasons, cannot get to the place I got to, I cannot, in my heart, believe that the Only Just Judge will condemn them for their choice. I know that I, not even fit to be the ‘chief of sinners’, would not behave so were it in my power, and I cannot believe that Almighty God would have in a manner worse than myself.

Yes, it is true that God’s ways are not our ways, but it is also true that we are made in God’s image, and I do not believe that our instinct of mercy is a perversion of the image of God; rather, it is reflection of a mercy and justice so vastly beyond our comprehension, that we may grasp it only in part when, as a parent, we look at our children.

So, as I am bound, I believe the Catholic Church is the best place for us to be as Christians, but the Church teaches neither that all Catholics are saved, nor that only members of the Catholic Church may be saved. Some may counter (but why?) with the ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’, to which I reply that it is God who defines who is and is not a member of His Church. If, as I hope and pray. I make it to Heaven, I suspect I shall be delighted by who I find there; some may have reached the stage where they can overcome the disappointment they might think they will currently feel. If not, then it will be, for me, a very odd Heaven, as I am the only member of my family to have been a Catholic for many, many generations.

Being Saved

04 Tuesday Jul 2017

Posted by in Bible, Faith, Salvation

≈ 25 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

When Christians say they are ‘saved’, what do they mean? Let us begin, as we should, with what Our Lord says. To be saved, we must believe:

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

Jesus goes on to say: “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life”. So, as simple as that. If we have faith, we are saved. But Jesus does not stop there. One problem with the way we read the Gospel is that it tends to be in chunks, when, if you have ever seen early codices, you will see it was meant to be read in its entirety; chapters and verses are relatively novel; designed to help us, our fallen nature so often ensures it does no such thing.

Jesus told those who followed him asking for more bread: “For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world”, to which “They said to Him, ‘Lord, give us this bread always’”. To clear up any doubt, Jesus told them: “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.” We are told, now, by some, that this is a sort of metaphor, that all food gives us life, or some other explanation, but Jesus is clear. Indeed, he was so clear that the Jews listening were shocked. How could the son of Joseph be the ‘bread’ come down from heaven, and how could a man give them his flesh and blood to drink?

This was the perfect opportunity for Jesus to reassure them that he was not speaking literally. Why should they have thought he was? In verses 54-58 Jesus uses the word ‘trogo’. This is a word found only five times in the New Testament, and these are four of those times. It means ‘to chew’ or to ‘gnaw’, and in Greek is often used to describe the feeding habits of cattle and pigs. Up to this point in the Gospel, Jesus had been using the more usual word, ‘esthio’ (verses 49-53 all use it), so in changing the word he uses, Jesus is emphasising the literal nature of what he was saying; that was why the Jews took fright. He was telling them that to be saved we must eat his body and his blood – the connotations of cannibalism and of non-kosher food horrified his listeners – as he knew it would. He had ample opportunity to reassure them he was not talking literally. Indeed, as some left him, he had every reason to do so. He could quite easily have stopped many leaving him, but he did not do so.

He asked the Apostles if they wished to go; they did not, even thought they did not understand. It was only when they came to the Last Supper that they understood. That is why from the beginning. Christians have met to worship and to consume his body and his blood. St Paul passed this on to the Corinthians, as he had received it from the Apostles. Paul is clear about the literal nature of what was passed on to him, as he tells the Corinthians:

For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

Jesus told us “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life”. So, yes, we must believe in Him as Lord, but we must also partake of His body and His blood. Dos that mean there is no other way to be saved? God alone decides who will be saved, and anyone who pronounces on that issue takes upon him or herself the power of God – and I suspect God will not be mocked in that way, He is a merciful and compassionate God, who alone knows the devices and desires of our hearts, and who, alone, can read what is written there. He is the only Just Judge, and we can leave such questions to Him. Our part is to serve obediently where we feel we have been called.

‘Call no man father’?

03 Monday Jul 2017

Posted by in Anti Catholic, Bible, Faith

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

, , ,

Yesterday, we looked at Jesus’ words about the need to drink His blood and eat His body unto our salvation. Today, I want to take it into other territory commonly occupied by anti-Catholic legends.

Bosco, as many Protestants does, asks why we call priests ‘father’ when Matthew 23:9 says not to; oddly, like everyone else I have ever met, he does not rail about us calling our ‘teachers’ teacher, although Matthew 23:10 is equally clear; so how can it be that men who call their teacher by that name, find it so hard to call a father, father? One suspects that they call their male parent ‘father’, so it is hard not to conclude that they concentrate on this point because it allows them to attack the Catholic Church; that it attacks the Orthodox is, in all probability, something few of them realise.

Now, if we never called our male parent ‘father’, it would mean, effectively, that we would not understand what it means to call God ‘Father’; if we never used the word of our male parent, how would we begin to understand what the word meant? So, unless we hold that Jesus wanted no one to understand what it meant to use the word father, we must conclude that he meant something else by it; what?

Jesus calls his disciples to be teachers, and St Paul calls his congregation children, as does St John, so the idea that Jesus wants no one to be called teacher or father is clearly not correct, as Scripture itself demonstrates. Jesus’ remarks have to be read in context. The context of Matthew 23 is his exasperation with the failure of the Pharisees and the effects he knows it is going to have on the Jews and his beloved Jerusalem. Jesus often uses hyperbole to make his points. Not even the most fundamentalist fundie actually rips out his right eye or cuts off his right hand, they realise, here, that Jesus is exaggerating to make a point; but when he does it here, in the cases of ‘father’ they ignore that, even though they do ignore it in the case of the word ‘teacher’.

If Jesus had meant there should be no teachers or fathers, then his disciples would not have referred to their flocks as children. We see what Jesus meant when we read Paul to the Corinthians:

 For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

Ironically, what Jesus, like Paul, is telling us, is not to believe self-appointed teachers/fathers, who claim to be our spiritual fathers and to guide us, for they, like the Pharisees, are blind and God will tell them he knew them not. Only those who, like Paul, beget us through the Gospel are fit to be called spiritual fathers. The irony is, of course, that it is precisely the self-appointed infallibilists, those who tell us that they have some gnostic, privileged access to what the Gospel means, who instruct us as though they were our spiritual fathers, and in so doing, they are the ones contravening the real meaning of the words of Our Lord. Those who argue otherwise can come back when they have plucked out that eye which has sinned.

Primitivism: a common error?

01 Saturday Jul 2017

Posted by in Anti Catholic, Bible, Blogging, Catholic Tradition, Faith

≈ 39 Comments

Tags

, ,

There is a persistent strain in Christianity and Islam which emphasises that the nearer to the source, the purer the water; in both faiths we have seen, and we see, a search for ancient practices and belief. But the assumption behind this belief needs questioning, resting, as it does, on questionable assumptions.

The first of these is the notion that we can, in fact, extract a clear idea of ancient practice and belief from the surviving sources. Those scholars who have questioned whether there was in fact any concept of orthodoxy in the ancient church have emphasised a plurality of practice and implied something similar about belief; I am not entirely in agreement with them, but they have a point. We can construct only from what survives, and what survives will not give us a picture of everything, and even if it did, it would include much that is not orthodox. We could, of course, relive old arguments about Arianism, but on the whole I would advise against it (not least since there are  ways in which we often rehearse them).

The second assumption to be questioned is the idea that what is older is purer in some way. Any history of heresy will tell you that heretical ideas go back to the beginning – we can see St Paul criticising them, and SS Peter, John and Jude all warn about those teaching incorrectly; from the beginning understanding and misunderstanding are mixed.

The third assumption is the one that implies that later is somehow more corrupt. This depends on a further assumption, which is that the Apostles understood the fullness of the relevation of Christ; there seems little evidence that this was the case. The assumption seems to be that at Pentecost the Apostles received not only the inspiration of the Spirit to speak in tongues and to go out as missionaries, but that they had a ful understanding of the nature of God as Trinity, and of Jesus as wholly-human and wholly-divine. If that were so, it was forgotten at once, as otherwise, when various heretics advanced what turned out to be misunderstandings of these things, the early Church would have cited Apostolic testimony to disprove them; this did not happen. Instead, the church did the hard work of trying to reach agreement on verses from Scripture which could be, were, and still are, read in different ways. Would it really be such a good idea to abandon these advances in understanding? On what ground, given the questioning of the various assumptions embedded in the argument that older is purer?

We are the inheritors of a rich and varied tradition of Christian practice and belief.  No doubt we inherit some bad things and some good, but we should take care not to discard what is old simply because it is not new.  To trespass on Catholic grief, it seems to me that this was one of the problems with the way Vatican II was interpreted; those who wanted to make all things new because they disliked the old, used it as an excuse to do something they already wanted to do.  There was a similar development in Anglicanism in this country which I regret hugely – the abandoning of the Book of Common Prayer.

What is old and still works is sanctified by the use of our ancestors; we should not lightly abandon their heritage in pursuit of a mythical past.