Tradition, it's something American Protestant Evangelicals (APEs) have a huge gripe about. They immediately level this accusation at any and all organized religions. So, I'd like to take this opportunity to rebut.
Often the "religious" person will haphazardly give a reason for tradition and the "bible Christians," as they like to call themselves, will start to realize that they are being backed into a corner with fuzzy logic and facts. When this happens, all the sudden, the "bible Christian" takes leave to redefine their position. They say that they aren't against pious tradition, per se, just the vain traditions of "mere men."
This seems even more absurd to me, because suddenly this individual takes the mantle of authority upon themselves to confirm tradition as "acceptable" and dismiss others as "unacceptable," all the while claiming to do so with the scriptures. The problem is, none of "them" agree on the scriptures! So, who are they to definitively say? The mantle they've put on themselves is tailor-made for a very large man, and they sit swamped in it's folds like a little child. It reminds me of the cartoon, Robin Hood, where prince John is perpetually stretching his ears out to hold up a crown that belongs to his cousin, king Richard the Lionhearted.
Proverbs 3:5 says," Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding." If they are "bible Christians" then why are they doing the opposite of what the bible compels them to do, leaning on their own understanding of scripture? Quite frankly, it's because each of them is woefully convinced that all of their conclusions about everything under the sun are divine, because they have the Holy Spirit.
It brings to mind Voltaire's words," These fellows are certain that the Holy Spirit 'with which they are filled' is above the law, that their enthusiasm is the only law they must obey. What can we say to a man who tells you that he would rather obey God than men, and therefore he is sure to go to heaven for butchering you?"
Now, I'm not suggesting that APEs (American Protestant Evangelicals) want to go around killing people in the name of God. Nor am I suggesting that they are law breakers by nature, and neither was Voltaire. He was talking about religious fanaticism. But he brings up a valid point, that even the APE must deal with: What is the standard for truth? Many of our sad APE friends and family, without batting an eyelash, will have already said emphatically," It's the Bible!" But that is exactly what we are talking about here: How does one interpret the bible? Again, here, many of our APE friends and family will say without missing a beat," With the Holy Spirit!" It's the old circular logic, which is a fundamental error of logic.
There is an illustration that some clever person made, called rather mockingly 'The Wheel of Power," which was drawn up at the APE's expense. It's a circle and every so often on the circle is a question, and after it is an answer and it says:
THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD!
"But how can you be sure it's the word of God?"
BECAUSE THE BIBLE TELLS US SO!
"But why believe the bible?"
THE BIBLE IS INFALLIBLE!
"But how do you know it's infallible?"
THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD!
"But how can you be sure it's the word of God?"...
And around it goes forever and ever. All those statements might be true, but those are not answers to those questions! Further, they don't even begin to address the issue of interpretation, which is what we've been talking about up to this point. Even if all of the above declarations were established, we have to ask questions about the matter of interpretation. And in order to answer those questions we absolutely must get away from erroneous circular logic, which we know to be false. Otherwise, we could just make our own wheel of power addressing the issue of interpretation.
So, being properly motivated in the inquiry, I think we've established to a degree which answers are unsatisfactory. We've also established that the right questions have to be asked. To that end, let's digress and go into what the APE says they're against: the vain traditions of men. That's what they claim to be against.
Well, let's look at this and ask the right questions so that we come up with the right answers. Is the following proposition true?
1.) Vain traditions of men= df (identical) Traditions of men
No. That isn't true, is it? Of course not! It's not true, because vanity isn't necessary to the traditions of men. That is to say, traditions of men can exist without being vain. Now, on the other hand, traditions are necessary to the existence of vain traditions, right? You can't have vain traditions without 'tradition;' you'll just have 'vain' then, yeah?
So, the point of all that is, these APEs call themselves 'bible Christians.' That is supposed to mean that they only believe in what the bible says. Well, it's obvious to everyone, including them, that, that is not the case. Case in point, that APEs stand in opposition to all traditions of men, while claiming to stand only against the vain traditions of men. And why is this? Because to the APE, proposition #1 which we all concluded is necessarily false, is in their mind true! To them, all the traditions of men are vain. The problem with this is, it doesn't say anywhere in the bible that all the traditions of men are vain. In fact, the bible doesn't even come close to suggesting that they are; it says quite the opposite. One begins to wonder why they call themselves 'bible Christians.'
Before we can just move on beyond the APE's prejudices against the word tradition and talk about what the bible says, let's quickly address what the bible is. The bible is tradition! That's right, the canon of scripture is tradition, and that's a fact. The bible as the APE's know it has 66 books; the original bible has 73 books, that's the one that Catholics use. When the canon of scripture was being compiled it wasn't an issue merely of veracity, literary accuracy, or aesthetics. Those 73 books were chosen from approximately 350 different books that were deposited as worthy of canonization or note.
So, not only did everyone have dozens of copies of these 350 books, but after they decided which ones were pseudo-epigraphical (of dubious authorship), which ones were heretical, and which ones were readable, they had to go through and figure out which books everyone had in common, if their copies of the same books all agreed, and if not, which ones were most accurate. The accurate ones that everyone already had that corroborated with each other, were then synthesized into a single definitive version of the book. Then the book was added to the canon, after much debate about its place in the chronological order of epistles and Gospels. This process took years to complete.
The one thing that all of these books have in common, both the valid scriptures and the invalid, was that the local traditions stated that they were noteworthy. All the New Testament and Intertestamental books were the deposit of tradition. Not only were they traditionally true and the version which seemed most reliable out of all of the books, but they knew that they were the most reliable and true out of all the books, precisely because they agreed with tradition. That is why the bishops (the direct successors of the apostles) came together to discuss the matter as a Universal Catholic Church. These books agreed with not only their verbal traditions, which is all most Christians had, but also, their liturgical traditions (the latter which is exactly what APEs are referring to when they say 'the vain traditions of men.')
The Christian bible itself is a tradition; it is what all Christians, throughout the ages, have traditionally believed to be valid, true, and right. That is, until the Reformation, when Protestants decided they would simply stop believing in part of the bible, and took a pair of scissors to it. That being the case, you might rightly say that the Protestant form of the bible is in fact a vain tradition of mere men. A terrible and sweet irony there, aye?
Let's use the vain tradition of mere men, called the King James Version Bible, then, since the irony is so sweet and it is their translation, after all. Note ostensibly, it is His Majesty, King James' version of the Bible. Well, what does it say about tradition? Here are some apostolic quotes from the New Testament :
2 Thessalonians 2:15
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." I say! Will you look at that: whether by word OR their apostolic epistle. I say! Take note of that if you will, not only that the apostles were delivering more than doctrines and dogmas, namely traditions, but that these traditions whether oral or written were binding. Which means that there would have been a very clear system of authority to validate these traditions. Otherwise, the apostles would have been commanding everyone to believe anything that people claimed the apostles to have said. I say! Not only do we have here evidence of apostolic authority to innovate traditions, traditions of men, but that they are binding upon believers, and also we have here implicit evidence of a definitive apostolic delivery of these traditions.
2 Thessalonians 3:6
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." Here we have it that tradition ameliorates and prevents the poison of disorder. It must have been well said the Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion (disorder). Tradition protects the Church, keeps it in order, and prevents the faithful from wandering away into true vanity, the vain traditions of men, self-willed iniquity, and disordered individualism. Holy Apostolic tradition, according to this scripture, most emphatically separates the sheep from the goats. And atop it all is the first statement," "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ..." Again, we see that Holy Apostolic tradition is binding and compulsory to every Christian. Not only that, but we are to get away from every brother who does not observe it!
When Christ rebukes the pharisees in the Gospels, we see Him saying that they reject the Law and observe the traditions of the elders. We see Him saying that their rabbinical traditions nullify the law. We see Him saying that the rabbis had overburdened the people with their many traditions. Yes, we see this, most certainly.
What we do not see is Christ saying that their traditions are evil or useless. There is a difference between observing the Law and traditions that are intended to help one observe the Law, and rejecting the Law and observing only tradition for the sake of traditions themselves. There is a difference between traditions which help and cause one to observe the Law, and those traditions which negate and seek to replace the Law. There is a difference between traditions which help a man do and obey what he must in order to make his life holy, and those traditions which ruin his life and crush him beneath innovated obligations. These and these alone were the issues Christ dealt with. Christ's condemnation of the pharisees and some of their traditions (those which negated the law of Moses) was not a condemnation of tradition itself; and that is self-evident. A blind man could see that. Christ never condemned tradition, nor heralded its ending.
Is the bible necessary to Christianity? No. Otherwise, there were no Christians before the bible existed and there were no Christians to write the New Testament and no Christians to write it about. Christianity is necessary to the bible, the bible is not necessary to Christianity. The truth of the bible is necessary to Christianity, now that is a true statement. That truth which is necessary to Christianity was and is alive in holy apostolic tradition, it first existed in tradition, it spread around the world in the form of tradition. If you were to put the mediums of the bible and tradition next to each other and compare them, they are both indispensable to communicating the Truth of Christ.
Think about the proposition of such a condemnation, that somehow God is not revealed in sensible things(bells, incense, vestments, the Eucharist, the holy oil, confession, marriage, holy orders, art, confirmation, Church documents), but He is revealed in sensible things (letters and words, e.g. the bible). Well, either He is revealed in sensible things or He isn't! It can't be both! A contradiction is absolutely, necessarily, always false. A Church with apostolic traditions is a Church with sacraments; sacraments are a visible sign of an invisible reality.
A lot of APEs say that tradition is keeping them out of the Catholic Church. That's erroneous; traditions keep one in the Body of Christ. Traditions protect the faith, are confirmed by scripture, expound the truth of Christ, and reveal the fullness of salvation in every generation. Traditions keep worldliness, confusion, chaos, and dissent outside of the Church and divinity, clarity, peace and concord inside the Church. Tradition keeps the salt salty, it keeps the spring fresh, and the virgin's lamp burning.
If tradition is keeping them out of the Church of the Apostles, then they are stating that they're worldly, confused, disorganized, and dissenting. Look at the APE "church." Do they match up with that? Look at fad Christianity, Mega-'churches' with 'executives' for pastors, rock bands and giant T.V.'s. Look at the 'Prosperity Gospel' people 'living in authority' with their $1,000 seeds and their $23,000 dollar toilets. Look at the confusion of 30,000 Protestant denominations, like Ishmael, a wild man whom eveyone's hand is against and whose hand is against everyone, ever envious of Isaac, the Catholic Church.
Yes, APEs fit the bill perfectly: worldly, confused, disorganized, and dissenting. It's not tradition that keeps them out of the Church, it's their pride. It's their refusal to renounce the world and embrace the Church, to submit to the teaching of the Church, to submit to Apostolic authority, and to be unified with Christ through obedience to His bride, the Holy Catholic Church and her sacraments.
But despite all of this, there is a reason that Protestants go on praying, and keep going on missions trips, and keep trying to innovate new ways to keep each other excited about the Gospel, and keep digging through Jewish culture, and keep doing good works, and read their bibles, and show up to their churches which they know are wholly inadequate, and listen to their pastors who they regularly disagree with, and argue with each other about theology to no end seeking the truth. It's because they want what only tradition can give them. The substance of apostolic tradition is what they want, it's what they need. They need the sacraments and Christ keeps calling them to Himself through the sacraments, which they have cut themselves off from. He's like a man on the other side of a door to a pitch black room full of people looking for the same door, shouting," HERE!" hoping they find the door and then the handle. He sees how confused they are, how frantic they live, the nervous energy that possesses all their endeavors that comes from never knowing what to do next, and the perpetual longing for something more.
It's terribly ironic that APEs always invite people to have a 'deep personal relationship' with Jesus Christ, to make Him 'their personal Lord and Savior.' They only think about #1, me, me, me. But Jesus Christ is not only a personal savior, He is a communal savior. When we receive the Eucharist, we become one with Christ, because He enters not only into our souls, sharing His divinity, but He enters into our bodies, sharing His perfect humanity with us. Becoming one with Him in the Eucharist, we become one with all who partake of His Body and Blood. We become one with God and His Church, a perfect union in a single instant. There is nothing more personal than that; that is hyper-personal.
Listening to Christian rock, saying some personal prayers, talking to God like a buddy, flipping through a KJV bible, listening to Pastor 'X' and eating cracker/ juice packets is not a 'deep personal relationship.' Those things cannot replace the Eucharist and don't even come close to it. It is despair of this fact that drives Protestants to peddle what they cannot give... ' a deep personal relationship with God.' Because deep down, in his soul, every Christian recollects those non-negotiable words of Christ,"... Whoever does not eat My Flesh and drink My Blood has no life in him." The Protestant, the separated brethren, craves the Eucharist, which holy tradition transmits to us. There is only one place to get it: in the Churches of the Apostles. Pray for their conversions.
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
Showing posts with label Eucharist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eucharist. Show all posts
Monday, 31 January 2011
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
Humanity
Humanity is something that we all have; human is what we are. Our humanity is the "image" of God spoken of in Genesis. If we are totally depraved as the Calvinists say, then it follows necessarily that we are not human. If the image we were created in is totally depraved, there remains nothing left to call human. Christ is called the "kinsman redeemer." It was St. Gregory of Nazianzus who said that, that which is not assumed is not redeemed. Christ redeems humanity and if there is no humanity to redeem, then there is no redemption. The heretical doctrine of Total Depravity seeks to nullify the Incarnation.
Man is certainly depraved by concupiscence; that is not doubted or disputed. However, can one human be more human than another? By all means and this is the work of Christ. Let us begin a discussion of forms. Imagine before you there are two knives. One is dull on the point and on its edge, also corroded and dirty; the other knife is sharp on the point and on it's edge, clean and shinning. Further, imagine that the dull knife has a worn handle that is falling apart and dry rotted. And suppose that the sharp knife's handle is sturdy and sound. If necessity was upon you, which knife would you choose? Certainly, you would choose the sharper, cleaner, and sturdier knife over the dull, decaying knife.
Each of them are knives, no doubt. Yet, you would choose the good knife to the one in disrepair, because the good knife is more like a knife. That is to say, if we define as knife a tool of utility meant for the cutting of food and cloth and other things of a similar sort, then, it is evident to us that the good knife is truer in form to what a knife is than the shoddy knife. The good knife has more knifeness than the bad knife. So, it follows that while they are both knives, the good knife is more of a knife than the bad knife.
Again, let us examine a fruit, a plant. Imagine, that before you are two apple trees; one of them is blotched and cancerous, while the other is healthy and sound. Suppose that the desire to eat an apple came upon you, which tree would you extend your hand to? Would you choose the malformed and blotched, hard fruit of the cancerous apple tree? Or would you not be more likely to reach out and take an apple from the healthful tree, which is succulent, ripe, and shinning? To be sure, you would prefer the wholesome apple to the depraved apple for the very reason that it is more like an apple. It is better for eating and is without blemish or malformation, and is more like an apple than the diseased permutation. Therefore, the good apple and the bad are both apples, yet the good apple has more appleness than the bad apple.
Once more, let us examine animals. Imagine a bitch gave birth to a litter of pups and one of them was mutated, with a malformed jaw and sealed eyes, while it's siblings were sound in form. Suppose further that you were interested in obtaining a pup for breeding other dogs, so as to carry on a pure breed. Which would you choose for this venue? A sound animal or the mutant? Certainly, you would choose one of the sound offspring over the mutant, because it is more like it's own species and breed. Therefore, while all are certainly being dogs, the mutant is less of a dog than its siblings who are sound in form.
We could go on this way with angels as well, and any other species of plant, animal, or object ad infinitum, but there is no need. Therefore, it is rightly said that whatever is more like unto itself is truer. Here we digress to the issue of humanity.
Original Sin deformed mankind so that humanity became less like itself. As a means of remedy, Christ came as a man. In fact, as we can readily discern from our experiment, Christ was more human than the humans he lived amongst and came to die for. Thus, St. Paul was right in calling Him the Second Adam in that He had in His person undelimited humanity. Comparatively, if we use ourselves as the definition of what human means, Christ was superhuman. Yet, in point of fact, Christ alone is the definition of what a human is; He is completely human and it is we who are deficient in humanity.
The Eucharist, which may only be found in the Churches of the Apostles, is given unto us to strengthen us. By receiving the Eucharist, we not only obtain divine graces and mercy, but also become more human by virtue of Christ's humanity which we receive into ourselves. When we look at what God said to Adam in the Garden, we know that Adam was without death. Then, we look at what Christ, Who is God, says to us in the Gospel," Whoever does not eat of My Flesh and drink of My Blood has no life in Him."
This is the truth and we can go to no one else, for as the apostles said, who else has the words of Life? The more human we become, the more like God we become, because our humanity is being restored to its full glory, the true image of God. But this is not the end of Christ's work, for we are brought into God by receiving the Holy Spirit into us. But here, I've committed to only speaking to you about humanity and must digress from theosis and divinity, though admittedly they are intertwined.
Hitherto, those who faithfully receive the Eucharist and continue in it are becoming more human; they are attaining to Christ's humanity. This is why it is so important to be in a Church with VALID sacraments. This is the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. This is why one should be a Catholic, and why being a "Bible Christian" is not enough. This is only part of what the Most Blessed Sacrament does for us. It is the power of God to put our souls into order. It is the power of God to place our bodies in subjection to the soul. It is the power of God, to literally undo the Gordian Knot of sin and restore our nature. This is how God returns us to being a true microcosm of the Macrocosm, as discussed in my previous note Ecclesiasticus.
And everything on top of this is working out our salvation, attaining to and obtaining the promises of Christ, becoming joint heirs with Christ. How wonderful that we are not only set in order, having our humanity restored to us, but that we have separate graces so as to participate in the righteousness of God. This is eternal life, the Eucharist, the source and summit of our faith.
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
Man is certainly depraved by concupiscence; that is not doubted or disputed. However, can one human be more human than another? By all means and this is the work of Christ. Let us begin a discussion of forms. Imagine before you there are two knives. One is dull on the point and on its edge, also corroded and dirty; the other knife is sharp on the point and on it's edge, clean and shinning. Further, imagine that the dull knife has a worn handle that is falling apart and dry rotted. And suppose that the sharp knife's handle is sturdy and sound. If necessity was upon you, which knife would you choose? Certainly, you would choose the sharper, cleaner, and sturdier knife over the dull, decaying knife.
Each of them are knives, no doubt. Yet, you would choose the good knife to the one in disrepair, because the good knife is more like a knife. That is to say, if we define as knife a tool of utility meant for the cutting of food and cloth and other things of a similar sort, then, it is evident to us that the good knife is truer in form to what a knife is than the shoddy knife. The good knife has more knifeness than the bad knife. So, it follows that while they are both knives, the good knife is more of a knife than the bad knife.
Again, let us examine a fruit, a plant. Imagine, that before you are two apple trees; one of them is blotched and cancerous, while the other is healthy and sound. Suppose that the desire to eat an apple came upon you, which tree would you extend your hand to? Would you choose the malformed and blotched, hard fruit of the cancerous apple tree? Or would you not be more likely to reach out and take an apple from the healthful tree, which is succulent, ripe, and shinning? To be sure, you would prefer the wholesome apple to the depraved apple for the very reason that it is more like an apple. It is better for eating and is without blemish or malformation, and is more like an apple than the diseased permutation. Therefore, the good apple and the bad are both apples, yet the good apple has more appleness than the bad apple.
Once more, let us examine animals. Imagine a bitch gave birth to a litter of pups and one of them was mutated, with a malformed jaw and sealed eyes, while it's siblings were sound in form. Suppose further that you were interested in obtaining a pup for breeding other dogs, so as to carry on a pure breed. Which would you choose for this venue? A sound animal or the mutant? Certainly, you would choose one of the sound offspring over the mutant, because it is more like it's own species and breed. Therefore, while all are certainly being dogs, the mutant is less of a dog than its siblings who are sound in form.
We could go on this way with angels as well, and any other species of plant, animal, or object ad infinitum, but there is no need. Therefore, it is rightly said that whatever is more like unto itself is truer. Here we digress to the issue of humanity.
Original Sin deformed mankind so that humanity became less like itself. As a means of remedy, Christ came as a man. In fact, as we can readily discern from our experiment, Christ was more human than the humans he lived amongst and came to die for. Thus, St. Paul was right in calling Him the Second Adam in that He had in His person undelimited humanity. Comparatively, if we use ourselves as the definition of what human means, Christ was superhuman. Yet, in point of fact, Christ alone is the definition of what a human is; He is completely human and it is we who are deficient in humanity.
The Eucharist, which may only be found in the Churches of the Apostles, is given unto us to strengthen us. By receiving the Eucharist, we not only obtain divine graces and mercy, but also become more human by virtue of Christ's humanity which we receive into ourselves. When we look at what God said to Adam in the Garden, we know that Adam was without death. Then, we look at what Christ, Who is God, says to us in the Gospel," Whoever does not eat of My Flesh and drink of My Blood has no life in Him."
This is the truth and we can go to no one else, for as the apostles said, who else has the words of Life? The more human we become, the more like God we become, because our humanity is being restored to its full glory, the true image of God. But this is not the end of Christ's work, for we are brought into God by receiving the Holy Spirit into us. But here, I've committed to only speaking to you about humanity and must digress from theosis and divinity, though admittedly they are intertwined.
Hitherto, those who faithfully receive the Eucharist and continue in it are becoming more human; they are attaining to Christ's humanity. This is why it is so important to be in a Church with VALID sacraments. This is the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. This is why one should be a Catholic, and why being a "Bible Christian" is not enough. This is only part of what the Most Blessed Sacrament does for us. It is the power of God to put our souls into order. It is the power of God to place our bodies in subjection to the soul. It is the power of God, to literally undo the Gordian Knot of sin and restore our nature. This is how God returns us to being a true microcosm of the Macrocosm, as discussed in my previous note Ecclesiasticus.
And everything on top of this is working out our salvation, attaining to and obtaining the promises of Christ, becoming joint heirs with Christ. How wonderful that we are not only set in order, having our humanity restored to us, but that we have separate graces so as to participate in the righteousness of God. This is eternal life, the Eucharist, the source and summit of our faith.
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
Thursday, 30 December 2010
To Those Uninitated Who Think They Should Be Allowed To Receive Catholic Eucharist (Communion)
Very often I find people who are not Catholic who are offended at the tradition in the Churches of the Apostles, whether they be in the East or in the West, whereby, they are refused the privilege of receiving the Most Holy Sacrament. Their reasoning goes something like this:
"I'm a Christian and therefore I should be allowed to receive."
So, for all of you outside of the Churches of the Apostles, holding a different opinion than the tradition handed down from the Apostles, I'm going to put forth the sound reasons for your exclusion from the Feast.
In the first place, many of you do not share the belief held by the Apostolic Churches that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. Many of you are of the different opinion that communion is merely a sign and an ordinance. That is, you think the communion is a sign to remind you of Jesus Christ's Passion so that it initiates you in a spiritual and intellectual manner into a deeper love and reverence of God. You think that it is an ordinance, that is, something ordered to be done amongst believers by Christ and on those grounds you execute what you have effectively reduced to a mere ordinance. You have the bread to "remember" His body, and you have the grape juice to "remember" his blood.
For the Catholic and Orthodox Christian, however, we believe that the fullness of Christ's body, blood, soul, and divinity mystically abide under the species of bread and wine. We confess that in a great mystery Christ is substantially present in the Eucharist. The wine no longer being wine, but blood. The bread no longer being purest wheat, but flesh. We believe this so much so, we profess that the Communion, as you prefer to call it, is the source and summit of our faith, because it is God and our revelation of God. We will kneel down and worship what were once mere elements of bread and wine, knowing and confessing that they have mysteriously through the power of the Holy Spirit, at the good pleasure of the Eternal Father, become the Body and Blood of our King and our God, Jesus Christ.
For us, it is a sacrament, something which literally and truly initiates us in an ontological sense into the mystery of becoming One with God. We hold the Eucharist to be a symbol to the eye and a sacrifice in fact. To those of you who would level the accusation that we mean to "re-sacrifice" Christ, that is another evidence that you are not in communion with us. God 'IS,' because He is outside of time and, therefore, completely in all time. So, whatever happened to Christ in His life as a human 'IS' being, right now. His Passion has taken on the same infinite attribute that is unique to His essence, because only God is infinite and He is God. By this we know and have no need to debate with anyone, that the Eucharist is not "re-sacrificing" Christ, but only the reality of what 'IS.' So, we make a good profession of these truths.
Hitherto, some of you say you agree with us. Others of you say that you don't agree with us. To those of you who agree, how can you partake of communion if you are not in communion? The Eucharist requires participation of the whole person, body and soul. The Body of Christ is the Church and the Body exists because of the common faith, because without the common faith in common things, there is no body. How can you then say that you discern the body of Christ in the Eucharist, but can not discern the Body of Christ, which is the Church, all around you? St. Paul commands that everyone discern the Body, lest they eat and drink unto condemnation. If you say you do discern, then why aren't you in the Church of the Apostles? You testify against yourselves! And will you continue to think that we have done something arrogant and rude to you, because we did not enable you to eat and to drink unto condemnation of yourselves?
To those of you who had disagreed, I say much the same. To your sensibilities we have become idolaters and cannibals. Will you partake of a feast of idols? Will you become a cannibal? I don't speak as though you are of the right opinion, but in such a manner which is not at all incongruent with your beliefs and in such a way as should be fitting to your conscience if you have these heterodox opinions. Take measure of what you believe; and will you still act so offended as though we did something evil to you, when it was our tradition which prevented your imprudence from making you a cannibal or making you in communion with the cup of idols? Again, I am only speaking in accordance with your opinions and not those of the Church.
Further, to each of you, no Catholic or Orthodox may receive while being in a state of mortal sin. This is so that Christ is not offended. Also, no one being stubbornly anathema in their denial of the dogmas of the Church should ever receive, because they are ipso facto out of communion with the Body of Christ. Again, this is so that Christ is not offended. Will any of you deny that Christ is offended? St. Paul said that some had died and fallen ill and become weak because of eating unworthily. Do you think that happened for no reason, or does not your reason lead you to the perfect knowledge that Christ is truly offended by those who partake unworthily? If so, why then are you compelling us, those who you are not even in communion with, to assist you in offending God? Why should we take you at your word that you are receiving worthily without any evidence of it? Confession, baptism and confirmation would be sufficient signs to the Body of Christ, which is the Church that you are receiving worthily. Why should we do as you do, giving the communion indiscriminately to any and all who enter through the doors of your places of gathering, whether they be Christians or otherwise, in opposition to the sacred scriptures?
Again, on the other hand, why are you compelling us to be complicit in your own harm? Why should we who have been given the sacred task of being Light in the world, be the same people who lead you to punishment? Why are you compelling us to get you into trouble? You are like a boy telling another boy to push him up over a fence; and if you fall and break your arm will you not both be in trouble?! Stop being offended then and know that no one has deprived you the privilege to receive because of hatred, arrogance, or elitism. It is prudence and integrity that deprives you.
Speaking even more plainly, as stated before, no Catholic or Orthodox may receive without being confessed, unless they are without mortal sin. Not even the children of the Church may do this; no bishop, no Pope, no priest, no deacon, and no laity may receive in this state. In fact, it has always been the tradition and teaching of the Apostles that no one is to ever receive without having made a first confession and being chrismated. How can you, who have never been confessed and who have not made a public profession of faith in the Body of Christ, which is the Church, receive the Eucharist? You are accusing us of arrogance, but here you think that you should be allowed to do what we do not even allow ourselves to do! You declare you have the right to circumvent us? You declare you have a right to our most Holy Treasure, without first giving a sign that you are worthy? You scorn everything that we are and have, but this, our Most Holy Sacrament, you demand?
Truly, none of us would come to you to receive what you call an ordinance, which is your own concept of communion. Never! The one who does such a thing would betray his faith, communing with those who are of a different opinion. Also, Christ said to partake of the Eucharist as often as you come together, yet you are not. You only quarterly take your wafer and juice packets, some more frequently. However, we come together so that we may receive the Eucharist, because it is the source and summit of our faith. We do this everyday, not only on Sundays and Wednesday which are your choice days of meeting. We do this throughout the whole earth, reading the same readings, partaking of the same body and blood. You come together to partake in scripture which is the center of your worship; we come together for the Eucharist, which is the center of our worship. We are different men.
Yet, some of you think that it is your right to take communion, because you are called by the name Christian. How can this be sufficient? If five sisters marry five brothers can any sister have any brother she desires? All of them have the same last name, all of them are equally married. However, they are not all equally bound in the sacrament of marriage, because one is wed to another and another is wed to another. Many of you are married, but you are not married to everyone, you may not have your neighbors wife, but only your own. There is schism in the Church between the East and the West, but one Church in essence and these may legitimately receive from one another, being Churches of the Apostles; however, this excludes separated brethren which are the Protestants and heretics, whom we trust will attain the Mercy and Grace of Christ in an extraordinary way in the resurrection.
The Church is the Bride of Christ and you profess to be the Body of Christ. Why then are you attempting to have two spouses? Why are you turning the matter into an affair of adultery? Why are you going to the places of Protestants who are separated and then to those whom they are separated from? It would be better for you to pick one or the other instead of engaging in adultery. Think about what you are doing with the temple of Christ, which is your body. Will you try to enter into two women? Why are you trying to enter into two fundamentally different bodies of faith? Take account of what it is precisely you are trying to do.
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
"I'm a Christian and therefore I should be allowed to receive."
So, for all of you outside of the Churches of the Apostles, holding a different opinion than the tradition handed down from the Apostles, I'm going to put forth the sound reasons for your exclusion from the Feast.
In the first place, many of you do not share the belief held by the Apostolic Churches that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. Many of you are of the different opinion that communion is merely a sign and an ordinance. That is, you think the communion is a sign to remind you of Jesus Christ's Passion so that it initiates you in a spiritual and intellectual manner into a deeper love and reverence of God. You think that it is an ordinance, that is, something ordered to be done amongst believers by Christ and on those grounds you execute what you have effectively reduced to a mere ordinance. You have the bread to "remember" His body, and you have the grape juice to "remember" his blood.
For the Catholic and Orthodox Christian, however, we believe that the fullness of Christ's body, blood, soul, and divinity mystically abide under the species of bread and wine. We confess that in a great mystery Christ is substantially present in the Eucharist. The wine no longer being wine, but blood. The bread no longer being purest wheat, but flesh. We believe this so much so, we profess that the Communion, as you prefer to call it, is the source and summit of our faith, because it is God and our revelation of God. We will kneel down and worship what were once mere elements of bread and wine, knowing and confessing that they have mysteriously through the power of the Holy Spirit, at the good pleasure of the Eternal Father, become the Body and Blood of our King and our God, Jesus Christ.
For us, it is a sacrament, something which literally and truly initiates us in an ontological sense into the mystery of becoming One with God. We hold the Eucharist to be a symbol to the eye and a sacrifice in fact. To those of you who would level the accusation that we mean to "re-sacrifice" Christ, that is another evidence that you are not in communion with us. God 'IS,' because He is outside of time and, therefore, completely in all time. So, whatever happened to Christ in His life as a human 'IS' being, right now. His Passion has taken on the same infinite attribute that is unique to His essence, because only God is infinite and He is God. By this we know and have no need to debate with anyone, that the Eucharist is not "re-sacrificing" Christ, but only the reality of what 'IS.' So, we make a good profession of these truths.
Hitherto, some of you say you agree with us. Others of you say that you don't agree with us. To those of you who agree, how can you partake of communion if you are not in communion? The Eucharist requires participation of the whole person, body and soul. The Body of Christ is the Church and the Body exists because of the common faith, because without the common faith in common things, there is no body. How can you then say that you discern the body of Christ in the Eucharist, but can not discern the Body of Christ, which is the Church, all around you? St. Paul commands that everyone discern the Body, lest they eat and drink unto condemnation. If you say you do discern, then why aren't you in the Church of the Apostles? You testify against yourselves! And will you continue to think that we have done something arrogant and rude to you, because we did not enable you to eat and to drink unto condemnation of yourselves?
To those of you who had disagreed, I say much the same. To your sensibilities we have become idolaters and cannibals. Will you partake of a feast of idols? Will you become a cannibal? I don't speak as though you are of the right opinion, but in such a manner which is not at all incongruent with your beliefs and in such a way as should be fitting to your conscience if you have these heterodox opinions. Take measure of what you believe; and will you still act so offended as though we did something evil to you, when it was our tradition which prevented your imprudence from making you a cannibal or making you in communion with the cup of idols? Again, I am only speaking in accordance with your opinions and not those of the Church.
Further, to each of you, no Catholic or Orthodox may receive while being in a state of mortal sin. This is so that Christ is not offended. Also, no one being stubbornly anathema in their denial of the dogmas of the Church should ever receive, because they are ipso facto out of communion with the Body of Christ. Again, this is so that Christ is not offended. Will any of you deny that Christ is offended? St. Paul said that some had died and fallen ill and become weak because of eating unworthily. Do you think that happened for no reason, or does not your reason lead you to the perfect knowledge that Christ is truly offended by those who partake unworthily? If so, why then are you compelling us, those who you are not even in communion with, to assist you in offending God? Why should we take you at your word that you are receiving worthily without any evidence of it? Confession, baptism and confirmation would be sufficient signs to the Body of Christ, which is the Church that you are receiving worthily. Why should we do as you do, giving the communion indiscriminately to any and all who enter through the doors of your places of gathering, whether they be Christians or otherwise, in opposition to the sacred scriptures?
Again, on the other hand, why are you compelling us to be complicit in your own harm? Why should we who have been given the sacred task of being Light in the world, be the same people who lead you to punishment? Why are you compelling us to get you into trouble? You are like a boy telling another boy to push him up over a fence; and if you fall and break your arm will you not both be in trouble?! Stop being offended then and know that no one has deprived you the privilege to receive because of hatred, arrogance, or elitism. It is prudence and integrity that deprives you.
Speaking even more plainly, as stated before, no Catholic or Orthodox may receive without being confessed, unless they are without mortal sin. Not even the children of the Church may do this; no bishop, no Pope, no priest, no deacon, and no laity may receive in this state. In fact, it has always been the tradition and teaching of the Apostles that no one is to ever receive without having made a first confession and being chrismated. How can you, who have never been confessed and who have not made a public profession of faith in the Body of Christ, which is the Church, receive the Eucharist? You are accusing us of arrogance, but here you think that you should be allowed to do what we do not even allow ourselves to do! You declare you have the right to circumvent us? You declare you have a right to our most Holy Treasure, without first giving a sign that you are worthy? You scorn everything that we are and have, but this, our Most Holy Sacrament, you demand?
Truly, none of us would come to you to receive what you call an ordinance, which is your own concept of communion. Never! The one who does such a thing would betray his faith, communing with those who are of a different opinion. Also, Christ said to partake of the Eucharist as often as you come together, yet you are not. You only quarterly take your wafer and juice packets, some more frequently. However, we come together so that we may receive the Eucharist, because it is the source and summit of our faith. We do this everyday, not only on Sundays and Wednesday which are your choice days of meeting. We do this throughout the whole earth, reading the same readings, partaking of the same body and blood. You come together to partake in scripture which is the center of your worship; we come together for the Eucharist, which is the center of our worship. We are different men.
Yet, some of you think that it is your right to take communion, because you are called by the name Christian. How can this be sufficient? If five sisters marry five brothers can any sister have any brother she desires? All of them have the same last name, all of them are equally married. However, they are not all equally bound in the sacrament of marriage, because one is wed to another and another is wed to another. Many of you are married, but you are not married to everyone, you may not have your neighbors wife, but only your own. There is schism in the Church between the East and the West, but one Church in essence and these may legitimately receive from one another, being Churches of the Apostles; however, this excludes separated brethren which are the Protestants and heretics, whom we trust will attain the Mercy and Grace of Christ in an extraordinary way in the resurrection.
The Church is the Bride of Christ and you profess to be the Body of Christ. Why then are you attempting to have two spouses? Why are you turning the matter into an affair of adultery? Why are you going to the places of Protestants who are separated and then to those whom they are separated from? It would be better for you to pick one or the other instead of engaging in adultery. Think about what you are doing with the temple of Christ, which is your body. Will you try to enter into two women? Why are you trying to enter into two fundamentally different bodies of faith? Take account of what it is precisely you are trying to do.
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)