Per Christum

It’s good to be Home in Rome after Swimming the Tiber on my Journey to the Fullness of the Faith of the Surprisingly Catholic Church Fathers who Gave Us the Bible.

(†posted at Chad Is Not Enough)

Yesterday was the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul; today is the commemoration of the First Martyrs of the Church at Rome. Unfortunately, most non Catholic/Orthodox Christians, and nowadays even many Catholics, are like, “So what? What’s the big deal?” We live in a world where the past is just that, past and done with, where someone’s clothes or hairstyle is ridiculed with a flippant, “That’s so five minutes ago!” What matters in our fast food, up-to-date technologized, past mocking “culture” (I use that word very loosely here) is how with the latest fad one is…the latest song, clothing style, meditation technique, and on and on. But for Catholics who know what and why they believe the past is not gone and over with for the words and deeds of the Saints form a golden chain of Life that reaches into our own, often silly and frivolous, time.

In the Anglican Book of Common Prayer collects for the feasts of the Saints and other holy days are often introduced with these or like words, “Almighty God, who makest us glad with the yearly remembrance…” To remember those who have lived and died for Christ in ages past and now live IN Christ in Eternal Life is to be “made glad”. Glad that we have their examples, glad that their witness kept the Faith alive and continuing, and glad that, by commemorating them before God, we may even NOW, TODAY have participation in their prayers and praises. No fad-followers, they staked their very souls on the Truth of the One who is the same “yesterday, today, and forever”. Following them, remembering them, and asking their intercession, let us do so as well.

O God, You make us glad with the yearly remembrance of Your first martyrs at Rome: Grant that we who hallow their memory may be encouraged by their examples and aided by their prayers and, following them in authentic and holy living, may come at last to the joys of Your Kingdom, through Christ our Lord. Amen.

We need to frankly admit that everybody uses private judment in their lives. Catholics must use private judgment whenever they consciously submit themselves to authority. We use it whenever we make an argument for Tradition or the Magisterium. Protestants also use private judgment whenever they recognize the scriptures as authoritative documents. In short, to recognize anything as authoritative requires private judgment, no matter what it is.

The Church has historically taught that God can be apprehended by faith only after the rational and personal consideration of philosophical arguments for the existence of God. Moreover, faith in Christ is acquired by the consideration of historical evidence. These considerations are known as the “preambles of faith,” and private judgment and personal use of reason is of course necessary to understand them.

There are many Catholics who make arguments against Sola Scriptura with a line of reasoning somewhat like this: “You cannot know for certain that your own interpretation of the Bible is true, because you are a fallible man and there are many smarter people than you who do not believe as you do.” To which the Protestant will invariably respond: “You cannot know for certain that your Magisterium is true, either.”The problem with that kind of argumentation is that it sets up an unreasonable demand for absolute epistemological certainty in matters of doctrine. Like Renee Descartes, the Catholic tries to find a strong foundation upon which to build an edifice of knoweledge, but only finds out that he can know nothing with absolute certainty… the Church cannot ensure an absolute epistemological certainty, but only a relative one. It is only within the realm of the Church that we can be sure that our ideas are correct, but it is entirely another matter when we question whether the Church itself is in the right.

I think that it is important to offer this corrective whenever we discuss Sola Scriptura with Protestants, because I observed that:

3) Protestants, usually at the instigation of some Catholic polemicists, often misrepresent the “epistemology” of Catholicism. They might, for example, assume that private judgment has no place whatsoever within the life of the Church and that no Catholic is allowed to “think for himself.” When they try to argue against the claims of Catholicism, they inevitably wind up attacking a strawman.

Take, for example, this quotation from George Salmon’s 1888 book The Infallibility of the Church:

“BEFORE coming to the immediate subject of this lecture, I find it convenient to mention a very interesting book, published several years ago by Mr. Capes, one of those who went over to Rome about the same time as Dr. Newman, but who, unlike him, did not submit to having his eyes quite blindfolded, and consequently saw reason to distrust the guide whom he had chosen, and therefore returned to the Church of England. His reasons were given in the book of which I speak. In this he tells that he had been about five years a Roman Catholic before he fully understood the nature of the claim made by members of that communion. About that time he was taken to task by one of the leading divines of that Church for having spoken of the certainty which they had of the truths of their religion, as in its nature moral, not absolute; that is to say, as amounting to a very high kind of probability, and nothing more. He was informed that a Catholic possesses absolute certainty as to the truths of revealed religion, which are taught him by an infallible Church, in whose statements he believes with an undoubting faith, which faith is the supernatural gift of God. His knowledge, then, of the supernatural truths of Christianity is alleged to be absolute, and to admit of neither criticism nor doubt.”

Salmon makes many similar statements like this throughout the book, and it forms one of his core arguments against the Catholic Church. Now, even if we allow for the fact that Salmon does make many considerable mischaracterizations of his opponents throughout his work (eg., he misrepresents Newman in many places, as well as Vatican I’s statements on the nature of faith), his anecdote does represent fairly well the attitudes of some Catholic polemicists of his day. Even if this particular story is false, there were undoubtedly a few Catholics who made similar statements to the one Salmon mentions.

It is important to remember that Salmon’s book was and still is one of the most widely read Protestant apologetic work against Catholicism. It represents a common strain of Protestant apologetical arguments that pop up whenever Catholics mention the need for an authoritative Magisterium. This most commonly occurs whenever we argue against Sola Scriptura solely on the epistemological level, and that is why I have mentioned above the need to critique Sola Scriptura in its ecclesiological dimensions.

First, we would like to welcome our friend and contributor Chad into the Catholic Church. Chad will be received and confirmed tonight at 6:30 PM Central Time. Shoot him an email of congratulations. Welcome aboard Chad!

Second, our very own NiceneHobbit has a new blog, Nicene Hobbit’s Hole. Have a visit!

A little less than a month ago, David Bennett wrote on this blog these words: “There is no plain meaning of Scripture, as the phrase is commonly understood.” He went on to write:

Maybe it is the postmodern in me, but my contact with Christians of all denominations has convinced me no such thing exists, at least not as popularly understood. If there were a “plain sense” of Scripture, an obviously clear reading that can’t be missed, a reading that is available if one just tries hard enough in humility, the hundreds of denominations that appeal to the “plain meaning” of Scripture would be in agreement. Even in matters of the so-called essentials or salvation issues, denominations appealing to the “plain sense” of Scripture can’t agree (the Calvinist-Arminian debate proves this). Wars could have been avoided, thousands of gallons of ink conserved, and millions of trees saved. Let me put it this way: If I had computer installation instructions that hundreds of different groups interpreted hundreds of different ways, I would question how plain these instructions were. While talking of the “plain meaning” of Scripture may work in theory, in reality, the Bible’s ultimate meaning is anything but clear if the number of denominations is any indication.

I agree with him in his basic point: there is no “plain meaning” in Scripture, as the term is commonly understood. This is an argument that Catholics have been using for centuries since the Reformation: if Sola Scriptura is true, and the Bible can be readily understood by faithful Christians, then why is there so much factionalism within the churches of Protestantism?

Another argument that Catholics have often used is the appeal to antiquity: if the doctrines of Protestantism are the result of the true interpretation of Scripture, then why have no other Christians in history interpreted it like Protestants have? Why, for example, is the Lutheran doctrine of imputed righteousness completely absent from the writings of the Patristic Church?

Thus Thomas More answered a letter from John Bugenhagen in 1526:

The church of Christ has never yet believed what you teach. It has always rejected it, cursed it, destroyed it by fire… If, then, your doctrines are true and confirmed by clear texts in Scripture, you have to admit that the gates of hell have continuously prevailed against God’s scripture. But if, on the
other hand, what you say is true, that the gates of hell have never prevailed against the scripture of God, then you admit that the faith of the church has always been in agreement with God’s scripture.

In opposition to Protestantism, post-Tridentine Catholicism has traditionally emphasized that Scripture be read within the context of Church tradition. Wherever controversies erupted within the precincts of Catholicism, the Magisterium was the final arbiter in matters of faith. This model was the Church’s answer to Protestantism’s emphasis on Sola Scriptura and individual Bible reading.

Unfortunately, this model was also very easy to caricature. Throughout the Protestant colonies of New England, for example, it was widely assumed that Catholics never thought for themselves. That stereotype has also continued up until our own day. To the degree that Catholics have emphasized reliance on the Magisterium and solidarity with the universal Church, Protestants have likewise attacked Catholics as being brainwashed dolts that are too timid to open up a Bible and read it for themselves. Moreover, this argument has also been interpreted by Protestants as an attack upon the Sacred Scriptures of which Paul writes: “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” Our arguments are thus perceived as an attack on the “sufficiency of Scripture,” and therefore upon Scripture itself.

In order to properly present the Catholic teaching on Scripture and Tradition, we Catholics need to avoid these distortions. All too often in apologetic debates, these caricatures are given ample warrant by Catholic polemicists who constantly attack “private judgment.”

We need to frankly admit that everybody uses private judment in their lives. Catholics must use private judgment whenever they consciously submit themselves to authority. We use it whenever we make an argument for Tradition or the Magisterium. Protestants also use private judgment whenever they recognize the scriptures as authoritative documents. In short, to recognize anything as authoritative requires private judgment, no matter what it is.

The Church has historically taught that God can be apprehended by faith only after the rational and personal consideration of philosophical arguments for the existence of God. Moreover, faith in Christ is acquired by the consideration of historical evidence. These considerations are known as the “preambles of faith,” and private judgment and personal use of reason is of course necessary to understand them.

There are many Catholics who make arguments against Sola Scriptura with a line of reasoning somewhat like this: “You cannot know for certain that your own interpretation of the Bible is true, because you are a fallible man and there are many smarter people than you who do not believe as you do.” To which the Protestant will invariably respond: “You cannot know for certain that your Magisterium is true, either.”

The problem with that kind of argumentation is that it sets up an unreasonable demand for absolute epistemological certainty in matters of doctrine. Like Renee Descartes, the Catholic tries to find a strong foundation upon which to build an edifice of knoweledge, but only finds out that he can know nothing with absolute certainty.

Our approach to apologetics should therefore be very cautious in its manner of presentation. There are several important nuances that should not be neglected whenever we propose an argument. For one thing, the Church cannot ensure an absolute epistemological certainty, but only a relative one. It is only within the realm of the Church that we can be sure that our ideas are correct, but it is entirely another matter when we question whether the Church itself is in the right. And even within the precincts of the Church, Catholics are still given a wide range of freedom to develop their own thought. Of course, there exists a certain tension between individual thought and Church teachings, yet this tension exists within Protestantism itself. There are always men who try to push the authority as far as it can go, whether it be Scripture or the Church. And of course, one crucial difference between the two is that the Church can respond of its own accord and deliniate the boundaries of Catholic faith, while Scripture cannot and is latent in the hands of its interpreters.

Moreover, there is another point which Catholics need to make whenever they are presenting their case: the Catholic approach at least works ecclesiologically, if nothing else. On the other hand, Sola Scriptura, as I will show below, cannot keep the church together against the forces of schism which daily threaten it. This brings out another important aspect in our argumentation: criticism from the ecclesiological perspective.

As a corollary to this ecclesiological criticism, any arguments against “biblical perpescuity” should be centered less upon Scripture itself than the status and dispositions of those who read the sacred texts. While “there are some things in them hard to understand” (2 Peter 3:16), nevertheless our arguments are more effective and convincing when we concentrate upon the people and groups who actually try to sit down and read the Bible rather than the Bible itself. The more we concentrate on Sola Scriptura from the ecclesiological angle, the more absurd the doctrine appears to be. There is an additional benefit from placing the study of Sola Scriptura within an ecclesiological perspective: it becomes possible to judge the doctrine on the basis of concrete evidence. We cannot reasonably measure Sola Scriptura as long as it remains an obscure and distant theological principle, but we can gauge its effects within the lives of individual Christians and churches.

From this perspective, the effects of Sola Scriptura are brought out more fully in all their deficiencies. We can see how the Protestant “rule of faith” has split innumerable churches and caused denominationalism as we know it. We can measure how the principle has encouraged the modern “lone vagabond” style of sprituality and church hopping.

I am not saying that it isn’t important for people to point out the historical and biblical arguments against Sola Scriptura. I am merely saying that it is important to not neglect the mass of concrete evidence that we have at our disposal. And that is preferrable to the common method of attacking the Bible’s perpescuity, because it does not risk the danger of making Catholics appear to be unable to read and understand Scripture for themselves.

It is already obvious that Sola Scriptura is an ecclesiological faliure. If we take, as an example, the common Lutheran claim that “imputed righteousness” is the essence of the Gospel, then we find certain insuperable problems for the adherent of Sola Scriptura:

i. This doctrine was virtually never taught until the arrival of the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century. The term “justification” was almost always interpreted in a transformationalist sense, as opposed to a strictly forensic one.

ii. Protestants themselves have disagreed amongst themselves as to the exact meaning of this doctrine. Immediately during and after the Reformation, questions have arisen among Protestants concerning such issues as:

a) the permanence of justification and perseverance
b) the relationship of justification to the sacraments and baptism
c) the exact nature of “justifying faith”
d) the relationship between a justified person and the law
e) the effects of justification

All of these questions have produced difficulties that have produced disagreements that in turn split churches. There are many modern Protestant denominations who only hold to Luther’s doctrine in a very loose sense, if at all. Moreover, the Protestants who now hold to Luther’s insistence on fides nuda (as opposed to fides caritate formata) in the role of justification are now probably in a very small minority.

iii. Aside from Protestantism, the two main historical branches of Christianity, Orthodoxy and Catholicism, still do not hold to the doctrine of “imputed righteousness,” even though it is now already five hundred years after the Reformation occured.

iv. There are many modern Biblical scholars, such as James D. G. Dunn and N.T. Wright, who think that Paul meant an altogether different thing by the word “justification” than how it was understood in the time of the Reformation. This would remove Paul entierely from the field of the Catholic/Protestant debates, thus ending the traditional Protestant reliance on Paul for these disputes.

The history of imputed righteousness was just one example of the unworkability of Sola Scriptura. There have also been many schisms within Protestantism as a result of differences over ecclesiology and sacramentalism. By pursuing this line of reasoning, we can show how the ecclesiological effects of the doctrine are simply pernicious. And it is often the case that after all the disputes and arguments are over, and when the schisms have done their damage to the church, that critical scholarship reveals that the debates had absolutely nothing to do with what the Biblical author really meant in the first place. Protestants must ask themselves: “If Sola Scriptura is such a great principle, why doesn’t it work in practice?” As Thomas More said, “If, then, your doctrines are true and confirmed by clear texts in Scripture, then you have to admit that the gates of hell have continuously prevailed against God’s scripture.”

(continued)

The last post I made on the Charismatic Episcopal Church, What’s Up With the Charismatic Episcopal Church?, has received a lot of visits and insightful comments. Apparently this blog is one of the few sources of information about what is actually happening inside the Charismatic Episcopal Church. I didn’t intend for that post to develop into a source of news on the CEC, but I am glad that those who are looking for news can find it here. I do not want the comments to develop into a bashing session, and so far on the other post they have been respectful. I am honestly curious about the future of the CEC, a church I once considered joining, and do not wish the demise of any church.

There was, at the time of the original post, an official statement regarding recent developments in the CEC on the ICCEC website. This was removed soon after this post.

***Discussion about issues surrounding the Charismatic Episcopal Church have moved over to our forum. Discussion on this matter is continuing, so please stop over for more information.***

I just found out that David Zampino has a blog. David Zampino is a former CEC priest who is now Catholic. I knew of David through his Amazon.com’s book reviews. He and I often reviewed many of the same books, and we were known to each other through Amazon’s friends and favorites program. I was delighted to find out that David became Catholic in February 2005, six months after my confirmation. He has posted some interesting information about the future of the Charismatic Episcopal Church, and the issues surrounding the Great Lakes Diocese, Bishop Fick, and his own father, (former) CEC Bishop Philip Zampino. I suggest that those visiting this blog looking for information on the CEC check out his blog as well, and continue to pray for the leaders of the CEC, even if you don’t fully agree with their views.

I wanted to explain a little bit about the history of the Charismatic Episcopal Church for those readers who may be unfamiliar with the church. The CEC did not break away from any Anglican or Episcopalian body. It was formed by charismatic pastors who came to a more ancient and catholic understanding of Christianity. The CEC is (ideally) a convergence of three streams of thought and practice: the sacramental, the evangelical, and the charismatic. Many parishes use the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer in their worship.

William J. Bennet has recently published an excerpt of his recent book America: the Last Best Hope. He explodes the myth that the modern concepts of natural rights and international law originated with the philosophy of John Locke and eighteenth-century British rationalism. Rather, these were products of Catholic Christianity that were elucidated in the sixteenth-century disputes over the rights of American Indians that involved such figures as Bartolome de Las Casas and Francisco de Vittoria. This has also been eloquently pointed out in Thomas Wood’s great book How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.

An excerpt from the excerpt:

“Speculation about the nature of the Indians—were they fully human?—led such Spanish thinkers as the Dominican friar Francisco de Vitoria to write extensively on the nature of human rights. He deserves to be ranked along with Suarez and Grotius as founders of modern international law.

Among Vitoria’s firm principles were these:

Every Indian is a man and thus capable of attaining salvation or damnation.
The Indians may not be deprived of their goods or power on account of their social backwardness.
Every man has the right to the truth, to education . . .By natural law, every man has the right to his own life and to physical and mental integrity.
The Indians have the right not to be baptized and not to be forced to convert against their will.

Critics have pointed out that these morally sophisticated principles were rarely honored in Latin America. That may be true, but where else were such principles even enunciated and defended? And it should be remembered that these leading thinkers were churchmen, not governors. Few of today’s critics would argue for the state to be run by the church. Still, might the criticism of Spanish conduct in Latin America be not that it was too Catholic, but that it was not Catholic enough?”

Get the Entire Excerpt Here

But an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert road. And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Can’dace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the scripture which he was reading was this: “As a sheep led to the slaughter or a lamb before its shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken up from the earth.” And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, pray, does the prophet say this, about himself or about some one else?” Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus. (Acts 8:26-35, RSV)

I have been reading a lot of the news relating to the Episcopal church lately (over at Titusonenine and Thinking Anglicans), and this is what I see operating in most of the mainline protestant churches:

-Individuals in the same church who disagree substantially and fundamentally about what constitutes true Christianity and the implications of this. I am not talking about side issues, but fundamentally

-Individuals in the same church who absolutely have no trust in one another, and who work tirelessly and politically to wear down and halt the actions of the other side

-Individuals in the same church who have a fundamentally and substantially different vision of Jesus, God, morality, sacraments, and authority

-The presence of a kind of relativism that has essentially allowed all positions, even positions that are mutually exclusive, to de facto co-exist as being of equal authortity. Ambiguous language, the unwillingness to discipline errant leaders, and the open embrace of positions and ideas contradicted by official teachings and canons (and no desire to change the canons, despite widespread ignoring of the canons), have all led to a system of authority where a variety of mutually exclusive positions are de facto normative teaching. As an example: In the Catholic Church we have dissenters, but our authority structure clearly shows that it is they who are in error, even if the dissenters are not silenced. In the mainlines there seems to be no mechanism to determine who is right and who is wrong.

There are at least 3 separate churches in the Episcopal church, maybe even more. Each group believes it is the true manifestation of classical Anglicanism. Each group is sure Scripture supports their position. Each group is sure that the other group is rude, exclusive, and oppressive. Take a look over at Fr. Jake Stops the World, and look how friendly and inclusive even the so-called inclusive folks are (check out the comments). So is true Anglicanism radically diverse and inclusive or is true Anglicanism simply the faith of the undivided[sic] Patristic Church in an English context? Historically it is hard to figure, and really depends on whom you ask. Regardless, all the while the nasty debates rage, the media picks up on this and it becomes a scandal to the faith.

This issue is complicated by the fact that we live in a postmodern age. There are very few social pressures on one to remain in a certain denomination when there are hundreds of different churches in a metro area. Anglo-Catholics are having trouble staying Episcopalian, when they know there are Catholic, Orthodox, and Continuing Anglican parishes down the road. Evangelical Episcopalians are experiencing similar concerns when there are myriad evangelical parishes within driving distance. We no longer have one state church in which every group must get along, but multiple denominations. Thus there is very little reason to stay in a warring denomination, when you can walk down the street, keep your same views, and be a member in a (basically) non-warring denomination.

Is it time for amicable and charitable splits in the bitterly divided mainline protestant churches? Is it time for a recognition that the in-fighting is poisonous and both sides would be better suited if they acted autonomously?

It’s not really my business, but I think maybe it is time. What do you think?

[Note: my intention in writing this had nothing to do with validity of sacraments per se, but effectiveness and common witness]

Below are excerpts from On the Mysteries by St. Ambrose of Milan, the 4th century bishop, teacher, and mentor of St. Augustine.

On Sacraments in General:
Open, then, your ears, inhale the good savour of eternal life which has been breathed upon you by the grace of the sacraments; which was signified to you by us, when, celebrating the mystery of the opening, we said, “Epphatha, which is, Be opened,” that whosoever was coming in quest of peace might know what he was asked, and be bound to remember what he answered…

Baptism:
Upon which, God, willing to restore what was lacking, sent the flood and bade just Noah go up into the ark. And he, after having, as the flood was passing off, sent forth first a raven which did not return, sent forth a dove which is said to have returned with an olive twig.

You see the water, you see the wood [of the ark], you see the dove, and do you hesitate as to the mystery? The water, then, is that in which the flesh is dipped, that all carnal sin may be washed away. All wickedness is there buried. The wood is that on which the Lord Jesus was fastened when He suffered for us. The dove is that in the form of which the Holy Spirit descended, as you have read in the New Testament, Who inspires in you peace of soul and tranquillity of mind. The raven is the figure of sin, which goes forth and does not return, if, in you, too, inwardly and outwardly righteousness be preserved…

Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, are one, for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: “For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he too is signed; but unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace…

So, then, having obtained everything, let us know that we are born again, but let us not say, “how are we born again?” Have we entered a second time into our mother’s womb and been born again? I do not recognize here the course of nature. But here there is no order of nature, where is the excellence of grace. And again, it is not always the course of nature which brings about conception, for we confess that Christ the Lord was conceived of a Virgin, and reject the order of nature… If, then, the Holy Spirit coming down upon the Virgin wrought the conception, and effected the work of generation, surely we must not doubt but that, coming down upon the Font, or upon those who receive Baptism, He effects the reality of the new birth.

On the Eucharist:
We must now pay attention, lest perchance any one seeing that what is visible (for things which are invisible cannot be seen nor comprehended by human eyes), should say, “God rained down manna and rained down quails upon the Jews,” but for the Church beloved of Him the things which He has prepared are those of which it is said: “That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love Him.” So, lest any one should say this, we will take great pains to prove that the sacraments of the Church are both more ancient than those of the synagogue, and more excellent than the manna…

Now consider whether the bread of angels be more excellent or the Flesh of Christ, which is indeed the body of life. That manna came from heaven, this is above the heavens; that was of heaven, this is of the Lord of the heavens; that was liable to corruption, if kept a second day, this is far from all corruption, for whosoever shall taste it wholly shall not be able to feel corruption. For them water flowed from the rock, for you Blood flowed from Christ; water satisfied them for a time, the Blood satiates you for eternity. The Jew drinks and thirsts again, you after drinking will be beyond the power of thirsting; that was in a shadow, this is in truth…

…if the blessing of man had such power as to change nature, what are we to say of that divine consecration where the very words of the Lord and Saviour operate? For that sacrament which you receive is made what it is by the word of Christ. But if the word of Elijah had such power as to bring down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ have power to change the nature of the [bread and wine]? You read concerning the making of the whole world: “He spake and they were made, He commanded and they were created.” Shall not the word of Christ, which was able to make out of nothing that which was not, be able to change things which already are into what they were not? For it is not less to give a new nature to things than to change them.

The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: “This is My Body.” Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks…

The Church, beholding so great grace, exhorts her sons and her friends to come together to the sacraments, saying: “Eat, my friends, and drink and be inebriated, my brother.”

Nevada Episcopal bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has become the first female Primate in the Anglican Communion. Apparently the vote was very close. To those opposed to this, let me remind you that the Episcopal church has had female priests for 30 years (this year is the anniversary) and female bishops for some time now. This cannot be a shock.

I am sure there will be outcry over at Titusonenine and other Anglican blogs, but again, this cannot be a shock.

Supposedly Schori is an admirer of John Spong. I cannot confirm or deny this. But again, Spongian female episcopal priests and bishops are nothing new in the Episcopal church, so this can’t be a shock.

Today, in many parts of the Western world, Catholics celebrate Corpus Christi, the Solemnity of the Body of Christ. It is the celebration of the holy Eucharist and its commemoration. Here are a few Church Fathers quotes on communion, showing the importance of the sacrament of the body and blood, often called in Patristic writings “the medicine of immortality”:

For He says Himself, My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in him. As to the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now both from the declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. And these when eaten and drunk, bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and Christ in us. Is not this true? Yet they who affirm that Christ Jesus is not truly God are welcome to find it false. He therefore Himself is in us through the flesh and we in Him, whilst together with Him our own selves are in God.

Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, AD 360

The Word is all to the child, both father and mother and tutor and nurse. “Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery.

Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, AD 200

I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, AD 105

Of course, no post on Corpus Christi would be complete without a Eucharistic prayer. The following prayer is an Eastern prayer from the canon of preparation for Holy Communion. This and other Communion prayers may be found at Catholic Communion, Eucharist, and Mass Prayers.

May Thy most precious Body and Blood
be to me as fire and light,
O my Saviour, consuming the substance of sin
and burning the thorns of my passions,
and enlightening the whole of me
to worship the Divinity.

It looks like the United States Conference of Bishops has approved the new translation of the Latin Mass, a translation that is more faithful to the original. I welcome this news. We in the US have had to endure a dumbed-down translation of the Latin for years, while Catholics who speak other languages have had faithful translations to use. I think we Americans will adjust, and many will appreciate the dignity of language and theology.

I briefly flirted with the idea of joining the Charismatic Episcopal Church, but quite a few things stood in the way of me joining. One major reason I didn’t join was what was happening in the CEC cathedral a friend of mine attended. The bishop suspended the liturgy when the “Spirit moved” and the behavior seemed more charismatic than Catholic. There are other incidents, not to mention that the CEC suffers from many of the same issues as Anglicanism, but I won’t go into all of this here. I have a few friends who are active in the church, and I think the CEC does many good things. Thus, I still take an interest in the Charismatic Episcopal Church. It is not my intention to slander the Charismatic Episcopal church, nor do I want to get a comment war going about their weaknesses.

However, it seems that quite a few dioceses have either pulled out or been kicked out of the CEC. One of these is the archdiocese in which I live, the Great Lakes Archdiocese. Apparently Bishop Fick has pulled our whole region out. Bishop Philip Zampino has done the same thing, a man widely respected in the CEC (His son David Zampino recently became Catholic; I know him through the amazon.com friends and favorites pages, where we both have written many book reviews).

Does anybody know what is exactly going on in the CEC?

[Note: This resulting discussion has been moved to What's Up in the Charismatic Episcopal Church in our forum]

[Note: Roaring Oasis currently hosts A List of Allegations relating to the Current Charismatic Episcopal Church Crisis, compiled mostly by Ken Follis.]

Dave Hartline of The Catholic Report, fellow blogger and friend, went to the Episcopal Church’s general convention in Columbus, Ohio. He interviewed some of the big players in the Episcopal church in his article A Day At The Episcopal Convention; Liberals, Conservatives, U2Charist & Bishop Robinson & Little Chance Of Further Catholic-Episcopal Dialogue. Dave interviewed a lot of folks and got some amazing insights into the current debate in the Episcopal church.

For those unfamiliar with the issues as hand, the Episcopal church has to decide whether to comply with the “Windsor Report,” an international Anglican document that asks that they express regret for the consecration of a practicing gay church leader, Gene Robinson. I highly doubt the Episcopal church will express too much remorse, but I suspect they will express just enough to comply. To complicate the matter, there is a “network” of traditional Episcopal bishops opposed to the current state of the Episcopal church, and they are appealing to worldwide Anglican leaders to kick out the Episcopal church if they don’t repent. So a lot does ride on this General convention for many Episcopalians.

I have purposely avoided discussing the current Episcopal General convention for a variety of reasons. Primarily, what happens there is not much of my business as a Catholic, even if I am a former Episcopalian. However, I still have many friends in the Episcopal church and many of them are interested in the outcome of this convention.