What can we learn from Fr. Thomas Hopko?

In all that follows of these selected excerpts from a talk by Fr. Thomas Hopko, substitute in your mind "Continuing Anglican" (for lack of a better phrase) when Fr. Hopko says "Orthodox." The same scandal of disunity over issues that often are trivial, political and no more essential than a simple "who struck John?" scenerio, needs to become a thing of the past. I firmly believe that many jurisdictions have sprung up all over the place for no more valid a reason than that somebody wants to wear a purple shirt and a mitre, and simply won't submit himself to the wisdom and Canon Law of established Anglican churches. That is, because somebody wants power. Read these remarks by Father Hopko, and think about our own house (or houses). I have included the editor's note to introduce our own readers to Fr. Hopko.

Father Thomas Hopko is an Orthodox theologian and the dean emeritus of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary in Crestwood, N.Y. He is a retired professor of dogmatic theology who lives in Ellwood City, Pa. Recently, he spoke to the St. John Chrysostom Society at a meeting held at St. John Orthodox Church in Campbell on the topic of what the Orthodox would have to do, despite our shared common heritage, before there could be unity with Catholicism. The topic seems of such importance to ecumenism that we include here, edited for length, his remarks that evening. The St. John Chrysostom Society works to foster unity and understanding between Roman Catholics and members of eastern-rite churches.

They don’t even want unity. So I am extremely pessimistic about that point. Why? Because the Orthodox leaders don’t even want unity among the Orthodox, let alone with Roman Catholics or Protestants. It’s obvious. The record is clear. I’m not making this up. This is not my opinion. The Orthodox leadership, and most of the Orthodox people, don’t want unity with others, and they are not ready to give up anything… even the smallest little thing that is clearly not essential to the faith. I feel very strongly that this is true.
When people ask me, for example, why the Orthodox jurisdictions in America are not united, the answer is very clear: because our leaders don’t want it. If they wanted it, we would have had it yesterday. There is nothing stopping them… you may have to suffer a lot. You may have to give up some things: power, pre-eminence, prominence, property, possessions, prestige, positions, privilege and pleasure. We’re not ready to give up those things because of pride, passion and prejudice. Forget it. There’s not going to be any unity. That’s what divides people generally, and it is certainly what divides churches…
Another point for the Orthodox is that we not only have to desire unity, be ready to sacrifice everything essential to have it, to be able to distinguish what is essential from what is not, be able to forgive the past and admit our own sins and concentrate on ourselves, to do practical acts of charity and mercy – but also never, ever to say or do anything that would offend another person unnecessarily…There are so many ways we can charitably go out of our way to not hurt others… our churches speak about unity, and then every day attack each other in missionary work and so on. Even among the Orthodox, one of our jurisdictions starts a mission and three days later, another jurisdiction starts another mission on the same street. That’s just offensive.

… You all know the story of the Orthodox man who was shipwrecked on an island. When they came to rescue him, they found two churches there. The rescuer said, “Why are there two churches here? You’re all alone.” The Orthodox man said, “Yeah… that’s the one I go to and that’s the one I don’t.” That’s a deeply ingrained mentality among eastern Christians because of their history, their culture, their politics. But if that is not purged out somehow by the grace of God, forget about talking unity with Catholics. Orthodox need to first have unity among themselves, even culturally and nationally in regions where they live.
… So Orthodox need to be ready to go the extra mile. Jesus said, “If they ask for your coat, give them your shirt. If they ask you to go one mile, go two.” So our attitude has to be always toward bending over backwards, so to speak, to do the thing that will build up unity rather than give offense or cause hard feelings.

People always point out that they fear greater unity because it will cause greater schisms… some of our people won’t go along. But we have schisms anyway. Let’s have them for the right reason. Suppose we had unity and half the [Orthodox] people didn’t come along. I think we should be ready to say goodbye to them if the unity is in God. We have to be people of unity, not because we will have more power in society, or be more popular, or George Bush will invite us to the White House. We have to have unity because God wants it, but it has to be unity in God, not unity in Ukrainianism or whatever… If the unity is not in God, in Christ, in the Spirit, who wants it anyway?

But history shows that the people who worked for unity in the Faith were usually persecuted, while the masses just went about their business.

Trinity XIII

Galatians 3:16-22, Luke 10:23-37

The Epistle and Gospel for today help to bring balance to a subject that has been confusing to Christians in the Western world for five centuries. Ever since the days of Martin Luther the question of Faith and Works, and the role they may or may not play in the salvation and justification of sinners, has dominated a great deal of theological discourse. As you may know, Luther built his German based Reformation on sola fide, which translates as “faith alone.” This view, taken to an extreme, can take all of the statements by Saint Paul about faith, and make it the only factor in the Christian life. And, indeed Saint Paul does speak often about faith that justifies and saves us. But, Saint Paul never added the word “alone.” The only verse in the whole Bible that contains these words, faith and alone, in close proximity is James 2: 17: “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” Because of Saint James’ teaching in his Epistle, Martin Luther wanted to have the whole Epistle cut out of the Bible. He called it “an Epistle of straw, compared to” most of the New Testament. What is the balance? What is the truth about faith and works, and the role of faith in our salvation?

Saint Paul never exactly said that by faith we are saved. Rather, he took it along a specific route that begins with grace. In Ephesians, the second chapter he wrote these words: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” In the very next verse he adds, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” (This ought to remind you of the words in our prayer of thanksgiving after receiving Communion, about good works that God hath prepared for us to walk in.) So, if Saint James was full of straw for teaching that “faith without works is dead, being alone,” then Saint Paul was full of the exact same straw, because he taught the exact same thing.

In fact, today’s Epistle is speaking more directly to the problem of faith and works then either Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, or the Epistle of James. This is for two reasons. First of all, Paul never conceived of faith existing all by itself, cut off from the rest of the Christian life. In the most famous passage he ever wrote, the chapter about the love of God, the thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians, he lists the three most important virtues together: “And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.” It is always at least somewhat misleading to speak of “faith alone” because faith never is alone. True faith that is planted in us by the Holy Spirit always has two other virtues at its side: hope and charity. It simply does not exist alone.

But, in today’s Epistle, Paul tells us of the distinction between the Law and the promise, specifically this promise that Abraham believed. And, Paul builds a lot of teaching on this promise and the faith of Abraham, basing it on these words from Genesis. “And He [God, that is] brought him [Abram] forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.” The Hebrew word for believed is the word “amen.” Amen (אמן) is a form of emet. Emet (אמת) means “truth” and so “amen” means true. Jesus, when He said “verily, verily” actually said, “Amen, amen, (ἀμήν ἀμήν) I say unto you.” When you say “amen” you are stating that you believe the words spoken to be true. When Abram (as his name was at that stage) believed God, what he believed, very specifically, was that God’s word is true. That is how Abram amened God, and so was accounted righteous. From this Paul teaches two things. First, believing in God’s revealed truth is essential to our being accounted as righteous, namely, that by God’s mercy our sins are not taken into account. He also taught that Abram, as yet uncircumcised, became the father not only of the Jewish people, but of all people who have faith, that is all who believe God’s word to be true, even Gentiles. All of this shows the absolute necessity of faith. The writer to the Hebrews teaches us that this faith in God’s promise was manifest when Abraham was ready to offer Isaac on the mountain. James, however, uses the same story to teach the importance of works. Again, this should not surprise us, because the issue never was faith versus works.

We are saved by grace through faith, not by our works. But, faith lives with hope and charity. You can separate faith from works only if you can separate it from charity. Your own good works cannot earn for you the forgiveness of your sins; but the faith that calls and empowers you to enter the whole sacramental life as a Christian is a faith that God’s word is true, and it is faith that lives with hope and charity. And, because it lives with charity, good works will be present in the life of faith. However, like the Samaritan in today’s Gospe, this charity can be quite spontaneous. The Samaritan saw a man who may very well have despised him were he not in dire straits. The Jews looked down on Samaritans as being a group of Gentiles pretending to be Jews. They were seen as being second class at best. This did not matter to the Samaritan in this parable, and why? The answer is that he was, as the Lord said, “moved with compassion.” He was not trying to balance out his sins with good works (which is impossible). The idea of trying to appease God by doing a good work is not indicated at all. Instead, the Samaritan simply has compassion, and acts without resentment against a Jewish man who, under other circumstances, he may have avoided. His charity is natural and spontaneous, not forced and contrived.

The other thing we learn from the Epistle is the true context of faith and works as a theological question. In the Western world, ever since the Reformation, the whole treatment of this subject has been misunderstood, recast as a difference between people within Christianity. But, this is not right. Paul was not teaching that God’s grace saves us through just any faith, rather through faith in something very specific. The faith that God’s word is true, the promise we must say our own “amen” to, is the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it is now revealed through the Word made flesh as proclaimed by his Apostles. Any effort to be saved by works meant, as used by Paul in his Epistles, the effort to be saved by the works, specifically, of the Law. The Law of commandments that came four hundred and thirty years after Abram believed God’s promise, does not make you righteous. It reveals that you are a sinner. It reveals that you need the Savior from sin and death, the One who has died as the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, and rose again the third day to destroy death. Before his conversion, when he was Saul of Tarsus, he believed himself to be righteous, and his zeal to persecute the Church to have been the seal of his righteousness. But, when he saw the Risen Christ, and was blinded as he drew close to Damascus, he learned that this great crowning act of his own righteousness was actually the sin of persecuting the Messiah by persecuting His Church. At once he learned of his sin, and of God’s mercy in forgiving that sin. We was converted, and began to see only in his blindness.

So, the issue at the time Saint Paul was writing was never some quality called faith versus good works. These terms are used, rather, to speak of the difference between religion when it is without a specific faith in Jesus Christ, even the best religion- the truth of the Jewish religion based on the revelation of God to Patriarchs and Prophets- and a belief that God’s word is true as revealed in Jesus Christ. It is the difference between trying to be saved by the Law of Commandments, through efforts of self-deception that you are somehow a good person, and the faith that embraces the entire new life of a Christian. I could say that it is the difference between Judaism and Christianity; however, I would say that only with respect. As Christians we do believe in Judaism, the Law and the Prophets. It is simply that we also believe in the promise, and we say the “amen” of faith that God’s word is true, specifically the word of the Gospel as preached by the apostles of the New Covenant, the word that is the foundation of the Church in every age and place about Jesus Christ.

Then, we must recall the words of James: “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.” That is, this faith will grow in us by the work of the Holy Spirit within our hearts, and it will abide with hope and charity as we press on into the sacramental life by the grace of God, pursuing the goal and end of our belief, knowing God and His Son Jesus Christ whom He has sent (John 17:3).

Interview from 2004

I just found this paper from home (Maryland) that I had brought to Arizona with me. That year the Western and Eastern Calendars had the same dates for Holy Week. I believe that this two year old interview best exemplifies the thinking of people who see a wide gulf fixed between "East" and "West"- so wide that any attempt to acheive unity must be resisted at all costs. Wouldn't want that now would we. - Fr. Hart

Interview with Fr.Vladimir Dimitrios

Eastern Shore Press

April 10, 2004


Interview with Fr. Vladimir Dimitrios, priest of the One and Only Orthodox Church, located in Weston (West of Easton).


Eastern Shore Press: Fr. Vladimir, thank you for allowing this interview, and congratulations for the ground breaking of the Orthodox Church your new congregation is building here in Weston.

Vladimir Dimitrios: Thank you.

ESP: Father, my paper wanted me to interview you because, as you are the only Orthodox priest we can find anywhere around here, you have been elected to be our paper’s expert on all matters Orthodox. I am sure you can see how practical that is.

VD: Yes, and I applaud your sense of practicality.

ESP: As you know, this year, the Western and Eastern Churches are holding Easter on the same day, something that has not occurred in living memory.

VD: Properly speaking, there are no Western churches, not really.

ESP: Well, let’s get back to that thought later. Father Vladimir, on this special holiday do you have a message to give to the people who read this paper? Something about the true meaning of Easter? A message about Christ and the Gospel?

VD: That’s not what matters.

ESP: What? Well, Father Vladimir, in your own words, can you tell us what it is that matters?

VD: Yes. We’re not Western. That’s what matters.

ESP: But, don’t you and the Western churches, the Catholic Church for example, preach the same Gospel?

VD: No.

ESP: Don’t you believe in the same God?

VD: Belief in God has never been a central doctrine of the Orthodox Church.

ESP: Wait a minute! I know you- why just six months ago you were an Episcopal priest at St. Cuthbert’s. You were called the Rev. Mr. Roger Brown!

VD: We never speak of those days.

ESP: But, you’re a recent convert. Who made you an expert?

VD: The newspaper did.

ESP: Oh, that’s right. But, are you sure you speak for the Orthodox Church? Are you really a proper representative of the Orthodox Tradition?

VD: Look, I’m wearing a black Cassock, aren’t I?

ESP: Well, yes.

VD: And look at this beard- not a goatee, or even a silly little beard like Errol Flynn wore in Robin Hood. This is a big bushy beard. How can you be more Orthodox than that?

ESP: We wouldn’t know.


__________________________________________

Stem Cells and Cloning

Recently the issue of whether Australia should allow therapeutic cloning for embryonic stem cell research has been much in the news. The Federal Health Minister, Tony Abbott, is an orthodox Roman Catholic who strongly opposes such legal permission. Prime Minister John Howard, while probably personally opposed, has decided to allow a “conscience vote” on this issue rather than continuing to make opposition to the research the official policy of his Government. In all likelihood this will lead to the “green light” being given to therapeutic cloning and associated embryonic stem cell research, despite the vehement objections of the Health Minister.

Those of us opposed to this research point out that creating human beings to use as research material for the benefit of others is immoral because it is opposed to human dignity and the right to life. The response of those who support harvesting cloned embryos for medical research is that these embryos are simply not human beings, any more than a sperm or an egg. They are just a lump of cells that could theoretically, but not in practice, become a human being.

What are the arguments for using embryos in this way and against our objections based on the right-to-life? I will give the arguments in quotation marks as summaries, without implying they are in fact direct quotations, and then respond to each.

“Many diseases could be cured using embryonic stem cells.” Maybe, maybe not. Nobody can be certain either way, but it is true that embryonic stem cells have greater “potential” than non-embryonic stem cells, precisely because they are what biologists call “totipotent” rather than merely “pluripotent”. That is, they can become any and all other sorts of cell. Nevertheless, if we cannot get them without creating and destroying human lives, then the fact that other lives would be lengthened cannot justify the action, as we will see below. One human should never be made to be an expendable source of healthy flesh for another.

“This is a conflict between religion and science. In such a conflict, religion must always give way to the facts. Anyway, you have no right to impose your religious beliefs on society. If you think that such research is murder, you can just choose not to take advantage of it and leave the rest of us to do so!” Actually, this is not a conflict between religion and science. Firstly, all science can do is tell us what physical processes would be involved in the procedure and then predict possible or probable applications and insights. Science, properly speaking, cannot tell us whether the means to those ends is moral (see below) or even what “value” the ends have. Secondly, not all those opposing the research are religious, and even those who are religious do not believe the problems with therapeutic cloning are something esoteric or merely “impious”, they believe the problems with it extend to issues of human life and death and that the arguments against it are based on universally applicable moral principles, not simply divine revelation. It is not a matter of imposing religious beliefs, but of standing up for basic human decency and what philosophers used to call Natural Law. Nor is it a matter of trying to eliminate in others offences to our sensibilities, but of trying to defend the most vulnerable human beings from being harvested and killed.

“Once the benefits were known and fully understood, all opposition would cease, as it has to previous medical advances once distrusted.” There are three errors here, one a moral idiocy, one historical misrepresentation, and the other false analogy. The idea that knowledge of the benefits of a particular action must inevitably lead to reasonable people accepting that action as undeniably morally licit is absurd. It ignores the fact that there may be costs as well as benefits that are relevant to ethical judgement, and it rides roughshod over the fundamental question of whether the ends must always justify the means. As for the supposed precedents for once-opposed medical treatments eventually overcoming that opposition by their very success, they do not prove what they are purported to. The example of anaesthetic, which was opposed at first by a number of church-goers (and many physicians!) is not analogous to the present situation. There was no official or binding Church teaching on that matter, only the musings of individuals, as the sanctity of life itself was not at stake. In addition, other medical procedures which have had some success, such as In Vitro Fertilisation, have had the Church’s and others’ opposition remain consistent, precisely because the right to life was involved, given the regular creation and destruction of “surplus” embryos in this treatment.

“Whatever the status of the embryo or blastocyte in narrowly scientific terms, its moral significance is minimal because it cannot perform any of the mental or physical functions or consciously experience any of the sensations or feelings of a properly developed human being. It is human only in a technical sense, it is not a human person.” Here we come to the crux of the matter. The only way we can justify using incipient humans as experimental material is by understanding “true humanity” purely and solely in terms of present functionality and awareness. Intertwined with this justification is the belief that the only real evil is pain and the only real good conscious pleasure. Thus, it is asserted, the fact that killing the embryo causes it no pain and harvesting its cells may reduce suffering in others is amply sufficient reason to do it.

But this is to misunderstand what human life is and what killing a human being involves morally. Human life cannot be understood or appreciated except diachronically, as a process of development. The instantaneous snapshot tells us nothing since, even if we limit ourselves to addressing conscious awareness, we are dealing with something intrinsically temporal and dynamic. Consider some of the characteristics of human consciousness when it is fully operative: memory, expectation, step-by-step ratiocination, and learning. All these are tied inextricably to the passage of time. A human being is not merely what they appear to be at any one moment, but an accumulation of past human existence and an open potential for future experience. The older the person, the more the former “accumulation” should invest them with significance for others and themselves. The younger the person, the more the latter potentiality should invest them with rich significance. When we kill an innocent human being, we steal that person’s future. This “theft”‑aspect of killing is actually increasingly evil the younger the victim.

One of the most amazing blind-spots of those who say one is not a person if one is not aware and is unable to perform distinctively human mental acts is that they forget that this would render even adult humans “non-persons” whenever they were in a deep sleep, under anaesthetic or in a coma. In fact, if the avoidance of pain and maximisation of pleasure are the only morally worthwhile actions and the present functioning of higher mental processes the only guarantee of human identity, then the following scenario becomes morally reasonable: A man who gains great and lasting satisfaction from killing women (but not from inflicting pain) shoots a woman in the head while she is in non-REM sleep or after surreptitiously drugging her, in the knowledge that the chosen victim will feel no pain and has no close friends or family at present whose pain of mourning might otherwise outweigh the happiness he will receive from the deed and the treasured memory of it. If we can see that this scenario is patently and undeniably evil, then we have no alternative but to reject the utilitarian and consequentialist philosophy which “vindicates” it. And it is this very philosophy which underlies the advocacy of embryonic stem cell research.

Yet, there is an even more basic bedrock that ensures the dignity and rights of every human, even if we happen to know that they will not live long. Everything we have done and everything we could do as humans is dependent on what we are. External circumstances may prevent our human essence unfolding its full potential, but they are exactly that, external circumstances. They cannot therefore reflect back on our intrinsic worth. What gives a human being rights and dignity and makes their life sacred is their being human! That is why murder is more than theft of future. It is sacrilege.

It is this differentiation between intrinsic nature and extrinsic circumstances that undermines perhaps the most devious and shameful argument against considering the rights of the cloned embryo. I refer to the claim that since therapeutically cloned embryos would be created without any intention of ever implanting them in utero, they should not be even considered potential persons. What makes this so disgraceful is that a deliberate intention and arrangement to prevent these children from developing is used as an excuse not to consider them children in the first place. It is rather like saying that if I grew a fruit tree on somebody else’s land (and using their water supply) without their permission and without ever intending to either inform them or let them have any of the fruit, when I take the fruit for myself I have committed no theft. It should also be noted that if it ever became possible to create and develop babies to full term (or beyond?) outside the womb, the same “logic” would allow such children to be grown and farmed as spare parts for others, as long as there was a secure system for preventing their ever reaching any level of consciousness. It is not inconceivable that, with the correct use of drugs and physico-chemical suppression of “grey matter” brain development, such a thing could be achieved. Again, no pain is caused and proponents could claim that extending human rights to such beings would be unnecessary since they are created without any intention of allowing them to develop fully or normally. Please note, the fact that this is not presently on the horizon is irrelevant to the point I am making. I am not claiming that such a research programme is being or will be promoted. What I am saying is that the principles said to justify therapeutic cloning are perfectly consistent with such a programme. If we recognise the latter as palpably vile and wicked, we must reject the moral principles underlying both it and therapeutic cloning. In other words, once the embryo exists as an intrinsically viable and identifiable entity with all the human potential that is encoded in the genome, it has rights. Those rights cannot be taken away by our pre-emptive decision to avert such potential.

Fundamentally, the philosophical error we are encountering here is a refusal to perceive three things: the implications of the fact of a human's very existence, the necessity of considering potential properties as well as actual ones in assessing the value of human life, and the priority of essence over function or action. The specifically moral error is a refusal to see human life as anything other than a succession of evanescent sensations and mental acts, so that humans too young to think and humans too old and senile to think effectively become nothing at all, while those favoured with recognition of their personhood have their greatest fulfilment reduced to minimisation of pain and maximisation of pleasure. In other words, mankind’s summum bonum has become epitomised in pain-killers and orgasms.

Update: I have changed the first sentence of the last paragraph above, as its earlier version was grammatically incorrect, partly tautological and rather obscure. Apart from that it was fine!

Roman Catholic Ecclesiology (as commonly understood) and Christian Apologetics

One of the important jobs of Christian apologists is to defend the Church against accusations that it has been, overall, an influence for bad in the world, or generally guilty of evil activity and teaching. This is particularly important for apologists who are Catholics, who believe in the holiness, infallibility and indefectibility of the Church. Now, this latter belief does not mean we must deny sins or errors by individual Christians or even by particular Churches (segments of the Church). It only means that we do not accept that the Church ever committed itself as a whole to any such wrongs.

But actions, if pursued throughout the Church and with little or no official censure or, contrariwise, with official approval, constitute a teaching that such actions are morally correct by the Ordinary Magisterium, that is, by the consistent and consensual belief, lived and taught, of the hierarchy. (They thus reflect on both the Church’s holiness and doctrinal trustworthiness.) Therefore, if it could be shown that a particular evil activity had been generally accepted and approved throughout the Catholic Church, that would constitute a falsification of the Catholic truth-claims.

Now, there is no doubt that many of the popular characterisations of “sins” or “mistakes” of the Church are based on exaggeration, selective history or misunderstanding. Nevertheless, not all accusations can be dismissed this way. When someone points to the fact that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) of the middle ages justified the use of torture and burning at the stake to “protect the true Faith” and achieve religious ends, they are speaking the truth. To reply that the actual applications of violent force were often left to the civil authorities makes no moral difference, as the RCC condoned these acts and in some cases had religious or clergy directly participate in them, as, for example, in the Inquisition’s torture chambers.

My response to this has always been to note that these extreme evils (for so they must be accounted in the context of the Saviour’s teaching) were not universally practiced or accepted as legitimate in the Church of that time. The Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC), for example, never taught that the use of torture by the Church was justified, even with the occasional compromises by some of its jurisdictions with civil governments in other areas. (One can take a similar approach regarding other excesses involving widespread abuses of ecclesial power within certain regions or jurisdictions.) Since, as an Anglican Catholic, I believe that both the RCC and EOC are part of the Catholic Church, this makes perfect sense from my point of view.

The problem is this. If most orthodox Roman Catholics are correct, and those Churches visibly outside their communion are not properly part of the One (Visible) Catholic Church, then this line of defence is unavailable and plausible alternatives seem to disappear completely. That is why it appears to me incontestable that the RCC’s ecclesiological claims (as normally presented), even in their post-Vatican II, “gentler” version of exclusivity, are implicitly inconsistent with belief in the infallibility of the Church, and so are radically un-Catholic.

To make my position clear, here is the argument:

1. If a Church or communion of Churches authorises, condones and engages in an activity with virtual unanimity through its official organs of authority over an extended period of time, this constitutes a definitive teaching affirming the moral goodness of that activity.
2. It is not possible for the Catholic Church as a whole to be in error in a definitive teaching on moral matters, any more than in matters of Faith.
3. Therefore, a definitive teaching established by the process outlined in (1) cannot be in error if the said “Church or communion of Churches” is equivalent to “the Catholic Church as a whole”. [1 + 2]
4. The RCC officially and generally authorised, condoned or practised torturous examinations and executions for religious ends over an extended period of time.
5. Therefore, the RCC definitively taught that such torture was morally right. [1 + 4]
6. Such torture is, in fact, morally repugnant.
7. Therefore, the RCC definitively taught error on an important moral matter. [5 + 6]
8. Therefore, the RCC is not the whole Catholic Church. [3 + 7]
   

I will take it as a given that 2 and 6 are uncontested by all identifying as Catholics. And that 3, 5, 7 and 8 do follow logically from their identified premises. That only leaves 1 and 4. 1 is a theological statement that appears synonymous with the RCC’s teaching on the infallibility of the consensus of the ordinary magisterium. 4 is a historical statement. Is it seriously questioned, even by revisionist historians?

Please note, I am not trying to attack the RCC or deny its Catholic identity. Indeed, if the exclusivist ecclesiology normally held in that Church is abandoned, the apparent scandal of proposition 7 above is seriously qualified. That is, once the RCC accepts that the Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church is and was bigger than they have been wont to admit, apparent contradictions between the consensual Magisterial teaching past and present on this matter will disappear. In other words, a more inclusive ecclesiology will also mean a strengthened ecclesiology, with the historical infallibility of the Church protected.

Trinity XII

Ears to Hear, a Tongue to Speak

Mark 7:31-37

“He hath done all things well: He maketh both the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak.”


We come to Christ completely deaf and dumb, unable to hear and to speak. Before He healed this man, Jesus looked up to heaven and sighed. This detail which Mark records, His having looked up to heaven and having sighed, is mysterious, but it could have to do with His desire for us not only to have ears, but ears to hear. He was about to heal this man’s ears so that he could hear natural sounds; yet how often our Lord said, concerning the truth of the Word of God, “Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Isaiah the Prophet was called to speak to a generation which did not have eyes to see, ears to hear and a heart to understand; they could not turn and be healed. Jesus said that the generation to which Isaiah spoke was not of that prophet’s own time, but the generation who, in the presence of the Word made flesh, could not see, could not hear, could not understand.

Many times I have heard people say that Christ spoke in parables so that the people could understand His teaching. Did He now? Did He not rather say that He spoke to the crowd in parables because it was not given to them to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven? To His disciples was it given to know these mysteries, but to those who were outside of the Kingdom it was not given. He went on to say to His disciples, “But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears for they hear (Matt 13: 16).” The mysteries of God’s Kingdom cannot be known except by the work of the Holy Ghost; nor can they be uttered unless He gives us speech. If our ears hear the word of God it is the gift of the Holy Ghost; if our speech is seasoned with grace, it is the gift of the Holy Ghost.

By now I hope that you understand that I speak of two sacraments which are bound together: Baptism and Confirmation. “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot see the Kingdom of God.” By one we are given life by the Holy Spirit regenerating us, and by the other wisdom and power from the Holy Spirit residing within us. Christ does indeed touch our ears and our tongue, giving the gifts of hearing and of speech. We can hear the Word of God, and then, like the man who was also healed of the impediment in his speech- and as our King James Bible puts it, “spake plain”- so can we speak clearly, and our words can impart life. But without His Holy Spirit we would remain deaf and dumb.

How important this is in a world which is at its best confused, at its worst simply evil. Many sounds are blaring around us, competing for our attention; and many of the words which appear to be the wisest and best are words which impart only death, selling ideas which lead only into sin and error. People seem to catch their beliefs and opinions, or as they often say today, their “feelings” about important matters of life and death, as they catch a virus. Few opinions are thought through; almost none are what can be called conclusions, for no thought is evident in them. But, even the best thinking cannot, by itself, reveal the truth Christ teaches, because it still lacks the element of grace, the supernatural gift of the Holy Spirit. The light that is in them is darkness; how great is that darkness.

Nonetheless, for us there is this sober warning: Simply having received the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation does not guarantee that we will hear as we ought, or that we will have speech seasoned with grace. For, simply having ears that can hear is not enough; what Jesus said was “Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.” That is, we must learn the discipline of hearing; and until we have heard we have nothing to say.

What did Jesus mean by His clear implication that some ears cannot hear the Word of God? What is hearing then? As a reader of the Hebrew language, let me begin to answer by pointing out that the Hebrew word for “hear” is the same word as the word “obey.” The word is sh’mai- as in “sh’mai Israel” or “Hear O’ Israel.” In ancient Jewish understanding, to hear is to obey- and to obey is to hear. “He that turneth away his ear from hearing the Law, even his prayer shall be an abomination,” says the Book of Proverbs; what is the warning to us? That drawing near to God without a heart to obey Him is like the unacceptable sacrifice of the murderer Cain. It is not enough simply to be able to hear; we must hear, we must have an obedient heart.

So then, how do we hear, how do we learn, what do we obey?

As we have seen, we cannot hear the Word of God unless our attitude of heart is that we are willing to be obedient to that Word. All around us today is the spectacle of clergymen speaking false doctrine intended for consumption by that group of people who are described in the First Epistle of St. Peter as having “itching ears”- itching ears instead of ears to hear. There always will be a demand for false teachers. My friend, the Editor of Touchstone Magazine, David Mills, keeps a computer file which he calls “the voice of the demonic.” As I understand it, the voice of the demonic is no ordinary deception, but a very crafty sort of trickery which begins, continues and ends with the assumption that evil is good, and good is evil, with subtlety and yet brazen shamelessness. I would say that many of the recent attempts to justify the latest twists and turns of the new modern religion is the voice of the demonic, especially their interpretation- so called- of scripture. The whole point is to create a teaching for those who do not wish to be obedient to God, but who desire, nonetheless, the illusion of being religious and spiritual people.

If we do wish to obey God, however, how do we know the voice of Christ from the other voices, even from the voice of the demonic?

The Anglican answer is best summed up by the great Richard Hooker, and the three part method we use: Scripture, Right Reason and Tradition. I would say, however, that this was no new idea; it is what we see the ancient Church practicing in the early centuries, the time of what we call “the undivided Church.”

Why do we not simply rely upon “the Bible alone?” Let me answer this way: Yes, the whole truth is in scripture, and anything that cannot be proved from it is to be rejected, for it fails to meet the standard of “most certain warrant of Holy Scripture.” But, the Church is needed as our guide to understand scripture correctly. The Bible says so, for it calls the Church “the Pillar and ground of the truth.” And, the Bible tells us that the scriptures are not to be subjected to “any private interpretation.”

Unfortunately, “the Bible Alone” method is all too often a free for all of private interpretation, the subjective opinions and even the feelings of would be teachers, such as the kind that the Apostle Paul warned of, “who desire to be teachers.” It is, in fact, the basis for non-Christian Arian cults, such as those most unfortunate and deceived people who knock on your door on Saturday mornings to feed you their indoctrination. Such as are so misled by their false ideas about the Bible that they would offer their children to their cruel notion of God through the sacrifice of denying something as good and useful as a blood transfusion- all because they have bought an interpretation of scripture which rejects and defies the Tradition of the Church. Look, the Church existed before the Bible was complete; the Bible is the Book of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, not of the cults.

So, we need Scripture interpreted by the Tradition, and a mind that possesses Right Reason to understand. Let me point out, however, what this is not. First of all, it is not a system of checks and balances. Second, it is not scripture, reason and experience. What the false teachers who use our Anglican label, or the Episcopal label, have come to practice in the last few years is a complete perversion of the whole idea.

The Reason we use is not our own cleverness; it is not the wit of a lawyer’s brief in making an absurd case. The phrase is not simply “reason”, but “Right Reason.” Put simply, an interpretation that is based upon madness or fanaticism, the old “Enthusiasms” as they were called, is obviously not what St. Paul calls “the mind of Christ.” When Jesus speaks of casting out our eye to avoid sin, it is an unreasonable interpretation to think that He meant it literally. We all have heard of snake handlers, and their interpretation of scripture defies the reason of every sane person. So does the reasoning of Mary Baker Eddy and the “Christian Scientists” who invite death or bad health to themselves and their children by refusing the use of all medical knowledge. The same problem exists among those who refuse medicine in the name of “Faith healing.” “Right Reason” saves us from lunacy. As G.K Chesterton said, “when religion could make men mad, theology keeps them sane.”

And what do we mean by Tradition? We do not mean experience. The cute little trend these days is to replace the word Tradition with “experience.” Then they say, well the Bible says thus and so, but our experience teaches the opposite, and so we must adjust our reading of the Bible to our experience. The Bible says that a man shall not lie with a man, but our experience- or so they presume to say- teaches that it is okay. Then they turn it around, and put back the word Tradition, a word they infuse with all sorts of negative emotion to evoke an irrational prejudice, and come to the silly conclusion that the Bible justifies the “ordination” of women- and I can prove that it does not- but tradition is against it, so we must throw out the tradition.

More often than not, however, they prefer to say “experience” instead of “Tradition.” Why do they do this? Remember what I said, Scripture, Right Reason and Tradition is not a system of checks and balances. We do not separate these three things and compare them against each other. We do not say, for example, the Bible says this, but Tradition balances it out by saying that, and so we come to the truth by weighing them. This would be all wrong. Think of these three as we do the Trinity- these three are one. What the Bible says is taught in the Tradition of the Church, and only by that Tradition can someone with Right Reason come to a true understanding. Experience is subjective, especially if it is filled with emotion; but the Tradition is objective, and it is, quite frankly, inflexible- thank God. Without it, we can make the Bible mean whatever we please, and without it many people are actually being harmed by those who subject the Bible to their own warped interpretations, using it to do harm, both physical and spiritual harm.

Dynamite and surgical tools in the right hands can do good; in the wrong hands they kill and maim people. I have news for you- without the Tradition of the Church, as St. Vincent of Lerins put it- “that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all”-and without the sanity of Right Reason, the Bible is dangerous. Sorry if that bothers anyone, but it is obviously, and I do mean obviously, true.

But, Jesus Christ provides for us this gift by His healing hand: if we are willing and obedient to submit to Scripture, Right Reason and Tradition, and if the Holy Spirit of God resides within us, we will have ears to hear, and also will have the string of our tongue loosed to speak the words of life without impediment.


And now unto God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost be ascribed, as is most justly due, all might, majesty, power, dominion and glory, now and forever.
Amen

"I'm Spiritual, But Not Religious"

For those of you who wrestle with the nuts and bolts of Christian apologetics, or with the nature of your own faith, I heartily commend the post of the same title over at O Cuniculi!.

Eleventh Sunday after Trinity

I Cor. 15:1-11 Luke 18:9-14

What ties together the Epistle and the Gospel for the Eleventh Sunday after Trinity is the life of Saint Paul. In his time he had been both of the men in today’s parable, both the Pharisee and the Publican. He knew what it was to believe himself a righteous man. Listen to other words he wrote, to the Church at Philippi:

“Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.”- Phil. 3: 5-9

What happened when he approached Damascus turned his whole world upside down, as indeed, he needed. He was sure that what crowned his righteousness was his zeal to persecute the Church. What he learned was that his crowning act of righteousness was, in reality, the worst sin a man can commit. By persecuting the Church he was persecuting the Messiah, and making himself the enemy of God. At once he was face to face with his guilt, but also with mercy, suddenly knowing the cross of Christ for what it is. He was no longer self-righteous, but regarded himself as the chief of sinners, and the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an Apostle, because, as he reminds us, he had persecuted the Church of God. He could now humble himself, like the Publican. The old Saul of Tarsus was dead. He would write: “The life I live now in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” I will say more about his conversion further on.

In today’s Gospel the Pharisee and the Publican have one thing in common: Both men are telling the truth. The Pharisee really did not commit those outward acts of sin that he mentions - that is, those specific outward acts of sin which he selected from the list. And he really did pay tithes and fast twice a week. The Publican spoke the truth also, by calling himself a sinner.

Back on Good Friday I found some old printed copies of the Reproaches, and thought to use them for the service at noon. But, although they began as the classic Reproaches in the Missal, they diverted into a liturgy of group repentance for such things as the Crusades, the Holocaust, racism and pollution of the earth. I threw away every copy we had. Repenting of sins that we regard as having nothing to do with our own lives, especially when it affords us the opportunity to feel morally superior, is to pray with the Pharisee: “I thank Thee God that I am not as other men are- polluters, racists, and intolerant bigots,” the whole time using the words of the Publican and feigning a plea for mercy. This is a very subtle trend in modern religion, and can be a handy tool in self-deception, as if we needed one. The Pharisee did the same thing. He confessed other people’s sins rather than his own. He was simply a bit more honest than sophisticated modern people who imitate his self-righteousness, only by making a mockery of repentance instead of making a boast as he did

This brings me to the advice I give about Confession, which came from recognizing my own fault one day. I was driving to see another priest and confess my sins, and trying to think of a way to confess one of them in such a way as not to sound quite as bad as I really am. I wanted to whitewash the picture just a bit. But, then it dawned on me that I was supposed to be appearing for the prosecution, not for the defense. When you make your confession of sin, understand that you are appearing for the prosecution, that you are there to accuse yourself. Not in a morbid and dramatic way, but rather in an honest way, simply tell the truth. As the Lord put it in today’s Gospel, humble yourself. In confession you are the prosecutor; you have an Advocate who pleads your case by His cross and death.

In fact, your whole defense is what the Epistle for today is all about, that selection from the fifteenth chapter of I Corinthians that I refer to as the Gospel According to Saint Paul. Here we see a definition of the Gospel, with its facts clearly spelled out for us. The very word “Gospel” must be understood from this portion of scripture. In recent years a very phony bit of noise has been made about Gnostic gospels- so called, especially the supposed “Gospel” of Thomas. The Church never covered up the existence of any of these books; rather the Church simply refused to grant them any status since there never was a basis for recognizing them as authentic or true. But, even if the book of Thomas had been received, it still would not have been proper to call it a Gospel. It stops short of the four things that Saint Paul listed as the definition of the Gospel. The four Gospels are called Gospels because they contain within them the Gospel.

Looking at those first eleven verses of I Corinthians chapter 15 we find that four facts emerge. Furthermore, each of these can be found in every sermon of Saint Peter, and then in every sermon of Saint Paul, that is recorded in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles. Each of those sermons contains these four facts, because these facts are the Gospel itself.

1. Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.

Here, as in the Creed, the phrase “according to the scriptures” means “in fulfillment of the scriptures.” Look at the 22nd Psalm. Look at the Suffering Servant passage from the 53rd chapter of Isaiah: “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

2. He was buried.

That is, He died, really and truly in fact, He was dead. The one Man who ever lived and did not deserve the wages of sin, death, was dead and buried just like everyone else.

3. He rose the third day according to (again, in fulfillment of) the scriptures.

Throughout the book of Acts the most commonly used passage of the Old Testament for this is in the 16th Psalm: “Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.”

4. He appeared to witnesses.

This last part is essential to the Gospel. Without these eyewitnesses, the resurrection of Christ would be a mere story. But, the resurrection of Christ is a fact of history, recorded with the blood of martyrs, men who saw Him alive again after His resurrection. While Saint Paul was writing this Epistle, many of these witnesses were yet alive, giving the Church that assurance and confidence that it needed to survive the earliest days of persecution. Eventually, this witness, this martyrdom, cost them their lives in this world; but having seen the resurrected Christ, they despised death; they feared the grave no longer.

Months from now, in the winter, we will celebrate the Conversion of Saint Paul. On that day, we clergy wear white. If the feast is about Saint Paul, then surely we ought to wear red, should we not? Red is the color of martyrs. But, the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul is not about Paul; it is about the last Easter appearance, a part of Easter “out of due time,” just as Saint Paul was called by seeing the Risen Christ “as one born out of due time.” His conversion came from being the last witness of the resurrection of Christ, at which point he learned all of these things we meditate upon today. He learned that he was a sinner. He learned that he was forgiven. He learned that this forgiveness was given by the sacrifice of Christ on his behalf.

The love of God is not just a theoretical thing, a warm fuzzy feel good sentiment. If you want to know the depths of God’s love for you than look at the beaten, crucified bleeding Christ, hanging there and pouring out His soul unto death for you. Take it personally, this love, just as Saint Paul did: “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” -Gal. 2:20. Knowing this love, seeing it in these four facts that define the Gospel, you can then pray for God’s mercy, just as the Publican did. And, you can do so in full assurance of hope.

Is There a Fourth Hart Brother?

I just couldn't resist this, published in The Hindu:


THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Meet David Hart, an Anglican priest, who recites Gayatri Mantram with the same devotion with which he celebrates the Eucharist or offers namaaz at Muslim prayer halls.

He is a "religious pluralist." His fascination for Lord Ganesha has prompted him to celebrate Vinayaka Chathurthi by consecrating an idol of Ganesha at a specially-erected podium in front of his rented house at Karumam on the outskirts of Thiruvananthapuram. Rev. Hart is an associate professor in Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Winchester in the U.K. He says his "pilgrimage to the ocean" on September 1 to immerse the idol will mark the culmination of a spiritual journey he had undertaken since his school years.

You can read it all at:

http://www.thehindu.com/2006/08/27/stories/2006082710700400.htm

Fox Journalists 'Convert' to Islam

I have yet to see the videotape of the two Fox journalists freed today in which they announced their "conversion" to Islam, but I did hear one of the two men, Steve Centanni, say that they read their statements with guns pointed at them.

Their plight might be compared to those of early Christians, many of whom were commanded to renounce their faith and burn incense to Caesar, or die.

One might say that if these two men were "real" Christians (and I have no knowledge whatsoever about their faith, or lack thereof), they would now be in the presence of God.

Such a thought troubles me, and causes me to make the following observations:

1. They were captive, and cut off from the eyes of the world.
2. They were being forced at gunpoint to make a statement that was being videotaped
3. They could assume that videotape would be used for propaganda purposes
4. If they refused to make the statement, they had every reason to believe they would be shot
5. They also had every reason to believe that no videotape of their refusal and subsequent deaths would ever be made public
6. Hence, their martyrdom would be lost to the wider world, though not to their murderers
7. They had reason to hope that if they did consent, they would be freed
8. As free men, they would have the opportunity to repudiate their "conversions"
9. Tough call

Any comments?

Does Anyone Know What's Going On?

Fr Jerome, over at On Pilgrimage, has the following observation:

"I have been monitoring with some considerable interest the recent dialogue between the TAC (Traditional Anglican Communion) and the Holy See. When I say 'monitoring' I mean observing the few and sparse official statements in TAC periodicals but reading avidly any written statement posted by Anglo-Catholics of the Continuum on blogs and forums. While I admit, as they do, that these are only personal observations and 'wishes' nonetheless they express a genuine enthusiasm for some movement on the situation. Sadly though I am beginning to perceive that somewhere there has been a 'cooling off' on the official front - while it is rumoured that dialogue has been significant and progressive there seems to be no mention of it officially from the other side... i.e. Rome and nothing much recently from the TAC."

Back in December and January there was much buzz about how the TAC bishops were going to hold an extraordinary syndod of sorts in Rome and that, during their stay, there were likely to be some high-level contacts with the Vatican. Never heard another word about that, though I may have missed it.

Ironically, a blog created specifically for the purposes of providing news and speculation on Anglican-Roman reconciliation, The Rome Report, ceased to provide any sort of news or speculation after its final posting on Feb 21.

Do any readers from the TAC, or Rome, have any clue what, if anything, is going on?

ECUSA's troubles

COLUMBUS, OH: No female Presiding Bishop for Fort Worth DioceseBy Peter Toon Virtueonline correspondent http://www.virtueonline.org/ 6/19/2006

There have been appeals over the centuries to the Archbishop of Canterbury for help for a variety of reasons but none has previously asked for "alternative Primatial oversight." This is what the Diocese of Fort Worth has requested in Letters sent to London, England, from Columbus, Ohio, on Monday June 19, 2006.

Read the whole article.

On Pilgrimage

I just discovered a new blog that looks like it might be of interest to readers of The Continuum.

"On Pilgrimage," it is called, and offers the "meandering thoughts and writings of a 'conservative' Catholic priest on route to his heavenly home ..."

The blogger is one Fr Jerome, who describes himself in his profile as "committed to the promotion and study of unity between the Roman, Old and Anglo-Catholic expressions of the Church Catholic. I am a Companion of St John Vianney (CSJV), an ecumenical fraternity of 'catholic' clergy. The fraternity exists to provide a network of fellowship and support to clergy of various 'catholic' denominations to pray for unity and to work towards unity through the sharing of knowledge, experience, devotion and continual formation in the Sacred Ministry."

You can find the blog at http://frjerome.blogspot.com

Jesus is the Lord

Reflections on the Epistle for the Tenth Sunday after Trinity

“Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.”
- I Cor. 12:3

We must consider two venues when we think of this basic confession of Christian Faith.


1. Confessing Jesus as the Lord within the Church:

We make this very confession in this specific portion of the Creed:

“…Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God; Begotten, not made; Being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man…”


The Jewish people had once known the ineffable Name of God which is represented by four letters of the Hebrew alphabet that correspond to our Latin alphabet with the letters YHVH (יהוה). This is the Name that is in the original Hebrew text every time that you find the word LORD rendered with every letter in the higher case, that is, in the KJV and other English translations that follow ancient Jewish and Christian tradition. The prophet Jeremiah had said that, upon their return from Babylon, this Name would no longer be pronounced by any man of Judah. The tradition of the Jewish people was to use the word Adonai whenever reading the Holy Name of God out loud in scripture, that name YHVH. The Hebrew word Adonai, which means “the Lord,” would be substituted by a Jewish reader, and that has remained the Jewish practice to this very day. The First century Christians who relied on the Greek translation called the Septuagint (generally rendered LXX in books) were accustomed to finding this Name of God translated as Kyrios (Κύριος), the Greek word for “Lord.” So, when we say that Jesus is the Lord, we are saying that this man who walked the earth, lived, died and rose again is Himself to be identified with the God of Israel who made heaven and earth. We are saying that “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” We are confessing the Incarnation. On that day when the apostle Peter said to Jesus, “thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God,” the Lord answered him, “Flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father in heaven” If you know, and can say with all your heart, that Jesus is the Lord, you are saying that He is one with the Father. You are saying, therefore, that “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” You are saying that God the Son has taken human nature into His Divine Person, our created nature into uncreated Person. You are saying that He has taken what is alien to Him, our humanity, as the One who is wholly other from every created thing, to forever transform human nature by making us partakers of the Divine Nature, as is written by the apostle Peter. This is why you cannot say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost. Oh, someone can say the words, perhaps, without conviction. But, to speak of the Incarnation with faith, you must have the Holy Spirit within you making Christ known to you.

2. Confessing Jesus as the Lord before the world.

This is more difficult. To the ears of a Roman Magistrate such a confession was a crime punishable by death. The Empire had one Lord, and that was Caesar. Furthermore, Christians were taught to obey and honor all earthly authorities, including Caesar, but (and here is the rub) only as far as the informed Christian conscience allows. The Church was taught to obey and honor his title, but not his ultimate title, his claim to total authority over the human conscience as formed by the word of God. Caesar was believed to be the lord and god of his empire, and for a Christian to save his life, once charged with the crime of Christianity, he had to renounce Jesus (apparently, calling Him accursed in the region around Corinth), and then make an offering of incense to the image of Caesar, as the image of the lord and god of the whole world. It is implied by Saint Paul’s words in this Epistle that certain lapsed believers sought to be allowed back quickly into the fellowship of the Church by claiming that the Holy Spirit had guided them to renounce Jesus in this manner, and save their lives. Saint Paul addresses this by teaching that such a notion is impossible, not setting aside the possibility of forgiveness, but firmly correcting an unacceptable excuse and wrong idea.

Here in the modern Western world we cannot identify easily with the ancient Christians, who at any moment could face denunciation to the authorities, or even have their gatherings raided. However, in other lands Christians live with the power of the state, that Beast that has suffered a mortal wound and yet lingers before that wound brings about its inevitable death, the power of the state demanding to be acknowledged as lord and god by trampling the human conscience. The Twentieth century saw more martyrs than all previous centuries combined, and we see no change in the world even now except for the fall of one state, the Soviet Union. How poor an excuse it is, therefore, if under a threat no more serious than social pressure, we fail to live up to the dictates of an informed conscience and declare by word and deed that Jesus is the Lord.

Of course, it is also true that human pride is given no room by the courageous examples of the martyrs; for Saint Paul tells us that if we are faced with death it is only by the Holy Spirit that we have the power to confess Jesus as the Lord. C.S. Lewis once wrote: “Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.” And, this virtue requires the Holy Spirit giving His grace to say “Jesus is the Lord.”

Mary the Conqueror

This past week we celebrated the feast of the Assumption (if we use the Anglican Missal). The reading from the book of Judith has been understood by the Church to prefigure the unique vocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary in a way that may seem to strange to us. The picture is one of the violence of war, and the slaying of a cruel enemy in the spirit of the ancient judges (reminiscent of the story of Jael, the wife of Heber – Judges 4:17f).

In the 16th chapter of Judith we read:
6: But the Almighty Lord hath disappointed them by the hand of a woman.

7: For the mighty one did not fall by the young men, neither did the sons of the Titans smite him, nor high giants set upon him: but Judith the daughter of Merari weakened him with the beauty of her countenance.

8: For she put off the garment of her widowhood for the exaltation of those that were oppressed in Israel, and anointed her face with ointment, and bound her hair in a tire, and took a linen garment to deceive him.

9: Her sandals ravished his eyes, her beauty took his mind prisoner, and the fauchion passed through his neck.

10: The Persians quaked at her boldness, and the Medes were daunted at her hardiness.

11: Then my afflicted shouted for joy, and my weak ones cried aloud; but they were astonished: these lifted up their voices, but they were overthrown.

12: The sons of the damsels have pierced them through, and wounded them as fugitives' children: they perished by the battle of the Lord.

13: I will sing unto the Lord a new song: O Lord, thou art great and glorious, wonderful in strength, and invincible.

The head of Holofernes, cut off by the fauchion, ought to remind us of the Biblical Protoevangelium: “And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” - Gen. 3:14, 15

I have often thought that the unimpressive stature of the hobbits- in The Lord of the Rings - the smallest of persons and seemingly unfit for battle by reason of frailty- should remind us that without the faith and obedience of Mary, the Woman (so identified by Christ in Cana, and from the cross), the enemy would never have been overthrown, and we would not have been delivered from sin and death. Only one person shared direct involvement with Christ in the greatest miracle of all, the Incarnation, to become the Mother of God. Her seed bruised the serpent’s head in the one real war.

The Marriage

The Marriage

Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other. (Psalm 85:10)
-----------
Truth looks down at the sons of men,
and righteousness it cannot find,
for when it looks at the human race
as they live before God's face,
and judges them by God's own mind
as they rebel, deny, rebel again
against the One who made them all,
and fully desired them never to fall,
yet watched them defy His will and then
flee from His presence, newly blind,
flee from the garden, once their place,
to wander a world that's bitter as gall,
........condemned
........by truth
........they are.
--
Mercy melts at the thought of pain
and wishes only that it might be eased,
the symptoms hid by a soothing balm,
while underneath there is no calm,
and a righteous God is far from pleased,
while fallen man falls yet again,
and by his sin from rightness turns,
and the will of holy God he spurns,
and in his pride attempts to reign
a life that has by evil been seized,
and shielded by "mercy" from God's alarm
until it becomes too late to learn
........that mercy alone
........leaves him
........condemned.
--
Righteousness demands a price,
a price no human soul is able to pay,
until it takes its final breath,
and enters into eternal death,
eternal darkness with never a day,
and lasting suffering that won't suffice
to pay the debt the sinner owes,
or ransom him from the place he goes,
for to be righteous in God's eyes,
can only be done if he find the Way,
the Truth and the Life,
as the Scripture saith,
for otherwise, as rightness knows,
........he stands
........condemned
........and lost.
--
Peace, shalom, wholeness, health,
contentment, sureness, comfort, life,
these were the plan in paradise,
until they thought themselves so wise,
that peace with God was replaced by strife,
and openness was turned to stealth,
and holiness grievously turned to sin,
and fallen mankind now had to begin,
to strive and sweat for a little wealth,
in a fallen world with problems rife,
where what is living without fail dies,
and, striving for peace we never win,
........but know
........that we are
........condemned.
--
But on the cross hangs Mercy in sight,
the mercy that caused the Son of light
to die at the hands of wicked men,
that they might know the truth again.
--
And on the cross hangs Truth on high,
the truth that sin has got to die,
and that the price must ever be paid,
and righteousness in the tomb be laid.
--
And on the cross Righteousness reigns,
as the Pure One suffers my pains,
and there for my sin remission buys,
dying my death before my eyes.
--
And on the cross Peace is proclaimed,
wholeness and health and holiness named,
for there at the cross all evil is felled,
and there at the cross in love I am held.
--
And now in joy let the wedding begin,
and now in joy let the bride come in,
for mercy and truth now are met,
in them eternal union is set,
and righteousness plants a kiss with love,
and in peace at last takes her above.
--
And they live happily ever after.
--
Amen.

.........................ed pacht

Reflections on the Prodigal Son (for Trinity IX)

The Gospel. St. Luke xv. 11.

1. We have three characters in this parable, and the most important of them is the father. It is the love of this father that remains the most important lesson. He is genuinely shown in such a way as to give us the true picture of God’s impassibility, because his love is constant, never destroyed, never diminished, always present. Because we think of love in strictly emotional terms, that is emotion instead of feeling, we think of changes and reactions as part of what it must be. Not so the love of God. The father in the parable is patient, quick to forgive and completely gracious because nothing changes him.

When the prodigal returns to his father’s house, he finds that the return itself is sufficient for him to receive forgiveness, because the father does not base his love on reaction, or on whims. If we believe that the love of God is based upon how He feels at the present moment, then we do not understand the cross. The forgiveness of sins can be anticipated with hopeful expectation because Jesus Christ died for all of our sins, and He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. If we understand that mercy or judgment depends on where we stand, because both were present on the cross, God’s impassibility becomes a great comfort, and His love becomes our certain hope and expectation.

2. Another character is the elder brother, the one who does not know that he too is a sinner. Neither does he care that his bitterness grieves his father, because, after all, he is right. Right, that is, in that he is correct. If ever we forget that everything we do in Church is all about the Father’s love for sinners, we become the elder brother. In every Mass I quote Saint Paul in the Comfortable Words: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” The elder brother takes many forms, and that includes the forms he takes among Anglican Catholics like ourselves. I have been present in services where people were more concerned with a performance than with anything else; more concerned with observing all the little fussy details of the choreography found in Ritual Notes from the Alcuin Club (never mind how effeminate an attitude all that fussiness creates), than with worshiping God in spirit and in truth. Far more important than getting all the details right about when to step to the right or left, how any times to swing the thurible, or which candles to light first, is remembering why we are here to begin with.

Everything we hear from God’s Word, and every sacrament we receive, is all because Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. The elder brother is not capable of obeying the words of Saint Paul, “Do the work of an evangelist.” He cannot do this work, because he is so very correct about how unworthy the younger brother is. And, because of this his heart is far from that of his father. He cannot make merry because joy depends upon love. And, to understand his father he would have to be filled with the love that forgives and restores.

3. Finally we must consider the prodigal son himself. Anyone who cannot identify with this repentant sinner (including his elder brother) wallows in self-deception because, as the Beloved Disciple wrote: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us (I John 1:8-10).” In order to learn about sin, I did not depend upon a textbook in Seminary. All I ever needed was to look in the mirror. Like Dracula, some people have no mirrors in their houses, and could not see their reflections even if they did. What is the mirror but the word of God, the perfect Law of liberty that James tells us we must look into? The laver in which the priests cleansed themselves before entering the Holy Place was made of mirrors, all of which helped them to wash. Look into God’s word, and let the truth convict you of your own sins.

When I teach people about Confession and Absolution I tell them that they must remember that Christ is the Advocate for us; but we appear before the priest to make confession as witnesses for the prosecution. Without excuses, without sugar coating, we must testify against ourselves, and let the love of the Father come through to us by way of this sacrament of the priesthood. We must learn to identify with the prodigal son, to be able to say, “I have sinned against heaven and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.” “ ‘Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: and bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to be merry.” In other words, spoken through the priest, “I absolve thee of thy sins in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”

Saint Paul tells us that we are all called to become saints, both in the opening chapter of I Corinthians, and in the opening chapter of Romans. My Roman Catholic mother in law once gave me a dose of “nun theology.” Her bad understanding of her Catholic Faith became quite clear as I was told that we should never think that any of us could be like the saints: They are special people who were able to be holy. This makes them sound like superheroes, bitten by just the right spider so they can shoot webs out of themselves, or that they can fly because they come from Krypton. On the other hand, I have had Fundamentalist friends who preach that once you “come to Jesus” you are no longer a sinner, but rather you are already a saint. However, what Saint Paul told the Corinthians and the Romans was that they were called to become saints, because holiness of life is a vocation for every Christian.

But, unless we first identify with the prodigal son, we haven’t a snowflake’s chance in “the other place” of becoming saints. Knowing we are called to become saints, but seeing the terrible truth in the mirror of God’s word, we must be willing to appear for the prosecution in order to receive the grace of the sacrament of Absolution. The sweetness of sin forgiven creates charity; and this, in turn, creates the ability to do the work of an evangelist.

A Night at the Church

Left to right: Fr. Addison Hart (Roman Catholic Priest), Fr. Robert Hart (Anglican Priest, APCK), and Dr. David Bentley Hart (Orthodox Theologian, member of the OCA).


For those curious about our appearance these days, this picture was taken yesterday, August 11th, by my dear friend Bishop Joel Johnson (who ordained me all those years ago) in the town of Easton, MD., in Saint Andrew's Anglican Church. Here we are, the Groucho, Harpo and Chico of theology- the Hart Brothers.

I'll be posting something serious rather soon.

Transfiguration

August 6, 2006, Feast of the Transfiguration. Dr. Jonathan Munn (warwickensis), preaching in Dartford, England, delivered a sermon, which he then posted online (at O Cuniculi...). This is one of my favorite feasts, and one of my favorite preaching themes, but Jonathan managed to bring out thoughts a bit different from any I’d previously had. I read the text several times, extracted some key portions of it, and used them to structure this piece . . .

Transfiguration

A veil hangs thick between this world
and the world that lies beyond,
a world of brightness everlasting
that the eyes of men are never able to behold,
and of timeless time beyond our understanding,
around a throne that makes infinity look small;
and we before that veil walk on unknowing,
unseeing, unsuspecting in the presence of that Light,
until . . .

until in arms of teenage virgin Mother,
until the waters of the Jordan flow,
until transfiguration on the mount of light
until the dance of darkness on the Cross
until the breaking of the bonds of death
until the taking of the Bread and Cup
that stand transformed upon the Table of the Lord.

until the veil is breached and broken
and a Man is shown as Son of God and shines
and infinity has stormed across the mighty veil,
and breaks into this world of time,
and then . . .

The cloud falls,
the sight of glory is obscured,
obscured and hid from eyes that cannot see
of men that cannot long endure
the fullness of that majesty
without that they be burnt away,
consumed by joy beyond all strength
unless . . .

The cloud falls,
the vision is removed.
misunderstood, half unbelieved,
obscured but not forgotten,
held in memory to the proper day,
held in memory till eternity

We may have seen, but truly do not know
the meaning of the things we see,
and sometimes grope with blindness in the dark,
seeking somehow something we can understand,
but Christians are not fed by explanations,
and what we understand with finite minds
cannot nourish,
cannot feed our hungry souls,
and so we seek for more than explanation,
and so we seek for God,
and finding God is finding love,
and finding love is finding God,
and finding God is gain.

Knowing God comes not from understanding,
but from the wordlessness of meeting, touching, feeling,
holding, being held and hearing words that can’t be said,
and thinking thoughts the mind will never comprehend

And if we truly wish to meet Him,
truly wish to come into that Presence,
and long that we come close to God,
we may . . .

But it is in that cloud we come to know Him,
in that cloud where even thoughts are hid,
and where the only thing that we are knowing
is that we are knowing nothing,
but await the presence of the Lord of Love.

And when He comes upon this altar we may come,
coming, seeking explanations,
thinking that we understand,
and add a layer to that mighty veil,
that bars the way that leads beyond,
for, if we think we understand the mystery,
the heart of mystery never will we find
until . . .

We walk with boldness and yet humbly toward the cloud,
and entering into what seems darkness,
see the Light,
and, unknowing,
know.
-------------
--- ed pacht

Have Continuers Stepped too Far Ahead?

I draw your attention to an article by the Revd Dr Peter Toon over at the blog of the Prayer Book Society of the USA entitled "The Affirmation of St Louis (1977), The Anglican Communion Network and The Anglican Way."

I would welcome your comments on this piece, particularly on his conclusion:

"It is difficult to come to clarity on the question of whether the Affirmers in 1977 saw themselves as Anglo-Catholics committed to historic Anglicanism (as set forth for example in The Canadian Solemn Declaration of 1893 and printed in the 1962 Canadian BCP), who allowed their private and cherished opinions to influence their description of the Anglican Way in a kind of reactionary pendulum flow, OR that leaving the two mainline Churches provided the Anglo-Catholic participants with the opportunity to reform Anglicanism in a Rome-ward or perhaps Orthodox-ward direction and they took this opportunity to do so, believing they were forging a new and better path for others after them to walk in. If the latter then, it would appear, they are making their impact in ways never envisaged in 2006 through the Common Cause partners of The Network!

"Apparently for some Continuers today in the ACC, ACA, APA and APCK neither the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Trent nor the doctrine of The Articles should be considered confessional documents, but rather the doctrinal decrees of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils that are commonly recognized by Rome and the East, should be so regarded. This view allows Continuing Anglicanism to be both informed by the historical importance of the Articles and open to Roman Catholic (Tridentine) doctrine and liturgy as pious opinions, but not dogmas. The peculiarly English traditions of worship created in 1549 are central to this position in the Continuum, though some borrowing from Latin and Greek traditions is allowed when judged to be edifying to the English mind and spirit. This viewpoint is also said to be the reasonable trajectory of the "Caroline Divines." (The problem with this approach is that it is imaginary and it tends to create a form of religion which is that of a tiny minority alongside but not in with the fellowship of 80 millions of the Anglican Way in the Anglican Communion of Churches, and also not in with or part of historic Catholicism of East or West.)

"Certainly all reasonable people accept that The Affirmation of St Louis goes beyond the normal statement of The Anglican Way and thus cannot be signed or accepted by those who are committed to the classic Anglican Formularies as they are presented, for example, in The Solemn Declaration of 1893 of Canada and in the Constitution of The Church of England, the Anglican Church of Nigeria, and in virtually all other Anglican provincial constitutions and presented in many editions of The Prayer Book of 1662 around the world.

"The Network, it seems, faces a dilemma. If it embraces the Seventh Council and Seven Sacraments then it steps ahead of world Anglicanism and away from the historic Formularies of the Anglican Way. If it does not, then it will not apparently win the hearts of a very small group of Continuers for whom, it appears, the “extras” of the Affirmation count more than the solid center where they agree with the historic Reformed Catholicism of the Anglican Way.

"A suggestion --- Let those of The Network, who actually hold to the historic Formularies, seek to persuade the Continuers to hold their cherished views as private opinion not required church doctrine; and then there can be real progress towards common witness and aims on the basis of unity on Scripture and classic Formularies."

The Cup of Salvation

The Cup of Salvation
a meditation by Ed Pacht

"This is My Body," said Our Lord, displaying the bread of that Last Supper before sharing it with His disciples. "This is My Body," repeats the priest at the Christian altar, displaying the bread of the Sacrament before sharing it with the faithful. The meaning is clear, the intent obvious, and so it has been understood by the Church of God for nearly two millennia. The priest, speaking as the living icon of his Lord, indicates by the Lord’s own words that this very bread, now held and pointed at or lifted up before our eyes,. has become the true Body of that same Lord, given once and for all on the Cross of Calvary and here placed into the hands and mouths of mortal men. This is a great and glorious Mystery, and we believe and confess it to be true.

There is a deepening of the Mystery, however, when we come to consider the life-giving and holy drink of His Blood. He took the cup, and, as recorded by SS. Matthew and Mark and quoted in our own Book of Common Prayer, said, "This is My Blood." However, SS Luke and Paul render these words as, "This cup is the New Testament in my Blood," and the Gregorian Canon of the old Latin Mass quotes it as, "This is the cup of My Blood." Even in Matthew and Mark, as also in our liturgy, though the contents are quite obviously meant, and are declared to be His Blood, it is the cup that is being pointed at, and not the contents. Why? Is it merely because the wine is hiding inside the cup? Well, of course there is something in that, but, surely one could indicate that rubrically by saying, ‘he shall take the wine,‘ verbally by not mentioning the container at all, and ceremonially by pointing down into the cup at the contents themselves. Why are we not as consistent in this as we are with the host? The question causes me to look deeper.

The Blood of His dying poured from his tortured Body, the physical life and strength draining from him, soaking into the ground at the whipping-stake, and on the Via Dolorosa. It soaked into the wood of the Cross and yet again into the ground at its foot. His life-blood drained and the life with it. He cried, "It is finished," and gave up the ghost. It was, as the author of Hebrews points out, much like the blood of bulls and goats in the temple sacrifices, whose blood was poured out on the ground and sprinkled upon the holy things as a sign of worship to God and blessing by Him, poured out and forever separated from the sacrificial victim.. But the Sacrifice that wrought our salvation did not stop there. There is more.

When, at Mass, we participate in that one sacrifice once and eternally offered, we eat the Body of Our Lord, and drink His Blood; but we are not drinking the blood of a dead sacrifice. In the Temple that was forbidden, so fervently that Orthodox Jews to this day will not eat meat that still contains blood. They use rock salt to draw the last of the blood from the flesh before they will cook the meat. What, then, does it mean that Christians are asked, yea commanded, to drink His Blood? And what makes the cup so important an element?

The Blood of His Death was, as we have seen, poured out, dispersed, lost in the earth, but it is not the blood of death with which we celebrate. We do not remember a dead God. We worship a living Saviour and King as we celebrate the marriage feast of the Lamb once slain and now living and reigning forever. Our feast is not upon dead things, but upon His living and loving Presence. Then, His Blood was poured out, dispersed, but now, His Blood is contained, contained as in any living creature, in His living Body. And His Body, we are told, is His Church.

The Wine is His Blood, which is no longer poured out, but contained. Oh are we careful that not one drop be lost! It is to be contained, cherished, and free to flow in the living Body that carries His Presence in this earth. "This Cup is my Blood." We drink from the Cup, and the Blood of the Sacrifice courses through our veins, and we walk, filled with His own life, into the world for which He died and rose.

July 29, 2006

Outline of an Anglican Life

The man who wrote the book on Continuing Anglicanism was Fr. Louis Tarsitano, a priest of the ACA who was also an Associate Editor of Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. Now, this book, which has gone in and out of print over the last few years, is available in PDF format. It is useful for educating oneself, for Confirmation candidates, and maybe even to help rescue people from the sinking ECUSA ship- if they will but read it.

I recommend it.

Dear Prudence

I would like to quote from a letter that was written to me. I cannot reveal the name of the writer for reasons that will be obvious. I thank him for making a practical idea available in case it may help others.


Dear Father Hart:

Because of some of your articles in Touchstone Magazine I wanted to write to you, so that you may use this (but please don’t give out my name)… I found myself becoming addicted to mild forms of Internet Pornography. It began small, just looking at pictures of naked women a bit here and there. Eventually, I found myself waking up without sleeping most of the night, because I had been up all night looking at always just that one more picture. I have never actually broken this acquired addiction, well, at least not exactly. Rather than fight temptation I prefer to avoid it. I bought a filter program for my computer. After a lot of tinkering I got [the filter] to do what I need, namely to block out those porn sights, but never interfere with legitimate functions that I need. Then I secured the filter with a password by closing my eyes while I created it, cutting and pasting it, so that I could not memorize it. It is printed in case I ever have to let a technician work on my PC, but the only copy is miles away in a desk in an office where there is no computer. So far this works, and I have peace, and finally get the sleep I need…

This reminds me of something David Mills posted in Mere Comments from another Touchstone reader a few years ago; it had come from a man who was tempted by homosexual desires and who also had become addicted to Internet pornography. In his case, his wife controlled the filter with a password, and in this case we have a man who has placed a barrier between himself and the password. I recall that David praised the first man for his prudence, and I praise this man for having the same virtue. And, both of them have shown the charity that it takes to try to make their experience profitable to others. It is a very practical solution to avoid temptation, or as some versions of the Act of Contrition put it, “to avoid the near occasion of sin.”

In the Sermon on the Mount the Lord spoke of plucking out the eye and cutting off the hand, which Saint Paul referred to as “putting to death your members on earth.” The violent take the Kingdom of Heaven by force, and this force is to resist unto the shedding of blood in striving against sin (Heb. 12:4). The language of bloodshed and self-mutilation seems rather strange to a mild soft-sell generation like ours. But, when the New Testament was being written Christians needed to be ready to die as martyrs, and therefore free from inordinate attachments and lusts. What we must learn is to be ruthless with ourselves, and to find practical ways to avoid the near occasion of sin. If unlimited Internet freedom offend thee, cut it off and pluck it away. Better to enter into life maimed than to have thy whole body cast into Hell.

For those who want to know about the virtues, we have seven. Four come from Wisdom 8:7 (“And if a man love righteousness her labours are virtues: for she teacheth temperance and prudence, justice and fortitude: which are such things, as men can have nothing more profitable in their life”) and the other three from I Corinthians 13: 13 (“And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity”).

More on "East and West"

“I see this going on in Orthodoxy all the time. The continuous discovery of new and improbable ‘differences’ between East and West has become virtually a cottage industry among some Orthodox Christians. Many of these alleged differences, however, seem not to have occurred to most Orthodox Christians who lived either before the Russian Revolution or outside of Paris.”
-Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon

In the ongoing discussion about East and West, no one can speak with more authority than the pastor of All Saints Orthodox Church in Chicago, Father Patrick Henry Reardon (who also is a senior editor of Touchstone, and the author of several good books). In one lifetime, he has done what it has taken all three of the Hart brothers to do: he has been Roman Catholic, then Anglican and is now Orthodox. What sets him apart is the depth of his learning, since his knowledge of the entire Christian Tradition is about as exhaustive as any one man can possess. After all of his decades of scholarship, he has been able to speak in terms that all Christians can appreciate, demonstrating the reality of our common ground. Fr. Reardon has stated more than once the threefold separation between man and God that has been overcome for us in Christ, the separation by nature, by sin and by death. We are saved from our separation by nature in Christ’s Incarnation. We are saved from our separation by sin in Christ’s death, and we are saved from our separation by death in Christ’s resurrection.

I want to use this to answer the opinion of a commenter who calls himself Kolokotronis, specifically when this Kolokotronis wrote: “The West's concept of God, salvation, human nature, even sin itself, are near 180 degrees off that of the early Church, but are in many ways quite consistent with Greek pagan philosophy.” Before I do, let me say that this idea exalts Greek Paganism beyond measure. If the “Western” “concept of God” is consistent with Greek Paganism, then the pagans must have believed in a transcendent God who is Wholly Other from every created nature, dwelling in eternity, unknowable and unapproachable. Somehow, this does not fit the notion of Zeus on Mount Olympus, or of the gods who were subject to passions. It is simply another empty charge and invented excuse for maintaining and deepening division at any price.

About salvation, just how different is the “East” from the “West?” I believe that Saint Paul, unless he was capable of time travel, never read Cur Deus Homo by Saint Anselm. And, yet, he summarized the entire concept of the Jewish sacrificial system in the Law, and the Suffering Servant passage of Isaiah, with the words “Christ died for our sins, according to the scripture (i.e. in fulfillment of those scriptures about sacrifice).” – I Cor. 15 : 3. Here we look again at those three ways in which salvation is offered to us in Christ. By dying He took away the sins of the world. Can this really have no relationship to Divine Justice? Is God so immoral or a-moral? Christ overcame death, but in His cross He conquered both sin and death. Furthermore, in order for the Incarnation to save us from death and open to us the hope that we become “partakers of the divine nature,” sin must first be taken away by the Lamb of God, the “propitiation for the sins of the whole world.” In order for His resurrection to give us immortality, sin had to be removed first. In order for us be given the grace to partake of the divine nature by Theosis, we first needed this redemption from sin/ death (really one thing for us, not two).

To what degree this Kolokotronis believes that the East and the West have different concepts about what sin is, I would rather not even begin to question. It simply makes no sense. I really cannot say what Kolokotronis meant by condemning the “Western concept” of human nature, unless he is referring to a belief taught only in some Protestant circles that the Fall created something new called “sin nature,” a kind of anti-grace in the descendents of Adam. The Fall should be understood in terms of what we lost: we lack the grace to become what we were created to be. Our only hope is in Christ, His Incarnation, His cross, and His resurrection, by which grace is restored.