The doctrine that sacraments work ex opere operato is widely rejected by Protestants, but I am not entirely convinced that the terms of the debate have not shifted since the time of the Reformation; with the result that our objection is to something different than what the Reformers objected to, and actually our objection as typically phrased is a disguised objection to Faith Alone.
We say "Catholics believe that the Sacraments impart grace aside from the intentions of the recipient, which reduces Christ's institution to magic." Now there are two problems with this objection: First, it doesn't accurately reflect the Catholic doctrine. A Catholic would say the Sacraments are means of grace, but only if... Only if I am X are the Sacraments a means of grace. But more fundamentally, it is an objection standing on works, against faith alone. It is, from the early Protestant perspective, precisely a Catholic objection to the Protestants. The Protestant position is "the Sacraments are grace, whether we mean it or no. When we receive the Sacraments, we receive Christ, whether we will or no. They are God's Word to us that we are His. No matter how good we are, no matter how faithful we are, they are God's Word to us that we are His. And His Word does not return void--it actuall accomplishes its content, and therefore makes us His." It is, of course, possible for us to shout "liar" back at God, and when we do so, precisely in distrusting God and pulling from Him we condemn ourselves, for He is our Life, and to leave Him is to die. But whether we will or no, and even if we call Him a liar, the Sacraments are God's Word to us that we are His, and they are His work to make us His. They in fact communicate Christ to us. Even should we ultimately be condemned, we have yet been baptized into Christ, and have tasted Christ. And even should we ultimately be condemned, (though this is perhaps more Orthodox) Hell is not separation from God, but union with the God we hate--for those in Hell are resurrected, and we are only resurrected through union with Christ.
And anyway, aside from being based on works righteousness, the objection that the reception of the Sacraments is grace only if we... is not one that would have been raised in the time of the Reformation. When we read it back into Luther and Calvin, we read something they historically would not have said. Why not? Well, first, no one believed it; but second, no one ever received the Eucharist. Maybe once a year. Maybe. Generally they just went to Church and watched. And the doctrine was that merely by the Mass being said their sins were forgiven. (Thus Masses could be said for the dead or for the absent, and it was not the prayers which helped the dead or the absent, but the saying of the Mass itself, particularly the offering of the Bread and Wine.) And this is a highly objectionable doctrine. Though I'm not a scholar, my guess is that the objection to ex opere operato Sacraments is not to the idea that the Sacrament is grace to any who receive, but that the Sacrament is grace whether it is received or no.
Thus the objection is closely related to the objections to Sacerdotalism, and to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. I must come to Christ, I must meet Him, I must receive Him--or rather Christ must come to me, He must meet me, He must receive me. If another is in Christ's presence, good for Him. What is that to me. And the Catholic doctrine as it was, assumed that I should, perhaps, come to Christ; but I may not find Him good if I do--better to come through another, never approach Christ myself. The Sacrament will be offered, and merely by being offered, I am saved.
The question remains: is this still a valid objection to the Catholic doctrine? I'm not quite sure about the answer. Doctrinally, it was mostly corrected by Vatican II--though I believe there is still that deadly "the Sacraments are grace, conditionally." But it seems that the problem still lingers; particularly through the tension between whether Protestants are or are not members of the Church, which tends to cause the Church to be identified with the Bishops, and not the faithful. But this is no longer where the cheif objection to the Catholic Church should stand. The objection should be that the Bishops and the faithful no longer care for the Word, nor the Eucharist, nor Prayer, nor even Christ--as demonstrated through the widespread empty architecture, empty translation of the Scriptures, empty translation of the liturgy, irreverance toward the Eucharist, and little fear of the Lord.
(Objections which most devoted Catholics would, I believe, find accurate.)
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Why should we pray to Jesus when we can pray to the Mary?
That's the question an Ethiopian Orthodox girl asked Michael Spenser because he prayed to Jesus and not to Mary.
When he questioned her, she elaborated "Why should we pray to God or Jesus when we can pray to the Mary. The Mary is sinless and she is the mother of Jesus. She can take our prayers to him. It’s better to pray to the Mary."
Now clearly, this girl is very confused. But I'm not exactly sure the confusion is exactly where we would think it is. Does she have an idolatrous view of the Theotokos? Perhaps, but this quote doesn't seem to suggest she does. She still hopes to have her prayer heard by God, and she knows he is the source. But she thinks the easiest way to get his ear is to go through his Mother.
Now I don't believe it, but I could concede that she is correct. It may well be true that if we ask St. Anthony to pray that we find our keys, we will be more likely to find them than if we ourselves pray that we find out keys. It may well be that prayers to Mary for prayers are more effective than prayers to Christ. But, and here is the key point, more effective in what? More effective at getting getting good things--that is at getting good reflections of Christ. But one critical thing is left out--the presence of Christ. For the reason we pray is emphatically not in the first place that we get this or that (though it is important that we get this or that, and for most of us, myself included, the actual impetus for prayer is this or that) but that we may be in the presence of Christ. And stopping at Mary and never preceding forward to Christ lacks, by the very nature of the case, this important element. This all important element.
Which is why much of the Catholic defense of prayers to the saints is deeply flawed. Why should we not ask saints to pray for us? Because we ourselves should enter into the presence of Christ, rather than asking someone else to enter for us, and remaining in the dark.
If there is a defense of prayers to the saints, it is that in the presence of Christ we find not Christ alone, but the whole company of the heavenly hosts. And Christ is present with us precisely in and through them. In the presence of Christ we find other comforters. But give me nothing of prayers for prayers. I myself must see Christ. I and no stranger.
But returning to this girl, her problem is not that she has idolatrized the Theotokos, but that she has idolatrized these things here around us. Prayer is effective means she gets good things--and the things legitimately are good; that isn't my point. But the things have replaced Christ. But I wonder, is she altogether too far from us in this?
(Her problem may also be that she thinks God is remote and scary. But again, do we not have the same problem? We say God the Father is remote, when in face he is no more scary and remote than Christ, for Christ has revealed Him.)
When he questioned her, she elaborated "Why should we pray to God or Jesus when we can pray to the Mary. The Mary is sinless and she is the mother of Jesus. She can take our prayers to him. It’s better to pray to the Mary."
Now clearly, this girl is very confused. But I'm not exactly sure the confusion is exactly where we would think it is. Does she have an idolatrous view of the Theotokos? Perhaps, but this quote doesn't seem to suggest she does. She still hopes to have her prayer heard by God, and she knows he is the source. But she thinks the easiest way to get his ear is to go through his Mother.
Now I don't believe it, but I could concede that she is correct. It may well be true that if we ask St. Anthony to pray that we find our keys, we will be more likely to find them than if we ourselves pray that we find out keys. It may well be that prayers to Mary for prayers are more effective than prayers to Christ. But, and here is the key point, more effective in what? More effective at getting getting good things--that is at getting good reflections of Christ. But one critical thing is left out--the presence of Christ. For the reason we pray is emphatically not in the first place that we get this or that (though it is important that we get this or that, and for most of us, myself included, the actual impetus for prayer is this or that) but that we may be in the presence of Christ. And stopping at Mary and never preceding forward to Christ lacks, by the very nature of the case, this important element. This all important element.
Which is why much of the Catholic defense of prayers to the saints is deeply flawed. Why should we not ask saints to pray for us? Because we ourselves should enter into the presence of Christ, rather than asking someone else to enter for us, and remaining in the dark.
If there is a defense of prayers to the saints, it is that in the presence of Christ we find not Christ alone, but the whole company of the heavenly hosts. And Christ is present with us precisely in and through them. In the presence of Christ we find other comforters. But give me nothing of prayers for prayers. I myself must see Christ. I and no stranger.
But returning to this girl, her problem is not that she has idolatrized the Theotokos, but that she has idolatrized these things here around us. Prayer is effective means she gets good things--and the things legitimately are good; that isn't my point. But the things have replaced Christ. But I wonder, is she altogether too far from us in this?
(Her problem may also be that she thinks God is remote and scary. But again, do we not have the same problem? We say God the Father is remote, when in face he is no more scary and remote than Christ, for Christ has revealed Him.)
Friday, August 14, 2009
Michael Vick
And why is there less outrage toward Pitino than toward Vick? If people showed up at Louisville basketball games with pictures of aborted fetuses, everyone would attack the protesters. But we're all sympathetic to the animal rights activists who protest Vick.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Aeneas Aeneadesque ait:
O sola infandos Trojae miserata labores,From Virgil and Cato. Translating the Aeneid I've been really shocked by Aeneas' lack of hospitality (to put it mildly)--Dido should have told him she'd marry him when she finished her tapestry, and remained loyal to Sichaeus--for this Aeneas comes with no gift but fire and salt. Fire to destroy the city--as indeed Rome herself, then in Asia, had just earlier been destroyed--and salt to destroy her crops. Here is your thanks Dido: Et Carthago delenda est.
quae nos, relliquias Danaum, terraeque marisque
omnibus exhaustis jam casibus, omnium egenos,
urbe, domo socias, grates persolvere dignas
non opis est nostrae, Dido, nec quidquid ubique est
gentis Dardaniae, magnum quae sparsa per orbem.
Sed Carthago delenda est!"
"I may wel lese a word on yow, or letter,--Dido to Aeneas, from Chaucer's The Legend of Good Women.
Al-be-it that I shal be never the better;
For thilke wind that blew your ship a-wey,
The same wind hath blowe a-wey your fey."
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Gilbert Keith Dursley?
You know, I don't think I'd object too much to having G. K. Chesterton as an adoptive father.
St. Francis
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Salt Blocks
For various ideas of how to serve food on salt: The Himalyan Salt Block Guide.
The custard frozen on salt sounds most interesting to me.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Lettuce and Potato Ice Cream?
And 100 others.
My favorites include:
17. Raw Horseflesh Ice Cream. The mere thought of putting raw horseflesh into ice cream may be enough to produce plenty of neigh … er, naysayers. And, rightfully so. You can get it straight from the horse’s mouth, this would have to vie for the vilest ice cream ever created. The chunks of meat inside it offer ample proof of why horseflesh is usually used in dog food.
24. Deep Sea Water Ice Cream. Brine may well rhyme with fine and shine, but this flavor offering the salt of the sea does neither. Imagine drinking some milk at the beach precisely the moment you cop a mouthful of water after a huge wave dumps on you and you’ve got something like this extraordinary taste.
Though others may actually be good, like:
37.Cherry Blossom Ice Cream. Given the love the Japanese have for their national emblem, this ice cream could never be anything but a dessert delight. The scrumptious sweet is yummy for the tummy, brightening up the taste buds the same way its ingredients bring about a delightful transformation across the entire country every spring. The treat may well show that Japan’s ice cream makers are blossoming, but don’t forget you’re chomping away on flowers.
75. Rose Ice Cream. Just like inhaling a bouquet of roses, except you’re eating them!
My favorites include:
17. Raw Horseflesh Ice Cream. The mere thought of putting raw horseflesh into ice cream may be enough to produce plenty of neigh … er, naysayers. And, rightfully so. You can get it straight from the horse’s mouth, this would have to vie for the vilest ice cream ever created. The chunks of meat inside it offer ample proof of why horseflesh is usually used in dog food.
24. Deep Sea Water Ice Cream. Brine may well rhyme with fine and shine, but this flavor offering the salt of the sea does neither. Imagine drinking some milk at the beach precisely the moment you cop a mouthful of water after a huge wave dumps on you and you’ve got something like this extraordinary taste.
Though others may actually be good, like:
37.Cherry Blossom Ice Cream. Given the love the Japanese have for their national emblem, this ice cream could never be anything but a dessert delight. The scrumptious sweet is yummy for the tummy, brightening up the taste buds the same way its ingredients bring about a delightful transformation across the entire country every spring. The treat may well show that Japan’s ice cream makers are blossoming, but don’t forget you’re chomping away on flowers.
75. Rose Ice Cream. Just like inhaling a bouquet of roses, except you’re eating them!
Saturday, June 27, 2009
What good is there in denying that the Theotokos had additional children?
The Theotokos quickly and rightly becomes a metonymy for the Church. If we reverence the Theotokos as mother of others besides Christ, which is to say, she finds her identity in others besides her Son, we, through the metonymy say that we should find our meaning in others besides Christ.
Does it add to or subtract from the Theotokos' honor to say she had other children?
It would seem that it adds to her honor because children are an honor, and she would be praised for any subsequent children. Children are a blessing and a crown.
It is true that there is more honor in having two children than one. But that is because there is only finite honor in bearing a child. But Mary deserves infinite honor for bearing God the Word, for she has given us an infinite good. And additional finite honor can not add at all to the infinite honor she already has as Theotokos. The finite adds nothing to the Infinite. But moreover, not only would she receive infinite honor side by side with finite honor, the infinite honor includes any of the finite honor. In bearing further children, she has done nothing more than she did in bearing God the Word, for in Him all things consist. The infinite honor which belongs to her as Theotokos includes any other additional honor she could receive.
So it doesn't add anything to say the Theotokos is also the mother of human persons, but does it subtract anything from her? Though again, it doesn't subtract anything from the mother of a human person to say she had additional children, but rather adds, such reasoning does not apply here. As Theotokos she is not the mother of a human person, but a Divine Person: God the Word. And He is to be her all. She is commanded to love her Son with all her heart and soul and mind and strength. And if she has additional children her love for her Son is divided, and because she is finite, lessened. Which is to say, she is worthy of less praise.
It is true that there is more honor in having two children than one. But that is because there is only finite honor in bearing a child. But Mary deserves infinite honor for bearing God the Word, for she has given us an infinite good. And additional finite honor can not add at all to the infinite honor she already has as Theotokos. The finite adds nothing to the Infinite. But moreover, not only would she receive infinite honor side by side with finite honor, the infinite honor includes any of the finite honor. In bearing further children, she has done nothing more than she did in bearing God the Word, for in Him all things consist. The infinite honor which belongs to her as Theotokos includes any other additional honor she could receive.
So it doesn't add anything to say the Theotokos is also the mother of human persons, but does it subtract anything from her? Though again, it doesn't subtract anything from the mother of a human person to say she had additional children, but rather adds, such reasoning does not apply here. As Theotokos she is not the mother of a human person, but a Divine Person: God the Word. And He is to be her all. She is commanded to love her Son with all her heart and soul and mind and strength. And if she has additional children her love for her Son is divided, and because she is finite, lessened. Which is to say, she is worthy of less praise.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Brahms Ein Deutsches Requiem
A few comments:
In movement 2: Notice the sharp contrast between the seeming glory of this world and the true glory of the world to come. The music reaches a climax on "our glory" because from here our glory seems true and eternal. Aeneas was to found an eternal city. Augustus would bring peace and justice to all. Capitalism shall conquer. The Eagle shall spread democracy to the ends of the world, and of her reign there shall be no end unto the ages of ages amen. But all flesh is grass, tenuous and mournful, no glory but the grasses bloom. The climax is false and falls apart in mourning and timidity.
But the Word of the Lord endures forever! And here is the real climax. Adam is fallen. But--ewige Freude!--Christ is Risen! And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away. Notice the word-painting on "Schmerz und Seufzen" (Sorrow and sighing), and the great joy that answers in "shall flee away."
Similarly in movement six, notice the contrasting timber, dynamics and, melody between the "no lasting city" we have here and the Resurrection. This, for all it's earlier seeming glory, is but sotto voce. But the baritone solo proudly proclaims the resurrection and the incorruptible which shall come.!
And here's the text and translation.
In movement 2: Notice the sharp contrast between the seeming glory of this world and the true glory of the world to come. The music reaches a climax on "our glory" because from here our glory seems true and eternal. Aeneas was to found an eternal city. Augustus would bring peace and justice to all. Capitalism shall conquer. The Eagle shall spread democracy to the ends of the world, and of her reign there shall be no end unto the ages of ages amen. But all flesh is grass, tenuous and mournful, no glory but the grasses bloom. The climax is false and falls apart in mourning and timidity.
But the Word of the Lord endures forever! And here is the real climax. Adam is fallen. But--ewige Freude!--Christ is Risen! And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away. Notice the word-painting on "Schmerz und Seufzen" (Sorrow and sighing), and the great joy that answers in "shall flee away."
Similarly in movement six, notice the contrasting timber, dynamics and, melody between the "no lasting city" we have here and the Resurrection. This, for all it's earlier seeming glory, is but sotto voce. But the baritone solo proudly proclaims the resurrection and the incorruptible which shall come.!
And here's the text and translation.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Michael Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009)
Memory Eternal!
How should we respond when someone we know isn't a Christian dies? Or when someone we hope shall be resurrected to glory, but aren't absolutely sure? Can we, here, at our most desperate and vulnerable, turn anywhere other than to God in prayer?
The media is probably afrenzy now with hopes that his legacy shall be eternal, or at least long lasting. And for his sake, I hope he is long well remembered. But all flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: the grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. Who must we hope remembers him--and indeed us!--perpetually? Surely not the people: the people is grass. No, we must, in opposition to the current idolatries hope and pray that the Life Giving Spirit, the Lord Jesus Christ our God, shall hold him, and us, in perpetual, or rather, eternal memory.
Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine,
et lux perpetua luceat eis.
Te decet hymnus Deus, in Sion,
et tibi reddetur votum in Ierusalem.
Exaudi orationem meam;
ad te omnis caro veniet.
Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine,
et lux perpetua luceat eis.
Lux æterna luceat eis, Domine,
cum sanctis tuis in æternum,
quia pius es.
Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine;
et lux perpetua luceat eis ;
cum Sanctis tuis in aeternum,
quia pius es.
Though he did not place his trust in thee, O Christ: May his memory be eternal.
______________________
The music is movement 2 of Brahm's Ein Deutsches Requiem. The text and translation can be found here.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Jesus walks on Water: a Parable
This is in response to the tendency of many Christians to look at the Christian to see if he is really saved, or just nominally so.
And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away. And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone. But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary. And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid. Now there were in the ship besides the twelve, many women who followed Jesus, including Mary Magdalene out of whom he had cast seven demons. And the disciples, together with the women, each answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. And he said, Come. And Judas stepping down out of the ship thought only of himself and his own strength and began straight-way to sink. And others of the disciples, including Peter, when they were come down out of the ship, began to walk on the water, and to go to Jesus; but seeing Judas sink founder under the waves, they were afraid, looking to themselves, began to sink. Meanwhile Jesus held the gaze of the disciple John and the women, and they continued to walk toward him. But the disciple John, seeing that some were sinking, and wishing to be sure that in fact he was not, began to look quickly between his feet and Jesus, that he might prove to himself that he was not sinking. Moreover, he pulled a mirror out of his pocket, and kept checking the mirror to make sure he was indeed looking to Christ. Now this wouldn't have been all that bad, for he was looking to Christ, but suddenly he realized that it makes a great difference whether he was drowning or not, and began calling to the women, telling them that unless they would look at themselves and see that they were indeed looking at Christ, he would doubt that they were, and began calling on them to repent and look at their own looking to Christ. But the Magdalene and the other women rejected his cries, and fixed their eyes only on Jesus. And coming to the boat with Jesus, he instructed the women to help him lift the drowning apostles out of the water. Jesus himself gave his hand to Peter, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? and walked with him to the boat holding his hand, lest he sink. And the women, following Jesus' example, each reached out her own hand and raised up the other disciples, and led them to the ship. But meanwhile John protested that they weren't looking at themselves looking at Jesus and continued to protest that he would think they might be drowning so long as they didn't look at their own looking to Jesus. But Jesus laughing, called him back to the boat, and reprimanded him for not looking at Jesus alone, but for instead looking at himself to check to see if he was looking to Jesus.
And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away. And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone. But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary. And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid. Now there were in the ship besides the twelve, many women who followed Jesus, including Mary Magdalene out of whom he had cast seven demons. And the disciples, together with the women, each answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. And he said, Come. And Judas stepping down out of the ship thought only of himself and his own strength and began straight-way to sink. And others of the disciples, including Peter, when they were come down out of the ship, began to walk on the water, and to go to Jesus; but seeing Judas sink founder under the waves, they were afraid, looking to themselves, began to sink. Meanwhile Jesus held the gaze of the disciple John and the women, and they continued to walk toward him. But the disciple John, seeing that some were sinking, and wishing to be sure that in fact he was not, began to look quickly between his feet and Jesus, that he might prove to himself that he was not sinking. Moreover, he pulled a mirror out of his pocket, and kept checking the mirror to make sure he was indeed looking to Christ. Now this wouldn't have been all that bad, for he was looking to Christ, but suddenly he realized that it makes a great difference whether he was drowning or not, and began calling to the women, telling them that unless they would look at themselves and see that they were indeed looking at Christ, he would doubt that they were, and began calling on them to repent and look at their own looking to Christ. But the Magdalene and the other women rejected his cries, and fixed their eyes only on Jesus. And coming to the boat with Jesus, he instructed the women to help him lift the drowning apostles out of the water. Jesus himself gave his hand to Peter, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? and walked with him to the boat holding his hand, lest he sink. And the women, following Jesus' example, each reached out her own hand and raised up the other disciples, and led them to the ship. But meanwhile John protested that they weren't looking at themselves looking at Jesus and continued to protest that he would think they might be drowning so long as they didn't look at their own looking to Jesus. But Jesus laughing, called him back to the boat, and reprimanded him for not looking at Jesus alone, but for instead looking at himself to check to see if he was looking to Jesus.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Theotokos and Chalcedon
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer [theotokos]; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.
I had a discussion with a Reformed man recently who argued (supposedly based on Chalcedon) that Mary is not literally theotokos, but that theotokos is merely a trope. A synecdoche. And hence it is true, but just as "the Holy Ghost over the bent / World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings." is clearly false and heretical if taken literally, so likewise theotokos is false and heretical if taken literally. He has even gone so far as to say "As to theotokos, I believe that the title only works as a trope, making use of the communicatio idiomatum. In no real way is Mary the originator of God, nor does she enjoy such glory or adoration."
The appeal is to the Definition of Chalcedon. As another interlocutor said "in Chalcedon, what is predicated of one nature can be predicated of the person, but not of the other nature. So Mary bore the one who was and is God, but she did not originate God any more than we can say that a divine attribute is being, say, five ten, or, for another example, having black hair."
But do they have grounds to stand on regarding Chalcedon? It is surely true that the Theotokos did not originate the ousia--whatever that would mean!--nor that the Theotokos originates God outside time. And both of those are clearly heretical, and believed by no one.
Though it is possible, if we read no further, to take "as regards His manhood" to mean "under a trope", Chalcedon clearly states that Mary is Theotokos. And at the end it clearly says "one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ." Which is about a clear a statement as there can be that the One who was incarnate is in Himself God. "God the Word was born of the Virgin Mary" is literally true.
Which means that if we take "as regards his manhood" to mean theotokos is true according to a trope, and not literally true, we are, at the critical point where according to the Creed there must be one, introducing two. We are, in short, Nestorian.
Which brings us to the question, raised above, or whether Mary originated God the Word. The answer, of course, is yes and no. Mary did not give God His being, but she did originate him into this world. She did not originate God in Himself, but rather into creation.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
God's Grandeur
THE WORLD is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod; 5
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.
And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things; 10
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs—
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.
--Gerard Manley Hopkins.
Pr. Sumpter mentioned in his bible study today that "Gethsemane" means "Oil Press". This connection then with God's Grandeur, the Spirit (the oil), and the Crucifixion, really adds a lot of depth to this poem. Hopkins isn't just saying that nature is great and reflects God, but that Christ on the Cross has poured Himself out into nature, and though we try and hide from the Crucified God, yet still, by the Cross, the Spirit broods on the face of the Earth.
It also gives a cruciform form to this poem which matches nicely with Hopkins' imagery in this section of The Wreck of the Deutschland:
I kiss my hand
To the stars, lovely-asunder
Starlight, wafting him out of it; and 35
Glow, glory in thunder;
Kiss my hand to the dappled-with-damson west:
Since, tho’ he is under the world’s splendour and wonder,
His mystery must be instressed, stressed;
For I greet him the days I meet him, and bless when I understand. 40
6
Not out of his bliss
Springs the stress felt
Nor first from heaven (and few know this)
Swings the stroke dealt—
Stroke and a stress that stars and storms deliver, 45
That guilt is hushed by, hearts are flushed by and melt—
But it rides time like riding a river
(And here the faithful waver, the faithless fable and miss).
7
It dates from day
Of his going in Galilee; 50
Warm-laid grave of a womb-life grey;
Manger, maiden’s knee;
The dense and the driven Passion, and frightful sweat;
Thence the discharge of it, there its swelling to be,
Though felt before, though in high flood yet— 55
What none would have known of it, only the heart, being hard at bay,
8
Is out with it! Oh,
We lash with the best or worst
Word last! How a lush-kept plush-capped sloe
Will, mouthed to flesh-burst, 60
Gush!—flush the man, the being with it, sour or sweet,
Brim, in a flash, full!—Hither then, last or first,
To hero of Calvary, Christ, ’s feet—
Never ask if meaning it, wanting it, warned of it—men go.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod; 5
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.
And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things; 10
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs—
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.
--Gerard Manley Hopkins.
Pr. Sumpter mentioned in his bible study today that "Gethsemane" means "Oil Press". This connection then with God's Grandeur, the Spirit (the oil), and the Crucifixion, really adds a lot of depth to this poem. Hopkins isn't just saying that nature is great and reflects God, but that Christ on the Cross has poured Himself out into nature, and though we try and hide from the Crucified God, yet still, by the Cross, the Spirit broods on the face of the Earth.It also gives a cruciform form to this poem which matches nicely with Hopkins' imagery in this section of The Wreck of the Deutschland:
I kiss my hand
To the stars, lovely-asunder
Starlight, wafting him out of it; and 35
Glow, glory in thunder;
Kiss my hand to the dappled-with-damson west:
Since, tho’ he is under the world’s splendour and wonder,
His mystery must be instressed, stressed;
For I greet him the days I meet him, and bless when I understand. 40
6
Not out of his bliss
Springs the stress felt
Nor first from heaven (and few know this)
Swings the stroke dealt—
Stroke and a stress that stars and storms deliver, 45
That guilt is hushed by, hearts are flushed by and melt—
But it rides time like riding a river
(And here the faithful waver, the faithless fable and miss).
7
It dates from day
Of his going in Galilee; 50
Warm-laid grave of a womb-life grey;
Manger, maiden’s knee;
The dense and the driven Passion, and frightful sweat;
Thence the discharge of it, there its swelling to be,
Though felt before, though in high flood yet— 55
What none would have known of it, only the heart, being hard at bay,
8
Is out with it! Oh,
We lash with the best or worst
Word last! How a lush-kept plush-capped sloe
Will, mouthed to flesh-burst, 60
Gush!—flush the man, the being with it, sour or sweet,
Brim, in a flash, full!—Hither then, last or first,
To hero of Calvary, Christ, ’s feet—
Never ask if meaning it, wanting it, warned of it—men go.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Latria and Doulia
Calvin critiques the Second Council of Nicea's distinction between Latria (the worship due to God alone) and Dulia by saying that there is in fact no difference in practice. Now I won't question whether there was, in Calvin's time, no difference in practice. The Catholic Church was really screwed up at that time, and it wouldn't surprise me if people were offering Latria to the Blessed Theotokos.
But is there a distinction between the two? Is Calvin correct that Second Nicea merely distinguished nominally between the two, but did not in fact differentiate the things?
The answer, in my opinion, is "no".
Regarding the saints: It seems that there must be a difference in kind between the worship offered God, and the "worship" offered the saints. We distinguish them merely in degree, we say that God differs from us merely in degree. And moreover, we say that God does not fully exalt us--he could have made us higher, but he hasn't. Thus we reveal God as not fully loving--he held back some for Himself.
But what sort of a difference in kind would it be? It seems that here, the difference in kind must be that God is praised being incomprehensibly outside the world, and its whole foundation, who came into the world and exalted it by filling it with His glory. The saints on the other hand are from in this world and exalted. Thus we should say, for instance, that the Virgin is so highly exalted by the Father's consecration of her by His Eternal Son and the Holy Spirit that she actually teaches God to love, and pours out her heart for God's salvation. The Blessed Virgin is treated most highly, but her exaltation is treated as innitiated by God, and as related to Christ, the God who became Man, and as perfected and realized by the Holy Spirit who overshadowed her, making her into the Theotokos.
It should of course also be noted that a difference in degree which preferences the saints over God ammounts to a denial of the worship due Him. Thus if we highly praise the saints, and praise Christ less, either less often, or less highly, we are effectively denying that He is God, and thus refusing to offer Him worship. But the problem is not with the hight of veneration for the saint per se (though the fact that it is veneration divorced from Christ and His Spirit is itself problematic), but the lack of devotion to Christ.
Regarding Icons: It seems to me that the question is "what does reverence for a symbol look like." In one sense, a symbol is transparent, calling no attention to itself, or rather in itself pointing to another. And then reverence for the symbol is to use the symbol to reverence the thing symbolized. Thus is delight in Pride and Prejudice by delighting Mr. Darcy.
From this perspective, the doulia offered to icons would be precisely to use them and their particular image of God to worship God. Just as it is reverence to a Schutz setting of Scripture to use it to to meditate on Christ, so too it is reverence to a particular icon of Rublev to use it to pray to Christ. Particularly, in the case of Schutz, to pray the words of Scripture while listening to the music, and in the case of Rublev, to pray to the one imaged while looking at the icon. We do not, technically speaking, kneel before an icon, we kneel before Christ, while looking at an icon.
But second, the icon itself is a thing, and really is not fully transparent, and takes up space. And so we show reverence to the icon by treating it respectfully, perhaps by kissing it etc. But this form of devotion should not be easily confused with worship of God since we treat many things respectfully without treating them as God--as we would, for instance, an old love letter--and we kiss many things without treating them as God--no one thought Pope John Paul II was offering worship to Jörð when he would kiss the earth.
But is there a distinction between the two? Is Calvin correct that Second Nicea merely distinguished nominally between the two, but did not in fact differentiate the things?
The answer, in my opinion, is "no".
Regarding the saints: It seems that there must be a difference in kind between the worship offered God, and the "worship" offered the saints. We distinguish them merely in degree, we say that God differs from us merely in degree. And moreover, we say that God does not fully exalt us--he could have made us higher, but he hasn't. Thus we reveal God as not fully loving--he held back some for Himself.
But what sort of a difference in kind would it be? It seems that here, the difference in kind must be that God is praised being incomprehensibly outside the world, and its whole foundation, who came into the world and exalted it by filling it with His glory. The saints on the other hand are from in this world and exalted. Thus we should say, for instance, that the Virgin is so highly exalted by the Father's consecration of her by His Eternal Son and the Holy Spirit that she actually teaches God to love, and pours out her heart for God's salvation. The Blessed Virgin is treated most highly, but her exaltation is treated as innitiated by God, and as related to Christ, the God who became Man, and as perfected and realized by the Holy Spirit who overshadowed her, making her into the Theotokos.
It should of course also be noted that a difference in degree which preferences the saints over God ammounts to a denial of the worship due Him. Thus if we highly praise the saints, and praise Christ less, either less often, or less highly, we are effectively denying that He is God, and thus refusing to offer Him worship. But the problem is not with the hight of veneration for the saint per se (though the fact that it is veneration divorced from Christ and His Spirit is itself problematic), but the lack of devotion to Christ.
Regarding Icons: It seems to me that the question is "what does reverence for a symbol look like." In one sense, a symbol is transparent, calling no attention to itself, or rather in itself pointing to another. And then reverence for the symbol is to use the symbol to reverence the thing symbolized. Thus is delight in Pride and Prejudice by delighting Mr. Darcy.
From this perspective, the doulia offered to icons would be precisely to use them and their particular image of God to worship God. Just as it is reverence to a Schutz setting of Scripture to use it to to meditate on Christ, so too it is reverence to a particular icon of Rublev to use it to pray to Christ. Particularly, in the case of Schutz, to pray the words of Scripture while listening to the music, and in the case of Rublev, to pray to the one imaged while looking at the icon. We do not, technically speaking, kneel before an icon, we kneel before Christ, while looking at an icon.
But second, the icon itself is a thing, and really is not fully transparent, and takes up space. And so we show reverence to the icon by treating it respectfully, perhaps by kissing it etc. But this form of devotion should not be easily confused with worship of God since we treat many things respectfully without treating them as God--as we would, for instance, an old love letter--and we kiss many things without treating them as God--no one thought Pope John Paul II was offering worship to Jörð when he would kiss the earth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
