Marian Consecration

"It is because she is Mother of the Church that the Virgin is also the Mother of each one of us, members of the Mystical Body of Christ. From the Cross, Jesus entrusted his Mother to all his disciples and at the same time entrusted all his disciples to the love of his Mother. The Evangelist John concludes the brief and evocative account with these words: "Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!'. And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home" (Jn 19: 27). This is the [English] translation of the Greek text "εiς tά íδια", he welcomed her into his own reality, his own existence. Thus, she is part of his life and the two lives penetrate each other. And this acceptance of her (εiς tά íδια) in his own life is the Lord's testament. Therefore, at the supreme moment of the fulfilment of his messianic mission, Jesus bequeathes as a precious inheritance to each one of his disciples his own Mother, the Virgin Mary. "

-Pope Benedict XVI

Balthasar And Barth

While Hans Urs von Balthasar and Karl Barth were diametrically opposed on the doctrine of the Analogy of Being, they did agree on the necessity of the Analogy of Faith.

Both men insist that there has got to be a Christo-centric revolution and the aim of theology must be making Christ the center towards which all things tend!

This Christo-centric revolution consisted of three parts:

1) Centrality of the person of Christ in the life of faith.
-Christ is the figure of figures. The one in whom the entire plentitude of the God-head is made bodily present. Christ is the historical self emptying of the eternal self interpretation of the Father in the Son.

2) The whole movement of this divine person is towards Calvary.
-This is the place where God most profoundly reveals Himself. This is the place of the majesty, glory, and power of the Triune God. Here the Father hands over to sinful men, His purely innocent Son. It is important that we insist that the Son even in the teeth of this treachery, agrees to this willingly and lovingly. The Son is moved by an incomprehensible death of Love both for the Father who hands him over and for the world, on whose behalf He dies. The whole event of Christ turns on the radical obedience of the Son to the Father.

3) Theology of History (rooted in the personhood of Christ).
-For Barth, there was a false dualism that had to be overcome. This was the doctrine of Calvinist Pre-destination, which said that by God’s own eternal decree, some men have been destined to salvation and most others are damned to Hell. God Himself is the scale between these two demands of justice and mercy. Mercy however cannot be demanded, only asked for.
----For Barth, this is divinely insupportable. This is because Christ, Who is the saving Word of God, speaks this Word to every human being. Nobody is predestined for damnation. Everyone has been thought of by God from all eternity for Beatitude. Christ is the Saving Word!
For Barth, the purity of salvation that is Christ is already active in His Father’s eternal plan of salvation. He is the agent of creation and source of light and this creation fashioned by this word from its very beginning is orchestrated to return back to the Father. This is the finality that the entire human race is to move. The whole of created reality has already been effectively determined by God for salvation. The grace of Christ has already disarmed the world. He has already disseminated every encounter of sin.

Balthasar comes very close to this idea, but without leaving the grounds of orthodox Catholic theology. Barth, however, crosses the line.

The Church teaches that in and only in Christ, the Father has mercy on all the others. He has called all of us in and thru Christ into communion with Him.

Balthasar takes up this universalistic starting point and joins it in a very original way with the Logos Christology of the ancient Church, particularly with that of Origen, but stops short of the heresy of Apokatastisis, which was condemned by the Church in the middle of the 6th century. This heretical notion was taken up by Origen and pushed as far as can possibly go by his disciples. They took the view that the ‘punishment of devils and wicked men was only temporary” and those punishments will cease because the devils and wicked men coming to their senses will finally repent of their sins and be restored to their original state of blessedness. Origen ventured this idea as a hypothesis, always subject to the correction of Holy Mother Church. The Church condemned it, after Origen had died, in the form it took by his disciples. They advanced it not as a hypothesis, but as something that enjoyed mathematical precision.

Balthasar was falsely accused of this heresy. Yet he never proposed apokatastisis as something we can affirm or propose. He stated that Christ is viewed as THE concrete Incarnate expression of that universality of meaning and being which belongs to God Himself by virtue of His divine absolute nature. What this means is that in His concrete person, in this historical self emptying, the whole meaning of universal history and the meaning of the nature of the Logos that underlies this history, all finds its fulfillment in Christ. They have no meaning apart from the Logos. This applied not only to people and created beings, but also to anything else in the world that evinces some intelligibility. All of that, says Balthasar, is to be integrated and brought into completion in the one perfect Word, the Logos.

In Christ, there takes place a synthesis of the universal with the particular; universal significance and every concrete expression. The two are somehow wedded together in Christ. In the person of Christ, every conceivable concrete historical existence is brought together and unified. Thus, Christ becomes absolutely significant to all being and all reality; all creation, from angels to amoebas, and all things in between.

A two-fold claim emerges on the basis of this analysis:

a) Christ is the absolutely unique one. He is irreducible. He cannot suffer any reduction to something other and lesser than Himself. This is why we speak of Christ as the mystery of God. Mystery has entered history and become a material thing. Christ is this ground, the bedrock upon which everything else is to be predicated. In no way can Christ be subsumed and swallowed up by some other category of idea. What Balthasar and the Church insist on is that everything else has to measure up to Christ. He is the standard against Whom everything else is judged!

b) On the other hand, nothing is to be divided from or separated out from Christ. His way is not an exclusionary way. He does not occupy center stage in a way that every other thing is swept off the stage. He makes room for everything else in Himself except, of course, sin. But everything else, Christ is infinitely eager to integrate and include, not just people, but insights, longings, etc. They all find their comprehensive life in Christ.

These two concepts put together reveal that perfect exclusivity and perfect inclusivity together find their respective center of gravity only in Christ. All of this has come to be because the Word became flesh.

The Church Fathers On The Real Presence of Christ In The Eucharist

“Of all the fathers, as many as you can name, not one has ever spoken about the sacrament as these fanatics do. None of them uses such an expression as, ‘It is simply bread and wine,’ or ‘Christ’s body and blood are not present.’ Yet this subject is so frequently discussed by them, it is impossible that they should not at some time have let slip such an expression as, ‘It is simply bread,’ or ‘Not that the body of Christ is physically present,’ or the like, since they are greatly concerned not to mislead the people; actually, they simply proceed to speak as if no one doubted that Christ’s body and blood are present. Certainly among so many fathers and so many writings a negative argument should have turned up at least once, as happens in other articles; but actually they all stand uniformly and consistently on the affirmative side.”

-Martin Luther

Why Qumran?

Around 160 BC, a group of Israelites called the Essenes settled down on the Northwest corner of the Dead Sea in a place called Qumran. The Dead Sea is called so because of the high salt density which makes it impossible for life to inhabit it. The Sea also gives off a putrid stench which makes the smell of the mills in Steubenville, Ohio seem like roses. So why would anyone want to live there? Why, of all the places in the Judean desert, did the Essenes settle at Qumran? There are a couple of reasons. One of these is that the Qumranites saw themselves as an Eschatological community waiting for the coming Messiah. Another reason which the Qumran document, The Manual of Discipline, explains is:

“When these become members of the Community in Israel according to all these rules, they shall separate from the habitation of ungodly men and shall go into the wilderness to prepare the way of Him; as it is written, Prepare in the wilderness the way of…., make straight in the desert a path for our God (Is. 40:3).”

Yet, the passage from Isaiah only tells them to go out into the wilderness, it does not tell them precisely where. While I haven’t found anywhere in the Qumran documents to support this, I believe this passage from Ezekiel 47:1-12 may have provided the Essenes with a more specific destination:

“Then he brought me back to the door of the temple; and behold, water was issuing from below the threshold of the temple toward the east (for the temple faced east); and the water was flowing down from below the south end of the threshold of the temple, south of the altar. Then he brought me out by way of the north gate, and led me round on the outside to the outer gate, that faces toward the east; and the water was coming out on the south side. Going on eastward with a line in his hand, the man measured a thousand cubits, and then led me through the water; and it was ankle-deep. Again he measured a thousand, and led me through the water; and it was knee-deep. Again he measured a thousand, and led me through the water; and it was up to the loins. Again he measured a thousand, and it was a river that I could not pass through, for the water had risen; it was deep enough to swim in, a river that could not be passed through. And he said to me, "Son of man, have you seen this?" Then he led me back along the bank of the river. As I went back, I saw upon the bank of the river very many trees on the one side and on the other. And he said to me, "This water flows toward the eastern region and goes down into the Arabah; and when it enters the stagnant waters of the sea, the water will become fresh. And wherever the river goes every living creature which swarms will live, and there will be very many fish; for this water goes there, that the waters of the sea may become fresh; so everything will live where the river goes. Fishermen will stand beside the sea; from En-gedi to En-eglaim it will be a place for the spreading of nets; its fish will be of very many kinds, like the fish of the Great Sea. But its swamps and marshes will not become fresh; they are to be left for salt. And on the banks, on both sides of the river, there will grow all kinds of trees for food. Their leaves will not wither nor their fruit fail, but they will bear fresh fruit every month, because the water for them flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for healing."

The water flows out from the Temple and falls into the Dead Sea. It seems that the Essenes would have seen this passage and resolved to follow the path where the water poured out from the Temple in hopes of meeting the Messiah there at Qumran when he comes. Unfortunately for the Essenes, they were a bit off on their interpretation as Danielou tells us in his book, Christ and Us:

“[The] flowing into human nature of the grace first contained in the Manhood of Christ, as at its source, is expressed in Scripture through a series of images, each of which throws one aspect into relief. The first is that of a spring from which the Spirit flows as a fountain of living water bearing all before it, as a river giving rise to life wherever it spreads forth its waves, the cosmic Jordan whose source is in heaven, and which carries up to heaven the souls baptized in its water. This is the fulfillment of the ancient prophecy. Ezekiel had claimed that in the days of the Messiah a stream of water would flow eastwards from beneath the temple and fall into the eastern sea, the Dead Sea, so as to make all things live. This living water flowed indeed from the pierced side of Christ, the Temple of the New Covenant, to give life not to the fishes of the sea, but to those living souls which should be caught by the fishers of men, and of which the fishes were a type. Thus from the Manhood of Christ, transfigured by the divine energy, the divine life, the Spirit begins to be poured out upon the whole of mankind, so as to give life to all flesh by virtue of the continuity that unites His humanity with the rest of humanity.”

Don't Wait!

“Do you see what devices the devil contrives, what shame, what ridicule? Let us rid ourselves of this disgrace; let us live as Christ has enjoined. He gave us Baptism, not that we should receive and depart, but that we should show the fruits of it in our after life. How can one say to him who is departing and broken down, Bear fruit? Hast thou heard that ‘the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace? (Gal. v. 22) How comes it then that the very contrary takes place here? For the wife stands there mourning, when she ought to rejoice; the children weeping, when they ought to be glad together; the sick man himself lies there in darkness, and surrounded by noise and tumult, when he ought to be keeping the high festival; full of exceeding despondency at the thought of leaving his children orphans, his wife a widow, his house desolate. Is this a state in which to draw near unto mysteries? Answer me; is this a state in which to approach the sacred table? Are such scenes to be tolerated? Should the Emperor send letters and release the prisoners in the jails, there is joy and gladness: God sends down the Holy Ghost from Heaven to remit not arrears of money, but a whole mass of sins, and do ye bewail and lament? Why, how grossly unsuitable is this! Not to mention that sometimes it is upon the dead that the water has been poured, and holy mysteries flung upon the ground. However, not we are to blame for this, but men who are so perverse. I exhort you then to leave all, and turn and draw near to Baptism with all alacrity, that having given proof of great earnestness at this present time, we may obtain confidence for that which is to come; whereunto that we may attain, may it granted unto us all by the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.”

-St. John Chrysostom in Homily I of his Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles.

The Ten Commandments And Free Will

In Hebrew, a negative command is not given by negating an imperative, but rather it is done by use of two constructions:

al + jussive
or:
lo + the imperfect

The lo + imperfect construction expresses a general prohibition, whereas the al + jussive construction expresses a more emphatic and immediate negative command.

Now with this knowledge of Hebrew syntax in mind, when we look at the Ten Commandments given in Exodus 20 and later in Deuteronomy 5, we see that they are given with the lo+ imperfect construction instead of the expected al+ jussive construction which carries more force. Why is this? Is God merely suggesting that we don’t do these things? “I’d really like you not to kill or steal, so if you would please not do it that would be great. Thanks.” I don’t think so. I think there is something much greater going on here which reveals the true glory and love of God. God does not bark out the command like an angry drill sergeant, forcing us by all means to obey Him. Instead, God has given us free will. He tells us that we shall not steal, kill, commit adultery, etc. as a general prohibition, but He does not force us to obey. That would deny us our freedom and it would negate love. Love is a free act of the will. We are given the free choice to reject God or to obey and thus love Him. Now, I am not by any means suggesting that there are not any repercussions for not obeying the 10 Commandments. Free will comes with responsibilities and consequences for actions. If we fail to obey the Commandments there are surely punishments for not doing so. It is the same for any child that does not do the will of his father. But God will not force us to obey. That is the key. As the Baltimore Catechism teaches, God made us so that we would “know Him,…love Him, and…serve Him in this world, and…be happy with Him for ever in heaven.” We cannot love God if we are forced to do so. That is the very antithesis of love. It is coercion. And that is why God gave us free will; so we could freely love and serve Him in this world in order to be happy with Him in the next.

The Real Luther

"James I. Packer and O. R. Johnston in the long introduction to their edition of Luther's The Bondage of the Will, make a remarkable statement on p. 59. They say that much of modern Protestantism has gone far from Luther. To get it right, use The Bondage of the Will, about which they claim on p.40 that Luther himself considered it the most important of his works.

On p.273 they quote Luther as saying insistently that there is no free will.

What he means is that without grace, a man is incapable of doing good. With grace he can do it. But Luther says we cannot do anything to get grace. He makes this clear twice (pp. 103-04 and 204) by comparing a human being to a horse. Either God or the devil will ride it, and accordingly a man does good or evil. But he has nothing to say about which one rides him.

So he goes to heaven or hell accordingly, and has no control over which place he goes. The picture is dismal, for on p.101 Luther says that God saves "so few and damns so many." He says it is hard to believe then that He is just. On p.314 he even says that those who are damned are "undeserving". Yet we must reverence God as being merciful to a few, and show "some measure of deference" to His Wisdom by thinking He is just when He seems unjust.

Of course, this is very disturbing. Luther himself, on p.217 says it has caused him to stumble more than once, and that he has gone down "to the deepest pit of despair." He even wished he had not been made a man.

The authors asserted, as we saw above, that much of modern Protestantism has gone far from Luther. An example, which they do not give, is found in Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod of Lutherans,1932, §14: They say that if we consider two things: that all men are equally corrupt, and that grace is everywhere: then why are not all saved? They reply: "We cannot answer it." Luther answered it: blind predestination, which the Missouri Synod did not want to face.

We comment: 1) He holds that we can do nothing to get grace or to determine salvation for ourselves. He passes by 2 Cor 6:1:"We urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain." All over Scripture there are similar exhortations to repent, to return to God. They are all nonsense, and mockery of man, if we cannot determine whether or not a grace comes in vain. It is true, St. Paul also said in 2 Cor 3:5 that we cannot get a good thought by our own power,or even make a good decision or carry it out: Phil 2:13. But these texts must not cause us to deny 2 Cor 6:1 and many other texts of Scripture.

2) Luther also thinks God denies grace to most people. But the Father accepted the price of redemption (1 Cor 6:20) which is infinite. Therefore He bound Himself to make grace available infinitely, that is, without limit, except for our rejection of it. We have it in our power to reject or not reject: 2 Cor 6:1 again.

3) Luther ignored the most basic comparison of the Gospels: God is our Father. No Father damns most of His children without even giving them a chance. He wills all to be saved:1 Tim 2:4. If He refuses grace with no fault on the part of the human, then He could not say He wills all to be saved. In fact, Paul in Gal 2:20 said: "He loved me, and gave Himself for me." Vatican II, On Church in Modern World §22 said: "Each one of us can say with the Apostle: the Son of God loved me and gave himself for me." So He died for each individual, He created an infinite title or claim to grace for each individual. Then He could not without reason refuse it to anyone at all."

-William Most.

Did FDR Know Hebrew?

In his first Inaugural Address, Franklin D. Roosevelt said that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Today in my Hebrew class, I learned that stative verbs cannot have a direct object. The verb for "to fear" in Hebrew is one such stative verb. It turns out that the only thing you can fear in Hebrew is.....fear itself!

Realized Eschatology

“The New Testament is essentially the presence of the eschatological event. Its purpose is not to teach us the existence of Paradise, nor to promise us this Pradise in the future, but to show us this Paradise already present in Christ: ‘This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.’ It is not the proclamation of Judgement to come, but of Judgement already here: ‘Sentence is now being passed on this world; now is the time when the prince of this world is to be cast out.’ The Old Testament proclaimed that a servant of God would be a lamb sacrificed for the sins of the world. The New Testament shows us ‘the Lamb of God…he who takes away the sin of the world.’ And it teaches us that with the coming of this Lamb, the fate of mankind is at once unveiled and disclosed, that the Last Things are revealed and fulfilled. Christ, as C.H. Dodd says, is ‘realized eschatology.’”

-Jean Danielou in Christ and Us.

Corpus Ratzinger

The Vatican publishing house has announced that they are releasing a 13-volume set of Pope Benedict's works from before he became Pope. Read more about it here.

Anyone know what works are to be included?