The Meaning of Anathema

“…It should be noted that anathema is a Greek word composed of ana, which means above, and thesis, i.e, a placing; hence, a placing above. The word arose from an old custom. For the ancients, when they waged war, sometimes took from their enemies certain booty which they were unwilling to turn to their own use, but hung it in the temple or other public place of the city, as though to separate it from the common use of men. Everything so hung up, the Greeks called anathema. And from this arose the custom of declaring anathematized anything excluded from common use. Hence in Josue (6:17) it is said of Jericho and of everything in it, that Josue once anathematized it. Consequently, even in the Church the practice arose of declaring anathema those who are excluded from the common society of the Church and from partaking of the sacraments of the Church.”

-St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Galatians.

The Last Supper And Messianism

At the Last Supper, Christ reveals Himself as the Messiah, both Kingly and Priestly. This is important due to the notion among some sects within Judaism and the Essenes of a dual messianic expectation: a messiah of Aaron (Levitical priestly messiah) and a messiah of Israel (Davidic kingly messiah). The Davidic Messiah is the most common messianic expectation as it is the oldest, prophesied by Jacob in Gen. 49:8-12. The Aaronic Messiah comes from the passage in Jer. 33:18 which states, “and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn cereal offerings, and to make sacrifices for ever.” This prophecy, however, is not fulfilled in the Messiah, but rather in the conversion of Levitical priest to Christianity (as seen in the Acts of the Apostles) who in being baptized continue in the universal priesthood of believers, which is distinct from the ministerial priesthood of Christianity.

Although there are clear priestly and Davidic allusions in the Last Supper accounts, they are missed by many scholars, both Catholic and Protestant.

The implications of Christ as the Davidic (kingly) Messiah are the most obvious. Davidic imagery is prevalent throughout the institution narrative:

-He will not eat the Passover before it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God. (Lk 22:16)
-Nor shall He drink of the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of God comes. (Lk 22:18)
-The Father has appointed a kingdom to the Son. (Lk 22:29)
-Christ’s sharing in a meal with the Apostles corresponds to David’s tradition of sharing in a meal at the royal table as a reward for obedience. (2 Sam. 9:9-13)

The Priestly images are the ones that often get overlooked. Yet, they are of the utmost importance. For if Christ is not in fact a priest, then He has no authority to offer up the sacrifice which He begins at the Last Supper and ends on the Cross. The priestly images are as follows:

-The washing of the Apostles feet before the celebration of the Passover meal (Jn. 13:1-12) corresponds to Aaron and his sons washing of their feet before service in the tabernacle (Ex. 30:19-21).
-With Christ’s blessing of both the bread and wine (Mt. 26:26-28), He is performing a cultic action. Besides the obvious Melchizedekian allusion with the bread and wine, we see a parallel in the Qumran document called the Manual of Discipline, VI, 3-6:

“When they prepare the table to eat and wine to drink, the priest must be the first to extend his hand to bless the first portions of the bread. And if wine is being drunk, the priest must be the first to extend his hand to bless the first portion of the bread and the wine.”

This has even more significance when it is remembered that Christ celebrates the Passover in the Synoptic Gospels according to the Essene calendar!

So we can see here that Christ, at the Last Supper, fulfills both Messianic expectations presenting Himself as a priest-king after the order of Melchizedek, which St. Paul describes in more explicit terms in his Epistle to the Hebrews.

Christ, The New David

"David was persecuted, as Jesus was persecuted. David was anointed by Samuel to be king instead of Saul who had sinned; and Jesus was anointed by John to be High Priest instead of the priests, the ministers of the Law. David was persecuted after his anointing; and Jesus was persecuted after His anointing. David reigned first over one tribe only, and afterwards over all Israel; and Jesus reigned from the beginning over the few who believed on Him, and in the end He will reign over all the world. Samuel anointed David when he was thirty years old; and Jesus when about thirty years old received the imposition of the hand from John. David wedded two daughters of the king; and Jesus wedded two daughters of kings, the congregation of the People and the congregation of the Gentiles. David repaid good to Saul his enemy; and Jesus taught, Pray for your enemies. David was the heart of God; and Jesus was the Son of God. David received the kingdom of Saul his persecutor; and Jesus received the kingdom of Israel His persecutor. David wept with dirges over Saul his enemy when he died; and Jesus wept over Jerusalem, His persecutor, which was to be laid waste. David handed over the kingdom to Solomon, and was gathered to his people; and Jesus handed over the keys to Simon, and ascended and returned to Him who sent Him. For David’s sake, sins were forgiven to his posterity; and for Jesus’ sake sins are forgiven to the nations."

-Saint Aphrahat.

To Be Religious Is Natural And Leads To True Freedom

“At first sight, the fact that the word ‘academy’ was originally the name of a suburban temple precinct, which thus predates Plato’s erection of his school there, may seem rather accidental to the history of the new institution. Closer examination reveals a deeper connection, which was not lost on the founder. For Plato’s Academy was, from the legal point of view, a cultic association. Accordingly, the cultic veneration of the Muses was a stable component of its rhythm of life; there was a special office for preparing sacrifices. This is much more than an adventitious circumstance, a concession, say, to the sociological structures of the times. The freedom for the truth and the freedom of the truth cannot exist without the acknowledgment and worship of the divine. Freedom from the obligation to yield a profit can be justified and can survive only if there is something truly withdrawn from man’s utility and property, hence, if the higher property right and the inviolable prerogative of the divinity perdure. ‘The freedom of theoria’, says Pieper in the spirit of Plato, ‘is defenseless and exposed—unless it appeals in a special way to the protection of the gods.’ Freedom from profit and emancipation from the aims of power find their deepest guarantee only in the absolute rights of the One who is not subordinate to any human power: in the freedom vis-à-vis the world which God both has and gives. For Plato, who was the first to express it philosophically, the freedom of the truth belongs not merely accidentally but essentially in the context of worship, of cult. Where the latter no longer exists, the former ceases as well. It goes without saying that worship is also nonexistent where cultic forms are indeed perpetuated but are reinterpreted as symbolic actions possessing a merely social significance. All of this means, however, that anarchic pseudofreedom is at work behind every denial of the foundations of adoration, behind every refusal of the bond to the truth and of the demands which it makes. These counterfeit freedoms, which predominate today, are the real menace to true freedom. To clarify the concept of freedom numbers among the crucial tasks of the present day—if we care about the preservation of man and of the world.”

-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in The Nature and Mission of Theology

Only Four Hundred Years Late

The Anglican Archbishop of Uganda, Henry Orombi, has questioned "why the leader of the Anglican communion is chosen by the British government."

He's only a couple of centuries late on this one. And it is not due to "a remnant of British colonialism" as he suggests.

You see, before British colonialism, there was this king named Henry, who broke from the Catholic Church and declared himself the head of the Church in England......



Perhaps later, we can inform him that the Archbishop of Canterbury isn't really the head of the Anglican Church, but rather it's the reigning monarch, who in this case happens to be Queen Elizabeth II.

Comprehensive Exams

Tomorrow I take my comprehensive exams for the completion of my Masters degree in Theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville. This explains the paucity of posting in the last month or so. It's difficult to come up with blog posts when you are studying for nine different exam questions, of which only four of them will have to be answered on exam day.

So if you are reading this right now, say a pray for a successful completion of comps for me. I've heard that St. Joseph of Cupertino is a good saint to ask intercession for at a time like this!

The Vincentian Canon

The Vincentian Canon was St. Vincent’s way of providing a basis between true and false doctrines. He proposed Scripture and Tradition as a twofold method. Yet he realized the consequences of such a method. For even though Scripture was seen as a sufficient means amongst the Fathers, it could still be misinterpreted. Even the Devil knows Scripture and heretics always argue from it! Thus, St. Vincent came up with the two canons. The first is Tradition as a preservation. He said that a true doctrine is that which is believed everywhere, at all times, and by all the faithful (ubique, semper, ab omnibus). He also conceived it in terms of universaility, antiquity, and consent. For Universality, he meant all the faithful, the teaching and believing Church. For antiquity, he meant at all times. For consent, however, Vincent had the bishops in mind, especially when in a council. Yet Vincent was not naïve about universality. He did not equate it with strict unanimity.

Vincent’s second canon was Tradition as growth. For him, though, there was a restriction on growth. It had to be in the same sense and in the same meaning. There was a conservative action in his idea of development. He said there was a difference between a profectus- a progression, and a permutatis- a change. A profectus, which preserves what came before (while allowing room for polishment and clarity) was accepted. A permutatitis, which was a change from one thing to another, was not accepted. Vincent also thought that a development wasn’t simply tolerated, but rather it had to happen. This implies that what was earlier was less perfect and what came later (was older) was more perfect.

St. Vincent also gave us examples which are more informative than his two canons. One was Timothy guarding the deposit. For him, this was the duty of the whole Church. Another example he gives is the image of a body. An embryo, while being of the same substance, looks different than an adult body. A fully grown body has arms and legs and, in a sense, those arms and legs are in the embryo, although they look different. There is a sense of continuity in the image. Vincent also gives the image of a seed which needs to develop and mature.

The problem with Vincent’s canon is that he doesn’t give enough credit to the potency of a doctrine. He seems not to allow for a true development of doctrine as, according to him, the entire deposit is already given in an explicit manner from the beginning. There is a very real lack of a movement from implicit knowledge of a doctrine to an explicit knowledge. According to the canon, many intelligent minds ought not to have missed the connection between what is implicit and what is explicit. Newman brings up the case of the Trinity. He says that it was not held by all the faithful, at all times, and everywhere in the early Church and so, according to Vincent, is not a true doctrine. As well, the very fact that we have seen Father against Father and bishop against bishop, belies Vincent’s canon! Yet Vincent does have some similarities with Newman’s idea of development. For instance, Vincent’s restriction on growth is similar to Newman’s note of conservative action upon its past. Also, Vincent and Newman both hold that in some sense, a development is to be expected.

Liturgy Is For God

“There were practical reasons for the fact that [the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy] was the first [of Vatican II]. Yet looking back, we have to say that this made good sense in terms of the structure of the Council as a whole: worship, adoration, comes first. And thus God does….The Constitution on the Church, which then followed as the Council’s second text, should be seen as being inwardly bracketed together with it. The Church derives from adoration, from the task of glorifying God. Ecclesiology, of its nature, has to do with liturgy. And so it is logical, too, that the third Constitution talks about the Word of God, which calls the Church together and is at all times renewing her. The Fourth Constitution shows how the glory of God presents itself in an ethos, how the light we have received from God is carried out into the world, how only thus can God be fully glorified. In the period following the Council, of course, the Constitution on the Liturgy was understood, no longer on the basis of this fundamental primacy of adoration, but quite simply as a recipe book concerned with what we can do with the liturgy. In the meantime many liturgical experts, rushing into consideration about how we can shape the liturgy in a more attractive way, to communicate better, so as to get more and more people actively involved, have apparently quite lost sight of the fact that the liturgy is actually ‘done’ for God and not for ourselves. The more we do it for ourselves, however, the less it attracts people, because everyone can clearly sense that what is essential is increasingly eluding us.”

-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion.

A Summary Of The First Eight Ecumenical Councils

Nicaea: (325)
The Council of Nicaea sought to address Arius’ distortion of the Gospel, whereby he said that not only was Christ subordinate to the Father, but that the Son was created from nothing. For Arius, there was no distinction between being “begotten” and being “made.” However, if the Son is “made”, then He is made ex nihilo and is but a mere creature and not God. Nicaea clarified that there is in fact a distinction and that the Son is “begotten, not made.” The revolutionary teaching of the Nicaea declared that there is a radical distinction between God and creatures. The Son is either God or not. There are no grades of divinity. The Son is homoousios (one in substance) with the Father.

Yet, even though Nicaea countered Subordinationism and Arianism, some rejected it because it was the first time that non-Scriptural language was inserted into a Creed of the Church. The Council also was able to be affirmed by Modalists. In an effort to clarify the teaching of the Gospel, the Cappadocian Fathers made the distinction between ousia (nature) and hypostasis (person). In the Trinity there are 3 hypostases in 1 ousia. The hypostases are what is particular and the ousia is what each has in common.

This new terminology carried into Constantinople I (381), which added the clause on the Holy Spirit in order to counter the Spirit Fighters. This council also condemned Apollinarus by affirming that Christ did indeed have a human mind. It also affirmed that Christ’s Kingdom will have no end, thus effectively denying the Modalist error which said that the Trinity was a temporary manifestation and that God the Father is merely acting as the Son and then as the Holy Spirit, but would later go back to being the Father again. Constantinople solidified the teaching of the Trinitarian unity of One God in Three Persons.

Once the Trinitarian Controversy was cleared up by the first two Ecumenical Councils, it gave way to hash out the Christological controversies.

These began with the debate between Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople and Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria. Nestorius was teaching that Mary was not to be called Theotokos, the God bearer, because this leads to Arianism due to the implication that the Son came to be at a point in time and was not eternal. Nestorius said Mary is rather the Christotokos, the Christ bearer. Nestorius believed that Christ was two persons united in one prosopon.

When Cyril of Alexandria heard this teaching, he wrote to Nestorius to clarify what he had said. Nestorius did not respond, so Cyril wrote to the Egyptian bishops and monks in defense of Theotokos. Cyril said that Mary must be Theotokos because of the hypostatic union. The divine nature is distinct from the human, thus God did not change when He was born and died. Therefore, Theotokos does not lead to Arianism. Mary is the mother of a person, not a nature!
At the Council of Ephesus (431), led by Cyril, Nestorius was anathematized and Eutyches the monophysite was condemned because the dual nature of Christ was taught at Constantinople.

After Ephesus, the Robber Synod of 449 was called by Monophysites in order to exonerate Eutyches and condemn all those who supported Ephesus.

In 451, the Council of Chalcedon was called by the Emperor Marcion. Chalcedon reversed the Robber Synod’s decrees and put forth the clear teaching of the hypostatic union that Christ is One Person with two natures, both Fully human and Fully Divine. The two natures of Christ are united in One Person without confusion, change, division, or separation.

Unfortunately, after Chalcedon, Monophysitism still persisted. At the Council of Constantinople II (553), the Emperor Justinian had three Nestorians condemned in order to placate the Monophysites.

In an effort to appease both Monophysites and Chalcedonians, Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople suggested Monothelitism, meaning that Christ only had one will or energy. However, saying that Christ only has one energy means that He only had one nature. Maximus the Confessor argued that a single energy reduces to a single nature and denies the Incarnation. For nature, if it is there, is operative. If Christ only has one energy, then the divine nature will win out, thus Christ would not have a human nature. But as Chalcedon defined, Christ is one person with two natures, both human and divine. This means that since Christ has two natures, He also must have two wills or energies.

All this led up to Constantinople III (680-681) which was called by Constantine IV. This council clarified how we ought to understand the duality and union of Christ at the level of energies. What Chalcedon applied to the natures, Constantinople III applies to the energies. We insist on the unity of Christ without mixing at any level of the natures.

After this council, Iconoclasm began in 726. Iconoclasm is a Christological controversy because it relates to the Incarnational principle that the created world, even the material world, can manifest God Himself and yet remain what it is. Iconoclasm began when the Byzantine Emperor, Leo III, saw iconophiles as idolaters based on Exodus 20:4. He began a campaign against Icons and destroyed the Icon of Christ that was above the doors of the Imperial Palace. This controversy divided the Imperial Court.
The backers of Iconoclasm from the Fathers of the Church were Eusebius and Origin.

Constantine V made the argument that:
1. Christ’s two natures cannot be separated.
2. You can’t circumscribe the Divine Nature.
3. Therefore, you cannot depict Christ.

Constantine continued to inflict heavy persecution on iconodules.
He was combated by the Pope who fought back politically.
Germanus of Constantinople also clarified that it was not the wood that we worship, but the image.

In 787, Nicaea II was called by the Empress Irene. This council condemned iconoclasm as a movement that strikes at the heart of the Christian Faith. If you cannot have a picture of the Son of God, you deny the Incarnation. You deny Him bodily existence and therefore deny the capacity of the body to manifest the identity of God. Nicaea II also distinguished between the kinds of veneration: latria and dulia.

The last remnants of iconoclasm were stamped out in 869 at the council of Constantinople IV.

The Gospel Of Obama

The Beginning of the Gospel of Barack Obama, the Son of God (According to Mark Shea)...