Non Habes Quod Requiritur

NON HABES QUOD REQUIRITUR
YOU DON’T HAVE WHAT IT TAKES

On Sunday, January 27, 2019, my wife wanted to attend service at the Protestant Evangelical Church in the southern part of our city. I actually am quite happy that we did attend for the message from the pulpit was appropriate and timely. My notes (with some side commentary) are provided below. The chosen Scripture passage was Hebrews 4:11-16:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews+4%3A11-16&version=RSVCE

INTRODUCTION

The message of the culture is not the message of the Gospel. It is a false message to say that you can do anything you put your mind to do for you are not God. You are not omnipotent and you cannot do it by your own power. In Genesis 41:16, when asked to interpret his dream, “Joseph answered Pharaoh, ‘It is not in me; God will give Pharaoh a favorable answer.’”

In another respect God uses marriage to bring us to the end of ourselves because by our own effort without His help we cannot make the marriage relationship work, hence the modern divorce rate.

The message in the Epistle to the Hebrews is that Jesus as our High Priest is superior to all. And St. Paul emphasizes in Ephesians 2:8, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God…”

COME WHOLEHEARTEDLY TO THE FAMILY OF GOD (HEBREWS 4:11)

In Hebrews 4:11, we “strive to enter that rest.” Rest is peace with God. But the use of the word strive seems contradictory.

All are born in sin. David said in Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (This Psalm was written in repentance for the adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah her husband which David had committed). God required everything from David and in like manner God requires everything from us in order to receive everything from Him. We live by Faith in Christ, NOT in self. Therefore, we must strive – be diligent and come wholeheartedly into God’s family. 2nd Corinthians 13:5 states, “Examine yourselves, to see whether you are holding to your faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? — unless indeed you fail to meet the test!” Seek out Godly counsel. Don’t bank on the supposition that you prayed a prayer. You must live the life. Examine yourself.

It is here that I am going to diverge from my notes and give a more correct explanation of what the preacher was trying to say. He denied the salvific effect of baptism, treating it as a mere ordinance of the confirmation of one’s pre-existing salvation and not as a Sacrament. I think that he was trying to say that just because you’re baptized doesn’t mean you get an automatic ticket into Heaven. That’s true by itself. I agree with that. Baptism isn’t a free ticket where I can do whatever sin I want but I remain saved just because I was baptized. So I think this is more a matter of semantics. Let me explain and tie this into what the preacher went on to say.

Jesus in Mark 16:16 says, “He who believes AND is baptized will be saved…” And 1st Peter 3:21 states, “Baptism, which corresponds to this, NOW SAVES YOU, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ….” However, James 2:17, 19 & 24 state, “So FAITH BY ITSELF, if it has no works, IS DEAD….Even the demons believe—and shudder…You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

Therefore, to be saved: (1) one must believe, AND (2) one must be baptized AND (3) one must put one’s faith and baptism into action by good works in obedience to glory of God. Salvation isn't just an event. It is a process of living.

Thus, those three Scripture passages directly support what the preacher did say, that (for example) the Jews being God’s Chosen people was insufficient for their salvation. Obedience is the authentic mark of a follower of Christ – a willingness to die to self. That’s the second part of Hebrews 4:11, “….that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience.”

COME EXPECTANTLY TO THE WORD OF GOD (HEBREWS 4:12-13)

God loves me and I must love Him. We must come back to God’s Word to let it shape us. “For the word of God is living and active…” This is the basic nature of God’s Word. 2nd Peter 1:20-21 states, “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

God never has to make His rules better. His Word is living and God-breathed. In the same way, Genesis 2:7 says, “Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being…” Just as man became a living being by being God-breathed, so too the Word of God.

The Word of God is active. The Greek word used here is ενεργός which goes into our English word energy. The Word is at work.

The Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword. Ephesians 6:17 says, “And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” Thus, the Word of God is the Sword of the Spirit. The written Word of God can be no less powerful than the words that Jesus Himself used to forgive sin and raise the dead.

2nd Timothy 3:14-15 states, “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” The Word of God teaches us and makes us wise unto salvation.

2nd 3:1-17 states, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” The Word of God equips us for every good work.

The Word of God pierces to the innermost being and cuts us surgically.

Should we read God’s Word daily? YES! We all need to be daily cut in order to be continuously conformed to God’s image. The sword of the Spirit is life-changing.

Matthew 4:4 states, “But he answered and said, it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” This must start at childhood, for Deuteronomy 4:9 states, “Only take heed, and keep your soul diligently, lest you forget the things which your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life; make them known to your children and your children’s children…” The Word of God is more important than food, clothing, housing, work, etc. You don’t have what it takes without following what the Bible says.

The preacher explained that he does expository – verse by verse – preaching in order to feed the people of God, and he cited Hebrews 5:11-14 which states:

“About this we have much to say which is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food; for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.”

And Revelation 20:12 states, “And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done.” At this point the preacher speculated that one of the books to be opened would be the Bible. The Navarre Study Bible has a note on this. That note describes only the two sets of books mentioned in Rev 20:12, and states in part the following:

“The author [of Revelation] then turns his attention to the resurrection, when all men will be judged according to their works. He describes this by using the metaphor of two books. One of these records the actions of men (as in Daniel 7:10 and other passages of the Old Testament, cf., e.g., Is 65:6; Jer 22:30). The second book contains the names of those predestined to eternal life (an idea inspired by Daniel 12:1; cf. also, e.g., Ex 32:32). This is a way of showing that man cannot attain salvation by his own efforts alone…”

At this point the preacher expounded on the evil of abortion, describing abortion as a mess and as sin. The Bible states that life begins in the womb – Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you…” Pictures of baby formation at 12, 27 and 40 weeks were displayed on massive screens at the front of the Sanctuary. Psalm 139:13 states, “For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb.” However, in NY State it is now permissible to kill a baby at the moment of birth. Governor Andrew Cuomo signed such a bill into law. That is heinous and unspeakable.

God uses His Word to point out our sins. We don’t have what it takes to get saved, to live day by day.

COME CONFIDENTLY TO THE THRONE OF GOD (HEBREWS 4:14-16)

We have an Advocate – Christ Jesus – to speak on our behalf. Nothing can deliver our deepest needs but Jesus. He never failed in His temptations and He won’t fail us in ours. We are able to pray because of Jesus and we are able to receive help because of Jesus. He is the Bread of Life (John 6:22-59). He is life itself (John 14:6). John Newton once said that no one can ask too much of Jesus. Therefore, let us come confidently to the Throne of Grace.

Should we pray every day? YES! Just as we should read His Word every day.

Romans 12:3 states, “For by the grace given to me I bid everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith which God has assigned him.” This shows that we can’t do it by ourselves but only by the measure of faith that God assigns us. Therefore, why don’t we come to the Word of God, the Throne of God? Maybe we’re lost, in which case we need to repent and convert.

We cannot be with God and be separated from His Word, His Throne.

PERSONAL COMMENT

The respect that Protestant Evangelicals have for the written Word of God should be practiced by every Catholic and Orthodox person. I cannot emphasize that enough. We Catholics and Orthodox directly descended from the first century Christians gave the Bible to the world, and for us to NOT know what it says is absolutely shameful. But the Word of God isn’t just written.

John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The written Word is merely a reflection of the Divine Word (Jesus Christ) Who created all of existence and became incarnate of a Virgin in order to die on a Cross for our sins; he descended into hell, rose from the dead and sits at the right hand of God the Father from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. When we are baptized, we are baptized into His Body the Church of which He the crucified and risen Lord is the Head exactly as St. Paul describes it. When we partake of the Holy Eucharist, we eat that Word as His flesh and drink His blood exactly as the Bread of Life Discourse in John chapter 6 describes it.

Reading the Bible is absolutely necessary, but the Holy Spirit through the very real power of the Sacraments makes its power alive within us. Jesus said in John 6:53-58, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

The Eucharist – not the Bible – is the source and summit of our Faith. In fact, there was no Bible (as we know it today) before the late AD 300s when the Church at two different councils decided on what books would be in the Bible and what would not be. Before that time the only thing that Christians had were the Church, Sacred Tradition and scattered collections of Scared Books. That’s why St. Paul says in 1st Timothy 3:15, “…if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” And in 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 he says, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

I was very pleased and blessed with the overall sermon, especially that the subject of abortion was directly and forthrightly dealt with (sadly unlike Catholic Parishes which are running scared under the priestly sex abuse scandal and lack of leadership from the current Pontiff). And I like being stimulated to think on these things. Furthermore, I have nothing but encouragement to offer this Protestant preacher. But I always go back to how the early Church Fathers in the first four centuries AD viewed Scriptures. They were the closest to the Apostles, and I would urge any preacher - Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant - to read how the Church Fathers viewed and interpreted Sacred Scripture.

Adfinitas Peculiaris cum Iesu Christo

Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,

I was recently involved in a discussion on the necessity of having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I understand the intent: that one must surrender one's will and life over to the care of God. However, we are talking about the Lord God Almighty of the Universe here. This is NOT a relationship of equals, nor do we merit in the least His love, His forgiveness or even having a personal relationship with Him. So I usually avoid usage of that term though I do admit that after a few days of heroin withdrawal in a rehabilitation center some three plus decades ago, I did have a "come to Jesus meeting," and that meeting began my eventual entry into the Catholic Church. As my Catholic faith deepened, I learned that salvation is a whole lot more than just getting on my knees and asking Jesus to forgive me of my sins.

Typically Protestants invoke verses of Scripture like Romans 10:9-10:

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

But they ignore other verses of Scripture like Mark 16:16:

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

And they ignore 1st Peter 2:18-22:

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

Obviously baptism is required for salvation as well as believing by faith and confession with the mouth. Yes, most New Testament verses omit the "and baptism" part that St. Mark points out. However, the equation is an AND Gate - you must believe AND be baptized. Both conditions must be true for the output to be true. That most verse of Scripture omit this "and be baptized" does NOT invalidate St. Mark's identification of this criterion.

Now why must one be baptized? Because the Baptism of the New Testament replaces Circumcision of the Old Testament. In the Abrahamic covenant every child had to be circumcised. Genesis 17:9-14 explains:

And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised; every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house, or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, both he that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money, shall be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

St. Paul explains in Romans 6:1-4:

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Indeed, Christ said in Matthew 28:18-20:

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

If baptism isn't necessary for entry into the New Covenant of salvation (for circumcision was necessary for entry into the Old Covenant), then why did Christ command it? Indeed, it is by baptism that we enter the Church which is the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ. A personal relationship with Jesus does not mean that we have a separate, unique and isolated relationship with Him. Rather, it means that we submit ourselves in obedience to Him, and He is both Head and Body, which means He is both Head and Church, which means we must obey both Him the Head and His Church. 1st Corinthians 12:12 & 27 states:

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ...Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.

And Romans 12:4-5 echoes this:

For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

This is why I dislike the term "personal relationship with Jesus." Rather we enter Christ's Body through believing by faith, confessing with the mouth and being baptized. Therefore, the Protestant paradigm that we must submit ourselves to Jesus but NOT the Church is in error. To have a personal relationship with Christ means obeying Christ the Head and Christ the Body. In fact, John 20:21-22 states:

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Thus the Disciples were given authority and this authority was passed down to the Bishops and Priests of the Church through the laying on of hands described through the Acts of the Apostles. It is this authority that Christ gave to the Bishops and Priests of the Visible Church which must be obeyed. Thus does John 14:15 state:

If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

Therein did the Protestant so-called Reformers - Martin Luther, John Calvin, Henry VIII, etc. - err. They disobeyed the Christ in rejecting His Body and setting up their own man-made religious denominations. Indeed, one cannot have God as one's Father and Jesus as one's Savior unless one has the Church as one's Mother, and that makes sense because St. Paul also describes the Church as the Bride of Christ in 2nd Corinthian 11:2:

I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband.

In conclusion, there is no salvation outside the Church. Pope Benedict XVI explained this in the Declaration "Dominus Iesus" on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. To reject Christ's Church is to reject the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ, and is effectively a rejection of Christ Himself.

Christianitas - Una Vera Religio

Amici, Americani et Compatriotae,

I have once again recently heard the phrase that Christianity is not a religion. That statement truly grates on me: “I am not religious; I am spiritual,” to which I sometimes sarcastically respond, “So are the Wiccans and pagan witches. That doesn’t make them holy.” Now there are two objections to this sentiment of being spiritual and not religious, the first Biblical and linguistic, and the second political.

First, the Biblical reason:  The Epistle of St. James 1:27 states, “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.” The Greek word that is used here is θρησκεία which means religious worship, especially external – that which consists of ceremonies, religious discipline, religion. The Latin Vulgate of course translates θρησκεία as religio and states:

“Religio munda et inmaculata apud Deum et Patrem haec est visitare pupillos et viduas in tribulatione eorum inmaculatum se custodire ab hoc saeculo.”

Religio means obligation, bond, reverence and derives from the verb religare which means “to bind together.” This word – θρησκεία for the Greeks and religio for the Romans – was used extensively by all the early Church Fathers who succeeded the Apostles in the first three centuries Anno Domini. The word denotes the binding together of the Assembly or Church (Εκκλησία in lingua Graeca and Ecclesia in lingua Latina) which is often advocated throughout various sermons with great eloquence. Yet there is this continued objection (regardless of denomination - the protest is almost always the same) to the word religion in spite of its Biblical, linguistic and historical basis. It is cognitive dissonance for me to count myself as spiritual yet not religious but still advocating the bonding together – religati – of the Body of Christ. Indeed, what people believe is meant by religion is really not the Christian religion. Perhaps it applies to the Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist religions, but NOT to what St. James wrote. Christianity is in fact the one true religion - the ONLY religion that is true, right and correct. It is a binding together of the faithful into the One Body of Christ, the One Bride of Christ. A personal relationship with Christ is absolutely essential, but that happens within and through the Body of Christ which is the Church, into which we are baptized as believers. It isn't "Christ and me." It's "Christ the Head and His Body the Church." We are bonded together - religati - members of that Body. It's THE religion, Amici!

Second, the political reason: the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

If one's spirituality is not a religion, then one is not entitled to any protection under the First Amendment for one's spirituality. So in this day and age of post-modern, neo-pagan liberal progressivism which seeks to shove atheism and hedonism down the throats of every authentic orthodox Christian who upholds the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman and the sanctity of life from conception onward, we ought to be very careful in making statements that say one's spirituality is not a religion. Again, what people often think is meant by the word religion and what it really means are two different things.

Vesper Diei Solis aput Ecclesiam Calvariae

Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,

Our Lady of Grace
Lancaster, SC

NOTE: before I begin, for our separated Protestant brethren, in the essay below I point out some very positive things about a Protestant "service" I recently attended. But I also unflinchingly point out error - when the statement or practice deviates from the doctrine and dogma of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. This is NOT done out of some misbegotten sense of superiority, for Heaven knows that I, far from being superior, am at the bottom of the barrel. In fact, I wish Catholics and Eastern Orthodox who have valid Sacraments and a valid priesthood and episcopate were as enthused about the Lord Jesus Christ as many Evangelical Protestants are. I also appreciate good preaching when I hear it, and if this post does nothing else, then may it serve to reinforce that practice. But there are things which I saw last night that are wrong. Yet let this be known: just because a doctrine or practice may be wrong does not mean that those who in ignorance commit it are themselves wrong. I don't get to judge anyone and I myself will be judged by Christ. Nevertheless, without further delay, let me start:

Calvary Church,
Charlotte, NC

Yesterday evening I had the opportunity to attend a Protestant "service" at one of the local ecclesial communities, Calvary Church. This is one of the larger non-denominational communities in the Charlotte, NC area. The community's Articles of Faith seem to be influenced to some extent by Calvinism, a 16th century Protestant rebellion. The definitive work thereon is John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion.

I am often interested at how such community's conduct themselves. I once attended an evening "service" at one Pentecostal community and the junior "pastor's" speech was indeed quite heretical, unlike last night's sermon at Calvary Church. Of course I let him know what I thought in my post Epistula Aperta ad Ecclessiam Christi Vitae. Like most Protestants ignorant of Church history prior to the start of their particular denomination, he had no response, but I was reliably informed that he was so "hurt." Obviously the hurt was insufficient to initiate a change in his system of belief. Heaven help his congregants.

I have also attended "services" at a local Methodist community. Its senior "pastor's" sermons are very well articulated. I have repeatedly blogged quite favorably in fact about those sermons here. However, I have issue with the priestesses floating about; Christ never ordained priestesses (I don't call them priests because priests are by definition always male, and I don't call them pastors which in Latin means shepherds because shepherds are always male too). Frankly, I loathe feminism (but love authentic femininity and the nobility of true womanhood). But I digress.

Dr. Munro

I have additionally attended "services" at Calvary before, and by and large, the "preaching" there is rather good except on one rare occasion when I heard Dr. Munro, the senior "pastor," diverge into early Church history. A hint of anti-Catholic, anti-Orthodox bias typical of Calvinists came out, but not bombastically. I haven't yet observed him to be vehement in speaking that way, and that is quite welcome. He is actually a great speaker and often quite orthodox.

Last night Khalil Ayoub, Pastor of College & Young Adults, gave the sermon and Timothy Hathaway, Pastor of Worship, administered what for Protestants is Communion. The sermon was excellent. Communion, of which I did not partake, was of course invalid and that is NOT a reflection on the administrator thereof but on the way that Protestants in general view the Sacraments. I will discuss both.

Khalil Ayoub

SERMON

Revd. Ayoub spoke on the difficult subject of service to the poor and he did a masterful job. He used as his Scripture texts the following:

• The Parable of the Good Samaritan: Luke 10:25-37
• The Collection for Christians at Jerusalem: 2nd Corinthians 9
• Faith without Works is Dead: James 2:14-17
• Love One Another: 1st John 3:17-18

Using these texts, Revd. Ayoub explained the following:

In the case of the Parable of the Good Samaritan, unlike the Priest and the Levite, the Samaritan took a risk to help the man in the ditch. That risk involved exposing himself to the same danger which had befallen the one whom he was trying to rescue. So sometimes helping another may involve personal risk to ourselves. We will have to get out of our comfort zones.

In the case of the Christians of Macedonia giving alms for the saints in Jerusalem, the Macedonians were a poor church, yet they begged to give out of their poverty. In like manner we must be willing to give not just when we have extra but when we may not.

In the case of those who pray for the sick or the impoverished, what good does prayer do unless it is backed up by concrete action? We cannot simply absolve ourselves of having to help the poor by saying, "I prayed for them."

In the case of those in need, how can we say we love God when we close our hearts and our giving to the less fortunate? That's hypocrisy.

Revd. Ayoub went on to make some more important points. One of the reasons we need a government welfare program is because we in the Church, the Body of Christ, have NOT been doing our Sacred Duty as delineated in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25:31-46. Here the nations are gathered together and those who fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, welcomed the alien, clothed the naked, cared for the sick and visited the imprisoned are those whom Christ welcomes into eternal life. Now it is important to note (something which Revd. Ayoub had not explained - there wasn't time to explain everything) that the Greek word translated as nation is actually ἔθνος which means:

• A multitude of individuals
• A tribe or group of people

It does not have the same meaning as our modern word nation does which refers to country-state. The nations gathered before God are individuals to whom the command is given to help feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, care for the sick, welcome the alien and visit the imprisoned. If we as members of the Body of Christ do our duty as citizens of the Kingdom of God and children of the Great King instead of abdicating our responsibility and evading our accountability onto Tiberius Caesar, then we won't have a welfare problem.

Revd. Ayoub recounted some heart rending stories of his personal experience in Malaysia, travelling on rickety boats to different islands and the appalling conditions of poverty which he saw and which the people there regard as normal. He explained that to them we Americans are rich, perhaps the richest nation to ever exist on planet Earth. We may not feel that way because we are not billionaires. But compared to these destitute people we have everything we need and then some: houses, clean water, nutritious food, readily available mode of transport even in public transportation, etc. He also made a brief reference to immigration, saying that people from war-torn countries like Syria would do anything to have a chance like us. But he also cautioned us not to feel guilty because God has blessed us with houses and food and belongings and a great church, because often people are poor for a reason.

Continuing on, Revd. Ayoub said that we cannot simply throw money at the problem of the poor because that is as bad as simply ignoring them. In fact, sometimes we throw money at the destitute so that we can feel good about ourselves while we walk away without having done anything of substance to solve the underlying problem which caused them to become poor, and that ties into what he alluded to when he pointed out that people are often poor for a reason. He used an example which appealed to me as a recovering alcoholic and drug addict - the story of a homeless man whom a group of young people took in. They fed him, gave him a place to sleep and provided a second chance to him. But he began drinking. And his behavior turned from bad to worse, stealing and fighting. Eventually the men of the house had to call law enforcement to evict the person whom they had befriended because the underlying alcoholism was not corrected and that was the root cause of the homeless man's poverty.

I was so glad this example was used. The best thing that ever happened to me early in sobriety was to be told that if I did not get an AA group and an AA sponsor, and work the 12 Steps of AA, then I would die. Nothing else mattered - not job, not girlfriend, not family, not anything - except God and my sobriety. He had to be number one or I would surely die.

After some time in sobriety I became a sponsor myself. In that role I once picked up a drunk on the beach (literally). I brought him home to my apartment. I got him to meetings and I even paid a month's rent in a halfway house for him. But he went out to drink again. I could not rescue him. Sadly some people are not ready for God's grace. They have to go out there and have "some more fun." But by God's grace alone that has not happened to me so far, but it's only a one-day-at-a-time program.

So my personal experience confirms what Revd. Ayoub spoke about. The underlying problem has to be fixed, and that's not government's job. That's our job. As a Catholic Christian, these things remind me of the various Works of Mercy in Paragraphs 2446 and 2447 of the Article 7 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2446 St. John Chrysostom vigorously recalls this: "Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours, but theirs." "The demands of justice must be satisfied first of all; that which is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity":

When we attend to the needs of those in want, we give them what is theirs, not ours. More than performing works of mercy, we are paying a debt of justice.

2447 The works of mercy are charitable actions by which we come to the aid of our neighbor in his spiritual and bodily necessities. Instructing, advising, consoling, comforting are spiritual works of mercy, as are forgiving and bearing wrongs patiently. The corporal works of mercy consist especially in feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and burying the dead. Among all these, giving alms to the poor is one of the chief witnesses to fraternal charity: it is also a work of justice pleasing to God:

He who has two coats, let him share with him who has none and he who has food must do likewise. But give for alms those things which are within; and behold, everything is clean for you. If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?

I do wish however that greater emphasis had been placed on addressing poverty in our own country first, but I honestly cannot fault Revd. Ayoub's sincerity and his personal corporal works of mercy in foreign lands. Surely God will bless him for that. I also wish that the account of Jesus' feet having been anointed with oil in John 12 had been discussed. Mary, sister of Martha, had taken 300 denarii worth of oil to anoint Jesus' feet. Judas Iscariot exclaimed that the oil (worth a year's wage) could have been sold and the profit used for the poor. Scripture records that he said this not because he cared for the poor but because he carried the money purse and would steal therefrom. Jesus Himself said:

Let her alone, let her keep it for the day of my burial. The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.

The lesson here is threefold.

First, those who cry the loudest for government to tax those who earn wealth and redistribute to those who refuse to work are the very ones who steal that tax revenue for themselves.

Second, we will not ever be able to solve the problem of poverty and create a man-made paradise on Earth; that will only happen when Christ returns. Rather, we do corporal works of mercy for the sake of justice and for our own salvation. And that reminds me of something my AA sponsor always said, "It's a selfish program. You help to save the next person so that you yourself will stay sober today."

Third, in the story of the rich young man in Matthew 19:16-22 and Mark 10:17-22, Christ told the rich man to sell all he had and give to the poor and follow Him not to rescue the poor from their state of poverty, but because Jesus looked on him and loved him (Mark 10:21) even though his possessions had become an idol between him and God's love, and that idol had to be removed.

Nevertheless, all in all, Revd Ayoub did an outstanding job. Bravo!

Tim Hathaway

COMMUNION

Revd Hathaway administered a Protestant version of Communion. Broken up crackers on brass plates and then grape juice in tiny single serving cups in brass trays were distributed by the ushers. 1st Corinthians 11:22-33 was read. Appropriate emphasis was put on verses 27 through 29 that I wish were likewise emphasized at Catholic Mass:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

Again, without casting aspersions on Revd Hathaway's character and commitment (both of which seem excellent), I wonder why Protestants do not consider the implication of verse 30:

That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

If the Bread and Wine have NOT been "transubstantiated" or transformed into Jesus' Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, then what power do they have to make the unworthy partaker weak and ill and even to die? If they are mere symbols, then by what means are their unworthy reception injurious to body and soul? Surely John 6:53-57 is correct?

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.

The Crucifix

I have never understood how Evangelical Protestants can insist on a literal interpretation of Moses' words in the account of creation in Genesis 1 and 2, but will not ascribe to a literal interpretation of our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ's words: "This IS My Body......This IS my Blood!" The Holy Eucharist is the source and summit of Ecclesial Life. It is Jesus made real and present to us here and now. We enter into the one time for all Sacrifice on Calvary (oh what an irony given the name of the Ecclesial Community to which I went last night) which exists forever as a discrete point in space time some 2000 years ago on a hilltop just outside Jerusalem. At every Holy Mass in the Roman Catholic Church, at every Divine Liturgy in the Eastern Orthodox Church, that event in space time is re-presented (NOT re-performed or merely represented as a symbol) to us. It appears from the midst of time and space so that we can be partakers. That is what Protestantism gave up during the so-called Reformation of the 16th century.

So of course I did not partake of something that has no divine form, no divine power, no divine substance other than being some sort of community symbol. With NO intent to hurt anyone's feelings or to shove supremacy of one Christian denomination over another in some false sense of triumphalism, and without any denigration of the character of the preachers at Calvary Church itself, we must remember that paragraph 1400 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following:

Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders." It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."

More can be read about this in Paragraph 17 of Dominus Iesus by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (that paragraph can likewise be easily taken in the wrong way). And what the early Church Fathers - the men who succeeded the Apostles - said about the Eucharist in the first few centuries after Christ may be read here. They believed in the Real Presence of Jesus. Therefore, while the neighborliness and friendliness of the people at Calvary is something which Catholics would do well to emulate, and while I have great admiration and respect for the preaching that was given, that Ecclesial Community does NOT posses valid Holy Orders NOR a Valid Eucharist. Nevertheless, they remain our separated brethren in Christ and we should pray what Jesus prayed in John 17 that we all be one in His Kingdom.

ASIDE: I wonder sometimes at certain Novus Ordo Catholic Parishes whether their Communion is valid as well - this isn't just a Protestant problem. END ASIDE

Quem Videtis?

Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,

I recently had a chance to visit a Protestant mega-church in the local metropolis of Charlotte, NC during an evening "service." (What exactly do these people serve, or whom? What is meant by "service"?)  I was struck by the visual difference between what is displayed in the Protestant "sanctuary" and what is front and center in the sanctuary of a Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox) Church. See the difference in the photos below? Which one displays Jesus and which one displays man? One has no Cross displayed, just the name of the church. Not even the windows are stained glass with images of the saints. The other depicts Christ's Crucifixion, beneath which is the Tabernacle in which the consecrated elements - Jesus Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity - rest. And on the windows are displayed the great Saints who as Hebrews 12:1 states are the great cloud of witnesses who have gone on before us. I think the answer as to who is revered in each church is obvious: one is man centered, serving man (hence the term "service") and the other Christ centered, serving Christ in the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

PS, the "service" on Friday night was about depression and how to combat it - man centered.

Protestant Sanctuary - Man Centered

Catholic Sanctuary - Christ Centered

Qui Est in Centro Vostrae Religionis?

Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,

Who is in the center of your religion? God or Man? The Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God? Or a rock and roll band with feel good music and a preacher boy in t-shirt and jeans with tickle your ears feel good psycho-babble? Is your worship that of two thousand years of sacred Christian tradition in Eastern Orthodoxy and the Latin West? Or is it something made up in the last five years to titillate the senses and enthrall the emotions? I ask you: where do you see Christian ANYTHING in the photo on the right? It's obvious on the left: behold the icon of the Theotokos with the Christ Child and the Tabernacle where the Consecrated Hosts - Jesus' very Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity - lay in adoration beneath the Cross.

Holiness vs Buffonery

Gratias pro Venerata Rocio Ávila-Ramírez de Weddington UMC

Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,

Skin Burns Resulting from Boiling Water

Yesterday early afternoon my wife's niece (who lives with us) was preparing tea in the Filipino tradition. Having boiled water in a kettle and having placed large tea bags in a glass picture, she commenced to pour the 212 F liquid into the 70 F container. Of course this was a challenge to the laws of physics. When hot liquid is poured into a cold and brittle container, the inside wall of the container tries to expand but the outside wall has contracted. This is due to the 142 F temperature differential. Glass, being made of silicon dioxide molecules in a crystal lattice structure, has little to no ductility. So under the expansive stresses on the inside wall and compressive stresses on the outside wall, the crystals (instead of sliding) shear away from each other suddenly and without warning. This happened and the glass catastrophically cracked, spilling the hot liquid on the thighs of my wife's niece. Third degree burns resulted and a trip to the emergency room of the local hospital ensued. The staff - receptionists, physicians, and nurses - all operated with alacrity, efficiency and effectiveness, administering large quantities of opiates for pain relief and cleaning the wounds. By early evening she was back home and in bed, though both legs were wrapped in gauze bandages.

Now when this happened, being a devout Catholic, I immediately thought of the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick as delineated in James 5:13-16:

13 Is any one among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise. 14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders [ πρεσβυτέρους in Greek ] of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.

However, because my wife's niece is Protestant - Methodist to be specific - and because Protestant sacramental practice is quite different (if existent at all), I made effort to locate a clergy person within the ecclesial community of which she is a member to come and pray for her. I sent a message via Facebook Messenger to her community, the Weddington United Methodist Church. A person monitoring FB messenger contacted the community's lead pastor, Rev. Dr. Terry Moore, who in turn assigned the task for visitation and prayer to Rev. Rocio Ávila-Ramírez. I was happily and gratefully surprised with the responsiveness of the Weddington UMC because staff at that community doesn't know me from Adam, yet they responded as if they had known me all along. Such is true Christian charity (Latin - caritas).

Rev. Rocio
Avila-Ramerez

Now the reader should bear in mind that last night temperature had dipped to the mid 20 F (somewhere around - 6 C), and it was a Saturday evening after a bad winter storm for the area of Charlotte, NC and Lancaster, SC. Yet in spite of this cold and inclement condition, and in spite of her duties to her husband and her children, Rev. Rocio braved the elements and drove to the hospital to pray from my wife's niece. She did not find my wife's niece there because the physician in charge had just released her into the care of my wife and myself, and we had brought her home. So she telephoned me on my cell (Weddington UMC having had the foresight to provide my cell phone number). I went to the hospital where her car was sitting, picked her up and drove her to our home so that she could pray over my wife's niece. Using my 1979 Anglican Book of Common Prayer Rev Rocio prayed and provided counsel and consolation, after which I returned her to her vehicle at the hospital.

Again I was impressed that Rev Rocio put her personal needs on a Saturday evening aside to come to the home of a perfect stranger - and a Catholic at that! - to minister to a person whom she hardly knew. While of course we who are Catholic have theological differences with Methodists, it is this Christian charity (caritas) which we all would do well to emulate in our lives. I have to ask myself: would I be willing to go out in the winter cold in the dead of night with a stranger to help an injured person whom I hardly knew? Rev Rocio did precisely that and imitated the best in the Story of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37.

The following is addressed to my Catholic readers. Yes, we know that the Catechism of the Catholic Church spells out what the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick entails and who can administer it:

1516 Only priests [ bishops (ἐπισκόποις) and presbyters (πρεσβυτέρους) ] are ministers of the Anointing of the Sick.

1517 Like all the sacraments the Anointing of the Sick is a liturgical and communal celebration, whether it takes place in the family home, a hospital or church, for a single sick person or a whole group of sick persons. It is very fitting to celebrate it within the Eucharist, the memorial of the Lord's Passover. If circumstances suggest it, the celebration of the sacrament can be preceded by the sacrament of Penance and followed by the sacrament of the Eucharist. As the sacrament of Christ's Passover the Eucharist should always be the last sacrament of the earthly journey, the "viaticum" for "passing over" to eternal life.

1518 Word and sacrament form an indivisible whole. the Liturgy of the Word, preceded by an act of repentance, opens the celebration. the words of Christ, the witness of the apostles, awaken the faith of the sick person and of the community to ask the Lord for the strength of his Spirit.

1519 The celebration of the sacrament includes the following principal elements: the "priests of the Church" - in silence - lay hands on the sick; they pray over them in the faith of the Church - this is the epiclesis proper to this sacrament; they then anoint them with oil blessed, if possible, by the bishop. These liturgical actions indicate what grace this sacrament confers upon the sick.

We also know that in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis Pope St John Paul II explained why only men and not women can be ordained to the priesthood (and thus, a woman cannot administer the Sacraments, including the Anointing of the Sick):

[The Church] holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church....

...the Church "does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination."

However, all that said does NOTHING to diminish the great service which Rev. Rocio rendered last night for a member of her ecclesial community. And when someone is in utter and unremitting pain from third degree burns, one doesn't argue theology but does what is best to render the most comfort. My wife's niece is Protestant, and out of respect for her I sought out what would give her the most comfort. Additionally, while Catholics do not accept a female priesthood, Rev. Rocio deserves every bit of my respect in having tried to do what in her lights is the Lord's work. My job is to facilitate that demonstration of caritas and not be a theological stick in the mud. Therefore I say to Rev. Rocio:

Tibi multas gratias ago!

Renovamen Nostri Testamenti

The Holy Prophet Samuel
Judge of Israel

Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,

Thoughts on New Year's Eve Vigil Mass may be found at Sancta Maria Dei Genetrix (Θεοτόκος). This New Year's morning my Filipina wife again wanted to attended church services at the Weddington United Methodist Church with her niece. I am glad that I accompanied her and took notes during the sermon given by Rev. Dr. Terry Moore. The following is a summary of that sermon. Any errors are of course my own.

The title of today's post is Renovamen Nostri Testamenti which means Renewal of Our Covenant. Using the Revised Standard Version, Rev. Moore read from 1st Samuel 7:3-6:

3 Then Samuel said to all the house of Israel, “If you are returning to the Lord with all your heart, then put away the foreign gods and the Ash′taroth from among you, and direct your heart to the Lord, and serve him only, and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines.” 4 So Israel put away the Ba′als and the Ash′taroth, and they served the Lord only. 5 Then Samuel said, “Gather all Israel at Mizpah, and I will pray to the Lord for you.” 6 So they gathered at Mizpah, and drew water and poured it out before the Lord, and fasted on that day, and said there, “We have sinned against the Lord.” And Samuel judged the people of Israel at Mizpah.

The idea of re-commitment and renewal of vows is not new. Married couples may renew their marriage vows, particularly for reconciliation after going through a time of grave upheaval and stress, or on special anniversary occasions. Such re-commitment forges a stronger bond of love between the spouses. In the same way New Year's day can be a time to renew our relationship with God. Typical New Year's resolutions rarely go well. Promises to diet sensibly or to exercise regularly regularly all too often fall by the wayside. Instead, what is necessary is a taking of one's inventory, a repentance in the manner suggested by John Wesley. But how do we recommit our covenant with God? Eli's sons (with whom Samuel the prophet had grown up after Hannah left him as child with Eli) were violators of the covenant with God. They were not just in the world but of the world. How then shall we be in the world but not of it?

Israel had picked up worship of the ancient Canaanite fertility gods and goddesses - Ba'al, Astheroth, Molech, etc. The Israelites' identity as children of God was almost lost. As a result of their infidelity, they had been defeated by the Philistines in 1st Samuel chapter 4 and the Ark of the Old Covenant had been stolen from them. It was not until King David in 2nd Samuel chapter 6 that the Ark was finally recovered and returned to Jerusalem.  So what now was Israel to do? Samuel tells them:

If you are returning to the Lord with all your heart, then put away the foreign gods and the Ash′taroth from among you, and direct your heart to the Lord, and serve him only, and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines.

The Message version paraphrases this as follows:

If you are truly serious about coming back to God, clean house. Get rid of the foreign gods and fertility goddesses, ground yourselves firmly in God, worship him and him alone, and he’ll save you from Philistine oppression.

Indeed, Deuteronomy 6:4-5 gives the most important commandment which Jesus repeats in Matthew 22:35-40 and Mark 12:28-34

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.

IDF Soldier Wearing Tefillin

The ancient Hebrews and modern observant Jews would place tiny scrolls containing this verse in small boxes which they would affix to their arms or foreheads in order to remind themselves of the greatest commandment. These are call Tefillin. How shall we then place this greatest commandment in our hands and in our minds?

What Samuel did was simple: he gathered the people together and they prayed. He poured water as a libation to the Lord (perhaps symbolizing the Baptism for the repentance of sins that was to come in the New Covenant) and the people confessed, saying, "We have sinned against the Lord."

In Exodus chapter 19, Moses leads the children of Israel out of slavery in the land of Egypt to Mount Sinai in the wilderness. In Exodus chapter 20, before continuing onward they are given the Ten Commandments. And the people promise that whatever the Lord says, they would do.

Likewise, after the wanderings in the desert and before entering the Promised Land, the Twelve Tribes of Israel renew their covenant with God in Joshua chapter 24. Verses 14 through 18 state:

14 “Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness; put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River, and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. 15 And if you be unwilling to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

16 Then the people answered, “Far be it from us that we should forsake the Lord, to serve other gods; 17 for it is the Lord our God who brought us and our fathers up from the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, and who did those great signs in our sight, and preserved us in all the way that we went, and among all the peoples through whom we passed; 18 and the Lord drove out before us all the peoples, the Amorites who lived in the land; therefore we also will serve the Lord, for he is our God.”

Here the children of Israel made their re-commitment. Likewise we are walking into the New Year as Christians. In the same manner we need to recommit. It is time to take an honest look at our lives.

ASIDE: This reminded me of the 4th and 10th Steps in Alcoholics Anonymous as well as the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The 4th step says, "Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves," and the 10th step says, "Continued to take personal inventory, and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it." The Catechism of the Catholic Church goes further:

1423 It is called the sacrament of conversion because it makes sacramentally present Jesus' call to conversion, the first step in returning to the Father from whom one has strayed by sin. It is called the sacrament of Penance, since it consecrates the Christian sinner's personal and ecclesial steps of conversion, penance, and satisfaction.

1424 It is called the sacrament of confession, since the disclosure or confession of sins to a priest is an essential element of this sacrament. In a profound sense it is also a "confession" - acknowledgment and praise - of the holiness of God and of his mercy toward sinful man. It is called the sacrament of forgiveness, since by the priest's sacramental absolution God grants the penitent "pardon and peace." It is called the sacrament of Reconciliation, because it imparts to the sinner the love of God who reconciles: "Be reconciled to God."He who lives by God's merciful love is ready to respond to the Lord's call: "Go; first be reconciled to your brother."

Recommitting our covenant vows to God should not be something we do just once a year but any time we commit mortal sin - a sin leading to death as 1st John 5:16-17 describes. END ASIDE

John Wesley reworded a Puritan covenant to be renewed at the first of the year once we have taken an honest look at our lives in the previous year. This renewal is a a turning back, a repentance. Repent comes from the Latin word repaeniteo which means, "I regret again." The root word poena meaning punishment is apparent, and thus the word to repent implies a turning back, a change in direction, and that is the substance of the Covenant Prayer which John Wesley formulated. Rev Dr. Moore then had the Congregation sing the song, "In a Bleak Midwinter," calling emphasis to the last stanza:

What can I give him
Poor as I am
If I were a shepherd
I would bring a lamb
If I were a wise man
I would do my part
What can I give him
Give my heart

Finally he led the congregation into a Confession of Sins and a recitation of a prayer similar to the following used in the Book of Offices of the British Methodist Church, 1936:

I am no longer my own, but thine.
Put me to what thou wilt, rank me with whom thou wilt.
Put me to doing, put me to suffering.
Let me be employed for thee or laid aside for thee,
exalted for thee or brought low for thee.
Let me be full, let me be empty.
Let me have all things, let me have nothing.
I freely and heartily yield all things to thy pleasure and disposal.
And now, O glorious and blessed God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
thou art mine, and I am thine.
So be it.
And the covenant which I have made on earth,
let it be ratified in heaven.
Amen

After this there was Communion. Rev. Dr. Moore explained that this was an open communion intended for any Christian regardless of denomination. Now here comes the hard part where some well-meaning people who do truly love the Lord (at least that is what I sensed at the Weddington UMC) may get hurt feelings. It is NOT my intent to hurt feelings or to shove supremacy of one Christian denomination over another. Nevertheless, paragraph 1400 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following, and I am Catholic:

Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders." It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."

More can be read about this in Paragraph 17 of Dominus Iesus by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (that paragraph can likewise be easily taken in the wrong way). Therefore, while the neighborliness and friendliness of these Methodists is something which Catholics would do well to emulate, and while I have great admiration and respect for Rev. Dr. Terry Moore specifically and the Weddington UMC in general, I did not receive Communion there, nor with all due respect to my very kind hosts could I. Maybe one day valid Holy Orders and a Valid Eucharist will be restored to the UMC in general so that Jesus' prayer in John 17 that we all be one will be fulfilled.

ASIDE: I wonder sometimes at certain Novus Ordo Catholic Parishes whether their Communion is valid as well - this isn't just a Methodist problem. END ASIDE

POST SCRIPT: Frankly, when the usher arrived at the pew where I was sitting and had to repeat his request for me to go up and receive, and I had to say, "No," I felt badly for him because he was just doing his job and he wouldn't have known about any of this - my apologies to him for any discomfort he may have felt.

Haeresis et Cultura Gentilitatis in Ecclessia Protestantia

Amici, Americani et Compatriotae,

There is a certain Protestant assembly in the Charlotte, NC area called Grace Christian Center which espouses the heresy of the Word of Faith theology and sports a variant of the pagan heartagram symbol as its moniker:

Grace Christian Center
Logo

This logo was originally designed by the Finnish rock and roll band HIM:

HIM Rock and Roll Band
Heartagram

The symbol was based on the pagan inverted pentagram:

Pagan Inverted Pentagram

The symbol is clearly satanic:

The Satanic Pentagram

Why a church that claims to be Christian - Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox - would NOT use what St Paul used as a symbol in Galatians 3:1, let alone a modification of what is clearly a demonic symbol, is beyond understanding:

"O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?"

Crucifix

I therefore urge anyone attending Grace Christian Center to flee that place as one would the abode of Satan. The theology that it preaches - Word of Faith - is a heresy. and a clear and present danger to the Christian Faith. And the adoption of a demonic pagan symbol that this center makes as its logo confirms everything with Protestant Faith Preacher John Edwards writes here:

Why I Left the Word of Faith and RHEMA

Crucifixus in Centro Sacrarii aut Cohors Musica

Amici, Americani et Compatriotae,

What is in the middle - the center - the sanctuary of your church as you enter it? Do you see a crucifix above the Tabernacle where the Consecrated Host - Jesus' Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity - resides?

St Matthew South
Waxhaw, NC

Or do you see a music band with no crucifix, no cross - just the glorification of people instead of the glorification of Jesus Christ?

Christlife Church
Charlotte, NC

Even some Pentecostal churches have common sense enough to actually put a Cross front and center, albeit above a music band on a stage (oh for the old time altar where one kneels to receive Jesus' Body and Blood at the Holy Eucharist!)

Christian Assembly Church
Pittsfield, MA

I would like to know whom these Protestant churches actually worship? Fine sounding music? The music band? The people singing and playing guitar who are but creatures created by God? Or the Living God Himself? Even before one goes into a Catholic or Orthodox Church, one knows immediately Who is being worshiped, and it isn't the music band or the preacher boy in black polo shirt, tan shorts, and sneakers pontificating from an iPad.

Orthodox Church
Russia

But in self-gratifying la-la land, there is nothing of the holiness and awe of Heaven to see.

Christlife Church New Place
Charlotte, NC

Eschatologia Falsa Raptus

THE FALSE ESCHATOLOGY OF THE RAPTURE

During the sermon on the evening of July 10, 2016 at Christlife Church, another anecdotal reference was made to a theological viewpoint not held by any of the early Fathers of the Church in the first four centuries after Christ. This reference was to the eschatology of the Rapture which purports (based on a misreading of selected verses of Sacred Scripture taken out of context) that:

(1) Christ will physically return to planet Earth to rescue all true Christians

(2) The majority of humanity will be left behind to be persecuted under the reign of antichrist for seven years

(3) Then Jesus Christ will come for a third time to establish a reign of 1000 years of peace and prosperity (called the Millennial Reign of Christ)

(4) After this Satan will be released upon the world for one last rebellion after which he is thrown into hell and the Final Judgment comes.

This essay will refute the false eschatology of a dispensationalist rapture using first Sacred Scripture and second historical evidence.

SACRED SCRIPTURE

When the Pentecostal fundamentalist eschatology is explained in the simple and straightforward way described above, it seems like the ludicrous theology that it actually is. But let us examine this deeper. The idea of the rapture evolves out of a misinterpretation of Matthew 24:40-44 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.

Matthew 24:40-44 states:

40 Then two men will be in the field; one is taken and one is left.  41 Two women will be grinding at the mill; one is taken and one is left.  42 Watch therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.  43 But know this, that if the householder had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have watched and would not have let his house be broken into.  44 Therefore you also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

Fundamentalist dispensationalists like Pentecostals take this to mean that when Christ returns at the Parousia, the person who is truly and authentically Christian will be lifted into the sky to meet Jesus in the air and go to Heaven while the sinful person will be left behind to suffer torture and torment on this Earth. Unfortunately, the parallel passage of this part of St. Matthew’s Gospel in Luke 17:34-37 is ignored:

34 I tell you, in that night there will be two men in one bed; one will be taken and the other left.  35 There will be two women grinding together; one will be taken and the other left.”  37 And they said to him, “Where, Lord?” He said to them, “Where the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together.”

St. Luke’s account gives a detail that St. Matthew’s account omits (the two Saints simply reported the same thing differently). The disciples ask the Lord where this abduction of people will happen, and the Lord says where the eagles are gathered together. Now we must remember that these things were said in Judea in the early 1^st century AD when the Roman Empire had conquered the entire Mediterranean world. The symbol used by the Roman legions above their military banner inscribed with the initials SPQR (Senatus Populusque Romae) was the golden eagle. 

Jesus was telling his disciples that where they would see that banner with its eagle would be the place of abduction, and those being abducted would not be going to Heaven in some sort of mysterious rapture by Him, but into Roman prison and possibly subsequent crucifixion. That is why Jesus says, “Where the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together,” for at the dead bodies of crucifixions would be the SPQR banners atop of which were the Roman eagle.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 is the other passage of Sacred Scripture used to promote this false eschatology of a rapture:

13 But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope.  14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.  15 For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep.  16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; 17 then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord.  18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

St John Chrysostom, one of the 36 Doctors (or recognized Teachers) of the Church who lived from AD 347 to AD 407, explains in part what this passage of Sacred Scripture means in his eighth homily on St. Paul’s First Letter to the Church at Thessalonika: 

Let us then see what he now also says. “For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in nowise precede them that are fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the Archangel, and with the last trump.” For then, he says, “The powers of the heavens shall be shaken.” [Matthew 24:29] But wherefore with the trumpet? For we see this on Mount Sinai too, and Angels there also. But what means the voice of the Archangel? As he said in the parable of the Virgins, Arise! “The Bridegroom comes.” From [Matthew 25:6] Either it means this, or that as in the case of a king, so also shall it then be, Angels ministering at the Resurrection. For He says, let the dead rise, and the work is done, the Angels not having power to do this, but His word. As if upon a king's commanding and saying it, those who were shut up should go forth, and the servants should lead them out, yet they do this not from their own power, but from that Voice. This also Christ says in another place: “He shall send forth his Angels with a great trumpet, and they shall gather together his Elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” [Matthew 24:31] And everywhere you see the Angels running to and fro. The Archangel therefore I think is he, who is set over those who are sent forth, and who shouts thus: “Make all men ready, for the Judge is at hand.” And what is “at the last trumpet”?  Here he implies that there are many trumpets, and that at the last the Judge descends. “And the dead,” he says, “in Christ shall rise first. Then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”

It is apparent from this that St. Chrysostom regards St. Paul’s account as an event happening at the end of the Earth prior to the Last Judgment, hence his words above:

The Archangel therefore I think is he, who is set over those who are sent forth, and who shouts thus: “Make all men ready, for the Judge is at hand.” And what is “at the last trumpet”?  Here he implies that there are many trumpets, and that at the last the Judge descends.

To regard this in any other way than the prelude to Final Judgment is to require not two comings of Christ (one at His birth 2000 years ago and another at the end of time), but three (one at His birth 2000 years ago, a second at the rapture and another when Jesus comes to defeat antichrist and start His millennial reign), or possibly even four (the last being at the end of His millennial reign when He at last casts Satan into hell). Obviously such eschatology is ludicrous.

HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

Before the 19^th century the idea and the term rapture never appeared in any Christian writings, including Protestant, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. The writings of the men who were taught by the Apostles in the late 1^st century and early 2^nd century are completely devoid of any eschatology where Christ raptures true believes, a seven year tribulation occurs, and then a millennial reign happens. Rather, this idea came from a man by the name of John Nelson Darby who lived from 1800 to 1882, and whose ideas another man by the name of CI Scofield popularized in a Protestant Study Bible in the early 20^th century.

John Nelson Darby started out as an Anglo-Irish priest. But when he learned that to continue in the Irish-Anglo Church he had to swear allegiance to England’s George IV as the rightful king of Ireland, he resigned to join an interdenominational group of believers who did not want to be answerable to any ecclesial authority.  Eventually through the twists and turns of human self-will run riot he became the head of what was informally known as the Darbyite Brethren. He maintained the false Calvinist notion of predestination (the heresy of once saved, always saved contrary to 2^nd Peter 2:20-22) and created a man-made system of dispensationalism and futurism which included this idea of a rapture. Interestingly, fellow Calvinist and contemporary Charles Haddon Spurgeon published various criticism of John Darby’s theology (there is no unity within the various factions of Protestantism).

In a first edition of 1909 and then in a revised edition of 1917, a certain Cyrus I (CI) Scofield, having come upon John Darby’s ideas, popularized them in his dispensational study notes in a Scofield Reference Bible. CI Scofield's notes on the Book of Revelation are a major source for the various timetables, judgments, and plagues elaborated on by popular religious writers in the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries such as Hal Lindsey, Edgar C. Whisenant, and Tim LaHaye; and in part because of the success of the Scofield Reference Bible, 20^th century American fundamentalists placed greater stress on eschatological speculation. This, needless to say, has contributed to great financial success in the publication of books and the production of movies. Yet NONE of these ideas which have profited self-made, self-appointed Protestant clergymen so much were ever taught by the Apostles or heard of by their spiritual descendants, the ones whom they taught, the early Church Fathers. Indeed, St. Victorinus (a bishop of Pettau in what is now Austria and an ecclesiastical writer of AD 270 who suffered martyrdom probably in AD 303 under Emperor Diocletian) wrote a Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John. None of the ideas of a rapture and dispensationalist futurism purported by John Darby and CI Scofield appear in this late 3^rd and early 4^th century exposition on the Book of Revelation (or Apocalypse as it is called in Greek).

CONCLUSION

A true reading of Sacred Scripture is inconsistent with the man-made eschatology of a rapture. And none of the dispensationalist ideas of John Darby and CI Scofield appear in history until a Protestant “priest” got upset over having to swear allegiance to the King of England who himself was Protestant. So I ask the reader this: will you believe what the early Church Fathers (Sts John Chrysostom, Victorinus et alias) learned from the Apostles themselves, or will you default to the feel-good and exciting theology of dispensationalism that has contributed so mightily to the profit of self-appointed clergymen who write books and produce movies for the titillation of the emotions without the edification of the spirit? We would do well to remember what is said in the 2^nd Papal Encyclical (other known as St peter’s 2^nd Epistle):

20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. [2 Peter 1:20-21]

Interpretation of Sacred Scripture belongs to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church Who Herself at the Councils of Carthage and Rome in the 4^th century AD determined what would be in the Sacred Canon and what would not be. It does NOT belong to self-made, self-appointed men like John Darby and CI Scofield, nor with their descendants who use a false eschatology to earn monetary profit for themselves.