Penal Substitution in the Church Fathers

256px-Peter_Paul_Rubens_-_The_Crucified_Christ_-_WGA20190

Here are voices from both the East and West over the course of the 4th to 7th centuries. In my opinion, it is clear that the Fathers believed that the penal consequence of our sin, namely,  the curse of death, was visited by God upon the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ our God had no sin of his own, and yet he faces the penal consequences of having sinned. This does not entail the straw man which posits the Father got emotionally disturbed and poured out His holy and undiluted fury upon the Son, but it does mean more than merely a positive righteousness which merited salvation. There is also the matter of satisfying divine justice by allowing Christ to pay off the debt of death precisely by dying. Continue reading

Massa Damnata Test of Orthodoxy: Can You Say That Many Will Perish?

Icon_Atichrist

Day of the Lord Icon

Ever since the 20th century, the Catholic Church’s Ecumenical movement has effected a massively different outlook on the scene of the world. From the 19th century backwards, Catholics believed that non-Catholics, and especially non-Christians, had no sure hope of attaining eternal life in Jesus Christ. Oh yes, I realize that Pope Pius IX speaks to the exceptional possibility of salvation outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church (i.e. invincible ignorance and perfect contrition/charity under the auspices of God’s grace), but for the most part, if you were not a Catholic, your soul was in great danger of hell fire if you did not repent and enter into the Church through the holy bath of Baptism. Certainly, from the 17th century backwards, there was an even stronger sense that all who are without the Church and die in their sins will be damned. And yet, today we have Catholic scholars, high clergyman, and theologians professing to hold that, in the end, all men will be saved. Oh yes, they make sure they do not assert so blatantly that this is a certain fact of revelation, but a reasonable hope. Continue reading

Seeds of Liturgical Utilitarianism

An excellent piece deserving of attention from Traditional Catholics.

Excerpts:

“One can see the same utilitarian and instrumentalizing trend in the development of the “private Mass” in the late first-millennium West. This reduced, if not in essence then certainly in appearances, the inherently communal liturgy into the priest-monk’s tool for daily personal sanctification and edification……Another seed is the gradual abandonment of the choral obligation of the Office (which in many places, according to Fr. Robert Taft, also implied a canonical obligation for laity [!] to attend!), in favor of private individual recitation. If we concede that a priest settled comfortably into an armchair by the fire silently mouthing the words of a Breviary by himself qualifies as “liturgy,” and are completely comfortable with setting the canonical bar there, should we really be that surprised at the prevailing utilitarianism of both clergy and laity when it comes to liturgy in general? There is also the medieval multiplication of stipend-Masses for the private intentions of the stipend-givers, a well-oiled machinery of sacramental efficacy if there was one…..”

Tom's Digest

Peter Kwasniewski’s newest post on New Liturgical Movement struck a chord with me when he discussed the relationship between the Mass and the Divine Office:

[T]he Divine Office . . . is pure verbal incense, burned up in the presence of the Lord, and for His sake. This is not to say that we do not benefit from it; quite the contrary. St. Thomas Aquinas says plainly enough that since we cannot improve God by our worship, any benefits must accrue to us. But the benefit consists in the very doing of it, not in something other than the doing of it. Perhaps this is why the Office has fallen on such hard times: for pragmatic, utilitarian, materialistic people such as we modern Westerners are — even, at times, in spite of our best intentions — the Office fails to “deliver the goods.” Where’s the thing we get at the…

View original post 953 more words

Sebastian Franck: A Consistent Protestant

Sebastian_Franck

Sebastian Franck

Sebastian Franck was born on January 20th, 1499. He was ordained a Roman Catholic priest but in 1525 converted over to the Reformed Protestants and became a Gospel preacher. However, as time went on, he even left the Reformed movement and sympathized mostly with the Anabaptist sects, while never formally joining them. He agreed with the Anabaptists that the authentic external Church of the Apostles disappeared in its accommodation to the State during the era of Emperor Constantine, but could not agree with their attempts to re-establish external sacraments at all (not even Baptism). As a result of the collapse of the Apostolic Church in the early years, God has now resorted to sanctifying human beings purely by a spiritual means, particularly faith, repentance, self-denial, and perseverance. This could be achieved with or without organized religion, and since organized religion had gone defunct, it was God dealing directly with human beings that counted by his day. Continue reading

Pope Francis: God Wills False Religions?

FILE POPE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

(taken from Crux Credit: Paul Haring/CNS.)

On the 4th of February 4th of 2019, Pope Francis and Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Mosque both signed a document on Human Fraternity which contains the following statement:

Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives. Therefore, the fact that people are forced to adhere to a certain religion or culture must be rejected, as too the imposition of a cultural way of life that others do not accept”

Some folks have claimed that this is heretical. Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont, for example, says that this statement is “a clear, public repudiation of the Catholic faith”. Although not directly saying that Pope Francis intended to repudiate the Catholic faith, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, in an article entitled “The Gift of Filial Adoption“, attempts to emphasize that Christianity is the only religion willed by God.

Is the statement from this document necessarily heretical? This article will attempt to say that it is not necessarily heretical. However, that does not mean I am here arguing that Pope Francis intended an orthodox meaning necessarily. I am only here to demonstrate that the words, as stated, can be understood in an orthodox manner. Other theologians have already attempted to interpret it in an orthodox manner. For examples, see Dr. Chad Pecknold and Fr. Zed. Without belittling the statements of these intellectual giants, I intend to bring more evidence to this direction. Understand, however, that I’ve no particular benefit from defending the orthodoxy of the current Pope, nor do I seek that as a goal. In fact, I’ve wanted him to be put under Episcopal trial since the first year of his pontificate in order to be held accountable to the dogmas of the Catholic Church. What Cardinal Gerhard Müller’s recent Manifesto of Faith was great, but it is simply not good enough. With that said, if and when we do criticize the Pope, however, we should be as accurate as the sun is bright, and make sure there is no hole in our traps through which our opponents can escape with the trickery of words. And this is precisely why Pope Francis is so dangerous. He is not the sort of man who could easily be caught in a position like Arius, who made it clear what he was negating (i.e. the deity of Christ). Heretics such as Apollinaris, Eutychios, and Nestorios were great because you could actually discern what they were saying and negating. In our modernistic and psuedo-intellectual hierarchy today, we do not have the benefit of such clarity (see my article dissecting the mentality of Pope Francis)

Let me first begin by setting the stage of this joint document. In the first place, this was not an invitation from the Middle East for Francis to swoop in like the revivalist George Whitefield and begin open-air preaching to the populace on the necessity of conversion to Christ in order to escape the fires of hell. I wish he would do that, but that is clearly outside the intention of both the Pope and his hosts in the Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates . Rather, as the subtitle of the document suggests, the context was for World Peace and Living Together. The very opening begins with “In the name of God who has created all human beings equal in rights, duties and dignity, and who has called them to live together as brothers and sisters“. It goes on to mention innocent human life, the poor, the destitute, tortured, orphans, widows, refugees, victims of war, persecution, and injustice, etc,etc. It is quite plain that a Catholic Pope and  Muslim Imam speaking to this are quite outside the purview of any evangelistic context through which one side is seeking to convert the other. This is very *down to earth*, in other words. It is far more basic to earthly peace than vital to everlasting happiness with God. The title, Human Fraternity, is precisely referenced in one particular line: “In the name of human fraternity that embraces all human beings, unites them and renders them equal“. There you have it. This document is speaking to the equal rights of all human beings that should be respected in order to best live out our time in the midst of religious, cultural, ethnic, and racial differences. Unless the orthodox Catholic wants to insist, contrary to religious liberty, that we should discriminate unbelievers as less-deserving of freedom, there isn’t a whole lot of exhortation to become Christian to be expected from this document. That is not the intention, nor the goal of it. The goal is stated very clearly in the middle of the document:

In the name of God and of everything stated thus far; Al-Azhar al-Sharif and the Muslims of the East and West, together with the Catholic Church and the Catholics of the East and West, declare the adoption of a culture of dialogue as the path; mutual cooperation as the code of conduct; reciprocal understanding as the method and standard” andcall upon ourselves, upon the leaders of the world as well as the architects of international policy and world economy, to work strenuously to spread the culture of tolerance and of living together in peace; to intervene at the earliest opportunity to stop the shedding of innocent blood and bring an end to wars, conflicts, environmental decay and the moral and cultural decline that the world is presently experiencing.”

That’s it.

The goal of the document is to reach dialogue, tolerance, peace, cooperation, and understanding. This is not out of the blue, either. It is not news to anyone in the know that there has often been conflict, hostility, persecution, and even massive casualties caused by the friction created between Catholics and Muslims (at least). And for us Catholics, we shouldn’t see this as a horrible thing. As we shall see, this concept has been clearly taught in the Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church. How should Muslims coexist with Catholics, is the question. This is why the document goes on to speak of the protection of different persons of diverse religions, etc,etc. We aren’t expecting to be told we should suppress one or the other.

Now, I will dedicate the rest of this to the section that everyone keeps talking about. It begins with this:

“Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action”.

It is important that we see that this is the ground of the following comments to come afterwards. Freedom is the right of every person. This is none other than what the Catechism says. In paragraph 2106, the CCC states: 
Continue reading

St. John Maron (628-707): First Syriac-Maronite Patriarch on the Roman Primacy

Erick Ybarra - Credo Ut Intelligam

StJhonMaron

“Let the Patriarch diligently search into everything which the Metropolitans or the Bishops, who are under his authority, are doing in the place of their jurisdiction; and, finding any inconvenient thing, let him alter it, and order in its stead what he thinks better. For he is the Father of them all, and they are his children. It is but right that the Bishops should respect the superiority of the Metropolitan as that of an Elder brother, and have recourse to the loftiness of his dignity, and his good administration; the Patriarch being in the place of a father who has sway over his household” (De Sacerdotio, ch. 33. Cod. Vatic. (Syriac), 101, p. 57 taken from The Tradition of the Syriac Church of Antioch: Concerning the primacy and prerogatives of St. Peter and of his successors the Roman Pontiffs, Cyril Benham Benni, pg. 107)

“And as…

View original post 71 more words

The Little Office on the Eve of 20th-century Liturgical Reforms

Tom here survey’s the history of the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary and its reformed in the 20th-century. Many think that the habit of changing the liturgy from Rome (top-down) begin in the 1960s, but there was already precedent for doing so in the Pontificates of Pope St. Pius X and Pius XII.

Excerpt in quotes

“Catholic laity and clergy involved in the preservation, restoration and cultivation of the Latin Church’s liturgical heritage have been increasingly open to critically revisiting the liturgical reforms of popes like Pius XII and St. Pius X. Despite their just reputation for being stalwarts of Catholic orthodoxy, these popes’ tinkering with the liturgy set the stage for the abstract, mechanistic and top-down view of the liturgy that has enabled the wholesale papal-postconciliar recreation of the Roman Rite between 1965 and 1971.

It is encouraging to already see at least one prelate, Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Astana, Kazakhstan, calling for a revision of Pius X’s breviary reform, and a restoration of what the bishop called “the breviary of all ages” — or what I would less sweepingly refer to as the older Roman tradition with a significantly longer pedigree of usage.

Laypeople, clergy and religious who are devoted to the Little Office of Our Lady as a form of liturgical prayer have an opportunity to move in this direction by considering the re-adoption of these longstanding traditions, especially that of saying all three Lauds Psalms (148-150), in their daily prayer life. Let us re-plant and tend to these seeds of liturgical continuity with our past, and pray God for the increase for our posterity’s sake.”

Tom's Digest

kimg0254 St. Bonaventure Publications’ Little Office

Even as I continue working on a more substantial follow-up to the liturgical normalcy post and the three anecdotes I shared, I will take a more technical detour below, and return to the topic with which I first started this blog: the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary — not least because I have a strong sense that in any future restoration of liturgical normalcy in the western church, Our Lady’s Office will have some important role to play.

I own a copy of St. Bonaventure Publications’ 1999 reprint of the complete Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary as it stood in 1904 (excerpted from Fr. Francis Xavier Lasance’s Prayer-Book for Religious).

Given its original date of publication, the content and rubrics predate the beginning of the major liturgical reforms of the 20th century, which commenced with Pope Pius X’s significant overhaul…

View original post 1,480 more words