If only he were a Calvinist!

The mainstream media, and liberals in TEC, will never “get” Catholicism, because that an organization that helps so many people cannot ever embrace “the new thing” baffles them. They condemn Catholic doctrinal purity, but how many of them would be willing to, for the sake of the poor in their midst, grant the Catholic Church and other groups an exception to the new law? My best guess is they wouldn’t, because they too set standards they won’t compromise. Liberals can be “outraged” constantly, resort to attacks and half-truths, and refuse to compromise their ideals, and because it is a “justice issue” for them, they are allowed to act that way.

subscribe

>Now, if only the Pope would repent and become a Calvinist like Jesus, Paul, and St. Augustine…

*Cough!*

Sorry.  Do carry on.

Subscribe

Matt, you need a “don’t be drinking while you read this” warning when you post these, or else computers everywhere are going to be spontaneously ... ahem ... baptized! Isn’t the fact that he’s German enough?  It’s close… 

Matt, he IS just as much a Calvinist as Saint Paul

Good article in First Things by Archbishop Chaput of Denver,  “<a href=“http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/10/a-charitable-endeavor”>A Charitable Endeavor<a>”:

. . while the founders’ belief in religious liberty remains deeply ingrained in the American spirit, a new and belligerent kind of secularism, alien to the American character, now threatens the mission of Catholic charitable ministries.

It also attacks America’s historic commitment to religious freedom. Since the nation’s earliest years, the Catholic Church has worked with American civil authorities in many mutually supportive ways to advance what Thomas Jefferson called the “wholesome purposes of society.” As the country has grown, so have its challenges. And so has its relation with the Church. In the United States, we have never had a marriage of Church and state at the national level. Therefore, unlike Europe, we have also never had a bloody divorce between religious faith and public life.

Historically, Americans have been—and remain—a religious people. They have found it quite normal for religious charities, including Catholic ones, to make use of public monies in serving the poor, the homeless, and other needy populations. This arrangement has worked well for everybody. Government gets skilled, cost-effective, and compassionate help in meeting social needs. The Church gets funds for her works of love demanded by faith in Jesus Christ.

But Americans have always known that the Church’s charitable purposes are religiously inspired, not merely humanitarian. They’ve also understood that the Church is an independent partner in helping the government to meet its charitable goals. She is not an arm of the government. She is not a private contractor on the state payroll. The tax exemptions offered by the state to religious charities to help their work are not a gift or a display of kindness by civil authority. They are nakedly practical. Religious charities typically do better social-service work than government agencies and at lower cost. . .

Government was never meant to be a large presence in our American life. But too often today our knowledge classes—leadership groups in politics, law, higher education, and the media—no longer seem to believe that. America was built on the premise that the power of the state should be modest, because real life is much larger than politics. Human beings are the product of a vast, rich fabric of other loyalties and relationships in families, neighborhoods, workplaces, religious communities, and voluntary associations. . .

If Catholic charities left the nation’s social-welfare network, the system would clearly suffer. Even if the government assumed all social services itself, it would take years to replace Church charities with government-run programs. Yet government interference—in effect, a kind of extortion—is a growing pattern. The leverage used against the Church is financial. Today, public functionaries and lawmakers often pressure Church-related agencies by threatening to cut funding for their programs or to revoke their historic exemption from paying taxes. . .

When we look closely at Church–state conflicts in America, we see that they now often center on a group of behaviors—homosexual activity, contraception, abortion, and the like—that the state in recent years has redefined as essential and nonnegotiable rights. Critics rarely dispute the Church’s work fighting injustice, helping community development, or serving persons in need. But that’s no longer enough. Now they demand that the Church must submit her identity and mission to the state’s promotion of these newly alleged rights—despite the constant Catholic teaching that these behaviors are personal moral tragedies that can lead to deep social injustices.

As a result, the original links between freedom and truth, and between individual rights and moral duties, are disappearing in the United States. In the name of advancing the rights of the individual, other basic rights—the rights of religious believers, communities, and institutions—and key truths about the human person, are denied.

In squeezing the Church and other mediating institutions out of the public square, government naturally assumes more power over the nation’s economic and social life. Civil society becomes subordinated to the state. And the state then increasingly sees itself as the primary shared identity of its citizens. But this is utterly alien to—and in fact, an exact contradiction of—what America’s founders intended. . .

Would you settle for a Thomist?

...because with the government, or at least some of those in it, it’s all about POWER.  It’s all about being re-elected or pushing an agenda.  It SHOULD be about what is best for the American people, but more and more it’s about a single-thread - an agenda item that must be adhered to at all costs - too bad if a charity has to shut it’s doors and more folks suffer.

Terribly selfish and sad.

Branford (#7),

In all seriousness, thanks for sharing the fine excerpt from ++Chaput’s admirable article in First Things.  He shows true leadership, for it takes courage to go against the flow of our degenerate culture.

On a lighter note, I must voice a little difference of opinion with Matt (as I’ve been sometimes known to do).  What I think would make this remarkable week complete would be for R. C. Sproul, or ++Peter Jensen, to become an Anglo-Catholic! 

David Handy+
Ex-Calvinist

The Roman Church, under the wonderful leadership of this worthy successor of St. Peter, is showing the world what true Christian Faith demands in the face of the sinful ways of the world.  And the world doesn’t like it, along with the looney left wing of the Anglican Communion.  Of course, the AC is evaporating before our eyes while the Roman Church is providing real Christian leadership.  Maybe some will learn some lessons from this?

You should see the vitriol at the Cafe - evidently the Catholic church is morally depraved and hypocrites to boot - but I guess we already knew that, didn’t we.  I’m in the middle of a Naughton/Haller sandwich at the moment.  Quite interesting.

You are a braver one than I, GillianC, to venture to the Cafe!

If only he were a Calvinist!

Yes, things could be worse. But at least Pope Benedict is not making them worse.

Mr. Haller tried to pull out Romans 5 to say that the Catholic Church needs to shut up and obey “the law” (of the District of Columbia).
I politely told him that I didn’t think that Paul was talking about speeding tickets…

Matt, I always knew about St Paul and St Augustine, but hadn’t quite thought about Jesus as being a Calvinist.

However, Jesus said (Matt 24:36) 

No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Sure sounds like a Calvinist pronouncement—either predestination or certainly foreknowledge!

This post states that the Catholic Church “will simply pull out of social services altogether—ie. act with integrity, which radical extremist Anglicans naturally enough consider ‘blackmail.’” I think I am missing something here. I followed the links but don’t see what “radical extremist Anglicans” are meant.  Surely it’s not the orthodox who would consider it “blackmail” for the church to retain its integrity.  So is it the revisionist Episcopalians?

Hi Paula,

the radical extremist anglican link is to an article by heretic revisionist Dianna Butler Bass:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/progressiverevival/2009/11/new-catholic-hardball-trading.html

decrying the Catholic church.

The charge of blackmail, as linked above, comes from Tobias Haller.
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/public_policy/dc_rcs_see_end_to_charity_tec.html#comment-19947

Hanks,

Jesus read the Institutes before Calvin even penned them.

And TULIPs were His favorite flower.

And the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington DC has declared that rather than be forced to fund non-celibate homosexuals living in damnable sin, as a new district law would mandate, she will simply pull out of social services altogether

There is the possibility of unforseen consequence in this.  To a secularist, the church has no legitimate function other than to provide social services.  To the extent it stops providing social services, the church becomes in the mind of the secularist simply an impediment to the establishment of the secular public square.  The church could therefore find itself under increased threat of persecution by withdrawing.  Hostile secularists will see the church as a reactionary institution that refuses to perform the only task that legitimizes its purpose, even as it resists the March of Man. 

carl

Matt+,
The Catholic equivalent of Calvinist is Jansenist.  He could certainly be that, and remain in his present position.  Unfortunately, Jansenism is on the heresy list in Rome and has been since the late 17th century.  Oh, well.
RNW+

The church could therefore find itself under increased threat of persecution by withdrawing.

And therefore, Carl, more power to them for standing for the Truth rather than caving in to the secular state.

Woo hoo—Benedict and [a few] bishops continue to knock them out of the park.

My favorite line over at the site-of-the-radical-foaming-revisionist-Anglicans is this one:

“I am sure many protestant organizations can be found to step up to the plate.”

Tee hee.  Yes indeed—just as soon as TEC gets its budget straightened out from all of the departures and dioceses not funding it, I’m sure it will step right up.

Sarah, take a look at the latest bit of news from Alan Haley on the VOL blogsite.

“...the radical extremist anglican link is to an article by heretic revisionist Dianna Butler Bass…” 

How dare you say that about one of TEC’s chief spinmeisters?!! 

Oh, sorry, if the shoe fits…

The news from Luzerne County, PA, could affect TEC in a bad way financially.  (from VOL)

[23] tjmcmahon

And therefore, Carl, more power to them for standing for the Truth rather than caving in to the secular state.

Agreed.

carl

[10] David Handy+ wrote:

Ex-Calvinist

How sad are these words.  As if a candle has been snuffed out, leaving only a smoking wick, and darkness.  What remains for us except lamentation and bitter weeping? 

grieving carl

I understand the Pope actually agrees with all the points of Calvinism except the first five.

I understand the Pope actually agrees with all the points of Calvinism except the first five.—#30

What about Liturgical Vandalism—the other L?

RE: “As if a candle has been snuffed out, leaving only a smoking wick, and darkness.  What remains for us except lamentation and bitter weeping?”

True Calvinists have no use for candles—papist furbelows that they are.  True Calvinists would be thrilled to see smoking wicks of expired candles—for the Light of Calvin would then pierce the darkness of Anglican NRA’s heart.

No, I think we all see who’s slowly but surely spiraling downward towards the earth, pierced by Bard’s arrow—and it ain’t NRA.

[32] Sarah

True Calvinists have no use for candles.

If Matt Kennedy can do that incense thing, then I can like candles. Surely you would not question Matt’s standing as a True Calvinist.

carl

Two points for Matt to consider.  First, Calvinists everywhere are outraged, simply outraged, by you attributing sainthood to Augustine.  How can you be certain that Augustine was indeed one of the elect?  Until the age to come, you must simply call him Augustine of Hippo.  No “St.” please. 
Second St. Paul (I’m not a Calvinist, and so can accept the church’s certainty that Paul and Augustine are saints) was very much a biblical theologian, and therefore could not buy into the concept of limited atonement.

RE: “Surely you would not question Matt’s standing as a True Calvinist.”

Matt is a moderate though. We have already established that fact.

The whole incense thing itself is scandalous. 

Some of us think he is well on his way towards AngloCatholicism.

No—you use a poor example in Matt to justify your unfortunate love of papish candles.

[35] Sarah

Matt is a moderate though. We have already established that fact.

But have you established that Matt a moderate about the Doctrines of Grace?  Perhaps he is ‘moderate’ about some inconsequential matter here or there, but not in the ‘Moderate Calvinist’ sense of Norman Geisler.  At his core, he stands firm on the things that matter.

The whole incense thing itself is scandalous.

Well, yes, it is scandalous.  But that’s rather the point.  If MKs standing as a True Calvinist is not affected by such scandalous activity, then of what consequence are such innocuous things as candles?

carl

Once a moderate about anything, one has already started down the slippery path to perdition.

God has already said that He will spew moderates from His mouth.

Matt is lost.

And it seems clear to the foresightful that Carl has himself begun to trod the same path.

“The reason for the predestination of some and reprobation of others must be sought for in the divine goodness…. God wills to manifest his goodness in those whom he predestines, by means of the mercy with which he spares them; and in respect of others whom he reprobates, by means of the justice with which he punishes them. This is the reason why God chooses some and reprobates others .... Yet why he chooses some for glory and reprobates others has no reason except the divine will.”
St. Thomas,  Summa Theologiae (1a.23.5)
Thus, the question is whether or not Calvin was a Thomist.

[37] Sarah

Matt is lost. 

Well, perhaps.  The incense thing is disturbing.  But maybe ... maybe ...  There is of course the possibility that someone still has ruffled feathers over the fact that someone else received the coveted title of ‘Meanest Blogger Ever’ and perhaps that someone thinks such a title could never be successfully carried by one known far and wide as ‘Matt the Moderate.’  Yes, there just might be a hidden agenda at work.  But it’s hard for me to tell, not being given to moderation myself. 

carl

Candles are vitally important to everyone who partakes of Christ’s Body and Blood in the feast. 
They are as important as the Bread and the Wine on the table.  Without them, the table is not complete…the whole story is not told. 
Candle # 1 on the left side of the Eucharistic elements represents the Revelation that Jesus is Lord.
Candle #2 on the other side of the table represents the Power and Light of the Holy Spirit to go and make disciples of all nations (and to guide and refine the sons of Levi)

At least that’s what the candles mean to me!  :8-)

Floridian,
When our Lord instituted the Lord’s Supper, he said nothing about lights, oil lamps or candles. The Last Supper itself was likely illuminated by small oil lamps that can fit into the palm of your hand. I have two examples of this kind of lamp at home. They can be covered by a “bushel,” or small basket, so that their light cannot be seen. Some may have been place on the table; others on stands or niches in the walls of the room.

The early Christians celebrated the Lord’s Supper at night by the light of oil lamps. Indeed the bringing in and blessing of a lighted oil lamp is one of the oldest Christian rites. The ancient lucenary hymn, Phos hilaron, “O joyous light…,” is one of the oldest if not the oldest Christian hymns outside those in the New Testament.

In the earliest church buildings lighted lamps were hung above the Holy Table to provide illumination and not place upon it. As rush lights and wax candles replaced oil lamps in the West, candles were often placed on stands around the Holy Table, and not on it. In Rome, in the papal chapel, only one light was placed on the table and this remained the custom long after the practice of placing two lights on the table became wide-spread. The purpose of these lights was to provide illumination. They had no religious significance. The various explanations of the lights beyond their practical purpose—illumination, of which yours is one of many, came later.

Lights are not essential to the sacrament of Holy Communion. While candle-light can enhance an evening celebration of the Lord’s Supper, the lights themselves and the ceremonial surrounding their lighting and extinguishing can be a distraction. They can draw attention away from the two most important symbols on the table—the bread and the wine—and the Manual Acts.

If lights are used on the table, they should be proportional in size to the table and should not draw the eye away from the elements. If two lights are used they need not be place on either side of the table. Two lights of different heights set to one side of the table is acceptable, as is a single light or no light at all. 

In the sixteenth century it became the custom in Continental Europe to place as many as nine lights on the table. As the late Percy Dearmer showed in the nineteenth century, the pre-Reformation English custom was two lights on the table. Any other lights had to be placed on stands around the table—the more ancient custom.  Dearmer also showed that tabernacles for the reservation ofthe sacrament were also not used in pre-Reformation England—only aumbries or flying pixs in the shape of a dove and hung over the table.

In the Elizabethan Church the table was brought to the steps of the chancel or placed in the body of the church. It was covered with white linen tablecloth and had no candles or other lights on it. The table was placed lengthwise and the priest stood at the right side where he could be heard and what he was doing could be seen. The communicants knelt, stood, and in some churches sat around the table. The table was only placed against the east wall when it was not in use.

Lights were not reintroduced until the Laudian period along with the table against the east wall and the priest in front of the table with his back to the congregation. Rails were built around the table to protect it from the profane attentions of dogs as well as members of the congregation.

Classical evangelicals retained the practice of no lights on the table and standing at the north side or end of the table until well into the middle of the twentieth century. In the second half of the twentieth century many of them adopted the westward position, facing the congregation across the table. Interestingly the liturgical renewal movement of the 1960s and 1970s discourage the use of lights on the table, emphasizing that the only thing that should be on the table should be the bread and wine and their vessels and a small unobtrusive pillow or stand to support the Prayer Book—no flowers, crosses, candles, alms basins, Bibles, etc.

Lights on the table fall into the realm of adophora—non-essentials. The Bible does not prescribe them but the Bible also does not forbid them. My personal view is that it is best to keep the table as uncluttered as possible. If lights are used, they should be unobtrusive and not draw attention to themselves.  They should be lit before the service and extinguished after it without ceremony. What should be the focus of the congregation’s attention is the bread and wine.

Just a reminder. John Calvin was not the first and only Swiss Reformer. A lot of theological views that are attributed to Calvin were held by the other Swiss Reformers and their school before Calvin arrived in Geneva. Some of the theological views attributed to Calvin are those of his friend and successor Theodore Beza.

Of the Continental Reformers Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr Vermigli greatly influenced the Edwardian Reformation and Henry Bullinger the Elizabethan Reformation. Calvin’s influence would come to the fore toward the close of the Elizabethan period and during the reign of James I.

Thomas Cranmer came to many of his conclusions independently of the Continental Reformers. He was not a disciple of Calvin like August Toplady would later portray him.

While one hears the argument that the only true Reformed are Calvinists, such an argument downplays the contribution of other Reformed figures, including Anglican (Church of England) ones, to the Reformed school of thought. Reformed theology and Calvinism are not synonymous. It is erroneous to refer to everyone who holds to Reformed principles as a “Calvinist.” In the history of the Church of England in describing those who formed the Reformed party we see a tension between those who Reformed views reflected the influence of other indigenous and Continental Reformed figures beside Calvin, moderate Calvinists, and for want of a better term “advanced” Calvanists or even Bezans. The later in their contemporary succesors are likely to argue that Reformed theology is Calvinist because they want the Reformed movement to be identified with their particular brand of Calvinism. The non-Reformed add to the confusion by labeling everyone who holds to Reformed principles as a “Calvinist” or worse—“ultra-Reformed,” “hyper-Calvinist,” etc.

AnglicansAblaze,

Two very good posts. Many thanks.

Anglicans Ablaze,

Thank you for speaking doctrinally and historically, to my rather impulsive and flowery post about the candles. 
You always are most knowledgeable, earnest and careful in every detail.

Trained in art and literature, I was approaching candles from the other side of the thought spectrum seeing the them in the spiritual, metaphorical, symbolic, allegorical, poetic sense and meaning. 

Without the light of the Holy Spirit, we could not discern and discriminate real Truth and true Love, which the Bread and the Wine represent to me.  Without the true light, we could not discern true doctrine and charity from the false. 

Without the energizing power, comforting warmth, surprising inspiration and the refining fire of the Holy Spirit, the Gospel (placed in us in the form of the seed of the Word) could not germinate and bear much fruit in our hearts and in the world.  So, for me, without candles, the table is not complete…symbolically speaking. 

In fact, candles and such symbolism were important to God in His design of the tabernacle.

Floridian,
I understand your perspective but at the same time there is in my opinion a danger in treating the ornaments of the “sanctuary” as if they are more important than what they are—ornaments. It is the danger of elevating uninspired human tradition above God-breathed Scripture. The meaning or significance that you are assigning to a particular ornament fall into the category of uninspired human tradition. Ascribing meanings to church ornaments is fraught with the same kind of dangers as the allegorical interpretation of the Bible. The meaning of a passage is not read out of the passage but is read into the passage. In this approach a passage can have as many meanings as interpreters instead of the meaning that the author of the passage intended. The Bible contains only a few allegories and those come with a statement of what they mean.

Does God in the Bible give the meaning or significance to the ornaments that you give them or did a priest teach it to you?  The meaning or significance ascribed to an ornament may sound Biblical and reasonable but that does not mean it came from God, that it is God-breathed. To come from God, to be God-breathed, it must come from the Bible. Otherwise, it is simply an uninspired human tradition. This does not mean that it is entirely valueless. It may be edifying and helpful to one’s personal devotions but it should be kept in perspective.

Too much can also be made of God’s prescribing certain ornaments to adorn the Tabernacle in the Old Testament. If the lamps (not candles) of the Tabernacle had a special meaning or significance, then that meaning or significance would have been recorded in the Old Testament. To what extent the lamps of the Tabernacle were important to God is purely a matter for conjecture and speculation if the Old Testament itself is silent upon their importance. We cannot claim that they are very important to God if God does not reveal in the Bible that is the case.

Because something is described in the Bible, it does not mean that the author of the passage intended to establish a norm with the description. There must be evidence of such intent. Because the Tabernacle was covered with badger skins, it does not follow that Christian places of worship must also be covered with badger skins.

Bear in mind that our Tabernacle is in heaven and our Temple is the Church of Jesus Christ. The Tabernacle in the wilderness foreshadowed the heavenly Tabernacle and the Temple in Jerusalem foreshadowed Christ’s Church.

AnglicansAblaze, if God spells out that he wants ornaments - and he did, in detail - that is meaning enough.

Very wise admonition, AnglicansAblaze.  I will copy and print it and promise to take it to heart. 

There are many wrong ways to read Scripture that add or subtract.  There are good ways as well (I had some email discussions with the late Dr. Toon and another Anglican priest about this)  There is the factual, objective, historical and factual way.  There are also worshipful, prayerful, more subjective, personal ways to ingest Scripture so that it transforms and feeds us.  I am thinking of Lectio Divina, of reading it slowly and thoughtfully one word at a time, listening to the Lord as we ponder it.  Dr. Rob Sanders, in his article, Healing of the Soul, talks about using Lectio Divina as a form of ministry to those who are sick of body or soul, through reading it aloud to them.

Scripture has become for me, a vast treasure and a toolkit, a first aid kit, bandage, medicine, food, light, antiseptic, sword, signpost, counselor, priest, doing all the amazing things that Psalm 19 and Psalm 119 list.  Like Jesus said, I see that every jot and tittle has a reason for being there…and that I will never plumb the depths of it. 

I would add to your last paragraph that we are also God’s temple, individually and severally, corporately even without an earthly church building. 

In regard to Jerusalem, It seems to me that Hebrews 12 teaches us that when we truly worship, offering sacrifices of thanksgiving and praise, offering our circumcised hearts, lips, ears and whole beings to God, we actually enter the Heavenly Jerusalem…and join with the company of Heaven to adore the LORD.

Again, thank you for all you have said.  I enjoy your posts…though I really cannot understand the ones on the topic of church polity, I do understand your concerns.

My greatest concern in regard to ACNA and FCA/GAFCON is that the entire Jerusalem movement at every level make itself accountable and transparent to protect leaders and laity from error, temptation and abuse of power and trust at EVERY level from pew to highest pulpit. 

After 5 decades in the Church and having seen much sin and heartache, destruction and betrayal in God’s kingdom, I am convinced the lack of accountability in the church is its Achilles heel.  Ephesians 5:21 and James 5:16 are vitally important.  The longterm success and continuity of people, families, the earthly Church really depends on the ability to trust and guard one another.  It is important for our sakes that we are connected, covered, supported and balanced by others who have complementary gifts and can sharpen each others’ swords.  It is hard to trust when we have been hurt multiple times, and especially in these times.  May God give us the grace and heart to deal honorably and openly with each other.
 
Thank you for your gifts of sincerity and attention to detail.  You are a gift to the Body of Christ.

Oscewicee,

AnglicansAblaze is saying that we can err in *adding* meanings, conjectures and explanations to Scripture that is not given by GOD and thus build (and defend) traditions that are of man and not of GOD.

This is food for thought.  It is enlightening to read the Scriptures with the traditions of the Church in mind.  Much that has evolved, though lovely and ancient, are debatable matters.  It would be an interesting exercise to take one of them at a time and search the Scriptures to see what is actually written about them. 

Eucharistic tradoctrine and tradition is one that I have been meditating about off and on for a while.

I understood what he was saying, Floridian, but thank you anyway. The tradition of making God’s church beautiful seems to me to fall right in line with God asking that His tabernacle be beautiful.

Oops, I see I coined a new word, ‘tradoctrine’...maybe it was a Freudian slip that illustrates what AnglicansAblaze was talking about.  Of course I meant to type ‘doctrine’.

I hear you, Oscewiccee.  :8-) 

It seems to me that any additions to the sanctuary should align with Scripture and not depart from, contradict or deny Scripture, no matter how beautiful they might be to some.

For example, the removal of the Cross from sanctuaries and the addition of Buddhist, Hindi, Muslim, Druid, Wiccan artifacts and paraphernalia.
These are an abomination to God.
Another example was the absence of traditional Christian symbols in the ‘chapel’ of GC2009. 
I will not worship in pagan places or those polluted by pagan symbols and prayers.
The Cross is central to Christianity, IMHO.

The Cross is central to Christianity, IMHO.

Well, I’m in complete agreement with you there.