In the beginning was Calvinism

unknown | Steve Schlissel

[Gamecock]

An interesting read from our Messianic friends:

The Synagogue of Christ by Steve Schlissel Messianic Jewish pastor Messiah's Congregation, Brooklyn, New York.

The church wasn't born at Pentecost. It was Bar Mitzvah'd. No small matter, this. The church had a long, albeit dotted, history by the time the Spirit in Christ's fullness fell, and a glorious, albeit difficult, future. By Pentecost, the church, because of its history, its providentially-ordained organization and the Holy Spirit's promised guidance, was well-prepared to fulfill its function in the world.

The Belgic Confession, in Article XXVII, states, "We believe and profess one catholic or universal Church...This Church has been from the beginning of the world, and will be to the end thereof..." It has not, however, always had the same form. In the Garden of Eden God identified and separated the church (then consisting of two) using the essential elements, Word and Sacrament, Promise and Token, which would be present throughout the church's history, in some form or another. Our first parents were created to understand themselves and all things else in terms of a word. They had received the defining Word of God; they had heard the anti-word of the serpent. Choosing the devil's definitions, they had broken covenant with their Creator and entered into league with the destroyer, becoming co-pretenders with him to the throne.

God was not about to forsake His purposes, or to quickly formulate a "Plan B." He graciously and forcefully took back Adam and Eve-He redeemed them-by placing hostility between them and their new master (the Antithesis), by promising in their hearing the incarnation of the conquering, suffering Messiah (the Protevangelium, first proclamation of the Gospel), and by clothing them with God-provided coverings (the "Sacrament"), indicating in the clearest terms that their fig leaves (their instinctive effort at self-atonement/covering) were wholly inadequate and unacceptable. It is God who saves. Calvinism did not originate in Geneva; it is found in Eden. God's people, the covenant line, would henceforth be the people redeemed by Him to live, once again, in terms of His Word.

Calvinists are not the "church" founded by John Knox in Scotland. Knox founded no "church", but a Denomination. We are not the "church" founded by the Protestant Reformers. The Reformers founded no "church", but a Reformation. We are not the "church" founded by the Popes at Rome. No "pope" has founded any "church", just a (false) Administration. We are not the "church" founded by the Apostles at Pentecost. The Apostles founded no "church", but a Dispensation. We are not the "church" founded by Moses at Sinai. Moses founded no "church", but a covenanted Theonomic Congregation.

Calvinists are the Church founded by God in the very Garden of Eden. We are the Covenant Line of God's People, redeemed by Him to live in terms of His Word. We have stood the test of Time. And the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against us.

[dangus]

>> Consubstantiation, which you mentioned, is the view of the Lutheran Church and does not hold that the bread is just bread.

I did not mean to suggest that Lutherans consider it *mere* bread, but it still is bread, in addition to being the body of Christ. We, too, are the body of Christ, but because we are also ourselves, we are unfit to be worshipped... Likewise the bread which is also the body of Christ is unfit to be worshipped, since it has a nature which is not the body of Christ. A Lutheran would not adore the Eucharist any more than he would adore another person.

>> The Catholic teaching seems to me at odds with the account of the Ascension.

It seems as if you believe the Catholic Church does not hold that Christ is present in his church, or something like that. The Catholic position is that he is present on Earth is three ways:
1. In the form of the Eucharist
2. In the Living Word
3. In the body of the Church (and, to some Trads' horror, not merely the Catholic Church.)

Otherwise, please explain how the Catholic position seems to you in conflict with the ascension.

And yes, I was associating what you call the "Low Zwinglian" view with the dominant view among Protestants. Obviously I was excluding Lutherans and Anglicans. I did not mean to *only* exclude those, since I did recognize other Protestants had other viewpoints. I did not know, however, of the Presbyterian view. I'm still not sure I understand it.

[dangus]

>>>>My point was that many people throughout history did reform the church. Your counterexample (which I was at first ignorant of) only proved my case.

>>The Jesuits never ever reformed the church. That never was, is not, and probably never will be, the mission of the Jesuits. You picked a very poor example.

You may not have agreed with the changes the Jesuits made, but they did dissent from the Church, and the Church did change. But I think you're thinking of the Jesuits after the change had been made, associating them with being "The Pope's Marines." They did much to change the relationship Catholics were expected to have with Jesus, so much so that they were given the derogatory name, "Jesuits," suggesting they worshipped "Jesus" the man as opposed to "Christ" the God. I really do believe you would side with the Jesuits over the old Church on these issues.

[dangus]

>> When you get to be a big boy...

First off, knock off with the condescending crap.

>> Have you ever read the 95 Theses of Luther? Are you aware of the reforms made through the "Counter Reformation"?

Yes, and I think you make my point again: Ironically, the Church *made* most of the reforms Luther was pressing for.

>>IOW Luther should have:
>>1. Submitted with his tail between his legs.

Gee, that's quite obviously NOT how to change anything.

>>2. Passively resisted, trusted the promise of "safe passage" and accept the inevitable finding of guilty and allowed himself to be burned at the stake.

OK, ignore everything else I've said in this entire exchange, why don't you?

>>3. Being convinced the Pope was a liar, actively resisted the "invitation" to go to Rome, accepted the protection of Prince Frederick, and be accused of being solely responsible for the following "war".

Solely responsible? I never said solely responsible. That little indulgence-selling twit of a monk is certainly partly responsible. The Church is largely responsible; it could've done much more to avoid war. I've never asserted the church acted perfectly. I've only ever asserted that schism was not the proper response to the errors of the Church.

>> ...[T]he RCC earned the reformation.

I would readily state that had the Church acted perfectly as Christ would have, there would be no schisms. Again: I've only ever asserted that schism was not the proper response to the errors of the Church.

[Lexinom]

Otherwise, please explain how the Catholic position seems to you in conflict with the ascension.

The quick answer is the Holy Spirit, Who is very God and proceedeth from the Father (and, yes, the Son too). Also called the Spirit of Christ.

Christ is corporally, bodily present in Heaven. But He is here through the Holy Ghost. John 1:48 "Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee." Jesus' physical body was not there, yet he saw Nathanael.

The contemplation gets deep, going into the very nature of the Trinity, and I suspect the ultimate truth far exceeds the bounds of our mortal cognitive capacity. We haven't even started here, and far better minds than us have spent countless hours and years on these things in ages past.

[dangus]

Hmmm... I'm gonnna hafta check with an expert (Herm, I'm not offending your sense of modesty *too* greatly, am I?)... Sounds like you're saying Christ in present in the person of the Holy Spirit, which seems like a confusion of the doctrine of the trinity. I'm pretty sure that the ancient position is that God is present in the person of Christ (the Church, the Eucharist, the Word) *and* *also* in the person of the Holy Spirit (which guides the Church ,leads us to the Eucharist, and speaks through the Word).

But I think I get what you are talking about the ascension... you are saying that *Jesus,* the *bodily incarnation of Christ* is physically in Heaven, while the *Spirit* of Christ is here on Earth? I doubt the RCC denies that the body of Jesus is in Heaven, although I do know of some Protestant churches which insist that he became acorporal even while speaking to his apostles... But the RCC (as I understand it) believes that Mary is, to this day, corporal in Heaven, so I'd presume He is.

[Lexinom]

From my understanding a trinity is distinct from a triunity. The latter would be 33.3% A, 33.3% B, and 33.3% C. A Trinity, by contrast, would be 100% A, B and C.

Think of three circular sheets of colored acetate (the sheets used in overhead projectors). A trinity would be analogous to a stack of a sheet of red, yellow, and blue acetate, forming a grayish color. A triunity results if you cut each of thre three into thirds and put them together to form one circle, so you have 1/3 red, 1/3 yellow, and 1/3 blue. This is admittedly an extremely crude analogy, but it's an attempt to show that the Holy Trinity is indivisible and at the same time comprised of three separate Persons. I think this is consistent with the Nicene Creed.

The confusion, I can assure you, does not stem from the Catholic-Protestant debate but from our own very limited grasp of these sublime truths.

[dangus]

OK, but here's the thing:

We can relate to each of the distinct persons of God in ways which give us distinct understandings. (For instance, where God has wrath, the Son has mercy.) The bible spoke of the Church being the Body of Christ, so I take it that they meant it as the Person of The Son within the trinity, not the person of The Spirit.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Transsubstantiation - the Catholic doctrine. The bread becomes the physical flesh through miraculous operation, and the wine becomes the real blood. This is consisitent with the adoration you mentioned and is a rigorously literal interpretation of the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper.

No. False. Stop!

Catholics believe the whole Christ becomes present under each species - body, blood, soul, and divinity. If Christ's body and blood were physically seperated in the species, He would suffer a new physical death.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Christ is corporally, bodily present in Heaven. But He is here through the Holy Ghost.

You seem to be straining at reaching the Trinitarian perichoresis in Greek or circumincessio in Latin - the mutual indwelling or interpenetration of the hypostasises of the Trinity within each other (St. John 14.10-11).

The Incarnate Christ is not here through the Holy Ghost, but the eternal Word is, since the Holy Ghost is a hypostasis of the Holy Trinity. Thus the body of Jesus does not become present in our hearts, but the whole divine Trinity does, because we partake of the common divine nature (phusis) by grace (but not the divine essence - ousia).

Jesus' physical body was not there, yet he saw Nathanael.

Jesus being God the Word, and as God, can see and know all things. As man, however, He "only" sees all reality past present and future revealed in God through the beatific vision, which His humanity had from the moment of incarnation.

What you are really objecting to is not transubstantiation, but the multiplication of Christ's physical presence - having Him in both heaven and every Host.

Catholics describe this by saying that the substance of Christ - body, blood, soul, and divinity, rather than being limited to a localized manifestation in His body in heaven (as would be normally expected, and as we exist ourselves), is extended in its complete dimensional existence into a manifestation in every Host in the world after the Consecration, and into ever chalice of wine. This is properly a miracle, but certainly not impossible.

The scholastic explanation of St. Thomas is found Pt. III, Q. 76 of the Summa.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/407600.htm

See especially Article 4.

[dangus]

Thanks... I knew I was asking for homework, hehehe.

[dangus]

>>Catholics describe this by saying that the substance of Christ - body, blood, soul, and divinity, rather than being limited to a localized manifestation in His body in heaven (as would be normally expected, and as we exist ourselves), is extended in its complete dimensional existence into a manifestation in every Host in the world after the Consecration, and into ever chalice of wine. This is properly a miracle, but certainly not impossible. >>

If I were smart enough, I'd write a book on "Quantum Theology." :)

[Lexinom]

Fascinating discussion. The Lutherans are much closer to the Catholics than I thought. I'll offer a more detailed response later, have to entertain visitors today...

[dangus]

In all honesty, I'm not sure if the difference between "consubstantiation" and "transubstantiation" can be explained without a discussion of the four "accidents" of Greek philosophy...

[Hermann the Cherusker]

As I understand it, the major difference with consubstantiation is that it teaches the presence of two substances - bread and wine - and Jesus. Catholics teach that the substance of bread and wine (but not the accidents), is changed into the substance of Jesus.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Because there are others who consider themselves "catholic", the use of the adjective "Roman" is generally considered acceptable to MODIFY the term "Catholic".

Roman is not a modification of Catholic, but a repetition. It means the same thing - universal, and it applies to both east and west.

The confusion of terminology introduced by Charlemagne and Montesquie obscures all this.

Westerners need to recover this truth - what is though of as the "Byzantine Empire" was nothing of the sort. It was the "Empire of Romania" (Romania = Roman-Land) ruled by the Emperor of the Romans. It was the same Empire in which dwelled Sts. Augustine and Leo the Great and Ambrose, and which was founded by Caesar Augustus. All the Christians, east and west, were Roman Catholics, as were all those who they converted (Russia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Germania), since all recognized the Roman Emperor as the secular titular head of all Christendom and all Christian rulers. Thus, even the Chinese called the Persian Christians of the Catholic Church of the East members of the "Jing Religion of Da Qin" - literally, "The Bright Religion of Rome", and so Chinese adherents of Catholicism during the Tang Dynasty were also "Romans".

There is no division of the Church or Church Fathers into "Latins" and "Greeks". There are only "Roman" Fathers, who spoke and wrote in Latin, Greek, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Punic, Celtic, etc. The Monks of Ireland prayed for the "Most Christian Roman Emperor" at Mass just as did the citizens of "Romania", despite never having been part of the Empire.

And thus, the Greeks called themselves Romans (Romaoi, not Helleni), just as did the western inhabitants of Latium, Italia, Africa, Hispania, and Gallia. Similarly, the so-called Greco-Slavic "Orthodox Church" calls itself "the Catholic Church" in its official documents, such as the Confession of Dositheos (Council of Jerusalem, 1672). To this day, the Turks and Arabs only know the Greeks as Roman Catholics, and the Patriarch of Constantinople New Rome is called the Roman Catholic Patriarch by them. Turkey itself knows that the land it has stolen is Roman - the European portion is "Rumelia" - "Little Rome" and the Asian portion is "Rum" - "Rome".

Once this is grapsed, it is easy to understand that there is a single Roman Catholic Church, which is presently split thrice by antagonistic division - into Latin, Greco-Slavic, and Armeno-Syro-Coptic divisions, known colloquially as "Catholics", "Orthodox", and "Jacobites/Monophysites". It is also easy to understand that those who wish to force division to continue upon us are the same group of "Nobles" so-called who deny their Romanness (which they in the main actually do not share, since their major concern for 15 centuries has been "limpezia de sangre azul" of the Aryo-Teutonic ethnos) and revel instead in ethnic division and strife and the schism of the Church - especially in France and Germany in the west and Russia in the east.

"We ... Lombards, Saxons, Franks, Lotharingians, Bajoarians, Sueni, Burgundians, have so much contempt [for Romans and their emperors] that when we become enraged with our enemies, we pronounce no other insult except Roman (nisi Romane), this alone, i.e., the name of the Romans (hoc solo, id est Romanorum nomine) meaning: whatever is ignoble, avaricious, licentious, deceitful, and, indeed whatever is evil." (Luitprand, advisor to Emperor Otto I, Relatio de Legatione Constantinopolitana 12. Migne, PL 136. 815)

Seeing this, one can understand too the success of the Protestant Revolution against the Orthodox Roman Catholic Faith occurred SOLEY and ONLY in lands that were not predominatly Roman and where there was a large population with no affinity to "Romania" - England, Scandanavia, Germania beyond the Rhine and Danube, Netherlands above the Rhine, and German dominated Estonia and Latvia (but not their ethnic kin, Polish dominated Lithuania). On the other hand, it failed miserably in places like Italy, France, and Austria, where the only ones attracted to it were the Germanic nobles and city-dwellers. It attracts no following at all in Spain and Greece and the like.

[FormerLib]

The use of the name "Roman," alone, however, comes from a slander which alleges that Catholics worship the Pope.

I use the term "Roman Catholic" simply for clarity's sake. This becomes important for us Orthodox (properly yet rarely referred to as Orthodox Catholic) in places such as America where many folks are not really all that familiar with either one of our churches.

It may seem unneccesary to you, but if you could have been on the receiving end of some of the postings I have gotten for only using "Catholic" without the "Roman", I believe you'd give me a pass on using the two together.

By the way, I do not using the two terms together as any sort of attack or slight on the Roman Catholic Church.

[Destro]

Yup. I use Latin and Greek and Coptic as short hand to describe the cultural differences of the once united Church.

[Destro]

actually the official name for the church founded by the Fathers does not have Roman in. The Church's official name is The One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.

[dangus]

No, No, I was responding to a reference to "Romanists." :) "Roman Catholic" is certainly an OK word.

[FormerLib]

Intent does matter, of course. I know Orthodox who will use the term "Latins" and they are only being descriptive, not derogatory.