Posted on 08/05/2013 10:31:02 AM PDT by Gamecock
Question:
Does the OPC use the crucifix in the church? If not, are they opposed to it?
Answer:
Thank you for your question. The answer is, so far as I know, the crucifix is not used in OPC churches, and here is why:
1.The Second Commandment (Ex. 20:4-6 and Deut. 5:8-10) forbids any picture or image of God, and that would include the Son of God, even as man. At any rate we do not know what Jesus looked like as there is no physical description of him.
2.The crucifix will always end up being an object of worship—regarded as holy. History teaches as much. The bronze serpent Moses made became an object of worship and was not destroyed till King Hezekiah did it (Numbers 21:9; 2 Kings 18:1-5). Roman Catholics have worshipped it, kissed it and held it to have mystical powers.
3.Christ did not remain on the Cross. In the Roman Church Christ is said to be resacrificed each time the Mass is celebrated. This is heresy; he died once for all—Hebrews 9:25-28.
We in the OPC have learned not to trust our idolatry prone hearts not to do the same as others have in the past. Hence, no crucifixes are used. So, yes, we are opposed to it.
The Passover was a foreshadowing of Christ.
He was simply explaining the meaning of what they had been doing for so long without understanding the fulfillment, that fulfillment which was sitting before their very eyes.
At that point, the symbolic foreshadowing before the fact, became a symbolic remembrance after the fact.
I describe Aquinas’ approach as “contortions” because although he desires to use Aristotelian terminology, by his own admission he reverses the sense of accident and substance as it would have ordinarily been used by Aristotle and his contemporaries:
“Therefore, in this conversion what takes place is the contrary of what usually takes place in natural mutations, for in these the substance persists as the subject of the mutation, whereas the accidents are varied; but here, conversely, the accident persists, the substance passes.” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book Four: Salvation, Chapter 63 [9]).
In effect what this does is add a hyper-sophisticated, distortive, and inherently materialistic filter to a phenomena that Christ Himself said could only be comprehended spiritually, as by the spiritual mind, and not the carnal mind. This seems better suited to an advanced system of sacerdotal dependence than the egalitarian faith of Galilean fishermen. And so I think it is proper to call it a contortion.
BTW, just as a technical correction, as far as I am aware, no Scripture describes the bread and wine transitioning from one state to another. Always the present tense is used. There is no sense of “becoming.” That is a later modification necessitated by moving toward the inherent materialism of transubstantiation. In Scripture, though the bread is blessed, it is never one thing, then later something different. It is always described as simply being whatever it is, in a timeless state. Which is perfectly compatible with a memorialist view, or even a spiritual presence view, but not with transubstantiation, which insists on a process of change.
Thanks. Very helpful to see the full range of patristic quotes on the matter. As Solomon says, nothing new under the sun.
If you knew what “old school reformed congregations” actually believe about the bread and wine (Google Calvin on “spiritual presence” if you are unfamiliar with the teaching), you would recognize the compatibility of the beliefs as stated.
BTW the most accessible (heck, even I sometimes almost understand him!) modern exponent of Scholastic Realism is Feser, whose The Last Superstition very good. He write like the love child of Aquinas and Ann Coulter. So he's fun.
A blessing in my life is that after an adolescent flirtation with the Existentialists, my serious encounter with philosophy began with Plato. So "my system was flushed " enough that when I came to "substance " in the Scholastics, I was thinking hypostasis " and "ousia " not "hyle" or "materia".
I think that the modern confusion (by "modern " I guess I mean Post-Reformation) largely arises from the triumph of Nominalism, which has not been utterly useless but has prompted a lot of erroneous thought.
For example, my FIL, who is fighting his last battle as I type, THOUGHT he believed in transubstantiation. In fact, he believed in something the Church never taught, a kind of trans-materialization!
I hope I get the chance to talk more with you about this, but in a few hours I will be driving to be with him.
Troo dat.
I really like thinking about "ever-efficacious"! And I think it's a useful term, and what you say is good, if not quite perfect.
"Ever" still has a slight savor of "extent", doesn't it? My guess is that that is where we would find the problems.
But certainly the notion of reaching through all time and of being all-sufficient is indisputable.
This is sketchy and suggestive and not at all rigorous. I would say that in Rom 8:17 and good old Col 1:24 we find the merest hint that we can, should, even must somehow add to the infinite. Maybe "contribute" would be more better... :-) It is already infinite and infinitely sufficient. No prayers, Masses, penances, or any work of any kind whatsoever could augment it. I can't imagine any serious Catholic thinker disagreeing with that.
As the OP rightly says, we have a tendency to worship the works of our hands. And so, for many Catholics, Satan has appointed a demon to whisper in their ears something quite contrary to Ps 51: 16-17.
The therapy for that madness lies in the Beatitudes, and in the notion of poverty. Though we must not appear before the Lord empty-handed, yet all we have to bring is what he has already done. I would say that it's not the fault of the Masses that some reckon them up like Pokemon chips. But there's no question that some do and obscure discourse by doing so.
Christ also says he is the gate. Does he have hinges on the side of his body?
He also says he is the vine. Does he have roots in the ground? Are grapes growing from his arms?
Documentation?
I already asked this of one of your cohorts, who has yet to reply, maybe you can give it a shot.
Where was God before He created the universe?
How very Clintonesque of you. Please not each that the word "estin" is used. "Eimi" isn't used once.
Jesus said it Scripture recorded it, and I believe it.
Presumably He ate ordinary bread and wine when they were at table, but before He instituted the BLessed Sacrament.
Well, by "my old man" I meant, figuratively speaking, the person I was before God gave me newly born spiritual person inside this old body after I learned to put all my trust in Jesus and His way of doing things. Briefly:
"Knowing this, that our old man is crucfied with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin" (Rom. 6:6).
(If you were inferring that "my old man" was a euphemism for my father--no, the cross spoken of was not a three-seater!)
But if you meant whether the Cross was of the stipes/patibulum style, or was a T-bar (where did Pilate's Iesu Nazareni Rex Ioudaeorum in Latin, Koine, and Hebrew/Aramaic go?), or shaped like an X (Roman 10th Legion was quartered around Jerusalem), or if it was just a tall stake without a crossbar that was used for Jesus' crucifixion--ah, well, I don't know for sure. I just picture it as a Roman-type cross. The Bible doesn't tell us. It only calls it a σταυρος (stauros - stake) or ξυλον (gzoolon = of wood, beam use to hang one) (Acts 5:30. 10:39).
(The JWs want you to believe it was just an upright stake, as if that made any difference.) The Roman torture cross apparently is well-established in history from 600 BC to 400 AD, and is probably the right one, but we really do not know, AFIK.
No, I do not see where you are going. When you stray from a literal, grammatical, syntactical, historical, cultural hermeneutic, you just open a gateway that the Holy Scripture does not use except when it explains itself clearly and succinctly. This method takes you where the Scripture does not, and calls on allegorical inventions to play the game of trying to convince others of some portion of Scripture The God has not given to you to understand.
By forcing a non-literal interpretation on the masses, a body of customs is born that needs more and more props, until one has a religion that stands more on reasonings, claimed experiences, and "traditions" of fallible men, not on special revelation through Scripture.
By doing so, God's communication to mankind is lost and one has only the "gospel" of a false Christ. IMHO
(The JWs want you to believe it was just an upright stake, as if that made any difference.) The Roman torture cross apparently is well-established in history from 600 BC to 400 AD, and is probably the right one, but we really do not know, AFIK.
That's pretty much the answer I was looking for. Thanks.
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
My understanding is that Jesus' Resurrection was the total raising and transformation of His entire humanity, complete in every detail, now perfect, deathless,and glorious.
How inglorious, and rather horrible it would be, if it were merely the resuscitation of a battered bloodless corpse.
Thanks, boatbums. Same to you.
No, silly!
Flatly, they do not. 2 is rolled into 1 to support imagery, and their then missing one is pulled out of the middle of 10 and made 9 to make up for the gap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.