Halloween Demonic? Pshaw!

Per the Times of London, the Vatican (or at least Opus Dei) are exercised about children dressing up as "ghosties an' ghoulies, an' things wot go BOOMP i' the night". Pish, Tush, Pshaw, and Pfeh!

1) It ain't true;

2) It ain't news -- the American RC hierarchy gave up that sort of whine in the 60s, realizing that they were just getting ignored.

3) It's an AMERICAN thing, which is corrupting "pristine European culture" (guffaw).

4) Church attendance (and thus contributions) have been in free fall for 30 years, and there is frankly jealousy over every Euro that goes to a Halloween retailer rather than the collection plate.

Fair's Fair

It occurs to me that the Anglicans should establish "Personal Prelatures" or some such, for "liberal", "Spirit of Vatican II" Romans interested in swimming the Channel to escape "traditionalists that ... refuse to come to terms with the modern world" and insist on theological and ecclesiological orthodoxy. That way, the could keep their unsingable hootenanny music, crude felt banners, individual interpretations of Scripture,and preserve their heritage, as they bravely transition to the blue-hair set in the 21st Century.

;-)

Anglican --> Roman Problems

My great & good friend, Jeff Duntemann yesterday noted three issues which he feels will interfere with the success of the recently announced Anglican --> Roman Anschluss: Contraception; Divorce; and Married Bishops.

I beg to disagree.

First: Contraception.

Cradle Catholics overwhelmingly ignore Roman fulminations about contraception, The single most damaging mistake made by any pope in the last two Millennia was Paul VI's issuance of "Humanae Vitae" -- respect for the institution of the Papacy took a nosedive, from which it is only now beginning to recover.

Some Roman laity are very careful to observe its requirements, and equally vehement in defending it. I have no reason to think that Anglo-Catholics will be any different. I see the issue as a thorn in the paw, but not a deal-breaker.


Second: Divorce

As Jeff notes, Rome -- unlike the Orthodox -- is totally intransigent on the subject of divorce. I find it hard to imagine, however, that any but the most blue-nosed of Anglo-Catholic clergy would coldly excommunicate re-married couples and their families, even under blue-nosed Roman pressure.

Cradle Catholics have a "Yes, Father" reflex -- when the clergy go on a rant, they turn their ears off, and say "Yes, Father" every time he pauses for breath, and go on about their business. Traditionally, Anglicans had a similar reflex -- smiling vaguely, and letting their eyes go out of focus, so as to be polite to the Vicar.

It may be, too, that the Witness of the Anglican Rite Catholics to the Christian and loving way to treat the tragedy of divorce and the real leap of hope in remarriage may penetrate the testa dura intransigence of the Romans.

I see this as a larger thorn, but again, not a deal-breaker.


Third: Married Bishops

I feel this is the least troubling of the three issues. Rome can finess the whole issue with existing married bishops by creating/resuscitating intermediate ranks like Archimandrite, Arch-priest, or Dean to allow Tiber-swimming Anglican Bishops to continue their roles of guidance and overseeing of Anglican parishes and provinces while being seen sacramentally as priests, not bishops. Some of the language of the news reports of the Anschluss hint at this -- given the general incompetence of most reporters in dealing with Vatican pronouncements, however, I await the publication of the official text.

I expect that at the Conclave after next, one of the issues on the table for the Pope after Papa Ratzi's successor will be abolishing clerical celibacy (long overdue). I think that the Witness of the Anglo-Catholics taken in by Rome in this Anschluss may be a tipping point, to where the future Pope can assure his election by pointing and saying: "Fratelli mio -- Ecce -- married clergy works -- observe our Anglo-Catholics!"

In the meantime, there are the occasional unmarried Anglican priests, and Anglo-Catholic/Anglican Rite seminarians can make the choice -- as Orthodox and Roman seminarians do now.

We live in interesting times.

+Sam'l B.

Iconoclasm and Bibliolatry

Two Heresies That Feed Off One Another


My great & good friend, Jeff Duntemann, recently wrote in his Contrapositive Diary:

Holy Faces

"The stations [of the Cross, in his parish church] are painted icons, deliberately lacking any suggestion of a third dimension (so that they cannot be mistaken for the biblically prohibited “graven images”)"

To which I replied:

Piffle, Poppycock, and Bibliolatry!

The Seventh and last Ecumenical Council [again in Nicea, 792 AD] was very direct about the fact that we do not worship images, but use them as an aid to remind us of whom they picture:

Seventh Ecumenical Council

The 1918 Catholic Encyclopedia says:

"But there is a difference not of principle but of practice between East and West, to which we have already alluded. Especially since Iconoclasm, the East dislikes solid statues. Perhaps they are too reminiscent of the old Greek gods. At all events, the Eastern icon (whether Orthodox, Nestorian or Monophysite) is always flat — a painting, mosaic, bas-relief. Some of the less intelligent Easterns even seem to see a question of principle in this and explain the difference between a holy icon, such as a Christian man should venerate, and a detestable idol, in the simplest and crudest way: "icons are flat, idols are solid." However, that is a view that has never been suggested by their Church officially, she has never made this a ground of complaint against Latins, but admits it to be (as of course it is) simply a difference of fashion or habit, and she recognizes that we are justified by the Second Council of Nicaea in the honor we pay to our statues just as she is in the far more elaborate reverence she pays to her flat icons."

Iconoclasm vs Veneration

The condemnation of images in church is yet one more Protestant heresy, perpetrated by blue-nosed wowsers who know nothing of Church history, and hate what they do not understand.

The Encyclopedia continues:

"Images then were in possession and received worship all over Christendom without question till the Protestant Reformers, true to their principle of falling back on the Bible only, and finding nothing about them in the New Testament, sought in the Old Law rules that were never meant for the New Church and discovered in the First Commandment (which they called the second) a command not even to make any graven image."

Thus Sola Scriptura Bibliolatry feeds Ignorant Iconoclasm, and vice-versa.

Harrumpf!

A Bit of an East-West Dialog

A Western Catholic Commentary.

I am a Western (Latin) Rite Old Catholic bishop, and a friend of Ken's -- who is small church Orthodox.

+S.B.Bassett

Mar Kenat'el Huffman (priestly1.1@juno.com) wrote:

In the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, Spiritual Life,
Growth and Maturity (i.e. perfection) is understood in the Mystical (i.e. Sacramental) sense, and not in the Protestant Reformed (Mainline Denominations & Pentecostal/Charismatic sects) external and subjective sense.

Indeed -- and Western Catholic thought is much closer to the Orthodox than to the Protestant view, and especially differs from the Calvinist.

The West tends to be less overtly Mystical than Orthodoxy -- in that we tend to follow Thomas Aquinas' Aristotelian formulation of the faith, which is excessively rationalistic. At base, however, we have to admit that the Faith is a Mystery, and there are propositions which must be
accepted as Revealed Faith, which totally resist logical analysis.

The Trinity is perhaps the largest of these -- it simply defies rationality how there can be one single God (The Creed says: "I believe in One God...") and yet 3 distinct persons. But to deny the Trinity is to deny Christianity itself.

Another is the Eucharist. It is equally far from rationality to believe that what was once ordinary bread and ordinary wine becomes the veritable Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Himself. Yet all of Christendom fervently believed this until the 1500s, and the majority still do.

Our whole Life in Messiah is understood as the externalization
(i.e. working out) of our inward spiritual transformation through saving Grace.

Western Catholicism understands "Grace" as the living outpouring of the power of God, not, as Protestants do, of "niceness' or God's passive benevolence. There are potential graces, but the Sacraments are very active graces, marking the soul, and helping the faithful move towards God.

We do not say that at this moment in time and at that very place we were saved.

To a Western Catholic, to be "saved" means to be in the immediate presence of God in Heaven. We are not saved on this earth -- we, the living, are still the Pilgrim Church, on our way toward that divine end which the Father ordains for us.

If this were true of Salvation, then nothing more would take
place and perfection would be had and no works in Messiah would be necessitated, nor would the working out of such a Salvation be required of us.

The Protestant idea of "once saved, always saved" is in direct conflict with the Western and Orthodox view. We cannot, by our very nature, reach perfection in this life. We can strive -- and must.

We are being saved, and have been sealed unto such an eventuality by the Holy Spirit upon our Baptism and Chrismation.

In Baptism and Confirmation (Western term for Chrismation), the Grace of the Holy Spirit descends upon us, marks our immortal soul as belonging to God, and opens the possibility of salvation.

These are not mere "ordinances", or signs of some intellectual assent to a set of propositions. Nor are they theurgy -- by receiving these Sacraments, we do not compel God to save us, as some Protestant theology has it.

They are an outpouring of power and inspiration -- Baptism makes us Children of God, members of the New Israel, inheritors of the Patriarchs of old and of the Promise enunciated by the Prophets.

They do not make us holy or perfect -- but they help us on our journey toward Holiness and Perfection.

I may say I am redeemed from the Kingdom of Darkness unto the
Kingdom of Light, but still I am in the Sacramental process of being daily saved unto the Resurrection, at which time we all will have been actually and truly saved complete and immortal.

Indeed, the Sacraments -- and especially Confession and the Eucharist -- liberate us from the bondage of sin, from the selfishness and self-absorbtion, the idolatry of ordinary life, and propel us toward God through Jesus Christ, His Son.

Jesus did not merely _SAY_ the Word of Salvation, but left a structure and tools to help us find the path to it. By reflection on the Sacraments, and its meaning, we find entry to the Wisdom He shared with us.

What is begun at conversion (i.e. planting of the Seed) is completed only in the Resurrection (i.e. the Harvest), and the Seal of the Holy Spirit (i.e. Charismation) is merely a transformative down payment which will lead us to eventual Salvation in the First Resurrection unto Life Immortal.

The West agrees that the final transformation is in the Second Coming, the Final Judgment, and the Resurrection of all, which Christ promised in the Gospel.

This final state is what we call "Theosis".....fully being
transformed into the likeness of the Resurrected Son, and therefore completely participating in His divine nature by Grace through the obedience of Faith

The West does not use the word "theosis" (We should!), and tends to talk of the Holy Transformation in terms of the Second Coming of Christ -- it some future time. The Eastern Church does not use the Book of Revelations in its Liturgy or theology, so they do not share the Western obsession with the Last Things.

There are good historical reasons for this -- in the roughly thousand years between the Fall of Rome in the mid-5th Century, and the Fall of Constantinople in the mid-15th, the West suffered crisis after crisis -- from the Goths and Vandals to the Black Death. During this same period, the Eastern Church suffered no such apocalyptic crises -- Constantinople stood firm (A sack or two by Crusaders aside).

Lacking also the Imperial pretensions of the Western Church -- when the Western Roman Empire imploded, the only stable structure left was the Church -- the East turned inward. The Mohammedan conquest of the Middle East left all the Orthodox removed from civil power, and desperate to
preserve their ancient heritage and cultures against the depredations of the savage conquerors.

Thus the East has turned inward, toward mystical contemplation, and fervent piety. The depth of Eastern piety and emotional dedication to the Faith is a lesson that all we Westerners -- Catholic and Protestant alike -- could well take to heart.

...for Faith without such corresponding Works of obedient
righteousness in Messiah is a still-born assent to a set of beliefs, and not an ardent conviction which produces the Fruits of the Holy Spirit of Grace which is Life

Indeed -- St. James, in his Epistle, says that "Faith without good works is dead." Jesus makes that same point several times in the Gospel. It is not mere intellectual assent, it is not mere repetition of a verbal formula which saves, but the passionate acceptance and adherence to the Faith, and the passionate work of Christ, in loving work, to bring all humanity, and all the Universe to God as an offering.

Jesus says: "Not everyone who cries 'Lord, Lord' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but only he who _DOES_ the will of my Father." And the Will of the Father is that we love Him, and love our neighbor.

Good works are, indeed, the fruit of the Holy Spirit, but they are also a necessity. Good works without Faith do not get us to Heaven -- but neither does "mouth Christianity" -- crying "I take Jesus as my Lord and Savior" without at the same time, showing the Love to others that He showed to us.

Therefore we see Living Faith and Works of Righteousness as a
synergistic working out of divine Grace within us and through us, ever bring us closer to the final state of Theosis. "For God became like us in order that we might become like Him."

Amen, Alleluia!

Now how do we Orthodox Christians determine the stage of
spiritual growth of a fellow Saint as he or she works out their Salvation in fear and trembling?


In the West, we are a tad more pessimistic about the living, but feel justified in declaring some of the dead to be saints -- i.e. in Heaven, in the presence of the Father.

We determine these things Mystically also.

Again, the West is a tad more practical. Aside from the acclamation of the people -- which we saw at the funeral of John Paul II, there is a careful and studious procedure to Canonization.

We ask the following questions too:

Do they fully participate in the Mysteries (i.e. Sacraments)?

Do they exhibit a selfless devotion to and does His Image radiate from them in words and deeds?

Do they serve His Image in others (i.e. the least of these His brethren)?

Does he or she obey God's Commandments and those given by His Son also?

Does this individual exhibit daily the inner work of Grace in their exterior life?


Notice the active verb: "Does"

Both East and West have contemplative Saints -- those who cut themselves off from the world to perfect their adoration of the One God, but they effect the world by their witness (and often complain that pilgrims will just not leave them alone to their contemplation).

Equally, both West and East have Saints who were actively in the world -- Cosmas and Damien, Physicians, Vincent de Paul and his work with the poor. In working out their own salvation, they are also working toward Theosis -- the union of God's created world with His Glory.

It is by these Fruits produced by the Seed of the Word planted within them at Baptism via Grace that we objectively determine spiritual growth and maturity.

Indeed -- "by their fruits ye shall know them." And too often, the fruits of "mouth Christianity" are a nasty judgmentalism, and a tendency to preach hellfire & brimstone, not a loving service
to others.

Maturity does not mean moral or spiritual perfection in the final sense, but merely that the Saint has been seeking, knocking and finding.

There is no perfection this side of Heaven -- Adam's Sin broke the perfection that God had ordained, and we live in the aftermath. The best we can do is what the heroic exemplars of the Faith have done in every generation form 30 AD onwards -- strive with all that is in us toward that perfection, knowing that we will only achieve it in Heaven.

The East does not accept Augustine of Hippo's doctrine of Original Sin -- that we all inherit the Sin of Adam. The rather say that Adam's Sin broke the perfection and the peace of God's creation, and that our natures, and the nature of the world are damaged because of that breakage. It is thus diametrically opposed to the Calvinist idea of Total Depravity, as well as its denial of Free Will.

That they have achieved that status before God and man in
which they are complete in their re-presentation of the Life, Death and Resurrection power of Messiah in their Life.

We see some who appear to have come very close to that ideal, to that perfection -- Mother Theresa of Calcutta, for instance -- but the final crown of Glory is given in the presence of the Father.

Spiritual Perfection in our view means one is complete and appropriate for what God has called them to be and do. Thus one may be spiritually full grown from the womb (i.e. John the Baptist & Mary of Nazareth), or one may take years of personal struggle and self denial to achieve that summoned status in Messiah (i.e. Paul etc.). But
one sign is a growing sense of humility and a childlike sense of innocent tranquility in times of trial.

Western ascetic Saints tend to get the Stigmata -- Christ's wounds. Eastern saints glow in the dark -- and the daytime. The West sees the path as struggle and warfare; The East as detachment from the world and its temptations.

Even so, we do not judge one another, but judge ourselves and continually seek to discern if we remain in Messiah. Saints are neither antiseptic ascetics, nor are they embroiled in matters which distract their goal.....they learn from Peter's sinking and keep their eye on the prize...all the while not becoming so heavenly minded that they are of no earthy use.

"Faith without good works is dead."

Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy is a Logical, Objective and
Practical spirituality in which it's Mystical (i.e. Sacramental) Life in Messiah is a balance of Mysticism (i.e. Internal contemplations of the Faith), Theology (i.e. Reasoned doctrines of the Faith) and Works (External expressions of the Faith). This Trinity of Orthodoxy is the
Fullness of the Divine Trinity being manifested in and through us by His transformative Holy Spirit of Grace and Love which enlivens, empowers and directs His One Holy Apostolic and Orthodox Catholic Church.

Of which the Western Church is a part -- just as the East is.

Imperium Romanum Mortuum Est -- Deo Gratias!

"The Roman Empire Is Dead -- Thank God!"

The Bishop of Rome has had a thousand years' more practice pretending to be the Roman Emperor than the Patriarch of Constantinople does. (Imperial Rome fell about 450 A.D., and Constantinople fell in 1453.)

Both have the idea that they have the inalienable right to rule the whole of the Church -- each after its own pattern. The Western Pattern is more consciously Imperial -- in default of a Western Emperor, the Papacy was the only structure which the various polities could rally around to create at least an ideal unity; The Eastern pattern attempts to continue the relationship that the Eastern Churches had with the Eastern Emerors -- that of the Department of Religious Affairs of the Imperial Government structure.

Since about 600 A.D., the Papacy had been working to extend its political hegemony over the entire Church -- and the entire world. Until after the Council of Trent (1545-1563), this had been more theoretical than practical. The Papacy and the emerging nation-states of Western Europe jousted for influence, mostly equally. The Papacy did manage to gain political control over a collection of small Italian states, which lasted until 1870.

The various Western national Churches -- England, France, Spain, etc., were essentially self-governing (with frequent appeals to Rome to settle arguments) until after Trent. In particular, the French Church fiercely defended its independence from direct Roman rule until after the Revolution.

The Eastern Churches, on the other hand, identified themselves closely with the dominant political power -- originally the Eastern Roman Empire, later the Turkish Sultanate and the various national governments -- Serbian, Bulgarian, Russian, etc.

In keeping with the Acta of the 1st Council of Nicea, the East preserves the idea of the ecclesial independence of the individual bishop in his See, and of the larger ethnic and geographical groups -- autocephalous Patriarchates (again, Serbia and others) which have been allowed to grow up.

Each of these Patriarchates, however, welded itself as best it might to the local political establishment. The Mohammedan Turkish Sultanate used the Patriarchate of Constantinople to rule its Orthodox citizens, but identification with the Turk was not something easy to stomach!

The various Patriarchates in the East spent a great deal (entirely too much) of their time and energy fighting their political masters' battles, often with each other. They developed an ideology which said, in effect: "The way WE do things is the only authentic one, received unchanged from the Apostles". Which was (and is) not true, but useful as propaganda.

So here we had two different ecclesial systems, each striving for mundane political power. The results are interesting.

In the West, being the only Patriarchate (Carthage might have been another, but was destroyed by the Vandals in the 5th & 6th Century, then overrun by Mohammedans), Rome developed over time a unified structure of control. The various National Churches may have protested their independence, but were quite willing to copy Roman methods and Roman organization -- even Roman Liturgy.

The Roman ideal of governance was explicitly that of the Roman Empire -- an all-powerful central administration, controlling the chaotic and unbridled tendencies of an unenlightened mob. This view grew out of the political interactions between the Senatorial and Plebian classes in Republican Rome, and has persisted for about 2700 years now.

This lust for absolute power has colored both the political history of the Papacy and the pastoral practice of the Western Church -- including its stepchildren, the Protestants. And not in a good sense, either.

The idea of Papal supremacy impinged on the supremacy of the Bishop in his See, and the supremacy of the pastor in his parish, and extended itself down further, to the supremacy of the religious over the laity. It is a structure of control and command, with very little room for love and transcendance.

The mundane political results of this Roman idea of absolute control were horrifying. The Papal States before 1870 were ruled with an iron hand, secret police, and confiscatory taxation. To this day -- 106 years later -- the parts of Italy -- including Rome itself -- which were part of the Papal states are anti-clerical, and consistently vote Communist. The Roman Curia mismanaged and tyrannized their people, just as the Roman Senate and the Byzantine Emperors had.

I grew up under the perfection of this system in the 1950s. It was awe-inspiring and perfectly dreadful. Everything could be rigorously proven by Scholastic logic -- down to the individual level -- and one had only the most minuscule chance of obtaining heaven, and then only by observing every jot and tittle of the rules and obeying one's religious superiors. Rome had developed its own, home-grown version of Calvinism -- often called Jansenism.

Vatican II was called by Pope John of blessed memory, specifically to combat that cold, dead hand of Roman Imperial tyranny. It was to be a pastoral council -- calling the Church to a more open and loving approach to the People of God. No doctrinal changes -- nor any but the most superficial liturgical ones -- were contemplated. The Documents of the Council clearly reflect this,

It is interesting to see, however, how the Council has been interpreted. The entire structure of command and control, has been retained. Bishops and National Committees have more formal authority, and indeed often ignore Rome, but clerical elitism and superbia have not changed a whit.

Theology, the liturgy, and the artistic patrimony of the Western Church have been savaged, but Roman Imperial command and control has been preserved. It is this Imperial command -- and basic scorn for the People of God -- which led to the recent sexual scandals. At base, no one in the hierarchy cared -- as long as the pastors made their financial quotas, they could do as they liked with and to their people. Higher clerics were not immune from scandal -- just from exposure. The recently deposed bishop of Santa Rosa in California was not the only bishop carrying on homosexual relations with his clergy. (If is was with a WOMAN, for God's sake, great scandal would ensue -- but men? That's not really the same, after all.)

The results of the "Spirit of Vatican II" has been a clericus which, by and large, no longer believes what the Church has taught is the Christian religion, and cynically manipulates the laity. The laity are educated now, and not intimidated -- they have been voting with their feet -- and exercising the veto of the pocketbook. (A dollar a week in the basket, for a family of 3 or 4, making $50k+ a year).

=====================

There is a story told by the Orthodox in the US:

"How do you know two bishops are truly Orthodox?"

"Easy -- when they meet, they first kiss each others' shoulders, then they excommunicate each other."

Orthodox hierarchs spend more time bickering and exercising Eastern Roman Imperial pretensions than they should. Beautiful liturgies are one thing -- pomp and circumstance are quite another.

Another symptom of the Phyletism (Ethno-centrism) that afflicts the Orthodox is lack of ability to work together. Central authority and widespread missionary Orders in the West have allowed concentration of people and money resurces on a worldwide scale -- to the point where there are 5 Roman Catholics for every 1 Orthodox. The people of the various ethnic churches nowadays feel that they are all one Church, but the idea has not percolated up the hierarchy as yet.

===========================

The point of this whole Jeremiad is that the assumptions about power inherited from the Roman Empire simply do not work in this day and age. The verities of the Faith certainly work, and are as relevant now as they were in the 1st Century A.D., but the way we structure the Institutional Church, and the way we look at the People of God need to change.

The laity is increasingly well-educated, and unwilling to be dictated to. I have found it useful -- and a lot less work (tyranny is a hard job) -- to talk to peoples' good sense, to explain what the Church teaches, and invite them to join the hosts of the faithful and joyful worshippers, rather than try to herd or compel them.

Let us then resolve to give Imperial Roman ideas of religious tyranny the decent burial they so richly deserve.

If Jesus had kids, would they be half-God?

Short answer: No.

Middlesized answer: God ain't in the genes (or jeans).

Longish answer: God is spirit, or more properly, the Ground of Being, that which sustains all of creation and the Universe. That is rather too large a concept to cram into the tightly-wound spirals of human DNA. They have a big enough job, just guiding and regulating the growth of the physical organism.

Even longer answer: Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ is both God and man. Fully God, and fully man. If you don't believe this, you're not a Christian.

What that means, from one perspective, is that Jesus is the conduit and connection between us, who are caught in time and space, and the infinite glory of God, who is beyond, before, and beneath all we perceive and imagine. If Jesus were not God, he would not be able to bridge that gap; equally, if he were not man, we would be up the proverbial creek, because what or who would there be to connect with?

In the Gospels, Jesus says a couple of times: "You who see me, see the Father" -- he unequivocably identifies himself with God. Yet he obviously and painfully suffers the uncertainties of human life, and also suffers a human death.

Yeshua ha-Nazri (Jesus the Nazarene) was fully man -- he had a real physical body, with all its component parts in working order, and ate and eliminated (no jokes about the Holy Outhouse, please, but he did use one when he was on earth) just like we do.

And if his mission had (which it did not) included being married and having children, they would have been quite ordinary Jews of their day. They would have had a really impressive and scary dad -- can you imagine somone who really knows exactly what you have been up to? (He would have been pretty outstandingly loving, too -- and minded to forgive and create interesting learning experiences for his kids. Come to think of it -- we ARE his kids. :)

Likewise, presuming the Shroud of Turin is the actual burial shroud of Jesus (It does not matter to the Faith either way -- but I will leave that discussion for later), say in 50 years or so, when science has gotten to the point of being able to clone a person from individual cells (the technology will probably get there, but whether we SHOULD do it or not is another story).

So they go at the Shroud of Turin, and find dried-out human cells with a full compliment of DNA that is not completely scrambled. They take them off, do mystic passes with their technology (all sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic), stuff the result in a Uterine Replicator (artificial womb), and 9-10 months later -- POOF! -- they have a kid.

So what have they got? Assuming that the DNA they found was actually from Jesus, and not from anyone who has handled the Shroud since, they have an entirely normal Jewish boy, who would have fit right in with any crowd of kids running the streets in 1st Century Judea.

Normal human child -- body & soul. Not god. No supernormal powers. No choirs of angels. No three kings of Orient.

You can bet that the apocalytpic wackos would be all over him, touting him as the "Second Coming of Christ", but there is no rational reason to think that. Christ came once, to save us, and there will be no doubt in anybody's itty-bitty head when He comes again.

Back to the original question -- which was prompted by reading "The Davinci Code". The "Code" is a re-write of the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" published in 1982. Rather better that the original, since it has a plot and some action, BTW.

There exists exactly NO evidence, from Apostolic times to 1982, that Jesus was married. And none since, either.

There exists exactly NO evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was anywhere on earth after 30 A.D.

The whole incident goes to illustrate that when people don't have anything real to believe in, they will believe absolutely anything -- no matter how far-fetched.

FunDUHmentalists Considered as Not Christians

It occurred to me a while ago while I was musing that Fundies (the dumb end, at least), do not really believe that Jesus is God.

Sola Scriptura (Bible Only) has dragged them mumbling and gibbering out of Christianity and into the theological weeds planted by the Marcionites in the 1st & 2nd Centuries. The New Testament, after all, nowhere says explicitly -- in just those words -- "Jesus is God", nor does Jesus say "I am God" -- explicitly.

Doubting Thomas says "My Lord and my God" -- Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I AM" -- and the Jews understood exactly what he meant, and were going to stone him -- but that's not quite "I am God", as the various brands of Arians gleefully point out. The FunDUHmentalist then says:

"If'n it ain't in the Bah-bul, whur ah kin read an' un'erstan' it real plain, ah don' gotta bee-leev it!"

Sola Scriptura also presupposes not only Lowest Common Denominator (i.e. stupidest) sorts of interpretation, but also the individual chaos we see in Protestant theology -- as Martin Luther observed, "...every milkmaid will be interpreting scripture."

At best, Fundies seem to see Jesus as a good ol' boy:

"When ah git t' heaven (an' it's a shure thang, 'cause ah'm all-ready Saved"), me 'n' Jesus is gonna kick back and enjoy some brews."

At worst, they seem to consider Jesus as a Salvation Vending Machine -- you drop in your 4 spiritual quarters:

"Ah tayk Jheez-zay-yus (at least 3 syllables) Kee-rayhst as mah Low-urd an' Save-yur!"

. . . an Clink, Rumble, Thunk-a-thunk, Ker-CHUNK!, out comes a can of Salvation Brew. Pop the top, and chug it down:

"Ahhhh -- thet's gooood -- 'n' lasts fur-ever, too!"

(Except that it doesn't -- the next time he runs into a spell-binding wowser of a preacher, he'll be convinced that the last time really didn' take, and do it all over again -- like Fundy baptism.)

If Jesus isn't God, who and what is left? The God of the Old Testament, of course -- usually shorn of his fatherly and loving aspects -- a vast, thundering Presence, engaged in scaring the goo out of all & sundry, like every Bible-bashing preacher contaminated with Calvinism loves to do.

The other side of Sola Scriptura is Bible-Worship -- Bibliolatry. Once you give up worshipping Jesus, the only thing you have left is the Bible. Not only is the Bible itself (paper and ink) sacred, but every verse in it is separately sacred, and to be used to prove how sacred the Bible is. Can anyone say: "Circular reasoning"?).

Bibliolatry also resuscitates all 620+ Commandments of the Jewish Law. These no-longer-Christians have turned themselves into the very Judaizers who St. Paul contended with. They also set themselves above the Apostles, whom we see deciding in Acts 15 that Christians need not be bound by that Law. Makes one wonder just who this "Lord and Master" they invoke is!

The titles "Lord" and "Master", nowadays, are mostly used in BDSM (Bondage, Discipline, Sadism, and Masochism) games. Other than in Fundamentalism, they have only very tenuous meaning. The very tenuousness may indeed explain their attractiveness to Fundies -- the idea that you can get to heaven by repeating a short and meaningless phrase is awful tempting. When the Stupid Do Theology, Theology is Reduced to Bumper Stickers.

Calvinists bray about a "sovereign God". The intersection of the meanings of "sovereign". "lord", and "master" are all in _COMPULSION_ -- the right and ability to compel the obedience and agreement of the subject person, over-ruling and over-whelming their personal will.

Now, there is no question that Jesus _CAN_ over-ride individual will -- He is the one by whom and through whom all things came to be (who do you think throws the switch when the Father says: "Let there be light!"?) We see Him and His Father in both the Old and New Testaments, constantly _ASKING_ that we voluntarily turn to Him. From the cries of Jeremiah in the OT ("Turn, O Israel, from evil-doing..."), to the heroic opening of herself by the girl Mary ("Be it done to me according to Your will") -- we see that our free will is central to our salvation. Not Fear and Compulsion; Love and reaching out.

The point is that God wants us to turn willingly and lovingly to Him, as He reaches out lovingly and willingly to us. The cold and capricious sadist who is the Calvinist god is not the loving Father Jesus speaks of.

Fundies are quick to quote John 3:16 -- "God so loved the world, that He sent his beloved son into the world to save sinners."), but they seem to miss that little word, "love". It's as if Jesus is nothing but a Salvation Vending Machine -- put in your quarters, and get your can of Salvation -- and that's it.

The Nicene Creed says of Jesus: "...one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him all things were made." -- this from 1200 years before Protestantism was invented.

The Gospel of John begins: "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [. . .] 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not."

These are much grander conceptions than a Salvation Vending Machine. He is the SON, the Second Person of the Trinity. It is He "By Whom, and Through Whom, and In Whom we live and move and have our being."

Bibliolators know Him not; the Babdist who said 'Creeds interfere in the relationship between the individual and God" knew Him not.

Bibliolatry substitutes "Bible" for "Jesus" -- and they seem to interpret John 1:1 as: "In the Beginning was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God." (The Bible being the "Word of God" of course.) This goes right along with the dementia of the fringe crazies (KJV Only) who think that the only _REAL_ bible fell from heaven into King James' lap, all perfectly typeset and bound.

Another excrescence of bibliolatry is the idea that anyone who can quote the Bible is a Good Guy(tm) and a REAL CHRISTIAN (tm), despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Now Mohammedans (clearly not Christian), Jehovah's Witnesses (a mind-control cult who outright deny Jesus' divinity), and Seventh Day Adventists (who ignore Jesus in favor of Ellen G. White, and practice increasingly bizarre "prophecies") all quote the Bible -- and as the saying goes "The Devil can quote Scripture to his own ends."

Without any authority other than their own imaginations, and without the leaven of a critical education (or any at all), FunDUHmentalists are extremely reluctant to "judge" and confront even blatant blasphemy, much less subtle and debilitating heresy.

It is clear, then, that much of the non-Christian content of FunDUHmentalism is due to the lack of education in what the Church has and does teach. Whether this lack is genetic (i.e. those incapable of learning better fall into it), the result of human laziness, or there are darker forces (the Devil) behind them -- is not clear.

(An apology, by the way, to well-educated Fun_DA_mentalists who have learned -- and do -- the Work of the Lord, and who understand some of the depth of what the church means by "God of God, Light from Light, Very God from Very god" -- with them, I have no issues.)

Brown-Shirt "Bishop"

Mr. Richard Williamson, the neo-Nazi SSPX bishop, is a creep and an arrogant whiner. But give the Pope and the Curia a break -- they're denouncing his ideas and his mouth.

On January 28th, Papa Ratzi "... discussed his trips to the former concentration camp at Auschwitz and the images of 'the heinous slaughter of millions of Jews, the innocent victims of a blind racial and religious hatred.'" -- quote from CNN.

Also, "... [t]he Vatican's secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, has said Williamson will not be allowed to perform priestly functions if he does not recant." Another CNN quote.

What this means is that Mr. Brown-Shirt Williamson is in layman's status in the Roman Catholic Church until he forswears Nazism. We will see if he can bring himself to be obedient to the Pope's order, or if he will prefer his superbia and schismatic status -- being his own "pope" in defiance of Rome.

Howling Hypocrisy

Just lately the "major media" and the Federal Persecuting Attorneys have been howling about what an outrage it is that Stumblin' Rod Blagojevich used the power of his office to enrich himself & friends.

Pish, Tush, and Pshaw!

As an ex_Chicagoan, I have always known that the above is exactly what politics is all about -- especially _CHICAGO_ politics. In the 19th Century, "Hinky-Dink" and "Bathouse John" delivered votes, and collected graft; Double-Chin Dick Daley put JFK in the White House by double-counting votes in Graceland, Rosehill & Bohemian.

Blagojevich's major sin was being so stupid that he violated the 11th Commandment:

"Thou shalt not get caught."


========================


Now, I rather approve of anti-graft laws -- we need to level the playing field just a bit, and weed out the obviously incompetent, but I refuse to get indignant and spout specious pieties.