Feast of St. Gregory of Nyssa and The Communion of Saints

Today the Church celebrates the life and times of St. Gregory of Nyssa (325-386AD), one of the three Cappadocian Fathers. He wrote extensively against the Arian heresy (a belief that Jesus was not truly God, but a created being) that threatened to undo the orthodoxy of the early Church.
With Father Neuhaus' home-going on my mind, I was perusing the writings of St. Greg and came upon his homily at a funeral for a friend and leader of the Church, St. Miletius. Here's a snippet from the sermon:

"Our Bridegroom has not been taken from us. He stands in our midst, though we see him not. The Priest is within the holy place. He is entered into that within the veil, whither our forerunner Christ has entered for us. He has left behind him the curtain of the flesh. No longer does he pray to the type or shadow of the things in heaven, but he looks upon the very embodiment of these realities. No longer through a glass darkly does he intercede with God, but face to face he intercedes with Him: and he intercedes for us , and for the "negligences and ignorances" of the people. He has put away the coats of skin; no need is there now for the dwellers in paradise of such I garments as these; but he wears the raiment which the purity of his life has woven into a glorious dress. "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death" of such a man, or rather it is not death, but the breaking of bonds, as it is said,"

I think of Father Neuhaus, now interceding for us, not through a glass darkly, but face to face with God he intercedes for us. The early Christians knew they could ask for prayer from those who had gone before them. We still believe in the communion of saints some 1700 years after this homily was given!

Earliest Church Recently Found!

Archaeologists in Jordan have found the remains of what may be the the world's earliest church . It is estimated to be from the period between 33 and 70 AD. What I found most interesting is that three stone seats were found that archaeologists believe were intended for the clergy and the church contained a structure called an apse. {An apse is a dome-shaped architectural space that delineates the area reserved for the presiding elders (priests). Usually an altar is under the apse as well.}
This finding really challenges the notion that the early Christians were all meeting in houses having bible studies and that clergy, altars, apses and such were the later developments of that Catholic Church that went off the rails from the "True Church" after the time of Emperor Constantine. Of course, I'm poking fun at myself here, because as a young believer, that was what I actually had been taught and accepted . Just as archeology can support the truth of Scripture, so too can it help us understand how the early Christians worshiped. Why did these early churches appear to have altars if there was no sacrifice?

"I Want to Go To A NEW TESTAMENT Church" (Part 1) Be Careful What You Wish For!

Early in my born-again years, I desired to go to a church that "preached the Word" and resembled the church of the New Testament. Even then, I knew that the water closest to the head of the stream would be the purest. Most of the books of the New Testament were written between 50 and 145 A.D., and provided many details of that early church, but were not written as the "Official Handbook and History of the Early Church. "

So how do I know for sure that my church is worshipping like a "New Testament Church?" Well, we know something of the early church behavior in that they met together for the "breaking of the bread" in Acts and had a meal together that Paul describes as the body and blood of Christ in
1 Corinthians and Christ himself in John told us to eat His body and drink his blood. Granted, I am "cherry picking" the scriptures to prove my point here, but unfortunately, the New Testament wasn't written with a complete order of service such as a church bulletin we have nowadays to know what is going to happen in the service.
So we turn to recorded history to get a better picture of the early church. It turns out the church was organized into bishops and presbyters (priests) who possessed the succession from the apostles. So apostolic succession wasn't a Catholic myth, but was actually an important criteria for the early church in discerning what was a legitimate church. Already, heretical sects were springing up and the ability of a bishop to trace his roots to Peter and the apostles was key for determining orthodoxy.

Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD)

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 )

St. Irenaeus said in his Treatise Against Heresies in the 2nd Century:

"Therefore it is necessary to obey the presbyters who are in the Church, those who I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But, to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble together in any place whatsoever."

St Cyril of Jerusalem (4th Century) said:

"and if ever you are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all."

So the early church didn't just meet "wherever two or more were gathered" and flipped open a Bible for a Bible study? I guess not, since there were no Bibles floating around but the early Christians did assemble in a place called the Catholic Church that had received the gift of God's truth through "primitive succession." The notion of just meeting together on one's own initiative and authority and calling it church was not acceptable or legitimate in the early church as St. Cyril clearly tells us.

St. Augustine (Late 4th Century) said:

"[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Manicheus Called "The Foundation" 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

These are just a few samples from the massive volumes of writings of this early Church that describe its organization, its succession from Peter and gives us a "snapshot" of what it "looked like." So when I was 14 years old and went looking for a "New Testament Church" I didn't need to look further than Our Lady of Notre Dame (my childhood parish). Because, this is the same Church that could trace its roots to the "primitive church" and still carries forth the "gift of truth."
After all, the Bible tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. 1 Tim 3:15

The Sign of the Cross

Earlier this year a soccer player in Scotland was given a cautionary warning by police for instigating strife during a soccer game. What was his offense? Did he flip the other team the bird? No, he made the Sign of the Cross to the opposing team, who happened to be non- Catholics! I suspect this was probably not done in a complete spirit of innocence given the previous crowd strife and riots that have occurred between these two rival soccer teams, the Rangers and the Celtics.

The Apostle Paul said the Cross of Christ was a stumbling block for many (1 Cor 1:23) and even just the sign of the cross continues to be almost 2000 years later. If you get on the internet and peruse anti-catholic websites, they often bring up the sign of the cross as an example of a "man-made" invention and a "tradition of Rome." This led me to look into the origin of the sign of the cross and why it engenders so much disdain among certain groups of our Protestant brethren.

Historically, the use of the sign of the cross can be traced to the second century and it's use in the early church has been documented by several of the early church Fathers.
"In all our travels and movements", says Tertullian (De cor. Mil., iii), "in all our coming in and going out, in putting of our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment occupieth us, we mark our foreheads with the sign of the cross". On the other hand this must soon have passed into a gesture of benediction, as many quotations from the Fathers in the fourth century would show. Thus St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his "Catecheses" (xiii, 36) remarks: "let us then not be ashamed to confess the Crucified. Be the cross our seal, made with boldness by our fingers on our brow and in every thing; over the bread we eat and the cups we drink, in our comings and in goings; before our sleep, when we lie down and when we awake; when we are travelling, and when we are at rest".

It appears that Catholic Christians have been using the sign of the cross for at least 1800 years and is now shared by Anglicans, some Lutherans and the Orthodox faith.
What does the sign of the cross do when we make it with our hand? Is it a magic incantation, or superstitious spell casting? No, quite the contrary. When a Christian makes the sign of the cross, they are reminding themselves and others of the precious cross of Christ and His matchless sacrifice for them and the victory over sin and death. Before Catholics pray, we start our prayer by praying "in the name of the Father , the Son and the Holy Spirit" echoing the words of Christ in the gospel and simultaneously using our hands to trace the image of the Cross.
When I enter the Sanctuary at Mass, I dip my hands in the water reminding me of my baptismal vows and make the sign of the cross again reminding me of what Mass is all about and who and why I am there to worship. What a beautiful way to engage my heart towards Christ Jesus!
The Catholic faith is an incarnate faith. God came into the world in the flesh to redeem us and he continues to use the things of earth; water, incense, sign of the cross etc. as a means of bringing us close to Him. (Incense calls to mind the "prayers of the saints" from the writings of John the Revelator as well as Old Testament worship practices, all of which are used to draw our physical senses to worship) Nothing spooky or evil about this. Just another example of how God uses the "stuff of earth" to bring our hearts towards heaven.

When I was a Protestant, we often would be asked to bow our heads and close our eyes in prayer. This is not in the Bible but is a standard and well known way that Protestants draw their hearts to God. I venture to say that it is a "man-made invention" and not found in the Bible, but is a routine way for us to get ready to pray. In the same way, the sign of the cross is a physical gesture that is used to not only engage our hearts, but our bodies as well
reminding us of the one who died for us.

In a Catholic Mass, before the Gospel is read, the entire congregation rises to their feet and each of us traces the sign of the cross with our thumb on our forehead our lips and our hearts. As we trace the sign , we say to ourselves, "May the Word of God be in my mind and on my lips and in my heart. " What a precious prayer to ask the Holy Spirit to touch us with His Word!
This brought home another truth to me early in my conversion and that was how much Catholics honor the Word of God.
So in conclusion, yes the sign of the cross is a man-made invention that draws our hearts and minds and bodies to the greatest event in human history, God coming to earth and suffering on the cross for me. No wonder St. Cyril, from the early fifth century, suggested that this be the seal "over all our comings and goings" and every aspect of our lives. And by the way, you don't need to be Catholic to use the sign of the cross, try it before you pray, or to start your day, it can bring you closer to Him! God bless you.

Thoughts on the Didache

Why am I blogging about the Didache, a non-inspired (non-canonical) document of history written some 30 years after Jesus ascended? One reason is that I have always been a fan of history and I won the Daughters of the American Revolution award for history in 8th grade in 1972! Yet when it came to studying my faith as an evangelical christian, I only considered modern church history from 1500's onward and never thought about the "black hole" of Church history from the Pentecost to the Reformation. I thought all I needed to know about church history was found in the Bible, yet it's not intended to be an accurate primer on 1st century history.

So back to the Didache. My thoughts are this: there was no "Bible" being passed around or other "sole rule of faith" yet this new church was growing and spreading throughout the ancient world like wildfire! To be sure, there was certainly some letters and epistles being read in churches and being circulated but some of the gospels and letters may not have been written down yet! So how did this fledlging group of believers know what to believe and what was correct if they did not have a Bible until some 300 years later, fully "bound" and set in one volume so to speak? Even if they did have copies of the "New Testament" there is a fair chance that many of the folks were illiterate. They did have the Old Testament and many of Paul's letters refer back to it including his references that can be traced to the deuterocanonical books, (which were removed from the scriptures during the reformation.)
So the church grew and spread without a formal Bible, but they did have letters of instruction , including the Didache which obviously didn't make the "cut" at the early Church councils. However it is still useful as a peek into the history of the primitive church.
2000 years from now, when future historians/theologians are trying to understand what the 21st century church believed and practiced, they will no doubt consult sources other than the Bible. The Bible alone will not give them information regarding how this current 21st Century church believed and worshipped. They would consult letters, books, any records that survived through history (perhaps "Prayer of Jabez", "The Purpose Driven Life?" Writings of John Paul 2 and others?) to give them a "snapshot" of what this church was like in worship and practice. In the same way, we look to extra-biblical sources to help us now understand how the early church worshipped and practiced their new found faith. I thank God for the documents of history that have been preserved to this day for our edification. They have opened my eyes of faith in ways that I never thought possible.

Peter, Linus, Clement.........John Paul 2, Benedict 16

The primacy and papal succession of Peter is often discounted because it can't be "proven" by the New Testament. Others still argue that Peter never went to Rome because his travels there aren't specifically mentioned in Scripture. A Christian in the 2nd century named Irenaeus was a disciple of a bishop named Polycarp who was himself a disciple of John. This gentleman wrote a book called "Against Heresies." In his book, he gives us an early picture of apostolic succession:

Since, however, it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles…