I was ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood this past Sunday and so the nature of the priesthood and Melchizidek have been on my mind. This morning I woke up early to drive a friend to take her LSAT and on the way back stopped and had breakfast at Zaftig in Brookline ( Best Potato Pancakes ever!). Afterwards, I stopped at the Brookline Booksmith and browsed. I went to their religious section and picked up a book that appeared interested entitled “Subversive Sequels in the Bible: How Biblical Stories Mine and Undermine Each Other.” Inside there was a chapter on Melchizedek and Jethro which I began to look at with great interest.

The portion on Melchizedek focuses on Chapter 14 of Genesis and how the story of Melchizedek protrudes into the more mundane events of Abrams life. Abram was just forced into the undesirable necessity of waging war as an ally of the violent and domineering king of Sodom. The campaign is called a “slaughter” in verse 17 suggesting the massive toll in human life that occurred. Abram is about to meet with the king of Sodom in order to negotiate the spoils. In the past two chapters we see how Abram became exceedingly wealthy in the materials of the world due to Pharoah. He and Lot had split up because they could not handle the strife that wealth caused. Abram is now in a position where he is likely to be given an even larger some of wealth from the spoils of warfare.

It is in this moment when the story of Melchizedek comes into the narrative

“18And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

19And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

20And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.”

Melchizedek uses the terminology ‘most high god’ which had never been used up to this point in the Genesis narrative. This usage is often linked to God the Father or Elohim. He has come to remind Abram that all of his wealth and the victory that he had over his enemies has come from God rather than from the actions of man.

In the JST we read

“39 Wherefore, Abram paid unto him tithes of all that he had, of all the riches which he possessed, which God had given him more than that which he had need.

40 And it came to pass, that God blessed Abram, and gave unto him riches, and honor, and lands for an everlasting possession; according to the covenant which he had made, and according to the blessing wherewith Melchizedek had blessed him.”

Abram is at this moment given an incredible blessing of power and promise from the lord. He has become recipient to the power of the priesthood. Moreover, he has come to realize that his substance belongs to God rather than himself. He realizes that his actions up to this point gave the world the impression that he valued material goods and was enriched by the worldly bastions of power rather than God himself. His encounter with the King of Sodom is thus incredibly powerful

“ 21And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.

22And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,

23That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:”

Abram has what can be described as a mighty change of heart. He has made a promise to God that he will consecrate his life in his service.

God responds in the next chapter by making promises to Abram. The Phrase ‘after these things’ forces us to place the next verse in the context of what has just transpired.

“ 1After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.”

I think we too often get caught up in viewing the Patriarchs or other figures of the bible in stagnant unchanging terms. We see Abraham as a paradigm of faith and virtue. Instead, we can view the book of Genesis as the evolution of a man from earthly to celestial. The material in the Book of Abraham supports this evolving narrative of the great patriarch. Although it is not made clear exactly when Abraham has his great vision of the creation of the universe, I like to imagine that it comes at this moment of the encounter with Melchizedeck.

The title of Melchizedeck means King of Righteousness and as the King of Salem Melchizedeck is also the king of peace. These are the same titles that Jesus Christ holds. As such, this encounter seems to me to suggest that it this is a moment of transformation for Abram/Abraham where he fully realizes the scope of Gods plan for him and his indebtedness to God.

From this point onward, Abram is through with dealing with the profane. He never again is involved in warfare. Instead, he progresses through sacred encounters with the Lord. He negotiates with the Lord for the lives of Sodom and Gomorrah. He releases one son into the wilderness. He is willing to sacrifice his most beloved son to the Lord. In each interval Abraham rises closer and closer to the lord. It is through the power of the priesthood that is given that all of this is possible.

An Interesting Parallel

^{The Old Testament priesthood of Aaron had to “eat those things with which the atonement was made.”}

Then Aaron and his sons shall eat the flesh of the ram, and the bread that is in the basket, by the door of the tabernacle of meeting. They shall eat those things with which the atonement was made, to consecrate and to sanctify them; but an outsider shall not eat them, because they are holy. (Ex. 29:32-33)

True Christians are priests unto God under the new covenant:

But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. (I Pet. 2:9)

To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God. (Rev. 1:5-6)

Jesus Christ is both High Priest and the Atoning Sacrifice:

But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.  Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. (Heb. 9:11-12)

Like the priesthood of Aaron, we “eat those things with which the atonement was made.”

I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”  The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”  Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.  He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.  As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.  This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.” (John 6:51-58)

The Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread;  and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”  In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” (I Cor. 11:23-25)

Did you notice in Ex. 29:32-33, “an outsider shall not eat them, because they are holy”? Those who are disqualified from the New Testament priesthood also must not eat of the table of communion, or they bring judgment upon themselves:

I Cor. 11:27-32  Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.  But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.  For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged.  But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63

God bless you!

We zijn er zeker vanuit de Protestantse gelederen niet meer zo vertrouwd mee: De biecht. Ik weet nog dat ik jaren geleden voor het eerst mee ging met een zomerconferentie van de Navigators en dat de spreker sprak over echtheid. En hij vertelde dat het Engelse woord ‘sincerity’ komt van het Latijnse woord ‘sincere’, wat ‘zonder was’ betekent. Het was in het oude Rome gebruikelijk dat een beeldhouwer zijn werk soms met een laagje was bedekte om kleine scheurtjes en beschadigingen te verbloemen. Deze was kon men bijna niet van echt steen onderscheiden als dit goed was aangebracht. Als een beeldhouwer echter een uniek meesterwerk had afgeleverd en hij geen enkel foutje had gemaakt dan kreeg zijn werk het stempel ‘sincere’. Zonder was. Feilloos. Niets op aan te merken. En de spreker trok dit door naar hoe ‘zonder was’ wij nog zijn vandaag. We zijn zo bezig met het verbloemen van al onze gebreken, onze fouten, onze donkere kanten, zonden en plekken van schuld en schaamte. Maar door iets te verbergen kunnen we op die plek die we verbergen ook geen vergeving en acceptatie ontvangen. We moeten komen op een plek van echtheid. Een hedendaagse vorm van de ‘biecht’ helpt ons daarbij.
De biecht, ook wel boetesacrament, sacrament van de vergeving of sacrament van boete en verzoening genoemd, is een van de zeven sacramenten van de Katholieke Kerk. In dit sacrament kan de priester in Christus’ naam zonden vergeven. De biecht wordt gebaseerd op de woorden die Jezus Christus heeft gericht tot zijn Apostelen op de dag van Zijn Verrijzenis : “Wier zonden gij vergeeft, hun zijn ze vergeven, wier zonden gij niet vergeeft, hun zijn ze niet vergeven.” (Joh. 20, 23). Maar wat heeft dit met de Postmoderne Devotie van doen? Mijn pleidooi is dat de biecht een centrale plaats inneemt in het gemeenschappelijke leven.

Richard Foster schaart de Biecht ook onder, wat hij noemt, de ‘gemeenschappelijke beoefening van het geestelijke leven’. Hij schrijft:

Als we weten dat de kinderen van God allereerst een gemeenschap van zondaren vormen, worden we zo bevrijd dat we de onvoorwaardelijke roep van Gods liefde horen en onze nood openlijk voor onze broeders en zusters kunnen blijden.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer schreef:

Een mens die zijn zonden belijdt in de tegenwoordigheid van een broeder weet dat hij niet langer alleen is met zichzelf; hij ervaart de tegenwoordigheid van God in de realiteit van de ander. Zo lang ik alleen ben bij mijn belijden van zonden blijft alles in het duister, maar in de aanwezigheid van een broedermoet de zonde in het licht worden gebracht.

Augustinus van Hippo zei:

Het belijden van boze werken is het begin van goede werken

Spreuken 28:13 zegt: Wie zijn overtredingen bedekt, zal niet voorspoedig zijn; maar wie ze belijdt en nalaat, die vindt ontferming. Het Hebreeuwse woord wat daar gebruikt wordt voor ‘ontferming’ is “Racham” Het is hetzelfde woord wat we vinden bij de ‘ontferming’ die een moeder heeft voor haar kind. Diepe liefde. Diepe genade. Tedere affectie, is ook een mogelijke vertaling. Wie zonden belijdt en nalaat vindt ‘tedere affectie’.

Ik hoorde Lin Button ooit eens zeggen: “Schaamte is als een regenjas voor de ziel”. We kunnen de acceptatie, de liefde en genegenheid van broers en zussen en uiteindelijk van God zelf niet ontvangen als we alles bedekken met een laagje was. We hebben een bevrijdende gemeenschap nodig die authentiek devoot durft te zijn. Heb je wel eens een leugen verteld en je moest weer een leugentje vertellen om de vorige leugen in stand te houden?

“Nee, ik heb niemand verteld wat je mij hebt verteld…??”

“Weet Mark het?”

“Je had het alleen maar aan mij verteld…”

“Wie is Mark?”

“Dat is raar… Ik zou misschien iets gezegd kunnen hebben…”

“Ik wilde helpen om meer specifiek te kunnen bidden…”

En de druk wordt groter en groter… En het ene leugentje moet het andere bedekken… En weer wat verdraaien. En weer een beetje mooier voordoen dan het in werkelijkheid is. Het is haast verslavend. En dan vertel je het echte verhaal. Je had het doorverteld en vertrouwen beschaamd… Belijden is de waarheid vertellen. “Ja, ik heb het verteld. Ik heb je vertrouwen beschaamd”.

Belijden blijkt bevrijden.

Opluchting.

Belijden is: De werkelijkheid in de ogen kijken. De waarheid in de ogen kijken.

Ik luisterde niet…
Ik loog…
Ik weet het niet…
Het spijt me…
Ik was het vergeten…
Ik was egoïstisch…
Ik was geïntimideerd…
Ik kan het niet bijhouden…

En we kiezen ervoor om ‘zonder was’ door het leven te gaan. Want alleen dan kan ook die plek aangeraakt worden met acceptatie en liefde. met ‘diepe ontferming’. Het geneest ons.

Tedere affectie.

Ik ben niet zo vaak ziek. Maar toen ik in India was en een verkeerde hamburger had gegeten, heb ik het geweten. Kotsend hing ik boven de WC. Alles kwam eruit. En wat deed mijn vrouw… Ze zat naast me en streek zachtjes over mijn rug.

Tedere affectie.

Juist als alle troep naar buiten komt kunnen we soms op onverwachte momenten diepe genade vinden. En diepe liefde. Soms is belijden het ‘eruit kotsen’. Maar er is een geheim in het belijden. Belijden is bevrijden.
Als we echt willen leven in (postmoderne) devote gemeenschap met anderen zal de behoefte naar echtheid groeien. Hoe we dit vorm kunnen geven? Uiteraard zorgvuldig en doordacht. Zelf ontmoet ik elke week twee vrienden met wie we samen bidden, elkaar spreken, bevragen, ontmoeten en onszelf in het licht brengen.

There was once a young and gifted woman who set herself the almost impossible task of setting up a printing press so that she could translate and distribute the Word of God to the people.  Yet such a job would require a great deal of money, and so, almost as soon as she had conceived the idea, she sold the few items that she possessed and went to live on the streets, begging for the money that she needed.
Raising the necessary funds took many years, for while there were a few who gave generously, most only gave a little, if anything at all. But gradually the money began to accumulate.  However, shortly before the plans for the printing press could be set in motion, a dreadful flood devastated a nearby town, destroying many people’s homes and livelihoods.
Without hesitation the woman used all the money she had gathered to feed the hungry and rebuild lost homes. Once the town began to recover, the woman silently went back to the streets in order to start all over again, collecting the money needed to translate the Word of God.
Many more years passed, with many cold winters that caused great suffering to the woman. Then, shortly before the target amount was reached, disaster struck again.
This time a deadly plague descended like a cloud over the city, stealing the lives of thousands.
By now the woman was herself tired and ill, yet without thought she spent the money she had collected on medicines and care for the sick and orphaned.
Then, once the shadow of the plague lifted, she again went onto the streets, driven by her desire to translate the Word of God.  Finally, shortly before her death, this woman gathered the money needed for the printing press and completed the project she had set herself many years before.
After she had passed away, it was rumored by some that she had actually spent her time making three translations of the Word, the first two being the most splendid of all…
… What language are you translating the Word into?
Our mandate is double-edged: “We should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another.” Does not the whole of the gospel hinge on that one word, “and”? Believe… AND love.
I don’t know about you, but this terrifies me. Not only do I have to do more than think the right things (hard enough) or say the right things (sometimes easier), but I have to live rightly, in truth.
And I don’t even get to decide what that truth is – it’s love. And it’s not up to me what that action is – it’s love. Given freely, radically, generously, as long as there’s need for it… love’s circumstances might be flexible, they are likely surprising, but the mandate itself is not a puzzle.
We can stop asking what the “right” thing to do is… Which cause is the best? Where can I be the most effective? What if our resources run out? What happens when it floods, or the plague comes, Or (have mercy) institutions fail usand we have to start over, from the foundations?
God’s pretty clear on this one. We keep loving. In truth, and action.
We silently went back to the streets in order to start all over again.
You’re not here to be effective or successful.
You,… I,… am here to be faithful to the Word made flesh.
Because what we believe is a fabulous mystery, that we’re commanded to bring about the Kingdom when it’s already here… that we’re to reveal it and that’s all we’re to do.

This goal is already fact, God’s fact, the fact of grace and promise. No gap divides what God says from what God does. God’s Word is God’s action. And it, God, is waiting for us to see him in ourselves, here all along…
Truth and action… called to live in such a way that the Way, Jesus’ way, is read in the very fabric of our relationships to one another, to our fellow human beings, to Creation.
The sacraments, too, as Augustine says, are the “visible word” of God. They are the Word, enacted… and when we receive them, when we claim them, when we are saying we’re ready to welcome Jesus in his many disguises, that our hearts and doors and arms are open, that we’re gonna live out being bread and juice, that we too are the Word enacted, lovingly revealed, truthfully shared with all the world, not just talking about it, not even just theologically reflecting on it, translating it into just more speech, more words… but living it.
Then, then, we’ve finally translated the glorious Word in truth and action.
May it be so for you, and for me, and for all the world. Amen.

Introduction: N. T. Wright’s New Testament Foundations for Ecclesiology

The starting point, the a priori, for any ecclesiology must be an understanding of the Church as the people of God, an eschatological community that exists for the sake of those not yet apart of said community. N.T. Wright lays out the three primary criteria that defined the church in its first few decades, it was essentially baptismal, Eucharistic and disciplined.[1] Wright continues, “The problems which arose in relation to the care of the needy, particularly widows, are most readily comprehensible if we envisage the church, not as a part-time voluntary organization of the like-minded which left normal social and familial attachments unaffected, but as a group with definite boundaries.”[2] The question then becomes what are the boundaries that define the people of God? How should the church understand itself and what would a definitively “charismatic” ecclesiology look like? These are the questions that will be attempted to be addressed in a brief and admittedly shallow treatment, for the sake of space.  Perhaps the two major theological voices in modern ecclesiology and ecumenism are Volf and Küng. By synthesizing these voices into a duet perhaps a definitive and constructive “charismatic” ecclesiology can be ascertained and thus expressed.  The most pressing issue to face the church over the next hundred, or so, years will most likely not be issues of morality or politics but of ecumenism and the church’s self-understanding.[3]

Volf’s Participatory Ecclesiology

Primarily, Volf wants to equate the church with the expression of charisms, “Wherever the Spirit of Christ, which as the eschatological gift anticipates God’s new creation in history, is present in it ecclesially constitutive activity, there is the church.”[4] While this does not necessarily validate the expression or it’s experiential interpretation, it does make room for otherness inside of the community (which is an idea to be explored later). Volf will go on to try and transcend the disagreement between Free Church and Episcopal models of ecclesial criteria for what constitutes a church, unfortunately his definition borders on the overly subjective and begins to side more with the Free Church suppositions.[5] He states directly, “the presence of Christ is not attested merely by the institution of office, but rather through the multidimensional confession of the entire assembly.”[6] The consequence of this statement is the striping of any Sacramentology to the foundation of mere communal confession of faith, not an objective reality.[7] While Volf’s experiment in ecclesiology is right minded and often correct in its aims, the way in which he answers key issues is at the expense of history and ecumenism for the higher church traditions. What is needed is an understanding of the activity of the Spirit that is not objective solely or subjective merely.

Acknowledging the objectivity of the Spirit’s work within the subjective experience and expression is imperative. Room must be made for the work of the Spirit to communicate objectively through otherwise subjective means. Ultimately these experiences and expressions will be misunderstood, misinterpreted and misappropriated, but that does not mean we discard or devalue them. Volf’s disdain for Episcopal authority is directly related to his witnessing its abuse in the Balkans during the late eighties and nineties.[8] What is needed, in order balance Volf, is to embrace theological otherness within the community as a charism. Ecclesiological self-understanding as the community that embodies the objectively subjective work of the Spirit is a priori to a healthy ecumenism and view of the universal as well as local church.

Hans Küng’s Pneumatological Ecclesiology

Kärkkäinen makes an observation about Küng’s ecclesiology that is important. “As a real church, the faith community is composed of sinful men and women and it exists for sinful men and women. Küng’s view comes close to that of Luther, who regarded the church as the community of sinners. Therefore, the communio sanctorum as communio peccatorum is always in need of forgiveness…”[9] This self-perception on the part of the church is essential in that it requires self-criticism, self-criticism that lends itself to a more open ecclesiology, one that makes room for otherness inside of the community. Otherness inside of the Christian community is not only a self-evident fact of the current state of world Christianity as Volf points out[10], but can also be understood as a virtue, which Küng is rightly advocating.[11] When otherness is embraced in ecclesiology, not simply in a vague superficial manner but as ontologically legitimate otherness, it demonstrates two things. First, its mimics and reveals the identity of the church as the image of the Trinity, which is the argument of Ware[12], Lossky[13] and Zizioulas[14]. Second, it shows the church in her glory as the redemptive community that accepts and embraces the strangeness of the other.  Küng argues that without this ability to embrace the otherness that exists inside of the universal church in a real way there is a loss of legitimacy, or genuineness, in the ability to embrace the otherness outside the boundaries of the community.[15]

The natural consequence of accepting otherness as ontologically legitimate in ecclesiology is the ability to not only co-exist but also to enter into dialogue through common language, dialogue that leads toward communion. The goal of any ecclesiology with any legitimacy is not simply the defense of one’s theological system or traditions, as is all too often the case[16], but toward real familial communion that recognizes one Lord and one Baptism.

Küng, not unlike Volf, is explicitly interested in defining the church in terms of the ministry of the Holy Spirit.[17] Kärkkäinen notes, “Küng. . . emphasizes the fact that the Spirit of God who indwells the church is no ‘obscure and nameless power’. . . but is the concrete presence of God in Christ and derivatively in the church. . . the Spirit is the earthly presence of the glorified Lord in the Church.”[18] Küng goes onto to exposit the “charismatic structure of the church” paying much attention to issues of ecclesiastical authority and the tension between the laity and hierarchy. [19][20] The pertinent portions of Küng’s treatment lie in his persistence toward the oneness of the Church.[21] By placing his definition of the church in strictly Pneumatological terminology, Küng proves himself light years ahead of much of his ecclesiastical colleagues, He also provides the linguistic framework for a holistic charismatic ecclesiology, one that, hopefully, places the charismatic-Pentecostal understanding of the charisms within the linguistic traditions of the historical, sacramental church.

A Proposal for a Charismatic Ecclesiology

The cardinal issue in defining a distinctly charismatic ecclesiology will be with the definition of what constitutes a charism. Charisms, almost without exception, have essentially been hijacked by the Pentecostal tradition and its subsequent offspring in the last century. Rather then accept a rather narrow definition of charismata the definition must be broadened, to the presence of the Holy Spirit in the expression of the Church that is pointing to an eschatological reality.  This understanding of charismata is supported not only by Küng[22] and Volf[23], but also Moltmann[24], Stronstad[25] and even Barth.[26] If considered seriously and examined thoroughly the broadened language defining what a charism is, and by consequence what it means, lends itself towards a mutual vocabulary between the sacramental and charismatic churches.

That which defines the meaning of a sacrament and that which defines a charism are not mutually exclusive. Both only hold meaning in an eschatological sense, and if understood as being objective within their subjective contexts because of the ministry of the Holy Spirit (as explored earlier), the two have a tremendous amount in common. Ultimately the classical argument about the distinction between the two has to do with the effects of each. With the sacrament being a means of grace conferred for the personal sanctification[27] of the participant and the charism being a means of grace by which the Spirit effects the work of the church through but not necessarily in the life of the participant.[28] The difference, in reality, between the two understandings? Semantics.  The commonality between the two definitions is uncanny; both are the activity of the spirit in the life of the church for salvific purposes that point toward an eschatological hope and reality caught between the “already” and “not yet.”  If the commonality is truly present between the two realities then the ecclesiological consequence is that the sacraments are to be understood as charisms and the charisms, conversely, become sacramental; the barriers between ecumenical belief, rhetoric and praxis breakdown.

Last, the church must be understood as “for the sake of the non-elect.”[29] A church ceases to be The Church when it’s charismatic/sacramental expression loses its missional presupposition and purpose.  A church is only The Church in so much that its primary self-understanding and orientation is focused on the culture and community in which it is particularly located.[30] Once this breaks down it becomes just another cult among the plethora offering personal spiritual salvation in the history of Greco-Roman mysticism.[31]

[2] Ibid. 448.

[3] Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology. (Dovers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 231.

[4] Volf, After our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 129. While such a definition of the church is valid, what is needed is a more thorough and yet broad understanding of a charism then Volf seems willing to consent to, which will be explored later.

[5] Ibid. 133-135.  Volf defines the ecclesiality of a church it terms of Matthew 18:20, while ideal and true, it does not constitute a complete definition of the church as it does not seem to acknowledge any sense of objectivity in the activity or experience of the community.

[6] Ibid. 152.

[7] Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology. (Dovers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 137.

[8] Hedges, War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning. (New York, Anchor Books, 2002), 56.

[9] Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology. (Dovers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 105.

[10] Volf, After our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 140-141

[11] Küng, The Church. (New York: Image Books, 1967), 230.

[12] Ware, The Orthodox Church. (London: Penguin Books, 1997), 308.

[13] Lossky, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1976), 176-177.

[14] Zizioulas, Being as Communion. (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997), 15.  Interesting to note that all three contemporary Orthodox theologians embrace a view that theirs is the true church and yet have the ability, seeming theological mandate, to embrace those not inside the eastern church in a way beyond the typical ecumenism in the west. See Anglican-Orthodox dialogue and communion.  The Moscow statement of 1976, the Dublin statement in 1984, and the Cyprus agreed statement presented at Lambeth 2008 as “The Church of the Triune God.” Also see Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue by Kallistos Ware.

[15] Küng, The Church. (New York: Image Books, 1967), 169.

[16] Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology. (Dovers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 231-232.

[17]  Küng, The Church. (New York: Image Books, 1967), 215-18.

[18] Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology. (Dovers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 109.

[19] Küng, The Church. (New York: Image Books, 1967), 239-247.

[20] Ibid, The Church: Mandated in truth. Trans. Edward Quinn, (New York; The Seabury Press, 1979), 50-51.  This passage particularly deals with the interaction between the Magisterium and laity and tries to lay out a possible future interaction. An interesting read but not overly pertinent to the current discussion.

[21] Ibid, The Church. (New York: Image Books, 1967), 353.

[22] Ibid, 215-18.

[23] Volf, After our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 129.

[24] Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit. Trans. Margaret Kohl.  Munich: Fortress Press, 1993.  294.

[25] Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984. 81-82

[26] O’Grady, The Church in the theology of Karl Barth. Washington: Corpus Books, 1968.  250-268.

[27] The Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Image Books, 2^nd edition , 1995.

[28] Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984. 73. Stronstad makes a strong and clear argument for the purely vocational understanding of the “baptism of the Spirit.”

[29] Wright, The New Testament and the People of God. (London: Fortress Press, 1992), 334, 447.

[30] Volf, After our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 141-147.

[31] Wright, The New Testament and the People of God. (London: Fortress Press, 1992), 152-166.

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

Canon Law Regarding Catholics and Abortion:

“Canon Law 1398 Catholics who have obtained an abortion, or performed an abortion, have excommunicated themselves latae sententiae (automatically by their very action) from the Catholic Church. They remain outside the church until the reception of the sacrament of Penance through a good confession.

“Canon Law 1329 Catholics who are accomplices in enabling and permitting the crime of abortion to occur, who without their assistance the crime would not have been committed, incur the same penalty.

“Canon Law 915 (an exception to receiving Holy Communion) “Others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

All bishops should follow their own Canon Law concerning their constituency and the abortion atrocity.

Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin sets the morally correct standard. He refused Patrick Kennedy the sacrament in Rhode Island.

Kennedy’s endorsement of child killing is abhorrent to God. It is abhorrent to the Roman Catholic ethical understanding of Scripture—the inerrant, infallible Word of God.

Kennedy favors killing womb infants. That is called “murder.” Female rights have no right to murder.

Therefore, the devil is in the process when mortals slay mortals who are in female bodies. That is not only how Tobin sees it; that is the way biblical believers understand divine revelation.

TV’s The View Whoopie Goldberg had a field day this morning when it came to her understanding of what the church does with its constituency’s views of right and wrong. With that, she went on her evangelistic diatribe about her understanding of Scripture.

She concludes that the Bible allows a human to do what he or she wants to do as long it is in keeping with that individual’s personal communication with God—no interference from churchly organizations or spiritual leaders.

On one part, she is accurate: a mortal can communicate with God and is served the consequences of that via accountability from that God.

But on the other part, she is so wrong. The God of the Bible does not have various moral codes for various persons depending on what they say they “hear” from God. God’s biblical standard is there as an eternal verity; it is not waffling to left or right, up or down.

Whoopie always has a good old time of it when trying to make deity out to be a Nice Guy on everything from communion altars to sex. In that she makes a lot of viewing friends for they likewise serve a deity who is totally into relativism, discounting absolutes.

However, Tobin is in line with the true understanding of Scripture when he holds the line on not permitting those who claim to be “Christian” yet murder to have Communion. They in no way have the ethical right to partake of the body and blood of Christ. That is atrocious in itself.

Think about it: Did Savior Christ suffer severe mistreatment on the cross in order to share His body and blood with persons who slay children? I don’t think so.

Did Christ stretch His holy presence on Calvary, permit nails to be driven through His hands and feet, then endure the spear slice in His side to allow pious appearing church goers the honor to partake of the sacrament representing that redemptive offering?  I don’t think so.

Did Christ anywhere in His public ministry ever teach that slaughtering womb innocents is okay if it is not in a person’s life plan?  I don’t think so.

Would to God that more clergy kept the same biblical standard that Tobin keeps. All spiritual leaders in the Christian tradition should obey God, His moral base and instruct those under their care to do the same.

“Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an ‘imperfect humanity.’ Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members,” Tobin told Kennedy.

Stay the holy course, Tobin. Stay the holy course.

FOOTNOTE:

The Bible speaks of a fetus as a person, not simply tissue that can be discarded if found to be a bother or nuisance. Since the fetus is a person from the moment of conception, then the destroying of the fetus is killing a person.

“In the past, some people have mistakenly speculated that perhaps the body might be in the process of formation for some time, and then ‘God breathes a soul into it.’ They had it backward. The life that is present forms matter into a body for itself’” (Joseph Breig, “Life Forms Matter,” The Catholic News, Jan. 24, 1974, p. 8).

“Your hands shaped me and made me. Will you now turn and destroy me? Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again? Did you not pour me out like milk … and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life and showed me kindness, and in your providence watched over my spirit” (Job 10:8-12 NIV).

“Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name…and now the LORD says–he who formed me in the womb to be his servant…” (Isaiah 49:1, 5).

“The word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations’” (Jeremiah 1:4-5).

In the following passages we note that personality is ascribed to the unborn.

“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that fully well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be” (Psalm 139:13-16).

“Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him” (Psalm 127:3).

Exodus 21:22-25 relates how Israel was to judge a circumstance relating to the death of the unborn:

“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”

All of the latter deals with unintentional hurt that comes to a pregnant woman; how much more will divine penalty come upon those who intentionally discard the fetus? The Gospel of Luke ascribes personality to the fetus within Elizabeth:

“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit… As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy” (1:41, 44).

Mere tissue does not leap for joy; only personhood leaps for joy. The Bible regards the fetus as having personality. In Galatians, Paul speaks of himself as a person while still in his mother’s womb, but more a person consecrated by God for a holy mission (compare Jeremiah 1:5 for the same accent):

“But when God, who set me apart from birth, and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles…” (Gal. 1: 15-16).

Since the Bible regards the fetus as personality, then the aborting of the fetus is murdering personality.

Some verses from Scripture dealing with murder are then appropriate for study, such as Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” Also, read Exodus 23:7: “Have nothing to do with a false charge, and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.” Note I Peter 4:15: “If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer…”

If the Republic returned to the biblical definition of personhood, we would defend every womb child.

John Adams said the following:

“Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

Andrew Jackson said the following:

“The BIBLE is the rock on which our Republic rests.”

Daniel Webster:

“If we abide by the principles taught in the BIBLE, our country will go on prospering.”

“For all the talk of freedom and self-determination, the abortion movement is at its heart a movement denying rights to a silent segment of humanity and soliciting public sanction, support and subsidy to its own cause” (Donald P. Shoemaker, ABORTION, THE BIBLE AND THE CHRISTIAN, Hayes Publishing Co., 1976, p. iv).

…  it was time for the consecration of the Chalice. Again, bowing low and pronouncing clearly and distinctly but in a low voice:  Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei, novi et æterni testamenti; mysterium fidei; qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem pecatorum. Haec quotiescumque feceritis in mei memoriam facietis (for this is the cup of my Blood, of the new and eternal covenant; the mystery of faith; which will for the many be shed unto the remission of sins. When so ever you do this, you do it in my memory). But then, I heard another sound this time an undeniable moan and then a shriek as some one cried out: “Leave me alone Jesus! Why do you torture me!” Suddenly a scuffling as some one ran out with the groaning sound of having been injured. The back doors swung open, then closed. Then silence.

I could not turn to look for I was raising the Chalice high over my head. But I knew in an instance that some poor demon-tormented soul had encountered Christ in the Eucharistic and could not endure his real presence displayed for all to see. And the words of Scripture occurred to me: Even Demons believe and tremble (James 2:19).

Read the whole story

Our Sacramental Bible

The Bible is a very obliging book in at least one particular respect, and that is that the Bible explains in fairly straightforward terms what it is.  That fact hasn’t caused scholars and others to refrain from arguing about the matter.  That argument has been going on for centuries, off and on.  But especially in the past few hundred years, scholars, church people, and others have carried on a vigorous argument about just what the Bible really is.

There will always be lots of debate and discussion about what the Bible says and what it means by what it says.  But that is really a different matter.  The discussion about what the Bible says and means is not the same as the argument about what the Bible is.  They are really two different matters.  They are related to each other, but they are not the same topic.

I want to draw your attention to what the Bible says about what it (the Bible) is.  One of the key passages on this topic is 2 Timothy 3:16,17.  There the Bible is called the “breath of God.”  Literally, verse 16 says that all Scripture is “God-breathed.”

Now, that phrase may seem a strange way to describe a book.  But it becomes less strange when we realize that to call something “God-breathed” is just a way of saying that that thing is “spoken by God” or that it is the “words of God.”  Since we’re talking about a book that is full of words, this description, “God-breathed,” is not at all strange.  The Bible is God’s communication to his people.

That fact is point number one.  The Bible is God’s words communicated to his people (and others for that matter).  But point number one is not point number last.  We might well recognize the Bible as being God’s communication and yet think of it as a past tense sort of communication.  It is, after all, a very ancient book.  Some parts of it are over 3000 years old.  Maybe when we read the Bible, we are simply overhearing an ancient communication from God to people who were long ago dead and gone.  Maybe when we read the Bible, we are simply reading words that are way past their expiration date.  In other words, maybe the Bible is words that God spoke not words that God speaks.

If that is all the Bible is – an out of date past tense conversation remembered and repeated from long ago, then the Bible might be interesting as a sort of historical document, and it may even contain some general wisdom.  But it would never be a place to go in order to hear God communicate to us here and now.

But here again the Bible is very obliging.  It tells us directly that it is not merely a collection of old, remembered conversations of God.  The Bible defines itself as a present tense communication from God to people here and now – always present tense, never merely past tense.

Hebrews 4:12, “For the Word of God is living and active, sharper than a two-edged sword, piercing the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” (ESV) We see here from what the writer of the letter to the Hebrews says that the Bible is a book like no other book that has ever existed or will ever exist.  It never becomes merely a past tense communication.  It is always present tense.  It is the breath of God, the active present moving of his breath – the Holy Spirit.  Henry Blackaby in his study, Experiencing God, says the Bible is the only book whose author is always literally present with us in the room whenever we read it.

So, whenever we read the Bible in faith, we have an encounter with the living God.  That is God’s intention for the Bible – it is to be one of the primary means by which we meet Him in the here and now present.

The Bible is not a magical book.  The Bible is not God.  The Bible, as an object, has no power.  But God has all power, and what God says he will do, that he does.  God has promised to meet us in the reading of his word.  He has bound himself voluntarily to his word, the Bible.  And God is true to his promises.  When we read the Bible, God is literally present there with us, spiritually, speaking to us and making his words present and addressed to us here and now.

The Bible is not a magical book, but it is a sacramental book.  A sacrament is a visible act in, under, and behind which God is really, literally, and spiritually present and active.  It isn’t magical.  It isn’t a thing we make God do.  He voluntarily promises to do it.  He willingly, even eagerly, binds himself to it.  That’s what a sacrament is.

We don’t call Bible-reading a sacrament, but we do believe it to be sacramental.  We believe that, because we know that God has promised himself to us through the words of Scripture, as we have seen in the passages I mentioned earlier.  In reading the words of Scripture we meet with God in the present moment.

And that is why reading the Bible is a crucial, necessary, and indispensable part of all true worship.  It is impossible to fully and truly worship God without the use of the Bible.  Just as we can’t really worship apart from the use of the Bible, neither are we wise to follow spiritual experiences if those experiences are leading away from the God we meet in the Bible.  In that way, the Bible serves as a mooring line that keeps us close to God and safe from drifting away on every current or gust of cultural wind.

Soak your heart and mind in the Bible, and you will be led deep into the heart and mind of God.  The reality and power of the Bible are not found merely in an intellectual understanding of the words.  It is a deeper, richer, relational kind of understanding.  I’m not saying that this deeper, richer, relational kind of understanding ever contradicts the meaning of the words.  Still, God leads us to a kind of knowledge of himself that less like the knowledge we gain of a person from reading a that person’s  biography, and more like the knowledge we gain of a person from reading a personal letter that that person has written to us.

And that, really, is what the Bible is, incomprehensible as it may seem.  It is a personal letter written by God to each of us personally and to all of us together.  It’s one of the most important ways that God gives us for getting to know him.  A great gift indeed!

In our high school Confirmation class, we reviewed everything we learned to date using handouts of outlined points covered each day (basically our catechist notes).  I then covered GRACE, SIN, and CONFESSION.  The visual illustrations are my own (in parenthesis) that I used to teach these “highly religious” words to 7th graders years ago.  (If you have any other suggestions or comments, please let me know.)

–Holy = to be set apart and united with God.

–Grace = free and undeserved gift of God’s love and life.  (like “air”)

–Sanctifying Grace = supernatural gift from God where our sins are forgiven & are made holy. First receive thru Baptism & continually sanctified through all sacraments.  (like “clean air“)  Lost by mortal sin.

–Actual Grace = God’s impulse to help in our everyday lives.  (like “sweet smells”)

–Sacramental Grace = graces specific to each sacrament.  (like “satellite TV”)

–Sin = freely choosing to do something that we know is wrong and against God’s will; we can sin in thought, word, action, or by omission.  (like “rejecting air”)

–Mortal Sin = serious offense that breaks our relationship with God & His grace. (like “holding your breath”)  Requirements are …

1. it must be a grave matter
2. we must know we are sinning
3. we must freely choose to sin

–Venial Sin = a less serious offense that weakens our relationship with God.  (like “smoking”)

–Sacrament of Reconciliation = by confessing mortal sins with a contrite heart to a priest (in persona Christi = in the person of Christ), we are reconciled with God and with the Church, the Body of Christ.  Penance is the whole cycle of conversion, forgiveness and making reparation (repaying any debt) for our sins.  This strengthens us to resist future temptations.

–CONFESSION Procedure …

1. Spend some time reflecting on your actions and do a thorough examination of conscience.
2. Go in the confessional & greet the priest.
3. Make the sign of the cross together.
4. Begin: “Bless me Father for I have sinned.  It has been (time) since my last confession.”
5. Confess your sins.
6. Priest will speak to you and/or share something from Scripture.
7. Priest will give you your penance.
8. You will say the Act of Contrition.
9. Priest will pray the prayer of absolution.
10. Thank the priest & leave confessional.
11. Spend some time doing your penance.

We finished the class by giving examples on their “Christian Service” Journal reflection that is due next time.

The Ethiopian Jewish community, called Beta-Israel, lived in seclusion for over 1,000 years, only reconnecting to the Jewish world in the late 20th century. According to Ethiopian tradition, their roots go back 3,000 years to the era of King Solomon. Like their brethren in many parts of the world, Ethiopian Jews suffered persecution for their beliefs and refusal to adopt Christianity. In the Middle Ages their lands were confiscated, villages plundered and many murdered. They were nicknamed Falash – intruders, homeless and without property. Despite the hardships, this community preserved their traditions with great devotion and generations were educated on the value of yearning for a return to Jerusalem, The Holy City, home of The Temple, pure and holy. The Sigd celebrations, Sigd meaning “to bow or prostate oneself”, convey their love and yearning for Jerusalem.

Traditionally the celebrations took place on a hilltop looking toward Jerusalem,signifying a renewal of the bond with God. Now, with a community of over 150,000 in Israel the main event takes place annually at the Sherover Promenade in Jerusalem, overlooking The Temple Mount.Thousands followed the Kessim, the religious leaders, and gathered in the late morning hours in colorful traditional garments or in whites signifying purity, to pray and give thanks. Guests of honor included Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat.

The yearning for Jerusalem has become a reality. Israeli-born offspring to Ethiopian Jews are finding it more and more difficult to identify with the aspirations of their forefathers. First signs are evident that this ancient ethnic celebration of hope and faith might one day be forgotten.

The 35mm f/2 was a pleasure to work with! Light and extremely mobile hanging on my neck – I could easily raise it quickly to get the shot I wanted without scaring off the subject. Some shots were even framed from the chest. I love the shallow depth of field! Most of the work was done at f2.5 ISO100 with very high shutter speeds.  Close and intimate!

nir

I got up early, took a shower and got ready for church. Gut distress as usual, lately. I did fine driving to church until the last couple of miles, then my head felt very strange.

I started staggering as soon as I went through the first door. Sigh….

I did OK until sacrament was done, and the dizziness and nausea just kept increasing I was also tremoring BAD. I was wearing what I consider to be a pretty purple skirt with a repetitive pattern. With my legs shaking, the pattern was making me quite ill. I tried not to look down. While looking up, it’s as if my field of vision kept making a hop up and to the side a fraction of an inch every few seconds. Ugh. I got some relief by closing my eyes. If the talks had not been so good, I would have bolted!

I was scared about driving home and mentioned it to a few people, just in case. Once I was out in the fresh air, I was better. But….I was wishing I was not driving!

Got home, made a very quick dinner of beef chunks, sauteed onions and mashed potatoes. Then I fell asleep a few hours. Beth and Luc stopped by with a Santa head for me to hang next to the snowman they gave me a week or so ago Later Mary Lou came over to spoil Zeke and Aleka. She gets right down on the floor with them. Each hand was rubbing a belly

I spent the early evening watching YouTube videos about the swine/avian/human flu. That ought to scare me un-dizzy!

Last night my daughter, Diva, made her first Reconciliation with a group of other young people at church. They did a short prayer service as a group and then divided up to go to different areas. Diva wanted to have her first confession heard by a certain priest but he was unavailable last night. So acting like the angel she can sometimes be, she was very agreeable and was blessed to be assigned to our pastor who heard Littleman’s first confession as well.

The theme for the evening was that of the Good Shepherd (Luke 15:4-7). After the Gospel was read, Msgr. began a short homily. Shortly after he began, Diva turned to me said, “That’s like a sin!” Any fears I had about her readiness faded away. She understood.

As we sat in the pew, her excitement grew. They were called to line up at their assigned confessional. She got in line and turned back toward me. She smiled, blew me a kiss and flashed the sign (ASL) for “I love you.”

Littleman and I began to pray for her. We prayed until she came out. When she did, she was all smiles. After her penance, she turned to me and said she felt great! She also said she wanted to do it again and asked if she could go tomorrow! I told her she could go any time she wanted, but just not to start sinning on purpose so that she would have something to confess!

To top off the beautiful evening, she met up with a friend at the exit. They shared their excitement of the sacrament and compared recently lost teeth. All-in-all ~ a perfect evening! I love you, Diva!

The Seventh Sacrament

TYPE: Thriller

RATING: 8 / 10

REVIEW:

This was a complete new author for me and as with all new authors I was pretty skeptic.

I did buy the book after having a look at the small summary at the back and that did look pretty interesting. The book did not let me down. It seems that I do have an uncanny ability to choose books that would be great to read.

This book is fast-paced and leaves no time for you to catch your breath in a way. The story keeps bouncing from the past to the present and due to the presence of common characters at both times, it did seem a bit confusing. However, after a while, the parts start feeling distinguishable enough and then you just can’t keep the book down.

The twist at the end is a good one and that is when the past merges into the present.

It’s a well written story and I look forward to reading more from this guy.

DESCRIPTION:

‘There’s an entire underground city down there … houses and temples, entire streets.’

Giogio Bramante, a Roman archaelogy professor, was master of the hidden world beneath the earth – until the day he lost his son, Alessio, to a group of students intent on re-creating a centuries-old ritual to a long-banished god. His rage knew no bounds and, in a frenzy, he beat one of the students to death.

Released from prison fourteen years later, Giorgio is bent upon a terrifying revenge on all those he blames for the loss of his son. Inspector Leo Falcone, a member of the original invstigating team, is one of his targets.

And Nic Costa, watching Falcone move relentlessly into the man’s merciless grip, realizes the answer must lie in solving a cold case that, like the forgotten Alessio Bramante, has been regarded as dead and buried for good.

‘Hewson keeps one guessing, perplexed and horrified … Absolutely super.’ Los Angeles Times

In our high school Confirmation class, today was supposed to be a review of everything to day, but I couldn’t get my handouts run off in time, so I took the cue from the saint presented today and taught on next week’s topic, PRAYER.

St Ignatius of Loyola (16th century;  feast day July 31) injured in battle at age 30. During recovery, he read the life of the saints & responded strongly to a personal call by God.  He was convinced that God could be found in all things, and was guided by an inner peace (“consolation”) that comes from knowing one is doing the will of God.  Developed the “Spiritual Exercises,” a practical guide to live a truly Christian life with prayer & especially devoted to the name of Christ (IHS).  His companions were called the “Company of Jesus,” today called the “Society of Jesus,” or the Jesuits, one of the largest religious communities in the world. Besides the 3 vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, members take a 4^th vow of obedience to the Pope.

Prayer of Self-Offering to God

– by St Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556)

Take, O Lord, and receive my entire liberty, my memory, my understanding, and my whole will.  All that I am and all that I possess, You have given me.  I surrender it all to You to be disposed of according to Your Will.  Give me only Your love and Your grace; with these I will be rich enough and will desire nothing more.

Sacrament of Marriage … purpose is …

• –Pro-create (open to children),
• –Educate (evangelize your Catholic children)
• –Holy Mate (get your spouse to heaven)

Types of prayers … B.A.P.T.i.S.M.

• BLESSING – invoke God’s power for a person, place or activity
• ADORATION – the “created” before the Creator
• PRAISE – glory God (for who He is)
• THANKSGIVING – gratitude (for what He does)
• i ASK for ME (petition) + OTHERS (intercession)
• SORRY – ask of forgiveness
• MEDITATION – tuning into God, reflection (through quiet prayer, Sacred Scripture, lectio divina, liturgy of the hours, Rosary, holy icons, imagery, books of daily devotion, lives of saints, works of spirituality, etc.)

The MASS includes ALL these types of prayer

CONTEMPLETIVE prayer — “silent love” — a deep awareness of God’s presence by being alone with God who we know loves us (“centering prayer” helps develop skills)

Steps in prayer … P.R.A.Y.

• PRAISE = God for who He is + thanksgiving
• REPENT = confess + rec forgiveness + change
• ASK = for others + me   (see A.R.R.R.)
• YIELD = be open to God’s voice & His Will

[PRAYER] When your spending time in personal prayer with the Lord, here’s a good outline to follow  . . . . A.R.R.R.

Personal Prayer … A.R.R.R.

• ACKNOWLEDGE –- How’s my life right now? Pay attention to your thought + feelings + desires (“the Big 3”).
• RELATE -– Tell God about ALL “3” honestly.
• RECEIVE -– Quiet your mind, focus on God, & listen to “the Big 3.”  (Discern spirits)
• RESPOND -– do what you NEED to do

–When you have something to talk to the Lord about, process your “Big 3” with this model.

HOMEWORK:

(1) 3 prayer journals — letters to God, (2) Chapter 3 Quiz, (3) Chapter 17 Quiz

Yesterday, I attended mass at st mary of the angels church at bukit batok. While singing the entrance hymn, I was quite surprised to see one of my favorite priest coming from the church main door. It has been quite some time for me to attend mass celebrated by him. He was one of NTU CSA chaplain when I was in my undergraduate in 2003-2004. I will let you guess who he is.

The liturgy of the Word was also read by one of NTU professor, it made me feel like attending mass at NTU. When it came to homily, the priest deliver a beautiful sermon. it was well structured, systematic and elegant. He started by saying about social status of the widow in the first reading (1 Kgs 17:10-16), then he proceeded with the widow in the gospel reading (Mk 12:38-44 or 12:41-44). He compared the two widows. They are similar of their social status, at the lowest, woman with no protection from their father and their husband. The first widow was asked by a high rank man, a prophet, Elijah, to give her bread. She had a little, yet she gave him her bread. The second widow, gave a penny which was her entire wealth. Both widows gave in their poverty.

Then he used the second reading to give the frame work for both stories of the widow. Jesus gave His life for the salvation of all. To learn the attitude of both widows, to be generous.

After the homily, the mass continued to the liturgy of Eucharist, and when he said the Eucharistic prayer, I was so touched. Maybe I have not been so attentive during the masses that I attended. However, yesterday was so different, it was so beautiful. Let me share with you what I heard.

Father, all-powerful and ever-living God,

we do well always and everywhere to give You thanks.

When Your children sinned and wandered far from Your friendship,

You reunited them with Yourself through the blood of Your Son

and the power of the Holy Spirit.

You gather them into Your church,

to be one as You, Father,

are one with Your Son and the Holy Spirit.

You call them to be Your people,

to praise Your wisdom in all Your works.

You make them the body of Christ

and the dwelling-place of the Holy Spirit.

Now, with the saints and all the angels we praise You for ever:

Holy, holy, holy Lord,

God of power and might,

heaven and earth are full of your glory.

Hosanna in the highest.

Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.

Hosanna in the highest.

It is a beautiful prayer indeed, isn’t it?

I hope I can be more attentive while attending mass so I can experience more beautiful things. Mass on earth is indeed a foretaste of the mass in heaven.

The bread and wine was brought before Him
As He stood before those at His feet
And of the bread He brake and blessed it
Then to all commanded they should eat

This done to remember His body
And that His Spirit might be with them
Thus to testify to the Father
They do remember Him and witness

Then He offered the wine of the cup
And commanded all to drink of it
In remembrance of the blood he’d shed
While promising anew His Spirit

Thus, they fulfilled the Lord’s commandments
And witnessed to God their willingness
To do always as was asked of them
In humility and remembrance

He then offered them one great promise
Saying they were now built upon rock
That when floods came and the winds blew
The gates of hell, for them, could not knock

He then offered them one great caution
That they pray always to be kept safe
Lest they be tempted by the devil
To be sifted as wheat blown his way

Whatsoever they ask the Father
In His name believing it is right
Shall Be given amongst their families
As they righteously hold up His light

What is this light which the Lord spoke of
But the example of his pure life
That they might come, see, feel, and then do
With the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ

[As stated in my About, I want to tell the world about the Orthodox faith. Up to this point, my blogs have somewhat unorganized to do that. Now God has given me a more coorinated way to do that. I will be sharing articles from the Orthodox Faith.

This will be a long series, but I trust it will be profitable to you in learning about the Orthodox faith. From time to time, I will also provide addition blogs of interest.  - Herman Art]

Holy Orders

It is the conviction of the Orthodox that Christ is the only priest, pastor and teacher of the Christian Church. He alone guides and rules his people. He alone forgives sins and offers communion with God, his Father.

It is also the Orthodox conviction that Christ has not abandoned his people, but that he remains with his Church as its living and unique head. Christ remains present and active in the Church through his Holy Spirit.

The sacrament of holy orders in the Christian Church is the objective guarantee of the perpetual presence of Christ with his people. The bishops, priests, and deacons of the Church have no other function or service than to manifest the presence and action of Christ to his people. In this sense, the clergy do not act in behalf of Christ or instead of Christ as though he himself were absent. They are neither vicars of Christ, nor substitutes for Christ nor representatives of Christ.

Christ is present now, always, and forever in his Church. The sacramental ministry of the Church — the bishops, priests, and deacons — receive the gift of the Holy Spirit to manifest Christ in the Spirit to men. Thus, through his chosen ministers, Christ exercises and realizes his unique and exclusive function as priest, perpetually offering himself as the perfect sacrifice to the Father on behalf of his human brothers and sisters. Through his ministers in the Church, Christ also acts as teacher, himself proclaiming the divine words of the Father to men. He acts as the good shepherd, the one pastor who guides his flock. He acts as the forgiver and healer, remitting sins and curing the ills of menÄphysical, mental and spiritual. He acts as bishop, overseeing the community which he has gathered for himself (1 Pet 2:25). He acts as deacon (which means servant or minister) for he alone is the suffering servant of the Father who has come “not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28).

The sacrament of holy orders takes its name from the fact that the bishops, priests and deacons give order to the Church. They guarantee the continuity and unity of the Church from age to age and from place to place from the time of Christ and the apostles until the establishment of God’s Kingdom in eternity. As the apostles received the special gift of God to go forth and to make Christ present to men in all of the manifold aspects of his person and work, so the clergy of the Church receive the gift of God’s Spirit to maintain and to manifest Christ’s presence and action in the churches.

It is the doctrine of the Church that the clergy must strive to fulfill the grace given to them with the gift of the “laying on of hands” in the most perfect way possible. But it is also the doctrine of the Church that the reality and effectiveness of the sacraments of the Church ministered by the clergy do not depend upon the personal virtue of the ministers, but upon the presence of Christ who acts in his Church by the Holy Spirit.

Bishops

The bishops are the leading members of the clergy in the sense that they have the responsibility and the service of maintaining the unity of the Church throughout the world by insuring the truth and unity of the faith. and practice of their respective churches with all of the others. Thus, the bishops represent their particular churches or dioceses to the other churches or dioceses, just as they represent the Universal Church to their own particular priests, deacons, and people.

In the Orthodox Church, the office of bishop is the leading Church ministry. The word bishop (episkopos, in Greek) means overseer. Each of the bishops has exactly the same service to perform. No bishop is “over any other bishop in the Church and, indeed, the bishop himself is not “over” his church, but is himself within and of the Church as one of its members. He is the one who is responsible and answerable before God and man for the life of his particular church community.

All bishops of the Orthodox Church are bishops of a particular geographical territory called a diocese. They usually receive their title from the main city in the territory. A bishop of the chief city of a region which has within it other bishops with their own particular dioceses is usually called the metropolitan or archbishop. “Metropolitan” merely means “bishop of the metropolis,” the main city. The title of archbishop means “leading bishop” of an area, but sometimes the title is given to certain bishops for personal or honorary reasons. The title of patriarch belongs to the bishop of the capitol city of a region containing other metropolitanates and dioceses. Today this usually means a national church.

When the bishops of an area meet in council, as they must do periodically according to Church Law, the metropolitan presides; or in the case of a large territory or national church, the patriarch. Once again, however, it must be clearly understood that sacramentally all bishops are identical and equal. None is “higher” than the others as far as their sacramental position is concerned; none is “over” the others as far as their life in the Church is concerned.

In purely human and practical matters, the metropolitans and patriarchs guide and preside over areas greater than their own particular dioceses, but they are not superior or more powerful as far as their bishop’s office is concerned. No bishop in Orthodoxy is considered infallible. None has any “powers” over or apart from his priests, deacons and people or the other bishops. All are servants of Christ and the Church. Since the sixth century it has been the rule in the Orthodox Church that the bishops be single men or widowers. They are also usually in at least the first degree of monastic orders.

Priests

The priests of the Church, also called presbyters, are those who assist the bishop in his work. In the present day, the priests normally exercise the function of pastors of the local churches or parishes, a function which was normally done by the bishops in early times. The priests head the local congregations of Christians. They preside at the celebration of the liturgy. They teach, preach, counsel and exercise the ministries of forgiveness and healing,

The priests in the Church are assigned by the bishop and belong to the specific congregations which they serve. No one receives the gift of the priesthood personally or individually. Apart from his bishop and his own particular parish community, the priest has no “powers” and, indeed, no services to perform. Thus, on the altar table of each Christian community headed by the priest as pastor, there is the cloth called the antimension signed by the bishop which is the permission to the community to gather and to act as the Church of God. Without the antimension, the priest and his people cannot function legitimately, and the actions of the assembly cannot be considered as being authentically “of the Church.”

In the Orthodox Church a married man may be ordained to the priesthood. His marriage, however, must be the first for both him and his wife, and he may not remarry and continue in his ministry if his wife should die. If a single man is ordained, he may not marry and retain his service.

Deacons

The deacons of the Church originally assisted the bishops in good deeds and works of charity. In recent centuries the diaconate has become almost exclusively a liturgical function in which the deacons assist at the celebration of the divine liturgy and other Church services. In more recent times, the diaconate has been extended to many as a permanent position for full or partÄtime service to the work of the Church. I n the office of deacon, the men may now not only assist the priest and bishop in liturgical services, but will often head educational programs and youth groups, do hospital visitation and missionary work and conduct projects of social welfare. In these cases the deacons are not necessarily taken from the professional schools of theology, but are chosen directly from the local parish community. The Church’s rules about marriage are the same for the deacons as they are for the priests.

In addition to the bishops, priests and deacons who comprise the central ordained ministries in the Church, the Orthodox tradition also has special blessings for the particular ministries of sub-deacons and readers. In the early church there were also special prayers and blessings for other Church ministries such as exorcists, doorkeepers, deaconesses, and lay-preachers; the latter still function in some churches today. Also in most churches today there are special ceremonies of blessing and installation of lay workers in the Church such as members of the parish council, catechists, choir singers and leaders of various organizations and projects.

http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=57

Two weeks ago, at the feast of St Luke, I officiated at a solemn evensong with benediction of the blessed Sacrament. It was the first benediction I had officiated at. I remember attending benediction for the first time as an undergrad at Durham and being moved by the experience, but without the theological literacy to unpack the experience. A few years later I attended another benediction in Cardiff. It was one of those ‘precious’ high churches, with bevies of ordinands trying to out do each other in the laciness of their cottas, and the smartness of their genuflections. That event put me off benediction for over a decade.

Personal experience must be at the heart of religious faith. One bad experience made me theologize that the efficacy of the eucharistic Sacrament is in the eating and drinking, leaving benediction high and dry from sacramental grace. I think this is the mainstream Protestant view of benediction. However, my recent experience, on the other side of the humeral veil, put me back in touch with my first, positive experience of benediction.

Never having had officiated at benediction before, I was in a state of blessed ignorance, totally focused on remembering what I was to do next. I was weighed down by what felt like half-a-ton of grade-one ecclesiastical drapery round my shoulders that constantly pulled my stole and cotta out of place. I also had to struggle to keep a football of a thurible under control while still making it smoke sufficiently. However, the slowed pace of benediction put me in a place of meditation, concentrating on the ritual practicalities kept the usual distractions away. As I lifted the Sacrament in the monstrance, heavy cope and humeral veil obscured me, making me suitably faceless to the congregation at the point of benediction, and plunging me into a private tabernacle of grace. The organ crashed and bells shimmered.

I have been reflecting on this experience since. There is something in it that reminds me of worship I’ve experienced in various Eastern Christian churches, a sense of heaven come close. There is something specifically iconic about the exposition of the blessed Sacrament. There is something here that we miss in the parish eucharist, with its packed hour of word and sacrament, hymns and prayers, notices and neighbourliness. We need all those things, but we miss this meditative space where we come before a window on the Eternal.

[As stated in my About, I want to tell the world about the Orthodox faith. Up to this point, my blogs have somewhat unorganized to do that. Now God has given me a more coorinated way to do that. I will be sharing articles from the Orthodox Faith.

This will be a long series, but I trust it will be profitable to you in learning about the Orthodox faith. From time to time, I will also provide addition blogs of interest.  - Herman Art]

Penance

The sacrament of penance is our formal act of reconciliation with God in the Church when sin has severed us from the Church’s life. Because penance is the way to communion with God when that communion has been broken by sin, it is often referred to in Church Tradition as the renewal of baptism, or as the reestablishment of that condition of life with God which was given to men in the basic sacraments of inauguration into the Christian life.

Not every sin requires the necessity of formal penance through sacramental ritual. This is obvious because Christians are never completely without sin. Certain grave sins or the prolonged separation from Holy Communion, however, do call for the act of sacramental penance. Also, Christians living in communion with Christ are expected to make use of this sacrament periodically in order to humble themselves consciously before God and to receive guidance in the Christian life from their pastor in the Church. It is the teaching of the Orthodox Church that sacramental penance is necessary for those receiving Holy Communion when they have committed grave sins or when they have been separated from the eucharistic meal for a long time.

The sacrament of penance exists in the Church to allow for the repentance and reconversion of Christians who have fallen away from the life of faith. There are three main elements to the act of formal penance. The first is a sincere sorrow for sins and for the breaking of communion with God. The second is an open and heartfelt confession of sins. At one time this confession was done publicly before all men in the midst of the Church, but in recent times it is usually done only in the presence of the pastor of the Church who stands in behalf of all. The third element of penance is the formal prayer of absolution through which the forgiveness of God through Christ is sacramentally bestowed upon the repentant sinner.

The fulfillment of penance consists in the reception of Holy Communion and the genuine reconciliation of the repentant sinner with God and all men according to the commandments of Christ. From this there obviously follows the necessity of a sincere attempt by the penitent to refrain from sin and to remain in faithful obedience to God and in uprightness of life before Him and all people.

The sacrament of penance, like all sacraments, is an element of the life of the Church which presupposes a firm belief and conviction that Christ himself is present in the Church through his Holy Spirit. A person without the experience of Christ in the Church will not understand the meaning of sacramental penance and the need for the open and public confession of sins. When the Church is experienced as the new life in Christ and as the genuine communion with God in his kingdom already present with men in sacrament and mystery, then not only will sacramental penance and the confession of sins be understood, but it will be cherished as the great mystery of God which it is: the unique possibility for reunion with God through the forgiveness of Christ who has come to save sinners who confess their sins and who sincerely desire to change their lives according to the ways which he himself has given.

In a word, the Orthodox Church strictly adheres to the teaching of the Bible that only God can forgive sins, that he does so through Christ in the Church, that his conditions are genuine repentance and the promise of change which are witnessed by confession; and that confession, by definition, is the open and public acknowledgment of sin before God and all mankind.

http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=54

We meet together oft
To partake of bread and wine
In remembrance soft
Of the Savior- yours and mine

We witness all anew
Of the blessed name we bear
While repenting too
Always for His Spirit there

Let us eat of the bread
In remembrance of the Son
And sip of that shed
For our ransom fully won

D&C 20:75–79
75 It is expedient that the church meet together often to partake of bread and wine in the remembrance of the Lord Jesus;
76 And the elder or priest shall administer it; and after this manner shall he administer it—he shall kneel with the church and call upon the Father in solemn prayer, saying:
77 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.
78 The manner of administering the wine—he shall take the cup also, and say:
79 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

Come and remove each spot
That stained your soul this week
Come confessing your lot
As one humble and meek

Come thankful with good cheer
That your joy might be full
Come feel the Spirit near
Of Him who’s merciful

D&C 59:9
9 And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day;

The gates of hell ever lie open
Ready to greedily receive
All who partake not of their token
And are speedily then deceived

For they’d not come to repent
To partake anew and be filled
Forgetting each sweet covenant
With commandments left unfulfilled

Their share of the bread was left wasted
The freely given gift denied
The cleansing drink was not tasted
Thus, they spiritually slept and died

3 Ne. 18:6–11
6 And this shall ye always observe to ado, even as I have done, even as I have broken bread and blessed it and given it unto you.
7 And this shall ye do in remembrance of my body, which I have shown unto you. And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you.
8 And it came to pass that when he said these words, he commanded his Disciples that they should take of the wine of the cup and drink of it, and that they should also give unto the multitude that they might drink of it.
9 And it came to pass that they did so, and did drink of it and were filled; and they gave unto the multitude, and they did drink, and they were filled.
10 And when the Disciples had done this, Jesus said unto them: Blessed are ye for this thing which ye have done, for this is fulfilling my commandments, and this doth witness unto the Father that ye are willing to do that which I have commanded you.
11 And this shall ye always do to those who repent and are baptized in my name; and ye shall do it in remembrance of my blood, which I have shed for you, that ye may witness unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you.

He took the bread and then gave thanks
He broke it and offered saying-
This is my body given for you
This do in remembrance praying

Like wise the cup was filled also
To represent His blood to pour
There to teach us that we might know
Who His blessed life was shed for

Luke 22:19–20

19 ¶ And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

[As stated in my About, I want to tell the world about the Orthodox faith. Up to this point, my blogs have somewhat unorganized to do that. Now God has given me a more coorinated way to do that. I will be sharing articles from the Orthodox Faith.

This will be a long series, but I trust it will be profitable to you in learning about the Orthodox faith. From time to time, I will also provide addition blogs of interest.  - Herman Art]

Holy Eurharist

The Holy Eucharist is called the “sacrament of sacraments” in the Orthodox tradition. It is also called the “sacrament of the Church.” The eucharist is the center of the Church’s life. Everything in the Church leads to the eucharist, and all things flow from it. It is the completion of all of the Church’s sacraments — the source and the goal of all of the Church’s doctrines and institutions.

As with baptism, it must be noted that the eucharistic meal was not invented by Christ. Such holy ritual meals existed in the Old Testament and in pagan religions. Generally speaking the “dinner” remains even today as one of the main ritual and symbolic events in the life of man. The Christian eucharist is a meal specifically connected with the Passover meal of the Old Testament. At the end of his life Christ, the Jewish Messiah, ate the Passover meal with his disciples. Originally a ritual supper in commemoration of the liberation of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, the Passover meal was transformed by Christ into an act done in remembrance of him: of his life, death and resurrection as the new and eternal Passover Lamb who frees men from the slavery of evil, ignorance and death and transfers them into the everlasting life of the Kingdom of God.

At the supper Christ took the bread and the wine and ordered his disciples to eat and drink it as his own Body and Blood. This action thus became the center of the Christian life, the experience of the presence of the Risen Christ in the midst of his People (see Mt 26; Mk 14; Lk 22; Jn 6 and 13; Acts 2:41-47; 1 Cor 10-11).

As a word, the term eucharist means thanksgiving. This name is given to the sacred meal-not only to the elements of bread and wine, but to the whole act of gathering, praying, reading the Holy Scriptures and proclaiming God’s Word, remembering Christ and eating and drinking his Body and Blood in communion with him and with God the Father, by the Holy Spirit. The word eucharist is used because the all-embracing meaning of the Lord’s Banquet is that of thanksgiving to God in Christ and the Holy Spirit for all that he has done in making, saving and glorifying the world.

The sacrament of the eucharist is also called holy communion since it is the mystical communion of men with God, with each other, and with all men and all things in him through Christ and the Spirit. The eucharistic liturgy is celebrated in the Church every Sunday, the Day of the Lord, as well as on feast days. Except in monasteries, it is rarely celebrated daily. Holy Communion is forbidden to all Orthodox Christians on the week days of Great Lent except in the special communion of the Liturgy of the Pre-sanctified Gifts (see below) because of its joyful and resurrectional character. The eucharist is always given to all members of the Church, including infants who are baptized and confirmed. It is always given in both forms — bread and wine. It is strictly understood as being the real presence of Christ, his true Body and Blood mystically present in the bread and wine which are offered to the Father in his name and consecrated by the divine Spirit of God.

In the history of Christian thought, various ways were developed to try to explain how the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in the eucharistic liturgy. Quite unfortunately, these explanations often became too rationalistic and too closely connected with certain human philosophies.

One of the most unfortunate developments took place when men began to debate the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood in the eucharist. While some said that the eucharistic gifts of bread and wine were the real Body and Blood of Christ, others said that the gifts were not real, but merely the symbolic or mystical presence of the Body and Blood. The tragedy in both of these approaches is that what is real came to be opposed to what is symbolic or mystical.

The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ’s Body and Blood. If this doctrine were true, when the liturgy is celebrated and holy communion is given, the people would be called merely to think about Jesus and to commune with him “in their hearts.” In this way, the eucharist would be reduced to a simple memorial meal of the Lord’s last supper, and the union with God through its reception would come only on the level of thought or psychological recollection.

On the other hand, however, the Orthodox tradition does use the term “symbols” for the eucharistic gifts. It calls, the service a “mystery” and the sacrifice of the liturgy a “spiritual and bloodless sacrifice.” These terms are used by the holy fathers and the liturgy itself.

The Orthodox Church uses such expressions because in Orthodoxy what is real is not opposed to what is symbolical or mystical or spiritual. On the contrary! In the Orthodox view, all of reality — the world and man himself — is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us. Thus, the eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God’s true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ. Thus, by eating and drinking the bread and wine which are mystically consecrated by the Holy Spirit, we have genuine communion with God through Christ who is himself “the bread of life” (Jn 6:34, 41).

I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh (Jn 6:51).

Thus, the bread of the eucharist is Christ’s flesh, and Christ’s flesh is the eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one. The word “symbolical” in Orthodox terminology means exactly this: “to bring together into one.”

Thus we read the words of the Apostle Paul:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death, until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11:23-26).

The mystery of the holy eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. For the eucharist — and Christ himself — is indeed a mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is “not of this world.” The eucharist — because it belongs to God’s Kingdom — is truly free from the earth-born “logic” of fallen humanity.

http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=53