The first “communion service” planned for Twitter has been postponed:

THE first communion service on the social-networking website Twitter did not take place last Saturday, after the Methodist minister organising it was asked to postpone it, while the Methodist Church examined the idea.

The Revd Tim Ross announced plans to hold the online service last month (News, 23 July), but decided to cancel it after senior Methodist offi­cials asked for more time to consider whether a communion in cyberspace was appropriate.

Mr Ross wrote in a statement on his website: “Whilst I have not been absolutely forbidden to perform com­munion on Twitter, British Meth­odist Church authorities have strongly urged me to cancel it.”

The online service was replaced by a series of short prayers for Christian unity, which, Mr Ross said, “was the motivation for the project”.

I’m sure many Catholics are scratching their heads about this story: how exactly do you have a “communion service” via Twitter? It’s not like you can send particles of bread or wine (or grape juice, the liquid of choice in many Methodist congregations) via that Interweb thingy. It looks like it was just intended to be a bunch of people receiving communion at the same time and tweeting about it:

The assistant secretary of the Methodist Conference, the Revd Ken Howcroft, said that the Church under­stood Mr Ross’s passion for the importance of communion and of using new media in mission; but the Church needed to “reflect and pray deeply in order to discern what developments are appropriate”.

In an article for the Methodist Recorder, Mr Ross said objections to the Twitter communion had been raised by the Methodist Church Faith and Order Committee, which said it was “not a valid communion”. The idea of “remote communion”, where participants receive the bread and wine at the same time, but in different places, “conflicts with the ethos of the Conference report ‘His Presence Makes the Feast’ (2003) which talks about ‘embodied wor­ship’”.

Mr Ross said the report’s reference to “disembodied spirits” did not say that participants must be in the same physical place, but rather referred to the attitude of those present. “The issue boils down to two questions: Is remote communion a valid com­munion? Is the Christian community on the internet a valid, gathered Christian community? If the answer to both these questions is ‘Yes’, then a communion service performed by such a community of believers must be valid and may be performed.”

Continue reading…

At least someone in the Methodist hierarchy sees the problem with this type of service. As useful as technology can be, it is no replacement for physical interaction between people. Just like one cannot receive confession via the phone and you can’t baptize someone without physically pouring water over them, so too is the Eucharist intended to be celebrated in the context of people physically gathered together. Our Lord was incarnate in the flesh and we need to realize that even with the rise of the Internet, we still are flesh-and-blood persons whose bodies are not mere appendages to who we are, but are integral to us as persons.

Ultimately, we will be saved through our physical bodies, not in spite of them.

Today is the anniversary of the birth of one of the most influential Scripture scholars who ever lived: Rudolf Bultmann. Bultmann’s impact on the theological world cannot be underestimated; if you pick up just about any scholarly work on Scripture or Christology written in the past fifty years, there is a very good chance that Bultmann’s name will be mentioned.

Bultmann’s greatest influence was in advocating for a complete split between history and faith (see my post yesterday about this subject). He advocated “demythologizing” the New Testament by stripping it of any supernatural content, thus discovering the true history behind it. Actually, he claimed that the Gospels were not even historical documents, but merely the proclamation of the message of the early Christian community. Even though not all the specifics of Bultmann’s teachings are accepted in modern scholarship, his underlying presuppositions and assumptions still rule the world of Scripture scholarship and Christology.

One of the primary purposes of Pope Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth series is to combat the work of Bultmann and his followers; in fact, the pope directly addresses Bultmann and his arguments numerous times in the first volume of Jesus of Nazareth. Pope Benedict recognizes that true faith and history are not in opposition, but instead that the Christian faith is founded on real historical events. Another critic of Bultmann’s false separation has been Fr. Benedict Groeschel, C.F.R. I was humbled when Fr. Benedict considered my book Who is Jesus Christ? Unlocking the Mystery in the Gospel of Matthew, which uses modern scholarship but is not a scholarly work, as one small contribution in combating the false presuppositions and conclusions of Bultmann. Fr. Benedict writes in the Foreword:

Beginning with the pope himself, the effort to present the faithful with an adequate picture of Christ is well underway. It is an effort well supported by Eric Sammons. I hope that in years to come, he will follow this book up with later volumes on the other evangelists. I also hope that we will see more and more books like this, intelligent and erudite, yet accessible, on our Divine Savior and his life and personality. It is time to reject and reverse the influence of writers like Rudolf Bultmann, who dismantled the picture of Christ, leaving us only with remnants. In the place of such destruction we now have books like Who Is Jesus Christ? Unlocking the Mystery in the Gospel of Matthew — books that rebuild or, rather, reveal anew the true picture of Christ.

We must always remember that our Christian Faith is not founded on myths in some pre-historic past, but on the historical and reliable witness of the first followers of Christ.

One of the most influential books in East-West relations is “After Nine Hundred Years,” written by Yves Congar in the 1950′s – nine hundred years after the mutual excommunications of 1054. In this book, Congar posits that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are not really in a state of schism, but of “estrangement.” By this he means that there was no formal act of schism by either side (the 1054 excommunications were not considered by anyone contemporary to them to be such an act), but instead the two churches simply grew apart over time until they finally acknowledged that they were no longer in communion with each other. Such an outlook has profound implications for how one views our current lack of communion.

I had heard about this book for years but never could get my hands on it because it is long out of print. I finally found it at a used book store about two years ago. But now, thanks to the wonders of the internet and expiring copyrights, it is available for free online. I highly recommend it.

This looks quite interesting:

And if that looks interesting to you as well, I highly recommend the movie “Ostrov,” which can be seen in its entirety on YouTube.

One of the most common positions of the scholarly community over the past one hundred years is to distinguish between the “Jesus of history” from the “Christ of faith.” The “Jesus of history” was the walking, talking historical Jesus of Nazareth who was born of Mary, preached in Galilee and Judea and was killed by the Roman authorities. The “Christ of faith,” on the other hand, is the creation of the early Christian community – especially St. Paul – and does not necessarily have any connection with Jesus of Nazareth. Any “appearances” of Jesus after his death are seen as possible apparitions and/or visions (or even hallucinations), but they are not appearances of a resurrected Jesus.

Many of the scholars who posit this theory even claim to be Christian believers. They believe that God really did work through Jesus during his life and confirmed Jesus as His messenger by giving the early Christian community these visions of a glorified, heavenly Christ. But to think that the actual physical body of Jesus of Nazareth was reanimated in some way is preposterous.

There is a major, glaring problem with this theory: the empty tomb.

If the first Christians had simply claimed to see visions of Jesus, but one could find his body rotting in the tomb, then all would realize that they mean purely heavenly visions. But one of the central themes of the early Christian preaching was that the tomb was empty and that they had seen the Lord and even touched him and ate with him. Every Gospel account emphasizes the empty tomb (Matt. 28:1-9, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-8, John 20:1-9), and Matthew even tells us that a common attack against the early Christians was that they had stolen the body of Jesus (Matt. 28:11-15), again focusing on the historical fact that the tomb was empty. If the Gospel writers or first Christians were lying about the empty tomb, then it would have been easy enough to call their bluff and prove them wrong: just check the tomb.

But perhaps they did steal the body? Perhaps this was all an elaborate ruse foisted on the public by distraught followers of a disgraced would-be Messiah. This brings us to another striking feature of the early accounts of Christ’s resurrection: they don’t actually recount his resurrection. All of the accounts follow this pattern: (1) Jesus died on the cross; (2) his dead body was placed in a tomb; (3) three days later his tomb was empty; and (4) after that some people encountered Jesus in a physical, yet different, body.

If the first Christians had stolen the body and invented tales of resurrection, surely they would have included actual tales of resurrection, wouldn’t they? But instead they are silent about the most vital part of the story: the rising of his dead body to life. This indicates veracity, for an invented tale is much more likely to fill in an important detail like that. But if it actually happened as they claimed, then the first Christians would be unable to recount the actual resurrection, as there was no eyewitness to that event. They would have been bound to be truthful about what really happened.

Ultimately, the theory that there is no direct connection between the “Jesus of history” and the “Christ of faith” needs to be buried in its own tomb. All of the evidence points to the fact that the first Christians believed wholeheartedly – and enough to give their lives for the belief – that the historical Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead and is the Christ in which they trust for their salvation.

…or, at least Huldrych Zwingli claimed it was.

On August 17, 1525, Zwingli, a leader in the Swiss Protestant Reformation, published the book “Subsidium sive coronis de eucharistia” in which he defended his novel belief that the bread and wine of the Eucharist were only symbols. He also rejected the idea that the Eucharistic liturgy was a sacrifice, relegating it to merely a “remembrance.” The reverberations of this book cannot be underestimated: today, the vast majority of Protestants accept Zwingli’s view, often not even realizing that it was not the view of Luther or even Calvin.

Reducing the Eucharist to a mere symbol has had profound effects, but the greatest is the disunity that has prevailed in Western Christendom since the Reformation. As I wrote in Who is Jesus Christ? Unlocking the Mystery in the Gospel of Matthew in the chapter entitled “Shepherd”:

[U]nity in the Church is not the result of theological conformity; rather, theological agreement is the result of a preexisting unity founded upon the Eucharist. It is not coincidental that the greatest case of disunity in the Church — the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation — included a denigration of the Eucharist to merely a symbol of Christ rather than His real Presence. No longer bound by the Eucharist, the leaders of the Reformation began a never-ending proliferation of new denominations and Christian bodies.
The Church is not united based on the desires and strengths of men, but because of the unifying grace of the Eucharist. Without it, our fallen race is guaranteed to be divided. Thus, those who are still united through the Eucharist should not look upon these sad events in a spirit of pride or triumphalism; it is not of man’s power that the Church remains united. Only — only — by the presence of the Shepherd in the Eucharist can it hope to remain one flock. Without Him as the source of unity, his followers will truly be a flock that is scattered.

Let us pray that one day all Christians will be united in the one Eucharistic Body of the Lord, which is no mere symbol, but is truly the Real Presence of Christ among us.

Today it is common for “sophisticated” Catholics as well as non-Catholics to scoff at pious practices of the past, such as asking St. Anthony’s intercession in finding lost objects. But I for one think such practices are completely legitimate and well within our Faith.

Yesterday I was trying to find our checkbook before Mass. My wife and I had looked everywhere for it during the past week, but could not find it anywhere. I was about to give up and break into a new set of checks when I remembered St. Anthony. I said a quick prayer asking him to help me find it before Mass. A few minutes later I was talking to my wife and she remembered then that the checkbook was in the pool bag. Thank you St. Anthony!

Then I figured I had his attention, so I asked him for help in finding my son’s belt. It had been missing for over a month. I walk into his room, look under his bed (which I had looked under numerous times in the past month), and voila! there it was! St. Anthony was on a roll!

I might be unsophisticated, but at least I don’t lose things for very long.

St. Anthony, pray for us!

On a happier note, Catholics Come Home continues their excellent work to bring fallen-away Catholics back into the Church:

Over a year ago, I wrote about a dispute in Cleveland which arose as a result of the bishop closing some parishes. I noted that no matter how the bishop handled the parish closings, Catholics must remain in communion with him and recognize that he has the authority to take these actions. One of the men involved in fighting the bishop, Bob Kloos, commented on my post and defended his position.

Now it looks like Mr. Kloos and others have gone the way of so many others who dispute the authority of their bishop: schism.

CLEVELAND, Ohio — Defying the authority of their bishop, parishioners and their priest from the closed St. Peter Catholic Church in downtown Cleveland celebrated Mass Sunday in leased commercial space they transformed into a church independent of the Cleveland Catholic Diocese.

The move by the new Community of St. Peter puts members in danger of excommunication because they had been warned by Bishop Richard Lennon, who shuttered St. Peter’s in April, not to hold worship services in places without his approval.

Still, about 350 people, joined by their spiritual leader, the Rev. Robert Marrone, gathered for their first Mass and communion in their new home — a newly renovated, century-old building on Euclid Avenue and East 71st Street.

“This feels real good,” said parishioner Bob Kloos of Cleveland Heights. “This is the handiwork of hundreds of people over many, many months.”

This is so very sad. Whenever anyone removes themselves from the communion of the Church we should all weep in sorrow; nothing good can come out of it. Unfortunately, too many Catholics today do not recognize vital connection between following Christ and being a member of his Body here on earth, the Church. The Protestant ethos – in which we follow Christ individually and without reference to others – has inflicted Catholics far too often.

Of course, all of this is evidence of poor catechesis, so it should not be surprising that it is the former pastor of St. Peter’s who is leading the charge:

“I see this as an act of disobedience, not a schism,” Marrone said in an interview before the new space was opened. “But I suspect we’ll get accused of schism.”

This is nothing but double-talk: disobedience is schism. When you disobey a legitimate order of your bishop (and there is no question that this closing was a legitimate action by the bishop), you put yourself into schism. Fr. Marrone probably realizes that disobedience (and its attending “rebel” image) plays better in the press than schism.

Pray for these members of the former St. Peter’s parish that they might return to communion with the successor of St. Peter, the Pope.

This sounds a bit like the old standard, “Who is buried in Grant’s tomb?” But of course the answer to many people today is no longer the obvious one: the apostle Matthew.

I have studied the issue of the authorship of the New Testament books for over a decade now, and my own thoughts on the matter have varied over the years. When I was an Evangelical Christian, I unthinkingly accepted the traditional authorship of all the NT books – Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, Paul wrote the epistles which bear his name, etc. However, a few years after becoming Catholic and studying the issue more in-depth, I began to accept the scholarly consensus: that many NT books, including all of the Gospels except perhaps Luke, were not written by the traditionally-accepted author. After resting on that opinion for a few years, I then revisited the debate and the more I studied the issue, the less confident I grew in the “established” scholarship. So much of it, on further analysis, was based on false presuppositions and wild assumptions. Then, when I was writing my book Who is Jesus Christ? Unlocking the Mystery in the Gospel of Matthew (available for pre-order now!), the issue came up again, as I had to decide if I was going to assume that the apostle Matthew was the author of this Gospel or not.

Ultimately, I have stuck to my final conclusion: I find that there is no reason not to accept the apostle Matthew as the author of the Gospel of Matthew. I don’t hold this as 100% scientifically provable, but no scholarly argument convinces me otherwise. In fact, I find many of the hypotheses posited for non-Matthean authorship to require a great deal more faith than just recognizing the apostle as the author. Furthermore, most of the arguments advanced in favor of authorship by a “Matthean community” (which never seems to include Matthew himself) rests on extreme speculation which has no empirical evidence.

I do believe it is quite possible that the Gospel as we have it today is not in every word exactly like the one that Matthew himself wrote. In fact, it is an ancient tradition that Matthew wrote his Gospel originally in “Hebrew” (most likely Aramaic) and then it was later translated into Greek. This process of translation, as well as the process of copying and distribution, might very well have edited the product which Matthew wrote. But, on a whole, the Gospel reflects the writing of Matthew himself (an aside: I also reject the Mark-Q two-source hypothesis and believe that Matthew was the first Gospel written, but I won’t get into that here).

But how important is authorship? As Catholics, we believe that the NT books are inspired by God and canonical because the Church led by the Holy Spirit has declared them to be so. And this belief is not founded on authorship. In other words, if Matthew didn’t write the Gospel that bears his name, it would still be an inspired writing and part of the New Testament. So authorship is not essential to the value of the text. However, most advocates of rejecting the traditional attributions of authorship also subscribe to many problematic presuppositions. For example, many of them reject that the words attributed to Jesus were actually said by Christ himself. Instead, they were inventions of the later Christian community. Obviously, if a first-hand witness like Matthew actually wrote his Gospel, these assumptions are much harder to sustain. But if the Gospel was instead written solely by a later Christian community, such a position becomes much more tenable, and can then lead to the denial of many Christian beliefs.

Therefore, I have seen no strong reason to reject the traditional consensus of the Church that the apostle Matthew is the author of the Gospel which bears his name. I do think the process in which this Gospel was produced was not as simple as Matthew merely writing exactly the Gospel we have today, but at the same time, the title “author” is a legitimate one for the former tax-collector.

Every follower of Christ wants to draw closer to their Lord throughout their lifetime. And our Lord in his great mercy has given us many means to do so: the sacraments, prayer, works of service, etc. These all help us to become more like Christ and thus draw closer to him. But I would argue that there is another aspect of growth in the spiritual life that is just as important, and it all revolves around one word.

That word is “no”.

Christ told his disciples, “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me” (Matthew 16:24, emphasis added). If you wish to come after Christ, then you must deny yourself – you must say “no” to your passions and your own desires and instead follow the path that Christ lays out before you. At baptism we are cleansed of the stain of original sin, but the effects of original sin still remain in us. We are a fallen race and that means we are a selfish race. Our desires are disordered and are not in conformity with God’s desires. Thus, we must say “no” to our own desires throughout our lives. These “no’s” can be to major sins:

• “No” to murder
• “No” to adultery
• “No” to stealing
• “No” to pornography

But we also must get in the habit of saying “no” to our little desires as well:

• “No” to the extra helping at dinner
• “No” to taking the most comfortable seat in the room
• “No” to giving our own opinion in every conversation
• “No” to watching TV every night
• “No” to wasting time on the Internet
• “No” to sleeping in

For most of us, it is the little “no’s” that are most important, as we are not directly tempted to the major sins. But giving in to the little “no’s” can lead to a selfish lifestyle, which is contrary to the Gospel (and can weaken our resolve against the major sins). Refusing to say no to our little desires on a regular basis leads to greater attachment to the things of this world, which weakens our attachment to our Lord.

In the spiritual classic “The Way”, St. Josemaría Escrivá writes simply, “Get used to saying No” (Point 5). This is advice we all should follow if we wish to grow in the spiritual life.

One of the greatest dangers for any Christian is being subsumed by his culture. Every person is a member of his culture and this membership shapes the way he thinks and lives. Often there is no harm in this, but when the culture espouses something counter to the Gospel, then it becomes quite dangerous. Here in America, Christians must fight against many anti-Christian trends in the culture, especially those which are anti-life. But there is another cultural force which I believe can be even more dangerous because it is less obvious: materialism.

Our culture is so prosperous that our standard of what it means to be poor has radically changed over the past century. Someone who felt financially well-off a hundred years ago would be considered dirt-poor today. By just about any historical standard, the vast majority of modern Americans are rich. Yet Christ time and time again warned that the rich will have a very difficult time in obtaining salvation. In fact, there is one particular parable Christ told that applies to most of us today:

“Take care to guard against all greed,
for though one may be rich,
one’s life does not consist of possessions.”

Then he told them a parable.
“There was a rich man whose land produced a bountiful harvest.
He asked himself, ‘What shall I do,
for I do not have space to store my harvest?’
And he said, ‘This is what I shall do:
I shall tear down my barns and build larger ones.
There I shall store all my grain and other goods
and I shall say to myself, “Now as for you,
you have so many good things stored up for many years,
rest, eat, drink, be merry!”’
But God said to him,
‘You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you;
and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?’
Thus will it be for all who store up treasure for themselves
but are not rich in what matters to God.” (Luke 12:15-21)

I would argue that the primary problem most of us have today is not making a lot of money (by historical standards), but in having a lot of possessions. In other words, what do we buy with our money? Are our houses filled to the brim with our things? Is our security found in the Lord or in our possessions?

There is one man who is trying to detach himself from the things of this world in an admirable way: Dave Bruno, who has started the 100 Thing Challenge:

The 100 Thing Challenge has been my little way to personalize my efforts to fight American-style consumerism…

The goal of the 100 Thing Challenge is to break free from the confining habits of American-style consumerism. A lot [of] people around the world feel “stuck in stuff.” They feel like their closets and garages are too full of things that don’t really make their lives much better. But how to get unstuck?

Reduce (get rid of some of your stuff)

Refuse (to get more new stuff)

Rejigger (your priorities)

I totally believe that living without abundance of personal possessions for an extended period of time is the first step we ought to take in order to realize that we don’t need ever-more stuff. If you do this — if you will give up your stuff for a while — I am sure you’ll never go back. You’ll spend the rest of your life creating a more valuable life, instead of wasting your money and time on stuff. You will be glad. And best of all, the people around you will be blessed by your efforts to prioritize more meaningful pursuits.

Dave decided to live with only 100 “things,” which includes ALL his possessions: clothes, gadgets, books, etc. I think this is a great idea and one everyone could try. It doesn’t have to be exactly 100 things, but I’m willing to bet each of us could look through our possessions and realize that many are not needed. And going forward, I’m sure there are a large number of things we want to buy that are not really needed. In doing so, we might end up putting more faith in the Lord instead of our possessions to make us happy and fulfilled.

So, how many things do you have? How many do you actually need?

Over at Called to Communion there is a wonderful article by an Eastern Catholic recounting the difference between the Orthodox and Catholic viewpoints on Holy Orders, and noting that this difference convinced him to remain Catholic. It has the very provocative title “I love the Orthodox too much to be Orthodox (or How I learned to stop worrying and love the atomic bomb of Holy Orders)“. It begins:

In a previous blog post, I wrote about the joys and similarities which bind together the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. As tragic as our lack of full communion with one another is, there is a bond which unites us even now while our sacramental reunion is mostly a hope for the future. This bond is so deep in my estimation that it is with much fear and trembling that I write this post. But to be honest to my conscience and to my understanding of the Apostolic Churches that are not in full communion with one another, I must state it loud and state it clear: I love the Orthodox too much to be Orthodox.

This paradoxical statement is not for shock purposes-it is wholly and entirely true. As one who is in communion with Rome via an Eastern Catholic Church, I find this to be an inevitable conclusion.

Continue reading…

Thank you to all those who have prayed for Fr. Francis Martin, who had a heart attack last week while in Copenhagen. He has stabilized and is doing much better. You can get updates on his progress at this website:

CaringBridge – Fr. Francis Martin

Keep praying!

Fascinating information for all bibliophiles like myself: Google has determined that 129,864,880 different books have been published in the entire history of publishing. Other interesting facts:

• Books have been published in about 480 languages (including 3 in the Klingon language).
• 20% of all books are in the public domain.
• 10-15% of all books are currently in print.
• The rest are out-of-print but still under copyright.

I figure I have read perhaps 2,000 books in my lifetime, which is approximately 0.001540062% of all books ever published. I sure have some work to do!