Malachi 1 and the Eucharist

After complaining of the insufficiency of the Jewish sacrifice in Malachi 1, God provides a fascinating foretaste of the New Covenant in Malachi 1:11: "My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations," says the LORD Almighty."

I was reminded of this recently, as an agnostic asked if this was about the Eucharist. She's right, it is. It's also a complete refutation that there are no further sacrifices in the New Covenant, because God Himself says that there will be "from the rising to the setting of the sun," which is to say, globally, "in every place."

I was aware that this was a prophesy which the Church Fathers were fond of for proving the Eucharist, and that the Mass was a Sacrifice, but I couldn't remember exact quotes. Fortunately, Catholic Answers came through, and mentions 3 early Christian sources which rely on this specific verse:

• The Didache (70 A.D.)
  

"Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

• Justin Martyr (A.D. 155)
  

"God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).

• Irenaeus (A.D. 189)
  

"He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles" (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).

Happy Feast of the Holy Family!

Sunday is the Feast of the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. The Gospel for this Sunday is Luke 2:41-52:

Each year Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem for the feast of Passover, and when he was twelve years old, they went up according to festival custom. After they had completed its days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus remained behind in Jerusalem, but his parents did not know it. Thinking that he was in the caravan, they journeyed for a day and looked for him among their relatives and acquaintances, but not finding him, they returned to Jerusalem to look for him.

After three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions, and all who heard him were astounded at his understanding and his answers. When his parents saw him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety.” And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” But they did not understand what he said to them.

He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart. And Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and favor before God and man.

I love this passage, because there's a lot hidden just beneath the surface. At first, this passage seems sort of a strange inclusion on Luke's part, as the only info he provides up about Jesus between age 1 and 30. In fact, it sounds to the casual reader as if Jesus is rebuking His Mother (this was, unfortunately, the mistake which even our priest at the Vigil Mass tonight made in an otherwise decent homily on the importance of tending to our spiritual family, the Church). On the contrary, He's teaching Her, and providing Her an amazing gift.* And the Gospel even makes a note of His obedience to Mary and Joseph towards the end. After all, He's perfect, the Ten Commandments instruct us to honor our father and mother, and Jesus does so. Here, He's honoring both simultaneously, although that may not be immediately clear.

Of everyone in the world beside Jesus Himself, His Crucifixion was hardest on His Mom. She knows that Jesus has to die for Her own salvation (cf. Luke 1:47), and so She bears what any of us mindful of the terrible debt He had to pay for us must bear. But She also bears the burden of watching a Son humiliated, tortured, and killed in Her presence. This isn't just common sense, it's suggested in the prophesy of Simeon from Luke 2:34-35. As Simeon prophesies to Mary that Her Son will be "destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed," he warns Her that "a sword will pierce through your own soul, too."

So what does the twelve-year old Jesus do? He follows the will of His Heavenly Father, and remains in the Temple, knowing that He'll seem to be lost to Her. And note the timing. It's Passover, and He's lost to Her for three days. It's a foretaste of the Passion. I'm speculating here, but it seems to me that the most likely reason is that this pain is a sweet relief for later: that when She watches Her Son die, a seeming failure, on the Passover, She can hope that on the Third Day She can again discover He was simply about His Father's business. This seems to have been the case, since we're told that while "they did not understand what He said to them" at the time, "His Mother kept all these things in her heart." And how does St. Luke know what Mary kept in Her heart? Well, almost certainly because She told him as he was writing his Gospel. And why mention this story? Why would Mary think it important for a Gospel writer to know about this particular incident from His Childhood? I think the answer is obvious enough - She recognized it for the very thing He intended Her to recognize it as: a foretaste of His Passion and Death.

*To preempt an argument I've heard before against the Catholic view of Our Lady, obviously one can be sinless and not omniscient. Catholics don't think Mary knew everything or is God. And even Jesus "advanced in wisdom and age and favor before God and man," so if the sinless and perfect God-Man can still learn a thing or two growing up as a Man on Earth, I think it's safe to say we don't think Mary was beyond instruction, without that disproving anything which we do believe.

Merry Christmas!

I hope everyone's having a wonderful Christmas, getting plenty of family time in, and all that. If you find yourself on the computer today, I've got a few suggestions:

1. Pope Benedict's Christmas Homily
These homilies are always good. Here's the full thing, and here's a taste:

• The first thing we are told about the shepherds is that they were on the watch. They could hear the message precisely because they were awake. We must be awake, so that we can hear the message.
  
  
• Let us return to the Christmas Gospel. It tells us that after listening to the Angel's message, the shepherds said one to another: "'Let us go over to Bethlehem' they went at once" (Lk 2:15f.). "They made haste" is literally what the Greek text says. What had been announced to them was so important that they had to go immediately. In fact, what had been said to them was utterly out of the ordinary. It changed the world. The Saviour is born. The long-awaited Son of David has come into the world in his own city. What could be more important?

• Some commentators point out that the shepherds, the simple souls, were the first to come to Jesus in the manger and to encounter the Redeemer of the world. The wise men from the East, representing those with social standing and fame, arrived much later. The commentators go on to say: this is quite natural. The shepherds lived nearby. They only needed to "come over" (cf. Lk 2:15), as we do when we go to visit our neighbours. The wise men, however, lived far away. They had to undertake a long and arduous journey in order to arrive in Bethlehem. And they needed guidance and direction. Today too there are simple and lowly souls who live very close to the Lord. They are, so to speak, his neighbours and they can easily go to see him. But most of us in the world today live far from Jesus Christ, the incarnate God who came to dwell amongst us. We live our lives by philosophies, amid worldly affairs and occupations that totally absorb us and are a great distance from the manger. In all kinds of ways, God has to prod us and reach out to us again and again, so that we can manage to escape from the muddle of our thoughts and activities and discover the way that leads to him.

• God has set out towards us. Left to ourselves we could not reach him. The path is too much for our strength. But God has come down. He comes towards us. He has travelled the longer part of the journey. Now he invites us: come and see how much I love you. Come and see that I am here.
  

• Let us once again listen directly to the Gospel. The shepherds tell one another the reason why they are setting off: "Let us see this thing that has happened." Literally the Greek text says: "Let us see this Word that has occurred there." Yes indeed, such is the radical newness of this night: the Word can be seen. For it has become flesh. The God of whom no image may be made because any image would only diminish, or rather distort him this God has himself become visible in the One who is his true image, as Saint Paul puts it (cf. 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15). In the figure of Jesus Christ, in the whole of his life and ministry, in his dying and rising, we can see the Word of God and hence the mystery of the living God himself.
  

• This is what God is like. The Angel had said to the shepherds: "This will be a sign for you: you will find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger" (Lk 2:12; cf. 2:16). God's sign, the sign given to the shepherds and to us, is not an astonishing miracle. God's sign is his humility. God's sign is that he makes himself small; he becomes a child; he lets us touch him and he asks for our love.

Honestly, the entire thing is worth quoting. It's just fantastic. In related news, Benedict was attacked tonight by a crazed woman, but is apparently unhurt, praise God!


2. Athanasius on the Incarnation
I've never read it, I've heard it was good, and C.S. Lewis wrote the intro for this translation. Plus, it's available for free, in full. And, oh yeah, it's on the Incarnation, the reason for the Season, so to speak.


3. The "Star of Bethlehem" Site.
   
A pretty interesting site exploring the astronomy and history of the birth of Christ, able to pinpoint His death to an exact date, and pointing out some shocking support for the Gospel accounts.


4. Édouard Manet's The Dead Christ with Angels ( 1864)

I know, this seems like a weird time to bring up the death of Christ, but let's face it: the Magi brought Him myrrh. Jesus Christ was born to die, as morbid as that may sound. And Manet's Dead Christ with Angels does a better job than virtually anything I know of screaming the truth of the Incarnation at us. Jesus was and is a real Man.

And that's something to celebrate.

Some Christmas Eve Humor

Gentleman Farmer at Glib & Superficial posted a terribly funny post on Santa by denomination:

Catholic Santa brings toys to all the little girls and boys who wrote letters to Mrs. Claus, because her appeals to Santa are particularly efficacious.

You never know to whom Anglican Santa will bring toys, because he suffers from multiple personality disorder. But Anglican Santa always wears the coolest Santa suit.

Pentecostal Santa delivers a great abundance of truly inspired toys. Sadly, they make no sense to anyone else.

Presbyterian Santa delivers presents based on his own inscrutable election, and not on account of any merit; but niceness is evidence that the person is one of the Elect, so we do expect to see presents going to the nice -- but only because they're elect, not because they're nice.

Fundamentalist Santa stays home on Christmas, because toys are of the Devil. Besides, he knows that all children are totally naughty and deserve only coal.

Society of Friends Santa sits passively in his sleigh on Christmas Eve, waiting quietly for the Holy Spirit to inspire him to deliver toys.

Baptist Santa delivers only commemorative plates on which are depicted actual toys, because good little Baptist girls and boys don’t believe in the real presents of Santa.

Episcopal Santa is a lesbian trapped inside a man’s body. He delivers no toys at all, but leaves pledge cards for the Save the Whales Foundation.

Conservative Lutheran Santa warns the children not to accept toys from other Santas because he is the one true Santa.

Liberal Lutheran Santa issues a statement apologizing for his past complicity in the injustices of private toy distribution, and urges government control of toy production and distribution.

Muslim Santa? Well, just don't let him park his sleigh too close to your house.

You can check the full post out here. GF tells us at the end that this "was the joint effort of a cradle Catholic, a recent Catholic convert (like your humble and obedient servant), a serious Lutheran, and our Theology Professor." All of whom, I am certain, will be getting coal.

The Healthcare Debacle Comes Home for Christmas

We can expect that today, along strict party lines (with Lieberman and Sanders voting as they caucus) the Democratic Party will pass a pretty shameful health bill. It's shameful for a number of reasons, but here are a few. They're more or less in their order of importance:

• First, it pays for abortions. Turns out that Ben Nelson played the pro-life card, not out of principle, but to get more pork for his state. We'll see if Stupak and his gang in the House have any more of a spine.
  
• Second, it's unconstitutional, now that they bought Sen. Nelson's vote for forty pieces of silver a special exemption for Nebraska. It doesn't take a Constitutional law professor (as the president who brokered this deal once was) to know that you can't tax the states separately, with explicit provisions for specially-favored states.
  
• Third, it's an enormous amount of spending during one of the worst economic crises in US history, and the benefits of the bill won't go into effect for some while: it's the equivalent of putting a down payment on a house after finding out you've lost your job.
  
• Fourth, it's being hurried through for two reasons, neither of them good. One is so the Dems won't have to pay for this during the midterms, which suggests that they're aware that barely a third of Americans support this plan (it's 36% for, 53% against), particularly its abortion coverage. A mere 23% of Americans support this part of the bill, with a whopping 72% opposed. So the Dems think that Americans aren't smart enough to know what's best for their own health, and that they're not smart enough to remember a year from now who charged them a boatload of money for something they didn't want. The other was to avoid CBO numbers. They're starting to come out now, and they're showing that Obama (amongst others) has been playing fast and loose with the numbers, lying about the impact on Medicare, etc. The Dems hope to ramrod this through today so that most people won't have read the thing (including the Senators voting on it - it's going on three thousand pages now), the hard numbers won't be out (just both sides' claims, and who's going to trust those?), and the American people will be so tired of hearing about healthcare by the next election that they'll be fixated on something else instead.
  
• Fifth, it's blatantly political. I just mentioned that the timing (which couldn't be much worse, from an economic standpoint) is tuned to the political cycle, not the economic cycle or, say, any pressing healthcare need. But it's more than that. The Democrats know that the likely outcome of this bill will be that they lose out short-term (people are mad about this, and rightfully so), but that it'll be immensely helpful long-term. Think about it. If $1 billion of taxpayer money gets dumped into this, who's going to want to nix it? We'll want to see something for our money, and switching from government-run care back to a free market model will cost a lot at first. Once in place, no matter how terrible the Dem's plan is, it'll be so expensive that any fiscal conservative saying "let's ax the billion we've spent on government care to do private care" will be as successful as someone who campaigns at a senior center to eliminate Medicare. To the extent that the Bush Administration hasn't already murdered fiscal conservatism at a federal level, this may well be the finishing touch.

The fact that this bill eviscerates the Hyde Amendment is depressing, and it's all the worse that it comes on Christmas Eve. In a way, though, the timing is incredibly apt. The Dems are trying to paint this as a Christmas gift to the American people (paid for with their own money), but I'm reminded of nothing so much as the Massacre of the Innocents:

When Herod realized that he had been deceived by the magi, he became furious. He ordered the massacre of all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had ascertained from the magi. Then was fulfilled what had been said through Jeremiah the prophet: "A voice was heard in Ramah, sobbing and loud lamentation; Rachel weeping for her children, and she would not be consoled, since they were no more." (Matthew 2:16-18, quoting Jeremiah 31:15)

Simply Incredible!

A relatively short video (subtitled) on a couple of Eucharistic videos, with descriptions of the expert testimony. It's just stunning.

h/t Fr. Gregory at Subimonk.

The Unanimous Consent of the Fathers

I mentioned earlier that I've been a bit under-impressed with Keith Mathison's The Shape of Sola Scriptura, and that he doesn't seem to have a good grip on the topic he's written a book on. The book attempts to take the creedal Protestant sola Scriptura view, and show its alleged superiority to both the Evangelical ("solo-Scriptura") and Catholic/Orthodox view (interwined and equal Scripture and Tradition, plus a Church with real Authority to interpret those two). He knows his view, but doesn't seem to know the Catholic view very well.

The best example of this is his understanding of "unanimous consent." On the subject of Matthew 16:17-19, Mathison claims that "most of the early and medieval Church interpreted the 'rock' as Christ or as Peter's faith, not as Peter himself." He then says,

But why is this important? Vatican I and numerous other Roman Catholic decrees insist that no one may interpret Scripture contrary to the "unanimous consent" of the fathers. Aside from the fact that only on a handful of doctrines will one find anything approaching "unanimous consent," this rules contradicts the modern Roman Catholic interpretation of this text. First of all, there was no unanimous consent on the meaning of the "rock." Most interpreted it as Christ. Some interpreted it as Peter's faith. A few interpreted it as Peter. (Mathison, p. 184-85)

I think he's skewing the Patristic evidence to make even this point, but no matter. The larger problem is that he doesn't understand what Vatican I and the other "decrees" are talking about. This provides a really concrete example showing what it does, and doesn't, mean:

I. What It Does Mean
The doctrine you can't interpret Scripture contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers does not mean that you can only interpret Scripture where the Fathers are in 100% agreement with one another. These instances are, as Mathison says, all too rare. Just as the four Gospels include different things, the various Church Fathers include different things, and at least some times, they throw in their own beliefs or opinions (rather than what they were taught), and stray into pretty fallible territory. If we took Mathison's view of the Catholic position, it would render the Church incapable of even forming a canon of Scripture. After all, the Church Fathers disagreed on its precise contents. I'll go so far as to say that no Church could function if it tried to affirm that every ECF agreed on the specific point before it moved forward. We believe that Tradition is Sacred, not every word that comes from the mouth of a Church Father. We read the ECFs because they're the early witnesses to the Deposit of Faith, and their writings reflect it.


II. What It Does Mean
On those core doctrines [nota bene: that's all this applies to - not, say, their scientific views] on which 100% of the Church Fathers agree, what might be considered a Patristic "Mere Christianity," it's simply impossible for the Church to take a contrary view. On these issues, it would be pretty unthinkable anyways. All the Church Fathers believe in the Divinity of Christ. It's impermissible for the Church (or anyone) to read Scripture in a way which denies the Divinity of Christ. That conclusion is barred by the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

There's a second rule which can be derived from the first, although it's less clearly in place. Where there are competing traditions, the Church can say which one is definitively Tradition, as opposed to the other Fathers' incorrect theories. So here, the Church could say that the "rock" referred to Christ, Peter's faith, Peter, or some combination of the above (most of the Fathers pretty clearly think that Jesus Christ built His [Christ's] Church on Peter because of Peter's Faith, and so the rock in question relates to at least the last two). The Church could not say that "rock" meant (say) the rocks of Caesari Phillipi, a view which has been put forward by various Protestants running from the obvious meaning of the text. That fourth view could be said to contradict the unanimous consent of the Fathers that it means Christ and/or Peter's faith and/or Peter.

To take the example of canon, from above, the Church might have been guided by the Holy Spirit to affirm the canons of any of the number of canons found in the early Church (the most frequently reported being the one which was officially declared canon). Had She claimed a different canon, that judgment would have been contrary to the consent of the Fathers: She'd be taking a view contrary to everyone of Her sources. This means, incidentally, that the Catholic Church could never have possibly derived the Protestant canon, since it's contrary to every Church Father.

I'd be interested in seeing Mathison attempt to respond to this view, rather than attacking the Church using an artificially high standard the Church doesn't hold for Herself (and which he could never meet as a Protestant).

Viva Il Papa! Deo Gratia!

Wonderful news! Pope John Paul II is now Venerable Pope John Paul II, and Pope Pius XII is now Venerable Pope Pius XII. Thanks be to God!

And my finals are now over. Thanks be to God!

And my girlfriend is now officially Catholic. Thanks be to God!

Learning from the Irish Sex Scandal

The Irish, if you're not aware, are going through a sex abuse scandal similar to what we faced in the US, only compounded by the fact that these abuses often occurred at boarding schools with plenty of other problems (including physical abuse). All of this was sort of dumped on a relatively unsuspecting Irish public all at once. There had been more minor sex abuse furors in the past, but the recent Murphy Report has been devastating. Fortunately, the Irish are blessed with something we Americans haven't been so far: a Bishop unafraid to publicly humiliate other bishops who need to be publicly called to the floor. In their case, it's Dublin Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, a walking incarnation of Galatians 2 when he's most desperately needed.

It's worked wonders. Abp. Martin was called to the Vatican to discuss how to handle the crisis. Limerick's Bishop Donal Murray, an old Auxiliary Bishop of Dublin who was a priest-shuffler, has resigned. And in the midst of all this tragedy, some lessons are hopefully being learned. Diogenes offers one: that a bishop is supposed to be a ruler, not a leader. It's a surprising - counterintuitive and certainly countercultural - conclusion, but with a little help from one C.S. Lewis, I think he proves his case quite nicely.

The post is short and worth the read, and I'm curious as to others' reactions.

Sow the Seeds of Abortion...

...Reap the crop of infanticide.

A woman murdered her newborn baby, but because the umbilical cord was still attached, it was just a postnatal abortion.

She won't be charged.

This is that nightmare scenario pro-lifers have been warning about, where legal abortion leaves the womb.