It all began when a friend asked me to look at a book (nice phrase, 'look at a book') for his class--what Mizzou was calling Religious Studies 104 at the time--"The Many Faces of Christology" (the study of interpreting Christ and His work). The introduction struck me, because the author said that he had wrestled through doubt in his twenties, proclaiming himself a Marxist. Yet, he continued to receive Holy Communion, saying that it eventually became a confirmation of his identity. The discovery was union with Christ, and it had never been broken truly. (Marxism in truest form is openly hostile to the gospel; incidentally, so is the humanistic basis of some forms of libertarianism, e.g. Objectivism) As I realize that the plain offer of the gospel is manifest in the bread and cup, it is also apparent that the eucharistic celebration is the confirmation of my identity, of my place in the body of Christ, and the heart of our mission. We cannot make disciples if we do not know whether we are disciples. Fellowship, indeed! But the Protestant caveats regarding the Supper are wise; shortcutting the obligation of faith by way of the sacrament is arguably a more damaging error than bare memorialism. Zwingli (and others) should acknowledge their errors, and join us at the card table. Exhibits 1 and 2 in the Church Museum of Destructive Errors should be memorialism, and the Council of Trent. You Catholics out there know very well that the earliest Protestant Reformers weren't heretics! Bother dogma. A certain German friar may have been impetuous, uncharitable, and downright ornery, but he had a point, in doctrine and in practice. (Did you type 'obligation of faith' up there? What sort of Calvinist are you?--ed.) The Arminian kind! Just kidding, Missouri Presbytery! (God-willing, my future colleagues.) Should I start submitting this website to my elders? Crap, I hope not.
Update: I read the whole thing. I’m sorry, but what a weirdo. I thought you [Tom Darrow, of Denver, CO] made a trenchant case for why lockdowns are bad, and I definitely appreciated it. But a graduation speech is *not* the place for that. Secondly, this is an august event. It always is. I would never address the President of the United States in this manner. Never. Even the previous president, though he deserves it, if anyone does. Thirdly, the affirmations of Catholic identity should be more general. He has no authority to propound with specificity on all matters of great consequence. It has all the hallmarks of a culture war broadside, and again, a layman shouldn’t speak like this. The respect and reverence due the clergy is *always due,* even if they are weak, and outright wrong. We just don’t brush them aside like corrupt Mafia dons, to make a point. Fourthly, I don’t know where anyone gets the idea that the TLM is how God demands to be worshipped. The Church doesn’t teach that. ...
Comments