"Jesus Christ’s Resurrection Is Probably The Best-Documented Historical Event Ever"

Amici,

A worthwhile article (a vignette from a book) at The Federalist is worth review. It is titled, "Jesus Christ’s Resurrection Is Probably The Best-Documented Historical Event Ever". (The 'ever' tacked on the end gives it a sort of adolescent quality, but still...)

Scott S. Powell is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, an Intelligent Design policy think tank in (what remains of burnt-out) Seattle, Washington. Non-Christian scientists call Intelligent Design "pseudo-science" but look what our "scientists" KNOW for certain, i.e. Covid, et al. Ask a "scientist" to please produce an actual virion of the Covid-19 virus and see what sort of reaction you get.

But whatever about that, Powell, probably a Protestant, details a concise review of the evidence here about the Resurrection being truly historical. So, at this Easter, while one can read a classically orthodox Catholic essay on Our Lord's Passion, as with Fr. Zuhlsdorf here at OnePeterFive, I think it is always interesting to read about certain Christian episodes from a Protestant perspective. It shows how close and how far, how familiar and unfamiliar, the difference Protestant denominations can be from Traditional Catholicism (Vatican II Catholicism is basically the Anglican Church speaking Italian, with lavender ruffles and flourishes).

For instance, this Powell article has some full-throated recognition of the significance of the report in First Corinthians about the witnesses to the Resurrection. I.e.:

The New Testament provides accounts from multiple sources who witnessed Jesus firsthand after the resurrection. In fact, Jesus made ten separate appearances to his disciples between the resurrection and his ascension into Heaven, over a period of 40 days. Some of those appearances were to individual disciples, some were to several disciples at the same time, and once even to 500 at one time.

Powell got this from First Corinthians, an epistle famous among Catholic apologists for defending the divine nature of the Most Holy Eucharist in the second-half of chapter 11.

It is from chapter 15 that Mr. Powell got his references above. I.e.:

³ For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, ⁴ that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, ⁵ and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. ⁶ Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. ⁷ Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. ⁸ Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. ⁹ For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

This reference to Our Risen Lord appearing to St. Peter (Cephas) and then the Twelve leaves out the women. Christ first appeared to Mary Magdalene (Mk.16:9, Jn. 20:15-17). He next appeared to: "Joanna and Mary, the mother of James, and the other women with them" (Mt. 28:9-10). But St. Paul doesn't mention that. Women's testimony had little worth in Semitic cultures. In the second chapter of the Quran, Al-Baqarah, verse 2:282 provides a basis for the rule that two women are the equivalent of one man in providing a witness testimony in financial situations. In some Muslim traditional cultures, even this is too much; they do not accept women's testimony at all, unless a man can testify along with them.

Alright, so aside from that, St. Paul, in this earliest written (spring of 56 A.D.; cool how they can know that) reference to the Resurrection (unless the "Hebrew" version of St. Matthew's gospel existed then) lists the men to whom Our Risen Lord appeared. St. Peter and the Apostles, naturally, but who were the 500? "A public appearance mentioned only here in the NT" is the note of a Catholic Study Bible I have. I've read other interesting commentaries in certain writers about who these 500 were and that they had been gathered for the purpose. The Catholic Study Bible's note (Curtis Mitch) only says: "For Paul, such a large group of eyewitnesses adds to the credibility of the Resurrection especially since some were still living and could verify the facts."

Yeah, but that's pretty basic. Mr Mitch is not a Classics scholar, alas. St. Paul was conversant with Classical Greek pagan literature. St. Paul would have known that in Athens, in the Periclean Age, the jury size for a man accused of a capital crime was 500. None of the writers recording Socrates trial detailed the jury size, probably because they assumed everyone would know. So, what St. Paul is saying is the he had enough witnesses to Christ's resurrection to satisfy the jury requirements of the Mediterranean world's famous city-state, Athens, in its heyday.

St. Paul, I believe, quotes from three pagan philosophers, Epimenides, Menander (who seems to have actually gotten the quote from the tragedy Aiolos by Euripides), and Aratus. St. Luke makes such quotes a couple of times in Acts. Whether these were direct quotes or just Shakespeare-like well-known commonly circulating phrases, they indicate some degree of familiarity with the Classics. St Paul in particular in his letters uses them to explain Christian teachings via the use of concepts from Greek philosophy. One scholar has noted that "1 Corinthians 12 may have been partly inspired by a similar image conjured up in Plato’s Protagoras 349c, in which Socrates uses the example of how the different parts of the face all perform very different functions from each other and from the function of the whole and yet, through the combination of all the different parts working together in harmony, they each contribute to the function of the whole." 

If true, wow. This would tie St. Paul's 500 witnesses even closer to my idea that St. Paul was thinking of a jury trial of Socrates (as well as referring to an otherwise unrecording meeting).

The Protestant historian and New Testament scholar, Gary Habermas, has "dedicated his professional life to the examination of the relevant historical, philosophical, and theological issues surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus." 

I once listened to him explain on video how St. Paul stressed the importance of his testimony here in chapter 15 by using the phrase: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received...", as Mr Habermas says this was a sort ancient version of "I swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God." This is a great insight and heightens (if any heightening is needed) the importance of St. Paul's testimony here. But what Mr. Habermas didn't say is that in chapter 11, about the Holy Eucharist,  St. Paul says, "23 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...". This time St. Paul ups the ante. "For I received FROM THE LORD what I also delivered to you." Just amazing the power of this oath that St. Paul offers. And yet Protestant scholars – or at least Mr. Habermas – miss it.

In any case, Mr. Powell's contention that the historicity of the Resurrection is on very firm footing, to put it mildly. But let's up the ante in a Catholic way, something you probably won't hear from a Vatican II trained cleric.

The Mass, the Sacred Eucharistic Liturgy, is above all a miracle, our participation in the actual Incarnation of Christ, made present to us so that as God Incarnated Himself into man, so man, through partaking of the Eucharist, can be Incarnated into God. This is the basic Christian message. It's why God didn't just declare, Allah-like, that an individual is saved upon uttering the Shahada ("I bear witness that there is no deity but God, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of God.")

There has never been a formal Christian Shahada. Romans 10:13/Acts 2:21 are often quoted as a type of Shahada. They consist of the verse, "For all those who call on the name of the Lord will be saved", and they constitute the most Protestant verses in Scripture. In context, the Romans verse is embedded in: …12For there is no difference between Jew and Greek: The same Lord is Lord of all, and gives richly to all who call on Him, 13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” 14How then can they call on the One in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe in the One of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone to preach." The context of the second is in St. Peter's famous sermon to the crowds on Pentecost.

To be "saved", one has to be "born again of the water and the spirit" (St. John's gospel: 3:5, following on verse 3 about being born again). St. John and St. Paul both stress one has to be a "new creation in Christ" St. Paul's writings are full of these. For example:

·   John 1:12 “But to all who received Him, who believed in His name, He gave power to become children of God; 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (Obviously, a new creation.)

•  2 Cor 5:17, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” (Again, a new creation.)
•  2 Peter 1:4 might well put it best;
• See also Romans, 6:4, 7:6, 12:2; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:8-12.
  
  

St. John wrote his gospel last of the four (all scholars, whether believers, agnostics, atheists, agree on that, even if they vary wildly in just when it was composed) and he knew that he had to emphasize the profundity of this Incarnational new creation theology, so he wrote out, very carefully, the sixth chapter of his gospel in which he reports Our Lord clearly saying that one must eat His flesh and drink is blood if one is to have God's life within him. And St. John also emphasized that Christ was not being metaphorical, as He let many – if not most – of His followers walk away.

But the point I wish to particularly stress about the Holy Eucharist is in relation to St. Paul's formal oath-giving testimony to the Resurrection: for the Holy Eucharist is a sacrament, meaning an oath, in itself. It is a blood oath, the most profound kind, wherein Catholic bishops and priests from that scene in 1 Corinthians 15 down to this day swear, and swear on the very Body and Blood of God, that "for I received FROM THE LORD what I also delivered to you" that we saw the Risen Christ, met with Him, spoke with Him, and ate with Him.

The Most Holy Eucharist is not just the means of our salvation, but also a blood-oath we Historical Christians (Catholics, the 14 Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox) have been participating in for 2000 years. It is a witness of the most penetrating kind, with the most unfathomable consequences for our souls.

So, my friends, this might be worth a bit of reflection this Easter season, as we stand on the brink of horrible war, unprecedented global propaganda, and Deep State/Great Reset-generated civilizational collapse.

Christus vincit, 

Christus regnat, 

Christus imperat!

An Préachán

"The Pope of Mercy...Has he nothing better to do at Christmas? Is he possessed, or just senile?"

 Amici,

Overview

Alas, another day, another shockingly insane edict that goes against everything we've known throughout our lives to be worthy and good. This time please note it alights on us from Pope Francis' henchmen, creatures, and hangers-on, rather than Tony Fauci or Joe Biden or Boris Johnson or the governments of Austria or Germany or Australia/New Zealand/New York/California (i.e, the creatures and hangers-on of Bill Gates, George Soros, and of course, Klaus Schwab).

Yes, indeed. And at a Christmas, too. Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a.k.a. Pope Francis, a.k.a. anti-pope Bergoglio, a.k.a. The Pachamama Papa has just made it clear, through a thuggish brute of a bishop sadly bearing the Irish surname Roche (this Roche slug was known for being the nastiest piece of episcopal work in all Britain when he was bishop of Leeds and so of course Bergoglio elevated him to the Vatican bureaucracy), that the Traditional Latin Mass is kaput, cut off,drawn-and-quartered, extinct, and thrown under the bus and backed over repeatedly. Then drowned. Buried. Dug up after that and sealed in a basement wall with a sour cask of wine. Etc. As Fr. Hunwicke recently put it (I paraphrase) "Yes, let's rush from 2021 not into 2022 but back to 1970!" (1970 was when the Novus Ordo was hatched upon our heads and the world.)

It's quite stunning, this news. Jaw-dropping.

I cannot exaggerate this one, my friends.

You-all know that a while ago "Bergi", that "Pope of Mercy" and "Accompaniment" and "Dialogue" issued an order, a motu proprio that was actually an insidious fatwa, titled "Traditionis Custodes" (correctly translated as "Jailers of Tradition") that severely restricted the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) after Pope Benedict tried to free it from its Modernist chains in 2007 with his motu: "Summorum Pontificum", issued on the seventh day of the seventh month of 2007, emphasizing that there are seven Covenants in the OT/NT upon which are founded the Seven Sacrament, the last of these, the Seventh Covenant, being itself the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist, the "New Covenant" via which our humble participation in makes us "New Creations in Christ", (as St. Paul liked to say, repeatedly). Benedict freed THE Sacrament/Covenant from its modern-day Babylonian Captivity.

And now today you may have heard Bergoglio and his peeps have just rung the TLM's death-knell, or so they hope. It's supposed to be the second of a "one-two punch".

• Theoretically, of course, this is impossible. Popes and bishops and priests and theologians are guardians of tradition, not its jailers or rewriters. A pope can't just overturn a previous pope's dicta, assuming those were in accord with Tradition and Holy Writ and accepted by the Faithful, especially so after which much time has gone by. No pope sits on on the U.S. Supreme Court, cancelling precedent at a whim. Should a pope assume such power, then every new papal election would produce a new religion. But the pope is not the prophet of the Mormon Church, a position of which the man who occupies it can change anything he wants, whenever he wants it.
• But Pope Francis apparently is a Mormon, or at least a TV preacher: he thinks nothing of tossing aside Sacred Tradition as he has demonstrated time and time again. That's not something a valid pope can do, let alone would try to do, so I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.
  
• And anyway, tossing aside the central act of worship of the Church, the Seventh Covenant and greatest Sacrament, something in which the Most Holy Eucharist, itself the New Covenant/New Testament and the means of our salvation, has been worshiped in the West in for nearly two millennia, something in place since the early Christian "dream-time", is literally insane. As Pope Benedict mildly put it, something that "was sacred, remains sacred and cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful."
  
• Bottom line: whereas Paul VI cried (he was always weeping) when he found out what the infamous Freemason "Grace of Ba'al" Bugnini did to the Liturgy, Pope Francis grins.
  

For details, here's the report from The Remnant Newspaper, written by Michael J. Matt.

Please note The Remnant provides the actual dubia, questions and Roche's answers.

An excerpt:

Remnant Editor's Introduction

It is indeed reassuring to know that Francis will—in fact and on occasion—answer certain dubia raised by his bishops, even if we’re still waiting for an answer to those raised by Raymond Cardinal Burke et al some years ago regarding Amoris Laetitia and the pope’s decision to authorize unrepentant public adulterers to receive the Sacraments.

These days the pope's got more important things to think about, which is evidently why he swiftly answered the dubia of bishops wanting clarity on when and just how fast the Church of Accompaniment is to abandon millions of Traditional Catholics around the world who adhere to the Traditional Mass and Sacraments.

Those dubia have been most efficiently and expertly addressed by the 85-year-old Pontiff a day after his birthday and a week before Christmas. In a nutshell, the Pope of Mercy has officially proclaimed that it is time for the Traditional Catholics of the world to, well, go to hell.

Pope Francis’s March to the Sea soldiers on, but not against abortion, apostasy, or gay ‘marriage’. No, nothing like that. But against the Sacraments of the Catholic Faith, instituted by Christ Himself to give grace.

No matter what religion you are, you must pay attention to this because it has everything to do with tyranny and injustice for all. The Chaplain of the New World Order is old, he’s angry, and he’s hell bent on helping his globalist friends demolish the last line of defense against what Pope John Paul II called the “Silent Apostasy” and now, I would argue, against the nascent New World Order itself.

To the proposed question:

Why would a pope be cracking down on faithful Catholics in the middle of a worldwide lockdown, at Christmastime, and when millions are afraid, out of work and suffering economic collapse? He’s got nothing better to do? This is the moment when this obsessed globalist decides he needs to take away the spiritual consolation of millions of faithful (any disproportionately young) Catholics? Is he possessed, or just senile?

The answer is: 

Francis is implementing a global ban on Old Normal Catholicism in order to make room for the New Normal Religion of Equity and Climate Change.

A monstrous act by a monstrous little man, to be sure. But here's the thing: The monster has jumped the shark. This is not 1972. The world can see clearly now that the Novus Ordo experiment has left the Church in the shambles of global clerical sex scandal and silent apostasy.

So when the Pachamama Papa decides to take a crack at destroying the healthiest movement left in the Church today—a movement bursting with vocations, new religious orders, new churches being built, and teeming with millions of young adherents--it's not going to go over at all well. Catholics are done with this man, which is why he will most assuredly fail in his effort to do what Paul VI and an entire Ecumenical Council failed to do some 50 years ago.  

But, by all means, Holiness, do carry on. This act of desperation only means the revolution against the Faith of our fathers has failed.  One does not persecute that which one does not fear has the potential to rise up against him.  Francis will unite the Traditional Catholic Counterrevolution--the clans--like nobody ever has. He is already awakening the sleeping giant.

And so, with all our hearts and with God as our witness, we say to Francis with una voce: WE RESIST YOU TO YOUR FACE! – Michael J. Matt

AnP again:

And of course, you can read about this new development from the Bergoglian Vatican in many articles that will be propping up over the next few days, and all the videos released, and so on. Representatives of every Catholic persuasion will be offering their opinions. But this action is so drastic that Trads of all tribes will unite against this evil. And and the "Conservative" Catholics like Robert Royal, etc., have no wiggle room any longer.

As for me, I agree with Michael Matt: i.e., Keep going, Francis. You are whistling up a firestorm, you are seeding the wind and your Modernists will inherit merely the typhoon. This is not the late 60s and early 70s; you can't get away with what the "Wrecknovators" did then. You're obviously unhinged by loathing of Trad Catholics and of the most vital, most clearly faithful branch of the Church, the wing of the Church that is growing in every way. You have a visceral fear of it. Francis, your hatred is tangible in all this. So keep going. You are the tail-end of the viciousness, and naturally you are going to go all out. But your days are numbered as were those of King Herod.

1. Standard Catholics content with the current liturgy might ask: have the Trads been actually persecuted?
   
2. They have. I mean this: since Vatican II ended, they've been openly persecuted by the Official Church since the 1960s, for Heaven's sake.
   
3. And that "persecution" included being shamelessly lied to from the beginning. I mean in every way they've been treated like guano for a half a century.
   
4. They were not welcome in the New Church, and they weren't even remotely understood by most of the ecclesiastical bigshots.
   
5. They're the only segment of Holy Church to endure this perpetual flogging, and if some might have been either confused or cowed by it as my mother's two brothers were, graduates of Aquinas High School in the 1930s (and you in Columbus know exactly what that means, the laity elite of the elite), others "went with the flow" and their children largely abandoned the Faith (as in my extended family)...
   
6. Yet a few resisted through Sauron's long Dark Age, and clearly "the signs of the times" indicate the Babylonian-Mordorian captivity is now breaking down against the obvious "Satan-Rising" age we languish in.
7. The Vatican II Church is being whisked away by indifference, total apathy, and of course Covid and all it represents: materialism, selfishness, and the new totalitarianism of The Great Reset.
   

In his terminal segment of Vatican II's "long march" to turn the Church into was is essentially a crappy NGO, Bergoglio talks to everybody on the Left of the political lines and embraces social and economic spectrums inimical to the Faith as it has been understood since the beginning. The "Pope of Mercy" wants to "accompany" all the sexually confused and economically illiterate, he wants to "accompany" adulterers and fornicators (sexual and otherwise) while actually he's quite busy desacralizing the Church. The Novus Ordo Mass – and I must brook no wobbly fence-sitting here because I lived through it, a decades long spiritual die-to-the-last man Tarawa-like (Betio Island) fight – is a desacralizing tool. (I do not mean its sacraments are invalid; that's a red-herring Modernists love to cast at us: I mean as many have been said, attending a TLM means it is impossible not to know a miracle is taking place; attending an NO needs a miracle for you to know a miracle is taking place.)

I attended NO Masses of all sorts for 40 years, and can compare them to both Melkite Liturgies and the TLM. I also grew up with Protestants and have been in and out of Protestant churches all my life (and as coincidence would have it, right now I am editing a finely crafted Presbyterian theological essay). Even now I myself could give a "down-home" sermon that would have set Billy Graham's hair on fire. Through no strength of my own (it is God's doing alone that I'm not among the standing stones of Lugh Lámhfada Samhaildánach), I am a religious-minded survivor who attended wholly secular schools that would have made Caligula blush, and trust me, I know the iconoclasm madness when it screams at me.

The excellent priest and psychologist and exorcist, Fr. Chad Ripperger, has recently said Satan told him during an exorcism that God is soon going to cut Satan's power. Soon. The timeline is set and the denizens of Hell are besides themselves with spite (Spite is the characteristic cast of mind of Hell). The denouement is almost here, though of course that doesn't mean we won't be suffering ourselves like all Hell through the long fallout.

Pope Francis' recent actions against the TLM mean his time is about over and the TLM will triumph. Bishop Athanasius Schneider says the TLM's restoration is clearly the work of the Holy Ghost and can't be stopped. Review this lovely video to remind yourselves of its ancientry and beauty, and its conformity to God's will.

An Préachán

Communism is with us today, but so is Nazism. Very much so.

Amici,

Fr. Edward Leen commented in 1937 about society being almost wholly deChristianized. 1937. The past not only "haunts" us, but it is very much alive with us, today.

For example, what was going on in the world in 1937? For one thing, Eugenics was big and so was Nazism. One of the problems the Church has had in the 20th century is she didn't frame a strong enough rebuke of either Communism or Nazism. Pius XI tried to do both and Pius XII tried to negotiate with both (esp with Communism after WWII). John 23 threw all caution to the winds, unfortunately, and surrendered the Church to the zeitgeist. The result: Communism is so obviously heavily with us today, but so is Nazism. What do you think is behind all this population control-vaccine everybody for-the-sky-is-falling-if-we-don't-submit movement? Global Warming is an essential part to it, but so our current fight with a faux plague (now shown to be mostly Influenza A and B .

Everyone has heard how Bill Gates (whose family has a eugenics past) is so big on population control; well, so is Klaus Schwab of Davos and The World Economic Forum, whose father was deeply involved in helping the Nazis in many ways, not least of which was developing the Atom bomb. An article here goes into the details. 

The author of the above piece sums up by writing, 'I’ve been trying for years to warn people about a post-war “Nazi International,” an “extra-territorial state” hiding behind a complex tapestry of corporations, funds, foundations, think tanks, and a bewildering labyrinth of interconnections, all still firmly in the grasp of a hideous ideology.' A "bewildering labyrinth of interconnections." There's "Globalism" in a nutshell, for you.

Holy Church should be in the forefront of humanity's defense against both Black Fascists (Nazis) and Red Fascists (Commies), against faux plagues and Global Warming hysteria, against medicine hitching itself to social and population control, but too much of the hierarchy seems to be in bed with all these! The current occupant of St. Peter's Chair is pushing both vaccination and Climate Change! Thus, the rest of us have nowhere to turn.

So, no wonder we're in the mess we're in. The only hope we have is in the Incarnation, as much with us (in the Most Holy Eucharist) today as He was with us 2,000 years ago. Things were bleak then. Satan ruled openly (as he does in Communist China today). But the Incarnation changed history, and will change the present. We need to pray.

An Préachán

How to witness to a non-TLM Catholic about the TLM Mass

First, never rag on what they experience, for how are they to know any better, being brought up in it? Always remember: People like what they're used to. An old adage, and a true one.

Secondly, pray and really live the beauty of the TLM in your life outside the Liturgy, or I suppose one can say, bring the Heavenly beauty of the TLM into your public life, live as through Heaven -- and the Eternal Presence of Our Lord -- is here, for He is. Stress ever the Real Presence, and that that is the great aim of the TLM and the ancient Eastern Liturgies: to celebrate Immanuel, God with us, in His Real Presence. That's the reason for all the art, the exquisite music, the vertical worship. The Lord God of Hosts became Incarnate in us in order that we could become incarnate in Him. Theosis. It's that "Faith made manifest" that attracts. Always has, always will.

An Préachán 

Reflections on Notre Dame, the Fire, the Church, Life and Eternity

Amazing story, of course, and we'll be seeing many, many articles in the near future and documentaries on down the road regarding the Holy Week Fire at Notre-Dame de Paris.

I've always liked Gothic best, and there's an old saying: "Byzantine church architecture brings Heaven down to Earth, but Gothic does your praying for you." I once quoted that to a Protestant friend of mine, a learned, widely experienced man, and he laughed for some time at the denseness of Catholics. But there it is. The Religion is indeed about Salvation, but Salvation is participating in the Incarnation of Christ, bringing God into us, ourselves, through the Most Holy Eucharist (something these churches were built precisely for). The Incarnation and the Resurrection is all about fulfilling the redemption of Creation -- starting with us, of course, but spreading out to everything, and in light of that belief, a Gothic masterpiece is an integral part of that Salvation. (And we humans were made in God's image, remember: He creates and builds; so do we.) Never forget that the First Covenant was the one God Himself made with Creation, when He blessed it and sealed that blessing on the Seventh Day. (Genesis 2:2-3) The Most Holy Eucharist is the Seventh Sacrament, the fulfillment of all the others. They're all part of each, building on the ones going before, till they come full circle, Satan flunks out; God wins. (Good) Angels are in awe of this; they spend their version of time contemplating it. And the Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve should too.

Divine symmetry, like one of Notre Dame's blessedly preserved rose windows.

Meanwhile, back to reporting...

French President Macron says they'll rebuild the church in five years. Interesting. Note that the French state owns all the churches in France. So, in whatever way they want, they call the shots.

We've all seen lots of incredible photos all around the Internet. Especially evocative is the one of the interior of the choir with the cross standing, and the Pieta beneath it. Interesting, it is said the high altar is intact while the Novus Ordo Cranmer table altar is either smashed or covered in rubble. Generally speaking, though, it is very impressive that this old girl, this 800-years-young building held up to such a fire. She did her builders proud and reconstruction certainly looks quite possible at this point. The French seemed determined and willing to pay for it. 13 million people visit Notre Dame de Paris every year. Thus, a cynic would say that if only as a tourist attraction, they'll have to try to rebuild her. But I think also this will stir the heart, and the soul, of la belle France. Hope so, at least.

And for the larger Church too, not only the Church in France, which is run by N.O. prelates (as it is in most countries) but has a very large (proportionately) Latin Mass laity. I've seen various article over the past few years suggesting that as many or more priests are ordained each year in France to say the Traditional Mass as the new one. Fascinating trend.

It took almost nine hours to bring the fire under control, more to finish it off.

Notre-Dame blaze: Emmanuel Macron vows to rebuild Paris cathedral as scale of damage emerges - latest news

The fire fighters deserve tremendous praise. Parisian firefighters, Pompiers Paris, are well-known to be world-class excellent; this was a heroic effort on their part. (Apparently they would have had to go inside to fight this fire successfully, with all that heavy timber burning and falling.) I found this U.S. firefighter's comments fascinating: https://twitter.com/GreggFavre/status/1117847726786371585

Lots of expert information and explanation from Greg Favre.

Not only is the famous Crown of Thorns relic saved, and St. Louis' cloak, and more -- it all seems joyous this outcome is the result of one man taking the initiative, none other than the fire department's chaplain: former army chaplain Father Jean-Marc Fournier http://wdtprs.com/blog/2019/04/inside-burning-notredame-a-human-chain-saved-relics-blessed-sacrament-fr-jean-marc-fournier-oorah/ and https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6927345/Fire-chaplain-helped-Bataclan-victims-entered-burning-Notre-Dame-save-Crown-Thorns-relic.html and yet again: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/johnclark/meet-the-priest-who-saved-the-blessed-sacrament-and-the-crown-of-thorns

But as noted, even much of the building itself is saved, including the famous rose windows. http://news.trust.org/item/20190416141738-746ml The towers and walls are apparently saved: https://apnews.com/0978e08a5e4848348cdb80745ab2ab8a and https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/15/notre-dame-cathedral-paris-fire-witnesses-describe-plumes-smoke/?li_source=LI&li_medium=li-recommendation-widget

An excerpt:

Paris fire brigade chief Jean-Claude Gallet said "we can consider that the main structure of Notre-Dame has been saved and preserved" as well as the two towers.

That's all miraculous in itself.

The Medieval masons who built these churches were geniuses, of course, and superb craftsmen. Vauban, the famous military and fortress architect to Louis XIV, upon first seeing 13th century Coutances Cathedral, exclaimed: "Who was the sublime madman who launched such an edifice into the air." Great quote, well worth memorizing.

They don't have such sublime madmen today, though they do have unbelievably detailed observations of these buildings, esp Notre Dame. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150622-andrew-tallon-notre-dame-cathedral-laser-scan-art-history-medieval-gothic/

That's just one example. We have the details to rebuild it. Also, of course, none of these cathedrals are any longer purely medieval. A Commentator named Keeler at TheConservativeTreehouse pointed out about that spire that fell, and other items:

"As I said below, much of the glass work, the spire, and the sculptures around the spire date to the 19th century. Some of the glass work dates to the 1960s. The organ dates to the 19th century and the underwent significant changes during the 1990s. By the early 19th century much of the interior was in poor condition and was subject to major renovation."

On the other hand, Notre-Dame de Chartres has some of the best Medieval windows and sculptures in France. But perhaps suggesting the future of the Paris Notre-Dame, recent renovation work on Chartres has caused outrage: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/arts/design/chartres-cathedral-restoration-controversial.html

An excerpt:

But Prof. Jeffrey F. Hamburger, a medieval art historian at Harvard, said that there is “no reason to be nostalgic or romantic about the dirt.” The association of Gothic buildings with “dark, brooding gloom” is “fundamentally misguided,” he said; they are “not monuments to melancholy.”

The restoration seeks to reconstitute a temple of light, to challenge the popular perception of Gothic dejection. But in doing so, it raises an intriguing question: What happens when our inherited assumptions about the past come into contact with layers of accumulated myth?

About the only continental Gothic cathedral I remember being in was the Straßburg one (thanks to Markus). The windows were great but the very darkened interior made if feel like a cavern, so I appreciate that point about there's "no reason to be nostalgic about the dirt." When finished, These churches were, when new, glowing inside and out, like jewel boxes. Even the Parthenon, when it was new back in Periclean Athens, was painted. Hagia Sophia, when finished, was hardly dark and gloomy!

Many of the big Gothic cathedrals were built in the 13th century (Notre Dame being started in 1163 and built into the 13th century, and Chartres has a similar history, with the latest rebuilding starting in the 1190s and incorporating an earlier church). The 12th and 13th centuries were the Golden Age of the Catholic Church, seconded only by the Counter-Reformation Church. The Golden Age was a recovery period after the dismal nadir of the papacy (and least until modern times) in the 10th century. So it is no wonder the churches built were sunny, brilliant, scintillating -- a good match for the sunny theology of the age.

In any event, however it proceeds, intense inspection and investigation would have to occur before anyone rebuilds Notre-Dame de Paris using what is still standing. Five years is, possibly, too optimistic.

https://www.france24.com/en/20190415-liveblog-fire-paris-france-notre-dame-cathedral

An excerpt:

The chief architect of Cologne cathedral says it could take decades to repair the damage caused to the Notre Dame cathedral by a massive fire, AP reports.

Peter Fuessenich, who oversees all construction work for the Gothic cathedral in the German city, told local broadcaster RTL on Tuesday that "it will certainly take years, perhaps even decades, until the last damage caused by this terrible fire will be completely repaired."

Cologne cathedral was heavily damaged during World War II and work to repair it is still ongoing more than 70 years later.

And of course few craftsmen exist (they do exist, though very small in number) who could work on the rebuilding, yet even so, as one commentator wrote, "The roof was built with the last of the primordial forest, which no longer exists, no trees in France left big enough." Non-French wood would have to be used, or imported, or laminated, or metal used -- the latter perhaps better protection against fire.

Rebuilding normally would be cost prohibitive. But of course this being Notre Dame de Paris, they'll not use that as an excuse. Though as I wrote above, cost isn't the only issue. As far as I understand it, if you had the money to recreate an SSJ Duesenberg boat-tailed speedster, or a Phaeton, whatever body style you wanted, it would not only be simply too cost prohibitive to recreate the famous straight-eight engine and drive train, but absolutely impossible to recreate the car bodies, as the craftsmen who made them were direct descendants of the buggy and coach makers. They had arts and methods we've lost the skill to reproduce. You'd end up with a simulacrum, not the real thing.

And also a medieval cathedral was both a work of piety and civic pride. In the "Multi-Kulti" West of today, how do you recreate that?

Pledges of money are pouring in, as the cliché puts it, with a couple of French billionaires pledging 100+ million Euros. It can be done, sure. But where are the medieval "The singing masons building roofs of gold, the civil citizens kneading up the honey, the poor mechanic porters crowding in." (Henry V, Act 1, Scene 2) Stone-mason craftsmen do still exist, and a good many are French, actually, though as I noted, they are very few.

I know when ancient craftsmen worked on the Parthenon or the Temple of Zeus at Olympia, or the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, they used jewelers' tools. Incredible, but true.

I've seen a lot of comment that unlike, say, Chartres, Notre Dame de Paris has been pretty much an art museum, just too located in just too touristy a spot for many religious purposes. Government owned it is, etc., yet I know the intensely beautiful (if that's a phrase) Chartres hosts Traditionalist Catholic pilgrimages, but I've never heard of Paris Notre Dame used in that way.

And again, maybe this tragedy will "get people's attention" in a religious sense. We'll see. I've seen online vids of bystanders singing/praying to the B.V.M. while they looked on the spectacle. https://churchpop.com/2019/04/16/enormous-crowds-sing-for-hours-outside-notre-dames-cathedral-during-fire-video-inside/ What these churches were is a stage, a theater, an enclosed reredos in which to host the Holy Mass, the ancient Western-rite liturgy; they're a Medieval recreation of Solomon's Temple, actually, built with the Temple's proportions in mind.

Finally, investigations into what caused the fire have begun. Most everyone is saying it was accidental, a result of recent restoration work. Probably that's very likely true. But regardless of that, French Catholic churches have faced an incredible stream of vandalism over the past year. Over 800 attacks, actually. It's a story not much reported on.

https://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2019/4/10/is-it-a-story-if-french-churches-are-vandalized

This here: https://pjmedia.com/faith/diabolical-islams-past-and-present-attacks-on-european-churches/ is a very important article, as well. Apparently in Bavaria and the Alpine region of Germany, 200 churches have been attacked, and France suffers about two attacks a day against churches. This is insane. Police documents say, 'Perpetrators appear to be youths of an immigrant background.

And of course, Islam has a long history of desecrating churches. Whatever caused the Notre Dame fire, these continuing attacks have to be reported in the media and the general population must discuss them. How many of you knew of this tidbit of news?

Before Christmas 2016, in the North Rhine-Westphalia region of Germany—where more than a million Muslims reside—some 50 public Christian statues (including of Jesus) were beheaded and crucifixes broken.

Conspiracy theories are lining up:

So far, I'm seeing three basic conspiracy theories on what happened. First, the French government did it so as to undercut the ongoing "Yellow-Jacket" rebellion. What better way to "unite France" by way of an accident that burned up -- but not too badly -- the most iconic building in France?

Second, Muslims did it, or, less likely, "militant secularists". The Get Religion article above records some of the incredible attacks on French Catholic Churches, and the astounding silence on this news.

Third, were this actually a Muslim attack, you'll never know (and still less if was the government!). The powers that be will keep it silent.

I am not much into conspiracy theories myself. That first theory I noted is another version of the "Bush did it" 9/11 conspiracy theory. As we're seeing with the "Russian Collusion Delusion" in the U.S., such government cover-ups usually get revealed. It might take awhile, but too many people need to be involved to pull such a thing off, and sooner or later, the truth gets out.

Otherwise, if the Muslims did it, how'd they get a fire going in the roof area? They'd have to be employees of one of the restoration outfits. Not impossible, but still unlikely.

Whatever about all that, perhaps such a catastrophe will "wake people up" to what is being lost in the Faith? We can only pray so. With most Vatican II Catholics not knowing about the miracle of the Holy Eucharist, or that the Mass is a sacrifice, the raison d'être of these buildings is no longer understood.

We've a steep, steep hill to climb.

Some interesting articles:

https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/17/notre-dames-ruin-metaphor-western-church/

An excerpt:

At the time I write this, for instance, the New York Times headlines on the story had exactly zero religious references. They did mention, of course, the building as “an iconic symbol of the beauty and history of Paris” and “a jewel of Medieval Gothic architecture.”

Here's a Ross Douthat article from the NYTimes, to give you a taste of what a "conservative" New York Times Catholic writes about:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/15/opinion/notre-dame-fire-catholic-church.html?login=smartlock&auth=login-smartlock

An excerpt:

The cathedral will be rebuilt; the cross and altar and much of the interior survived. But all preservation is provisional. The real challenge for Catholics, in this age of general post-Christian cultural exhaustion, is to look at what our ancestors did and imagine what it would mean to do that again, to build anew, to leave something behind that could stand a thousand years and still have men and women singing “Salve Regina” outside its cruciform walls, as Parisians did tonight while Notre-Dame burned.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/17/even-burned-notre-dame-remained-house-prayer/

An excerpt:

The primary function of a church, on the other hand, is something entirely different. Its purpose is not to ensure basic temporal survival, a purpose that could be met adequately, albeit unevenly, by a wide variety of structures. Rather, a church (small “c”) functions as a place to prepare for eternal life those who use it, through the ministry of the Church (big “C”) founded by Jesus Christ. In fact, to paraphrase Le Corbusier in a way that he would find absolutely appalling—which, quite frankly, pleases me no end—we can state that “A church is a machine for living.”

https://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2019/4/16/notre-dame-in-flames-what-was-lost-what-was-saved-what-was-news-what-issues-remain

An excerpt:

Watching several hours of television coverage, it became pretty apparent that it really mattered whether newsrooms had people involved in the coverage who knew anything about Catholicism and its sacraments. It was, to be blunt, the difference between news about a fire in a symbolic building, like a museum, that is important in French culture and coverage of the near total destruction of a Catholic holy place, a cathedral, at the start of Holy Week.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/17/notre-dame-isnt-just-symbol-western-civilization-symbol-heaven/

"The burning of Notre Dame is not a challenge to restore a jewel of Western civilization, it’s a call to repent and believe the gospel."

A Rod Dreher article:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/notre-dame-paris-hope-in-the-ruins/

Dreher includes a religious conversion experience he had upon first entering Chartres as a 17-year-old. And then a conversation with a "respected French philosopher" that is quite something to read. But Dreher's religious experience in Chartres brings to mind the saying "Byzantine church architecture brings Heaven down to Earth, but Gothic does your praying for you." An excerpt:

The great and glorious rose window on the west portal of the cathedral held on through the inferno! That entrance is known as the Portal of the Last Judgement. The rose window itself is a symbol of the whole of the universe — all of time, and all of human life — centered in perfect harmony around the God-Man and His mother, on whose lap He sits in the very center of the rose: the King of Creation on his throne. (A Yale professor gives some detail about that window in this short video here.)

In the Middle Ages, when Notre Dame de Paris was built, people read the visible universe allegorically. Cathedrals were called “poor people’s books,” because even the illiterate could be taught how to “read” the symbolism in the glass and stones of cathedrals. Medieval people, like most peoples before them, “read” meaning into the created world as well. At its worst, this was augury, the process of divining the future and the will of the gods by ritual — something that the Bible, in fact, forbids. But it is normal, and well within the Biblical worldview, to regard events in the world as potential messages from God. The challenge is to discern both when an event has meaning, and what that meaning is.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/16/notre-dames-destruction-monumental-loss-acoustic-treasure/

Interesting music history

Just a small sampling. Notre-Dame de Paris (and Chartres and so many others) will go on.

The Importance of the Blessed Virgin Mary, an article by David Solway, and a book by Carrie Gress titled "The Anti=Mary Exposed...."

An excellent article by David Solway at PJ Media reviewing the danger Feminism present to our civilization, focusing on a book by Carrie Gress, The Anti-Mary Exposed: Rescuing the Culture from Toxic Femininity, about demonic influence on women today, has prompted a lot of comments, with one Commentator wondering why so many Christians have such a negative attitude toward the Blessed Virgin Mary. I wrote the following in response.

Dear...,

As with "Mother_of_4_Original's response below, Protestants (the vast majority) "just don't get Mary."


The basic problem is they don't get the Covenants. Mary is integral to the establishment of the New Covenant while at the same time the fulfillment of all the old ones. When we partake of the Holy Eucharist, we take into ourselves the Real Presence of God, and that is necessary for Salvation (as in St. John, Chapter 6) – yet Protestants reject that dogma. At the Reformation, all the founding documents of the Reformed Churches rejected it. They may have kept some form of a "Lord's Supper" but denied Transubstantiation. But the central teaching of the Historical Church, East and West, is that the New Testament, the New Covenant, is the Holy Eucharist, and it is truly the Body and Blood of God. (1 Corinthians, 11:17 and following)


So therefore when we partake of the Holy Eucharist, we take on God's nature to a small extent, but it begins our transformation in Christ; the Greeks call it Theosis. It incorporates us into the great Covenants God made with the Patriarchs. We also take in some of His human nature, as well, which he received from His Mother –thus we become full biological heirs of the Covenants. (And thus one can see why the Jews and the Christians fell out early on -- the Jews obviously rejected the idea that just anybody could become a full heir of Abraham by baptism and then Holy Communion! But that's what the Christians asserted, hence the falling out. Protestants, on the other hand, miss out of all of this because of their strict rejection of the core idea of the entire Faith – Old and New Covenants.)


Anyway, Mary is thus the most important person to have ever lived: She's our Mother in Salvation, and literally our Mother, for we have the Salvation inheritance from Her through Her Son. She's the most important fully human person in herself; Jesus is both God and Man, with two Natures, fully both; but as one is a mother of a person and not merely a nature, so Mary is the Mother of God.


"Mother of God." Non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians don't get that, or they don't get the significance of what it means, that the Creator of All That Exists has a human Mother, God Himself nursed at her breast, took His very humanity from her. Learned to walk and talk from her. She was at His birth and at His death, the whole way. All they can say is "She's a human being and no different from any other human being."


That's a profound statement, incredible, really.


It's jaw-dropping. It's like missing half of the whole story! But there it is, the sad fruit of the Reformation. Ironically, Luther himself was quite devoted to Her. Protestant anti-Marianism didn't develop till a bit latter.

_An Préachán 

The Catholic Church Devolving into National Language Churches

We're living Salvation History, Amici, and it ain't easy. 

Particularly being in Judah with Ahaz as a king.

That's where we're at now. We're the True Church as Judah was the true remnant of Israel, and we (with the Orthodoxies: Eastern and "Oriental" and the Eastern Liturgy Churches in Communion with Rome) are full inheritors of the Covenants, especially the Seventh one, the New Covenant, the Holy Eucharist. But we have Ahaz as a king. We've Manasseh, we've a new Amon. 

 And while we prayerfully await a Hezekiah or a Josiah, a restitutor orbis, we're watching the kingdom fall to pieces. (Or to metaphor it in another way, we're coming to the end of our Babylonian Exile, which was what Vat II did to us Traditional Catholics: exile us to the far Euphrates.)

Whether our Peronist Caudillo is actually pope or not, he's in the driver's seat and he's shifting into ever higher gears as we near the cliff. Long, involved arguments are going on as to whether Bergoglio is a valid pope, and whether Ratzinger resigned validly, etc. In a sense, it doesn't matter what he does or who he is. This was all set in motion when the Vat2 Fathers voted their first vote, when they overthrew the Council's managers Ol' Roncalli had installed and inserted their Modernists revolutionaries. 

This is especially true when, in the "Animus" of Vatican II, they went to the vernacular. There's really no escaping a total Church break up now into constituent language-based Churches. No. Escape. That's happened before, too. First with the Copts and Syrians before the Muslims came, then with the Greeks in 1054. That's also really what the Protestant Revolution was: a language-based breakup. (As well as being the Northern Kingdom of Israel breaking off of Judah. The parallels are fascinating and striking.)

So, here we are. All those groanings and creakings you hear, all the shudders and thuds and reverberations, are the Barque of Peter breaking up on the rocks. Of course, the Good News is there'll be one Church out of the plethora of flotsam and jetsam that has the ancient Traditional Mass and it'll keep the Latin for everything else -- theology, music, etc., as well. The "nationalist-language Churches" nightmare won't affect it at all, and all will be able to see that. In comparison to the cacophonous horde of snarling combatant national Churches, this TLM-based Church will be clearly the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

And it will be a "Reconquista Church", too, I think, slowly but surely bringing back a lot of otherwise fallen-away Catholics. Maybe even a few of these "bottom-line" stone-hearted bishops, as well. The Holy Spirit can do anything.

Beáti qui hábitant in domo tua, Dómini, in sæcula sæcúlorum laudábunt te. (The Gradual from the Feast of the Holy Family.)

An Préachán

The Importance of Understanding the Biblical Covenants

The Importance of Understanding the Biblical Covenants

Foreword

While much of Christianity is a Mysterium Fidei, such as the Most Holy Trinity, all the “mysteries” of it are believed because of the basic point historically attested to, i.e. that Christ rose from the dead. THAT in turn is not something one has to “accept” on “blind faith” but rather judge on the evidence. We have two sources for this evidence.

First, St. Paul in 1 Corinthians details in the 15 chapter the men who saw the Risen Christ, and said so. He names names: Peter, the Apostles, James “Brother of the Lord” and first bishop of Jerusalem, then 500 brethren, “most of who are still alive” when he wrote this epistle, about 55 A.D. (See here for details.) Then he writes that he himself, Paul (as Saul of Tarsus) met Jesus (on the road to Damascus). The 500 is interesting, as that was the size of the jury in Golden Age Athens when a man was on trial for his life (as with Socrates). So the classically educated Paul is asserting he has evidence that would pass muster in Periclean Athens! Also, he swears this is true, using a specific formula “I give you what I have been given”, which was a “I solemnly swear to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth…” mechanism. He uses it again in the same Epistle in Chapter 11, in verse 25, where he ups it by writing, about the Real Presence in the Most Holy Eucharist, no less: “I give you what I was given by the Lord…”.

Second, the Holy Eucharist itself is a solemn oath¹: a blood oath on the Blood of God Himself, i.e. it is a sacrament, the most important of them, and generations of Catholic and Orthodox Christians have sworn, for 2,000 years now, on the Blood of God that Jesus was seen alive after His Crucifixion. Who can imagine a more solemn oath than that! Therefore, the number and nature of the witnesses, and the profoundly powerful oath, give us great confidence indeed that Jesus rose from the dead.

And one must realize that the Most Holy Eucharist is also the Seventh Covenant, the New Covenant, that God established with his people.

Essential Covenant Explanation

The whole of the Bible, and the whole of Christianity and Judaism (Islam rejects the following) is founded on God, the Creator God, the Absolute Being of the great philosophers (pagan, Jewish, Muslim, Christian), and not merely on His revelation to us, but His contractual agreements/treaties He has made with us. God makes Covenants, or treaties, contracts, with people! Islam absolutely rejects this. “Allah’s hand is not chained”(by contract or oath) says Surah 5:64 (it even damns the Jews for saying Allah makes covenants!)

So the whole of the Revelation, Old Testament and New, hangs on these Covenants, seven of them. The first is when God blesses His creation and rests on the Seventh Day, making it holy. If you read Genesis 1 and on into chapter 2, up to verse 4, where it says, “These are the generations of the Heavens and the Earth…”, that info all fits perfectly onto a cuneiform clay tablet, and the verse 4 of Chapter 2 is the signature line – God Himself has signed it, actually. In the first half of Genesis, there are a number of these “These are the generations” of Noah, and so on, whoever the previous chapter or two has been telling the story of. The authors of the tablet are careful to sign each one, so you know who told the story of the “generations” involved! This is called Toledoth (“Generation”), and thus the Toledoth/Generations theory.

After creation, God makes Covenants with Adam and Eve (Genesis 3), then Noah (Genesis 9), then Abraham (three separate but related ones, all considered to be counted as 1 Covenant: see Genesis 15, 17, and 22), then with Moses in Exodus 19. However, the Passover, enshrined in the Passover Seder, is the Old Testament/Covenant’s contract-affirming oath-swearing Covenant-renewal action – i.e. Jews are Jews when born of a Jewish woman, but become part of the Old Covenant proper when circumcised and then participate in the Passover – so the Passover is an essential part of this Mosaic Covenant, the central Covenant of the Old Testament series of six Covenants. This Mosaic Covenant is the Covenant that Christ replaces with the last Covenant, the Seventh, or more precisely fulfills in a final, astounding way via His Body and Blood. As He says, “I have come not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it.” – Matt 5:17, using Himself as the new Pascal Lamb in the Holy Eucharist. (Luke 22:20)

After Moses, which is the Fifth Covenant counting from the very first one, God makes a Sixth Covenant with David, one of His favorite people in all history. (1 Chronicles, 17) Notes that one needs to read the whole chapter; and 16 too; also in chapter 15 they sacrifice the animals for this Covenant, as there is simply NO worship of Yahweh without blood sacrifice: see Abel of Cain and Able; Noah’s and Abraham’s blood sacrifices, and of course the Pascal Lamb in Moses’ worship – Christ is the final blood-sacrifice of the Bible, the one fulfilling all the others, from Abel to Himself.

Finally, of course, we have Jesus of Nazareth’s sacrifice of Himself on the Cross, an integral element of the Holy Eucharist institution (begun the night before) is the means by which we are saved¹. (Read the whole of the 6^th Chapter of St. John’s Gospel: Jesus clearly is not speaking metaphorically, as Protestants claim.)

Therefore the whole of the Bible, Old and New Testaments, is hung on these Covenants. They are its intellectual and spiritual framework, the map connecting all the stories and the chart through the millennia of God’s interaction with us.

Neither the Bible itself or Christianity (nor Judaism for that matter), make sense until you understand this Covenantal Salvation History framework. And the important thing to notice, next to God making business contracts with us to begin with, is how God keeps expanding the reach of each covenant: He makes the Second Covenant with a couple, a pair of people; the next one with a family (Noah and his sons, etc.), then the next one with a tribe, Abraham (God changed Abram’s name to “Abraham” meaning Great Father), then with a nation, the People Israel under Moses’ command; and finally in the Old Testament, with King David, that the Kingship of the KINGDOM (the Israelite nation is now a Kingdom) of Israel shall never pass from David’s house – and finally the Seventh Covenant, with which the specific Covenants of the Old Testament are now expanded one final time, this time to ALL peoples EVERYWHERE, i.e. anyone who will accept Joshua, Yehoshu'a, for Who He claimed to be: God Himself. (John 8:48-59)

Notes:

1.

The Holy Eucharist as Blood Oath Sacrament is something most modern-day Catholics are ignorant of. As they are ignorant of how Salvation works. God’s Incarnation is central to our Salvation, and so much so we have to participate in that Incarnation to be saved. We do that through the New Covenant, which is the Blood Oath of the Holy Eucharist.

Basic Points

·    The Incarnation: Absolutely necessary and central to salvation

·    God becomes a human person, Jesus / Yeshu'a (Yehoshu'a: "Yahweh is salvation").

Why the Incarnation? Why did God have to become man? To make Infusion of Grace possible.

·  God’s Incarnation didn’t lower God so much as elevate human nature, in Christ, enabling…

·  "Theosis" (Divinization) which by grace – not by nature – is our incorporation into Christ, raising us up to participate in His Divinity (as St. Peter teaches in 2 Peter 1.4). Usually described in the Western Church as an Infusion of Grace, our natures are changed. Protestantism teaches Imputation of Grace: God assigns grace to us but doesn’t actually divinize or change our nature.

·  St. Athanasius: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." (De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B) and [CCC 460]

·  St. Thomas Aquinas: "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods." (Opusc. 57, 1-4) [CCC 460]

·  This teaching is stated in many ways throughout the New Testament. Examples:

·  John 1:12 “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (Obviously, a new creation)

·  2 Cor 5:17, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” (Again, a new creation) 2 Peter 1:4 might well put it best; see also Romans, 6:4, 7:6, 12:2; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:8-12.

·  Two Old Testament examples: Isaiah 65:17; Ezekiel 36:25-26

·       Note: In general, Jesus seems to demand the impossible of “ordinary” humans. In Matthew 5, during the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gives the Beatitudes, then says we are “salt of the earth” and “light of the world”, discusses how He has come not to do away with the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them. He discusses elevated behavior regarding anger, adultery, divorce, making oaths and not retaliating (“turn the other cheek”) and love our enemies. He ends with "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect." (5:48) That is something manifestly impossible for “normal” human beings to do.

The Sacraments: Fulfilment of the Covenants

Salvation “works” in us, as individuals through the sacraments, formal covenant oaths, by which we partake of the nature of God, in Christ (God’s grace is infused in us).

·       Baptism removes Original Sin, thus we’re free to…

·  Receive Christ in the Holy Eucharist…

And to keep this “New Creation” and grow in the Divine, we have Confession, a sacrament of vital importance because it restores us to our baptismal state.

Afterword:

What About the Jews, the Original Keepers of the Covenants:

1.    Once God makes a treaty, a contract, a covenant, He never breaks it. God is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow. (Hebrews 13:8) Thus these Covenants are never abrogated or cancelled. Yet how to think about the Jews, who reject Christ as Messiah yet adhere to the first six Covenants?

2.    Historically, there were many Jews in Jesus time who fully accepted Him, as His Apostles did, and beyond them many others, such as those Jews converted at Pentecost. Then again, many Jews existed afterward who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, but not necessarily that He was co-equal to God; that Trinitarian idea took a while to develop and be formalized, something the Church did over some hundreds of years – though it must be understood that the very earliest Christians understood Jesus to be saying He was God (John 10:30), and this is the core idea necessary to the validity of His Sacrifice on the Cross and His institution of the Holy Eucharist, the New Covenant. Thus the Gospels are about two central ideas Jesus had: first, would people recognize Him for Who He was, and second, that people treated one another with agapé, caritas, the highest form of love. After many acts of caritas to Samaritans and Romans, and after many parables such as the Good Samaritan, He Himself gave them the ultimate and fundamental example of how to love.

3.    Concurrently to those Jews seeing Jesus as the Messiah, there were those who were Christians and who wanted the gentiles, the non-Jews, to become Jewish in order to be Christians. These were the Judaizers. They understood clearly that a split, a schism, between Christians and Jews was imminent, and wanted to avoid it; however, they were Saint Paul’s bête noire, and he lost his cool when he had to deal with them or their teaching as it affected his churches. This led to complications 1500 years later: Luther and Protestantism focuses on the idea of Sola Fide, that God saves through faith alone (faith understood as blind faith, an act of will, whether generated in oneself or given by God, as Calvin insisted). But the Pauline passages Protestants take as proof of this idea are all written by St. Paul when he was discussing Judaizers. In Judaism, one HAD to be circumcised to be part of the Covenant (then as now) and keep the kosher dietary laws, temple ritual, and so on. This St. Paul rejected vehemently, and it was in that context he wrote passages such as the famous Romans 3:28, the “verse that launched the Reformation”: i.e. “For you are saved by faith and not works of the law.” At the Council of Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts 15, the Judaizers’ ideas were formally rejected. From that time on, the Jewish element of Christianity began to die out as the two religions diverged from one another. Any Jewish Christian had to make the decision of decisions, the choice of choices: stay or go: be a believer in Christ and lose one’s Judaism, or keep the Jewish identity by cutting oneself off from the increasingly gentile Church.

4.    Yet in the Near Eastern Semitic lands, strong traces of this early Semitic Christianity survived, especially in the Syrian, Aramaic- (technically, Syriac) language bishoprics. It was, I suspect, some strain of this Semitic Christianity, certainly a fringe one that never accepted Jesus Christ as Son of God or the Holy Trinity, that eventually gave birth to Islam, the central tenet of which is to deny the Incarnation.

5.    Therefore, in the break with the Jews, the Church taught formally of one Covenant, the Mosaic one, that it was actually cancelled. Abrogated. Taken off-line. Scuttled. Of course, one can also see each Covenant as a fulfillment and enlargement of the ones preceding it, as Christ is the fulfillment of God’s promise to Eve that a descendant of hers would crush the dragon’s head, or that he’ll come in glory to end the world, not flood it again (as the Covenant with Noah was). Metaphorically, the Covenants are like a line of bricks in a wall: as each new one is made, the last of the old ones is no longer top of the wall, yet it is still essential in its historical place for supporting the wall’s later additions. For example, no one would think of “cancelling” Adam and Eve’s Covenant, or Noah’s, or the Davidic Covenant, that the kingship of Israel would pass for David’s House, for Joshua of Nazareth is a “Son of David”.

6.    So the Mosaic Covenant is “cancelled” in the sense of being subsumed and then flowering into the New Covenant, the sacrament of which is the Holy Eucharist. The Mosaic Covenant is a typology of the Holy Eucharist, and one of the six Covenantal foundations upon which the New Covenant stands.

7.    Today, Jews consist of many different groups and sects, of course, and they did so back in Jesus’ day; a large portion of Jews are “non-religious” as well. Yet none of them want to hear this idea of Catholicism’s, that their central religious rite is abrogated. But the Church is not being “kind” or “caring” by watering down the truth; and whether one insists on the old “cancelled” language or “subsumed and recreated in the Holy Eucharist,” participation in the Mosaic Covenant is simply no longer efficacious for salvation, except as a pointer to the New Covenant. (Jews would not consider “Messianic Jews” any longer Jewish; however, from a Catholic/Orthodox perspective, Messianic Jews are evangelical Protestants who reject for the Historical Church’s understanding of the Sacraments.)

8.    For Jews today, as of old, the Absolute Being God, the God of the great philosophers and the God of His revelation to them, is what He’s always been, their Tribal Deity. Non-Jew gentiles are not Jews and cannot have God in His fullness because they’re not part of the Abrahamic Covenant or the following two Covenants, though according to long-standing (early Medieval) Jewish teaching, they can be “Righteous Gentiles” if they keep the Noahidic (or Noachian or Noahide) Laws God gave to Noah (Genesis 9:4-6). By following these laws given to Noah, then, those descendants of Noah who are not part of the ensuing Abrahamic Covenant can attain Olam Haba (עולם הבא), the world to come for the reward of the righteous.