St Mary of the Angels Parish Votes to Secede from ACA
August 21, 2012 15 Comments
The Anglo-Catholic parish of St. Mary of the Angels which is embroiled in a legal and ecclesiastical battle over its property and priest has, by a 2/3 majority, voted to leave the Anglican Church in America and join the Roman Catholic Church through the Ordinariate.
“We are officially independent as we continue on our journey to be received into the Ordinariate,” said Dr. Allan H. B. Trimpi, Senior Warden of St. Mary of the Angels. “Our new Articles of Incorporation are now on file with the California Secretary of State.”
“This is news to me. I have received nothing from the parish in this regard,” said ACA Presiding Bishop Brian Marsh, in an e-mail to VOL…
Read on at Virtue Online here.
Which kind of all makes the point I have just made for the need for authority, which requires both submission and obedience.
About Fr Stephen Smuts
Fr. Kelley’s trial is on Wednesday, August 22. On the day commemorating the Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the U.S. calendar.
I don’t like Virtue Online or the ACA. They make me wish that those Vatican tanks really existed. I would immediately pilot them. Ineptly.
For starters, this is not “Fr Kelley’s trial”, although some remarks from Canon Morello quoted by VOL may have led to this impression. The trial is a forcible detainer action against certain individuals among the parish dissidents who, in the view of the vestry and the parish majority, are illegally occupying the building. This is the same type of action that is taken against squatters. The only question at issue is whether the vestry has the authority to do this.
In a way, this very sad continuing saga makes one very glad that in the case of the Our Lady of Walsingham Ordinariate, the status of CofE Parish Churches as effectively inalienable state property, meant that we were spared the litigation over properties and doubtless revenues that have so disfigured the disputes between TEC and various continuing bodies and to a lesser extent the North American Ordinariate.
Many of the laity who have been received into the Ordinraite have commented on the wrench of leaving the Church (buildings) to which they were greatly attached.
This seems an appropriate forum and juncture to announce that my husband Archbishop Lough has excommunicated himself from The One True Catholic Church of God And You’d Better Believe It Or We will Sue (Incorporated) and has appointed himself Primate and Metropolitan of The Church of Christ, Litigant. Normal sevices will continue in Our Lady’s Garage as usual.
Is it rational to treat Mary to be the Mother of God?
Hebrews 7:3, “He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for ever.”
What does the phrase, resembling the Son of God,, in Hebrews 7:3 refer to? It undoubtedly refers to Jesus Christ.
As the phrase, He is without father or mother or genealogy, is mentioned in Hebrews 7:3, it implies that there is no relationship between Mary and Jesus.
The birth of Jesus is purely not the physical interaction between Mary and Joseph and there should not be any trace of relationship between them since the phrase, He is without father or mother or genealogy, is mentioned in Hebrews 7:3.
The above is the reason why Protestant Churches treat Mary not to be the Mother of God.
God did not oppose the marriage between Joseph and Mary so as to demand her to remain virgin after the birth of Jesus. The following is the extract:
Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost
If God’s intention for Mary is to remain virgin after the birth of Jesus, why should the angel of the Lord convey with the message, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, in Matthew 1:20?
The following are the verses seem to give the implication that Mary was no longer to be virgin after the birth of Jesus:
Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
As the phrase, the son of Mary, is mentioned in Mark6:3 with the phrase, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon, it gives the implication that Jesus had four brothers.
If Mary would remain virgin after His birth, there should not be any reason why James, Joses, Juda and Simon had been called to be His brothers then.
That’s because in first-century Palestinian Aramaic there was no word for ‘cousin’- The term ‘brother’ actually concurrently [in the first century] meant blood brother, half-brother, husband, uncle, nephew, cousin, friend, and companion.
In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.
When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren.” If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.
Also, the attitude taken by the “brethren of the Lord” implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ “brethren” saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4).
Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: “And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’” (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the “brethren” were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s “first-born” son (Luke 2:7).
Never forget Luke 1:46-55. If you are skittish about calling Mary the Mother of God, you might consider how the Eastern Church references her: Theotokos or God-bearer. When considering Mary you need to review the entire Scripture going back to Genesis 3:15 and Isiah 7:14, and ending with Revelation 12.
Oriental Orthodox don’t refer to her as Theotokos or Mother of God, do they?
Seems suspiciously Arian….
Thought you were RC…RC CCC para. 495 calls Mary “Theo-tokos” (and then references the Council of Ephesus (AD 431), one of the 7 Ecumenical Councils). And the Subject Index on Mary in same has a reference to “Mary…interpretation:…’Theotokos’: 495″.
Yeah, we agree on Theotokos. I was just recalling an interview I’ve read about a Coptic Orthodox priest who said they don’t consider Mary the “Mother of God” but calls her the “Mother of Jesus” Which seems to me deny the divinity of Jesus.
Christotokos is the Nestorian “alternative” to Theotokos that was rejected by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (the 3rd EC). I’m not aware of Coptics (who are the polar opposites of Nestorians regarding Christology) using this terminolo today.
As for Jesus having blood siblings…You might study the Tradition about Joseph. The apostles and others in the early Church knew all about Joseph. Going back to very early Christianity Joseph was seen as a much older man, a widower who had children. It is only in modern times that Joseph is made out to be a younger or youngish man. You might check out the many famous Renaissance paintings of Joseph. There is a magnificent one I used to love to look at in Omaha where a very, very old Joseph is holding the baby Jesus. Joseph’s long white beard and deep-lined face are juxtaposed against the beauty of the new born Jesus.
Well, that can explain Joseph’s absence in Jesus’ later ministry, and maybe it explains why Jesus wasn’t mentioned to have done his (foster) father’s trade (Which I don’t think is strictly woodworking per se, going by the Greek translation “Tekton”)
Joseph must have died prior to Jesus getting baptized by John the Baptist.
Do you know why Catholics’ practice is not acceptable among protestant churches?
The Bible forbids us to create anything in the likeness of man or of woman. Why should Catholics allow Mary’s statue or Jesus’ photograph to be in their churches and some of them even stand around it to pray? The following is the extracted verse:
Exodus 4:16, “see that you do not corrupt yourselves by making an image in the shape of anything whatever: be it statue of man or of woman”
Exodus 4:23, “Be careful not to forget the covenant which Yahweh your Goh has made with you, by sculpting an image or making a statue of anything, since Yahwah your God has forbidden this;”
As God forbid us to make an image of anything, do you think that God would allow us to make rosaries and to use them to pray to Jesus?
As mentioned in 2 Kings 18:3-4 that the bronze serpent that Moses made was destroyed in order for the people of Israel not to worship it, do you think God would allow Jesus’ or Mary’s statute to be displayed among churches for their worshipping or even to use rosaries to pray to Jesus through Mary? The following are the extracts:
2 Kings 18:3-4, “He removed the high places, and broke the pillars, and cut down the Ashe’rah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had burned incense to it; it was called Nehush’tan.”
As God even destroyed the bronze serpent that Moses had made as mentioned in 2 Kings 18:3-4, do you think God would allow rosaries to be used to pray to Him?
2 Chronicle 33:2-3 demand us not to worship all the host of heaven. Certainly it does not allow us to worship even Mary. The following is the extract:
2 Chronicle 33:2-3, “HE DID WHAT WAS EVIL IN THE SIGHT OF THE LORD, according to the abominable practices of the nations whom the LORD drove out before the people of Israel. FOR HE rebuilt the high places which his father Hezeki’ah had broken down, and erected altars to the Ba’als, and made Ashe’rahs, and WORSHIPED all the host of heaven, and served them.”
As the phrase, He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, is mentioned in 2 Chronicle 33:2-3 with the phrase, For he…worshiped all the host of heaven, it gives the implication that God forbid us to worship angels and Mary even if she has been treated to be the Mother of God by Catholics.
As God forbid us to worship all the host of heaven, do you think God would permit us to mention the name of Mary by means of rosaries in our prayer to God?
Isaiah 17:7-8, “In that day men will regard their Maker, and their eyes will look to the Holy One of Israel; 8 they will not have regard for the altars, the work of their hands, and they WILL NOT LOOK TO WHAT THEIR OWN FINGERS HAVE MADE, either the Ashe’rim or the altars of incense.” (Catholic Bible)
Isaiah 17:7-8 demand us not to look to what their own fingers have made. Do you think God would call us to give respect to Mary by building up her statue or even to pray to rosary through her name. The following are the extracted verses:
The following are the extracted verses from King James Version:
Isaiah 17:7-8, “At that day shall a man look to his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy One of Israel. And he shall not look to the altars, the work of his hands, NEITHER SHALL RESPECT THAT HIS FINGERS HAVE MADE, either the groves, or the images.”
This same is spelt out in Exodus 20:4:
Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
As the phrase, Thou shalt not make unto thee…any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, is mentioned in Exoodus 20:4, it forbids us to create Mary’s statue for worshipping even if she would be treated by Catholics to be the Mother of God.
But God Said To Make Them!
People who oppose religious statuary forget about the many passages where the Lord commands the making of statues. For example: “And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be” (Ex. 25:18–20).
David gave Solomon the plan “for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan” (1 Chr. 28:18–19). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was “by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all,” included statues of angels.
Similarly Ezekiel 41:17–18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, “On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim.”
The Religious Uses of Images
During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to “make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live” (Num. 21:8–9).
One had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious decorations.
Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas.
If one measured Protestants by the same rule, then by using these “graven” images, they would be practicing the “idolatry” of which they accuse Catholics. But there’s no idolatry going on in these situations. God forbids the worship of images as gods, but he doesn’t ban the making of images. If he had, religious movies, videos, photographs, paintings, and all similar things would be banned. But, as the case of the bronze serpent shows, God does not even forbid the ritual use of religious images.
It is when people begin to adore a statue as a god that the Lord becomes angry. Thus when people did start to worship the bronze serpent as a snake-god (whom they named “Nehushtan”), the righteous king Hezekiah had it destroyed (2 Kgs. 18:4).
What About Bowing?
Sometimes anti-Catholics cite Deuteronomy 5:9, where God said concerning idols, “You shall not bow down to them.” Since many Catholics sometimes bow or kneel in front of statues of Jesus and the saints, anti-Catholics confuse the legitimate veneration of a sacred image with the sin of idolatry.
Though bowing can be used as a posture in worship, not all bowing is worship. In Japan, people show respect by bowing in greeting (the equivalent of the Western handshake). Similarly, a person can kneel before a king without worshipping him as a god. In the same way, a Catholic who may kneel in front of a statue while praying isn’t worshipping the statue or even praying to it, any more than the Protestant who kneels with a Bible in his hands when praying is worshipping the Bible or praying to it.
Hiding the Second Commandment?
Another charge sometimes made by Protestants is that the Catholic Church “hides” the second commandment. This is because in Catholic catechisms, the first commandment is often listed as “You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex. 20:3), and the second is listed as “You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain.” (Ex. 20:7). From this, it is argued that Catholics have deleted the prohibition of idolatry to justify their use of religious statues. But this is false. Catholics simply group the commandments differently from most Protestants.
In Exodus 20:2–17, which gives the Ten Commandments, there are actually fourteen imperative statements. To arrive at Ten Commandments, some statements have to be grouped together, and there is more than one way of doing this. Since, in the ancient world, polytheism and idolatry were always united—idolatry being the outward expression of polytheism—the historic Jewish numbering of the Ten Commandments has always grouped together the imperatives “You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex. 20:3) and “You shall not make for yourself a graven image” (Ex. 20:4). The historic Catholic numbering follows the Jewish numbering on this point, as does the historic Lutheran numbering. Martin Luther recognized that the imperatives against polytheism and idolatry are two parts of a single command.
Jews and Christians abbreviate the commandments so that they can be remembered using a summary, ten-point formula. For example, Jews, Catholics, and Protestants typically summarize the Sabbath commandment as, “Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy,” though the commandment’s actual text takes four verses (Ex. 20:8–11).
When the prohibition of polytheism/idolatry is summarized, Jews, Catholics, and Lutherans abbreviate it as “You shall have no other gods before me.” This is no attempt to “hide” the idolatry prohibition (Jews and Lutherans don’t even use statues of saints and angels). It is to make learning the Ten Commandments easier.
The Catholic Church is not dogmatic about how the Ten Commandments are to be numbered, however. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “The division and numbering of the Commandments have varied in the course of history. The present catechism follows the division of the Commandments established by Augustine, which has become traditional in the Catholic Church. It is also that of the Lutheran confession. The Greek Fathers worked out a slightly different division, which is found in the Orthodox Churches and Reformed communities” (CCC 2066).
The Form of God?
Some anti-Catholics appeal to Deuteronomy 4:15–18 in their attack on religious statues: “[S]ince you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth.”
We’ve already shown that God doesn’t prohibit the making of statues or images of various creatures for religious purposes (cf. 1 Kgs. 6:29–32, 8:6–66; 2 Chr. 3:7–14). But what about statues or images that represent God? Many Protestants would say that’s wrong because Deuteronomy 4 says the Israelites did not see God under any form when he made the covenant with them, therefore we should not make symbolic representations of God either. But does Deuteronomy 4 forbid such representations?
The Answer Is No
Early in its history, Israel was forbidden to make any depictions of God because he had not revealed himself in a visible form. Given the pagan culture surrounding them, the Israelites might have been tempted to worship God in the form of an animal or some natural object (e.g., a bull or the sun).
But later God did reveal himself under visible forms, such as in Daniel 7:9: “As I looked, thrones were placed and one that was Ancient of Days took his seat; his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, its wheels were burning fire.” Protestants make depictions of the Father under this form when they do illustrations of Old Testament prophecies.
The Holy Spirit revealed himself under at least two visible forms—that of a dove, at the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32), and as tongues of fire, on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4). Protestants use these images when drawing or painting these biblical episodes and when they wear Holy Spirit lapel pins or place dove emblems on their cars.
But, more important, in the Incarnation of Christ his Son, God showed mankind an icon of himself. Paul said, “He is the image (Greek: ikon) of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” Christ is the tangible, divine “icon” of the unseen, infinite God.
We read that when the magi were “going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshipped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold, frankincense, and myrrh” (Matt. 2:11). Though God did not reveal a form for himself on Mount Horeb, he did reveal one in the house in Bethlehem.
The bottom line is, when God made the New Covenant with us, he did reveal himself under a visible form in Jesus Christ. For that reason, we can make representations of God in Christ. Even Protestants use all sorts of religious images: Pictures of Jesus and other biblical persons appear on a myriad of Bibles, picture books, T-shirts, jewelry, bumper stickers, greeting cards, compact discs, and manger scenes. Christ is even symbolically represented through the Icthus or “fish emblem.”
Common sense tells us that, since God has revealed himself in various images, most especially in the incarnate Jesus Christ, it’s not wrong for us to use images of these forms to deepen our knowledge and love of God. That’s why God revealed himself in these visible forms, and that’s why statues and pictures are made of them.
Idolatry Condemned by the Church
Since the days of the apostles, the Catholic Church has consistently condemned the sin of idolatry. The early Church Fathers warn against this sin, and Church councils also dealt with the issue.
The Second Council of Nicaea (787), which dealt largely with the question of the religious use of images and icons, said, “[T]he one who redeemed us from the darkness of idolatrous insanity, Christ our God, when he took for his bride his holy Catholic Church . . . promised he would guard her and assured his holy disciples saying, ‘I am with you every day until the consummation of this age.’ . . . To this gracious offer some people paid no attention; being hoodwinked by the treacherous foe they abandoned the true line of reasoning . . . and they failed to distinguish the holy from the profane, asserting that the icons of our Lord and of his saints were no different from the wooden images of satanic idols.”
The Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566) taught that idolatry is committed “by worshipping idols and images as God, or believing that they possess any divinity or virtue entitling them to our worship, by praying to, or reposing confidence in them” (374).
“Idolatry is a perversion of man’s innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who ‘transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God’” (CCC 2114).
The Church absolutely recognizes and condemns the sin of idolatry. What anti-Catholics fail to recognize is the distinction between thinking a piece of stone or plaster is a god and desiring to visually remember Christ and the saints in heaven by making statues in their honor. The making and use of religious statues is a thoroughly biblical practice. Anyone who says otherwise doesn’t know his Bible.