The Rapid and Open Development of Christology – Ignatius

A myth pushed by popular and once prestigious media is that orthodox church teaching on Christ is practically an invention of Constantine and some shadowy Magisterium.  Such revision of history transforms the Council of Nicaea into an incense-filled room more intent on suppressing the truth or inventing truth than in guarding it and propagating it.

Yet the truth of the matter is that church teaching on Christology developed rapidly long before Nicaea and the rest of the ecumenical councils.  Really this development began with the risen Christ teaching the Apostles about himself from the scriptures before the Ascension.  And the Christological teaching of the Apostles and their successors wasn’t done in the shadows but in the churches and even at times in the streets.  That is clear not only from the New Testament but also from writings of the Apostolic and later Fathers.  In letters and sermons read and preached to congregations, we can see that catholic Christology developed rapidly and openly.

Thus began the Patristics paper I completed this autumn.  With Christmas nearing, we will be sure to see more rubbish that God becoming man – that baby in the manger being God Incarnate – was not a marvelous loving act of God but an invention of the later church.  So now is a good time to note that the church got it right very early: that baby was both God and man, the Christ.

Perhaps the best source on that in the generation after the apostles and the writing of what became the New Testament is St. Ignatius.  As he was being led on his long trip to the lions and martyrdom early in the 2^nd Century, he wrote a number of letters to churches, of which we have six.  Impending death can aid candor, and that seemed to be the case with Ignatius.  Among the subjects about which he was very frank was the deity and manhood of Christ.  Note that the six letters addressed whole congregations, not just church leaders.

From my paper:

John’s Gospel was the most clear and developed of the four in proclaiming the deity of Christ.  His pupil Ignatius is even more straightforward.  To the Ephesians, he repeatedly calls Jesus “our God” and even writes that it is “God’s blood” that saves them and stirs them to sanctification.  He also calls Jesus “our God” when writing the church at Rome, and in begging the Romans not to intervene to prevent his martyrdom he asks, “Let me imitate the Passion of my God.”  To the Smyrnaeans, he praises “Jesus Christ, the God who has granted you such wisdom” and later calls him “the Christ God.”

         At the same time, he assertively teaches the other side of the Incarnation – the humanity of Christ.  He did not give room to those who diminish either the deity or humanity of Christ and was especially eloquent in teaching both sides of the Incarnation to the Ephesian church:

There is only one physician – of flesh yet spiritual, born yet unbegotten, God incarnate, genuine life in the midst of death, sprung from Mary as well as God, first subject to suffering then beyond it – Jesus Christ our Lord. [7]

The heresy of Docetism, that taught that Jesus only seemed to be a man, goaded Ignatius to be every bit as adamant about the manhood of Christ as he was about the deity of Christ. To the Trallians, he wrote that Jesus “was really born, ate, and drank; was really persecuted under Pontius Pilate; was really crucified and died, . . . was really raised from the dead . . . apart from whom we have no genuine life.”

Thus just a decade or two after the death of the last Apostle, St. John, Ignatius got it that Jesus Christ was completely God from eternity and completely man from his conception and birth.

And that is the theme of Christmas, is it not?  That babe in the manger was Very God of Very God and “the Word made flesh” for us and for our salvation.  If one was blessed enough to attend a Christ-mass celebrated by a church father, one likely to hear this, the Incarnation, preached.

----

It just so happens that Augustine’s preaching of the Incarnation on Christmas Day will be the subject of a talk I will give on St. John’s Day, December 27^th in Texas.  Get ahold of me if you want more details.

History Someone Wants You to Forget: Franken Stole His 2008 Election

I’ve noticed lately that the Left and the news media (But I repeat myself.) do not want us to remember the most basic history about certain matters.  I may wax vehement on that someday.  Instead, I will simply note that in media coverage of Al Franken’s expected resignation today from the Senate, I cannot recall seeing one reference to his controversial first election to that august body back in 2008.

And “controversial” is putting it nicely.  Franken and friends stole that election as my mutant twin covered back then and notes again today.

That Franken stole his first Senate election is surely an important part of his background, is it not?  But I guess the Democrats behind that theft want us to forget that theft. No stolen DemocRAT election to see here!  And you’re a kook if you think otherwise! Instead blame the voters of Minnesota . . . . when the legitimate non-felon voters of Minnesota narrowly elected Franken’s opponent, incumbent Senator Coleman.

Elections have consequences.  Stolen elections have worse consequences. We should not forget that even if some would rather we would forget.

DemocRAT Fake News Media are Scum, too.

No sooner do I point out that there is a correlation, though imperfect, between politics and morality, that the DemocRAT [s]news[/s] fake news propaganda media buttresses my point.  NBC Today anchor Matt Lauer has suddenly been fired for “inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace.”  And it is coming out that Charlie Rose is only the start of scandal at CBS.

Oh, and Cokie Roberts let it slip that the DemocRAT “news” media have been covering up DemocRAT sexual misconduct in Congress for years. Of course.

Again, are there Democrats who are decent people out there? Yes.  I have at least one or two as friends.  Are most Democrats in politics and the fake news media (But I repeat myself.) untrustworthy, dishonest, corrupt, and often even predatory?  Well, the truth is coming out, is it not?

A Correlation Between Politics and Morality?

I remember, decades ago, a Christian Right group put out an election guide with the stands of various candidates. It was labeled a “Morality Scorecard” or the like.  I apologize that I cannot remember more details nor find them via internet search.  (Those search engines can be close to useless when it comes to obscure details of history.)  If anyone remembers or finds more, feel free to comment.  I also apologize and warn that I will be speaking in generalities here.

With those caveats, what I do remember is that the group in question was excoriated for implying that one’s votes and political stands are a good measure of morality.  How dare they say politicians who vote wrong somehow are immoral! How dare they say that there is a correlation between one’s politics and one’s morality!

Well, although the group may have been a bit crude in the way they stated there is such a correlation, recent events seem to be proving them right in more ways than one.  It is hard to miss that the recent sexual harassment scandals blowing up here in the U. S. overwhelmingly involve Democrats - Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, John Conyers, Al Green, etc.

I can hear the reflex rebuttals now.  “What about Republicans like Roy Moore?”  If there were as many Republicans who mistreated women so blatantly, the Democrat News Media would surely be trotting them out and fast.  As for Roy Moore, the allegations against him smell increasingly like a pre-election dirty trick that is getting more debunked by the day.  But trust me, I think a lot of Republicans are scum, too.

And, to anticipate another question, the correlation I see is general not specific.  In other words, there are Leftist Democrats who are otherwise good people, and there are conservative Republican who are stinkers.  Heck, I once engaged in political combat against a few of them.

But to think there is no correlation between morality in public life and morality in private life is fantasy.  Someone who attacks freedom of speech, the right to life, basic property rights, the Constitutional rule of law, the right to defend oneself, traditional Christian values etc., etc. is probably going to be a sticker in private as well.

And now that stink is suddenly getting out and becoming public as well.

The Current State of American Catholic Universities

No, this won’t be a long essay.  Anne Hendershott has already written one for us, and it is excellent, the best overview of Catholic higher education today in the United States I’ve come across.  It includes some interesting if distressing history as well.

(History often is distressing, is it not?  I wonder what that says about us who have a compulsion to study it.)

Yes, I do use the word “Catholic” loosely.  I can be creative in choosing words to describe, say, Georgetown, but “Catholic” is rarely one of them.  “Jesuit” maybe.

As Hendershott writes, there are rays of hope; there are exceptional genuinely Catholic universities out there.  But the larger ones have invariably taken the “Catholic” and the “education” for that matter out of Catholic higher education.

----

Personal Note:

Speaking of higher education, I have completed my Patristics course.  So I may torment you more often for a couple months or so.

You might be a babykiller if . . .

Back in the 70’s I remember pro-lifers often called pro-abortionists “babykillers.”  Because of fears that was rubbing potential allies the wrong way, that term became more rare in the early 80’s.

But I am less concerned with rubbing people the wrong way and more concerned with reality checks, which brings me to House passage of a bill to virtually outlaw abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Now, for those who are math or biology impaired, 20 weeks is five months (or just under five 30 day months) and more than halfway through a typical pregnancy.  The child is very well formed by then; you have a very recognizable baby that simply needs to grow a bit before saying, “Hello, world.”

And most of the world’s abortion laws recognize that and outlaw abortions after 20 weeks.  So this is a common sense reform all reasonable people can support….

But then there are Democrats.  Most Senate Democrats are expected to filibuster this bill.  To which I say you might be a babykiller if . . . you oppose efforts to protect unborn children after 20 weeks of gestation.

Really, if Democrats block this bill, the mask is off, is it not?

Back to Studies

I have been sorely tempted to post on a number of items the past few days.  But I’m in the midst of stepping up my studies in hope of completing a Patristics course by Thanksgiving.  That is a big ask but I’m going to do my best to finish by then anyway.  And I can hardly have a decent history blog without studying history!

Therefore I will become even more selective in my blog posting well into November at least.