As another week comes to an end this is your chance to top off your glass with news, current events, and just plain interesting stuff that may not have made into the mainstream media. A chance to linger for a few more moments before we close the door on the week. Below are some links to articles, blogs, and miscellaneous happenings that caught my eye in the past week. You can sample what you like. I'll serve up more next Friday...
Should You Read Non-Catholic Materials? - "While one certainly should and must rely on the Holy Spirit for guidance, the Holy Spirit does not promise to protect us from coming to mistaken conclusions just because we pray to him. He also wants us to study, internalize, and thoroughly know our own faith. And then, with his guidance, we can approach materials from other perspectives profitably and with confidence."
Human Love Defies Darwinian Explanation - "On August 5th, a copper and gold mine in Chile caved in... This past weekend, the rescue shaft was completed. Given its width, the miners will have to be removed one at a time. Since each trip will take approximately an hour, it will take the better part of two days to remove all the miners. Who should go first? The weakest? ...a surprised Health Minister Jaime Manalich told AP that the miners 'were fighting with [authorities] yesterday because everyone wanted to be at the end of the line, not the beginning.'"
It was surely praying at their ‘makeshift shrine’ that kept the Chilean miners sane - "One of the first things the miners’ relatives did at the pithead, while it still looked as though they must be all dead, was to set up a statue of St Lawrence, patron saint of miners, who in statues of him in this role movingly wears a miner’s hat and carries a miner’s lamp. And the whole rescue mission was placed under his patronage: it was called simply Operation San Lorenzo."
Changes to Pope Benedict XVI's Coat of Arms - "At the time of his election the new Pope's coat of arms was displayed with not only the innovation of the papal pallium but also using simply a mitre decorated to allude to the triple crown...The banner hanging from the Papal Apartment for his Angelus blessing displays the 'new' version of the Pope's coat of arms including both the pallium...and the triple tiara or triregno of the Popes!!!"
British bishops suggest Eucharistic adoration, saint costumes on Halloween - "The celebration of feast days is an important part of our Catholic culture. On the evening of 31 October why not do something to make your faith respectfully seen and heard? Light a candle or display publicly another kind of light, for example, perhaps alongside an image of Christ. This could be a powerful way in which we can show people that we have hope in someone other than ourselves."
Obamacare: Here Comes the Judge - "As expected, a Federal District Judge Roger Vinson is permitting a lawsuit filed by 20 states against Obamacare to go to trial."
As previously mentioned (here and here), I have been memorizing basic Catholic prayers in Latin for use in my own private devotion. My two oldest children (ages 4 and 6) have taken an interest in learning the Latin too, and can now recite the Our Father, Hail Mary, and the Meal Prayer fairly well (they are also working on the Glory Be).
As we learned each of these prayers a particularly useful tool were the audio recordings I downloaded from various websites, which provided the correct pronunciation of the Latin. In a previous post I listed a couple of sites where I found good quality mp3 downloads. I would like to mention another great source of traditional prayers that can be found at this link. The website is Sonitus Sanctus. It is a wonderful source for free Catholic audio - music, prayers, lectures, sermons, debates, and much more - all free for downloading (and all orthodox in content). I've gotten a lot of chant and choral music from Sonitus Sanctus as well as lectures from big-name apologists. I recommend visiting the site frequently as something new is always being posted. Enjoy!
Members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas have been in the news again recently for organizing distasteful and vile protests at funerals of soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. For several years church members have gathered outside of private memorial services carrying signs that read “God hates fags” and “Thank God for dead soldiers” and other such slogans in an attempt to make their message heard. They believe that God is punishing the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality and that soldiers are selling their souls by serving a country that would allow a behavior which God condemns. In their eyes these soldiers’ deaths are divine retribution for the sins of the nation.
Although the Westboro Church members are most famous for their protests at the funerals of fallen war heroes, they do not limit their twisted ranting to these private memorial services. This same church has protested other venues as well: pop concerts, retail stores, theaters, and even the 2004 funeral of Fred Rogers (of Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood). Several lawsuits have been brought against this small congregation (which numbers less than 100 members) and one of these cases has finally made its way to the Supreme Court. Protesting a shopping mall or a rock concert is certainly understandable (whether or not we agree with the message), but verbally assaulting family members of deceased loved ones is (in my opinion) disgusting and frankly un-Christian.
Obviously the church is framing their defense as a matter of free speech, and in some sense they do have a point. After all, if Neo-Nazi skinheads and white supremacists can congregate in public areas to voice their opinions, then how can we tell this equally repulsive and ignorant group that they cannot do likewise? Personally I would like to see the Westboro Baptists, the Nazis and other hate-mongers disbanded and shut out of public discourse. They have nothing constructive to contribute. But the Supreme Court has a difficult task in making such a thing happen within the bounds of the law. As the highest authority on the matter, the Supreme Court must obey the rule of law even when it leads to a distasteful conclusion.
The case is perplexing. When the Court heard arguments last week, Justice Breyer made known his frustration: “What I'm trying to accomplish is to allow this tort to exist, but not allow it to interfere with an important public message.” In other words, he wishes to see the Westboro Church punished, but this must be done in a way that protects the free speech of others in the public square. This dilemma is echoed in questions posed by Justice Kagan: “So does that mean that now we have to start reading each sign, and saying 'war is wrong' falls on one side of the line but 'you are a war criminal' falls on another side of the line? Is that what we would have to do?”
How this case will be decided, I do not know. It is up to the Court to determine how the law must be applied so that justice is served. But there is another issue at stake here beyond the scope of our secular legal system. The actions of the Westboro Baptist Church have ramifications within the religious community that are just as complex as the legal questions and yet more weighty as they pertain to our relationship with God and His Church. The public perception of this case calls into question the moral authority of Christianity. The hateful rhetoric of the Westboro Baptists damages the reputation of Christianity as a whole by giving non-Christians an easy target for discrediting the faith. Secular atheists and agnostics can point to this radical fundamentalist group as “proof” that Christian morality is oppressive and cruel. The Westboro Baptists preach about a God whose authority and power demands the death of innocent people and then treats their loved ones who mourn their loss with contempt and disrespect. How can a “loving” God be so cruel?
I agree with this assessment as it applies to the Westboro Baptist theology (as well as other fundamentalist sects that promote such a distorted view of the faith). Their brand of Christianity is twisted and corrupted. I reject their image of God as a hateful oppressor who uses His divine Law as a club to beat people into submission.
But secular atheists take this one step further. They respond to this image of Christianity by turning away from God and religion altogether. As they see it, they must throw off the “shackles” of religious authority and oppression. The Westboro Baptist distortion of Christianity serves as an excuse to reject all Christian moral authority across the board.
However this tearing down of moral authority does not solve the problem at hand. Tearing down all authority does not produce a more just or cohesive society. The sad fact is that fundamentalist Christianity (of the Westboro type) is a product of just such an idea. The Protestant Reformers sought to throw off the “shackles” of an “oppressive” Church just as modern secularists wish to do in a more radical way. In the eyes of the Reformers, the Catholic Church presented a distorted image of God and had corrupted the pure message of the Gospel. In some ways the Reformers were right in protesting the corruptions of Catholic clergy. In response, the Council of Trent and other actions taken by the hierarchy went a long way to correct these abuses. But by then the Protestant rift had already occurred. Protestants set about eliminating the authoritative mechanisms of the Church (the hierarchy, Tradition and the witness of the ancient Church) and chaos ensued. Without a central authority to act as a check on run-away doctrine, one Protestant sect broke away from another, disputes between rival groups spawned even more schism, and eventually we find ourselves in our present condition with tens of thousands of competing denominations and no single authority over any of them.
The Reformation took a bad thing (corruption and injustice in high places) and made it worse (with the removal of any authority whatsoever). Christianity became a free-for-all with every home-grown theologian patching together his own doctrinal creed and finding a niche audience who will swear allegiance to his cause. Today we find congregations such as the Westboro Baptist Church claiming “authentic” Christianity as their basis while using their beliefs to desecrate the solemn memorials of soldiers who died defending our country. There is no check and balance within Protestantism to protect against such distortions.
This is not to say that Protestantism is to blame for all of Christianity’s distortions. After all, it was Catholic abuses that sparked the Reformation in the first place and most of the original Reformers were themselves baptized in the Catholic Church (many of them priests). It is part of the human condition that we all fail and fall short of the ideal. Whether Catholic, Protestant, atheist or otherwise, we all need to be held to a higher authority. But unlike Protestantism and modern secularism (which tends toward relativism), Catholicism maintains a cohesive authority to solve abuses and correct sinful behavior and in doing so remains a cohesive whole.
This appeal to a higher authority is not an exclusively religious phenomenon. A similar authority also holds together the fabric of secular society. The Supreme Court has just heard arguments in the case against the Westboro Baptists. By their authority as the highest court in the land a decision will be reached in the realm of secular law. This higher authority is the means by which we survive as a nation. Whether it is God’s law or the law of man we all must submit to some higher principle to judge right from wrong, virtue from vice. In the secular world, if one citizen breaks the law this does not nullify the whole legal system or call into question our nation’s founding principles. It merely demands that the full authority of the law be brought to bear on that individual. Likewise within religion, one Christian who fails to live up to the standards of Christian love and virtue does not condemn the entire Christian enterprise. It calls instead for a strengthening of moral principles among all Christians and a greater recognition of God’s authority over sinful man.
The funeral protests are an ugly display of Christianity gone wrong, but this does not make the case for the wholesale dismantling of religious authority or outright rejection of God. Secularists are right to call on Christians to repudiate the Westboro Baptists (as indeed all of the mainline denominations have done). But to suggest that the actions taken by this handful of Christians condemn all of religion in general or Christianity as a whole is an unfounded notion.
Building a Relationship with Our Mother
For centuries Mary’s precise role in salvation history and her relevance for individual Christians has been heatedly debated between Catholics and Protestants. Catholic doctrine concerning Jesus’ mother is generally misunderstood and rejected by non-Catholics. Encouragingly, Protestant theology has grown more open toward Mary in recent decades. The difficulties that remain usually involve finer points of theology which are best explained in scholarly debates and theological journals. But what is sometimes missing from these technical arguments is the lived experience that Catholics have of Mary as our true spiritual Mother. This intimate relationship with Mary cannot be reduced to doctrinal statements or dogmatic pronouncements; it is an integral component of our lived faith.
A small booklet entitled Why Mary? cuts through the theological complexities of Marian doctrine by starting from a simple premise: As adopted brothers and sisters in Christ, our relationship to Mary must hinge on her role as Mother. Through baptism we enter into a common spiritual family. Having such a familial bond with Jesus we must have a corresponding relationship with Mary…as His Mother and ours. The words of Jesus from the cross to John (the beloved disciple) – “Behold your mother” – lay the foundation for Catholic devotion to Mary as our spiritual Mother. Fittingly, author Kenneth J. Howell opens his brief book with the concept of “family” at the center of his case for Marian spirituality.
To fully understand Catholic doctrine we must view Mary in this context of family and motherhood. This does not mean that doctrine and theology are unimportant or that technical arguments should not be addressed. These things must be involved in any complete discussion of Mariology. However to the ordinary Protestant mind, such technical jargon is generally off-putting. The Protestant perceives Catholic Marian doctrine as “standing in the way” of Christ. To combat this reaction, Mr. Howell places an emphasis on personal relationships and successfully describes Mary as a key figure in our own association with Jesus. In this way, the Protestant notion of a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” is brought to a new level when we see Mary’s vital role in our own salvation.
Why Mary? is not devoid of theological arguments. Included in the text are brief explanations of the four major Marian doctrines taught by the Catholic Church: 1) Mary as Mother of God, 2) her perpetual virginity, 3) the Immaculate Conception, and 4) Mary’s Assumption into Heaven. Biblical evidence is brought to bear on each of these as well as the witness of ancient Christianity. Perhaps most interesting is the testimony of some of the major Reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, who held to the Catholic view on many aspects of Mariology. It is difficult to argue against Catholic Marian spirituality when Protestant founders so clearly supported these doctrines.
A more thorough examination of Catholic belief can certainly be found in larger works concerning Mary. But the purpose of Why Mary? is not to offer a detailed defense of every aspect of Marian doctrine. At only 24 pages, this booklet serves simply as a brief introduction to our Mother for those in the family who may not understand or appreciate her role. Once a personal relationship with Mary has been established (in and through our bond with Christ) further reading may follow to deepen this relationship with our Mother. I would recommend Why Mary? for non-Catholics seeking a better understanding of the Catholic faith, as well as Catholics who may not be well informed about Church teaching. Kenneth Howell’s work aids us in fulfilling Christ’s command: “Behold your mother…
[This review was written as part of the Catholic book reviewer program from The Catholic Company. Visit The Catholic Company to find more information on Why Mary? and be sure to check out their great selection of baptism gifts while you are there.]
As we saw in Part I, the people of Jesus’ day drank wine as a regular part of their diet. It was a component of their social customs. They used it for medicinal purposes. It was even used in their religious ceremonies, such as the Passover. The use of wine was ingrained in their culture. Jesus knew this and He used wine as an example in his teaching. In Mark 2:22 we read:
“And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins.”
A wineskin is a bag or pouch made from animal skins (leather), which was used for carrying wine on long journeys. The reason we do not pour “new wine” into “old wineskins” is that new wine is still undergoing chemical changes from the fermentation process and these changes can cause expansion of the skins. Old skins have lost their flexibility and are unable to stretch to accommodate the changes occurring in the wine. However, “new skins” are still supple; they can stretch as the wine matures.
Jesus often used examples such as this from everyday life to illustrate His point to the crowds, and the people of Jesus’ time would have immediately known the reason for using new skins for new wine. Wine was as familiar to them as “the sewer and the seeds” and “the lilies of the field.” These metaphors were Jesus’ standard form of preaching and they are beautiful symbols of Christian truths. It should not surprise us then that Jesus used wine as an example in His teaching, just as He had used it as the object of His first miracle at Cana.
Jesus’ final use of wine is the most important. At the Last Supper, He took the cup filled with wine, blessed it, gave it to His disciples and said, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood…”
But not all Christians agree that this cup, blessed by Jesus contained wine. Christians who substitute grape juice for wine at Communion often cite the fact that the Gospels only mention “fruit of the vine” when referring to the cup at the Last Supper. At first glance this may sound like a plausible defense, since the word “wine” is noticeably absent. But the expression used by Jesus does not rule out wine altogether. Since both wine and grape juice come from grapes, either one could fairly be called “fruit of the vine.” So focusing on this phrase alone doesn’t win points on either side.
Such arguments only succeed in avoiding the broader context of the passage, which is that the Last Supper was part of a Passover meal. Ask any observant Jew what drink is served at Passover. Wine has always been the prescribed beverage for this Jewish ceremony (a ceremony established by God in the Old Testament). When the disciples were commanded to make preparations for the Passover, they would have acquired wine, not grape juice. Therefore “fruit of the vine” must mean wine in this setting.
Add to this another important fact: the Passover is in the Spring, whereas grapes are harvested in the Fall. Since Jesus lived centuries before refrigeration or sealed containers designed for long-term storage, it would have been literally impossible for He and his disciples to acquire unfermented grape juice in the Springtime. Grapes harvested in the Fall would have spoiled long before the Passover was celebrated. So in those days, the only way to preserve the “fruit of the vine” for extended periods of time was to ferment into…wine. Therefore Jesus blessed wine at the Last Supper, not grape juice.
It seems fitting that the first miracle performed by Jesus (water changed to wine at the wedding feast) and the final act of Jesus before He is arrested and condemned to death (the Last Supper with His disciples) both involved wine. Perhaps this should offer us a clue to the importance of wine in Christian worship. Looking at everything we have examined thus far it seems clear that wine is the right choice for a Christian Communion service…
Yet some may not be convinced: “What’s the big deal?” some might argue. “Grape juice is close enough. It’s essentially the same stuff – it just hasn’t undergone the chemical process of fermentation.”
I would argue that fermentation is symbolically significant to how we understand Jesus’ actions at the Last Supper. The process of producing wine mimics Jesus’ own bodily sacrifice: To make wine we begin with grapes; these are crushed and drained of their juice. This stage of the process is symbolic of Jesus’ death – He too was crushed and His blood was shed. Next the juice is sealed up for a time. Likewise Jesus was sealed in the tomb. When the container is opened we see that the grape juice has been transformed just as Jesus was transformed when He emerged from the tomb. Jesus was changed (His body took on new properties and abilities), and yet He was the same person; so too the grape juice takes on a new existence with changed properties. Jesus’ life is extended into eternity; the wine is preserved from corruption in a way that the grape juice is not. The comparisons are striking.
The same sort of analogy can be made with the bread: wheat is crushed by a mill stone and dough is formed from the flour; the dough is sealed in an oven for a time; the wheat emerges in a new state – as bread. Taken together, bread and wine are joint symbols of the death and Resurrection of Jesus. When we eat and drink these symbols we proclaim the mystery of Jesus’ death and Resurrection.
If we were to use grape juice instead of wine we would not have a complete image of Jesus’ triumph over death. We would consume the symbolically dead Jesus (crushed grapes), not the Resurrected, living Jesus (fermented wine). It would be like using raw bread dough in place of baked bread. It is not what Jesus did, and it does not make theological sense as a symbol of Christian faith.
A Protestant might reply: “Well, this is all very nice as far as symbols go. But if we use grape juice, what’s the harm? It is only a minor change from what Jesus did. How serious can it be?”
To realize just how serious this is, we should keep in mind that when Jesus’ commanded, “Do this in remembrance of me,” it was His final farewell. It was the last wish of a man about to die. But this was no ordinary man, and this was no ordinary request. Jesus was not planning his memorial the way we plan a funeral. He was not choosing floral arrangements and selecting songs. Changing from wine to grape juice is not the same as substituting yellow tulips in place of the red roses that Great Aunt Betsy requested for her casket. Jesus’ memorial is something unique.
Jesus said of the bread and wine: “This is my body…This is my blood.” And Paul wrote about the Lord’s Supper: “…anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” (1 Corinthians 11:29)
Jesus’ memorial meal is not just another funeral service (as important as these can be). Rather it is a participation in His Sacrifice. This ceremony makes His Body and Blood present to us. The bread and wine are not accessories; they are not like flowers that greet you at the funeral home, or songs that generate pleasant memories of the deceased. The bread and wine at Communion are the very means by which we come into contact with our Lord. When Jesus says, “Do this in remembrance of me…” it is more than a suggestion about setting the right mood – He is telling us how to make His Body and Blood present to us here and now. If we deviate from Jesus’ actions at the Last Supper then we tamper with the very Body and Blood of our Lord.
Most of us would never go against the wishes of our family and friends when planning their funeral or wake. We honor their requests. But what Jesus instituted at the Last Supper is something more than a funeral. It is a memorial, to be sure, but it is beyond anything we offer on behalf of those who die. In fact it is not us who do the offering. It is He who offers us this Communion in His Body and Blood. It is not ours to reconstruct on our own terms. It is not ours to manipulate or change. What Christ offered at the Last Supper must be honored if we are to honor Christ.
On the night before He died, Jesus gathered with His disciples and ate with them His final meal:
“While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take and eat; this is my body.’ Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom.’” (Matthew 26:26-29)
For nearly 2000 years Christians of every major denomination and sect have repeated this same ritual, following Jesus’ command: “Do this in remembrance of me!” The Bible gives few explicit details on how this memorial ought to be conducted. And so it is understandable that there will be variations among different Christian groups. For instance, the precise wording of Eucharistic prayers and the accompanying gestures may vary depending on historical, cultural, or theological developments. However, there are a few specific details about which the Bible is very explicit, and on these points there ought to be uniformity among Christians. We must remember that this ceremony is Christ’s final memorial – the last wish of a man who knew He was about to die. Above all Christians should honor the explicit actions of Christ as they are recorded in the Bible. In other words, when Scripture is clear on a matter, there should be no room for disagreement.
One such explicit detail recorded in Scripture is the use of wine as the drink blessed by Christ at this meal. Many Protestant churches use unfermented grape juice rather than wine although this is in clear contradiction to the Word of God. This may seem a minor detail, but the implications of such a substitution are weighty, as we shall see. The New Testament texts are very clear that Jesus used bread and wine. If Jesus’ actions are to be our guiding principle then we must stay true to the Biblical record. Any objection to the use of wine is based on faulty logic and runs contrary to centuries of Christian practice. Once we know the Biblical truth of the matter there is no reason to deviate from Jesus’ own example set at the Last Supper.
The Protestant switch to grape juice dates back only to the mid-to-late 1800s at the earliest. The abandonment of wine was a specifically American phenomenon that had its beginnings in the Temperance movement of the Nineteenth Century and culminated in the era of Prohibition (in the 1920s). Caught up in this anti-alcohol movement Protestants followed cultural trends rather than the Biblical truth that had informed 1800 years of Christian tradition. The actions of Jesus were thus trumped by political and social activists of the time.
Interestingly, all of the major Reformers – Martin Luther, John Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli, John Knox, etc. – advocated the use of wine for Communion. Changing to unfermented grape juice would never have entered the minds of any of these Protestant forbearers. Being strict followers of the Word of God, they would not have deviated from Christ’s own actions at the Last Supper. Along with bread, wine was the universally accepted element used at Communion because that is what Jesus used. If it is found in the Bible, then any good Protestant would stay true to the Word of God. Jesus’ own action speaks for itself.
In fact, it is abundantly clear from the Gospels that Jesus was no stranger to wine. He changed water into wine at the wedding feast in Cana (John 2:1-11). According to this passage, Jesus ordered six stone jars to be filled with water…each holding twenty to thirty gallons! We have no way of knowing how many guests were in attendance, but Jesus provided these guests with more than 120 gallons of wine…and He did this after they had already consumed what had been supplied by the hosts! Obviously Jesus was not a Prohibitionist.
Some Christians will argue that the wine mentioned in such passages of the Bible is not the same as the wine we have today because the alcohol content was far lower. These Christians claim that this ancient wine wasn’t even strong enough to cause intoxication. Therefore grape juice is closer to what Jesus and His disciples used.
To the contrary, Christians in the First Century did get drunk on Communion wine, and we have the words of Paul to attest to it. Paul chastises the Corinthians with these words:
“When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!” (1 Corinthians 11:20-22)
If the early Christians really used mere grape juice or a low-alcohol beverage then the Corinthians could never have gotten “drunk” at communal gatherings. From this passage we can clearly see that the alcohol content of their wine was high enough for intoxication. Furthermore, Paul does not say that they should altogether stop using fermented wine at the Lord’s Supper. He simply tells them to portion it out equally so that everyone gets a fair share. Over time these portions became more standardized so that today we each receive only a morsel of bread and sip of wine.
Other Biblical figures (as early as Noah in Genesis 9:20-21) are mentioned as having overindulged in alcohol and it is this drunkenness that is specifically prohibited in Scripture. But wine and other strong drink was never completely banned. To suggest otherwise is to misconstrue God’s Word. In fact Scripture sometimes recommends the use of wine and alcohol in general:
"Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to those who are bitter of heart. Let him drink and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more." (Proverbs 31:6-7)
In the New Testament, Paul advises Timothy to drink wine for its medicinal value:
“Stop drinking water only. Take a little wine for the good of your stomach, and because of your frequent illnesses.” (1 Timothy 5:23).
Besides social and medicinal usages, wine was involved in Jewish worship. Even before God’s promise to Abraham was fulfilled, wine was offered in worship to God:
"Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said: 'Blessed be Abram of God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth...'" (Genesis 14:18-19)
Jesus is later identified with this same Melchizedek (in the Letter to the Hebrews), for Jesus too offered bread and wine as a sacrifice to God. When Christians use wine for Communion it is a continuation of centuries of traditional ceremonial use of wine – from Melchizedek to the Passover meal to the Last Supper. Jesus was conscious of this connection when he instituted His memorial.
[To be continued in Part II]
As another week comes to an end this is your chance to top off your glass with news, current events, and just plain interesting stuff that may not have made into the mainstream media. A chance to linger for a few more moments before we close the door on the week. Below are some links to articles, blogs, and miscellaneous happenings that caught my eye in the past week. You can sample what you like. I'll serve up more next Friday...
