judicialsupport

Legal Writing for Legal Reading!

Archive for the month “July, 2021”

30 Jul 2021
18 Comments

Templeton Project: The Early Christian Apologists–The Letter of Mathetes to Diognetus

Back in October 2015 I wrote about the inauguration of the Abington Templeton Foundation (see here).  The project is now underway (see here) and I will be posting our writing here.

Check out the latest piece entitled “The Early Christian Apologists–The Letter of Mathetes to Diognetus.”

See also:

_____________________________

In the first centuries after the death and resurrection of Christ, several Christian writers produced apologies for the Christian faith.  Among their intended audiences were the Jewish community, the Roman government, the philosophers, and the pagans.  In several articles over the next year we will closely examine some of these works.

An early apology outside the New Testament is entitled The Letter of Mathetes to Diognetus, written by one Mathetes, a Greek word meaning disciple.  It is sent to an individual who wishes to understand Christianity.

The author writes that the purpose of the letter is to explain the way Christians worship God, and who the true God is so that they may look down upon the world and despise death.  His apology is a critique of both Greeks (pagans) and Jews.  Furthermore, the author intends to show how Christians love one another and why Christianity is of such recent origin.

Mathetes’ critique is very critical of pagan and Jewish religion.  Diognetus is a Gentile who worships many gods that consist of stone; brass; wood that rots; silver, liable to theft; iron; and earthenware–all corruptible matter unable to see, hear, and are without life.

The disciple also criticizes the religion of the Jews who offer sacrifices that God does not need.  It is the true God who gives us what we need; we do not give Him what He needs, which is nothing.  The Jews then differ little from the pagans regarding the nature of God.  The Jews also err in their practices of circumcision that indicates special election by God and the Sabbath on which they are not permitted to do good.

Christians who live among all nations can not be distinguished from others in place of resident, language, or way of life.  Christians marry and beget children but do not have a common bed, a reference to sexual morality. They do not destroy their children.  They lives among others as sojourners awaiting their fulfilment as citizens of  heaven.  They obey the law, nonetheless they are persecuted. even though they do not deserve others’ hatred.  Christians live in the world but are not of the world.

God, the Creator of all things, sent the Word through whom the world was created and is sustained and who brings salvation to the human race.  God’s power is seen in the fact that though Christians are punished, their numbers increase.

The author criticizes the philosophers who had a wrong conception of Him.  By faith human beings perceive the reality of God who is long-suffering, kind, good, free from wrath, and true.  We receive God’s benefits and serve Him in response.

The right time came when the unworthiness of our works was revealed. Through God’s kindness we were made worthy through God’s taking on the burden of our sins by sending His Son as a ransom.  Only His righteousness could cover our iniquities.  By the Son we are justified, and by Him alone.  It is a sweet exchange–Christ takes on our sins and we receive His righteousness.

By accepting the Christian faith a person receives knowledge of the Father and a place in the kingdom of heaven.  We become imitators of God by benefiting our neighbor including the needy.

The writer claims that he does not depart from right reason.  He is a disciple of the Apostles and a teacher of the Gentiles.

We are to combine true knowledge, not the prideful knowledge that seeks to be equal with God as we have it in the story of the Garden of Eden, and doctrine with fear of God and always speak and act according to the goal of eternal life.  The Serpent cannot undo these things.

Mathetes teaches us several things about our discipleship in witness and the defense of the faith.  He speaks to Diognetus with respect, while at the same time providing a critique of beliefs that do not accord with Christian teaching.  His critique of Judaism may seem harsh, but it reflects Jesus’ own teaching in the Gospels.  We must qualify by saying that Israel was elected by God as Saint Paul underscored in the Letter to the Romans.  The Jewish sacrificial cult that Mathetes calls into question was also criticized by Jesus and the Old Testament prophets.  Sacrifice must never undermine true devotion to God and loving kindness toward the neighbor.  It is doubtful that the Old Testament promoted a sacrificial doctrine that involved meeting God’s needs.  This was more of a pagan concept.

In our defense of the faith we have an opportunity to describe Christianity against misconceptions of non-believers.  The apologists spent much time doing just this.  Therefore, we should be well-acquainted with the Bible and the teachings of the Church.  To do this, a Christian should be in lifelong study.

Our critique must be strong and based on fact, not shrill or abusive.  Mathetes is pretty successful with this attitude, despite an occasional factual inaccuracy.

Michael Tavella

March 18, 2021

Posted in Templeton Project
29 Jul 2021
5 Comments

Joe Arcieri Songs: Together

Joe Arcieri is a friend of mine who I worked with for many years during my ten years working for Acme Markets.  Joe, when not stocking milk or saving lives as a nurse, is an excellent guitar player.  I have had the privilege, from time to time, of (badly) plunking my bass guitar with Joe as he melts a face or two with a great solo.

As great musicians do, Joe has written some of his own songs and keeps a soundcloud site to post them.  When I have opportunity, I will post his music here as well.

Here is his composition called “Together” which you can find here.

Here are the links to the previously posted songs by Joe:

Posted in Joe Arcieri Songs
28 Jul 2021

Scientists Just Discovered Why All Pop Music Sounds Exactly the Same

Anyone who listens to pop radio regularly has probably been hit with this realization at one point or another – a ton of pop music sounds very similar. It seems like grandpa logic, but a growing body of research confirms what we all suspect: Pop music is actually getting more and more homogeneous. And now, thanks to a new study, they know why.

A new study, surveying more than 500,000 albums, shows simplicity sells best across all music genres. As something becomes popular, it necessarily dumbs down and becomes more formulaic. So if you’re wondering why the top 10 features two Meghan Trainor songs that sound exactly the same and two Taylor Swift songs that sound exactly the same, scientists think they finally have the answer.

“This can be interpreted,” the researchers write, “as music becoming increasingly formulaic in terms of instrumentation under increasing sales numbers due to a tendency to popularize music styles with low variety and musicians with similar skills.”

So music all starts simplifying and sounding similar. Not only that, but complexity actually starts turning people off of musical styles. Alternative rock, experimental and hip-hop music are all more complex now than when they began, and each has seen their sales plummet. Startlingly few genres have retained high levels of musical complexity over their histories, according to the researchers. And ones that have — folk, folk rock and experimental music — aren’t exactly big earners. Unless, of course, they fit into the Mumford & Sons/Lumineers pop-folk mold.

The findings are somewhat intuitive. Of course a genre will sell more once it forms an established sound that listeners can identify with. But the science is only proving the now-dominant truth of pop music: Record companies are only comfortable promoting things they already know will sell. And they know that now better than ever.

Record labels are pouring resources into data analysis tools, using them to predict which songs will be the next breakout hit. According to Derek Thompson at the Atlantic, executives can use services like Shazam and HitPredictor to see which songs will break out next with surprising accuracy.

Once a worthy song or artist emerges from the data, radio conglomerates have mechanisms in place to ensure that music will connect with an audience. Clear Channel’s “On the Verge“ program is one of the most talked about. When a song is dubbed “On the Verge,” every station in the Clear Channel network has to play it at least 150 times — blasting it to a potential network of about 245 million listeners. This undoubtedly helped launch Iggy Azalea to incredible new heights of success, which she may not have otherwise earned with her talent alone. And her success, in turn, is spawning legions of hip-hop pop imitators whom labels will choose to blast out because their chance at success has been proven. It’s a cycle.

Human beings crave familiarity. Numerous psychological studies show that people choose songs they’re familiar with over songs that more closely match their reported music tastes. Our somewhat manipulative music industry, which chooses familiar-sounding music and pushes it to listeners in massive quantities, knows well how to capitalize on those cravings. Genres standardize over time as a way to plug into this psychology. And then we hear the same songs, over and over again.

But there’s a point at which that becomes tired, and the space opens for something revolutionary — something that totally shifts the way we think about music. If we’re aware of these sort of trends and practices, we can better resist what they do to our music. We can champion the genuinely original and leave aside the derivative. We can make a better musical culture.

By Tom Barnes and originally published in Mic on January 7, 2015 and can be found here.

Posted in My Articles | Leave a comment
27 Jul 2021
1 Comment

Free Speech and a Cheerleader

Check out this post to Faye Cohen’s blog Toughlawyerlady!

Cheerleaders used to be known for their chant, Rah, Rah, Sis, Boom, Bah! Now they apparently are also known for profanity and establishing law about free speech. In the recent case of Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (referring to Brandi Levy), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether schools can regulate off-campus social media speech that materially and substantially disrupts the school environment without violating the First Amendment. In an 8-1 majority decision the Court ruled that Levy’s explicit online language about her school was protected under the First Amendment.

This case stemmed back to a 2017 Snapchat posting, where the then 14-year-old Levy, a student at Mahoney Area High School, along with a friend, on a weekend and away from school property, shared a picture of them with their middle fingers raised and the caption “Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything.” This incident occurred after Levy did not receive a spot on her high school’s varsity cheerleading team, but was given a spot on the junior varsity team for one year.

Some high school students who received the post reported Levy to her cheerleading coaches, and she was suspended from her cheerleading team for a year for violating the team’s rules. Her appeal of the suspension to school officials was unsuccessful, and her doting parents, who should be proud that at least their daughter has a grasp on vulgar language, if not grammar, and eventually the ACLU, who accepted the case on behalf of the Levy family, sued the School District.

Levy’s parents argued that the school did not have the right to punish their blessed child for her behavior and speech conducted outside of the school premises, and which did not substantially disrupt the school environment. Levy’s arguments prevailed at the initial court level, and on appeal. The School District brought the case to the Supreme Court because they were confused, as other courts have stated that there are times when schools can constitutionally regulate off-campus student speech. Courts in Pennsylvania generally defer to schools because they don’t want to be flooded with the “I got a B, but I should have gotten an A” arguments which would flood the courts. There is a dearth of case law in Pennsylvania that is supportive of students’ rights outside of the disability arena.

Although the Supreme Court, in a clear as mud decision, ruled that Levy’s explicit language online was protected under the First Amendment, it also stated that school administrators have the power to punish student speech occurring online or out of the classroom if it disrupts the environment or invades the rights of others. This disruptive behavior includes severe bullying, harassing or other disruptive actions that occur off campus. An exhaustive list of when regulation would be permissible was not provided by the Court.

This was the first time in more than 50 years that a student won a free speech case in the Supreme Court. Litigating a case all the way to the Supreme Court is a difficult and costly process, and very few cases are accepted for a hearing. Thus, this case set a legal precedent for public schools on how to handle student speech rights concerning off-campus and online speech. This case establishes factors that courts can now use to determine the rights of school administrators to punish students for language and behavior conducted outside of the classroom. It suggests that some incidents are better suited for parents to handle rather than school administrators. Because Levy’s speech was only vulgar, rather than threatening or obscene, was another factor in Levy’s favor.

It is likely that the Supreme Court accepted this case because what is considered “on campus” or “off campus” these days is unclear and challenging. With social media, online platforms, and cellphones, students can easily remain in contact with one another while off campus; and speech, which is lasting and memorialized, can quickly circulate to an entire school and impact a school environment.

In conclusion, the issue of free speech for students has become complicated as social media has grown tremendously and expanded to many platforms. Further the COVID-19 pandemic, requiring online learning, without a formal physical school campus, but a continuation of the school environment, complicates things even further.

Faye Riva Cohen, Esquire is the founder and managing attorney of the Law office of Faye Riva Cohen, P.C. in Philadelphia, PA. She writes a blog called “Tough Lawyer Lady.” She represents clients in labor, discrimination, family law, real estate, and estate litigation issues. If you have a civil rights, discrimination, or freedom of speech issue of your own, please contact Attorney Cohen at 215-563-7776. Her office is located at 2047 Locust St. in an historic brownstone. She can be reached at 215-563-7776 or at frc@fayerivacohen.com.

Attorney Cohen acknowledges the writing assistance of Gillian Southworth, one of the Firm’s summer law clerks, who is a student at Duquesne University School of Law.

Posted in Reblog: Toughlawyerlady
26 Jul 2021

Food Ordinance Does Not Violate Rights Of Christians Distributing Sandwiches

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In Redlich v. City of St. Louis, (ED MO, July 22, 2021), a Missouri federal magistrate judge dismissed a suit by two officers of the New Life Evangelical Center who, as part of their religious obligation, conduct outreach to the homeless.  They seek an injunction to prevent enforcement of a city ordinance that bans the distribution of “potentially hazardous foods” to the public without a temporary food permit. Plaintiffs were cited for distributing bologna sandwiches without a permit. The court rejected free exercise, free speech, freedom of association, equal protection and other challenges by plaintiffs, saying in part:

Plaintiffs have not established that the Ordinance constitutes a substantial burden on their free exercise rights. Assuming that food sharing is a central tenet of Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, the evidence does not show that enforcement of the Ordinance prohibits Plaintiffs’ meaningful ability to adhere to their faith or denies Plaintiffs reasonable opportunities to engage in fundamental religious activities….

Plaintiffs show that the Ordinance certainly limits their ability to express their message in distributing sandwiches, but admit there is nothing about bologna sandwiches specifically that inherently expresses their religion. The facts show that in the alternative to obtaining a charitable feeding permit, Plaintiffs can and have distributed other types of food, bottled water, clothes, literature, and offered community and prayer without providing food subject to the Ordinance…

The record supports that the City enacted the Ordinance to adopt the National Food Code for public health and safety reasons, not to curtail a religious message. Thus, the Ordinance and its Amendment are content neutral and generally applicable….

You can learn more about this issue here.

Posted in Reblog: Religion Clause | Leave a comment
23 Jul 2021
22 Comments

Templeton Project: Gratitude, Humility, and Wonder–Key Words for Christian Living

Back in October 2015 I wrote about the inauguration of the Abington Templeton Foundation (see here).  The project is now underway (see here) and I will be posting our writing here.

Check out the latest piece entitled “Gratitude, Humility, and Wonder–Key Words for Christian Living.”

See also:

_____________________________

Christian practice is grounded in Christian faith.  Faith leads to faithfulness; belief leads to action.  Among essential elements of this practice are gratitude, humility, and wonder.

The Christian disciple must be ever grateful for all that God has done in his life.  Contained in the First Article of the Creed and an essential part of the Christian confession is that God has made me and all things.  In The Small Catechism Luther explains that God gives us all we possess and our very lives.  For this gift of life, for being in the world, and for that which sustains it we are to offer up praise and thanksgiving.

So the Christian offers up thanksgiving in gratitude for the bounty of God has given to him.  Gratitude is a recognition that we neither created ourselves or provided for ourselves out of our own resources. In fact, we have provided nothing for ourselves that does not ultimately come from the creative activity of God.

Along with gratitude we are to bear ourselves in the world with humility.  Humility is related to gratitude in that humility is a  recognition that all we are and all we have comes from God.  To know this evokes gratitude. Pride does not thrive with this awareness. It is at its foundation a pretension of deity and coaxes us into the delusion that we may break moral boundaries set by God for our welfare.  Pride would replace God with self.  In a taunt against the king of Babylon, the prophet Isaiah writes of the king’s pride, “I will make myself like the Most High.”  (Isaiah 14: 14b ESV)  The king’s punishment is sure, “But you are brought down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit.” (Isaiah 14: 15 ESV)

With gratitude we understand the important distinction between Creator and creature.  We recognize the chasm between ourselves and the One who made all things.  Our awareness leads to our humility.  We know our neediness, and how it is met by a gracious God.

Among our neighbors we acknowledge that though we may have many gifts, they are not meant for boasting but for serving.  Christ Himself is Son of God and yet he humbles Himself for service to the human race, that is, for our salvation.  In Philippians Paul advises the community to humility using the humility of Christ as the rationale for his appeal. (Philippians 2)

Along with gratitude and humility comes wonder.  To wonder at the splendor, variety, and beauty of the universe does not dissipate its mystery.  Analysis of our world is not a mystery crusher, but may even be a method of increasing wonder.  God will not be put under a microscope or be observed through the lens of a telescope.  He speaks to us on His own terms.  He reveals Himself as He desires, but always for our welfare. Though some theological knowledge can be known by rational argument and logic, we know of the Holy Trinity and our salvation only through revelation

Wonder at God’s creation leads to praise and thanksgiving to God and compels us to humility at our smallness in the face of the divine.  “It is he who made us, and not we ourselves.”  (Psalm 100: 3b ESV)

When we witness to others, we may have the opportunity to hold up the majesty and mystery of God.  We are called to do such with humility.  Being committed to this perspective we shall be both effective and faithful to the Lord.

Michael G. Tavella

February 26, 2021

Posted in My Articles
22 Jul 2021
5 Comments

Joe Arcieri Songs: Noir

Joe Arcieri is a friend of mine who I worked with for many years during my ten years working for Acme Markets.  Joe, when not stocking milk or saving lives as a nurse, is an excellent guitar player.  I have had the privilege, from time to time, of (badly) plunking my bass guitar with Joe as he melts a face or two with a great solo.

As great musicians do, Joe has written some of his own songs and keeps a soundcloud site to post them.  When I have opportunity, I will post his music here as well.

Here is his composition called “Noir” which you can find here.

Here are the links to the previously posted songs by Joe:

Posted in My Articles
21 Jul 2021
2 Comments

Yessource: The Yes Album Singles and Edits

Here are my latest uploads to YesSource, my Yes rarities youtube page (about which you can read here).  This post is another addition to my series of Yes music posts and a collection of all my Yes-related posts is here.  Yes, of course, is a, if not the, premier progressive rock band, and I am an enormous fan of it.

You can see all of my Yessource uploads here.

My latest YesSource uploads can be found here:

Posted in YesSource and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
21 Jul 2021

Why the Anglican Eucharist is the Truest

The biggest reason why I am an Anglican is because I believe the Anglican Church’s understanding and practice of the Eucharist is the truest to Scripture and Tradition. To prove this, I shall point out the errors the other denominations have with the Eucharist and show how the Anglican Church is free of those errors:

Protestantism:

(NOTE: Let me clarify that by Protestant here I mean the mainstream expression of denominations like Baptists, Pentecostals and Brethren. Most Presbyterians will also fall under these descriptions. I know that these groups don’t all agree with each other on the Eucharist. I know they don’t even agree among themselves, but nevertheless the vast majority do conform to the following description of their Eucharistic understanding and practice. I also understand that confessional Lutheranism and Methodism do not necessarily fit here.)

First and foremost, most Protestants by and large do not believe in the real presence, that is, they do not think the Eucharist is the actual Body and Blood of our Lord, which is plainly an error on their part. For proof of the real presence, read this. The Anglican Church however, does indeed teach the real presence in the Eucharist:

From the Catechism:

Question: What is the inward part, or thing signified [in the Eucharist]?

Answer: The Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper.

From the 1971 ARCIC Agreed Statement:

Communion with Christ in the eucharist presupposes his true presence, effectually signified by the bread and wine which, in this mystery, become his body and blood.

Second, most Protestants by and large do not believe that the Eucharist is necessary for one’s salvation and see it merely as a symbolic meal to commemorate Christ’s Passion. This also goes against the plain words of Jesus Himself:

“Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.” (John 6:53-55)

And the earliest of Tradition:

“Obey the Bishop and the Priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.” (Ignatius to the Ephesians 20, circa 110 AD)

The Anglican Church however does teach that the Eucharist must be taken to be saved, and affirms that it is the means by which we receive the benefits of Christ’s Passion:

From the Catechism:

Question: How many Sacraments hath Christ ordained in his Church?

Answer. Two only, as generally necessary to salvation; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Question. Why was the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper ordained?

Answer. For the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby.

Thirdly, most Protestants do not celebrate the Eucharist liturgically, which also goes against Scripture:

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is foryou…’ (1 Corinthians 11:23)

And the earliest account of Tradition:

Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks in this way: First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant… (Didache, circa 80 AD)

Anglicans however, obviously celebrate the Eucharist liturgically in our Book of Common Prayer.

And fourthly, Protestants (excluding Lutherans and some Methodist branches) do not have Priests, and their leaders have not been validly Ordained by the successors to the Apostles, Bishops, which is necessary for the Eucharist to be consecrated properly. As Tradition affirms only a few decades after the New Testament:

Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the people also be. (Ignatius “Smyrnaeans” 8, circa 110 AD)

The Anglican Church however does have Priests who have been Ordained by Bishops in succession to the Apostles, and forbids anyone but Priests to consecrate the Eucharist

1604 Canon XXI

In every Parish Church and Chapel where Sacraments are to be administered within this Realm, the holy Communion shall be Administered by the Parson, Vicar, or Minister.

Roman Catholicism:

In her understanding, the Roman Catholic Church errs with the doctrine of transubstantiation, which says that the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine and physically become Christ’s Flesh and Blood. This view is certainly not heresy, and does not invalidate their Eucharist, but I do believe it to be mistaken as it is contrary to Tradition, whose view the Anglican Church affirms:

In that sacrament is Christ, because it is the Body of Christ, it is therefore not bodily food but spiritual. Whence the Apostle says of its type: Our fathers ate spiritual food and drank spiritual drink, for the Body of God is a spiritual body; the Body of Christ is the Body of the Divine Spirit, for the Spirit is Christ. (Saint Ambrose, “On the Mysteries” 9:58)

Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to you His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that you by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, may be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. (Cyril of Jerusalem, “On the Mysteries” 4:3)

Christ on a certain occasion discoursing with the Jews said, Unless you eat My flesh and drink My blood, you have no life in you. They not having heard His saying in a spiritual sense were offended, and went back, supposing that He was inviting them to eat flesh. (Cyril of Jerusalem, “On the Mysteries” 4:4)

In their practice, traditional Roman Catholics unnecessarily insist that the Body of Christ must be taken on the tongue, and that communicants cannot hold it in their hand first. This goes against the plain teachings of Tradition:

In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. (Cyril of Jerusalem, “On the Mysteries” 5:21)

The Anglican Church has never taught that the Eucharist must be taken on the tongue and so is exempt from this error.

Eastern Orthodoxy:

While the Anglican Church has never officially condemned it, I personally think the Orthodox Church’s first and worst error is that they use leavened bread in the Eucharist. This runs contrary to Scripture, because firstly, the Eucharist is understood as the fulfilment of the Passover Meal where the bread had to be unleavened and leaven was utterly forbidden:

They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted on the fire; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it… On the first day you shall remove leaven out of your houses, for if anyone eats what is leavened, from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel. (Exodus 12:8+15)

The Eucharist was established during the Passover Meal and so we can assume that the bread there was unleavened, or else, the writers would have mentioned it.

Moreover, in the New Testament leaven is still seen as a metaphor for sin, and Saint Paul tells us that we must celebrate therefore with unleavened bread:

Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new batch, as you really are unleavened. For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed. Therefore, let us celebrate the festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Corinthians 5:7-8)

The Anglican Church however by and large celebrates the Eucharist with unleavened bread.

The second error of the Orthodox is that in their Eucharistic practice they place the bread into the same chalice that holds the wine, and then the Priest gives this mixture to the communicants with a spoon. There is no mention of this practice whatsoever in Scripture and it also runs contrary to Tradition:

In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. (Cyril of Jerusalem, “On the Mysteries” 5:21)

Then after you have partaken of the Body of Christ, draw near also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth your hands, but bending , and saying with an air of worship and reverence, Amen , hallow yourself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ. (Cyril of Jerusalem, “On the Mysteries” 5:22)

The Anglican Church does not of course have this practice and thus does not fall into this error.

Conclusion

As the Eucharist is the central action of Christianity and the Church, for the Anglican Church to therefore have the truest understanding and practice of it is of enormous importance and is certainly a good reason to join her bosom and celebrate this Sacrament how it should be.

Originally published on the New Kingdom blog, but it seems to be gone.  This matter was expanded upon on New Kingdom here on June 27, 2021.

Posted in My Articles | Leave a comment
20 Jul 2021
1 Comment

STRANGE TIMES

Check out this post to Faye Cohen’s blog Toughlawyerlady!   

                If anyone wants to be assured that we are living in strange times, I will offer my experience of a couple of weeks ago as an example. I was eating at an outdoor café one evening, and a succession of young men walked by. Each of them was wearing a sport coat, dress shirt and tie on the top half of their bodies, and boxer shorts, socks and dress shoes on the bottom half of their bodies. Not being able to contain my curiosity, I finally asked one of them where they were going, and he said to a party. I later learned that the party was being given by the Wharton School of Business, at the University of Pennsylvania.

                Okay, I lived through the era of toga parties, but none of them were sponsored by the universities I attended. I guess it is a cute idea for a prestigious educational institution like Wharton to give a business on top/casual on the bottom party, but it serves as an example of what is considered appropriate street attire these days.

                I am often treated to the sight of both men and women’s underwear protruding from their pants. And who of us have not seen young women seemingly held together by spandex or some kind of tape, with their skirts reaching only the very bottom of their posterior.  I always hope that they don’t need to sneeze or bend over slightly, because their entire ensemble will collapse. Lord knows what would happen if a puff of wind came along.

                Given this standard lack of clothing parading around the streets I wonder what the next trend will be.  There is only one thing left, and that is nudity.  Some of the entertainers in videos, television and movies have already gone there.

                So, I guess that if we have reached bottom on the appropriate clothing rung, we have nowhere to go but up. No doubt the designers have already realized this, as fall fashions are touting longer lengths for suits and dresses. Let’s see if the younger generation will embrace this look; but don’t count on it.  I mainly am seeing tight leggings, with a short top and boots.  It appears that less is more these days in seemingly everything.   

Posted in Reblog: Toughlawyerlady

Post Navigation

← Older Entries