timeimmortal

In reading through an excellent tome by James Stuart Bell, which is comprised of excerpts from the various books that were found in the personal library of one Clive Staples Lewis — yes, of Narnia fame. From the Library of C. S. Lewis is an amazing book full of all kinds of spiritual reflections, principally from Christian thinkers, theologians, and authors who shaped and guided Lewis along his journey into, and then through, the Christian faith.

This morning, on the bus to work, I came across this passage, an excerpt from a writing by C. F. D. Moule, an Anglican priest and theologian who passed away last year at the age of 98.

In Rev 7:14 there is mention of those who have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. This, of course, is applicable to all Christians as such: we all owe our cleansing to that blood. But if, as is sometimes held, this passage refers specially to martyrs, then I suggest — though this is only a guess — that it is possible that we are confronted with a striking example of the way in which Christ’s once-and-for-all sacrifice might be, in certain circumstances, spoken of as repeated in each act of human obedience joined with his.

The martyr’s own blood, shed in faithfulness to the Lord, turns out to be the blood of the Lamb. When their blood flowed, behold it was the blood of the Lamb. Their sacrifice was united with his — not as though theirs were independently redemptive or added anything to his, but in the sense that, being united, believer and Lord are, in that sense, one: his blood is their blood, their blood his. The blood whith is the sacrament of obedience is the Lord’s blood: the wine which is the sacrament of obedience is, in that sense, the Lord’s blood.

Now, Moule was (again), an Anglican, and so did not entirely share the Catholic view of the bread and wine. And yet, I think he grasped that there was more to them than just a symbolic remembrance of The Last Supper as well, and I think this moved him to postulate a reason as to how it might be possible that in partaking of the bread and wine, we might still be able to eat and drink the bread and wine whilst discerning in them the body of Jesus (c.f. 1 Corinthians 11:27-29).

In reading his conclusion, or rather his conjecture, I got the sense that he was correct about the link between the blood of the martyrs and the blood of Christ, but initially I couldn’t quite wrap my head around what that link might be. However, when Moule notes, of martyrs, that “[Christ's] blood is their blood, their blood his,” and then goes on to note that “in that sense” the wine from the altar is the blood of the Lord, I think he’s on to something…and that he doesn’t quite go far enough.

It is probably impossible to fully convey, in writing, the magnitude and meaning of what we receive in the Eucharistic meal; in the breaking of the bread and pouring of the wine, we remember Christ, and in the consecration of same we participate — both again and anew — in the one true sacrifice that Christ made for the salvation of all. In receiving Christ, we are thus not merely remembering Him, but committing ourselves to Him, uniting ourselves with Him, and in some sense even becoming as He was.

In essence, then, what Moule notes above about the blood of martyrs must happen in the Eucharist — in taking the wine which now is blood, we surrender our own blood, and our blood becomes Christ’s blood (and His ours).

Which should mean, if we are honest about our beliefs, that in receiving Christ, we boldly declare that we are fully ready — even willing — to perish as He did, not for our own glory, but for the glory of God and for our love of others (c.f. John 15:13)

In essence then, our participation in the Eucharist — in the feast of the body and blood of the Lord — becomes a preparation for martyrdom. In receiving that most blessed meal, we pledge that we stand ready — prepared, as it were, in heart, mind, and soul — to offer up everything, even our life, for the glory of God. And perhaps we should thus reflect that if we are not able — in heart, mind, and soul — to confess our willingness to put the Lord even before our own life, we should perhaps abstain from reception of the most blessed of the Sacraments.

And when we do receive the most blessed sacrament, perhaps we should reflect on the fact that at times, the Christian call includes the call to martyrdom. Perhaps we should make it a part of our prayers, that day and whenever the moment comes upon us, to ask the Lord for the strength and courage we may one day need to face, boldly, those who would do us harm for our confession unto Christ.

Update: Welcome, WebElf readers!

Dani writes in again to follow up on my previous reply to him.

Hi again!

Just say thank you for reply. And hey, that’s the Net, right? No real distances at all, just a few mouse clicks!!

About The Last Supper and the Moore sentences, I just feel like you. But maybe more near to “unknown details about the actual Cylon nature” will explain that point. Will see…

Not very agree with that suggestion that Cally could also be the final one. I think it would be just anti-climax because she was a really secondary character, and also a dead character and how could D’Anna knows that?

No way mate, Helo is the one

Regards,
Dani

PS: For a deep analysis to the Last Supper I recommend you: www.spacewesterns.com/articles/60/

And for a different analysis to the series: www.galacticavariants.blogspot.com

I do recommend the reader check out both sites. The first provides some rather interesting speculation, although I disagree with the conclusion that Starbuck is the final Cylon. The second doesn’t seem to have any one suspect in mind, but it does do some interesting analysis (although it seems a bit cynical about the religious aspects of the series, which I think will be much more relevant to the outcome than simply being rejected as pathways to humanity’s destruction).

---

Spoiler ahead — skip if you wish

---

The second link talks about a theory that has been percolating through the rumour mill, the idea that Kara Thrace will find her own body on Earth in the ruins of a Viper. But whereas some see this as possible evidence of her Cylonity, I tend to think instead of Count Iblis from the original Battlestar Galactica, and how he was ultimately exposed as a demon disguised in the body of a human whose ship had crashed on a deserted world.

The second link rejects the “Kara = Cylon” theory, but espouses the theory that the extant Kara Thrace currently aboard Galactica is a clone of the original, possibly the handiwork of the final Cylon. This would seem to imply that the final Cylon is not currently on Galactica, and therefore unknown to us, and for that reason I tend to be skeptical of the idea.

My own theory about this is that Kara, like Iblis, is an avatar of some kind. But whereas Iblis was an avatar for a malevolent being, I think Kara is an avatar for a benevolent, and perhaps even beneficient, being. Of course, I’m not entirely sure how that jives with the Hybrid’s prophecy that she is the “harbinger of the apocalypse”…although I suppose that in the end, that the God of the Battlestar universe might just have sent an angel to show people the way “home”.

This goes to my feeling that BSG is an eschatological myth for our times, of course.

---

Spoiler is at an end

---

I more or less agree, now, with Dani’s observation about Cally — while she was a hedge-bet of mine for a while, there’s almost no way she could be the missing Cylon model, especially now that the Cylons have lost the ability to resurrect.

Dani writes in all the way from Barcelona to offer his opinion on my final Cylon theory, which I recently expanded a bit toward the end of this article.

Hey there!

Well, first of all I want to apologise for my poor english… (I’m from Barcelona, by the way) So please, consider this if at any moment I could use rude or innapropiated words… It is really NOT my intention!

Second, the way I arrived to your site. I just looked for “Helo final cylon” on Google

Why I did it? Well, I’ve allways suspected about this issue about Helo (I’ve heard it many times) “it was planned for him to death at the beggining of the show, but just because he did quite well the producers — or whoever — decide to keep him”. I’ve never swallow it, sounds to me like the producers pretends to divert the attention from him. Don’t you?

And third, I would really like to say congratulations for your fantastic theory regarding Helo like the final five. Absolutely, deep and precise. I’ve really enjoyed.

But the point is I need just one more answer. What about the Moore sentence: “the final five is NOT in The Last Supper picture”. Maybe you have wrote something about this, but I really didn’t find it out… So, was Moore cheating us? Or maybe there is anything else behind the picture that we can’t see yet?

I would really appreciate if you could send me just a few words…

Many, many thanks! And, again, congratulations! I’m sure you’re right!

There was certainly some debate, O Reader, as to whether Tahmoh Penikett’s charachter — Karl Agathon — was supposed to be a “one shot” personality who would have been assumed to have perished after the miniseries had ended. The rumour goes that Penikett’s performance was well-liked by the producers, and so the writers kept him in the plot first as a survivor, then as the Cylons’ mark for a possible “mate” for the Number Eight who eventually became Sharon Agathon, and finally as one of the more important recurring characters in the series.

But right there, the Reader should be able to note that while the genesis of Helo makes sense within the narrative of BSG, Helo himself has climbed pretty far up the totem pole for someone who was supposed to be a “one-shot” character. It’s certainly quite possible that the rumours concerning his supposed expendability are a clever bit of deception on the part of Battlestar Galactica’s producers. Then again, maybe not — the whole idea of the Final Five had not yet been formed during the series’ first season. Of course, that’s just another rumour.

As to the last question that Dani asks, concerning the “Last Supper” photograph, I did actually take into account what Ron Moore had said regarding the identity of the final missing Cylon and its relationship to the picture. Concerning this issue, I wrote: “I wouldn’t put it past Ron Moore, good Reader, to mislead people a little bit, especially if there was a danger of too much being revealed in some way. Equally, it’s entirely possible he was telling the truth. I do know that he later remarked that he “probably shouldn’t have said” what he said about the people in “The Last Supper,” but whether that was because he felt he’d given too much away or because he had now put himself into a position whereby he’d have to contradict himself later on, I can’t say.

…I think the main point here is that whoever the final Cylon is revealed to be, he or (possibly) she will be the parent of one of the babies currently believed to by half-Cylon and half-human. The whole series has revolved around the issue of the “humanity” of the Cylons and their apparently inability to reproduce. I think that the revelation of the final Cylon will necessarily accompany the additional (and simultaneous) revelation that Cylons can, in fact, reproduce successfully.

And I still think that [Hera Agathon] will be revealed as the fully Cylon child, given that Season 3 spent an awful lot of time trying to build up her significance. I’ve only read the first Dune book, but it seems to me that there is a parallel between the Kwisatz Haderach and what Hera is.

Which brings us back to Helo.

So, did Ron Moore lie to us? Time will tell…but I will say that I have no problem believing that Ron Moore is trying to deflect speculation down incorrect avenues.”

Now, I will admit, O Reader, that I lost one bet; Hera turned out not to be the first fully Cylon child revealed to the viewers (that honour goes to the child of Caprica Six and Saul Tigh). That said, I don’t think this diminishes Hera’s significance in any way. And as I noted more recently, we must come back to “the issue of the First Hybrid’s prophecy that the final Cylon would be revealed only in the “howl of terrible suffering”. Given Sharon Agathon’s passionate defence of Hera in the past — including her willingness to kill any Cylon who might even remotely threaten her child (even by way of mere proximity) — it stands to reason that if D’Anna harbours any designs on Hera, that fact will bring Sharon and D’Anna into direct conflict in the near future.

And perhaps neither Sharon nor D’Anna will survive the encounter. Perhaps Hera will be gravely endangered. And perhaps Helo will weather that terrible suffering only by discovering, and somehow coming to terms, with his Cylonity.”

---

Mind the spoliers, please!

---

Given that the current rumours suggest that the character of Number Three — D’Anna Biers — will only be on the show for another episode or two, it’s quite possible that just such a violent resolution will come to pass. After all, D’Anna has to disappear from the narrative somehow, and she could well turn out to be the first casualty promised by the producers when they said that the Cylon Civil War would result in the death of three Cylon models.

---

Ding! Spoilers are done.

---

Time will tell, O Reader.

I do have to say, though, that I’m more than a little surprised that something I wrote is being read in as far away a place (from Edmonton, at least) as Barcelona. Thanks very much for writing in, Dani — that’s really cool.

I got into something of a dust-up with some non-denominational types over the issue of the Old Covenant and the Church’s teaching that the Old Covenant between God and the Jewish people is fixed and irrevocable, and that the Jewish people who live in that covenant offer up a response to God as well.

Essentially, it’s a teaching that the salvation Christ brings extends also to the Jews, the first to hear the Word of God, by means of the Old Covenant and the law of Moses. I’m sure the good Reader can see why such an idea would trigger a good dust-up with those who take a rather simpler view of the Christian faith.

Now, the Reader can relax a bit: I’m not going to go into a lengthy explanation of the Catholic position today. But I wanted to remark on something I tripped over on my stroll through the blogs this morning, which I think is relevant.

At the end of a post that begins with a discussion of the tripartite division of the Temple, and how this relates to Mount Sinai, Michael Barber notes that there is a certain parallelism in the words Moses uses in bestowing the Old Covenant on the people, and the words that Christ uses in giving the New Covenant in His blood:

Key to all of this is the covenant ratification ceremony of Exodus 24–a passage Jesus’ likely alludes to at the Last Supper:

Mark 14:23: “And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. [24] And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many” (cf. Matt 26:28).

Exod 24:8: “And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people, and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.” [Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on this verse reads, "This is the blood of the covenant"].

Much could be said here [wait for my dissertation!], but suffice it to say, if Jesus is linking the Eucharist with Exodus 24 the implications are huge.

If the Sinai experience was a Temple experience in which God’s presence came to be with His people, how much more real is God’s presence with His people in the Eucharistic celebration?

The short answer would be: very real, perhaps even terrifyingly real. I previously discussed the institution of the Eucharist by Christ, and His revelation in the breaking of the bread, from a purely Scriptural point of view, and would suggest to the Reader that it is beyond doubt that Christ does literally become present in the bread and wine in the Mass. It’s still a bold declaration of faith to say so, but Scripture supports the conjecture.

Some Catholics probably also understand the Eucharist as a re-participation in the New Covenant that Christ instituted at The Last Supper. But perhaps there is a deeper significance, one that relates the New Covenant back to the old, and thus makes the Eucharist a re-participation in that older promise between God and man as well.

I’m going to take a day’s break from all the brouhaha that normally percolates through the blog here. It’s Friday, and it’s a good time to turn my thoughts away from the matters that trouble the world which I inhabit, and the orbits I find myself in. It would be nice to start preparing myself for Sunday, for Mass, and for yet another encounter with the Lord.

I’m talking, of course, about Eucharist, the source and summit of Christian faith. And also, both inside and outside of Catholicism, one of the most misunderstood aspects of the faith.

Catholicism makes what seems, initially, to be a very bold claim: that Christ Jesus literally becomes present in the breaking of the bread at each and every Mass, that the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine, retaining only the “accidental” (to use the Aristotelean term) of qualities of each — the bread and wine still look like bread and wine, and still taste like it. But, contrary to the “if it quacks like a duck” thinking of the rest of the world around us, Catholics nevertheless boldly assert that despite the fact that the bread and wine seem, by all appearances, to still be bread and wine, they are in fact anything but.

It’s a bold declaration of complete faith…faith not in the Church (as an institution), nor faith in the priest, nor faith in the wafer itself. No, it is a declaration of faith in Christ, an affirmation of the Catholic belief that Christ really is Lord and King of all creation, and the He does so love the world — and everyone in it — that He desires to draw to Him those who profess their need for Him.

Equally, it is a declaration of faith in a Christ whose love and desire to be in communion with those who profess their need for His promise of salvation and forgiveness of sin that He will make Himself present to them, in keeping with His promise that He would be in the midst of any number who gather in His name. We all must die in due course and will, in so doing, end up before the Lord. But prior to that, Christ — out of love — elects to come into our presence too. His love for humanity is so great, and His desire to be in communion with us so powerful, that He will step down, but for a moment, to be with us in our present-tense reality, appearing before us in a guise at once hidden and yet obvious, as surely as He appeared to the disciples walking on the road to Emmaus.

It’s a powerful belief. But then, Christ is Lord and King of all creation — it is proper that a teaching pertaining to the direct intersection of Christ and the world is powerful.

Within Scripture, the first hints of the Eucharist are presented in the Gospel of John, in chapter 6. The close association between the Eucharistic revelation and the Paschal Meal is at once obvious.

[4] Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.
[5] Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a multitude was coming to him, Jesus said to Philip, “How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?”
[6] This he said to test him, for he himself knew what he would do.
[7] Philip answered him, “Two hundred denarii would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little.”
[8] One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to him,
[9] “There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what are they among so many?”
[10] Jesus said, “Make the people sit down.” Now there was much grass in the place; so the men sat down, in number about five thousand.
[11] Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted.
[12] And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, “Gather up the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost.”
[13] So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten.
[14] When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, “This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world!”
[15]Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.

These are not usually the verses cited in any apologetic concerning the Eucharist, but I would like to preface my analysis by noting the significance of the event within them. A large multitude has gathered to see and hear the teachings of Jesus, and Jesus — deeply moved — worries after the need of the people to eat. There is precious little food available to achieve that end, of course — to feed five thousand, two loaves and five fishes would amount to mere crumbs per person.

And so Jesus effects a miracle, both as a sign to the people and as a test of faith for the disciples. I’ve always thought the scene’s portrayal in Jesus of Nazareth captured the mood of the disciples perfectly, and I am still struck by the image of the apostle John holding forth an empty basket, apologizing that what little is in it is all he has. And yet, when the camera pans back to the basket, it is overflowing.
Read the rest of this entry »

Michael writes in with a comment on the article that was responsible for the site going down briefly about a week ago — my final Cylon theory.

I like your theory, in fact, I like it a lot. BUT, Ron Moore mentioned none of the people in “The Last Supper” photo are the final Cylon. Helo is in that photo. That’s a pretty big veto unless you believe Ron is purposely lying to fans.

I wouldn’t put it past Ron Moore, good Reader, to mislead people a little bit, especially if there was a danger of too much being revealed in some way. Equally, it’s entirely possible he was telling the truth. I do know that he later remarked that he “probably shouldn’t have said” what he said about the people in “The Last Supper,” but whether that was because he felt he’d given too much away or because he had now put himself into a position whereby he’d have to contradict himself later on, I can’t say.

I am aware, at any rate, of what Ron Moore did say, and I admit that it’s a rather obvious counter-argument to my theory — a veto, as Michael puts it.

I suppose we’ll have to wait until late 2008 or early 2009 to find out who the final Cylon really is. And for the record, Karl Agathon — Helo, as he is also known — is still my principal suspect.

In looking over my theory, it could be argued that the same reasoning could also be applied, in many cases, to Cally Tyrol, and certainly her revelation as a Cylon would be rather dramatic in light of the fact that she was airlocked (killed) by Tory Foster a couple of episodes ago. The first Cylon hybrid spoke of how the final Cylon’s revelation would take place: “And the fifth, still in shadow, will claw toward the light, hungering for redemption that will only come in the howl of terrible suffering.”

Certainly, there has been a lot of terrible suffering on the part of those whom Cally is survived by — Galen Tyrol, the Chief, her husband, spent all of the last episode (Escape Velocity) cracking at the seams, and certainly Nicholas Tyrol, the baby, is going to suffer in the absence of his mother.

And I take Cally as my “hedge bet” as to who the final Cylon is. Of course, my main objection to her being the last Cylon is that we do not know anything at all about whether the Final Five can resurrect, or whether there exists a Resurrection Ship or Resurrection Hub at which copies of the bodies of the Final Five are stored (one has difficulty imagining that this could be the case, given that it would risk the possibility that one or more of the Significant Seven would have seen the faces of the Five).

And, unlike Helo, Cally isn’t in “The Last Supper” as well.

Regardless, I think the main point here is that whoever the final Cylon is revealed to be, he (or, possibly) she will be the part of one of the babies currently believed to by half-Cylon and half-human. The whole series has revolved around the issue of the “humanity” of the Cylons and their apparently inability to reproduce. I think that the revelation of the final Cylon will necessarily accompany the additional (and simultaneous) revelation that Cylons can, in fact, reproduce successfully.

And I still think that Hera will be revealed as the fully Cylon child, given that Season 3 spent an awful lot of time trying to build up her significance. I’ve only read the first Dune book, but it seems to me that there is a parallel between the Kwisatz Haderach and what Hera is.

Which brings us back to Helo.

So, did Ron Moore lie to us? Time will tell…but I will say that I have no problem believing that Ron Moore is trying to deflect speculation down incorrect avenues.