What is the Meaning of the Three Forms of Unity?

What is the Meaning of the Three Forms of Unity? For some time we have busied ourselves with the matter of church union. The Canadian Reformed Churches (CanRC) have, from their inception, expressed the Scriptural position that the Church is called to unite with all true believers into one, true Church. We maintain the truth of this doctrine and continue to support all efforts to fulfill this calling. At the same time we have been critical of CanRC decisions with respect to union with other church federations. Our criticism has been based on the observation that the CanRC s have not sufficiently dealt with divergences between itself and those with whom it has established Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF) [also considered sisterchurches]. We have been motivated by the concern that insufficient attention to the divergences between two parties in EF constitutes acceptance of significant differences that are not accepted in the CanRC s and that will lead to deformation in them. As far back as 1973 the CanRC s have been confronted with the dilemma that not accepting a church as true will be interpreted as pronouncing such a church as false. This appears to be based on what the CanRC s confess in Article 29 of the Belgic Confession. Perhaps this was also behind the decision of Synod 1980, Article 154 where Synod was asked by the Church at Surrey to b. study the feasibility of having another, less comprehensive relationship (i.e.) a relationship different from correspondence) with the O.P.C. and possibly other churches of our Lord such as the Koryu-pa which stand in a different tradition. At that time the CanRC only had a correspondence relationship with sister churches who subscribed to the Three Forms of Unity. They were indeed churches that could be accepted into a local Classis should they geographically be moved from one country to another. They were churches that had accepted the same three confessional standards and made them a basis for unity, assuring unity in the doctrines of Scripture found there. They also all accepted the same Church Order (the Church Order of Dort), agreeing on the Scriptural church polity reflected there. 1

Synod 1980, in response to the question from the church at Surrey, considered (in part) 5. Adoption of different rules expressing different degrees of closeness to various Churches would lead to an undesirable distinction between Churches which are all equally true Churches of the Lord Jesus Christ. The CanRC s continue to follow this logic as they appear to apply Article 29 of the Belgic Confession. Article 29 states that the true and false church are easily recognized and distinguished from each other. Logically, then, if a church cannot be declared false it must be true, and if true, we ought to unite with it as equals, according to Synod 1980.. But is this a correct logic? Ought we not, at least, or maybe even more so, test the churches to see if they have three marks, also mentioned in that same Article 29 of the Belgic Confession? If that is a more correct measuring stick, and it is, then we are faced with more questions. Are we able to do that; do we have the resources to do that? Would we get consent from such churches to do that? Are we really willing to do that? Or are we afraid that we might be labelled sectarian, or a church that believes that their members will be the only ones in heaven? It appears that these caricatures of the CanRC s have led us to the fear of doing the right thing, of standing firm in the truth not our truth, but God s truth, revealed in His word. So often we can hear the refrain, we only judge other churches by their official documents. Is that how we test for the pure preaching of the word, the pure administration of the sacraments and the exercise of discipline? How often do we not hear from CanRC people who visit our sister churches that they experience things that are contrary to the official documents of those churches? Can one judge the exercise of discipline by merely agreeing that the official documents are acceptable? Beyond that is it true that the recognition of a church as a true church of our Lord Jesus Christ automatically means full federative unity within a nation and sister-church relations with those geographically apart? At present it appears that even churches that share the Three Forms of Unity can not come to federative unity because of differences in what they believe should be sung in the worship services, how the ministers must be trained and educated, what the Scriptural doctrine of the covenant is, whether women should be allowed to vote in congregational meetings, and whether women are to be office bearers? Or how can it be said that we have unity with churches where a different confession is being subscribed to, but then only by office bearers and not necessarily all the communicant members, and where a different church government (polity) is being practiced and upheld, where the Lord s Supper is not always properly guarded, and where from place to place young children are admitted to the sacrament. First we need to re-examine if we have used the correct criteria by which to recognize churches to be true. We may also have to review (using the correct criteria) whether churches we presently consider to be true have remained true. That is even our first responsibility under the present rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship. Thereafter, we ought to give serious thought about the question if recognition of a church as true, but 2

subscribing to different confessions and church government and engaged in practices which we would not adopt in our federation, ought to be considered sister churches. All of our members confess the Three Forms of Unity. We are united under those Scriptural doctrines and practices. Once we declare sister church relations with churches who differ from them we no longer up hold the Three Forms of Unity. The same applies to how we practice church polity. For centuries we have claimed (and rightly so) that the Church Order of Dort was the correct summation of Scriptural teaching on order in the churches. Once we accept unity with those who follow a different conviction we have denied the validity of our own conclusion. In all these situations we have deviated from the true and false dichotomy we so vigorously apply when we discuss the type of unity we must exercise. In preparation for Synod 2007 three churches responded to the reports of the Committee for Contact with Churches Abroad to that Synod with a proposal to review the matter of relationships. All three churches suggested a division in the present relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship with all churches recognized as true, and to divide the relationships up between those who subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity and the Church Order of Dort and those who do not. The rules for the former category would be similar to those presently in place while the rules for the second category would be limited to contact at committee level, attending one another s major assemblies to discuss and learn about the differences that there are, working towards a closer relationship. In this latter category ministers would not exchange pulpits and members who came from such churches would be examined about their understanding and acceptance of the TFU and CO of Dort before joining rather than by attestation. Synod 2007 did not interact with the suggestions but merely stated that it was unfortunate that these three churches had not interacted with the decision of Synod 1980 referred to earlier. Today the matter of church unity is much broader than it was in 1980. Most of the churches we have EF with have a number of different categories of relationships. Are they wrong? Do they have a wrong church view? Do they apply the doctrine of Article 29 incorrectly? In another part of this issue of Reformed Polemics you can read how the United Reformed Church has changed its approach to unity within seven years. There is also the matter of the function of EF with so many churches. Are we able to fulfill our duties and responsibilities toward all the churches we have unity with as they are laid out by us in the Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship? We hope to address that aspect of church relations in a future article. For now we continue to see wisdom in the suggestion of three churches in our federation that suggested a stronger and more significant relationship with those churches who continue to abide by the Three Forms of Unity and by the Church Order of Dort. Hopefully these three churches and others will continue to support and pursue this position; and hopefully future synods will deal with these matters in accordance with the merits of the case and the reality of developements over the last thirty years. PdB 3

Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship (4) The Purpose Worship (a) In our previous installment we discussed the purpose of the church. In that context we also talked about the Great Commission. We stated that the Great Commission is not only about evangelism, nor is it mainly about evangelism. It is bigger. We must indeed proclaim the gospel to the lost and desire that converts come to Christ. But that is not the only function of the church, and it is certainly not the focus of its worship Rather, it should be exactly what Christ commands: teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you. The aim of the church's ministry is discipleship. It entails becoming a disciple of Christ. Evangelism is only part of the commission Christ gave to his church. If we take the church's responsibility to disciple more seriously, we will not tailor our worship to win the approval of the world. Instead of dumbing it down, we need to have our worship wise up. Through worship God disciples his people. Good worship, worship that is faithful to the Great Commission, will not shy away from teaching all that Christ has commanded. Thus, it is the church, and specifically the church at worship, that fulfills the Great Commission. (1) The Church and Worship And so, as mentioned previously, in picture. But as important as a prior discussing the purpose of the church we will awareness of the purpose of the church is to inevitably wind-up with also bringing the understanding worship, we should be matter of worship into the discussion. Therefore our focus this time is worship, or more specifically, the purpose of worship. In having already discussed the purpose of the church there is the implicit assumption that in order to understand the purpose of worship we first need to understand the purpose of the church and the task God has given to her. That is also why the Great Commission and discipleship came into the equally aware of the fact that without proper regard for worship we will inevitably have a flawed or faulty conception of the church. This is because worship constitutes the church. We might say that the things that believers say and do in worship are essential to being part of the church of God. The function of church membership is to worship God. That is also what we read in our book under review. The authors of the book With Reverence and Awe (1) begin their chapter on the purpose of worship titled A Worshipping Community with quoting from the Westminster Presbyterian Standards. Man s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever. (Shorter Catechism) Man s fall in Adam clearly made that impossible, but redemption through Christ restores man to his original purpose, even though in this life Saved to Worship our worship will remain tainted with sin. Worship, simply put, is nothing more and nothing less than glorifying and enjoying God. The centrality of worship for the church is clearly articulated in both the Old and New Testament The Israelites rightly responded to their deliverance from Egypt with a song of 4

praise to the God of their salvation. (Ex. 15:1-2) The same holds true in the New Testament, but is heightened because of the mediatorial work of Christ. (Heb. 12: 22-24) The purpose of salvation is worship because worship is what the people of God are called to do. The worship service is centered on Christ. He is the summary of the Word of God and the ultimate revelation of God s love. Everything in the worship service should be focused on the covenant with God, which has been made possible by Christ s blood. This should determine all that we do in the worship service. As people of Reformed persuasion we are very familiar with the Belgic Confession and the well-known marks of the true and false church. (B.C. article 29): The true Church is to be recognized by the following marks: It practices the pure preaching of the gospel. It maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them. It exercises Church discipline for correcting and punishing sins. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and regarding Jesus Christ as the only Head. Hereby the true Church can certainly be known and no one has the right to separate from it. The Marks of the Church By the marks of the church we can discern the true from the false church. It is important to notice that the marks of the church are bound up with corporate worship. Worship is where the ministers preach the Word and administer the sacraments, and preaching itself is a form of discipline. Together, the marks of the church constitute the true church In the same way that the marks of the church tell us how to find the true church, so also corporate worship helps us identify the church. Worship is essential to the church s identity. If our Reformed standards are correct, the church cannot be seen or known apart from worship that is Reformed according to the Word of God because worship is comprised of the ordinances that God has given to his church. (1) Disciples of Christ In summarizing their chapter on A Worshiping Community the authors of With Reverence and Awe (1) observe that worship is not only something that marks the true church but also an activity that disciples God s people. As the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20) teaches, discipleship is not a one-time quick fix but rather a constant and gradual process that is to last either until death or Christ's return. And because worship is regular (it occurs every week), consists of the ministry of the Word (i.e., preaching and sacraments), and is the means that Christ gave to his church for discipling the nations, worship is crucial to the work of making disciples. Worship, then, not only consists of the marks of the institutional church, but is also at the heart of what it means to be a disciple of Christ. The Means of Grace An so when we state that worship is worship for their own edification and nothing more and nothing less than comfort. The church in this world is a glorifying and enjoying God we do not overlook the fact that Christians also need pilgrim people; strangers and exiles on the earth who desire a better country, that is a 5

heavenly one (Heb 11: 13, 16). In its pilgrimage in the spiritual wilderness of the world it meets many temptations. As believers we are weak and frail, often threatened by hardships of our journey and frequently tempted to give up. The church in this world - not unlike the Old Testament Israelites in their journey through the desert - is a pilgrim people in complete dependence on God for protection and sustenance. God has made us into new creatures that need regular sustenance. The means of grace, that is, the ministry, oracles and ordinances of God are the food he has provided to feed the church. The gathering of the saints in worship is the means that God has established to gather and perfect the church until united with her Lord in the new heavens and earth. So Christians indeed need to worship because God alone deserves all the praise and glory. Man s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever. But Christians also need to worship for their own edification and comfort. And they need to worship in a way that is acceptable and pleasing to God. That acceptable way of worship will be D.V, the subject we will deal with in more detail in one of our future installments. For now we need to recognize that many churches display a patent disregard for precise rules and regulations for worship. If one observes the worship practices of our day we come across a variety of worship styles that cater to the worldly appetites of the consumer while ignoring or dismissing the means whereby God has determined to nourish His people. The church that properly worships will be peculiar to the world. Its ways will seem odd and irrelevant, and its language will sound strange. In a word, God s holy In Summary pilgrims will appear to be sectarians. This is because the church, saved by God in order to worship him, sees itself in the light of God s purposes, not the world s expectations. (1) In closing we quote from the introduction to an article we hope to draw some attention to next time. Its title is precisely the point we are currently considering, namely, The Purpose of Worship, and is a contribution by Joseph A. Pipa, Jr. He writes: Among the reasons we are in the midst of what some have called the worship wars, is that the church has lost sight of the nature and purpose of worship. Many can no longer correctly answer the questions, what is the purpose of worship; what are we to be doing and why? If we are to reform worship, we must correctly answer these questions. (2) These questions then will, D.V., form the basis for our next discussion. Ron Dykstra 1) With Reverence and Awe Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship - D.G. Hart and John R. Muether, P&R Publishing. 2) The Worship of God Reformed Concepts of Biblical Worship various contributors. Chapter 3: The Purpose of Worship Joseph A. Pipa, Jr., Christian Focus Publications. 6

Discussing & Learning in EF The first rule for Ecclesiastical Fellowship (Sister-Church Relationship) with the Canadian Reformed Churches states that the churches shall assist each other as much as possible in the maintenance, defense, and promotion of Reformed doctrine, liturgy, church polity, and discipline. In this presentation we wish to concentrate on church polity. In our editorial we mentioned the fact the URCNA has no difficulty in changing the guidelines for church unity in the space of seven years. Whereas the CanRC Synod of 2007, faced with a similar suggestion merely discards it with reference to 1980. Below we have provided the 2000 URCNA guidelines for church unity and the revised one of 2007. From this comparison we can learn a number of things. Perhaps these observations should be discussed among CanRC s and their membership. Here are some of our observations and questions, perhaps you can add to them. 1) All the churches of the URCNA are represented at Synods. They are concerned about hierarchy from which they have recently been reformed. Do the CanRC need to be concerned? 2) They deal with all the proposals from the churches and provide grounds for the decisions they make. This method has been suggested to several CanRC synods but has always been refused? Why is that? The URCNA method is also found in the Acts of Synod of our sister churches in the Netherlands. 3) The URCNA appear to have a concept of what unity means for them. It appears that for the majority unity in spirit is more important than visible unity. Do the CanRC s have a position? Is the response to Surry in 1980 the official church unity position of the CanRC? If so, why has it never been raised until 2007? 4) The URCNA has three phases of relationships with other churches/federations. Is this wrong? The OPC appears to have the same. Why did Synod 2007 not deal more fully with the request from three churches to investigate such phases or categories of relationships? Or why did they not add the subject to the mandate of the committee? 5) Important decisions like Phase Two and Three of unity require the agreement of a predetermined percentage of all the churches. This would appear to make these decisions more cumbersome, but more reflective of the federation as a whole. This also counters hierarchy and allows those churches whose ministers are never or hardly ever present at synods to have a voice. 7

GUIDELINES FOR ECUMENICITY AND CHURCH UNITY United Reformed Churches in North America REPORTED IN CHRISTIAN RENEWAL SEPTEMPER 2000 From Spindle Works PHASE ONE - Corresponding Relations The first phase of ecumenicity is one of exploration, with the intent that by correspondence and dialogue, mutual understanding and appreciation may develop in the following areas of the churches' lives: a. view and place of the Holy Scriptures. b. creeds and confessions. c. formula of subscription to the confessions d. significant factors in the two federations' history, theology, and ecclesiology. e. church order and polity f. liturgy and liturgical forms g. preaching, sacraments, and discipline. h. theological education for ministers Ecumenical observers are to be invited to all broader assemblies with a regular exchange of the minutes of these assemblies and of other publications that may facilitate ecumenical relations. PHASE TWO - Ecclesiastical Fellowship The second phase of ecumenicity is one of recognition and is entered into only when the broadest assemblies of both federations agree this is desirable. The intent of this phase is to recognize and accept each other as true and faithful churches of the Lord Jesus, and in preparation for and commitment to eventual integrated federative church unity, by establishing ecclesiastical fellowship entailing the following: a. The churches shall assist each other as much as possible in the maintenance, defense, and promotion of Reformed doctrine, liturgy, church polity, and discipline. b. The churches shall consult each other when entering into ecumenical relations with other federations. c. The churches shall accept each other's certificates of membership, admitting such members to the Lord's Table. d. The churches shall open the pulpits to each other's ministers, observing the rules of the respective churches e. The churches shall consult each other before major changes to the confessions, church government, or liturgy are adopted. f. The churches shall invite and receive each other's ecclesiastical delegates who shall participate in the broader assemblies as much as regulations permit Entering this phase requires ratification by a majoritv of consistories. 8

PHASE THREE - Church Union The third phase of ecumenicity is one of integration with the intent that the two federations, being united in true faith, and where contiguous geography permits, shall proceed to complete church unity, that is, ecclesiastical union. This final phase shall only be embarked upon when the broadest assemblies of both federations give their endorsement and approval to a plan of union which shall outline the timing, coordination, and/or integration of the following: a. the broader assemblies b. the liturgies and liturgical forms c. the translations of the Bible and the confessions d. the song books for worship e. the church polity and order f. the missions abroad Guidelines for Ecumenicity and Church Unity United Reformed Churches in North America [From: https://www.service-life.com/sysfiles/site_uploads/pubs/pub4046_3.pdf] Phase One - Corresponding Relations The first phase of ecumenicity is one of exploration, with the intent that by correspondence and dialogue, mutual understanding and appreciation may develop in the following areas of the two churches federations lives: a. view and place of the Holy Scriptures b. creeds and confessions c. Form of Subscription to the confessions d. significant factors in the two federations history, theology, and ecclesiology e. church order and polity f. liturgy and liturgical forms g. preaching, sacraments, and discipline h. theological education for ministers Ecumenical observers are to be invited to all broader assemblies with a regular exchange of the minutes of these assemblies and of other publications that may facilitate ecumenical relations. Phase Two - Ecclesiastical Fellowship The second phase of ecumenicity is one of recognition and is entered into only when the broadest assemblies of both federations agree this is desirable. The intent of this phase is to recognize and accept each other as true and faithful churches of the Lord Jesus, in preparation for and commitment to in acknowledgement of the desirability of eventual 9

integrated federative church unity, by establishing ecclesiastical fellowship entailing the following: a. the churches shall assist each other as much as possible in the maintenance, defense, and promotion of Reformed doctrine, liturgy, church polity, and discipline; b. the churches shall consult each other when entering into ecumenical relations with other federations; c. the churches shall accept each other s certificates of membership, admitting such members to the Lord s Table; d. the churches shall open the pulpits to each other s ministers, observing the rules of the respective churches; e. the churches shall consult each other before major changes to the confessions, church government, or liturgy are adopted; f. the churches shall invite and receive each other s ecclesiastical delegates who shall participate in the broader assemblies with an advisory voice. Entering this phase requires ratification by the consistories as required in Church Order Article 36. Phase Three - Church Union The third phase of ecumenicity is one of integration with the intent that the two federations, being united in true faith, and where contiguous geography permits, shall proceed to complete church unity, that is, ecclesiastical union. This final phase shall only be embarked upon when the broadest assemblies of both federations give their endorsement and approval to a plan of union. This phase shall be accomplished in two steps: Step A. Develop the Plan of Ecclesiastical Union Having recognized and accepted each other as true and faithful churches, the federations shall make preparation for and a commitment to eventual integrated federative church unity. They shall construct a plan of ecclesiastical union, which shall outline the timing, coordination, and/or integration of the following: a. the broader assemblies b. the liturgies and liturgical forms c. the translations of the Bible and the confessions d. the song books for worship e. the church polity and order f. the missions abroad Entering this step of phase three requires ratification by the consistories as required in Church Order Article 36. 10

Step B. Implementation of the Plan of Ecclesiastical Union This final phase shall only be embarked upon taken when the broadest assemblies of both federations give their endorsement and approval to a plan of ecclesiastical union. Entering this step of phase three requires ratification by a majority of the consistories as required in Church Order Article 36. Summary of Changes to Overture Change 1: In Phase 1, change of the word churches to federations. Grounds: a. The word churches does not make clear whether these churches are in different federations or if they are simply different local congregations. b. The word federations clarifies that a relationship is being entered into between two different federations or denominations. c. The word federations is consistent with the CERCU mandate which reads that they are to speak regarding ecumenicity with those Reformed and Presbyterian federations selected by Synod and with the other language of the Guidelines which refers consistently to federations (see opening lines of both Phase 2 and 3). Change 2: In Phase 2, replace in preparation for and commitment to with in acknowledgement of the desirability of..... Grounds: a. Overtures 3 and 15 base their request for the removal of the phrase, and in preparation for and commitment to eventual integrated federative church unity, on the fact that this phrase is what has allowed CERCU to advance quickly with activities which properly belong to Phase Three (p. 45). We have found that this assumption is a mistaken notion. The real reason for the appointment of these committees is addressed in the changes to Phase Three below. b. Removing this statement ( and in preparation for and commitment to eventual integrated federative church unity ) from Phase 2, in which a true church is recognized, would cause us no longer to be in conformity with the constitution of NAPARC. The constitution reads that the fellowship created by NAPARC is a fellowship that enables the constituent churches to advise, counsel, and cooperate in various matters with one another and hold out before each other the desirability and need for organic union of churches that are of like faith and practice (Point II of the NAPARC Constitution). All the churches of NAPARC recognize that true churches of Christ are to have held out before them the need to desire organic union. c. The addition of the notion of desirability to this phase allows us to consider the biblical hope of unity as true churches, as well as to recognize that, due to sin both in ourselves and others, unity is not always attainable. 11

Change 3: In Phase 3 (see text above for the substantial textual changes and additions), first, to divide this phase into two components: development of a plan (Step A) and implementation of the plan (Step B); second, to require ratification in each step. Grounds: a. The division of Phase 3 into two parts is done in an effort to clarify confusion among the churches regarding exactly what the federation is seeking to do at every given stage in the pursuit of the unity of the church. Previously, Phase 3 could only be embarked upon when the broadest assemblies of both federations [gave] their endorsement and approval to a plan of union (current Guidelines, Phase 3). This plan of union has been the basis for the work of the CERCU Unity Committees (the Church Order, Songbook, and Theological Education committees). The plan of union is being created by CERCU not as a step in Phase 3 union, but as a precondition to Phase 3 union (since entrance to Phase 3 requires a plan of union) and thus as part of working out Phase 2 commitments. Unfortunately, the placement of the phrase requiring a plan of union within the current Phase 3 portion of our Guidelines has created a significant misunderstanding among the churches. The sentiment on one hand is that the committees of Synod are acting like we are in Phase 3 with the Canadian Reformed Churches, even though that is not the case. The sentiment on the other hand is that these committees are doing the work necessary to prepare to enter Phase 3 with the Canadian Reformed Churches. The division of Phase 3 into two clearly defined steps will hopefully remedy this confusion. b. The current change requires that both federations will need to give support in order for this Plan of Union to take place, thus ensuring (i) that the member churches realize what stage of unity they are entering and (ii) what entering that stage will mean for the federation. c. This two-step process in Phase 3 better guards both the unity of our own federation (Phil. 3:16) and the actions (Phase 3, Step A.a.-f.) taken in moving towards unity with others, thus ensuring that these actions are being done by a federation that wholeheartedly supports the direction taken. d. The inclusion of a second vote to implement the plan of union is good and necessary. The move to union is significant and many difficulties may come up in the pursuit of union that were not foreseen. This final vote, with its ratification by the Consistories, ensures that the local churches of our federation have opportunity to voice concerns raised in the process of seeking federative church unity. Adopted 2. That Synod 2007 declare this action to be its answer to Overtures 3 and 15. Adopted ARTICLE 93 Advisory Committee 5 (continued from Art. 92) Recommendations: 1. That by way of exception to the adopted guidelines for Ecumenical and Church Unity, Synod 2007 allow the current unity committees of the URCNA (whose work properly belongs to phase 3A) to continue working with their corresponding Canadian Reformed committees while the two federations continue to function in Phase 2. Grounds: 12

a. This would be consistent with decisions already made by Synod 2007, in mandating the PJCO, the Liturgical Forms Committee, and the Theological Education Committee to continue their work with the Canadian Reformed committees. b. Whenever (at a future synod) a decision may be approved by the two federations to enter into Phase 3A, though the process of developing a plan of union has already begun, the plan will still need to outline the timing, coordination and/or integration of the broader assemblies, the translation of the Bible and the confessions, and the missions abroad. c. This would reinforce our commitment toward possible eventual integrated federative church unity in the midst of the clarifications Synod 2007 has made with regard to the understanding and implementation of the approved phases for Ecumenical Relations and Church Unity. d. This would honor the commitments the URCNA made in 2001 to our Canadian Reformed brothers and sisters by virtue of beginning these committees. Motion is made and supported to postpone this recommendation indefinitely. Defeated The main motion is adopted Reformed Polemics wishes all it readers a Joyous Remembrance of the birth of Jesus Christ and a Blessed Year of Our Lord 2010 13