Archive for the 'Jesus Stuff' Category
Apparently it’s difficult to understand why 50 million murders is a more grave issue that 50 million uninsured, or why 1.3 million babies murdered in a single year (2000) outweighs 1.3 million US properties foreclosed in 2007. Perhaps the human mind just can’t comprehend that much evil, so we block it out in an effort to avoid the guilt of having failed to do everything in our power to bring it to an end. As long as we maintain the fiction that we don’t realize that abortion is murder, we can preserve our self-righteous facade.
In light of this apparent difficulty, Whispers in the Loggia has collected statements by bishops of the Roman Catholic Church on abortion and the role this issue plays in the 2008 elections. In short, 63 diocesan and 19 auxiliaries (out of 197 dioceses and 250 bishops/auxiliaries/coadjutors) have issued statements to the effect that no issue can trump that of the sanctioned murder of 1.3 million babies each year.
Here’s a snapshot of that list, with cardinals and archbishops in order of seniority and all others alphabetically by name of diocese. Keep an eye on Whispers in the Loggia for updates as you consider and discuss this critical issue.
October 30 2008 | Jesus Stuff | 1 Comment »
A great deal of heated discussion among liturgists today focuses upon whether the Mass should be celebrated Ad Orientem (towards the east), or Ad Populum/Versus Populum (towards the people). Early on, Christians adopted the Jewish practice of praying toward Eden, in the east (Gen. 2:8), the direction from which Ezekiel saw come “the glory of the God of Israel” (Ezek 43:2,4) and the direction from which he saw God entering Jerusalem (Ezek 44:1-2), the direction in which Jesus ascended from the Mount of Olives and will return (Acts 1:11), and the direction whence the Angel of the Lord will come in the end time (Rev. 7:2).
Over time, various traditions emerged as to whether the facade of the church should face the east, or the people inside should face east (putting the apse at the east end of the church). The origins, intentionality, and authority of these traditions are subject to dispute, so let’s not go there, but simply acknowledge that the common usage as of the first half of the 20th century was that the priest and people faced toward an common altar located such that the priest and people all faced Ad Apsidem, towards the Apse (the part of the church where the clergy sit), as towards the “spiritual East” of the church, whether that were in fact the geographical east or not.
Arising from Protestant Eucharistic theology which perceives the Eucharist to be a “memorial supper”, and coming to a head in the 1960’s, this tradition of both priest and people facing the altar came to be interpreted as the priest “having his back to” the people, thereby excluding the assembly from fully entering into worship. Allowances were subsequently made for the altar to be moved away from the wall so that the priest could celebrate Mass facing the people and the altar simultaneously. Some found the new arrangement less desirable than the old, but this new arrangement came to be almost universally implemented as the arrangement of choice for the western church. The argument smouldered for the most part, flaming up rarely, and primarily among mostly-ignored ranks of traditionalists and liturgists.
The Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI recently fanned those embers into full flame when he began publicly celebrating some masses Ad Apsidem, facing the altar with the people rather than facing the altar towards the people. This should not have come as a complete surprise, as in his 2000 book “The Spirit of the Liturgy” Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) wrote “facing toward the east…was linked with the ’sign of the Son of Man’, with the Cross, which announces Our Lord’s Second Coming. That is why, very early on, the east was linked with the sign of the cross… Where a direct common turning toward the East is not possible, the cross can serve as the interior ‘East’ of faith. It should stand in the middle of the altar and be the common point of focus for both priest and praying community.”
We will allow the liturgists to continue their arguments, but the point for most of us is this: the priest and the people all face their physical and spiritual beings towards Jesus during the mass. Facing the same direction implies the priest leading the people towards Jesus, while facing towards an altar between the priest and people implies the desire to allow the assembly to entere into the celebration more fully. Some priests have taken Pope Benedict XVI’s advice, and place a crucifix upon the altar so it is more obvious that he is facing the cross with the people, and that the focus is not the priest (as can be construed from facing away from the people) or the people (as can be construed from facing towards the people), but Jesus.
However the local Bishop and his priests choose to arrange the altar, we can’t go wrong if we heed the advice of Eleanor Farjeon’s Advent hymn, and turn our hearts towards the spiritual East: Jesus.
“People, look east and sing today: Love, the guest, is on the way”
Latin experts… I can’t seem to get a clear answer on “Ad Orientem” versus “Ad Orientum”. “Ad Populum” seems to be used exclusively rather than “Ad Populem”, but I seem to find “orientem” and “orientum” used interchangeably, even within what appears to be identical context and grammatical constructs by the same authors and within the same sentences. Which is more correct, or which is correct in a particular context or usage, “Ad Orientum”, or “Ad Orientem”?
October 08 2008 | Jesus Stuff | No Comments »
I found a site I’d not encountered previously that has a nice collection of teachings of the Early Church Fathers categorized by doctrine, practice, or belief.
http://www.earlychurchfathers.org/index.php
Unlike many similar websites, this one refrains from commentary other than the commentary implicit in the decision to include or exclude specific teachings or teachers.
June 11 2008 | Jesus Stuff | No Comments »
The last words of our Lord before his death, in approximate order, are
- “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.” Luke 23:34
- “This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23:43
- “Woman, behold thy son.” John 19:26-27
- “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Mark 15:34 Matthew 27:46
- “I thirst.” John 19:28
- “It is finished.” John 19:30
- “Into thine hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit.” Luke 23:46
Growing up in the South, and with a very conservative/literalist background, I was always troubled by his fourth pronouncement:
My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46)
How could it be that Jesus would be forsaken, as so many well-respected brothers in Christ have proposed? He was the sacrifice, and a sacrifice only has value if it is accepted by God. How could God the Father turns his back on his only begotten son while he bore the burden of all the sin of the world, and yet so love the world (full of sinners) that he sent that son? What does this say about Jesus, and the unity of the Trinity? So many uncomfortable questions… For the most part, I relegated this to the category of “stuff I don’t understand”, and put it on a back burner to evaluate at another time. Thankfully, the Lord presented the opportunity to consider the problem by offering the solution.
We use our family road trips as an opportunity to listen to The Chronicles of Narnia radio theater or similar CDs. We got acquainted with Dr. Brant Pitre during the 2008 Footsteps in Faith conference, and picked up his Jesus of Nazareth: A Biblical Christology for our spring 2008 travels. We (yes, even the kids) thoroughly enjoyed this recording of his masters-level Christology course. During the course of the CDs, Dr. Pitre mentioned the ‘last words’ that had troubled me, and that I’d not revisited for several years, and drew our attention to the relationship between his words and Psalm 22.
Knock, Knock… You did it, didn’t you? “Who’s there…” came to mind, right? When we refer to “the Our Father” or “the Lord’s prayer” today, most of us recognize that we’re referring to the prayer Jesus gave as an example to his disciples when they asked that he teach them how to pray. You don’t have to be Catholic to recognize that “Hail Mary” refers to the prayer we use when we meditate upon Christ with his mother using the words of Elizabeth (mother of John the Baptist). “The Lord is my shepherd” instantly brings Psalm 23 to mind for Jews, Christians, Muslims, and every flavor of secularist. This is not a new phenomenon, and similarly, when Jesus called out “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me”, those to whom he was speaking (that is, not the Roman guards) would have recognized that he was referring to Psalm 22.
The 22nd Psalm is an intense expression of an innocent’s suffering. Unlike many of David’s psalms of lament, there is no expression of remorse for sin. This is, as the heading suggests, the prayer of an innocent person, who despite the horror of his circumstances, trusts in the Lord, and has confidence in his ultimate victory. Take a look at the psalm, and consider them in the context of Jesus’s last moments. Isn’t it so much more in keeping with his character that his last words would be comforting and encouraging to his mother and beloved disciples gathered there at the cross with him, than an expression of absolute despair?
| 1 To the choirmaster: according to The Hind of the Dawn. A Psalm of David. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Why art thou so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning? |
This is a psalm of David - the rejected king, a man after God’s own heart, crying out in anguish. |
| 2 O my God, I cry by day, but thou dost not answer; and by night, but find no rest. 3 Yet thou art holy, enthroned on the praises of Israel. 4 In thee our fathers trusted; they trusted, and thou didst deliver them. 5 To thee they cried, and were saved; in thee they trusted, and were not disappointed. |
The anguish in the garden, not my will but thine… |
| 6 But I am a worm, and no man; scorned by men, and despised by the people. 7 All who see me mock at me, they make mouths at me, they wag their heads; 8 “He committed his cause to the LORD; let him deliver him, let him rescue him, for he delights in him!” |
“Crucify him!”, the crowning with thorns, “if you are the son of God, come down from there” |
| 9 Yet thou art he who took me from the womb; thou didst keep me safe upon my mother’s breasts. 10 Upon thee was I cast from my birth, and since my mother bore me thou hast been my God. |
The flight in to Egypt, the slaughter of the innocents… |
| 11 Be not far from me, for trouble is near and there is none to help. 12 Many bulls encompass me, strong bulls of Bashan surround me; 13 they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion. |
Friends flee, and enemies surround him… |
| 14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax, it is melted within my breast; 15 my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue cleaves to my jaws; thou dost lay me in the dust of death. |
The agony of the crucifixion, I thirst… |
| 16 Yea, dogs are round about me; a company of evildoers encircle me; they have pierced my hands and feet– |
Gentiles often referred to as dogs. Lots of controversy about the translation of “pierced”, but the point is there… |
| 17 I can count all my bones–they stare and gloat over me; 18 they divide my garments among them, and for my raiment they cast lots. |
Emaciated, clothing divided and lots cast for the one-piece linen garment he wore (that the priests wore, and that was woven by their mothers) |
| 19 But thou, O LORD, be not far off! O thou my help, hasten to my aid! 20 Deliver my soul from the sword, my life from the power of the dog! 21 Save me from the mouth of the lion, my afflicted soul from the horns of the wild oxen! |
And yet, despite the appearance of being forsaken, he calls upon God the Father. |
| 22 I will tell of thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the congregation I will praise thee: 23 You who fear the LORD, praise him! all you sons of Jacob, glorify him, and stand in awe of him, all you sons of Israel! |
Abandoned by his friends, rejected by his people, and yet, he calls them brethren (Hebrews 2:12). And not just Judah, all the children of Israel, and the God-fearers (gentile converts) too! |
| 24 For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; and he has not hid his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him. |
The Father did not hide his face! |
| 25 From thee comes my praise in the great congregation; my vows I will pay before those who fear him. |
the great congregation sings his praise, and the covenant is established |
| 26 The afflicted shall eat and be satisfied; those who seek him shall praise the LORD! May your hearts live for ever! 27 All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD; and all the families of the nations shall worship before him. 28 For dominion belongs to the LORD, and he rules over the nations. 29 Yea, to him shall all the proud of the earth bow down; before him shall bow all who go down to the dust, and he who cannot keep himself alive. 30 Posterity shall serve him; men shall tell of the Lord to the coming generation, 31 and proclaim his deliverance to a people yet unborn, that he has wrought it. |
The kingdom of heaven… eternal and everlasting life… ALL the earth… Every knee shall bow, living and dead… for ever and ever, amen. |
A linguistic note
Often, the discussion of language and associated literary criticism complicate the argument. Psalm 22 is no different, and you’ll find arguments with varying degrees of integrity that attempt to attack specific portions of the translation of Psalm 22. In this case, while perhaps interesting and relevant in some context, the linguistic issues are less critical to the spirit of the relationship. The Hebrew, (which corresponds to the Greek translation), matches the text in Psalm 22. The Aramaic matches the spirit. Even if you present a consistent argument that Psalm 22 is not Messianic, David himself is a prefiguration of the Christ. There’s just no way to look at these words and not recognize that Jesus, despite appearances, was triumphant, not forsaken.
Hebrew: Sabachthani
Lama הםל (Mark 14:34), or lema in some texts, is the stock Hebrew Old Testament word for “why?”, and is used over 170 times in the Hebrew Bible. The identical word, lama, also means “why?” in modern Hebrew. Sabachthani, ינתקבש is directly from the Mishnaic Hebrew קבש, sabach, meaning “forsake, abandon”. The modern Hebrew for “forsake” – “zab” or “sab” – may suggest an abbreviated form of sabach. See comments by Brint Minge and Douglas Hamp on the Hebrew. Note also that the early church fathers believed and taught that Matthew wrote his gospel first, and in Hebrew, avoiding any difficulties with regional accents, while Mark wrote in Greek what Peter taught, and would have presented Jesus’s words as pronounced by Gallilean Peter.
Aramaic: nashatani vs. Shabakthani
shabaktani - spared or destined
nashatani - forsaken or deserted
If you subscribe to Jesus having spoken Aramaic, and/or the scriptures being originally Aramaic, Jesus would say “”My God, my God, for this I was spared.” Search the web for more information on those who propose Aramaic as the language Jesus spoke.
June 10 2008 | Jesus Stuff | 1 Comment »
…While discussing the rosary, and how it is the story of Jesus from Mary’s perspective, with joy and sorrow interwoven, and how the point of the rosary is to meditate upon and talk about Jesus with his mother…
Boo: “So the Rosary is like Mary’s baby book?”
MommyDaddy: “<thoughtful pause> yeah, just like that.”
Scrapbook queen April should be proud.
June 02 2008 | Jesus Stuff | No Comments »
These sites, in addition to those listed on the “Good Stuff” page linked above, and some general searching on Pharisee, Sadducee, Essene, Herod, etc. were helpful to me as I tried to get a better perspective on the Holy Land from 6BC to 1AD.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com
Keep in mind that it has a Jewish perspective, which may not always mesh well with Christian thinking and teaching, but there’s some good information here.
http://virtualreligion.net/iho/index.html
I don’t appreciate much of the commentary, since it comes from a very rationalist perspective, but the readings from Josephus and other ancient sources are presented in a manner that makes them very accessible, and some of the notes and discussions on the “historical Jesus” are helpful, if you can avoid being overly influenced by the Jesus Seminar’s heretical view of Jesus as just another rabbi, denying his deity and the authenticity of the scriptures.
June 02 2008 | Formation Assignments and Jesus Stuff | No Comments »
While praying morning prayers this weekend, a verse from Psalm 8 struck me. Psalm 8:2 says “Out of the mouths of children and infants you have brought praise, to confound your enemies, to destroy your vengeful foes.”
I had an interesting dream in November of 2006. I found myself in an old house. It was well lit and comfortable, but not sumptuous. The hardwood floors were enhanced with slightly worn, but still beautiful rug runners, and the detailed, but not ornate woodwork was smoothed and darkened by years of loving touch. It was dark outside. Indeed, it was perhaps empty outside. As I stood in the hallway, demons began to assault the house, coming in the doors and windows, sometimes singly, sometimes in a mob.
Fortunately, I had my handy-dandy demon-slaying arsenal with me, consisting of such items as:
- A shotgun with silver buckshot
- A high-powered water gun loaded with holy water
- An assortment of crosses
- Stakes (wooden stakes, not meat steaks)
- A bible
- Candles, bells, and other movie-exorcism tools
- Grenades
- A single-use rocket launcher
- A Desert Eagle .50 Caliber semi-automatic handgun
- A crossbow
- A giant glowing sword
Don’t ask how I managed to have all these things at my disposal, it was a dream after all.
As the demons entered, I began blasting away with my various weapons. As I hacked away at the attacking enemies, I began to feel frightened when I realized that my weapons had little or no effect. Perhaps you recall that ever-so-lovely movie “Terminator 2: Judgment Day”, in which Robert Patrick plays a liquid-metal robot? It was somewhat like that… I’d blast a giant hole in a demon, and it would take a step back, “heal” itself, and resume the assault.
Throwing away my physical weapons, I congratulated myself for thinking to engage the enemy with spiritual weapons. I quoted the words Jesus and the Apostles used when they cast out demons, prayed powerful prayers of command and defense, and generally did all of the things you’d expect someone to do in a dream with a comic-book movie flavor. These memorized anti-demon prayers and scriptures were hardly more effective than my rocket launcher.
I began to fear in earnest. The house was under assault, the enemies were in the door, my armor was in tatters, and my weapons were of no effect. Not knowing why, I fell to my knees, and prayed from the heart “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return; the LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.” (Job 1:21)
Immediately, the demons fled into the nether, the door slammed shut behind them, and all was again light and warmth and peace. I awoke with a fresh understanding:
Of all the weapons we possess, praise is perhaps the most powerful.
This spirit of praise and implicit trust in God gives power to all our efforts. It is not coincidence that James wraps his instruction to resist the devil as he does, where he writes:
God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble. So submit yourselves to God. Resist the Devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you.” (James 4:7)
As the church (the “house” of God) finds herself under assault, it is critical that I keep my focus on the Lord, his goodness, and his greatness, rather than the enemy, and upon praising God and submitting myself to him, placing myself under his authority rather than attempting to “use” his power.
In the interest of full disclosure, there is some confusion about the translation of Psalm 8, particularly with verses 2 and 3. Biblios, via their parallel translation reference for this verse demonstrates some of the problems translating this from the Hebrew. There’s much less disagreement, however, that Jesus quotes this verse, and I’m going with his interpretation, which seems to come from the Greek version of the psalm.
Matthew 21 (From the USCCB and Compare translations)
Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all those engaged in selling and buying there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. And he said to them, “It is written: ‘My house shall be a house of prayer,’ but you are making it a den of thieves.” The blind and the lame approached him in the temple area, and he cured them. When the chief priests and the scribes saw the wondrous things he was doing, and the children crying out in the temple area, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they were indignant and said to him, “Do you hear what they are saying?” Jesus said to them, “Yes; and have you never read the text, ‘Out of the mouths of infants and nurslings you have brought forth praise’?”
May 19 2008 | Jesus Stuff | No Comments »
Different interpretations of God’s will do not necessitate that one is “right” and the other “wrong.” In many cases, when a dispute arises among two groups or individuals sincerely seeking God’s will, the dispute exists because we’re asking the wrong question. We know that God’s ways are not our ways, and his thoughts are not our thoughts, but often we attempt to conform his mind and thoughts to ours, instead of the other way around.
The example that immediately comes to mind is that of Paul and Barnabas, in their dispute over whether John Mark should join their expedition to visit the brethren in the cities where they’d preached. continue reading »
May 05 2008 | Jesus Stuff | 1 Comment »
He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. — Jesus Christ (John 6:56)
“[Those] Who possesses God’s love, finds so much joy that every bitterness transforms itself into sweetness, and that every great weight becomes light. One must not be astonished because living in charity you live in God:
‘God is love, and he who abides in love, abides in God, and God abides in him’ (1 John 4:16)
Thus, living in God you can have no bitterness because God is delight, gentleness and never-ending joy!
This is why God’s friends are always happy! Even if we are sick, poor, grieved, troubled, persecuted, we are always joyful.”
St. Catherine of Sienna: Embrace Jesus on the Cross, loving and beloved From the “Letters” of St Catherine of Sienna (1347-1380) (letter no. 165 to Bartolomea, wife of Salviato of Lucca).
Those who preserve their integrity remain unshaken by the storms of daily life. They do not stir like leaves on a tree or follow the herd where it runs. In their mind remains the ideal attitude and conduct of living. This is not something given to them by others. It is their roots… it is a strength that exists deep within them — Sun Tzu
O inestimable Love! You enlighten us with your wisdom so that we may know your truth and the subtle deceptions of the devil.
With the fire of your love, set our hearts alight with desire to love you and to follow you in the truth.
You alone are Love, alone worthy of being loved!
(St Catherine of Sienna)
March 22 2007 | Jesus Stuff | No Comments »
A family member is investigating Catholicism, and raised two primary objections to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. The first - Jesus had to humble Himself to become man, it doesn’t seem right that he would debase himself to become bread and wine. The second - Why do we need the real presence?
The first turns out to be a strong argument against consubstantiation, and makes transubstantiation more palatable, so to speak. The Church teaches that the bread is changed into Christ’s body, and the wine into His blood. They are no longer bread and wine, they are the body and precious blood of Jesus. The early Protestants didn’t deny the Real Presence, but, in an effort to distance themselves from the Church, proposed consubstantiation as a compromise. In consubstantiation, the bread and wine remain bread and wine, and this would indeed raise a question as to the propriety of Him becoming bread and wine. Transubstantiation, the complete change of one substance to another, avoids this difficulty. Transubstantiation, of course, raises the question of why the body and blood appear to the human eye to be bread and wine, but the discussion of substance vs. accidents of appearance is a another can of worms.
So, having dispensed with the argument that it would be improper for Jesus to debase Himself to become bread and wine, why do we need the Real Presence? In short, just as we need physical food for our physical being, we need spiritual food for our spiritual being. As the USCCB says, “Jesus gives himself to us in the Eucharist as spiritual nourishment because he loves us… By eating the Body and drinking the Blood of Christ in the Eucharist we become united to the person of Christ through his humanity. ‘Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him’ (John 6:56). In being united to the humanity of Christ we are at the same time united to his divinity. Our mortal and corruptible natures are transformed by being joined to the source of life. ‘Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me’ (John 6:57)… By his Real Presence in the Eucharist Christ fulfils his promise to be with us ‘always, until the end of the age’ (Mt 28:20). As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, ‘It is the law of friendship that friends should live together… Christ has not left us without his bodily presence in this our pilgrimage, but he joins us to himself in this sacrament in the reality of his body and blood’ (Summa Theologiae, III q. 75, a. 1).”
A few helpful resources:
John Young, Transubstantiation and reason
USCCB - The Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist
1 Corinthians 11: 27, 29 - Paul indicates strongly that the body of the Lord is truly present.
John 6: 25-71, particularly 52, where they understand Him to say they must eat His flesh, and He does not clarify it, merely reaffirms it (53, 54, 55, 56, 57, and 58), even though the cost (66) is that many left Him. In other cases, he did correct misunderstandings:
Matthew 16:5-12, concerning the “leaven of the Pharisees.”
John 3:1-15, where Nicodemus didn’t comprehend being “born again
One of the earliest saints, Saint Ignatius of Antioch (~106 AD) criticized those who “abstain from the Eucharist and the public prayer, because they will not admit that the Eucharist is the self-same Body of our Savior Jesus Christ, which [flesh] suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His goodness raised up again” (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 6, 7).
In any case, logical arguments aside, I choose to emulate St. John Chrysostom, whom Pope Paul VI, in Mysterium Fidei quotes as saying “Let us submit to God in all things and not contradict Him, even if what He says seems to contradict our reason and intellect; let His word prevail over our reason and intellect. Let us act in this way with regard to the Eucharistic mysteries, and not limit our attention just to what can be perceived by the senses, but instead hold fast to His words. For His word cannot deceive.”
March 13 2007 | Jesus Stuff | 1 Comment »
Next »
