"We have seen for ourselves, and can testify..."

"We have seen for ourselves, and can testify, that the Father has sent the Son as savior of the world. When anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwells in him and he in God" (1 John 4:14-15- ESV). What a beautiful and all-encompassing statement of what it is to be a Christian! I was very struck reading and meditating on this passage, which is the Scripture reading for the Church's prayer this morning.

Summertime simplicity, to which the morning sun bids me adherence, dictates that I limit myself this morning to conveying a few birthday greetings. First to my youngest daughter I pray for a very happy birthday. She is a beautiful girl who brings so much joy and spontaneity to our family. Her happiness and enthusiasm for life are positively contagious!

I also send along my prayer for a happy birthday to His Excellency, Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco, who turns 75 today. As longtime readers know, it was then-Bishop Niederauer who ordained me and my diaconate class in January 2004.

Frankly, I was relieved for couple of reasons to check the Vatican's Bollettino this morning and not see the good archbishop's name on it, not least of which is that he is the kind of pastoral leader the church needs more of, not just presently, but always.

Barth on the meaning of the word "apostle"

I know he was a Protestant, but then so was Bonhoeffer. Nonetheless, I benefit tremendously from reading Karl Barth, even if, like Karl Rahner, I can only absorb his dense theology in short bursts. I benefit because, along with Bonhoeffer's writings, as well as that of many others, Barth's theology reveals the essential unity of Christian faith, not to mention the catholicity of the church, which, like Bonhoeffer, he understood better and lived more deeply than do many Catholics today. I believe for Roman Catholics of the second and third millenia, who understandably tend to rely heavily on matters of faith being definitively defined by the papal magisterium, reading theologians like Barth is refreshing and gives us great confidence in our ability to apprehend the truth.

It is certainly no geographic accident that Barth and Balthasar were in Basel at the same time and knew each other. If memory serves me correctly, Balthasar lectured Barth's students on the theology of Karl Barth! His little book, The Theology of Karl Barth remains a very good critical introduction to Barth's highly influential theology. Balthasar questions whether Barth's proposed analogia fidei was really all that different from the classic analogia entis that Barth sought to displace.

St. Paul, apostle

In his treatise on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, Barth wrote:

A man may be of value to another man, not because he wishes to be important, not because he possesses some inner wealth of the soul, nor because of something he is, but because of what he is - not. His importance may consist in his poverty, in his hopes and fears, in his waiting and hurrying, in the direction of his whole being towards what lies beyond his horizon and power. The importance of an apostle is negative rather than positive. In him a void becomes visible. And for this reason he is something to others: he is able to share grace with them, to focus their attention, and to establish them in waiting and in adoration

Too often our faith is driven by the personality and charisma of others, especially in a media-driven day like our own. I am always surprised by how shocked and disappointed people are when religious media personalities fall, fail, are revealed to be fakes and phonies. I think in this insightful passage Barth offers us great insight as to why, at least among Christians, this is the case. When it comes to the use of electronic media, I think being controversial for the sake of being controversial, or, worse yet, trying to generate attention by providing a spectacle (which I would distinguish from being provocative by intent) is like spitting in a pond full of carp. The response is gross, but fascinating to watch because it appeals to our morbid curiosity.

I think here Barth truly gets at the essence of the apostleship of St. Paul, which, in his own day, was a difficult battle, in which Paul refused to assert himself in certain ways, relying instead on the Holy Spirit, and remaining true to his calling as an apostle, which was not accepted by all.

St. Philip, deacon and evangelist

Reading: Acts 8:5-17 (not chopping up the section as the lectionary does)

Thus Philip went down to (the) city of Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah to them. With one accord, the crowds paid attention to what was said by Philip when they heard it and saw the signs he was doing. For unclean spirits, crying out in a loud voice, came out of many possessed people, and many paralyzed and crippled people were cured. There was great joy in that city. A man named Simon used to practice magic 4 in the city and astounded the people of Samaria, claiming to be someone great. All of them, from the least to the greatest, paid attention to him, saying, "This man is the 'Power of God' that is called 'Great.'" They paid attention to him because he had astounded them by his magic for a long time, but once they began to believe Philip as he preached the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, men and women alike were baptized. Even Simon himself believed and, after being baptized, became devoted to Philip; and when he saw the signs and mighty deeds that were occurring, he was astounded. Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Spirit, for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit.

Another Sunday and another reading from the Acts of the Apostles about those whom we revere as the first deacons. Today we read about Philip, the deacon who went to Samaria and preached the Gospel. Of the seven men who on whose heads the apostles laid hands, setting them apart for service, that is, diakonia, in the sixth chapter of Acts, (i.e., Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, Nicolaus), we only ever hear again about Stephen and Philip. It is interesting that Philip, who's ministry, like Stephen's, was not limited to serving at table, but seems to have revolved around him being something of a charismatic evangelist. He healed the sick, cast out demons, and apparently baptized, but he needed to go to Jerusalem and retrieve Peter and John to come and perform an ordinance that can only be likened to the sacrament of confirmation.

Philip is an interesting figure precisely because he was an evangelist. Fleeing the persecution of the nascent Christian Church unleashed in Jerusalem with the martyrdom of Stephen, Philip, along with his four daughters, relocated to Samaria. His four daughters are referenced in Acts 21. As he began to preach the Gospel, to heal the lame, and to cast out demons, he became the rival of a local miracle-worker, Simon. In his First Apology (chaps 26 and 56), St. Justin Martyr calls Simon "a magician," which for a Christian is a pejorative appellation, and notes that he was later revered in Rome as a god.

I like very much what commentator Loveday Alexander, writing The Oxford Bible Commentary says about Philip's challenge to Simon Magus:

the magician's powers may be real, but they fade into insignificance beside the powers of the gospel. The preaching of the word brings about not just a nine days' wonder, but belief and baptism, i.e., intellectual conviction and entry into a new community. The fact that the magician himself is impressed by Philip (v. 13) simply serves to highlight the gospel's power... (pg. 1038)

St. Philip, holy deacon and evangelist, pray for us

"through the forebearance of God"

Along with everything else, I am also re-reading the book of the prophet Jeremiah. How easy it is to forget the timeless value of God's prophets, who speak as clearly to us today as they did to those to whom they were initially called to prophesy. As I mentioned in a recent post, over the past few years I have taken to reading devotionally from the King James Version of the Bible, the version I am using to make my way through Jeremiah. So, on this Friday, which is a day of penance, these words from the sixth chapter (verses 26-30) seem appropriate, especially when paired with the verses from the third chapter of Romans I posted below:

O daughter of my people, gird thee with sackcloth, and wallow thyself in ashes: make thee mourning, as for an only son, most bitter lamentation: for the spoiler shall suddenly come upon us. I have set thee for a tower and a fortress among my people, that thou mayest know and try their way. They are all grievous revolters, walking with slanders: they are brass and iron; they are all corrupters. The bellows are burned, the lead is consumed of the fire; the founder melteth in vain: for the wicked are not plucked away. Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the LORD hath rejected them.

Ancient Israel being taken captive

In its Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), the Second Vatican Council taught that "God, the inspirer and author of both Testaments, wisely arranged that the New Testament be hidden in the Old and the Old be made manifest in the New. For, though Christ established the new covenant in His blood (see Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25), still the books of the Old Testament with all their parts, caught up into the proclamation of the Gospel, acquire and show forth their full meaning in the New Testament (see Matt. 5:17; Luke 24:27; Rom. 16:25-26; 2 Cor. 14:16) and in turn shed light on it and explain it" (par. 16).

Therefore, it helps us to put things into perspective when we realize that, ultimately, God poured all the wrath Jeremiah spoke about onto His Christ- Jesus, His beloved Son (see also John 3:16):

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.(verses 23-26)

Being practical people, Americans ask, Why does it matter?

Since I posted a musical traditio earlier this week in honor of Mr. Zimmerman's birthday, today I am posting a textual traditio. It bears reminding both of my readers that traditio refers both to what is passed on from generation to generation as well as the act, the how of handing it on. While it is too early to tell whether blogs will from a legitimate part of preserving the patrimony of faith in Christ as handed on from the apostles, I will proceed today anyway with something by Pope Benedict XVI:

The mystery of the Cross does not simply confront us; rather, it draws us in and gives a new value to our life.

This existential aspect of the new concept of worship and sacrifice appears with particular clarity in the twelfth chapter of the Letter to the Romans: "I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship [word-like] worship" (v.1) The idea of worshipping God in the manner of the word (logikê latreía) is taken up here, and it means the offering of one's whole existence to God, in which, so to speak, the whole person becomes "word-like", "godlike". In the process, the physical dimension is emphasized: it is our physical existence that must be penetrated by the word and must become a gift to God (Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week- From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection 236)

During Lent I posted something by A.W. Tozer from his book The Pursuit of God (you can read in its entirety on-line) on this same verse, which is my "life verse." Not too many Catholics have such verses (it is more of an Evangelical thing), but Romans 12:1 is mine. The value of this verse is consitently reinforced by my on-going engagement with Don Gius and my recent serious re-engagement with the works of Bonhoeffer, neither of whom had any patience with passive following. After all, faith, which can only ever really be faith in Christ, is not merely swapping one set of preconceptions for another, which move reduces it to an ideology, something I see all the time, even within the ekklesia.

Deacon Sunday?

Reading: Acts 6:1-7

As the number of disciples continued to grow, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. So the Twelve called together the community of the disciples and said, “It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to serve at table. Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task, whereas we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the Holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism. They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them. The word of God continued to spread, and the number of the disciples in Jerusalem increased greatly; even a large group of priests were becoming obedient to the faith.

Examining Acts 6:1-6 serves a dual purpose. First, it shows the difficulty in drawing straight lines from current ecclesial praxis back to the apostolic church. Secondly, it demonstrates the often ambiguous nature of the word “deacon” in all its forms as it is used by New Testament authors, showing that most frequently it refers to an activity, not to a specific office, or order of ministry, in the church. Two of the three usages of various forms of the word “deacon” in these verses of Acts indirectly refer to the seven. The first use of diakonia implies what service they are to be set apart for, namely insuring an equal distribution of food daily among the widows of the community, a community that held all things in common, thus they were set apart primarily as peace-makers and bridge-builders within the community. Closely bound up with the first appearance of diakonia is the word diakonein that the twelve use to describe the very service for which the seven are set apart by the laying on of hands. It also bears noting that despite distinguishing being in charge of the daily distribution, which apparently included something like waiting tables, from the diakonia of the word, which, along with having adequate time to pray, is why the twelve wanted to be free from those duties, especially in light of the dispute that arose, we shortly read that "Stephen, filled with grace and power" began "working great wonders and signs among the people" and launching into an extended sermon that constitutes part of the authentic Christian proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Acts 6:9). So, while this and subsequent references to the seven men, only two of whom, Stephen and Philip, we read more about in Acts, do not refer to them as deacons, it is easy to understand why they represent the biblical basis for this order of ministry.

End-times mania

It is important to note with all of the end-time mania going around that, like most heretical stances, Harold Camping’s prediction of the parousia is nothing new. Such people have been around since at least the time St. Paul. The apostle wrote his first letter to the Thessalonians, which is probably the first book of the New Testament to be written, to quell just these kinds of predictions. Let's not forget that Scripture itself warns us against claiming such knowledge (see Matthew 24:36). Also of use is Supplement 1763 to the Angelic Doctor's great Summa Theologiæ. This part of the supplement is where St. Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, "Whether the time of the future judgment is unknown?"

In keeping with his method, Aquinas sets forth several objections, which he proceeds to answer one-by-one, but not before stating the contrary and offering an answer. To the contrary, he writes that "[i]t is written (Mark 13:32): 'Of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.' The Son, however, is said not to know in so far as He does not impart the knowledge to us.

"Further, it is written (1 Thess. 5:2): 'The day of the Lord shall so come as a thief in the night.' Therefore seemingly, as the coming of a thief in the night is altogether uncertain, the day of the last judgment is altogether uncertain."

He then answers "that, God is the cause of things by His knowledge [*Cf. FP, Question [14], Article [8]]. Now He communicates both these things to His creatures, since He both endows some with the power of action on others whereof they are the cause, and bestows on some the knowledge of things. But in both cases He reserves something to Himself, for He operates certain things wherein no creature co-operates with Him, and again He knows certain things which are unknown to any mere creature. Now this should apply to none more than to those things which are subject to the Divine power alone, and in which no creature co-operates with Him. Such is the end of the world when the day of judgment will come. For the world will come to an end by no created cause, even as it derived its existence immediately from God. Wherefore the knowledge of the end of the world is fittingly reserved to God. Indeed our Lord seems to assign this very reason when He said (Acts 1:7): 'It is not for you to know the times or moments which the Father hath put in His own power,' as though He were to say, 'which are reserved to His power alone.'"

Let's also turn to Objection 3 and Reply to Objection 3 to clarify matters:

Objection 3: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor 10:11): "It is on us ['These things . . . are written for our correction, upon whom the ends of the world are come'] that the ends of the world are come," and (1 John 2:18): 'Little children, it is the last hour,' etc. Since then it is a long time since these things were said, it would seem that now at least we can know that the last judgment is nigh."

Reply to Objection 3: "The statement, 'It is the last hour' and similar expressions that are to be found in Scripture do not enable us to know the exact length of time. For they are not intended to indicate a short length of time, but to signify the last state of the world, which is the last age of all, and it is not stated definitely how long this will last. Thus neither is fixed duration appointed to old age, which is the last age of man, since sometimes it is seen to last as long as or even longer than all the previous ages, as Augustine remarks (Qq. 83, qu. lviii). Hence also the Apostle (2 Thess. 2:2) disclaims the false signification which some had given to his words, by believing that the day of the Lord was already at hand."

As to the whole pre-millenarian dispensationalist view that posits the Rapture, it is very thin biblical gruel, indeed. Let's turn to St. Jerome for a commentary on Matthew 24:40-42:

"'Two men in one field' shall be found performing the same labour, sowing corn together, but not reaping the same fruit of their labour. The two 'grinding together' we may understand either of the Synagogue and the Church, which seem to grind together in the Law, and to make of the same Scriptures meal of the commandments of God; or of other heresies, which out of both or one Testament, seem to grind meal of their own doctrines."

These reflections are not given to be definitive or complete, but just to show how the church deals with the passages of Scripture that Harold Camping is so badly abusing. I also want to refute the kind of biblical literalism that claims to know things like the day, month, and year of the flood and to make arthmetical predictions based such falsities by showing how, even from the time of St. Jerome (4th-5th centuries), we approach and interpret the sacred texts.

Indeed, dear friends in Christ, we pray the prayer of the Church from the beginning, "Maranatha," which means something like, "Come, Lord" Jesus (Rev. 22:20). Each time we attend Mass we acknowledge that we joyfully await His glorious return, not knowing the hour or the day, but, like the wise virgins, keeping our lamps trimmed and burning (Matt. 25:1-13). I love the part of the baptismal liturgy for children when the candle, lit from the Paschal candle, is given with these words: "Parents and Godparents, this light is entrusted to you to be kept burning brightly. This child of yours has been enlightened by Christ. S/He s to walk always as a child of the light. May s/he keep the flame of faith alive in his/her heart. When the Lord comes, may he (she) go out to meet him with all the saints in the heavenly kingdom."

It's easy to be ironic and smug about all of this, but given the confusion in the world and in the Church, especially the many who have taken Camping's prediction seriously and who will suffer as a result, the issue deserves at least some sober treatment.

Jesus, the Good Shepherd

The Good Shepherd, Catacombs of Rome, 3rd cent.

On this Fourth Sunday of Easter, known as Good Shepherd Sunday, let's turn to the twenty-third Psalm, but use the poetic version of the King James Bible, the 400th anniversary of which we celebrate this year:


The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

Happy 400th Anniversary to the King James Version of the Bible

In Catholic circles the 400th anniversary of the publication of the King James Bible understandably passed on Monday without much notice and certainly with no fanfare. Not having been raised a Catholic I grew up reading from and listening to the King James Bible exclusively. I was probably in my twenties before I read from any other version of the Bible. In recent years I have started to once again use the KJV in my private devotional reading of Sacred Scripture. I agree very much with what Peter Hitchens wrote earlier this year in an article to mark the KJV's anniversary lauding its beauty and timelessness: "it is not simply a translation, but a poetic translation, written to be read out loud to country people in large buildings without loudspeakers, to be remembered, to lodge in the mind and to disturb the temporal with the haunting sound of the eternal."

Something else I read this week that is worth passing along is a a very good and rather funny sermon preached to mark this noteworthy occasion delivered at St. Michael’s Cornhill by Rev. Peter Mullen. Dr. Mullen achieved notoriety a few years ago with what he thought was an uproariously funny anti-homosexual ditty that he posted on his blog, drawing the attention and ire of the British press and the attention of the Bishop of London, Dr. Richard Chartres, who preached what I thought was a very good sermon at the Royal Wedding last Friday. Mullen publicly and sincerely apologized for his gaffe. In any case, in his sermon Dr. Mullen compares and contrasts the poetic beauty of the King James Version with the less than inspiring, although perhaps more literally translated, modern English versions. The New Jerusalem Bible is the one most singled out for the inadequacy of its language. One example will suffice:

The King James Version says, "He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the Lord..."

In the New Jerusalem Bible this degenerates into tasteless obscurantism:
"If you live in the shelter of Elyon and make your home in the shadow of Shaddai, you can say to Yahweh..."

Truth transforms us

In his book Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, commenting on 1 Timothy 1:13, where St. Paul writes that he was "a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent" of God and the church, going on to write that he "received mercy because [he] had acted ignorantly in unbelief," the Holy Father writes, referring to Paul's studying "under the best masters" to the point he could certainly be considered an expert in the Scriptures, "This combination of expert knowledge and deep ignorance certainly causes us to ponder." Pondering this "reveals the whole problem of knowledge that remains self-sufficient and so does not arrive at the Truth itself, which ought to transform man." (pg. 207)

Homily for Vespers- 2nd Sunday of Easter

Reading: 1 Peter 1:3-9

Seeing is believing, or that’s what we’re often told. Think for a minute. How many things do you believe that you do not see? One standard example of this is to ask someone if they believe in the North Pole. When they answer “Yes,” a follow-up question is asked: Have you ever been there? Given the paucity of people who have ever been to the North Pole, the typical answer is, “No”. Is the implication here that you should stop believing in the North Pole because you have never been there? Well, I for one certainly hope not! You see you believe there is a North Pole because you trust the ones who told you it is there, people like your teachers, your parents, even explorers who make documentaries and write about their experience of traveling to this unique point on the earth, many of which include glossy color pictures. Far from being considered wise and intelligent for disbelieving those on whose testimony most people rely, you’d be considered a little wacky, if not a tad insane, even if you are from Missouri, the "show me" state.

We come to believe in Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead on the testimony of witnesses. Our patroness, St. Mary Magdalene, is known as the apostula apostulorum, that is, the "apostle to the apostles" precisely because she was the first witness of this glorious event. As a result of her testimony, some of the apostles hurriedly made their way to Jesus’ tomb. Do you think if they did not find her credible they would have bothered to go? They believed her because, like them, she was a disciple of Jesus. She was known to them. She was one of the women who took care of them, providing for them materially. But her testimony was an invitation, echoing the words of her Lord and God as spoken to John and Andrew, who, we are told in St. John’s Gospel, were disciples of John the Baptist who were so taken with Jesus upon seeing him and hearing their master, say, "Behold, the Lamb of God" (John 1:36), that they followed Him, causing Jesus to bid them "Come and you will see." (John 1:39)

It begins by the testimony of witnesses, of people we know, people we trust, not just now, but people through the ages, spanning the millennia between now and when the event of Jesus’ resurrection occurred, what the author of the Letter to the Hebrews described as a "great a cloud of witnesses." (Heb. 12:1) My friends, we, too, can experience the risen Lord. Where, you might ask. In the sacraments, which are always encounters with the Risen One. In baptism we die, are buried, and rise to new life. In confirmation He anoints us, incorporating us more fully into His priestly people. We meet him in confession, the Tribunal of Divine Mercy, where the only defense allowed is saying we are sorry with all our hearts. Most of all we meet Him in the Eucharist, the sacramentum caritatis, the great sacrament of God’s love, in which He gives Himself to us again and again so that we not only see, but also taste the goodness of God and believe.

Jesus, I trust in you

Holy Thursday- The Triduum Begins

Before the feast of Passover, Jesus knew that his hour had come to pass from this world to the Father. He loved his own in the world and he loved them to the end. The devil had already induced Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot, to hand him over. So, during supper, fully aware that the Father had put everything into his power and that he had come from God and was returning to God, he rose from supper and took off his outer garments. He took a towel and tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet and dry them with the towel around his waist. He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, "Master, are you going to wash my feet?" Jesus answered and said to him, "What I am doing, you do not understand now, but you will understand later."

Peter said to him, "You will never wash my feet." Jesus answered him, "Unless I wash you, you will have no inheritance with me." Simon Peter said to him, "Master, then not only my feet, but my hands and head as well." Jesus said to him, "Whoever has bathed 6 has no need except to have his feet washed, for he is clean all over; so you are clean, but not all." For he knew who would betray him; for this reason, he said, "Not all of you are clean."

So when he had washed their feet (and) put his garments back on and reclined at table again, he said to them, "Do you realize what I have done for you? You call me 'teacher' and 'master,' and rightly so, for indeed I am. If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another's feet. I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do. (John 13:1-15)

Sometimes it is said and written that, unlike the synoptic Gospels (i.e., Matthew, Mark, Luke), John's Gospel has no institution narrative. Of course, John's Gospel has no account of Jesus taking bread, blessing it, and saying "Do this in memory of me," and then taking the cup and saying it is His blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant, etc. On the contrary, the first fifteen verses of the thirteenth chapter of this Gospel constitute the Johannine institution narrative. This is but one of many reasons we need four Gospels. This also shows us that Mass is not an end itself.

Typically, at the end of the Mass we are dismissed- The Mass is ended go in peace! Hence, we are sent forth to give witness to the One who dwells in us, to make Him present everywhere we go. At the end of the Mass of the Lord's Supper, however, we are not dismissed. In fact, we are not dismissed again until the end of the Great Vigil late Saturday night, or even early Sunday morning. This is not merely an invitation to prayer, but a summons to enter more deeply into the Paschal Mystery, the great mystery of our redemption, wrought by Jesus Christ, our Passover and our Peace, to reflect deeply on what implications this has for our lives, which, as with John's institution narratives, calls us to a life of self-emptying service to others in imitation of the One whose disciples we are.

Unless I wash you, you will have no inheritance with me

Holy Week continues

On Passion Sunday we celebrated and commemorated Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Of course, as he rode into the city through the gate called Beautiful, He was hailed as Israel's long-awaited Messiah. This made many of the Jewish leaders nervous and even scared. Matthew's Gospel tells us, "And when he entered Jerusalem the whole city was shaken and asked, 'Who is this?' And the crowds replied, 'This is Jesus the prophet, from Nazareth in Galilee.'" (21:10-11) It is easy to lose the thread of the narrative, however. From that day until His betrayal, arrest, trial, scourging, and crucifixion, He taught in the Temple daily.

His first act, of course, was to cleanse to the Temple, which, at least in Matthew's account, occurs upon His entering the holy city. His week in Jerusalem continues with a whole series of very challenging teachings that challenge the religious authorities, who repeatedly test Him in an effort to trip Him up. Given the overheated political moment we are experiencing here in the U.S. let's look at one such instance that is very relevant:

Then the Pharisees went off and plotted how they might entrap him in speech. They sent their disciples to him, with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know that you are a truthful man and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. And you are not concerned with anyone's opinion, for you do not regard a person's status. Tell us, then, what is your opinion: Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not?"

Knowing their malice, Jesus said, "Why are you testing me, you hypocrites? Show me the coin that pays the census tax." Then they handed him the Roman coin. He said to them, "Whose image is this and whose inscription?" They replied, "Caesar's." At that he said to them, "Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God." When they heard this they were amazed, and leaving him they went away. (Matt. 22:15-22)

St. Justin Martyr, the great second century philosopher and Christian apologist wrote, concerning this very passage:

And everywhere we, more readily than all men, endeavour to pay to those appointed by you the taxes both ordinary and extraordinary, as we have been taught by Him; for at that time some came to Him and asked Him, if one ought to pay tribute to Cæsar; and He answered, "Tell Me, whose image does the coin bear?" And they said, "Cæsar's." And again He answered them, "Render therefore to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and to God the things that are God's." Whence to God alone we render worship, but in other things we gladly serve you, acknowledging you as kings and rulers of men, and praying that with your kingly power you be found to possess also sound judgment. But if you pay no regard to our prayers and frank explanations, we shall suffer no loss, since we believe (or rather, indeed, are persuaded) that every man will suffer punishment in eternal fire according to the merit of his deed, and will render account according to the power he has received from God, as Christ intimated when He said, "To whom God has given more, of him shall more be required." Luke 12:48 (First Apology, chapter 17)

Prepare ye the way of the Lord. Prepare ye the way for the kingdom

Going to church, what's at stake?

Some Christians suppose that their decision not to go to church represents a kind of higher, purer, spirituality, a more authentic, or mature form of Christianity than does going to church. The Scriptures are not silent on the matter of our need to gather together. As both of my readers know, I have been reading and re-reading The Letter to the Hebrews over the last half of Lent. The primary concern of the unknown author of this letter, which is the best Greek composition among the books and letters that comprise the Christian Scriptures, is the danger of apostasy, of falling away from the practice of Christian faith, leaving the assembly, the ekklesia, the church. The falling away addressed is not the result of persecution, but an apparent weariness of the demands of Christian life, along with a growing indifference on the part of many early Christians. In my study, I have been grappling with some pretty demanding passages that we ignore at our own peril.

For example in chapter ten, the author takes up the issue of attending church, as it were:

Let us hold unwaveringly to our confession that gives us hope, for he who made the promise is trustworthy. We must consider how to rouse one another to love and good works. We should not stay away from our assembly, as is the custom of some, but encourage one another, and this all the more as you see the day drawing near. If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries. Anyone who rejects the law of Moses is put to death without pity on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Do you not think that a much worse punishment is due the one who has contempt for the Son of God, considers unclean the covenant-blood by which he was consecrated, and insults the spirit of grace? (10:23-29- underlining emphasis mine)

I do not hesitate to employ Scripture in this way. After all, if the word of God is not perennially relevant, then what good is it? My use, however, does not amount to a kind of tin-eared literalism, of which there is far too much, especially in the U.S. But just as the answer to legalism and formalism is not antinomian laxity, so the answer to biblical literalism is not the outright refusal to acknowledge what holy writ hands on to us just because it is demanding.

We understandably wince at so-called "hellfire and damnation" passages, such as this one. Indeed, fear is not much of a motivator. The argument, you should go to church or risk going hell, is not convincing to most people, as negative arguments are never as strong as positive ones. I certainly don't think any effective parish effort aimed at bringing people back to church will consist of billboards, handbills, and home visits that state: Come back to church or be consigned to hellfire. With that said, such outreaches must be driven by our concern for the destiny of those to whom we are reaching out. If not, then why bother?

A few chapters further along the author instructs the church to "[s]ee to it that no one be deprived of the grace of God, that no bitter root spring up and cause trouble." (12:15) Indeed, many who are away have had bad experiences in church, the ever-present sexual abuse scandal being a persistent and sobering reminder of this reality. Many more just stopped going and, discerning that their presence was not missed, have just stayed away.

So, we must resist the temptation to be micro-focused on hellfire, on the negative. Scripture always urges us to look at the bigger picture. Hence, the call in Hebrews is to Christian maturity. It is easy to miss in the above passage the positive, namely rousing "one another to love and good works," which is what we do when we gather together in communion to receive the grace we need to become Christ-like. Let's not forget that Christ is really and truly present to us in a four-fold way in the liturgy. The very first way He is really present is by our mere gathering together in His name. This reality St. Augustine referred to as the totus Christus, the total, or complete Christ- His Body (us), gathered together with Him as our head (priest). Another of the four ways Christ is really present, then, is in the person of the priest, who leads our worship to the Father in persona Christi capitis- in the person of Christ the head.

We must not fail to notice that even this forthright section of the letter ends with a positive exhortation, calling us to remember our faithfulness and the joy of faith, even in hardship:

Remember the days past when, after you had been enlightened, you endured a great contest of suffering. At times you were publicly exposed to abuse and affliction; at other times you associated yourselves with those so treated. You even joined in the sufferings of those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, knowing that you had a better and lasting possession. Therefore, do not throw away your confidence; it will have great recompense. You need endurance to do the will of God and receive what he has promised. "For, after just a brief moment, he who is to come shall come; he shall not delay. But my just one shall live by faith, and if he draws back I take no pleasure in him." We are not among those who draw back and perish, but among those who have faith and will possess life (10:32-39- underlining emphasis mine)

Another aspect of going to church that cannot be overlooked because it is fundamental, is the fact that it is precisely at Mass where we encounter the Lord. Pope Benedict XVI, in the second volume of his life of our Lord, writing about Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem captures this perfectly:

The Church greets the Lord in the Holy Eucharist as the one who is coming now, the one who has entered into her midst. At the same time, she greets him as the one who continues to come, the one who leads us toward his coming. As pilgrims, we go up to him; as a pilgrim, he comes to us and takes us up with him in his "ascent" to the Cross and Resurrection, to the definitive Jerusalem that is already growing in the midst of this world in the communion that unites us with his body (Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week- From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, pgs 10-11)

Who wants to miss out on that? As Annie Dillard wrote about going to church in her book Teaching a Stone to Talk: Expeditions and Encounters: "Does anyone have the foggiest idea of what sort of power we so blithely invoke? Or, as I suspect, does no one believe a word of it? The churches are children playing on the floor with their chemistry sets, mixing up a batch of TNT to kill a Sunday morning. It is madness to wear ladies' straw hats and velvet hats to church; we should all be wearing crash helmets. Ushers should issue life preservers and signal flares; they should lash us to our pews."

Prepare ye the way of the Lord. Prepare ye the way for the kingdom

Priesthood of all believers

"I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Romans 12:1-2)

What does the apostle mean?

I think A.W. Tozer gives us a pretty good idea:

"The 'layman' need never think of his humbler task as being inferior to that of his minister. Let every man abide in the calling wherein he is called and his work will be as sacred as the work of the ministry. It is not what a man does that determines whether his work is sacred or secular, it is why he does it. The motive is everything. Let a man sanctify the Lord God in his heart and he can thereafter do no common act. All he does is good and acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For such a man, living itself will be sacramental and the whole world a sanctuary. His entire life will be a priestly ministration. As he performs his never so simple task he will hear the voice of the seraphim say 'Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.'" A.W. Tozer The Pursuit of God

Meum cum sim pulvis et cinis

Spirit and flesh on the Fifth Sunday of Lent

In writing reflections on our Sunday readings over the course of this holy season, my focus has been exclusively on the Gospel passages. On a day that we hear yet another dramatic event from St. John's Gospel- Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, I want to focus on our second reading from St. Paul's Letter to the Romans, in which the apostle also writes about what it means to be raised from the dead:

"Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh; on the contrary, you are in the spirit, if only the Spirit of God dwells in you. Whoever does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is alive because of righteousness. If the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the one who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also, through his Spirit dwelling in you." (Romans 8:8-11)

St. Paul, when referring to "the flesh" in this passage is not writing about the body. If he was simply referring to the body he would've used the Greek word soma. Instead, he uses the word sarx. Before unpacking this term a little bit, it is important to note that a truly Christian anthropology is not dualist, meaning that we do not see the body as something evil, as something to be overcome, to be set aside, to be escaped from. On the contrary, we will be bodily resurrected and live forever as embodied beings. Rather, God created us as we are, redeemed us through the bodily sacrifice of His Only Begotten Son, who for our sake became incarnate in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, His bodily resurrection from the dead, and His bodily ascension into heaven. He now sets about sanctifying us in our bodies by the power of the Holy Spirit- Just think about the sacraments! All of this is necessary because the temptation to gnosticism is ever present and has been from the beginning!

Like most every word in a lot of languages sarx has a number of meanings. In its most straightforward, that is, literal sense, sarx (i.e., "the flesh") refers to the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood. It also means the sensuous nature of humankind, what we might call our animal nature. According to just about any New Testament Greek lexicon, sarx, which is used in the writings of St. Paul to refer to our sensuous nature, does not automatically suggest depravity, but does refer to those bodily cravings that lead us to sin if we follow them unchecked in a hedonistic manner.

A great example of the distinction St. Paul makes in this passage is found in Matthew 26:36-41. This passage is Matthew's account of Jesus' prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane. Before laying bare His soul before His Father, our Lord says to Peter, James, and John- "My soul is sorrowful even to death. Remain here and keep watch with me." Going off to pray and asking the Father to let the bitter cup that He is about to drink, even the dregs, the Lord returns to find the three fast asleep. His disappointment and sorrow are evident when He says, "So you could not keep watch with me for one hour? Watch and pray that you may not undergo the test. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." It is not difficult to imagine the three, when asked by Jesus to keep watch with Him, responding positively. I further imagine it growing later, colder, darker, making them even more tired. So, huddling together, they warmed up and, perhaps even fighting their drowsiness, fell asleep. If you follow the passage, they fall asleep more than once! Hence, St. Paul's constant injunction to wake up, to stay awake, etc.

It is good that we hear this late in Lent, a season in which we try to open ourselves to God by more intensively practicing the spiritual disciplines, putting off the flesh through acts of self-denial in order to live according to God's life-giving Spirit (i.e., "the Lord, the giver of life"). In this passage from his Letter to the Romans, St. Paul sets forth something James Kushiner summarizes very well: "What the discipline is meant to do is to help you get yourself, your ego, out of the way so you are open to His grace." I think "flesh" in the sense Paul uses it in this passage can certainly be called "ego".

Meum cum sim pulvis et cinis

Hope is not wishing, but trusting in God's promise

Over the course of Lent I have been reading repeatedly the Letter to the Hebrews. I read fours chapters per day, which means that I finish the book every three or four days. Because Hebrews has thirteen chapters, I am forced to vary for either one or two days reading four chapters. Technique is not important, however. It never ceases to amaze me how rich God's word is, as Hebrews says, it "is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart". (4:12- ESV)

Sunday I was reading Hebrews 11, which is a breath-taking exposition on the theological virtue of faith, which it links closely to the forgotten, or least understood, of these God-given gifts, hope. Hope is the fruit, or flower, of faith. Put less poetically, hope is the product of faith. The chapter begins- "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." (1-3- ESV)

The author proceeds to give examples of those people of old, how they lived by faith, that is, lived hopefully: Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and Sarah. Between Enoch and Noah the author of this letter, what Bible scholar Daniel Harrington calls a written sermon, notes that "without faith it is impossible to please [God], for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him". (6- ESV)

Writing aboout Abraham and Sarah, the author commends them for going to the land promised them, thus acting on faith. Filled with hope they looked "forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God." (8 and 10- ESV) "By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised." (11- ESV). Hence, the author continues, "from one man, and him as good as dead [meaning Abraham, who was past the age of child-bearing himself], were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore." (12- ESV)

What is the point of discussing these "people of old"?

"These all died in faith, not having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire the better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city" (13-16- ESV)

In other words, they died not having experienced in their own lifetimes the fullness of that which God promised them. They did not die bitter, or unfulfilled. They passed filled with hope; trusting in God's fidelity to His promise.

The inroit for Mass on the Fourth Sunday of Lent refers to our longing for the city of God: Rejoice, Jerusalem! Be glad for her, you who love her; rejoice with her, you who mourned for her, and you will find contentment at her consoling breasts (Isa. 66:10-11) Indeed, "here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come." (Heb. 13:4- ESV) The new Jerusalem.

In his encyclical Spe Salvi, to which we have paid too little attention, the Holy Father pays great attention throughout his letter to this important book from the Christian Scriptures. I only wish to cite here the passage in which he wrote: "When the Letter to the Hebrews says that Christians here on earth do not have a permanent homeland, but seek one which lies in the future (cf. Heb 11:13-16; Phil 3:20), this does not mean for one moment that they live only for the future: present society is recognized by Christians as an exile; they belong to a new society which is the goal of their common pilgrimage and which is anticipated in the course of that pilgrimage." (par. 4) The church is supposed to be a foretaste of the heavenly city.

Meum cum sim pulvis et cinis

"Go, therefore and make disciples..."

Prompted by my recent and unexpected immersion in the Jesus People Movement of the '60s-70s and Trip D's recent reflection on how many deacons are too many, today I came across what just might be the best thing on evangelism I have ever read, by Pastor Jake Kircher, who serves as Youth Pastor at Grace Community Church in New Caanan, Connecticut. In an article that appears in Relevant magazine, he asks whether Christians have gotten evangelism wrong by making the church building the locus of evangelization.

While he writes from an Evangelical Christian perspective, I think much of what he writes is very relevant to Catholics. I mean how often do we hear that we need to lighten up the liturgy in order to make it accessible for people, or update it to keep up with the times? In my view, there is nothing more outdated and seemingly irrelevant than a lot of what we now, anachronistically, call contemporary liturgy. Our preaching often falls prey to these kinds of ideas, too. No biblical exposition for Catholics! Why do exegesis when we can pile stories on top of stories in an effort to make the same point repeatedly, namely that we must be nice at all costs? This also permits us to avoid those challenging readings, the ones that really hit us where we live, calling us to repent! As C.S. Lewis once asked, does conversion wrought by our encounter with Christ make you a nice person, or a new person, being made day-by-day into His likeness? The two are not always, nor even often, mutually exclusive. However, Lewis goes on to note: "It is when we notice the dirt that God is most present to us: it is the very sign of his presence." This is true because it makes plain our need to repent, that is, to change, which deep human desire, borne from our great need, is the basis of all authentic evangelization. Back to the point Kircher is trying to make, he asks whether our attempts at "relevant evangelism" are ultimately self-defeating.

Pastor Jake notes that it is weird that very often evangelism revolves around programs that happen at church. This seems to defy the whole notion of evangelism, which requires Christians to "take it to the streets," as it were. Kircher cites Jesus' Great Commission, given in the last chapter of Matthew, in which the Risen Lord says to the eleven, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go..." (28:18-19) As Catholics, every Mass (except some Life Teen masses from years ago, which serve as a great Roman Catholic example of the kind non-evangelizing evangelism at which Kircher takes aim) ends with a dismissal, wherein the deacon or the priest dismisses the congregation, the ekkelsia, the assembly, with one of the following formulae: "The Mass is ended, go in peace"; "Go in the peace of Christ"; "Go in peace to love and serve and the Lord." It is not unusual to hear this- "The Mass is ended, go in peace to love and serve the Lord and one another." In any form, these are unmistakable calls to evangelize, to take Christ to the world, which needs Him so badly!

This is a good context to mention how fond I am of two of the three dismissals in the new English translation of the Roman Missal: "Go and announce the Gospel of the Lord" and "Go in peace, glorifying the Lord by your life." It always helps to remind ourselves that word "Mass" refers specifically to being dismissed, or, in the words of Jesus from Matthew, "Go..." What are we sent to do? To "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." (28:19-20a)

This young pastor wisely goes on to point out that the idea of evangelism as drawing non-believers, or fallen-away believers, to a meeting in a church building reveals a very defective understanding of what it means to be Christ's Body, the Church. Instead, Kircher insists, Jesus calls us "to be an attraction outside of the church walls." The Lord wants "to shine through us where we all work, live, play, shop and do life together." To properly understand the distinction between the priesthood of all believers, which is clearly set forth in Scripture (see 1 Peter 2:5; Romans 12:1-2), and the ministerial priesthood, we have to understand that a priest's ministry is primarily, if not exclusively, in and to the church, while the rest of the baptized mostly exercise our ministry outside the church, that is, in the world, revealing that there is also a diaconate of all believers, through which Christ calls us to render diakonia, that is, authentically Christian service to others.

We have to get over the notion "that sharing the Gospel should be left for the professionals" because, by virtue of our baptismal profession, we are the professionals! I like the way Kircher underlines the absurdity of the notion that evangelism should be exclusively left up to the clergy. I tweak his statement to put it in a Catholic context- "You want your friend to know Jesus? Why don’t you bring them to our next parish retreat, lecture, or even Mass where he can hear it straight from our parish priest!" Jesus did not work this way!

Indeed, as Kircher notes, the Lord "didn’t set up a tent somewhere and invite everyone to come out for a revival every Friday night. Instead, He went out to where the people were. He sent His disciples out, untrained and confused as they all were, to spread His message. The Church began, not because everyone was invited to an outreach, but because the disciples were out living life together when the Holy Spirit moved through them." (Acts 2)

There is a lot more I could write about this article, but I want you to read it for yourself, assuming that you are a disciple of Jesus Christ. If you are a follower of the Lord, then you take His Great Commission seriously, even seeing it as your baptismal vocation, for which you received a fuller outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Confirmation, a task you are strengthened for each time you participate in Eucharist before being sent forth to accomplish it. In addition to pointing to our continuity through time and space, this being sent is what we mean when we say the church is apostolic.

Kircher ends with this lovely exhortation/observation:

Evangelism is not something we are supposed to do; it’s something we are supposed to be. If we ourselves have been immersed into the character and values of Christ, then by simply living our lives, we are immersing others into that same Jesus. It is theologically incorrect to say that evangelism isn’t your thing and that you only do it once a month at the outreach event. It is something we all should do every day

Meum cum sim pulvis et cinis

Experience is to moralism what spirit is to letter

This week I offer something of an old-fashioned exposition on our Sunday Gospel. Hopefully this gives both my readers a solid basis to think about and explore what relevance this has to our individual lives, our family lives, and our life together as God's family, the ekklesia, or Church, which, consisting as it does of all the baptized, is not merely co-extensive with the Catholic Church. Perhaps sometime I'll take up this very complex passage from Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (a.k.a. Lumen Gentium):

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity. (par. 8- underlining emphasis mine)

Reading: John chapter 9

The innocence and simplicity of the blind man Jesus healed, who we read about today from John's Gospel, is very moving. When he was asked by those who recognized him as the formerly blind beggar, "How were your eyes opened?" he told of his experience with no embellishment: "The man called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes and told me, 'Go to Siloam and wash.' So I went there and washed and was able to see." Upon hearing this they took him to what appear to be the leaders of the local synagogue, to which his parents belonged, to discuss his healing and to deal with the fact that Jesus did it on the Sabbath.

When asked by the "Pharisees" to tell them what happened, the man simply said, "He put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and now I can see". This caused a division among the Pharisees with some saying that Jesus could not possibly be someone sent by God "because he does not keep the sabbath", whereas others wondered, "How can a sinful man do such signs?" So, they asked the formerly blind beggar what he had to say about Jesus. Like the Samaritan woman at the well in last week's Gospel, his initial response was that Jesus, "is a prophet". Despite all of this we are told that "the Jews did not believe" that the man had truly been blind and regained his sight.

Their disbelief caused them to summon the formerly blind man's parents to testify that he had been blind from birth and now could see. They testified that he was born blind and could now see, but that they did not know how or by whom he gained his sight. This at least brought these men to acknowledge what had occurred. There is an indication here that the man's parents knew that their son claimed to have been healed by Jesus, but were afraid to say so because anyone who acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah would be thrown out of the synagogue. So, in today's terms, they threw their son under the bus, saying, "Ask him, he is of age; he can speak for himself" and, a short time later, "He is of age; question him".

So, the Pharisees, having overcome their division and having been forced to acknowledge the miracle, tell the man, "Give God the praise. We know this man is a sinner". "This man," of course, is Jesus. The beauty of the simplicity of the former blind beggar is once again shown when he responds, "If he is a sinner, I do not know. One thing I do know is that I was blind and now I see". The Pharisees ask him to again relate what happened to him. One can only surmise, but one reason they would ask him to tell what happened again was to see if they could discredit the event, his encounter. His reply, while still innocent and without guile, is bolder: "I told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples, too?" At this suggestion they begin to ridicule him: "You are that man’s disciple; we are disciples of Moses! We know that God spoke to Moses, but we do not know where this one is from."

Gaining in boldness, the formerly blind beggar retorts, "This is what is so amazing, that you do not know where he is from, yet he opened my eyes. We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if one is devout and does his will, he listens to him. It is unheard of that anyone ever opened the eyes of a person born blind. If this man were not from God, he would not be able to do anything". This aroused their indignation, which they thought was righteous. So, referring to his being born blind, which they attributed to sin, they responded, "You were born totally in sin, and are you trying to teach us?" We know from Jesus' answer to the question by his disciples at the beginning of the chapter about whether the man was blind because of his own sins or those of his parents that "Neither he nor his parents sinned". He was blind, according to Jesus, "so that the works of God might be made visible through him" (showing us explicitly that God uses everything that happens to us to draw us closer to Himself, thus allowing us- not forcing us- to give witness to "the light of the world"). "Then," the Gospel tells us, "they threw him out."

Upon learning that he had been expelled from the synagogue, Jesus went to him and, finding him, asked the man, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" Understanding that Jesus was referring to the Messiah, again, like the woman at the well last week, the man, showing that he had not yet fully gained his sight, with great simplicity, asks Jesus, "Who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?" One can almost hear the tenderness when Jesus says to him, "You have seen him, the one speaking with you is he." The man responds, saying, "I do believe, Lord," and then proceeds to worship Jesus. After this, Jesus says, "I came into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see might see, and those who do see might become blind."

Hearing this the Pharisees ask Jesus, in a very self-serving manner, "Surely we are not also blind, are we?" Meaning, "You are not really saying here in front of everyone that we, the leaders of the synagogue, are blind in the way you just described?" Jesus, catching their drift and engaging in a little rhetorical equivocation, tells them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you are saying, 'We see,' so your sin remains." In other words, Jesus is telling them, "You are in an even worse state than those who see and become blind because you see and refuse to acknowledge what unfolds before your very eyes."

Let those who have eyes see; let those who have ears hear.

Meum cum sim pulvis et cinis

Challenging aspects of following Christ

With a deep diaconal bow to my fellow deacon, Charles Joiner, who is Orthodox, I am posting an excerpt from the late Fr. Seraphim Rose’s book, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, in which he comments on much of what passes for Christian spirituality today:

"The life of self-centeredness and self-satisfaction lived by most of today’s 'Christians' is so all-pervading that it effectively seals them off from any understanding at all of spiritual life; and when such people do undertake 'spiritual life,' it is only as another form of self-satisfaction. This can be seen quite clearly in the totally false religious ideal both of the 'charismatic' movement and the various forms of 'Christian meditation': all of them promise (and give very quickly) an experience of 'contentment' and 'peace.' But this is not the Christian ideal at all, which if anything may be summed up as a fierce battle and struggle. The ‘contentment' and 'peace' described in these contemporary 'spiritual' movements are quite manifestly the product of spiritual deception, of spiritual self-satisfaction––which is the absolute death of the God-oriented spiritual life. All these forms of 'Christian meditation' operate solely on the psychic level and have nothing whatever in common with Christian spirituality. Christian spirituality is formed in the arduous struggle to acquire the eternal Kingdom of Heaven, which fully begins only with the dissolution of this temporal world, and the true Christian struggler never finds repose even in the foretastes of eternal blessedness which might be vouchsafed to him in this life; but the Eastern religions, to which the Kingdom of Heaven has not been revealed, strive only to acquire psychic states which begin and end in this life."

In trying to keep it simple, I will add only one observation, namely the banishment from contemporary Christian life, at least in the West, of those traditional disciplines that are difficult. First among these are the disciplines of fasting and abstinence. It seems that those of us in the well-fed and over-sexed West see the need to fast from virtually everything except food and sex. The reason for this is because when we do we get hungry and horny, which means grappling with these basic desires of our flesh, which are not intrinsically evil, just as our bodies are not evil. However, these desires often rule our lives, or at least exercise undue influence over us. Christ wants to liberate us from all that enslaves us, from all that distracts us from loving as we are loved, which means dying to ourselves. So, we are loathe to eliminate meat, cheese, milk, indeed, all animal products, including fish, from our diet for a prescribed season, or even a few days a week, let alone wine and conjugal relations, which disciplines have been part of Christian praxis from the very beginning. Sure these things can take on a dead formalism, but this, too, must be resisted. It is not resisited by falling into being lax.

When Philippine Archbishop Paciano Aniceto, who serves as chairman of the Commission on Family Life of the Philippines’ Conference of Catholic Bishops, suggested to married Catholics in his country at the beginning of Lent that they might consider abstaining from sexual relations by mutual agreement over these forty days, citing Muslim practice during the month of Ramadan, his suggestion, at least in the U.S., was met with sarcasm and smug ridicule, despite the fact he made it clear that he was only making a suggestion and not seeking to impose anything, which is only to suggest what Sacred Scripture itself recommends, when St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians:

"Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: 'It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.' But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control". (1 Cor. 7:1-5- ESV- underlining emphasis mine)

If I am not mistaken, Lent is a time we devote ourselves to prayer more intensively. Passages like this in Scripture are often dismissed by Western Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, as antiquated, outdated, and irrelevant to contemporary life. While I certainly do not take a literalist approach to Scripture, I cannot dismiss challenging passages with the wave of my hand. I fully recognize that for some people this would never occur as a possibility and I would never insist that it is incumbent upon married couples to do this for even a day, let alone for a week, month, or six weeks, but I think as Christians we have to acknowledge there may well be something to it.

Of course, such an undertaking requires a certain amount of spiritual maturity, meaning it cannot be done on a whim or for superficial, legalistic, or moralistic reasons. It also requires competent spiritual direction in order for it to be fruitful, competent spiritual directors are in short supply these days. Like all disciplines it is a means to an end, not an end in itself. We do not become holy by our own efforts, God is the one who transforms us, but not only does God not change us against our will, He does not do so without our cooperation. So, while our reasons for doing these things must be primarily spiritual, like fasting from food, it also has practical benefits, such as deepening marital intimacy, which is surely fostered by such things as praying (more) together, engaging in spiritual reading together, etc. Those who undertake such a spiritual endeavor must do so quietly, not seeking to draw attention to themselves, so that it might help them be transformed from image to likeness together, which is what the sacrament of matrimony is all about. (Mark10:6-8; Gen. 1:27)

Meum cum sim pulvis et cinis