I was reading...

Here is another post from the Multiply days.  This one is from 2010 and still relevant, perhaps ever more relevant as things continue to get weirder.  I pray that I will be like the seven brothers and like Eleazer who scorned to take refuge in subterfuge but boldly defied the evils of his day.

 

The Maccabees are two interesting books--really a pity more people aren't actually acquainted with those books outside the Protestant canon that were part of the old canon....but then again, it's also sad that more people are not even acquainted with the "usual" books of the Bible, and I digress.  The point of this was to talk about II Maccabees.

The book is addresses to the Jews of Alexandria as an abbreviated history of the events it describes.  But at the very beginning it has this beautiful blessing written: "May God prosper you, remembering his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, his faithful servants.  May he give you all a heart to worship him and to do his will with a generous mind and a willing spirit.  May he open your hearts to his Law and his precepts, and give you peace.  May he hear your prayers and be reconciled with you, and not abandon you in time of evil."(iiMac.1:2-6)
I had been going to share that a few evenings ago, but said "tomorrow," which didn't happen.  So it is this evening that I again thought, "tomorrow," but decided to go ahead and write tonight.
It is some chapters later into the history of this particular time.  The treasurer was envious of Onias the godly high-priest and exaggerated how much money was in the treasury to the king, who sent Heliodorus to collect the money.  Onias protested against this and made it clear that the money was for the orphans and widows and they could not break the trust of those who had placed the money there.  Onias and the priests then pray to God and Jerusalem follows their example.  Heliodorus is prevented by a miraculous apparition from looting the temple treasury.  His followers ask Onias to pray for Heliodorus life, which he does, and the glory is given to God. 
Time passes and Onias has been displaced by his brother Jason a hellenizer, who in turn was deposed by someone even worse.  People have taken to following pagan practices even on the temple ground. Jason attacks his successor in ch. 5 and is repulsed but when the king hears, he figures Judea is in revolt and attacks Jerusalem killing indiscriminately the inhabitants and even penetrating the temple and "with his unclean hands he seized the sacred vessels;...Antiochus, so much above himself, did not realize that the Lord was angry for the moment at the sins of the inhabitants of the city, hence his unconcern for the Holy Place....the Lord had not chosen the people for the sake of the place, but the place for the sake of the people;" That really struck me.  The temple was set aside for the sake of the people--a place to present sacrifices and worship God....How often do we act as though the church building is more sacred than the church itself?  We don't want to profane the church (referring to the building) but it's fine to tear down the Church (the body of Christ) by our actions and words....?  It is we humans who were chosen, the buildings and places are secondary.
The book continues.  Abominations are carried on within the temple grounds and Jews are being forced into pagan practices, being killed for noncompliance.  There is this old man Eleazar, though, who spits out pig's flesh that was forced between his teeth.  "Those in charge of the impious banquet, because their long-standing friendship with him, took him aside and privately urged him to have meat brought of a kind he could properly use, prepared by himself, and only pretend to eat the portions of the sacrificial meat as prescribed by the king;" Eleazar could escape death this way, but he refused because the example it would set for others.  People would think he had conformed and might be led astray, and he would much rather die a positive example, "of how to make a good death, eagerly and generously, for the venerable and holy laws."  His companions then turn on him and bludgeon him to death and his dying words: "Th Lord whose knowledge is holy sees clearly that, though I might have escaped death, whatever agonies of body I now endure under this bludgeoning, in my soul I am glad to suffer, because of the awe which he inspires in me."
The next chapter tells of a mother and her seven sons who are tortured for their  faith but likewise remain resolute. When the third son was asked for his tongue after the first two have already been tortured and killed he makes the statement, "It was heaven that gave me these limbs; for the sake of his laws I disdain them; from him I hope to receive them again."  It continues until the youngest.  Antiochus asks the mother to encourage her son to relent.  She has been forced to witness the deaths of her other six sons but she still holds to the faith. "My son, have pity on me; I carried you nine months in my womb and suckled you three years, fed and reared you to the age you are now (and cherished you). I implore you, my child, observe heaven and earth, consider all that is in them, and acknowledge that God made them out of what did not exist, and that mankind comes into being the same way.  Do not fear this executioner, but prove yourself worthy of your brothers, and make death welcome, so that in the day of mercy I may receive you back in your brothers' company."  and the son says, "What are you waiting for? I will not comply with the king's ordinance; I obey the ordinance of the Law given to our ancestors through Moses.  As for you, sir, who have contrived every kind of evil against the Hebrews, you will certainly not escape the hands of God.  We are suffering for our own sins; and if, to punish and discipline us, our living Lord vents his wrath upon us, he will yet be reconciled with his own servants."

They were faithful.  They took on themselves, in a way, the guilt of the people and willingly accepted death.  Could these stories have encouraged the early church who suffered persecution similarly?
I don't want stuff like that to happen, but I do wonder, how would I respond?  Would I take the chance to live that was offered to Eleazar?  or would I scorn to make use of that sort of subterfuge and accept death willingly for the sake of my fellow people and my convictions and remaining faithful to my God?

I Thirst

 

“I thirst.” and the damp settled.

And my languid arms like languid branches

Sagged beneath unwanted weight.

A cloud, a breeze would cheer

Or butterfly with bright orange wing

Would lift a smile in a moment

For a moment.  Then in dry heat

Again, it settles, wearied with that old

        Hunger. 

                I seek. 

He whispers, “Take and eat.”

Around I look and see the waving

Of singing branches, my eyes

Too full of tears for singing.

Soon this all is dust.

There, beneath my feet I feel

The forgotten cracks throughout this crust

Of earth in which I stand. A sense

Of something warm, immense--

A whisper, “Come and drink.” 

 Sink my roots more deep. He says,

“Eat and Drink. And you 

                       shall never die.”

There touches fire

That does not consume.

Revived, my branches lift and face the sun

Ah, there are those from whom I come--

One smiles, “Where your roots?”

“What you have found beneath this ground,”

One says, “cannot be truth.”

Roots deep, veins aflame, branches sweep

In breeze and sun--what shall I say?

"Come and see, that Heart

                that never lies."

Is it akin to Nostalgia?

What is it, when you find yourself in a place unfamiliar yet it feels like home? It is as though one was to go to the other side of the world and discover a path that feels oddly familiar, like you had been there before somehow, perhaps in a dream. It is like hearing a song of which you know the tune before you ever heard it.

The first time I remember this sort of experience was when I attended mass for the first time. From the first moment of walking in I noticed an utter difference to what was familiar in “going to church”. It was quiet. There was an awe-inspiring austerity and beauty. 

Instead of painted walls and industrial lights in a building that used to be a wellness center there were cinder-block walls, stained glass windows, and great wooden beams to a pointed wooden ceiling for a building built for the worship of God. Instead of a band around a stage with the drums center back was a place for the altar and a crucifix in the center back. Where the drums had been flanked by guitarists and bassist and fiddle off to the left, the crucifix was flanked by statues of the Virgin Mary and Joseph the Carpenter. Off to the left was a tall, small wooden table on which was a round metal case with a cross up top; the cross being the only visible part usually, as it was covered with a cloth. Instead of a long time of singing, a little scripture, and a long sermon, that might also be a long prayer service with lots of singing, was a structured service of prayer and scripture with a short sermon and the focal point obviously being Holy Communion.

Almost none of the songs were familiar, and yet, when the psalm was being chanted (as it was that first mass), it just fit. That first time, I don’t know that there was any choir or organ, but when I did become aware of it, I noticed that the choir loft was out of sight up and behind the congregation. This instantly made sense to me, to have the choir out of sight. The notes of the organ hovered above us inviting us to join in the song, but the eyes were left free to contemplate our crucified Lord.

I mentioned the quiet. People would talk about church being a house of prayer, I remember being prayed over to receive the Holy Spirit in a prayer meeting. The person praying was obviously trying to effect something, but it felt hollow. A friend of mine spoke in tongues at one such event. It was a common occurrence to hear the babble of tongues whether during “praise & worship” or during a prayer event. In contrast, when I walked into St. Catherine’s for the first time and it was quiet, it was obviously an actual house of prayer.

There was also this sense of questions being answered without words. The praise team up front had been a familiar feature of churches that I attended while growing up, but when I was asked at the previous place about playing my instrument with them, it suddenly seemed very questionable. Why were they up front? Why did they often seem to overshadow the preacher in a way? They might leave when he was preaching, but the instruments would remain in place; the drum kit in the center particularly stood out. The comparison between a concert and “Sunday morning worship” was too apt. So, when we went to St. Catherine’s and the organist and choir were all hidden away, it just seemed so obviously right. Here, the choir was serving as an aid to something higher and more important than themselves. Whether the individuals were personally modest or not is irrelevant, the placement of the choir was modest.

One would have to verbally ask and get a response to know what was the focus of the congregation in the former wellness center. As soon as I walked into St. Catherine’s, the crucifix proclaimed this central mystery of the gospel in one striking image—the incarnation and suffering of God. I would learn the messages of the windows later.

Going to mass was like nothing I had ever experienced, and yet I knew that it was good to be here, that it, in a manner of speaking, felt like home.

I am more accustomed to feeling like a “stranger in a strange land” wherever I am. Even so, when I go to mass, now more than ever, I know that in point of fact I am home; I am am where heaven and earth meet in the sacrifice of Christ. I am in the midst of the communion of saints adoring our Eucharistic Lord.

Pollyanna Grows Up: a very American tale

I listened to the conclusion of Pollyanna Grows Up. It is very much of its era, not entirely in a bad way. It is also understandably an American classic. I do want to go back and reread or listen to Pollyanna. I say it is “of its era” because it betrays the worries of that time, the beginning of the twentieth century, of blood, genetics, and poverty. It does so in the most natural sort of way—attitudes and conversations rather than narration of the concerns. For example, in Ivanhoe, the author observes things in the “in those days people thought this or that” sort of mode.  That is not the case here.

In Pollyanna Grows Up, it is simply noted that surely that person has good blood. It is also an objection to getting married that nothing is known of the family, they could be anyone and what of hereditary disease or such? Pollyanna herself as a girl of twelve first encountering poverty in the city, wonders how some can be so rich while others are so poor? She is jokingly called a little socialist by an adult. The way the conversation goes kind of makes me wonder if the author had socialist sympathies?

Early on and throughout is expressed the opinion of many that “you could not understand, because you never experienced it” or the corollary, “she understands, because she has experienced”. The assumption is a little belied by one of the proponents of the belief in that he knows the stories of Arthur’s Knights and feels the need for heroic deeds and glory, though they seem unobtainable in his current circumstances and he is able to relate the stories and some of his own with such vividness and detail that it is described in at least one point like weaving a spell on his listeners. Nevertheless, the assumption is made throughout—if you have not experienced it, you cannot understand it. I have heard this assumption expressed throughout my life. I disagree. Much can be learned through reading and observation and imagination. I grant that observation is not identical to experience, but I also observe that experience can blind a person to the fullness of what a thing is. For example, a man and a woman may be very much enamored of each other and inclined to act upon their passions. An observer might sympathize with the feeling, but nonetheless be able to see that in no wise should they act upon their passions because one of them is married, so no matter how they feel, that would simply be adultery and betrayal, which they have already begun to enter into by letting their passions—lust—go so far. Someone else who has experienced adultery by participation may have a harder time seeing the error, unless he had already repented and worked towards reconciliation if possible. Of course, now our whole moral landscape is so corrupted that no one seems to accurately the gravity of most any sin. I guess they had to experience them for themselves in order to understand? Just had to take a bite of the fruit...Anyway.

Going to Church is treated as customary, but for most of the story you would have no idea that these people believe in God or an after-life. They are all oriented to earthly, material happiness. This is especially evident in the attitudes towards poverty and death.  As for poverty, Pollyanna cannot figure out anything to be glad about it other than, she doesn’t have that poverty, which makes her sorry for those who do, or she could be glad to help them materially, except that at first she can’t. Aunt Polly is a striking exemplar of their reactions towards death. It is all grief, pride, bitterness, and anger. No one speaks of heaven. No one speaks of God connected to this loss. It is just-he died. Now, how are we going to pay for this and that? How are we to live?  It does not seem that any know how to deal well with the pain of loss.

There is a focus on being happy, but the happiness is material. This leads to a moral dilemma which should not have been a dilemma in the way that it was. Some of the story focuses on the question of a missing boy Jamie Kent. His father was not approved of by the mother’s family, and when she died, father and son had disappeared. There is a Jamie and a Jimmy who are about the right age, one of them adopted by the aunt of the lost boy. He believes he is Jamie, or at least desires to be him in point of fact. When conclusive proof of who Jamie Kent is surfaces, it is decided not to tell Jamie, others may know, but not Jamie, because that would kill him, or something. His emotional belief or desire is more important than the truth. They would rather lie to him and let him believe a lie, but so would he. This is vicious. I cannot approve of such a moral. It darkened the end of the book for me.

All of these attitudes have only metastasized in American culture. We are obsessed with indicators of worldly success and comfort. We push away thoughts of death except to give respect to those who take death into their own hands or deal out death for their own perceived good.  We value lived experience more than truth.

I say “we” but it is a culture that has never felt like home to me. Is it that I loved hearing and reading Aesop, Grimm, & Anderson? Is it that we read the Bible regularly at home and I read it personally before I could understand much beyond the broadest strokes? Is it that I read more British literature than American? Is it that my melancholy disposition inclined me to relate more to Jeremiah and love books like Ecclesiastes? Is it that in traveling across the country to a place I knew not before I was ten prompted me to look more earnestly at Abram’s wanderings and apply that to the Christian life? Who knows. But at least since we traveled across the states when I was a child, I have had the sense of being a stranger in a strange land.

It still takes me by surprise when I hear the same tones of disdain towards religion in newspapers from a century ago that can be heard even today. It still catches me a bit off guard when I hear of people worried about bloodlines today as they did at the heights of the eugenics movement. It shouldn’t; I know well enough that there is nothing new under the sun, what has been will be and every new thing has already happened, still, I would have thought we could have learned from our past.

On the virtue of modesty

Modesty is too often a topic fraught with unnecessary anger and defensiveness. I was listening to a fascinating series on modesty by Fr. Rippeger, posted by Sensus Fidelium (who posts to both youtube and bitchute). It was fascinating because it did not stay on mere dress, but addressed the roots of modesty as well as its expressions outside of clothing in behaviour and speech. In behaviour, modesty was naturally portrayed in terms of moderation and courtesy. Attention seeking behaviour is obviously immodest, but what does that look like?
Dance can be modest—he pointed out how certain types of ballroom and folk dancing can actually help teach men and women how to comport themselves well with each other and as composed and graceful humans, whereas modern dance was decried for its immodest self-expression and provocativeness.
Vulgar speech was also presented as transgressing modesty, while a distinction was observed from the profane and the vulgar. It seemed that while both were to be avoided, particularly in mixed company, the profane was absolutely to be avoided. Again, it seems a straightforward matter—if you are a believer in God, you should want to honour Him; swearing or otherwise using His names apart from talking to or about Him is disrespectful and breaks the command. Moderation came up in the topic of speech, one can talk to much.
When Fr. Ripperger did talk about clothing he addressed it from a rather nuanced view, I thought. He took into account current custom, the inherent distinctions between men and women, the different purposes of dressing between men and women as a result of that, as well as the simple question of what does the clothing reveal. One distinction to be made in that last was “does it reveal more of the body or more of the person?” which distinction I have heard before. Fr. Ripperger did talk about how the clothes also affect mannerisms, posture, and behaviour, which I have heard less noted. Most controversially, while noting that the wearing of pants by women is not inherently sinful now, he did note that dresses and skirts are inherently more feminine, therefor modest skirts and dresses ought to be preferred to pants for women. Similarly, since care to attractive appearance is naturally more feminine, he described most jewelry, makeup, and focus on clothing and style for personal statement in men to be immodest. Fr. Ripperger sees men’s dress as being more about function: it is for your job, it shows what you do, it demonstrates externally your virtue (I was not entirely clear on his use of that term, but he did note things like the appropriateness of a wedding ring or a pectoral cross, jewelry that signifies a man’s position, as opposed to mere decorations). Even with the observations about things like makeup being inappropriate for men ordinarily, he did observe the appropriate use in acting or even to cover or make less distracting some physical deformity. The key seemed to be on the use of makeup for women, it should enhance what is already present and should not be done in order to draw attention to yourself, and for men and women it might be used to cover something that otherwise would be excessively attention getting. Moderation, moderation, moderation, and a respect for people around you.
Something that was striking down in the comments: While there were those who simply commented on this point or that with maybe further observations or questions and those who just left thank you notes, there were also some other responses. Fr. Ripperger noted various times that women were more naturally tender or sensitive than men. A woman objected to that adding the word, “weak”.
 There were also comments that said how “out-of-touch” people think the father is, sometimes accusing him of calling things sin (like women wearing pants) even while he made it clear that he does not in general consider it sinful, just not as excellent as wearing modest dresses. Some also simply went off topic to ask why he didn’t address other issues first. On the other hand, during one talk, there was a lady who was asking things like, “Isn’t wearing makeup sinful?” seeming in general to want to put the “Sin” sticker on things that don’t necessarily deserve it.
All told, they were an interesting set of lectures and homilies.

Not so honest debates and message driven storytelling

I listened to an annoying “debate” between Raphael Lataster and Trent Horn. The question presented was “Does God Exist?” Trent Horn argued the classic contingency case as well as making an appeal to recognition of moral absolutes. Raphael Lataster stated that those arguments didn’t measure up and that Mr. Horn needed to argue from probability and said that things like polytheism, pantheism, and deism could also be options on the basis of the arguments that Mr. Horn made. He also asked why God did not simply reveal himself, if he was all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful. He claimed that he was agnostic but not unfriendly to theism or Christianity in particular, that he was willing to believe if God would just reveal himself. This he described as “troubling”.

As the debate went on, Mr. Horn continued to explain deductive reasoning, give examples, defend his arguments and ask Mr. Lataster to make an argument. Mr. Lataster continued to make statements about the necessity of considering alternative theisms and his not needing to defend his position since his position was agnosticism while saying that Mr. Horn was not sufficiently proving his point and that he was using controversial premises and that God, if extant, ought to just show himself.

In the cross examination, though, it seemed pretty clear that he was not actually willing to see God. He favours pantheism and materialism, but is agnostic.

I then was listening to Dr. Taylor Marshall and Timothy Gordon talk about Tolkein and Thomas Aquinas on Analogy of Being. As they were talking about the story telling, and the ridiculousness of explaining in the midst of a story or a game the symbolic nature of something, Dr. Marshall said, “You have to let the person listening do some of the work and risk them not getting it.”

One of the comparisons they made was of playing with children (they have eight and five children respectively). If you are playing cops and robbers, you do not explain “Now, you realize this isn’t really a gun.” or “This isn’t really a jail, it’s a tree,” because that ruins the fun. The children know that the gun is fake, the tree is a tree, but for the purpose of the game, the tree IS a jail and the guns are dangerous.

Too often in Christian fiction and movies, the authors make things too explicit. They are message rather than story driven. Think of God’s not Dead. This one actually had some decent stories set up, but they allowed the story to be dictated by the message. The atheist professor had to be a jerk who kept his girl-friend waiting on the table of her superiors. He was an atheist because God did not heal his mother. They made sure to tell you, “God’s not dead,” but then, while they set up a premise of a debate happening in the classroom, they did not follow up on that by actually having a debate. And all the Christians go to the concert to sing “God’s not Dead” while the atheist gets hit by a car and is given the opportunity to say a death-bed prayer.

There is a reason Christian movies have a reputation for being cheesy and preachy.

I enjoyed Priceless more than God’s not Dead in the end, but even that one has the dude who just sounds like a preacher sermonizing rather than being the sheriff that he was supposed to be. Still, overall it was driven by the story of a man who took a job at a low point in life, only to realize it was a bad job. What happens next? They follow the story through.  It does have a happy ending, but they did allow the characters to grow and the story to build.

Holding hands

Father asked us why we joined across the aisles holding hands.
Some gave response, “T’ show we are one community of believers.”
“To show unity in prayer.”
He observed that this tradition of ours was started in the seventies; it is nowhere in the mass. Fine as it may be, it actually disrupts the first part of the prayer. As we set things down and spread out seeking hands to hold, maybe forcing in some recalcitrants, we lose a beautiful part of this pivotal prayer in the mass. “Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”
By the time we say “Give us” we are back into the prayer.

I wonder, is this part of our problem in Christianity today? We are so focused on the doings and the hand-holding. Do we forget to stand still in the presence of Our Father to seek his will? Do we forget that God Our Father has a transcendent will that is not encompassed by our missions, our desires and comforts? Do we forget Our Father because we are so caught up with our brothers and sisters?

Doubt

I sometimes listen to the Graveyard Shift podcast, a few pastors in Ireland rambling on in conversation that might be sort of started or centered on an event or article that caught one or more of their attentions. It can be interesting, sometimes funny, sometimes thought provoking. In the one with a title playing on “nuns” and “nones” it was said that doubt is not the opposite of faith, certainty is. There was a statement made that, while we believe certain things, we have to admit that it is not certain. This reminded me of the annoying saying that “to question is the answer”, as though it would be any good to go through life asking questions without seeking answers. To sincerely question, one must be seeking an answer; if there is an answer, it could be that somethings are, in fact, certain. Anyway, one of them in particular helped to clarify a position that made more sense--that while we question and seek, doubt should not be idealized.
A few days later I ran into a Youtube series by a friar talking about Harry Potter and the Catholic Faith. He, when talking about faith as a virtue, described two different types of doubt--a doubt that is felt and a doubt that is chosen. I might feel as though I am alone, but know that God is with me and accordingly act in faith. If I feel that God is absent and act according to that feeling--that is another story. I might feel like a wretch of a sinner--in for a penny, in for a pound--but knowing God’s grace and by his grace, I can stop and pray with the angels and saints to our merciful Lord and Savior. If I act according to that feeling--how wretched I am!

If the doubt they are speaking of on the Graveyard Shift is the first class of doubt, I can at least agree with doubt not being the opposite of faith. The problem is that the concept is proposed with saying things like “I believe this, but it might not be true.” Ok. On some things, fair enough. I believe Joan of Arc really had visions; I do not empirically know that, and, sure, I could be wrong. I doubt it, though. However, That is not a matter of salvation. Believing that Jesus is the Son of God who was born, died, buried, rose on the third day--if we are not certain about that, are we even Christians? Again, I may not have empirical proof, I may not be able to touch his wounds or thrust my hands into his side, but I do have the witness of his apostles who did personally see his resurrected body. I do have the testimony of the Church that he founded that endured popular persecution and a time of regional popularity followed by popular scorn again. The point is, the gates of hell have never prevailed; she still exists just as Jesus said she would.
I have historical proof, at least, of Jesus existence, but what about the belief in the Trinity or the belief that scripture was inspired by God? I do not doubt that the Trinity is a good description of God. I do not doubt that the whole Bible, including the choosing of what books are in it, was inspired by God. I suppose, for argument’s sake, I could say that I might be wrong about these things. To say that, though, should not be mistaken for humility. That would be to say that the Church, which God founded, might be wrong about these things, which would be to say that maybe the gates of hell did prevail or maybe it was all only types and myths anyway. Why even believe in the actual historical Jesus? Surely a spiritual resurrection is a enough! But if that bodily Resurrection is not true, then, as Paul said, we are most pitiable.

 Where does that leave us? Maybe underground with a queen dressed in silks green as poison who says, “There is no sun.”
The point, then, is not what we doubt, but what we choose to believe.

"Do you still believe in one another?"

(Written Saturday, 25 of November)

So, I hadn't known that there was going to be mass this morning, but it is the 25 of November, St. Catherine of Alexandria's feast day. This is significant because I am in St. Catherine's (of Alexandria, not Sienna) parish.

I arrived during the homily about the time Father Michael was asking what gave St. Catherine the courage to confront philosophers and teachers of her day. The answer was her faith in God. He reminded us of the importance of being built in Jesus Christ as our foundation. Reminded us from St. Paul's epistles that in Christ we can do anything, in the context of living faithfully and confronting trials and vexations. He also brought in the early reading from Maccabees I which told of Antiochus sorrowful recognition that much of the ill that had befallen him was because his persecution of God's people, the Jews. Father Michael pointed out that it did not say he repented. When we repent, there is a turning away from past sin or error to something else. There is a change in direction. We can be sorry all our lives, but to repent takes more. He reminded us of the abundant grace God gives in the sacrament of confession to not continue in sin and even "to avoid the near occasion of sin." 

God is so gracious. He even includes us in his work, like a gracious father who lets untrained and often clumsy little ones help on important tasks so that they can learn and grow and work alongside their father.

Father also reminded us during the course of the mass of a pious tradition concerning St. Catherine, that she would always come to the aid of those who asked. He also reminded us that, being under her specific patronage, we were at the top of the list. He encouraged us to take stuff to her for her to pray for us in our daily lives and in stuff dealing with the parish. She will intercede. The saints who have gone on before, that great cloud of witnesses, are eager to help and encourage us in the faith. This is what it means to believe in "the communion of saints."

When I got back out to the car, the cd, unbidden began to play "Hey, brother," and I opened my mouth in wonder at how appropriate to thinking of the communion of the saints. I could see them in the instrumental bridges, great martyrs and holy servants of God, preaching the word, being thrown to lions, chained, St. Jeremiah being left in that well, St. Joan with her banner leading the soldiers, St. Joan being burned at the stake, St. Stephen seeing the heavens open and "one like the son of man seated at the right hand of God, Stephen being stoned, St. Catherine confronting the philosophers, and many others trekking through wildernesses, witnessing miracles. I almost cried at, "What if I'm far from home?

Oh, brother, I will hear you call.

What if I lose it all?

Oh, sister, I will help you out."

Isn't that what the saints would say? "Let me pray for you. If you are far from home, brother, God still is near; call. If you lose everything, are you still in Jesus? Let me pray for you, that if you find nothing else, you find yourself in him."

"And if the sky comes falling down, for you there's nothing in this world I wouldn't do."

A list on my thirtieth birthday

Sunsets and skylines,
Purples and greys,
Four on my fork tines,
Drizzly days,
Cheerful and tuneful--
The chirping of birds,
Mournful and wistful--
A song without words,
Leaf fall and snow fall,
Earth, grass, and bark,
Sunlight and rain fall,
Nights clear and dark,
Moonlight and starlight,
Whispering trees,
Ears hearing, eyes sight,
Knowing God sees,
Greens greys and blues,
Tea, blanket, tasty bread,
Fall colours, many hues,
Thoughts inside head,
Confession, Mass, Eucharist--
This itself completes the list.

A Cross--a Crucifix

Look at a cross.

It is somewhat like a "t" in shape. What makes it special?

It is acknowledged as the symbol of Christianity, but crosses can be seen all over. What makes it more than just a symbol among symbols? A peace sign, a palm, a crescent, a cross--what makes it special? Jesus, God the Son, died on one. True, he rose from the grave, and people use that as a reason for the empty cross.

Look at the crucifix.

It is an image of suffering. It is personal. What God dies for his people? Our God. He did rise from the tomb, but the empty tomb is not the symbol of Christianity even though it shows God's victory in a glorious way. The crucifix shows God's love. It is a heroic love that suffers at the hands of those he came to save. This love he tells us to express; he calls us to love as he did. It is not a call to comfortableness, it is a call to take up our cross and follow him. We will suffer and die, though not all in the same way.

When we look to the empty cross and are reminded of Jesus victory, it is tempting to become complacent--he suffered so that I don't have to. The victory has been won, what more do I need? It is too easy to seek merely temporal comfort for ourselves and others, but that is not the reason we were called. That should not be our goal.

Look to the crucifix, look at Jesus' suffering. He suffered and died to redeem us from the clutches of the Evil One. He has won the victory, but battles are still being fought.

Where is your cross? Are you ready to die for love? Are you ready to follow our Lord?

Finding Jesus in the Temple

It was at the time of the feast of the Passover and Mary and Joseph and Jesus went up to Jerusalem with a bunch of relatives.  When they were heading home, Mary and Joseph realized that Jesus was not with them.  They returned to Jerusalem to find Jesus and found him talking with the rabbis in the Temple.

When I was down in New Orleans, I had the opportunity to talk with this lady who is from Guatemala.  She spoke a little English, I spoke some Spanish, so we mostly conversed in Spanish.  We talked a bit about God and faith, and I noted that she referred to the building that she went to (as a baptist) as “templo”.  I could not help but think again about how we refer to the building in which the congregation assembles in English; we refer to people and building as “church”.  I wonder about the etymology and all that, and tend to be dissatisfied with calling the building “church”, but this is customary.

I was reflecting on the finding of Jesus in the Temple and remembered those conversations.  How often do we “find Jesus” when we return to the “temple”?  I know God is present wherever we go, but Jesus is present in a very special way inside the building where mass is celebrated.  There we offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist.  There we here the words of God and are taught, we hope, from the scripture.    
If you start to think of “going to church” or going to mass” as boring or a bother or not all that important, maybe think about who you are going to meet—not the other people, but Jesus himself.  He is the one we go to worship.  We are gathering in his name.  The God of the universe invites you to come and eat and be filled with him. 
Pray, also, that we follow the Christ child's example and early be about our heavenly Father's business.

But would a Pharisee really wrestle publicly?

I watched a movie about Paul, and I must say I only almost really enjoyed it, but within the first few minutes it had me asking, "Did they even try to research this?"

The movie introduces Paul as a tent maker wrestling with a priest in an arena. They are in nothing but loin cloths and are jocularly insulting each other much to he entertainment of the crowd. Reuben, the priest, is a Sadducee though also a friend of Saul, the tent maker and Pharisee.  Reuben does not lose well,so it does set up dramatic personal tension between these two who are friends though having differing beliefs.
On their way home, Saul stops an armed robbery rescuing a man named Barnabas and his wife Hagar.    This Barnabas says he does not have much, but gives Saul a couple of melons. And here I thought that Barnabas was supposed to be very wealthy. In any case this scene serves to tell us that Jesus is dead over a month ago, and that Barnabas and his wife had hoped to meet him.

The apostles and the mother of Jesus are introduced praying for the power that Jesus had promised them and a wind blows in and the menorah is suddenly lit and they're in awe and thank God.  Next thing you know we are in what is supposed to be maybe the outer courts of the temple and Peter and John are there praying.  Peter expresses a desire to know if they really have the power Jesus promised and then gets up to speak to the people.  The sermon given in Acts 2 is way more interesting and convicting.  Peter is told he is blaspheming, he "proves" Jesus is really alive and God is with him by healing a lame man.  He is promptly arrested along with John and the lame man and dragged before the Sanhedrin then and there.
In this sequence, they have Gamaliel at one point saying that the Pharisees believe God allows each man to interpret Torah's meaning.  I decided to read up on the Pharisees.  That does not seem to be a good representation of their beliefs.  Oddly enough, the more I read about the Pharisees approach to Torah and Tradition, I am reminded somewhat of the Catholic Church, with the emphasis on the traditions of the fathers helping to explain the Torah.
Anyway, so the film combined a couple of trials before the Sanhedrin, and stuff, but they kept on not allowing Jesus followers to actually speak as articulately as they did in Acts.  They seemed to reduce the message to, "Jesus is really alive.  He ascended into heaven and will come again soon. He's the son of God.  You need to believe on Him to have eternal life. He really is the Messiah!" Say all of this in a few different patterns and with much emotion, and that sums up the teaching of the apostles as presented in this movie--wait, one more thing.  They also regularly insist that Jesus taught that now nobody need follow the law of Moses, all we need is faith in him.  This was particularly frustrating, since that is not what was taught, but from Pentecost onwards in the movie, it emphasizes that Jesus was the end of the law and the only thing that matters is faith.

Then we get to Stephen, standing up in the temple court and preaching. Reuben goes and confronts him, and seems to do a good job of bewildering Stephen with accusations of polytheism based on claiming that Jesus is God, but also that Jesus is the son of God. Reuben also mocks the idea of Jesus being present. Ultimately, Stephen is not brought before the Sanhedrin, he does not see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of God, but is dragged off straight from the temple court to be stoned. Saul is presented as saying he agrees with the denunciation of Stephen and the followers of Jesus, but being loathe to participate in the stoning. He is handed a stone, but does not throw it. Reuben, who had handed him the stone, reproaches him with weakness, takes the stone from him and hands him his coat, at which point others give Saul their coats as they set about stoning Stephen.

Saul feels guilty and sets about his active persecutions. It has him get permission from Herod to go to Damascus. Of course there is the falling off the horse scene, interestingly done.  The movie then has Reuben be the driving force behind all attempts to kill Paul.  The  Hellenists are secondary, and the Judaisers are not even named as such.  There is a representation of the council at Jerusalem on the situation with the Gentile believers, but it does not do the council justice.

Ok.  If this were just based on some random book, I would still be a bit dissatisfied. I understand dramatic decisions like combining events, presenting a physical conflict to initiate the philosophical conflict, making a minor character take on multiple roles from a story to have fewer introductions, combining characters, chopping dialogue, but--they left the followers of  Christ as having nothing to offer in the way of explanation or reason, only emotion and statements to be accepted on faith.  They focused on jealousy as a motivating factor for people. They made James the spokesman for the Judaisers.  They had Saul be more a reluctant persecutor; he had to do this arresting stuff to prove his loyalty to the law to Reuben because he had made an oath to defend truth. I had hoped they would play on that when Saul became a defender of faith in Jesus, but they did not.  They relied on theatrics, burning the letter given to him for authority to make arrests before a select group of believers in Jesus.  That's another thing, in Acts Saul/Paul at least initially taught very openly in the synagogues.  There was none of that in this movie.

I have no particular complaints about the acting, dramatically I suppose it worked, but theologically and historically it was full of error. I could not recommend this film except maybe to a class who was planning to do a point by point analysis comparing it to what is actually said and done in Acts.

Communion....Eucharist

What is it? When fellow believers come together to eat that bit of bread or wafer, to drink that bit of grape juice or wine, what do we believe about it?

Some believe in Transubstantiation, the Catholic Church in particular teaches this doctrine. What does that mean? Well, simply put it means that the bread and the wine become the body and blood of Jesus and only the appearance of bread and wine remain.

Some, particularly Lutherans, believe in Consubstantiation. This is similar to Transubstantiation in that this doctrine holds that the wine and bread become the blood and body of Jesus, but dissimilar in that it teaches that the bread and wine are still also bread and wine.

Others believe in the bread and wine/grape juice as only symbolizing the body and blood of Jesus. In other words, while they may say “And Jesus took the bread, broke it, and offered it to them, saying, 'Take, eat; this is my body broken for you.'” They believe that those words are to be taken symbolically not literally. Jesus broke bread, and the bread was still bread―maybe with heightened spiritual significance, but still bread. A symbol, a memorial, but only truly bread.

What does Jesus say, though? Jesus says, “This is my body,...This is my blood...” Look it up―Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22. Read also John 6 where Jesus says that unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood we have no part in him. He is actually quite insistent on that point. Some will say, “Read a bit further and he say that the ‘flesh availeth nothing’, so clearly he is not talking about his actual flesh.” Let us consider this in the context of this entire conversation and in the context of John's gospel. Go read John 6. 

Did you notice how Jesus makes sure that these disciples hear that they must eat his flesh? The conversation is very dramatic. They want bread from heaven, He says that the Father gives the true bread from heaven which is “that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” Who does that? At that point, they want the bread, but then He says that He is the bread. They object to His claiming to come down from heaven, and He does not lay so much stress on that as that He is the bread of life, the living bread and that those who eat this bread will live forever, “and the bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world.” Now they are even more disturbed. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (Do people, even those who are called Christian, still ask this question?) But Jesus does not let up. His response: “I tell you most solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you. Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise him up on the last day.” When “many of his followers” start complaining to each other and objecting to His words is when He says: “Does this upset you?” (He offers no comforting, “it’s a symbol, guys,”) “What if you should see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh has nothing to offer. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” And many leave. Peter and the other twelve stay, and apparently also Matthias and Joseph Barsabbas, but many disciples leave after that. 

 

So what does that phrase about the flesh mean? Does it mean that really, Jesus did not mean what He said earlier? Or that we have to understand Him as saying that His body as bread is only in a spiritual sense, as some would have it? Or is it perhaps more straightforward than that? Perhaps they are the ones reasoning according to the flesh when Jesus’ words are actually true, spirit and life.

Here are some other times that Jesus speaks of the flesh in a similar way.

Read Matthew 16. “Flesh and blood” did not reveal who Jesus was, they would not have known, but “my Father which is in heaven” did.

Read John 1. While you are at it, just read the whole book of John. He speaks of those born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” You can see a continuation of this theme in John 3—do you remember it? “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

The flesh of man “profiteth nothing”, the flesh of the Son of Man is eternal life for us. This is revealed to us not by “fleshly” reasoning, but by revelation from God as given in the gospels. Next time when you hear those words, “This is my body, broken for you. And this is my blood, the blood of the new covenant, shed for you” do not ignore them. Give thanks to God for His miracle of love, that He gives us in the flesh His body and blood to be our spiritual food and drink. And He will raise us up at the last day.

Deism

What great gods ruled the universe in eons past?

Gods of ocean with stormy blast,

Gods of winds with winding ways--

Upon this world they roamed--or so

I'm told. I listened to the stories old

From near and distant lands and

Wondered at the way they wandered

In search of life long-lasting beyond thought.

The cunning warrior endowed with wit

By strength and skill destroyed his foes

Not Death. No. Deliverance from death

No Mortal yet knows. Not famed archers

Nor spear-men bold for dragon killing known.

Death comes. And all must pass that door

To the world beyond our understanding.

The towers fall and tragedy erases

Monuments made by vanished men.

Even gods vanish; in time are veiled

From memory like moments sharp

That soften, and slowly disappear.

New gods are wakened by our powers

But then who, we wonder, is truly God?

We invent ourselves, invert ourselves

In searching still, for simple happiness and

Lasting life rich wrought with meaning.

We tell ourselves the gods are like us

Or we, like gods invent, therefor we can

invert what's seen and unseen, mystery and

Understood, Truth and falsehood in our hands

Like uneven measures in the hands

Of that blind woman who stands, sword ready.

We think we command the sword because

The words we use and alter to suit our needs.

But their is a man who spoke:"I said

you were gods" to sarcastic non-seekers

Who truly thought they sought aright the light

Of all ages in their careful texts.

They knew they asked the correct questions

And took him to task for wrongly replying.

They chose right and wrong. They chose

For everyone, for their gods were in their heads.

They would create and demonstrate their power

Fashioning some to follow their flight to heaven.

Enlightened, knowers, believing in the gods they

Best knew, crafted in the image of themselves.

Poor moon-faced idiots, they did not realize

They but un-wholly reflected the light of

that greater Son.   

Jeremiah 5 (with comments)

Run to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem,
    look and take note!
Search her squares to see
    if you can find a man,
one who does justice
    and seeks truth,
that I may pardon her.
² Though they say, “As the Lord lives,”
    yet they swear falsely.
³ O Lord, do not your eyes look for truth?
You have struck them down,
    but they felt no anguish;
you have consumed them,
    but they refused to take correction.
They have made their faces harder than rock;
    they have refused to repent.

⁴ Then I said, “These are only the poor;
    they have no sense;
for they do not know the way of the Lord,
    the justice of their God.

I will go to the great
    and will speak to them,
for they know the way of the Lord,
    the justice of their God.”

This has been a suspicion held in so many different times and places--the poor and ignorant may not live correctly and may not know God the way they ought.   But surely the people who have an education will know better.  Surely people who have even just a little privilege and proper upbringing will live rightly.   What does Jeremiah find?

But they all alike had broken the yoke;
    they had burst the bonds.

⁶ Therefore a lion from the forest shall strike them down;
    a wolf from the desert shall devastate them.
A leopard is watching their cities;
    everyone who goes out of them shall be torn in pieces,
because their transgressions are many,
    their apostasies are great.

 The godlessness is across all of society.  The poor, the rich, the ignorant the learned--all alike refuse God's authority.

“How can I pardon you?
    Your children have forsaken me
    and have sworn by those who are no gods.
When I fed them to the full,
    they committed adultery
    and trooped to the houses of whores.
⁸ They were well-fed, lusty stallions,
    each neighing for his neighbor's wife.
⁹ Shall I not punish them for these things?
declares the Lord;
    and shall I not avenge myself
    on a nation such as this?

Naturally, God is upset.  After having chosen them, given them a place in the world, freeing them from slavery, establishing them as a nation, and so much more, they still turn from Him to the surrounding world.  How much more has God done for us?  And how often do we turn our backs on Him, choosing instead ourselves, the world, whatever?  
 

¹⁰ “Go up through her vine rows and destroy,
    but make not a full end;
strip away her branches,
    for they are not the Lord's.
¹¹ For the house of Israel and the house of Judah
    have been utterly treacherous to me,
declares the Lord.
¹² They have spoken falsely of the Lord
    and have said, ‘He will do nothing;
no disaster will come upon us,
    nor shall we see sword or famine.
¹³ The prophets will become wind;
    the word is not in them.
Thus shall it be done to them!’”

Notice the words, "make not a full end".  Even in the midst of judgment, God has a plan for restoration, there is hope. 

Also the line about stripping away the branches reminds me of later, in the New Testament, an analogy to branches being grafted into the vine . . . 

Therefore thus says the Lord, the God of hosts:
“Because you have spoken this word,
behold, I am making my words in your mouth a fire,
    and this people wood, and the fire shall consume them.
¹⁵ Behold, I am bringing against you
    a nation from afar, O house of Israel,
declares the Lord.
It is an enduring nation;
    it is an ancient nation,
a nation whose language you do not know,
    nor can you understand what they say.

This summer I have also been studying the Celts and Irish history.  I was reminded of these verses as I read about the Roman Empire being chipped away by Celtic tribes and then sacked by the Germanic tribes.  They also had been given much, but did not give due honor to God.

Where are we?

There are a few verses detailing devastation.

¹⁸ “But even in those days, declares the Lord, I will not make a full end of you. ¹⁹ And when your people say, ‘Why has the Lord our God done all these things to us?’ you shall say to them, ‘As you have forsaken me and served foreign gods in your land, so you shall serve foreigners in a land that is not yours.’”

²⁰ Declare this in the house of Jacob;
    proclaim it in Judah:
²¹ “Hear this, O foolish and senseless people,
    who have eyes, but see not,
    who have ears, but hear not.

The punishment fits the crime.  Also, Is not verse 21 reminiscent of the descriptions of foreign gods, the idols "They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they see not; They have ears, but they hear not; neither is there any breath in their mouths. They that make them are like unto them: so is every one that trusts in them." (from Psalm 135)

Do you not fear me? declares the Lord.
    Do you not tremble before me?
I placed the sand as the boundary for the sea,
    a perpetual barrier that it cannot pass;
though the waves toss, they cannot prevail;
    though they roar, they cannot pass over it.
²³ But this people has a stubborn and rebellious heart;
    they have turned aside and gone away.
²⁴ They do not say in their hearts,
    ‘Let us fear the Lord our God,
who gives the rain in its season,
    the autumn rain and the spring rain,
and keeps for us
    the weeks appointed for the harvest.’
²⁵ Your iniquities have turned these away,
    and your sins have kept good from you.
²⁶ For wicked men are found among my people;
    they lurk like fowlers lying in wait.
They set a trap;    they catch men.
²⁷ Like a cage full of birds,
    their houses are full of deceit;
therefore they have become great and rich;
²⁸     they have grown fat and sleek.
They know no bounds in deeds of evil;
    they judge not with justice
the cause of the fatherless, to make it prosper,
    and they do not defend the rights of the needy.
²⁹ Shall I not punish them for these things?
declares the Lord,
    and shall I not avenge myself
    on a nation such as this?”

³⁰ An appalling and horrible thing
    has happened in the land:
³¹ the prophets prophesy falsely,
    and the priests rule at their direction;
my people love to have it so,
    but what will you do when the end comes?