Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him. And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, “This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.” So he told them this parable: Then Jesus said, “There was a man who had two sons. The younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the property that will belong to me.’ So he divided his property between them. A few days later the younger son gathered all he had and travelled to a distant country, and there he squandered his property in dissolute living. When he had spent everything, a severe famine took place throughout that country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed the pigs. He would gladly have filled himself with the pods that the pigs were eating; and no one gave him anything. But when he came to himself he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired hands have bread enough and to spare, but here I am dying of hunger! I will get up and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired hands.”‘ So he set off and went to his father. But while he was still far off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion; he ran and put his arms around him and kissed him. Then the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ But the father said to his slaves, ‘Quickly, bring out a robe – the best one – and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. And get the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; for this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!’ And they began to celebrate. “Now his elder son was in the field; and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing. He called one of the slaves and asked what was going on. He replied, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has got him back safe and sound.’ Then he became angry and refused to go in. His father came out and began to plead with him. But he answered his father, ‘Listen! For all these years I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command; yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours came back, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fatted calf for him!’ Then the father said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.’”
Luke specializes in lost property. His gospel is peopled with waifs and strays, some of whom we met a few days ago: the people “from the highways and byways.” The whole of chapter 15 consists of three parables on the theme of lost-and-found. There is the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost (or prodigal) son.
These parables were inspired by the Pharisees’ objection to his friendship with sinners. The Pharisees gave no evidence of any joy in their lives, but in all three of Jesus’ parables there is joy and celebration. Those Pharisees try to make you believe that religion is a kind of elevated boredom. Many Christians are remarkably like them; they take the joy out of religion, leaving it dull and uninspiring.
It is the drama of loss and recovery that sparks joy in each of the parables. If there is no joy for me, it is probably because I have never felt lost. And if I have never felt lost, that is proof that I have never attempted to go anywhere. I have made no personal journey; instead I have just followed suit; I am the elder brother in the parable. Yes, the prodigal son behaved very badly; and no, I am not worse than he is. I really am good. But if you could speak of ‘bad goodness’, that would describe me. I am good in a way that equates goodness with playing safe, never risking getting spattered in trying to help another. The Pharisees said that you became unclean if you walked two steps of the road with a sinner. You won’t find any of them going after a person who is lost. They have never risked being lost themselves. They wouldn’t know what to do or say to a lost person. So they stay inside their own crippling definition of goodness and criticise anyone who isn’t similarly crippled. Though the younger son in the story seemed to have got a better deal than the older one, he was really the underdog. Considering the character of the older brother, it is not so surprising that the younger one left home and even lost his self-respect: his older brother represented respectability in its most depressing form.
Better to be a bad Christian than a good Pharisee.
March 14th, 2010
The relatively few number of Muslims who dare to convert to Christianity do it in extreme secrecy. That is because the penalty for leaving Islam is death in all schools of Sharia, both Sunni and Shiite. Those who wrote Sharia centuries ago knew that keeping Muslims in total submission would be very difficult to maintain, and thus they established barbaric laws condemning Muslims to death for exercising their basic human rights to choose their own religion. Sharia never entrusted its enforcement only to the formal legal system. Islam promises heavenly rewards to individual Muslims who take the law into their own hands. Sharia also states that the killers of apostates and adulterers are not murderers and therefore are not to be punished. That is why, for Islam to achieve 100% compliance to Sharia enforcement, Muslim individuals are encouraged to take matters into their own hands. — Nonie Darwish
http://newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamIslamicIdeology_1.aspx?ArticleID=1675
March 14th, 2010
Crowd of 3 thousand Muslims attack a Coptic Christian community, 25 injured
13 March 2010
Faithful were gathered in prayer when attack occurred. There were four priests, one deacon and 400 parishioners in the building, women and children also targeted. Fundamentalists fury, egged on by the imam, unleashed by the rumour that the Christians are building a new church. In reality it is a hospice.
Cairo – The toll from an attack on the Coptic Christian community that took place yesterday in the north-western province of Mersa Matrouh, Egypt is 25 wounded, including women and children. A crowd of around 3 thousand Muslims attacked the faithful gathered in prayer in a building adjoining the local church. The fundamentalists fury, encouraged by the imam, was sparked by the rumour that the Christians have begun to build a new place of worship.
Around 5 o’clock yesterday afternoon, the Muslims – a group of Bedouins and Salafi fanatics – started throwing stones at a construction site, which they believe in reality will be a new church. Local witnesses reported that security forces present were not sufficient to contain the attack. The police fired tear gas and arrested a dozen people, including Muslims and Christians. Only this morning, reinforcements arrived from Alexandria, thanks to which the Coptic faithful trapped inside the building could return to their homes.
At the moment of the attack the Christian prayer house contained four priests, one deacon and about 400 parishioners. Christians say that the building under construction, in fact, is a nursing home and said they were “terrified” by the latest attack. The local imam Shaikh Khamees intervention during Friday prayers has helped to foment the anger of Muslims. He emphasized the duty to fight against the “enemies” of Islam and stressed that “we do not tolerate the Christian presence in our area.”
Reverend Matta Zakarya confirms that this morning there was a summit between the leaders of the local church, state security forces and even some Muslims. “The Coptic are scared – he stresses – especially women and children who were inside the building and witnessed the assault.”
In Egypt, the Coptic Christian community is about 10% of the population in a country with an overwhelming Muslim majority, which discriminates against the Christian community. It is the victim of violence, caused by a sharp rise of Islamic fundamentalism. Sometimes the basis of many attacks there are disputes over land ownership and disputes for women, but they soon become sectarian clashes.
http://www.asianews.
March 14th, 2010
Luke 18:9-14
He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt: ‘Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax-collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, “God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax-collector. I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.” But the tax-collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.’
This parable is unique to Luke, and it has the characteristic Lukan strong contrasts: heroes and villains. (Think, for example, of the rich man and Lazarus, the parable of the prodigal son, the woes following the beatitudes….) The Pharisee and the tax-collector stand at opposite ends of the social spectrum.
The Pharisee “stood by himself”: that was the very definition of Pharisee: the name ‘Pharisee’ means ‘separated’: their special practices and attitudes separated them from the common people. Perhaps for that reason his prayer was all about himself. Cyril of Alexandria described him as “standing there bold and broad, lifting up his eyes without a qualm, boastful and bearing witness to himself.” At the beginning his prayer seems to be a thanksgiving psalm; but soon enough we see that it is really about his own accomplishments. He is not slow to put these on show. Cyril remarked: “No one who is in good health ridicules one who is sick for being laid up and bedridden. Rather he is afraid that he himself might perhaps become the victim of similar sufferings.” Another ancient writer said the Pharisee was “drunk on pride in the sweet and lovely sound of his own voice.” Notice that the Pharisee offers no honor to God and makes no request. He is separated not only from others but from God. When there is emphasis on the separate self, life becomes competition: the ‘I’ has to win every race and be ‘better’ than others. That means that it can never afford to relax and be off-guard. How difficult life becomes! It is hardly a life at all, and it certainly is not life-giving to others.
The other spoke directly to God, asking for mercy. There could hardly be a more essential prayer. He did not think of himself as complete, needing nothing. A circle is complete: it marks out a small space and it divides it off; it needs nothing from the outside. The Pharisee was such a circle: he didn’t come out of himself to God – nor of course to the tax-collector in the story. But the tax-collector knew his own incompleteness. He was like a circle with a breach in the circumference. We are at our best when we are open: when we know our need of God and of one another. Then something can flow in and out. Through our woundedness the mercy of God can flow through to the world.
March 13th, 2010
St Patrick’s Neo-Gothic Cathedral in as seen from Rockefeller center.
by Saint Patrick
Older version of Saint Patrick’s Breastplate:
I arise today, through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity, through belief in the threeness, through confession of the oneness, of the Creator of Creation.
I arise today, through the strength of Christ’s birth with his baptism, through the strength of his crucifixion with his burial, through the strength of his resurrection with his ascension, through the strength of his descent for the judgment of Doom.
I arise today, through the strength of the love of the Cherubim, in obedience of angels, in the service of archangels, in the hope of the resurrection to meet with reward, in the prayers of patriarchs, in prediction of prophets, in preaching of apostles, in faith of confessors, in innocence of holy virgins, in deeds of righteous men.
I arise today, through the strength of heaven; light of sun, radiance of moon, splendor of fire, speed of lightning, swiftness of wind, depth of sea, stability of earth, firmness of rock.
I arise today, through God’s strength to pilot me: God’s might to uphold me, God’s wisdom to guide me, God’s eye to look before me, God’s ear to hear me, God’s word to speak to me, God’s hand to guard me, God’s way to lie before me, God’s shield to protect me, God’s host to save me, from the snares of devils, from temptations of vices, from every one who shall wish me ill, afar and anear, alone and in a multitude.
I summon today, all these powers between me and those evils, against every cruel merciless power that may oppose my body and soul, against incantations of false prophets, against black laws of pagandom, against false laws of heretics, against craft of idolatry, against spells of women and smiths and wizards, against every knowledge that corrupts man’s body and soul.
Christ to shield me today, against poisoning, against burning, against drowning, against wounding, so there come to me abundance of reward. Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me, Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me, Christ on my right, Christ on my left, Christ when I lie down, Christ when I sit down, Christ when I arise, Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me, Christ in the mouth of every one who speaks of me, Christ in the eye of every one that sees me, Christ in every ear that hears me.
I arise today, through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity, through belief in the threeness, through confession of the oneness, of the Creator of Creation.
+++
From the Catholic Culture library: The Conversion of Ireland by Warren Carroll, The Irish Soldiers of Mexico by Michael Hogan, The Irish Madonna of Hungary by Zsolt Aradi and Our Lady in Old Irish Folklore and Hymns by James F. Cassidy.
March 13th, 2010
Jan Luyken etching of the Parable of the barren fig tree in the Bowyer Bible.
At that very time there were some present who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. He asked them, “Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were worse sinners than all other Galileans? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish as they did. Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of Siloam fell on them – do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others living in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish just as they did.” Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and found none. So he said to the gardener, ‘See here! For three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree, and still I find none. Cut it down! Why should it be wasting the soil?’ He replied, ‘Sir, let it alone for one more year, until I dig around it and put manure on it. If it bears fruit next ear, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.’”
Readings:
The 13th-century mystic, Bl. Angela of Foligno, had a deep experience of God, and when her confessor asked her to tell him about it, she said, “Father, if you experienced what I experienced and then you had to stand in the pulpit to preach, you could only say to the people, ‘My friends, go with God’s blessing, because today I can say nothing to you about God.’”
This could be a remedy for the excessive fluency we have when we speak about God. The word comes tripping off our tongue as if it there were nothing mysterious about it at all. It was not so in the beginning. In the Old Testament God revealed his name to Moses: it was Yahweh. “That will be my name forever, and by this name they shall call upon me for all generations to come.” The Jews regarded this name as so holy that it should not be pronounced. In Hebrew, vowels are not written - only consonants. So the name was something like YWH. When they came to this name in the Scriptures they said ‘Adonai’ instead (Lord). As time went by and no one had ever heard the word pronounced, no one knew any longer how it was meant to be pronounced. (Later, some people began to put to vowels of ‘Adonai’ with the consonants of YWH, and it yielded – more or less – the artificial name ‘Jehovah’.)
It’s somehow a wonderful thing to have a name for God that must never be pronounced. We Christians don’t talk like that, but in fact we say something that is even more radical. For us it is not that there is some taboo word that must never be uttered, but that all words fall short of the mark. Use any words you like, we say, or as many as you like, but know that when you have said them all you have said nothing. This is something that is not stated clearly or often enough. So that you will be reassured that this is not some new teaching, here are some brief extracts from the writings of St Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274) on this subject.
“God is ultimately known as unknown, because then the mind knows God most perfectly when it knows that his essence is above all that can be known in this life of wayfaring.”
“Whatever is comprehended by a finite being [that is, us] is itself finite.”
“God is honoured by silence, not because we may say or know nothing about him, but because we know that we are unable to comprehend him.”
“Neither Christian nor pagan knows the nature of God as he is in himself.”
“We only know God truly when we believe that he is above all that human beings can think about God.”
God is a dark mystery. But isn’t God light? “God is light and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). Yes, but excess of light, as St Augustine said, has the same effect as darkness.
In today’s gospel reading we are brought up against the fathomless problem of evil. Is there any answer to it? We are lost for words when tragedy strikes at us – or near us. We use a lot of words, certainly, but we know that they all fall short. It is similar in that respect to the dark mystery of God. On an ordinary day we can say pat things about God and about suffering and evil. But when we are touched by any of these we have to fall silent. Then the only word we have is the one word that expresses God and humanity to the full extent that they can be expressed in our flesh: Jesus, the Word made flesh. All the puffs of air that we call words are insubstantial beside him. He is present to us whether we are awake or asleep, whether speaking or silent, whether full of joy or full of pain.
+++
Cyril of Jerusalem
Lecture 7 : The Father
0700
For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father, . . . of whom all fatherhood in heaven and earth is named, &c.
1). Of God as the sole Principle we have said enough to you yesterday1 : by “enough” I mean, not what is worthy of the subject, (for to reach that is utterly impossible to mortal nature), but as much as was granted to our infirmity. I traversed also the bye-paths of the manifold error of the godless heretics: but now let us shake off their foul and soul-poisoning doctrine, and remembering what relates to them, not to our own hurt, but to our greater detestation of them, let us come back to ourselves, and receive the saving doctrines of the true Faith, connecting the dignity of Fatherhood with that of the Unity, and believing In One God the Father: for we must not only believe in one God; but this also let us devoutly receive, that He is the Father of the Only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ.
2. For thus shall we raise our thoughts higher than the Jews2 , who admit indeed by their doctrines that there is One God, (for what if they often denied even this by their idolatries?); but that He is also the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, they admit not; being of a contrary mind to their own Prophets, who in the Divine Scriptures affirm, The Lord said unto me, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten thee3 . And to this day they rage and gather themselves together against the Lord, and against His Anointed4 , thinking that it is possible to be made friends of the Father apart from devotion towards the Son, being ignorant that no man cometh unto the Father but by5 the Son, who saith, I am the Door, and I am the Way6. He therefore that refuseth the Way which leadeth to the Father, and he that denieth the Door, how shall he be deemed worthy of entrance unto God? They contradict also what is written in the eighty-eighth Psalm, (He shall call Me, Thou art my Father, my God, and the helper of my salvation. And I will make him my first-born, high among the kings of the earth7 . For if they should insist that these things are said of David or Solomon or any of their successors, let them shew how the throne of him, who is in their judgment described in the prophecy, is as the days of heaven, and as the sun before God, and as the moon established for ever8 . And how is it also that they are not abashed at that which is written, From the womb before the morning-star have I begotten thee9: also this, (He shall endure with the sun, and before the moon, from generation to generation10 . To refer these passages to a man proof of utter and extreme insensibility.
3. Let the Jews, however, since they so will, suffer their usual disorder of unbelief, both in these and the like statements. But let us adopt the godly doctrine of our Faith, worshipping one God the Father of the Christ, (for to deprive Him, who grants to all the gift of generation, of the like dignity would be impious): and let us Believe in One God the Father, in order that, before we touch upon our teaching concerning Christ, the faith concerning the Only-begotten may be implanted in the soul of the hearers, without being at all interrupted by the intervening doctrines concerning the Father.
4. For the name of the Father, with the very utterance of the title, suggests the thought of the Son: as in like manner one who names the Son thinks straightway of the Father also11 . For if a Father, He is certainly the Father of a Son; and if a Son, certainly the Son of a Father. Lest therefore from our speaking thus, In One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of All Things Visible and Invisible, and from our then adding this also, And in One Lord Jesus Christ, any one should irreverently suppose that the Only-begotten is second in rank to heaven and earth,—for this reason before naming them we named God the Father, that in thinking of the Father we might at the same time think also of the Son: for between the Son and the Father no being whatever comes.
5. God then is in an improper sense12 the Father of many, but by nature and in truth of One only, the Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ; not having attained in course of time to being a Father, but being ever the Father of the Only-begotten13 . Not that being without a Son before, He has since by change of purpose become a Father: but before every substance and every intelligence, before times and all ages, God hath the dignity of Father, magnifying Himself in this more than in His other dignities; and having become a Father, not by passion14 , or union, not in ignorance, not by effluence15 , not by diminution, not by alteration, for every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, neither shadow of turning16 . Perfect Father, He begat a perfect Son, and delivered all things to Him who is begotten: (for all things, He saith, are delivered unto Me of My Father17 
and is honoured by the Only-begotten: for, I honour My Father18 , saith the Son; and again, Even as I have kept My Father’s commandments, and abide in His love19 . Therefore we also say like the Apostle, Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and God of all consolation20 : and, We bow our knees unto the Father from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named21 : glorifying Him with the Only-begotten: for he that denieth the Father, denieth the Son also22 : and again, (He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also23 ; knowing that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father24 .
6. We worship, therefore, as the Father of Christ, the Maker of heaven and earth, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob25 ; to whose honour the former temple also, over against us here, was built. For we shall not tolerate the heretics who sever the Old Testament from the New26 , but shall believe Christ, who says concerning the temple, Wist ye not that I must be in My Father’s house27 ? and again, Take these things hence, and make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise28 , whereby He most clearly confessed that the former temple in Jerusalem was His own Father’s house. But if any one from unbelief wishes to receive yet more proofs as to the Father of Christ being the same as the Maker of the world, let him hear Him say again, Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing, and not one of them shall fall on the ground without My Father which is in heaven29 ; this also, Behold the fowls of the heaven that they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feedeth them30 ; and this, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work31 .
7. But lest any one from simplicity or perverse ingenuity should suppose that Christ is but equal in honour to righteous men, from His saying, I ascend to My Father, and your32 Father, it is well to make this distinction beforehand, that the name of the Father is one, but the power of His operation33 manifold. And Christ Himself knowing this has spoken unerringly, I go to My Father, and your Father: not saying ‘to our Father,’ but distinguishing, and saying first what was proper to Himself, to My Father, which was by nature; then adding, and your Father, which was by adoption. For however high the privilege we have received of saying in our prayers, Our Father, which art in heaven, yet the gift is of loving-kindness. For we call Him Father, not as having been by nature begotten of Our Father which is in heaven; but having been transferred from servitude to sonship by the grace of the Father, through the Son and Holy Spirit, we are permitted so to speak by ineffable loving-kindness.
8. But if any one wishes to learn how we call God “Father,” let him hear Moses, the excellent schoolmaster, saying, Did not this thy Father Himself buy thee, and make thee, and create thee34 ? Also Esaias the Prophet, And now, O Lord. Thou art our Father: and we all are clay, the works of Thine hands35 . For most clearly has the prophetic gift declared that not according to nature, but according to God’s grace, and by adoption, we call Him Father.
9. And that thou mayest learn more exactly that in the Divine Scriptures it is not by any means the natural father only that is called father, hear what Paul says:—For though ye should have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I begat you through the Gospel36 . For Paul was father of the Corinthians, not by having begotten them after the flesh, but by having taught and begotten them again after the Spirit. Hear Job also saying, I was a father of the needy37 : for he called himself a father, not as having begotten them all, but as caring for them. And God’s Only-begotten Son Himself, when nailed in His flesh to the tree at the time of crucifixion, on seeing Mary, His own Mother according to the flesh, and John, the most beloved of His disciples, said to him, Behold! thy mother, and to her, Behold! thy Son38 : teaching her the parental affection due to him39 , and indirectly explaining that which is said in Luke, and His father and His mother marvelled at Him40 : words which the tribe of heretics snatch up, saying that He was begotten of a man and a woman. For like as Mary was called the mother of John, because of her parental affection, not from having given him birth, so Joseph also was called the father of Christ, not from having begotten Him (for he knew her not, as the Gospel says, until she had brought forth her first-born Son41 ), but because of the care bestowed on His nurture.
10 Thus much then at present, in the way of a digression, to put you in remembrance. Let me, however, add yet another testimony in proof that God is called the Father of men in an improper sense. For when in Esaias God is addressed thus, For Thou art our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us42 , and Sarah travailed not with us43 , need we inquire further on this point? And if the Psalmist says, Let them be troubled from His countenance, the Father of the fatherless, and Judge of the widows44 , is it not manifest to all, that when God is called the Father of orphans who have lately lost their own fathers, He is so named not as begetting them of Himself, but as caring for them and shielding them. But whereas God, as we have said, is in an improper sense the Father of men, of Christ alone He is the Father by nature, not by adoption: and the Father of men in time, but of Christ before all time, as He saith, And new, O Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine own self, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was45 .
11. We believe then In One God the Father the Unsearchable and Ineffable, Whom no man hath seen46 , but the Only-begotten alone hath declared Him47 ). For He which is of God, He hath seen God48 : whose face the Angels do alway behold in heaven49 , behold, however, each according to the measure of his own rank. But the undimmed vision of the Father is reserved in its purity for the Son with the Holy Ghost.
12. Having reached this point of my discourse, and being reminded of the passages just before mentioned, in which God was addressed as the Father of men, I am greatly amazed at men’s insensibility. For God with unspeakable loving-kindness deigned to be called the Father of men,—He in heaven, they on earth,—and He the Maker of Eternity, they made in time,—He who holdeth the earth in the hollow of His hand, they upon the earth as grasshoppers50 . Yet man forsook his heavenly Father, and said to the stock, Thou art my father, and to the stone, Thou hast begotten me51 . And for this reason, methinks, the Psalmist says to mankind, Forget also thine own people, and thy father’s house52 , whom thou hast chosen for a father, whom thou hast drawn upon thyself to thy destruction.
13. And not only stocks and stones, but even Satan himself, the destroyer of souls, have some ere now chosen for a father; to whom the Lord said as a rebuke, Ye do the deeds of your father53 , that is of the devil, he being the father of men not by nature, but by fraud. For like as Paul by his godly teaching came to be called the father of the Corinthians, so the devil is called the father of those who of their own will consent unto him54 .
For we shall not tolerate those who give a wrong meaning to that saying, Hereby know we the children of God, and the children of the devil55 , as if there were by nature some men to be saved, and some to be lost. Whereas we come into such holy sonship not of necessity but by choice: nor was the traitor Judas by nature a son of the devil and of perdition; for certainly he would never have cast out devils at all in the name of Christ: for Satan casteth not out Satan56 . Nor on the other hand would Paul have turned from persecuting to preaching. But the adoption is in our own power, as John saith, But as marry as received Him, to them gave He power to become the children of God, even to them that believe in His name57 . For not before their believing, but from their believing they were counted worthy to become of their own choice the children of God.
14. Knowing this, therefore, let us walk spiritually, that we may be counted worthy of God’s adoption). For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God58 . For it profiteth us nothing to have gained the title of Christians, unless the works also follow; lest to us also it be said, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham59 ). For if we call on Him as Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, let us pass the time of our sojourning here in fear60 , loving not the world, neither the things that are in the world: for if any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him61 . Wherefore, my beloved children, let us by our works offer glory to our Father which is in heaven, that they may see our good works, and glorify our Father which is in heaven62 ). Let us cast all our care upon Him, for our Father knoweth what things we have need of63 .
15. But while honouring our heavenly Father let us honour also the fathers of our flesh64 : since the Lord Himself hath evidently so appointed in the Law and the Prophets, saying, Honour thy father and thy mother, that it may be well with thee, and thy days shall be long in the land65 . And let this commandment be especially observed by those here present who have fathers and mothers). Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing to the Lord66 . For the Lord said not, (He that loveth father or mother is not worthy of Me, lest thou from ignorance shouldest perversely mistake what was rightly written, but , more than Me67 . For when our fathers on earth are of a contrary mind to our Father in heaven, then we must obey Christ’s word. But when they put no obstacle to godliness in our way, if we are ever carried away by ingratitude, and, forgetting their benefits to us, hold them in contempt, then the oracle will have place which says, (He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death68 .
16. The first virtue of godliness in Christians is to honour their parents, to requite the troubles of those who begat them69 , and with all their might to confer on them what tends to their comfort (for if we should repay them ever so much, yet we shall never be able to return their gift of life70 ), that they also may enjoy the comfort provided by us, and may confirm us in those blessings which Jacob the supplanter shrewdly seized; and that our Father in heaven may accept71 our good purpose, and judge us worthy to shine amid righteous as the sun in the kingdom of our Father72 : To whom be the glory, with the Only-begotten our Saviour Jesus Christ, and with the Holy and Life-giving Spirit, now and ever, to all eternity. Amen).
March 6th, 2010
Satan as depicted in the Ninth Circle of Hell in Dante Alighieri’s Inferno, illustrated by Gustave Doré.
In a book of memoirs released in February, the noted Italian exorcist Fr. Gabriele Amorth affirmed that “Yes, also in the Vatican there are members of Satanic sects.” When asked if members of the clergy are involved or if this is within the lay community, he responded, “There are priests, monsignors and also cardinals!”
The book, “Father Amorth. Memoirs of an Exorcist. My life fighting against Satan.” was written by Marco Tosatti, who compiled it from interviews with the priest.
Fr. Amorth was asked by Tosatti how he knows Vatican clergy are involved. He answered, “I know from those who have been able to relate it to me because they had a way of knowing directly. And it’s something ‘confessed’ most times by the very demon under obedience during the exorcisms.”
The famous Italian exorcist was also asked if the Pope was aware of Satanic sects in the Vatican, to which Fr. Amorth replied, “Of course, he was informed. But he does what he can. It’s a horrifying thing.”
Benedict XVI, being German, comes from a place “decidedly averse to these things,” argued Fr. Amorth, saying that in Germany “there practically aren’t any exorcists.” However, he clarified, “the Pope believes (in them).”
The Italian priest also warned of the existence of bishops and priests who do not believe in Satan in the interview. “And yet, in the Gospel, Jesus speaks extensively about it, so it should be said, either they’ve never read the Gospel or they just don’t believe it!”
Fr. Jose Antonio Fortea Cucurull, a Spanish priest and theologian who specializes in demonology and is now studying for his doctorate of theology in Rome, responded to Fr. Amorth’s assertions on March 1.
After reading reports of Fr. Amorth’s accusations pointing a finger at members of the clergy, including cardinals, Fr. Fortea declared that it is a “duty of justice” to speak out in their defense.
Noting that some prelates “are more spiritual and others more earthly, some more virtuous and others more human,” he wrote on his blog, “from there to affirm that some cardinals are members of Satanic sects is an unacceptable distance.”
The Spanish priest then explained the sources of information used by Fr. Amorth to say that Satanic sects are operating in the Vatican.
In addition to the people that seek help for demonic possession, said Fr. Fortea, “innumerable persons come to us who claim to have visions, revelations and messages from Our Lord.” Among these, “a certain number offer apocalyptic messages and revelations about the infiltration of Satanism and the Masons within the dome of the Church.”
Fr. Fortea added that the only acceptable stance is to suspend judgment of the messages while they are subjected to time-intensive discernment, “sometimes months for each one of the cases.”
The other source Fr. Amorth refers to, according to Fr. Fortea, is the demons who are being exorcised. Of this, the Spanish priest wrote that knowing whether or not the demon is telling the truth “is in many cases impossible.”
“We can know with great confidence when a demon tells the truth in the subject directly related with the exorcism. That is, the number of demons, their name and similar things. But we cannot be confident in what regards concrete news relating to people.”
“Father Amorth does not have other sources of knowledge than the two that I just cited,” indicated the Spanish exorcist, “I refer to his own words for this affirmation.”
Fr. Fortea observed that the existence of similar messages from the same sources is “something known by me just as (it has been) by many other colleagues for many years.”
“Among exorcists, some have come to similar conclusions as those of Fr. Amorth. Others have not.”
Fr. Fortea also defended those implicated in Fr. Amorth’s statements, stating, “Our College of Cardinals, if we compare it with past centuries is the most edifying and virtuous that history has ever known. One would have to go back to the epoch of the Roman Empire to find a body of electors so distanced from all earthly pretension as the current one is.
“Cardinals might be better or worse,” he reflected, “but all have upright intentions and seek the glory of God.”
He concluded by emphasizing, “Statements must be proven, especially when they are about such grave accusations that affect the honorability of those who form part of the Head of the Church as far as they help the Supreme Pastor.”
March 6th, 2010
Gerard van Honthorst, 1623, like many works of the period, allows a genre scene with moral content.
Now all the tax-collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him. And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, ‘This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.’
So he told them this parable: ‘There was a man who had two sons. The younger of them said to his father, “Father, give me the share of the property that will belong to me.” So he divided his property between them. A few days later the younger son gathered all he had and travelled to a distant country, and there he squandered his property in dissolute living. When he had spent everything, a severe famine took place throughout that country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed the pigs. He would gladly have filled himself with the pods that the pigs were eating; and no one gave him anything. But when he came to himself he said, “How many of my father’s hired hands have bread enough and to spare, but here I am dying of hunger! I will get up and go to my father, and I will say to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired hands.’ ” So he set off and went to his father. But while he was still far off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion; he ran and put his arms around him and kissed him. Then the son said to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.” But the father said to his slaves, “Quickly, bring out a robe—the best one—and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. And get the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; for this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!” And they began to celebrate.
‘Now his elder son was in the field; and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing. He called one of the slaves and asked what was going on. He replied, “Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has got him back safe and sound.” Then he became angry and refused to go in. His father came out and began to plead with him. But he answered his father, “Listen! For all these years I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command; yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours came back, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fatted calf for him!” Then the father said to him, “Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.” ’
This is probably the best-loved of all the parables of Jesus; yet it appears in only one gospel: Luke’s. It can be read from the perspective of each of the characters: the younger son, the older son, and the father. When we call it the parable of “the prodigal son” (an expression that does not occur in the parable itself), we are reading it from the perspective of the younger son. But in the context in which Jesus told it, it was clearly about the father.
If the word ‘prodigal’ means lavish, we ought to call it the parable of the prodigal father. The father was prodigal in mercy and forgiveness. In the parable the father represents God. Jesus could have drawn any kind of picture of God he wanted. This is the one he drew. God is rich in mercy, abounding in love. The ‘Almighty God’ of our youth didn’t always leave us with that impression, but the truth was never lost on the saints. Julian of Norwich wrote, “Our courteous Lord will show himself to the soul full joyfully and with glad countenance and friendly welcoming, as if he had been in pain and in prison, saying sweetly, ‘My dear one, I am glad that you are come to me: in all your woe I have always been with you, and now you see my love, and we will be united in bliss.’”
This heart-warming story of God is essential to our Lenten diet. Without it, our efforts to lead a better life only lead us into self-righteousness.
…Which brings us to the older brother. Remember that when Jesus told this story he was surrounded by a crowd of surly scribes and Pharisees. They were objecting to his friendliness towards sinners. “This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.” Jesus captured them perfectly in the figure of the older brother. It sometimes happens that the eldest in a family becomes a sort of third parent, but of course without the warm instincts of a father or mother. When an elder brother loses his brotherliness, other qualities flow in to take its place: grumpiness, cold anger, stinginess, resentment…. Thank God there are many exceptions in real life, but the older brother in the parable was all of those things.
“I have been working like a slave for you… yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends.” But as his father pointed out, the goats were his! “All that is mine is yours.” The real reason is that celebration was foreign to him, he was enjoying his resentment, he was a kill-joy; he had no heart. And he was stingy.
Any of us, if we’re not careful, could slip into that dreary role. We can become so addicted to doing our duty that we forget how to celebrate. The Pharisees were like a group of angry elder brothers; they accused Jesus of being a glutton and a drunkard (Lk 7:34), because he knew how to celebrate. But they were not able to make him like themselves. In fact he spoke of the kingdom (the presence) of God as a banquet (Mt 22). Again, it was not lost on the saints. Julian wrote: “Our sins are forgiven by mercy and grace, and we are received with joy, just as it will be when we come to heaven.”
March 6th, 2010
Addressing himself to warlocks and witches, Robbie Burns wrote:
Ye gipsy-gang that deal in glamour,
And ye deep-read in hell’s black grammar….
A contemporary of his explained: “When devils, wizards or jugglers deceive the sight, they are said to cast glamour over the eyes of the spectator.” The word ‘glamour’ retained this magical sense longer in Scotland than anywhere else. The modern sense, ‘delusive or alluring charm’, is a much weakened one.
Was it only the rhyme that made Burns put those two words together, ‘glamour’ and ‘grammar’? No doubt he knew that they were once the same word: ‘glamour’ is a corruption of ‘grammar’. There was some primitive fear of the written word, a feeling that anyone who could read could also bewitch. If that sounds weird to you, just think of the ambiguity of the word ‘spell’!
In ancient times the Jews considered the spoken word a sort of ‘thing’; once it was uttered it could not be taken back: Isaac, for example, could not take back the blessing he had given to Jacob. When literacy becomes widespread this permanence is transferred to the written word. ‘Character’ (meaning a letter of the alphabet) comes from the Greek word ‘to engrave’, suggesting a durability that the spoken word then begins to lose. In our age there is as little permanence for the written as for the spoken word: the waves of spoken language that wash over us are not different from the newspapers that swell to a hundred pages, only to be put in the bin the next morning, with just a few pages read. And books, like food products, have shelf-lives. In the popular imagination the permanence of words – even written words – is disappearing fast.
But what about sacred texts? Are these not considered as sacred today as they ever were in the past? Aren’t there still people in the world who will kill for a comma?
Yes, and there are people who believe that everything is written in the stars: the future legible in the past. There is a deep urge in all of us to seek something permanent in this changing world. Well, nothing could ever be as permanent as the past, and an authoritative text that delivers this past to us has some kind of grim but reassuring appeal.
What about the Bible? Isn’t it fixed and permanent? Yes, and older translations leave you in no doubt about that. “After me cometh he who is mightier than I” (KJV) sounds much more solemn and permanent than “Someone is following me” (JB); and “Your adversary the devil… prowling around like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” is much more terrifying than the same devil “looking for someone to eat.” By why does it sound more impressive? I suspect that sometimes we are we looking for the wrong thing in it. We would like it to have an antique and exotic flavour that will keep it trapped in the past. We enjoy the magic, the glamour, that has been squeezed out of it by modern translations.
Is there hope for the Bible in a world of bewildering change? There is always the wrong kind of hope as well as the right: there is the temptation to literalism and fundamentalism. Something rebels in me when I see a celebrant or reader raise up the Lectionary, and announce: “This is the word of the Lord.” The word of the Lord, I hope, is not paper and ink, but a proclamation to a community of believers; it is a word of hope and promise living in the hearts of people who are trying to live by the Beatitudes, and not a book on a shelf or a lectern. In Norwegian they don’t say, “This is the word of the Lord” at the end of a reading; they say “Slik lyder Herrens ord,” (‘Thus sounds the word of the Lord’). A Muslim told me once that there is a tradition that Mohammed was illiterate. This, I suspect, is, as far as it goes, similar to Christians saying that Mary is a virgin: the word of God has to be seen to be from God and not from a purely human source. This made me aware that it is not the Bible that corresponds to the Koran, but Jesus. For Christians, Jesus is the Word of God, and the Scriptures are words about him, a testimony to what God has done and is doing in him; they are the word of God in a strictly subordinate sense.
The glamour of the old translations is no great loss, even though it was often very beautiful, while some modern translations can sound quite banal at times. But the Scriptures never sounded antique to the people who wrote them, or to the first people who listened to them. Scripture is not about itself; it is a word boiling over with urgency about Jesus. The antique glamour of old things enables us to date them and place them, like ornaments and works of art, or like ancient creatures trapped in amber; but that is not what the Scriptures are about. The patina of age appeals to nostalgia, but the Good News is for today, the urgent “today” and “now” of the Gospels. The Lord of life will not imprison us, as sacred texts, including the Bible, are often made to do. His words can never be twisted into chains to bind the captives set free by him.
Donagh O’Shea.
March 6th, 2010
Icon of the Transfiguration by Theophanes the Greek (15th century)
Luke 9:28b-36
Now about eight days after these sayings Jesus took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. And while he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became dazzling white. Suddenly they saw two men, Moses and Elijah, talking to him. They appeared in glory and were speaking of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. Now Peter and his companions were weighed down with sleep; but since they had stayed awake, they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him. Just as they were leaving him, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah” – not knowing what he said. While he was saying this, a cloud came an overshadowed them; and they were terrified as they entered the cloud. Then from the cloud came a voice that said, “This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!” When the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silent and in those days told no one any of the things they had seen.
In all three liturgical cycles we have the strange story of the Transfiguration on the second Sunday of Lent. What does it mean? The second reading is a kind of echo of this gospel reading, and perhaps it gives us a key to open up its meaning for us. The Lord, St Paul writes, “will transfigure these wretched bodies of ours into copies of his glorious body.” The Transfiguration, then –whatever we discover it to mean – is not only about Jesus but about us. It is to make some discernible difference to us today.
There was the everyday Jesus who was well known to his friends; and then there was the moment when they scarcely recognised him, so transformed – transfigured – was he. Divinity shone through him, revealing depths that they had never imagined. Can this happen only to Jesus? When the little girl was asked what a saint was, she replied (thinking of the stained glass windows in the church), “A person who lets the light through.” Lovely – but is it only an image? Can it also be a reality? Could you and I let the light through? We are probably far too aware of our wretchedness to think thoughts like that. But it is just these “wretched bodies of ours” that are the material of transfiguration, according to St Paul.
In a beautiful poem called The sunrise ruby, Jelaluddin Rumi(1207-1273) the Sufi mystic, imagines a girl asking her beloved,
‘Do you love me or yourself more?
Really, tell the absolute truth.’
He says, ‘There’s nothing left of me.
I’m like a ruby held up to the sunrise.
Is it still a stone, or a world
made of redness? It has no resistance
to sunlight.’
There it is: in one way it is a stone, but in another it is a world of redness. This gives some impression of what transfiguration might mean. When you are completely absorbed and self-forgetful as you look at the sea, or at a sunset, or the night sky, or a tree, you are still yourself, of course; but you are also more than yourself. At any rate you are a kind of larger self, and not the small self that thinks before speaking, and counts money, and always looks after his or her own interests.
But we would like to hear what Christian mystics have to say about it. Johann Tauler (1300-1361) wrote the following:
“God fires the spirit with a spark from the divine abyss. By the strength of this supernatural help the soul, enlightened and purified, is drawn out of itself into a unique and ineffable state of pure intent toward God….This complete turning of the soul toward God is beyond all understanding and feeling; it is a thing of wonder and defies imagination….In this state the soul, purified and enlightened, sinks into the divine darkness, into a tranquil silence and inconceivable union. It is absorbed in God, and now all equality and inequality disappear. In this abyss the soul loses itself, and knows nothing of God or of itself, of likeness to Him or of difference from Him, or of anything whatsoever. It is immersed in the unity of God and has lost all sense of distinctions.”
Sadly, this aspect of the Christian faith is not as familiar to many as it could be. We have learnt to settle for less. Most people believe that the best things are not for them. But we are all called to deep enlightenment and union with God. Does this mean that we are to be somehow unreal and up-in-the-air? Hardly. Tauler and the people of his time had to be intensely practical. But his words live for centuries beyond the time he uttered them, because he was in touch with the living heart of our Faith. It is he, and the likes of him, who will lead us to the heart of God.
+++
LENTEN READINGS
Ambrose selected works
06119 Arius is charged with the first of the above-mentioned errors, and refuted by the testimony of St. John. The miserable death of the Heresiarch is described, and the rest of his blasphemous errors are one by one examined and disproved.
123). Arius, then, says: “There was a time when the Son of God existed not,” but Scripture saith: “He was,” not that “He was not.” Furthermore, St. Jn has written: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.”217 Observe how often the verb “was” appears, whereas “was not” is nowhere found. Whom, then, are we to believe?—St. John, who lay on Christ’s bosom, or Arius, wallowing amid the outgush of his very bowels?—so wallowing that we might understand how Arius in his teaching showed himself like unto Judas, being visited with like punishment.
124. For Arius’ bowels also gushed out—decency forbids to say where—and so he burst asunder in the midst, falling headlong, and besmirching those foul lips wherewith he had denied Christ. He was rent, even as the Apostle Peter said of Judas, because he bought a field with the price of evil-doing, and falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.”218 It was no chance manner of death, seeing that like wickedness was visited with like punishment, to the end that those who denied and betrayed the same Lord might likewise undergo the same torment.
125. Let us pass on to further points. Arius says: “Before He was born, the Son of God was not,” but the Scripture saith that all things are maintained in existence by the Son’s office. How, then, could He, Who existed not, bestow existence upon others? Again, when the blasphemer uses the words “when” and “before,” he certainly uses words which are marks of time. How, then, do the Arians deny that time was ere the Son was, and yet will have things created in time to exist before the Son, seeing that the very words, “when,” “before,” and “did not exist once,” announce the idea of time?
126. Arius says that the Son of God came into being out of nought. How, then, is He Son of God—how was He begotten from the womb of the Father—how do we read of Him as the Word spoken of the heart’s abundance, save to the end that we should believe that He came forth, as it is written, from the Father’s inmost, unapproachable sanctuary? Now a son is so called either by means of adoption or by nature, as we are called sons by means of adoption.219 Christ is the Son of God by virtue of His real and abiding nature. How, then, can He, Who out of nothing fashioned all things, be Himself created out of nothing?
127. He who knows not whence the Son is hath not the Son. The Jews therefore had not the Son, for they knew not whence He was. Wherefore the Lord said to them: “Ye know not whence I came;”220 and again: “Ye neither have found out Who I am, nor know My Father,” for he who denies that the Son is of the Father knows not the Father, of Whom the Son is; and again, he knows not the Son, because he knows not the Father.
128. Arius says: “[The Son is] of another Substance.” But what other substance is exalted to equality with the Son of God, so that simply in virtue thereof He is Son of God? Or what right have the Arians for censuring us because we speak, in Greek, of the ousia, or in Latin, of the Substantia of God, when they themselves, in saying that the Son of God is of another “Substance,” assert a divine Substantia.
129. Howbeit, should they desire to dispute the use of the words “divine Substance” or “divine Nature,” they shall easily be refuted, for Holy Writ oft-times hath spoken of ousia in Greek, or Substantia in Latin, and St. Peter, as we read, would have us become partakers in the divine Nature. But if they will have it that the Son is of another “Substance,” they with their own lips confute themselves, in that they both acknowledge the term “Substance,” whereof they are so afraid, and rank the Son on a level with the creatures above which they feign to exalt Him.
130. Arius calls the Son of God a creature, but “not as the rest of the creatures.” Yet what created being is not different from another? Man is not as angel, earth is not as heaven, the sun is not as water, nor light as darkness. Arius’ preference, therefore, is empty—he hath but disguised with a sorry dye his deceitful blasphemies, in order to take the foolish.
131. Arius declares that the Son of God may change and swerve. How, then, is He God if He is changeable, seeing that He Himself hath said: “I am, I am, and I change not”?221
February 28th, 2010
Previous Posts