Crestomazia EN/TH.CAT.

BRANO 1

ANIMA CHRISTI

Soul of Christ, sanctify me! Body of Christ, save me! Blood of Christ, inebriate me! Water from Christ's side, wash me! Passion of Christ, strengthen me! O good Jesus, hear me! Within Thy wounds hide me! Suffer me not to be separated from Thee! From the malicious enemy defend me! In the hour of my death call me and bid me come unto Thee! That I may praise Thee with Thy saints and with Thy angels! Forever and ever. Amen

BRANO 2

PRAYER OF SAINT AMBROSE (1)

I draw near, loving Lord Jesus Christ, to the table of your most delightful banquet in fear and trembling, a sinner, presuming not upon my own merits, but trusting rather in your goodness and mercy. I have a heart and body defiled by my many offenses, a mind and tongue over which I have kept no good watch. Therefore, O loving God, O awesome Majesty, I turn in my misery, caught in snares, to you the fountain of mercy, hastening to you for healing, flying to you for protection; and while I do not look forward to having you as Judge, I long to have you as Savior. To you, O Lord, I display my wounds, to you I uncover my shame. I am aware of my many and great sins, for which I fear, but I hope in your mercies, which are without number. Look upon me, then, with eyes of mercy, Lord Jesus Christ, eternal King, God and Man, crucified for mankind. Listen to me, as I place my hope in you, have pity on me, full of miseries and sins, you, who will never cease to let the fountain of compassion flow. 

BRANO 3

PRAYER OF SAINT AMBROSE (2)

Hail, O Saving Victim, offered for me and for the whole human race on the wood of the Cross. Hail, O noble and precious Blood, flowing from the wounds of Jesus Christ, my crucified Lord, and washing away the sins of all the world. Remember, Lord, your creature, whom you redeemed by your Blood. I am repentant of my sins, I desire to put right what I have done. Take from me, therefore, most merciful Father, all my iniquities and sins, so that, purified in mind and body, I may worthily taste the Holy of Holies. And grant that this sacred foretaste of your Body and Blood which I, though unworthy, intend to receive, may be the remission of my sins, the perfect cleansing of my faults, the banishment of shameful thoughts, and the rebirth of right sentiments; and may it encourage a wholesome and effective performance of deeds pleasing to you and be a most firm defense of body and soul against the snares of my enemies. Amen.

BRANO 4

PRAYER OF SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS

Almighty eternal God, behold, I come to the Sacrament of your Only Begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, as one sick to the physician of life, as one unclean to the fountain of mercy, as one blind to the light of eternal brightness, as one poor and needy to the Lord of heaven and earth. I ask, therefore, for the abundance of your immense generosity, that you may graciously cure my sickness, wash away my defilement, give light to my blindness, enrich my poverty, clothe my nakedness, so that I may receive the bread of Angels, the King of kings and Lord of lords, with such reverence and humility, such contrition and devotion, such purity and faith, such purpose and intention as are conducive to the salvation of my soul. Grant, I pray, that I may receive not only the Sacrament of the Lord’s Body and Blood, but also the reality and power of that Sacrament. O most gentle God, grant that I may so receive the Body of your Only Begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, which he took from the Virgin Mary, that I may be made worthy to be incorporated into his Mystical Body and to be counted among its members. O most loving Father, grant that I may at last gaze for ever upon the unveiled face of your beloved Son, whom I, a wayfarer, propose to receive now veiled under these species: Who lives and reigns with you for ever and ever. Amen.

BRANO 5

LEAD, KINDLY LIGHT

(St. John Henry Newman)

Lead, Kindly Light, amidst th'encircling gloom,   /   Lead Thou me on!   /

The night is dark, and I am far from home,   /   Lead Thou me on!   /   Keep Thou my feet; I do not ask to see   /

The distant scene; one step enough for me.   /   I was not ever thus, nor prayed that Thou   /

Shouldst lead me on;   /   I loved to choose and see my path; but now  Lead Thou me on!   /

I loved the garish day, and, spite of fears,   /   Pride ruled my will. Remember not past years!   /

So long Thy power hath blest me, sure it still   /   Will lead me on.   /

O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till   /   The night is gone,   /

And with the morn those angel faces smile,   /   Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!   /

Meantime, along the narrow rugged path,   /   Thyself hast trod,   /

Lead, Saviour, lead me home in childlike faith,   /   Home to my God.   /

To rest forever after earthly strife   /   In the calm light of everlasting life.

BRANO 6

PRAYER TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY (Leonce de Grandmaison, S.J.)

Holy Mary,  Mother of God, preserve in me the heart of a child, pure and clean like spring water; a simple heart that does not remain absorbed in its own sadness; a loving heart that freely gives with compassion; a faithful and generous heart that neither forgets good nor feels bitterness  for any evil.  Give me a sweet and humble heart that loves without asking to be loved in return, happy to lose itself in the heart of others, sacrificing itself in front of your Divine Son; a great and unconquerable heart, which no ingratitude can close and no indifference can tire; a heart tormented  by the glory of Christ, pierced by his love with a wound that will not heal until heaven.

BRANO 7

MEMORARE

Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thy intercession was left unaided. Inspired with this confidence, we turn to thee, O Virgin of virgins, our Mother. To thee we come, before thee we stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, do not despise our petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer us. Amen.

BRANO 8

PRAYER TO SAINT MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL

Saint Michael, archangel, defend us in the hour of conflict. Be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God restrain him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God thrust Satan down to hell and with him those other wicked spirits who wander through the world for the ruin of souls. Amen.

BRANO 9

A RENEWAL OF BAPTISMAL PROMISES

Leader: Do you renounce Satan?   -   All: I do.

Leader: And all his works?   -   All: I do.

Leader: And all his empty show?   -   All: I do.

Or:

Leader: Do you renounce sin, so as to live in the freedom of the children of God?   -   All: I do.

Leader: Do you renounce the lure of evil, so that sin may have no mastery over you?   -   All: I do.

Leader: Do you renounce Satan, the author and prince of sin?   -   All: I do.

Leader: Do you believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth?   -   All: I do.

Leader: Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered death and was buried, rose again from the dead, and is seated at the right hand of the Father?   -   All: I do.

Leader: Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting?   -   All: I do.

Leader: And may almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has given us new birth by water and the Holy Spirit, and bestowed on us forgiveness of our sins, keep us by his grace, in Christ Jesus our Lord, for eternal life.   -   All: Amen.

BRANO 10

 THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS

1. Baptism. For Catholics, baptism is normally performed when someone is an infant and involves the pouring of water on their forehead. It represents the moment someone enters the Church. Christians believe that baptism cleanses people from original sin and welcomes a Christian into God’s family 

2. Confirmation. This typically takes place in early teenage years, when a child starts to be seen as an adult member of the Church. This is because they are now considered old enough to renew and confirm for themselves vows that were made on their behalf when they were baptised. However, there is no set age for the confirmation rite, and people are often confirmed as adults. During the confirmation, the bishop lays his hands on each candidate’s head as a sign that they are now full members of the Church. The bishop also puts chrism on the forehead of each candidate in the shape of the cross. This is considered a sign of strength which reminds the candidate of their commitment to follow Christ.

3. Eucharist (Holy Communion). No life flourishes without food and drink. Thus, the Eucharist offers the Body and Blood of Jesus as food and drink for the spirit. As a ceremony, the Eucharist is both a meal that nourishes, as well as a sacrifice in which the death of Jesus is offered to the Father. The Eucharist is also the object of adoration among the faithful. Since the graces of all the other sacraments flow from the death and resurrection of Jesus, the Eucharist is considered the central sacrament of the Church.

4. Reconciliation. This is also referred to as penance. It is the sacrament of confessing sins to a priest.

5. Anointing of the Sick. In the course of life, humans suffer from illnesses of body, mind, and spirit. The Sacrament of Anointing (previously called the Last Rites or Extreme Unction) confers the healing touch of God on the sick and forgives sin. Sometimes the sacrament restores a person to full health. Sometimes it prepares a person to accept the reality of death, which is a necessary part of human life. In the case of imminent death, the Eucharist is offered as Viaticum, food for the journey to the Father. The person who is is very ill or dying is blessed by a priest. They are anointed with blessed oil on the forehead and hands. This process symbolises strengthening and forgiveness.

6. Holy Orders. This refers to the moment someone becomes a deacon, priest or a bishop. During ordination, a bishop lays his hand on the person who is being ordained and invokes the power of the Holy Spirit through prayer. There are several bishops involved in the ordination of a bishop, but just one in the ordination of a deacon or a priest.

7. Marriage. When a couple marry they are joined together by the vows they take. This union is represented through the exchange of the rings, which reminds the married couple of the endless commitment they have made.

BRANO 11

- The Ten Commandments: a traditional catechetical formula:

I am the Lord your God: 1. You shall not have strange gods before me. 2. You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain. 3. Remember to keep holy the Sabbath Day. 4. Honour your father and mother. 5. You shall not kill. 6. You shall not commit adultery. 7. You shall not steal. 8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour. 9. You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife. 10. You shall not covet your neighbour’s goods.

- The five precepts of the Church:

1. To attend Mass on Sundays and other holy days of obligation and to refrain from work. 2. To confess your sins and receive the sacrament of Reconciliation at least once a year. 3. To receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season. 4. To abstain from eating meat and to observe the days of fasting established by the Church. 5. To help to provide for the material needs of the Church according to your ability.

- The seven corporal works of mercy:

1. Feed the hungry. 2. Give drink to the thirsty. 3. Clothe the naked. 4. Shelter the homeless. 5. Visit the sick. 6. Visit the imprisoned. 7. Bury the dead.

- The seven gifts of the Holy Spirit:

1. Wisdom helps us recognize the importance of others and the importance of keeping God central in our lives.

2. Understanding is the ability to comprehend the meaning of God’s message.

3. Knowledge is the ability to think about and explore God’s revelation, and also to recognize there are mysteries of faith beyond us.

4. Counsel is the ability to see the best way to follow God’s plan when we have choices that relate to him.

5. Fortitude is the courage to do what one knows is right.

6. Piety helps us pray to God in true devotion.

7. Fear of the Lord is the feeling of amazement before God, who is all-present, and whose friendship we do not want to lose.

- The twelve fruits of the Holy Spirit:

1. Charity. 2. Joy. 3. Peace. 4. Patience. 5. Kindness. 6. Goodness. 7. Generosity. 8. Gentleness. 9. Faithfulness. 10. Modesty. 11. Self-control. 12. Chastity

- The seven spiritual works of mercy:

1. Counsel the doubtful. 2. Instruct the ignorant. 3. Admonish sinners. 4. Comfort the afflicted. 5. Forgive offenses. 6. Bear wrongs patiently. 7. Pray for the living and the dead.

- The four cardinal virtues:

1. Prudence. 2. Justice. 3. Fortitude. 4. Temperance

- The seven capital sins:

1. Pride. 2. Covetousnes. 3. Lust. 4. Anger. 5. Gluttony. 6. Envy. 7. Sloth

- The Mysteries of the Rosary

The joyful mysteries

1. The Annunciation to Mary. 2. The Visitation to Elizabeth. 3. The Nativity (Birth of Jesus). 4. The Presentation of Jesus in the Temple. 5. The finding of Jesus in the Temple.

The luminous mysteries

1. The Baptism of Jesus in the River. 2. The Wedding at Cana. 3. The Proclamation of God’s Kingdom. 4. The Transfiguration of Jesus. 5. The Institution of the Eucharist.

The sorrowful mysteries

1. The Agony in the Garden. 2. The Scourging at the Pillar. 3. The Crowning with Thorns. 4. The Carrying of the Cross. 5. The Crucifixion.

The glorious mysteries

1. The Resurrection of Jesus. 2. The Ascension of Jesus. 3. The Coming of the Holy Spirit. 4. The Assumption of Mary. 5. The Crowning of Mary.

- The Stations of the Cross

1. Jesus is condemned to death. 2. Jesus accepts his cross. 3. Jesus falls for the first time. 4. Jesus meets his mother 5. Simon helps carry the cross. 6. Veronica wipes the face of Jesus. 7. Jesus falls for the second time. 8. Jesus speaks to the women. 9. Jesus falls for the third time. 10. Jesus stripped of his garments. 11. Jesus is nailed to the cross. 12. Jesus dies on the cross. 13. Jesus is taken down from the cross. 14. Jesus is laid in the tomb.

BRANO 10

WHAT IS PRAYER?

(https://www.stcharlesnederland.org/catholic-prayers.html)

Prayer, the lifting of the mind and heart to God, plays an essential role in the life of a devout Catholic. Without a life of prayer, we risk losing the life of grace in our souls, grace that comes to us first in baptism and later chiefly through the other sacraments and through prayer itself (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2565). Through prayer we enter into the presence of the Godhead dwelling in us. It is prayer which allows us to adore God, by acknowledging his almighty power; it is prayer that allows us to bring our thanks, our petitions, and our sorrow for sin before our Lord and God. While prayer is not a practice unique to Catholics, those prayers that are called "Catholic" are generally formulaic in nature. That is, the teaching Church sets before us how we ought to pray. Drawing from the words of Christ, the writings of Scripture and the saints, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, she supplies us with prayers grounded in Christian tradition. Further, our informal, spontaneous prayers, both vocal and meditative, are informed by and shaped by those prayers taught by the Church, prayers that are the wellspring for the prayer life of all Catholics. Without the Holy Spirit speaking through the Church and through her saints, we would not know how to pray as we ought (CCC, 2650). As the prayers themselves witness, the Church teaches us that we should pray not only directly to God, but also to those who are close to God, those who have the power to intercede upon our behalf. Indeed, we pray to the angels to help and watch over us; we pray to the saints in heaven to ask their intercession and assistance; we pray to the Blessed Mother to enlist her aid, to ask her to beg her Son to hear our prayers. Further, we pray not only on our own behalf, but also on the behalf of those souls in purgatory and of those brothers on earth who are in need. Prayer unites us to God; in doing so, we are united to the other members of the Mystical Body. This communal aspect of prayer is reflected not only in the nature of Catholic prayers, but also in the very words of the prayers themselves. In reading many of the basic formulaic prayers, it will become apparent that, for the Catholic, prayer is often meant to be prayed in the company of others. Christ himself encouraged us to pray together: "For wherever two or more are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them" (Matt. 18:20).

BRANO 11

SPIRITUAL GOLD

(O’Rourke Benignus, “Finding Your Inner Treasure: The Way Of Silent Prayer”, Part One, Chapter 2)

Prayer without words is not new. It is older than Christianity itself and was a rich part of the Christian tradition up to medieval times. It is only in our own lifetime that we have woken up to the fact that here in the West for 600 or so years the treasure of pure, silent prayer has been almost completely forgotten and abandoned, even in religious communities. The Benedictine monk John Main was one of the first people to make us aware of our loss. Working for the Colonial Service in India, he had discovered the Eastern form of silent meditation and brought it back to Europe and America. At about the same time young people in their thousands were taking themselves off to the East in search of deeper religious experience. And that caught the public imagination. They learned how to sit still until their minds became quiet, and they discovered a new way of seeing. They were seeing with the eye of the heart, which put them in touch with their deeper selves. Returning home, some began to explore their own traditions for similar teaching. And in the Christian West they had not far to look. They discovered that much of what they found in Eastern religions was also to be found in Christianity, but no one had told them. Here was a wealth of learning about the power of stillness and silence to lead us to the depths of our own being, where we find God. Alan Watts, who wrote many wonderful books about Buddhism, said that most of what he found in the East he could have found in the West if only someone had pointed him in the right direction. ‘Until I had studied the religions of the East for some years,’ he wrote, ‘the teaching of Christ and the symbols of Christianity had no real meaning for me. But I do not mean to suggest that a study of Oriental faiths is essential for an understanding of Christianity.’ His understanding, he believed, would have been much the same had he read people like Eckhart or Augustine of Hippo. The kind of spirituality he embraced in the East was available in the great mystics of the West but it had not been made available to ordinary people, he said. ‘They do not and cannot be expected to know that the Church has in its possession under lock and key, or maybe the sheer weight of persons sitting on the lid, the purest gold of mystical religion.’ Many others have echoed what Alan Watts said. The Jesuit William Johnson, whose books have helped to bridge the gap between Eastern and Western religions, met opposition from some readers who asked, ‘Why go to the East? It is all in Augustine.’ And the monk Thomas Merton believes it was his own ‘Augustinian bent’ that made him receptive to the spiritual wisdom of the East. It was views such as these that set me looking for what Augustine had to say about finding God in silence and I have been on a treasure hunt ever since.

BRANO 12

CHURCH OF ST. SYRUS IN GENOA

Erected in the fourth century on the site of an ancient Christian cemetery - outside the walls of the medieval city - the basilica was originally dedicated to the Twelve Apostles, with the dedication to St. Syrus, first bishop of Genoa, dates from the ninth century. In 1006 bishop John II entrusted the church to the Benedictine order of monks, who adapted the Romanesque style building and welcomed the bishops of Grenoble and Orange, sent by Pope Urban II, to preach the first Crusade. Consecrated a basilica in 1237 by Bishop Otto, it fell into decline during the Fourteenth century and in 1575 was given over to the Theatine order, who carried out a total renovation of the building. After the plague of 1578-1580 the south wing was involved in a fire, making reconstruction of the building and the convent, with cloisters and connected gardens, an inevitable necessity. It is not known with certainty who designed the building: some scholars suggest Andrea Ceresola, called Vannone, or Father Andrea Riccio or Daniele Casella. The new church appeared a novelty in the architectural scene of Genoa: the paired columns give a rhythmic movement to the space, making it unexpectedly grand, while respecting the new Counter-Reformation rules that required ample, capacious areas in which a large number of the faithful could gather. The dome, located at the crossing point with the transept, allows light to fall in through the large windows, which are also located along the longitudinal axis of the building and in the apse: this all enhances the painted and marble decorations by some of the most important artists working in Genoa at the time. However, there is no iconographic unity in the decoration as a whole, but rather a desire to depict great devotional themes related to the Histories of St. Syrus and St. Peter, with the aim of affirming the supremacy of the church of Rome in Genoa. The side chapels articulate the space in the naves: the Theatine monks granted jus patronatus to the noble families of Genoa, who commissioned altars and paintings from the most important artists working in the area between the end of the Sixteenth and the mid Seventeenth centuries. The presbytery was enriched in 1669 by the prestigious altar created by Pierre Puget (1620-1694), a French artist who was in Genoa between 1661 and 1668; the cross over the tabernacle is also attributed to him. In 1798 the Theatine monks were forced to abandon the church following the Napoleonic suppression of monastic orders: St. Syrus became a parish church, and in 1805 the baptism of Giuseppe Mazzini took place there. The grandiose bell tower, the last mediaeval element in the Benedictine building, was demolished in 1904, as it had become perilous.

BRANO 13

The Ten Commandments safeguard all that we value most

(https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/03/15/the-ten-commandments-safeguard-all-that-we-value-most/)

“I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” These gracious words, the preamble to the Ten Commandments, are frequently overlooked as we concentrate on the substance of the commandments. It is, however, only within the context of Israel’s deliverance from a life of bondage that we can properly understand God’s commandments. The Exodus was an act of pure grace. God has set his people free. He had taken them to himself in an entirely new relationship. He would be their God and they would be is people. It is within this context of such a relationship that we should understand the commandments. They safeguard our relationships with God and each other. Each and every commandment can be understood as the expression of a relationship. Faithfulness to the one God is the proper response to his graciousness. Honouring the Sabbath provides the space for a loving relationship with God and neighbour. Fidelity within marriage protects the emotional security that is the foundation of personal and family growth. In the words of the psalmist, “the law of the Lord is indeed perfect, it gladdens the heart”. The commandments, therefore, far from restricting relationships, enable them to flourish. They safeguard all that we value most, all that enables our humanity to grow. St John’s account of the cleansing of the temple highlights the conflict between the Gospel and a superficial faith. The Temple was more than a building. It was the visible expression of God’s presence among his people. Just as we can use people from motives of self-interest, so the custodians of the Temple cynically bent this Holy Place to their own commercial purposes. The reaction of Jesus, frequently misunderstood as a purely human anger, was zeal for his Father and the relationship that we share with him. In the confrontation that followed Jesus described himself as the Sanctuary of God’s presence. “Destroy this sanctuary, and in three days I will raise it up.” The evangelist went on to explain that Jesus was a speaking of the sanctuary that was his Body. Elsewhere in the Gospel St John speaks of ourselves as the dwelling place of God. Those who are faithful to the will of the Father, believing in Jesus whom he has sent, shall become the dwelling place of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We shudder at the commercialism that so offended Jesus as he entered the temple. In prayer let us open our eyes to what lies within ourselves. The parallel between the cleansing of the Temple and our own Lenten observance is obvious. Just as Jesus cleansed the temple, so we, during this season, repent of the sinful attitudes that disfigure our true identity as the dwelling place of God. Today, more than ever, life has been reduced to a market place. Profit and loss are rapidly becoming the new morality. At the cleansing of the Temple Jesus clearly condemned such values. To many it seemed madness. In the words of St Paul, it was a wisdom that brings dignity to our lives. “Here we are preaching a crucified Christ, to the Jews an obstacle, to the pagans madness, but to those who have been called, a Christ who is the wisdom and power of God.” We should not be afraid to find ourselves at odds with the prevailing values of a fallen world.

BRANO 14

Reflections on the Priesthood

(by Archbishop Kevin McDonald http://www.rcsouthwark.co.uk/priesthd.html)

Talk about priesthood today is often controversial and, indeed, political. Media interest in the priesthood is mostly focussed on the "shortage" of priests and on problems of priests. That colours the way we all think and worry about priesthood. But it should not be allowed to dominate or control our perception of priesthood. In fact, for most Catholics, their view of priesthood is formed principally by their experience of their own priest. In the vast majority of cases, this is a positive experience and the shortage of priests has, if anything, made people all the more appreciative of them. I wish to reflect on priesthood in a way that is not controlled either by the media preoccupations or by the need to react against them. The reality of priesthood needs no defence. Nor should it be overly protected or romanticised. Priesthood is a gift that is received in faith within the Catholic Church. The gift is understood and celebrated both by those who exercise it and by all who believe in it. I would like to say something about the personal life of a priest, consider three aspects of priestly life and work, and finally look at some tensions within priestly life - creative tensions that are inherent in being a priest. I want to begin by talking about freedom. I would suggest that being a priest involves a particular quality of freedom and involves engaging with people at the level of their deepest freedom. I say a particular quality of freedom since a priest's life can be viewed and, indeed, can be experienced very much as a constraint. A priest is not paid a professional salary, he doesn't choose where he works or what exactly he does, and he lives a celibate life. Few working conditions could go more against the grain particularly in those countries most affected by the shortage of priests. Every aspect of our life is affected by this particular lifestyle. Celibacy is, of course, the aspect of priesthood which receives most attention. It fascinates and is misunderstood. The newspapers speak of fidelity or infidelity to a priest's "vows". This always seems to me to be misleading language since it suggests promising to do something that is at odds with what you really want to do. That doesn't really fit, even for those who find it very hard. One of the more useful things I have heard suggested about celibacy is that it is better seen as a process than as a state. It is a process of growing, maturing, befriending, of being free, of suffering and of struggle. It has its unique costs and its unique rewards. Sometimes people envy priests. Sometimes they pity them. Both sentiments suggest a superficial appreciation of what being a priest is actually like. There are two aspects of priesthood that should constantly be borne in mind. One is to do with prayer. Students for the priesthood are frequently told by their seminary staff and retreat-givers that prayer must be the bedrock of their whole lives. This is simply and absolutely true. A priest must find his bearings in prayer. Prayer must be the place to which he will always return no matter what happens in his life and no matter how far he strays from it. I dislike the phrase "going off the rails" but if it means anything, it means stopping praying. Celibacy shapes and gives context to a priest's prayer life, and it also shapes the pattern and dynamics of his friendships. The famous book on friendship by St Aelred of Rievaulx is really a reflection on the quality of friendships that is characteristic of celibate people. That may be why it reads somewhat oddly in the strongly sexualised culture in which we live. Indeed, one of the main issues surrounding celibacy is that of finding the appropriate support structures in which to live it peacefully. These take many forms: the presbyterate and the parish are the structural support networks. But there is also the need for groups and for friendships that actively support and enthuse priests in their particular way of life. So, celibacy creates the framework for a special kind of freedom. So, too, do the other "constraints" on priestly life. Being put in a situation which is not of ones own choosing creates a challenge that one simply has to rise to. Certainly we are claiming and living a very particular kind of life that requires energy, resourcefulness, taking care of ourselves and letting others take care of us. But it also involves recognising the unique potential of our way of living and of relating to people. This is something people recognise and relate to. It is part of Catholics' experience - part of the "chemistry" of Catholic culture. In the light of that I want to consider three aspects of priestly life and work - activities which engage this freedom and are intimately bound up with it. The first I simply call Ministry. A few years ago my attention was drawn to the great work on priesthood by St Gregory Nazienzen entitled De Fuga. It was written after Gregory had fled from the imminent prospect of ordination. Eventually he returned and was ordained and the book is an exposition of the awesome reality of priesthood from which Gregory initially fled. What he found so daunting about priesthood was the very profound level at which the priest engages with people. He is concerned with their souls. His job is the "cura animarum". This expression has come to focus the specificity of priesthood. In modern parlance, we might say it means care and responsibility for people at the deepest level of their being. To put in the language I have already used, the ministry of the priest engages people at the level of their deepest freedom. Gregory presents this as the freedom to choose between the lower nature and the higher nature. The presupposition is that people are free: free to believe, free to choose good and reject evil. Gregory contrasts this engagement with the inner man with the work of doctors who are concerned with the well-being of the body. Although Gregory is speaking out of a culture very remote from our own, he identifies the reality that remains constitutive of priesthood in a very different religious and intellectual culture, namely the care of souls. And it is something specifically Christian. Gregory further explains Christian priesthood by saying that the priest is someone who makes the objective reality of Christ's death and resurrection a personal reality to the lives of those to whom he ministers. He mediates the death and resurrection of Christ so that it is appropriated in a personal way by those to whom he ministers. This is a very profound way of understanding the priest's sacramental ministry. It is something that happens in all the sacraments but it would be true to say that the Sacrament of Reconciliation focuses most sharply this whole understanding of priesthood. Certainly many who are not Catholics would see Confession as the thing that characterises it most specifically. Moreover - and very importantly - in all the sacraments the priest mediates what has been given to him. He is the minister of a grace which he himself has received and, in his own person, he is the source of grace for others. It is different from the ministry of a Protestant pastor since he would not consider ministry as involving and issuing from his own person in quite the way a Catholic priest does. And it is this that shapes the way a Catholic priest relates to his people and they to him. There is an intimacy and an immediacy created both by his position as a celibate and also by his being a channel of grace. His presence and availability are vital, especially in times of trouble and at key moments in people's lives. Being present and available is both very costly and very life-giving for the priest himself. It is his identity - what he needs to do. But a priest does not just relate to people as individuals, and that brings me to the second aspect of priesthood. The centre of a priest's life, the main locus for making the paschal mystery present in the lives of people, is the Eucharist. Prayer is the heart of a priest's life and the Mass is the fundamental prayer. Through this prayer he engages and explores his freedom and does this through the gathering of people for the Eucharist. The priest relates to his people both as individuals and as a gathered people. They are his community, his family. The decree on the priesthood of Vatican II says "... the Eucharistic Celebration is the centre of the assembly of the faithful over which the priest presides" and "... no Christian community is built up which does not gain from the liturgy on the Eucharist." Without the priesthood there is no Eucharist, and the Eucharist is the centre of the life of the Church. Add to this the other affirmation of Vatican II that the Church is "..a sign and instrument of communion with God and of unity among all men" (LG,1), and it is clear that communion among people is brought about through Eucharist and through priesthood. The bonding of God with his people is effected through the Eucharist and this is the source and basis of true community. And this happens because, in the Eucharist, the death of Jesus is made present: his sacrifice is present reality: the people offer it with the priest and so become a living sacrifice to God. This Eucharistic community is community as God intends it should be. People hear the Word of God together, they exchange the peace, they participate together in the Body and Blood of the Lord and they are sent out to love and serve the Lord. A vital and integral part of the Mass is the homily, and preaching is the third aspect of this life on which I would focus. Again, preaching is about the death and resurrection of Christ. That is our message; that is our Good News. And preaching is a very special art; a unique way of addressing people that is specific to the liturgy and specific to the context of Faith. It has a two-fold dynamism in that we communicate what we have received. St Thomas defined preaching as "contemplare et contemplata aliis dare" to contemplate and give to others that which has been contemplated. Our best sermons are those that we preach to ourselves; when we speak from our own hearing of the Word of God; when we share that or mediate it to others. And yet, although we are imparting what we have received, a good sermon will always be original; it will originate in our freedom, our vision, our imagination, in our suffering, hope and longing. But it will also grow out of the situation of the people entrusted to our care. It will be for them and about them. For this we need to know, love and care about our people. Each of us has a voice and the word we speak must not be something borrowed or alien, but issuing from our own prayer and our relationship with our people on from that I would finally suggest there is then a kind of tension within the experience of priesthood which operates at several different levels. The scriptural texts that the Church frequently draws on to explore the meaning of vocation articulate this tension very powerfully. A recurring pattern is the contrast between the reality of being called and the inner resistance of the one being called, and the resistance can take a number of forms. Isaiah protests he is a man of unclean lips and dwells with a people who are unclean. He feels unworthy. Jeremiah insists that he is a child: he does not know how to speak. He feels inadequate. Mary wonders how this can be. She does not understand. I suggest that this pattern tells us something profound about the mystery of priesthood. We can be secure in our calling to the priesthood, but it is a security that is grounded in Faith, not in any kind of scientific certainty. But because of the nature of Faith, it is entirely compatible with vocation that we should experience inadequacy and doubt. Jesus said to his apostles: "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." Responding to a vocation can be experienced as a response to the unseen and unknown so that confidence about vocation needs to issue constantly from Faith and prayer. Without these things, it loses its context and its power. But there is tension, too, precisely within confidence in one's own vocation. A priest can and should find strength in those passages of Scripture where God's chosen ones are strongly confirmed in their calling. We can think of key moments in the stories of Abraham and King David as well as in the lives of the prophets where the Lord affirms their place in God's purposes. Conviction about one's own calling and anointing is a great grace and a great source of spiritual power. It is also profoundly freeing since it means that we are not dependent on the approval of other people. But precisely here lies a tension and this, too, has its danger. The Scriptures bear witness to the abuse of power by those whom God has called. We must have confidence in our own calling, but once again, we see that that confidence must continue to issue from Faith. Without that and without a habit of humility and receptivity, confidence in one's vocation can be a snare and a danger. Discovering and living the mystery of vocation lies then within the framework of Faith. We are what it is given to us to be. We say what it is given to us to say. Most of all, we are to be to others what the Lord is to us. Jesus says to Peter three times: "Peter, do you love me?" One can't help but think of the three times that Peter denied that he knew Christ. It is as if the Lord seeks reassurance and makes him say three times: "Yes Lord, you know that I love you." And it is in response to his protestations of love for Jesus that the Lord says: "Feed my lambs; Feed my lambs; Feed my sheep." The Lord is entrusting his people to Peter: they are our treasure. That is what is given to us in priesthood. The vocation, the mystery, the power of priesthood are given to us as we respond with faith and love to the Lord. That is the source and origin of it all. God has created and called us to freedom: if we believe in God's call, if we allow the Lord to love us and engage our freedom in love of him, then we are free indeed: we have nothing to fear and we will be the source of unlimited power and grace to the world.

BRANO 15

THE JOY OF HOPE

(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0151/7885/files/JOH_Talk_Notes.pdf?13037664352340728039)

Hope is vital to our everyday lives. Pope Benedict XVI says that 'the one who has hope lives differently because they have been granted the gift of new life!' The Catechism describes hope as 'the virtue by which we desire heaven as our happiness..it keeps us from discouragement, sustains us in times of abandonment and is the sure and steadfast anchor for the soul'. Many people today are often hope-less. What we are shown on the tiny Greek island of Patmos is the antidote to our modern day crisis of hope. Patmos is one of the three most important New Testament locations on earth where God gave us all profound revelations of his Son. At Bethlehem Jesus was revealed to us as God-made-man in the Incarnation. In Jerusalem we are shown the Resurrected Jesus bursting forth from the tomb. And it is in Patmos that we encounter the Glorified Christ (the Greeks call him - Christos). Thank God for Saint John the beloved disciple or we would not have known this life- changing revelation. Tradition tells us that John as an old man was exiled to Patmos by the Romans for resisting anti-Christian laws in Ephesus. He tells us in the Book of Revelation Chapter 1 that he was sitting in a cave on the Lord's Day with his assistant and scribe called Prochorus when suddenly he encountered the Glorified Christ, the Jesus of 'now'. We will all spend eternity looking into this face of Christos that shines with love. According to Pope Francis, 'Jesus Christ is the face of the Father's Mercy'. What happens next in John's cave encounter is vital. Verse 17 tells us that John fell at the feet of Christos 'as if dead'. But that was not the end of the story. John goes onto recount that the Glorified Christ knelt down and laid his right hand upon the old John and said “do not be afraid, I am the Alpha and Omega”. John reveals to us all that Christ has not changed. He is still the loving, tender Jesus who walked amongst us 2000 years ago in the Holy Land. One day we will all look upon Christ who will be 'the judge of the living and the dead'. Through prayer and meditation on John's words given to us in the last book of the Bible, we can all now receive a personal 'revelation' of Christos. If we are unsure of his tenderness and compassion, we will always fear one day 'meeting our maker.' We need to be confident every day that the Jesus now in Heaven has not become distant or out of our reach. This truth will fill our hearts with joy! Pope Francis says that hope is key and 'our very salvation depends on it.' So how do we get more hope? The main way is to meditate on the biblical truth of Heaven. Where in the Bible do we find faith-building verses about Heaven? Jesus tells there is a Heaven but gives us only brief descriptions. St Paul hints at having been to Heaven 'in the Spirit' but tells us little about it. So thank God for old St John who shows us that 'the best really is yet to come!' The Book of Revelation is also called the Apocalypse, which means 'unveiling' like peeling back a curtain. Through John's description we see a door opened to Heaven. The Church calls us to prayerfully look through this door often to build an inner joy; 'Heaven is the fulfilment of our deepest human longings..a state of supreme happiness..an ever-flowing wellspring of joy, peace and mutual communion'. St Niallus said 'If we could but taste the treasures of Heaven for one moment, how we would despise that which now dazzles and fascinates us'. St Paul challenged us to 'Let heaven fill your minds and hearts, don't spend time worrying about things down here' (Colossians 3:2). What will Heaven be like? Even with our human limits we see a tantalising vision; Pure sunlight from the Light of the World. Total 'shalom', which means peace with God, others and ourselves. The ultimate wedding party with the very best wine saved for us. The Father's loving home where we at last will be 'whole-hearted'. There will be no more sin, failure, fear, envy, pain, tears or depressing funerals. We will be reunited with our loved ones in a totally redeemed community. Many have such wrong ideas about Heaven like an endless boring church service. But Scripture shows us a glimpse of the awesome Temple of God at the heart of Heaven where there is stunning beauty, electrifying worship, lightning and thunder, fire and water, myriads of mighty angels, fascinating creatures, and millions of saints who have gone before us in faith.

What difference does having a 'revelation' of Heaven make in our lives now?

1/ It breaks the fear of death, which is our last spiritual enemy (Hebrews 2:15).

2/ We will not grieve like those who have no hope (1 Thessalonians 4:13).

3/ We will grow in freedom like St Paul in Philippians 1:21; 'To die is to gain'.

4/ We will be motivated to 'store up our treasure in Heaven' with self-denial.

5/ We will begin to taste Heaven in the Eucharist where Heaven and earth now meet. 6/ And our latter years will be cheered by the promise of a final home-coming.

We must be confident of our destiny with the joy of the Good News in our hearts! The Bible and the teaching of the churches clearly show us a vital and often neglected truth. The climax of human history is the amazing doctrine of the New Heavens and the New Earth. In Revelation Chapter 21 we see the 'Throne of God in the New Jerusalem coming down to us, arriving like a beautiful bride for the marriage of heaven and earth'. Just like when God walked in the Garden of Eden, He will walk with us once again. God Almighty will change His address and will come to live on earth. Luke in Acts, Paul and Peter all mention this future reality before John's final, glorious revelation given to us all from his cave on the island of Patmos. The Church tells us that this promise is our 'ultimate source of hope and joy'. Our hearts cry out for an earthly restoration after death. We were created for this beautiful planet and for a physical, tangible eternal life. This always was and still is God's ultimate plan and destiny for humankind. God didn't create this beautiful world as a temporary home for his beloved children and we are not simply passing through to a life in the clouds. This earth will one day be our eternal home – the Latin words for this are Terra Nova (new earth). Our planet will be recycled and cleansed from every stain of sin, it will be creation in full bloom with new rocks, trees, plants and animals. The Catechism reminds us that 'far from diminishing our concern for developing this earth, expectancy of a new earth should spur us on!' This is the driving force behind Pope Francis' passionate call for us all to have an 'ecological conversion'. And of course to enjoy this we will need new heavenly bodies. Jesus' resurrected body is a prototype for our own new upgraded spiritual bodies that await us. St Augustine says that on that glorious day we will all be beautiful! And we will be ready at long last to reign with Christ for ever. We will 'tend His garden' faithfully and skilfully looking after the new earth and new cosmos. To imagine our final heavenly home we don't need to look up at the clouds. All we have to do is look around us and imagine what all this will look like without sin, death, suffering and corruption. When we see beauty everywhere around us in water, the wind, flowers, people and animals, we get a glimpse of a renewed earth in a renewed universe. With this promise of Heaven on earth in our hearts and minds we can face whatever life throws at us with our heads held high and our hearts singing with hope-filled joy! The Book of Revelation also gives us a vital perspective on eternity. Our time on earth is like a mere drop in the ocean compared with the eternal life that awaits us. This eternal perspective effects how we approach life now and especially how we We all need help in life's tough challenges, we need a touch of heaven here on earth not pie in sky when we die! Jesus' final promise to us all at the end of Chapter 22 is the answer to all of life's challenges. He promises us the River of Life from the Throne, now, here on earth: 'Then he showed me the river whose waters give life, sparkling and crystal, flowing from the Throne of God and the Lamb.' The river described by John is the Holy Spirit and this great gift is for everyone: 'Let everyone come who is thirsty, let them come. Take and drink the water of life without cost'. (R22:17) St Paul reminds us that the Spirit is the answer to all our inner needs. He says that the fruit of the Spirit, the result of drinking from the river of life is; 'love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control'. (Gal 5:22) Scripture describes the Spirit as our Comforter, Helper, Defender and Empowerer and the Catechism calls the Holy Spirit 'the Friend closest to our hearts'. No wonder Pope Francis is always urging us to 'invoke the Holy Spirit constantly'. The key to being filled with the Spirit is to know our need, our deep thirst like David the Psalmist: 'My soul thirsts for you like a dry and weary land with no water' and 'As a deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, oh God.' At Pentecost the disciples were flooded with the River of Life and we all need a 'personal Pentecost experience' in our lives. Jesus invites us to experience the life of Heaven now so we can be 'Like trees planted along the river bank, bearing fruit each season and their leaves never wither and they prosper in all they do' (Psalm 1). Eternal life doesn't begin when we die, it starts in the here and now and we must drink of the heavenly river wherever we are, every day. We can do that in our armchair, walking the dog, sitting on a bus, in a hospital bed or a prison cell. Then the power of the Spirit will help us to 'practice for Heaven' by loving each other. handle suffering.

Let us pray: Father God, please fill us with a supernatural hope that will sustain us as we journey towards our breath-taking eternal reward and may we experience the gift of joy deep in our hearts. We declare with boldness that we believe in the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

BRANO 16

Sunday Reflection with Fr Robin Gibbons - 17 November 2019

(https://www.indcatholicnews.com/news/38318)

There is a tendency amongst certain types of religious people to dabble in apocalyptic utterance and thought, not quite prophesying the end of things, but taking a perverse delight in the annunciation of a destruction of things they see as inimical to life and faith. It can be depressing, hearing how the Church has strayed and erred in word and deed, how the true faith can be found amongst this or that group, how clerical dress or liturgical niceties can somehow tip the balance for or against so called heresy to some odd kind of 'orthodoxy'. Even some Cardinals and Bishops (who should know better) seem to delight in telling the world and its wife, how the Lord is displeased, how Satan walks freely amongst us, an echo of that short passage from 1 Peter 5:8, 'Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour'. What seems particularly galling for many pastoral Catholics is the way Pope Francis is used as a punch bag by people who would not have dared to speak so openly and in such a manner of previous Popes. Yet his reaction gives me hope, for like the Gospel today Pope Francis seems to shrug off the doomsayers. Whilst prophets of doom are commonplace, some people, like the Pope, ignore these evocations and prefer to give us another type of example, of blessing under pressure perhaps, or a different sense of insight based on joy and forgiveness. Jesus well knew this type of religious person, it's nothing new, and we see in Luke, the proclamation of the imminent end of the age has itself become a false teaching. AS Jesus says elsewhere, we just do not know when the end times will be, and does it matter, each day we should be living to the full, each day we should be bringing joy, that real, solid, peace binging joy of the Good News. So ignore those grim reapers, pay attention to the Christ in your life, hear him say in your inner self these words, and do not be downcast, remember his promise:

'You will be hated by all because of my name, but not a hair on your head will be destroyed. By your perseverance you will secure your lives' (Lk 21:18,19)

That's not negative; it's a surety in times of trial, for if you remember, the Lord knows all the hairs on our head and loves the faithful servant!

BRANO 17

St. Margaret of Scotland

(https://www.indcatholicnews.com/saint/327)

Queen and patron of Scotland. Born in 1046, St Margaret was educated mainly in Hungary, where her family were exiled during the rule of the Viking kings in England. As one of the last members of the Anglo Saxon royal family, she was in danger after the Norman Conquest and took refuge at the court of Malcolm II of Scotland.

Intelligent, beautiful and devout, she married Malcolm in 1069 and the union was exceptionally happy and fruitful for Scotland. The present royal family can trace their descent to Margaret and her daughter Matilda.

Margaret took a keen interest in the country. Through her, the Scottish courts were reformed and the church was revitalised. She founded many monasteries, hostels and churches.

Her private life was devoted to prayer, reading, embroidery, lavish almsgiving and the liberation of slaves. She is said to have had a very civilising effect on her husband who was initially considered a rather rough character. Her biographer wrote: "He saw that Christ truly dwelt in her heart. What she rejected he rejected. What she loved, he for love of her loved too."

Malcolm could not read but liked to see the books she used at prayer and would have them embellished with gold and silver binding. One of her books survives in the Bodleian library.

Margaret had eight children. Alexander and David became kings of Scotland her daughter Matilda married Henry I of England. She lived just long enough to learn of the tragic death of Malcolm and one of her sons on a military expedition against William Rufus who had confiscated Edgar Atheling's estates. She died at just 47 in 1093.

Margaret was buried beside her husband in Dunfermline. Following many miracles, she was canonised in 1250. At the Reformation, both bodies were taken to the Escorial in Madrid. She was named patron of Scotland in 1673.

BRANO 18

St Thomas More and St John Fisher

(https://www.indcatholicnews.com/saint/184)

Both saints held high office in England but submitted to martyrdom rather than accept Henry VIII's claim to be head of the Church.

St John Fisher was a learned teacher and chancellor at Cambridge university and a friend of the humanist Erasmus. He became Bishop of Rochester in 1504 at the age of 35. When asked to accept the King as head of the Church he said he could not.

"I do not condemn any other men's consciences," he said. "Their consciences must save them and mine must save me."He was tried and executed for treason on June 17 1535. He was 66.St Thomas More was the Lord Chancellor. A younger man than St John Fisher, he had a large family and household to support and said he did not wish to die.

"I am not so holy that I dare rush upon death," he said.

But he could not accept the King as supreme head of the Church or condone his divorce. Rather than make a public pronouncement he resigned from his post and hoped to retire quietly. But the King would not accept his silence. St Thomas was arrested, imprisoned at the Tower of London for 15 months and then declared guilty of treason and condemned to death.He was executed nine days after St John Fisher. He was 57. From the scaffold he said: "I die the King's good servant, but God's first."

BRANO 19

ST. BENEDICT

(https://www.indcatholicnews.com/saint/200)

Abbot and founder of Subiaco and Monte Cassino; author of the Rule which bears his name; Patriarch of Western Monasticism; and patron of Europe.

St Benedict was born at Nursia in Umbria around 480 and was educated in Rome. At about the age of 20, he went to live as a hermit in a cave in the mountains of Subiaco. Many men followed his example and he set up twelve monastic communities, each with 12 monks.

In 529 St Benedict set out for Monte Cassino with a small group. There they established a monastery which was to become the most famous in Western Christendom, and a model for thousands which followed.

The monasteries became centres of learning, agriculture, hospitality and medicine in a way St Benedict probably never foresaw.

There is no evidence that St Benedict was ever a priest. As his communities grew his reputation spread and towards the end of his life he was even visited by the Gothic king Totila.

Another kind of visitation came one night, when when he was standing praying by a window. It is written: 'the whole world seemed to be gathered into one sunbeam and brought thus before his eyes.'

When death was at hand, in 550, he was carried into the chapel where he received communion and died. He was buried in the same grave as his sister St Scholastica.

St Benedict said: "If you are really a servant of Jesus Christ, let the chain of love hold you firm in your resolve, not a chain of iron."

His emblems are a broken cup, (which contained poison) and a raven (which flew away with it).

BRANO 20

ST AUGUSTINE

(https://www.indcatholicnews.com/saint/250)

Bishop and doctor of the church, St Augustine was born in Tagaste, Algeria, in 354. The son of a pagan father and a Christian mother, St Monica, he was brought up a Christian but not baptised.

Augustine studied rhetoric at Carthage and became a lawyer, but he gave this up and took up teaching and further study. For nine years he was absorbed by philosophy and Manichaeism, completely rejecting Christianity and following a hedonistic lifestyle. He lived with his mistress and when he was 17 years old she had a son, Adeotatus (Gift from God).

These early years were a source of great worry to his Christian mother Monica, who shed many tears over him and prayed constantly for his conversion.

Gradually he became disillusioned with Manichaeism and came under the influence of the Christian bishop Ambrose in Milan. After a long interior conflict, vividly described in his Confessions, Augustine was converted and baptised around 387 when he was about 32. His mistress (whose name has been forgotton in his history) went into a monastery in Carthage, leaving their child with him. Augustine returned to Africa and with some friends, established a quasi-monastery where study and conversions flourished. He was ordained in 391 and four years later became bishop of Hippo.

Augustine's intellectual brilliance, wide education ardent temperament and mystical insights formed a personality of extraordinary quality. His writings have probably been more influential than any Christian writer since St Paul.

He lived out his faith in community, actively involved in preaching and writing, caring for the poor and acting as judge in civil as well as church cases.

St Augustine was an upholder of law and order in a time of political strife caused by the disintegration of the Roman Empire. By the time of his death in 430, the Vandals were at the gates of Hippo.

After his conversion he wrote:

Late have I loved you. O beauty ever ancient, ever new.

Late have I loved you.

And behold you were within and I without. And without you I sought you.

And deformed I ran after those forms of beauty you have made.

You were with me and I was not with you.

Those things held me back from you

Things whose only being was to be with you.

You called, you cried, you broke through my deafness.

You flashed, you shone, you chased away my blindness.

You became fragrant. I inhaled and sighed for you.

I tasted and now hunger and thirst for you.

You touched me. Now I burn for your embrace.

BRANO 21

ST THOMAS AQUINAS

(https://www.indcatholicnews.com/saint/31)

Dominican friar and theologian. St Thomas was born to a noble family at Rocca Secca near Aquino. He was educated from the age of five to thirteen at St Benedict's monastery at Monte Cassino. He then studied at the University of Naples for five years, where he met the Dominicans and decided to join their order. His family were so upset by this they imprisoned him for fifteen months in an effort to make him change his mind. They failed.

St Thomas became a monk and went on to study in Paris and Cologne, where he met some of the finest brains of the time. He soon became one of their most famous lecturers himself. So great was his influence that he was asked to teach at universities across Europe. Paris remained his spiritual and intellectual home for most of his life until he set up his great school in Naples.

Besides tirelessly teaching, St Thomas wrote extensively on theology, philosophy and scripture. But he was always very modest and unassuming. Towards the end of his life he experienced a revelation of God, after which he stopped writing. St Thomas said that after what he has seen, everything he had written was 'so much straw'.

St Thomas died in 1274. He was canonised in 1323. and made a Doctor of the Church in 1567. His Summa Theologica was given given special honours at the Council of Trent. The substance of his work, although not all the details, still remains an authentic statement of Christian doctrine today.

BRANO 22

Sunday Reflection with Father Terry Tastard - 6 June 2010

(https://www.indcatholicnews.com/news/16262)

The feast of Corpus Christi combines two elements: thanksgiving for the Eucharist itself, and also for the real presence of Christ among us made possible through the Eucharist. I suppose to outsiders the care and attention that Catholics give to the Mass must sometimes seem extraordinary. But it doing so we are being completely faithful to Jesus himself. In celebrating the Eucharist we do what he told us to do. And in this act of faithfulness, we know in a way beyond words, the mystery of his presence among us.

Just think of it for a moment what it means to say that we have Jesus present among us. Can you announce the presence of a car, a table, a rock? You cannot. To speak of presence is to say that we have among us someone who is also aware of us, who knows that we are there ourselves. Someone who acknowledges us. And so, when we come to the Eucharist, we come to Christ who knows us and indeed loves us. This is what Catholics sometimes struggle to put into words and perhaps hesitate to say, because to outsiders it can sound so strange, but here it is: that when we come to Christ present on the altar, we have an extraordinary sense that not only is he present to us, but also that we are present to him. As we come into his presence all distinctions of class, race or wealth disappear. We are all equally beloved by him.

One of the signs of this love is his desire that his people be nourished. Nourishment speaks not just of eating, but of being fed in a way that builds us up and strengthens us. Food, after all, is about more than eating. You can eat at a fast food restaurant any time, but how much the food will nourish you is an open question. Corpus Christi is a wonderful chance for us to reflect on how Christ nourishes us. Think, for example, how important it is for people who are in hospital or in prison to have visitors, how we all yearn at times for someone to visit us. Christ comes to us in the Eucharist and afterwards, in the tabernacle, he stays with us. Quite simply, he gives us his company. He is always there to hear us and to spend time quietly with us.

Through the Mass Christ also nourishes us by giving us the gift of community. Every altar is a place of meeting. We meet Christ, but in that meeting we greet the one who once told a parable in answer to the question ‘Who is my neighbour.’ At Mass, therefore, we are not there on our own but part of a community of people with shared faith and values. We belong together. But remembering that parable, we cannot stop there. The community of faith needs to be able to help others in need, sometimes people who are literally our neighbours. In this and every parish there are different ways in which you rise to this challenge.

Finally, let us remember that we are nourished in communion through the gift of grace. Christ who comes to us in the Eucharist feeds the deepest part of our soul, he builds us up and encourages us in that part where we are most open to God, the part where we can learn to work in co-operation with the Holy Spirit. Grace works with all that is good in us and encourages us onwards.

BRANO 23

Sunday Reflection with Fr Robin Gibbons - 5 August 2018

(https://www.indcatholicnews.com/news/35391)

Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent."

"For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." (Jn 6:29.33)

How do we distinguish what is truthful reporting amidst the maelstrom of media noise, coming from all sorts of places, Twitter, Facebook, newspapers, TV etc. - all crowding out and distorting the various methods of human communication? Discerning people, trained in sifting out accurate and truthful facts, are able to work out what is simply sensationalism, distorted and biased reporting, as well as the court of personal opinion. But it is a huge problem given the dangerous populism of terms such as 'fake news' and the media as 'enemy of the people'. To follow that route is dangerous indeed.

Those of us who are Christians bear the Cross of 'responsibility' for what we say and do, Jesus himself warns about us giving scandal to others or worse still leading others astray. We are all guilty of doing so at times, to be a person who is truthful and honourable is not a given, we have to be taught and learn the ways of righteousness. It demands from us a daily response to that persistent call of the Gospel, 'Repent and believe in the Good News',

`This week the blogosphere and' twitterati' have been buzzing with comments about the Pope's approach to changing the Churches teaching on Capital Punishment. Quite frankly many of them have been in themselves scandalous, attacking the Pope openly, without, quite obviously knowing all the facts. There are critical and frankly nasty demands that their 'truth' be restored and the Magisterium (which of course is a red herring because they never explain what that means) upheld.

It is truly very disturbing to see how the issue of Capital Punishment has become for some a first order tenet of faith. In a country that has long abolished its use, I for one hope we never bring it back, I cannot see what this has to do with my own faith, but perhaps John Henry Newman might place us back on course, warning us: "We can believe what we choose. We are answerable for what we choose to believe". Faith is not a series of choices; it is an encounter with the mystery of Christ amongst us. It is not about certainty in this world, rather hope and trust in the one who gives us life.

Maybe we all need to take a break! As Newman also reminds us: 'To live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often'. It is also, as the Gospel of John tells us, about belief in Jesus the Christ. To believe in Him is to take a big risk that the comfortable world which we create for ourselves may actually change and transform before us, challenge us with looking to our own hearts and motivations, to ask of the Holy Spirit the gift of compassionate and merciful love.

Jesus tells us he is the bread of life! Ask yourself this question, what does that food mean for me? I hope you will partly answer with an image of nourishment and growth. If we truly accept the gift of Christ's bread, not only in the Eucharist but in his nourishing word and encounter with his body, the People of God, then there is no option but to have the humility of being an adolescent in the faith, reminding ourselves we are not yet fully grown in Christ, that we do not have the totality of truth, but we have Jesus who is the Truth, the Way and the `Life. May the bread of life, the manna of heaven, strengthen us and form us in truth so we may live out, not the gloomy news, but the Good News of salvation!

Lectio Divina

John Henry Newman

"Let us put ourselves into His hands, and not be startled though He leads us by a strange way, a mirabilis via, as the Church speaks. Let us be sure He will lead us right, that He will bring us to that which is, not indeed what we think best, nor what is best for another, but what is best for us."

Alexander Schmemann.

From The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom.

"The Purpose of the Eucharist lies not in the change of the bread and wine, but in the partaking of Christ, who has become our food, our life, the manifestation of the Church as the body of Christ'.

Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini

From address to the 43rd Plenary Assembly of the Italian Bishops' Conference in May 1997

"In these weeks of encounter, reading, listening and discussions, I have rediscovered a great truth, understood and completed with new knowledge - I need Jesus. He is the way for me, truth, life, bread and light. Without him I would be lost, in him and through him my life gains infinite worth, my daily actions become jewels of mysterious eternal beauty. What is so beautiful about it is that it comes to me spontaneously from the heart, thanks to your thoughts, Eminence, as if this truth had been slumbering, only waiting to be awoken. Now I know that the truths of my religion are not speculations of my intellect, but realities which are closely linked to my heart, my human nature. Now I no longer feel alone, I know that Jesus is with me, I know that I can find in Holy Scripture, in the magisterium of the Church, answers to my deepest needs"

BRANO 24

The Catholic view of sin

(http://catholicfaith.co.uk/morals)

Augustine of Hippo (354-430) regarded sin as “…a word, deed or desire contrary to the eternal law.” Catholic moral theology divides sin into two parts, primarily on the basis of degree and effect:

- Mortal (‘Deathly’) sin – This type of sin is the most serious as it involves loss of sanctifying grace. A person who dies with unremitted mortal sin would be in danger of eternal separation from God in Hell. Therefore, the church requests those who commit such sins to undertake the Sacrament of Reconciliation, in order to restore themselves to a ‘state of grace’. “For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”

“Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honour your father and your mother. The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.”

Paragraphs 1857-8, CCC.

Examples of mortal sins include abortion, adultery and the use of contraceptives.

- Venial (‘Pardonable’) sin – Positively, this sin does not directly destroy the relationship with God. Rather, it weakens that relationship. Unremitted venial sins can affect the duration spent in Purgatory. Therefore the church encourages confession of these types of sins as well. “Without being strictly necessary, confession of everyday faults (venial sins) is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church…”

Paragraph 1458, CCC.

“One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.”

“Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace it is humanly reparable. Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness.” (Paragraphs 1862-3, CCC).

Examples of venial sins include selfishness, anger and jealousy.

The distinction between mortal and venial sin is usually strict in so much as accumulated venial sins do not constitute a mortal sin. The usual way mortal and venial sins are forgiven is through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. However, forgiveness of sins may also be obtained through the Eucharist:

“As bodily nourishment restores lost strength, so the Eucharist strengthens our charity, which tends to be weakened in daily life; and this living charity wipes away venial sins…” (Paragraph 1394, CCC).

Certain sins are considered serious enough to merit automatic excommunication from the church. These include for example, illegal ordinations and the holding of doctrines considered heretical e.g. denial of the Trinity.

BRANO 25

Indulgences

(http://catholicfaith.co.uk/morals)

Catholic theology divides the punishment for sin into two parts: eternal and temporal (‘temporal’ in this context means lasting only for a limited period of time). Normally, the eternal punishment for sin can be remitted through the Sacrament of Reconciliation, as we saw above. However, the church maintains that there is still a temporal punishment to be borne, as all sin is an affront to God. This then leads to the idea of Purgatory as a place where unremitted sin can be removed in the afterlife.

Under certain defined circumstances, the temporal punishment can be reduced or even removed, both here on earth and also in Purgatory. To understand how, it is necessary to consider the concept of Merit.

When a person does more than is required of them by God, they earn merit. First and foremost there is the merit of Christ himself, which is sufficient to remove the temporal penalty for all sin. The merits of Christ and the saints form a ‘Treasury of Merits’. The Catholic church claims it has the authority to dispense Merit because of Christ’s promise to Peter in Matthew 16:19.

“And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matthew 16:18-19 (DRB)).

An Indulgence is simply a way of using this extra merit to reduce or remove the temporal penalty of sin. Indulgences may only be given to those who have no unconfessed mortal sins. According to whether the temporal penalty of sin is partially or fully removed, the Indulgence is called ‘Partial’ or ‘Plenary’ respectively.

BRANO 26

In summary, what is the importance of Mariology for the church?

(http://catholicfaith.co.uk/qanda)

Mariology, or the study of Mary, is important in the life of the Church because it helps us remember how important the Mother of God is in the history of salvation. Mariology talks about the veneration (as opposed to the worship) that we give to Mary. Many people, often of a generally-Protestant persuasion, do not see the veneration of Mary as important. Indeed some see it as offensive. The main reason for the perceived offence is because Mary is seen to detract from the divinity of her Son. He is the unique Mediator with the Father; He is the Saviour; He is the Redeemer. Why pray to anyone else? The short answer to this question is that Our Lord asks us to have a relationship with His Mother. From the Cross, He tells St John, “Behold, this is your Mother”, after having told Mary to look after the Beloved disciple: “This is your son” (Jn 19,26-27). The Church has always believed that this is an encouragement for all of us to develop a relationship with Mary, conceived without sin. From a purely psychological point of view it makes sense to venerate Mary. She is the Mother of God. Do we not trust mothers in general? Do not mothers listen to us, help us, direct us? Veneration of Mary is important because it helps us to remember that we are in a communion of trust and friendship not just with Christ, the unique Saviour of the world. He gives us the saints, of whom Mary is the greatest (being His Mother) to help us on our way. Just as we ask family and friends for help on life’s journey, so we seek the help of Mary and the saints to achieve our goal – the will of God and our own personal salvation. Theologically it also makes sense to venerate Mary. Christ chose to be born of a woman “when the fullness of time had come” (Gal. 4, 4). If we are to be like Christ, then we too need to develop a relationship with him, as “sons in the Son”. His Mother brought Him into the world. In a spiritual sense she brings many more spiritual sons into the world: Christians who want to follow Jesus the Son of Mary.

BRANO 27

What does the doctrine of ‘apostolic succession’ mean to you?

(http://catholicfaith.co.uk/qanda)

The doctrine of the Apostolic Succession teaches that the Pope is the successor of St Peter (Pope Benedict is the 265th Pope) and that the bishops in communion with the Pope are successors of the Apostles. Christ reminded His followers of His abiding presence in the Church (cfr Mt 28,20): this presence is evident most visibily in the Pope and bishops of the Church. Through the laying-on of hands, the Holy Spirit is conferred in a particular way on a new bishop. This process takes place at every episcopal ordination; the “apostolic succession” is thus assured and Christians are guaranteed that the presence of Christ is among them. We must indeed remember that, “The bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ” (Lumen Gentium, 20,2).

BRANO 28

Why are Catholic and Protestant Bibles different?

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, with some portions in Aramaic (a dialect which Jesus himself would have spoken). Around the 3rd century BC, work began on translating the text into Greek, which was a major language at the time and indeed the language used for the original New Testament text. The translation was known as the Septuagint or LXX (‘seventy’), from the tradition that around seventy scholars worked on the translation. The Septuagint included a number of books not in the original Hebrew text and these books gained some measure of acceptance in the early church. They were confirmed as being part of the list of authorised books, or canon of scripture, at the Council of Trent in 1546. For this reason, they are called deuterocanonical (literally: ‘second-canon’). At the Protestant reformation, the additional books were rejected as being non-inspired and termed Apocrypha or ‘hidden’.

The disputed books are the following:

Tobit

Judith

Additions to Esther

Wisdom of Solomon

Ben Sira, also called Sirach or Ecclesiasticus

Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint)

Additions to Daniel: Song of the Three Children, Story of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon

1 and 2 Maccabees

Note: The term ‘Apocrypha’ is also used by the Catholic church, but in a different manner to denote writings whose claimed authorship is unfounded. Examples include the Gospel of Judas and the Acts of Thomas. For that reason they are also sometimes called pseudepigrapha or ‘false writings’.

BRANO 29

A biblical canon is the collection of books that comprise the sacred scriptures or Bibles of Jews and Christians. The study of canon formation, that is, the study of the origin, transmission, and recognition of the books that comprise the Bibles of Judaism and Christianity, has expanded considerably in recent years. Many books, articles, and essays have emerged that also raise new questions about the origin and canonization of the books that comprise the Jewish and Christian Bibles. These new studies are giving rise to questions that were once thought settled in most religious communities, especially those regarding the criteria employed to select the biblical books and the consistency with which those criteria were applied in the canonization processes. Likewise, these recent studies are focusing more on the social contexts that led both Jews and Christians to establish their biblical canons as well as on the literature that was excluded from those collections. These matters are complex and solutions are dependent upon the expertise of several fields of related inquiry, namely historical criticism and interpretation of both the Old and New Testaments, as well as knowledge of the so-called Intertestamental literature or the late Second Temple writings (apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books) and early Christian apocryphal texts, including the now famous Dead Sea Scrolls and other recent discoveries of the Judaean Desert. Scholars of canon formation also depend heavily on those with expertise in the fields of textual criticism, early church history, rabbinic Judaism, and linguistics. The high number of books written on the topic reflects the breadth of the fields of inquiry necessary to make informed judgments on the emergence of the canons of the Old and New Testaments. It is necessary to read several fundamental texts that are an important place for students and scholars of canon formation to begin their investigations of this important field of inquiry.

BRANO 30

What is Papal Infallibility?

This is the belief that the Pope, when defining a teaching on faith or morals that is to be held by the whole church is able to make such pronouncements without error.

First defined as a Dogma, or required belief by the First Vatican council in 1870, Papal Infallibility was used in 1950 to dogmatically define the Assumption of the Virgin Mary i.e. the view that she was taken directly into heaven at the end of her life.

Teachings made by the Pope in this manner are known as ex cathedra (Latin: ‘from the chair’). There is no definite list of infallible teachings, but apart from the 1950 defintion, the 1854 dogma of the Immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary is also considered infallible.

The teaching does not imply that the Pope is without sin (known as impeccability as opposed to infallibility) or unable to make errors of judgment, but acting with the authority as successor to Peter (Matthew 16:18), he is able, through the aid of the Holy Spirit, to pronounce infallibly. In addition, ex cathedra teachings are irrevocable and not subject to the consent of any other authority within the church.

The definition given at Vatican I is as follows:

….”we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

Finally, it should be noted that infallible teachings can also be made by ecumenical church councils (such as Vatican I) and not just directly by the Pope himself.

BRANO 31

Why do Catholics confess their sins to a Priest?

The Church requires all who are able to do so, to go to confession at least once a year. Confession is also mandatory for all mortal sins, as these sins are the most serious and can result in loss of salvation.

Although the church does not deny forgiveness of sins can be obtained outside the confessional (for example by direct prayer), it encourages confession for the following reasons:

Penance (now more commonly known as ‘Reconciliation’) is a Sacrament, and like all Sacraments, it is considered to be a channel of God’s grace. The Priest does not himself forgive sins, rather he is said to act in the person of Christ and with his authority provides absolution.

Confession before a Priest enables the penitent to receive guidance and advice.

A Penitent who make a good confession through an ‘Act of Contrition’ can receive assurance of forgiveness of sin.

BRANO 32

Purgatory

Catholic theology regards Purgatory as a state of cleansing and preparation for heaven. Only those with unremitted venial sins may enter Purgatory. Unconfessed or unrepented mortal sin is considered damnable.

“Every man’s work shall be manifest. For the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire. And the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any mans work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” (1 Corinthians 3:13-15 (DRB)).

The verse above talks of ‘fire’ and this is taken to refer to the purifying fires of Purgatory which unite the will of the soul to that of God. It is thought that the duration spent there is proportional to the degree of sin committed.

“All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire…” (Paragraphs 1030-1, CCC).

The church believes that the terms of those in Purgatory (known as the ‘Holy Souls’) may be shortened in two ways:

By praying for them (including saying the Rosary) and thus obtaining an Indulgence*. Also, on 2 November, the church sets aside a special day (‘All Souls Day’) to remember those who have died and are now in Purgatory.

By offering a Mass on their behalf (Recall the fact that the Mass is seen as a sacrifice for sin, effective not only for the living, but also for the dead).

* We discuss Indulgences in the section ‘Moral Issues’.

Prayers for the dead are commended in one of the Apocryphal (Deuterocanonical) books (2 Maccabees):

“It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.”

2 Maccabees 12:46 (DRB).

The Italian writer Dante Alighieri (1265-1321) wrote poetically of Purgatory. In the Divine Comedy, Dante describes his journey through the three states of Hell, Purgatory and Paradise. In Purgatory there are seven terraces, corresponding to the seven deadly sins:

Lust

Gluttony

Avarice (Greed)

Sloth (Laziness)

Wrath

Envy

Pride

Purgatory should be distinguished from Limbo, an intermediate state posited for those (especially children and newborn infants) who die while unbaptised and in a ‘state of grace’. The church has not as yet made any official statements on the existence of Limbo, but many incline toward rejecting it.

There is also a “Limbo of the Fathers”, which is also known as “Abraham’s Bosom”, denoting a place where the righteous who died before Christ came to earth dwelled while awaiting their final destiny in heaven (See Luke 16:19-31).

Thomas Aquinas described the limbo of children as an “eternal state of natural joy” in which unbaptised children were unaware of the greater joy of Heaven. However, the Catechism states that: “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God….” (Paragraph 1261).

BRANO 33

Mary, the Blessed Virgin

We noted above that Mary commands a special role in Catholic theology. From her position as the Theotokos (Greek: ‘God-Bearer’), she is seen as having special intercessory gifts and influence with her son. Marian devotion has increased in recent times, taking such forms as the Rosary and pilgrimages to Marian shrines (see articles below).

The Catholic church has proclaimed four Marian dogmas:

The Immaculate Conception – In a papal encyclical Ineffabilis Deus (The Ineffable God) issued in 1854, Pope Pius IX proclaimed that:

“The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.”

The word ‘Immaculate’ derives from the Latin Macula, i.e. a mark or stain. To support this dogma, attention is drawn to Luke 1:28, in which the Angel Gabriel greets Mary with the words “Hail Mary, Full of Grace.” (Latin: Ave Maria, Gratia Plena.)

The Assumption – First proclaimed in 1950 by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Munificentissimus Deus (The generosity of God). This states that:

“…the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul to heavenly glory.”

A distinction is drawn between the Ascension i.e. Christ rising to Heaven by his own divine power and Assumption, which happens through divine intervention. For example, the Old Testament includes the assumptions of Elijah (2 Kings 2:11) and Enoch (Genesis 5:24). The question of whether Mary actually died remains an open one within the church.

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary – the Catholic Church holds as dogma that Mary was and is Virgin before, in and after Christ’s birth. The Biblical references to Christ’s “Brothers and Sisters” (Matthew 13:54-47) are understood to mean close relatives.

The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin.” (Paragraph 499, CCC).

Mary as the ‘Mother of God’ – This title was first given to Mary at the council of Ephesus in 431 and emphasises her role as the Mother of Christ, who is truly God and the second person of the trinity.

Called in the Gospels “the mother of Jesus,” Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as “the mother of my Lord,” In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity, Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly “Mother of God (Theotokos). (Paragraph 495, CCC).

BRANO 34

What is ‘Veneration’ ?

Veneration of the saints is the way in which the Catholic church honours and respects those who it regards as deserving of such action. Catholic theology draws a clear distinction between veneration and worship. Three Greek terms illustrate this point:

Latria (‘Worship’) – The adoration that is due to God alone.

Dulia (‘Servitude’) – The respect given to the saints. Honouring the saints is seen is honouring God, because of his presence and holiness in their lives.

Hyperdulia (‘Higher Servitude’) – The special veneration given to the Virgin Mary, on account of her role as Mother of Christ. Mary is also called the ‘Mother of God’ in the sense that the Son she bore was truly God and part of the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Note: The term ‘Our Lady’ is widely used within the Church for Mary, paralleled by ‘Our Lord’ for Christ. For example: ‘Our Lady of Lourdes’.

Paragraph 50 of the Dogmatic constitution on the church, proclaimed by Pope Paul VI in 1964 at the Vatican II council, explains the Catholic thinking behind veneration:

“…The Church has always believed that the apostles and Christ’s martyrs who had given the supreme witness of faith and charity by the shedding of their blood, are closely joined with us in Christ, and she has always venerated them with special devotion, together with the Blessed Virgin Mary and the holy angels. The Church has piously implored the aid of their intercession. To these were soon added also those who had more closely imitated Christ’s virginity and poverty, and finally others whom the outstanding practice of the Christian virtues and the divine charisms recommended to the pious devotion and imitation of the faithful.”

BRANO 35

What is a ‘Saint’ ?

In Catholic theology, the term ‘Saint’ is reserved for those individuals who have led a holy and exemplary life and have now entered Heaven. The process of becoming a Saint is termed canonization and the first known canonization was of Ulric of Augsburg in 973. Within the Catholic Church there exists a special department (The Congregation for the Causes of Saints), which oversees the whole process. They would thoroughly investigate the life of the individual, checking for orthodox belief and any miracles claimed as a result of their intercession. The appearance of miracles is taken that the person is now in heaven and can intercede for us as part of the ‘Communion of Saints’ (see below).

Once the Congregation has completed their work, the Pope may issue a decree declaring the person to be ‘Blessed’, that is, beatified. Once beatified, another miracle is then required to allow the Pope to declare the individual a saint. A feast day may then be allocated and veneration of the saint encouraged. Examples include:

28 August – St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430)

4 October – St. Francis of Assisi (1182-1226)

BRANO 36

The ‘Communion of Saints’

This term refers to the union of believers on Earth, in Heaven and also (in Catholic theology) those in Purgatory. All form part of the body of Christ.

Each group is identified by the following terms:

Church Triumphant – The Saints in Heaven

Church Militant – Those on earth

Church Suffering (sometimes called Church Expectant) – Those in purgatory

Catholic belief indicates that those saints now in Heaven are able to intercede, not only for those on Earth, but also those in Purgatory. Their intercession is considered to be effective on account of their closeness to God. Also, those on Earth can intercede for those in Purgatory.

“We believe in the communion of all the faithful of Christ, those who are pilgrims on earth, the dead who are being purified, and the blessed in heaven, all together forming one Church; and we believe that in this communion, the merciful love of God and his saints is always attentive to our prayers.” (Paragraph 962, CCC).

Allied to the idea of saintly intercession is the concept of a Patron saint, i.e. a special kind of intercessor for a country, special situation or job. Examples include:

St. Antony of Padua (c.1191-1231) – for lost articles.

St. Francis of Assisi (1182-1226) – for Animals.

St. Patrick (c.390-461) – for Ireland.

St. Isidore of Seville has been proposed as the patron saint of the Internet.

BRANO 37

WHAT IS THE CHURCH?

Note: The English word ‘Church’ derives from the Greek word kyriakon, meaning ‘Belonging to the Lord’. The biblical term for Church in the New Testament is ekklesia, meaning ‘Those who are called-out’.

In the Nicene creed we come across the phrase, “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”. We shall examine these four “marks of the true church” as they are known, as the Catholic Church sees them:

The Church is One.The Catholic church believes it is the one true church, founded by Christ himself in 33 A.D., with the Pope as the visible head of the church on earth. (Recall the phrase ‘Vicar of Christ’, which we discussed in the Papacy section). Although externally the Christian church is divided along denominational lines, the unity of the Church is not lost. To quote again from Unitatis redintegratio :

“…it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church…”

The Church is Holy.

“The Church is holy: the Most Holy God is her author; Christ, her bridegroom, gave himself up to make her holy; the Spirit of holiness gives her life…” (Paragraph 867, CCC).

The Church is Catholic.

“The Church is catholic in a double sense:”

“First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church. In her subsists the fullness of Christ’s body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him the fullness of the means of salvation which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession….”

“Secondly, the Church is catholic because she has been sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race..” (Paragraphs 830-1 CCC).

The Church is Apostolic.

“The Church is apostolic because she is founded on the apostles, in three ways:

– she was and remains built on the foundation of the Apostles, the witnesses chosen and sent on mission by Christ himself;

– with the help of the Spirit dwelling in her, the Church keeps and hands on the teaching, the good deposit, the salutary words she has heard from the apostles;

– she continues to be taught, sanctified, and guided by the apostles until Christ’s return, through their successors in pastoral office: the college of bishops, assisted by priests, in union with the successor of Peter, the Church’s supreme pastor.” (Paragraph 857, CCC).

BRANO 38

The Church Councils

At various points during its history, the church has held meetings of all its bishops to discuss matters of church doctrine and practice. The Catholic church recognises 21 such ecumenical councils, seven of which were held prior to the East-West schism of 1054 and are also recognised by the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Oriental Orthodox only accept the first three councils, following their rejection of the Chalcedonian creed.

These councils are:

Nicea I (325) – Upheld the view that Christ was of one essence with the Father (thus repudiating Arianism) and adopted the first form of the Nicene creed.

Constantinople I (381) – Revised the Nicene creed to the form now in use.

Ephesus (431) – Affirmed Mary as Theotokos i.e. ‘Mother of God’, thus repudiating Nestorianism.

Chalcedon (451) – Affirmed the doctrine of two natures in one person (the ‘hypostatic union’) in Christ and thus rejected the Monophysite doctrine of Eutyches.

Constantinople II (553) – Affirmed the teachings of the previous councils.

Constantinople III (680-1) – Repudiated the Monothelite heresy by stating the view that Christ has two wills – one human, the other divine.

Nicea II (787) – Restored the veneration of icons following the iconclastic controversy.

Constantinople IV (869-870) – Upheld the condemnation of Photius, patriach of Constantinople. Also confirmed the ranking of the Patriachates: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

Lateran I (1123-24) – Ended the issue of lay investiture i.e. lay rulers deciding on church appointments.

Lateran II (1139) – Met to deal with the schism that had resulted from the election of Anacletus II (known as a Antipope). All actions made by him as Pope were declared invalid.

Lateran III (1179) – Decreed that election of a pope was to be carried out by Cardinals.

Lateran IV (1215) – Explained the dogma of transubstantiation, proclaimed Papal primacy.

Lyons I (1245) – Met to discuss the Five wounds of the church :(1) the bad conduct of prelates and faithful; (2) the danger posed by the Saracens; (3) the Greek Schism; (4) the cruelties of the Tatars in Hungary; (5) the separation from the church of Emperor Frederick.

Lyons II (1274) – Met to attempt reunion between Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Vienne I (1311-12) – Following Philip IV, condemned the Knights Templar.

Constance (1414-18) – Healed the schism over rival claimants to the papacy and conciliarism.

Basel, Ferrara and Florence (1431-45) – Attempted again to effect reunion with the Orthodox churches.

Lateran V (1512-17) – Attempted reform of the church.

Trent (1545-63) – Responded to the Protestant reformation by clarifying doctrine. Issued a catechism and promulgated a new missal for celebration of the Mass.

Vatican I (1869-70) – Proclaimed the dogma of Papal infallibility.

Vatican II (1962-65) – Reformed the church: Mass in the vernacular, non-Catholic christians viewed as separated bretheren, mutual anathemas between Catholic and Orthodox churches lifted.

BRANO 39

Baptism

“Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 3:21 (DRB)).

Alongside Confirmation and the Eucharist, Baptism is seen as one of the sacraments of initiation into the church. It is also considered necessary for Salvation. Baptism results in forgiveness of all sins (including ‘Original Sin’ – the predisposition to sinfulness, inherited as a result of Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God). It also confers sanctifying grace and is known as a sacrament of regeneration. Sanctifying grace received at Baptism is lost when a person commits their first mortal sin. To restore the individual to a ‘state of grace’, the Sacrament of Reconciliation is used.

“Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit…and the door which gives access to the other Sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.” (Paragraph 1213, CCC).

Baptism also confers a special mark or seal upon the soul (known as a sacramental character). The usual mode of Baptism is by pouring water on the head (affusion), though sometimes Baptism by immersion is also used. Baptisms carried out by non-Catholic churches are considered valid, providing the correct Trinitarian formula is used (i.e in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Apart from Baptism in water, the church also recognises two other forms of Baptism:

Baptism of Desire: “…Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.” (Paragraph 1260, CCC).

Baptism of Blood: “The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.” (Paragraph 1258, CCC).

BRANO 40

Eucharist: The mystery of the daring Creator

(https://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/eucharist-mystery-daring-creator)

In her astounding book, The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Margaret Barker offers the most plausible reading of the Book of Revelation that I know. She also enables us shift our paradigm for understanding Redemption. In this article I am going to borrow freely from Barker’s insights to bring out the nature of that paradigm shift as it affects our participation in the Eucharist, to see how it may help enliven our imagination.

Barker enables us to recover the roots of what we now call the sacramental imagination in the imaginative visionary world of the priesthood of Solomon’s temple. Central to that vision are the ancient rites of Ascension or Enthronement, and the feast of the Atonement. It was the latter that was the principal feast of the year, not yet downplayed in relation to Passover as was the case by the time of Christ. The Holy of Holies in the Temple was conceived as standing in for ‘before’ the first day of creation: only God, Wisdom and the Holy Angels dwelt there. So the fullness of these rites, what they were fully about and meant, was conceived as already lived out in heaven. Hence their performance in the Holy Place. This fullness of rites and meaning is, then, strictly speaking, outside the order of time and narrative sequence. However, the fullness, on coming out from the Holy Place, interacts with time-structured sequential earthly reality in the form of the coming of Jesus, his teaching, his death and resurrection and the outworking of his prophesies concerning the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in AD70. So the ‘fullness’ starts to become comprehensible as a series of human narratives, dependent on time and place. Each of the seven ‘seals’ opened by the slain-and-risen Lamb is a dimension of that narrative interaction between heavenly reality and earthly turbulence. And this gives us the form of the Book of Revelation.

How does this help us? Well, currently, we are inclined to imagine Atonement as principally to do with forgiving sin, and Creation as principally to do with causing everything to be. As a result of this, we relegate the Creation bit of our faith to the Father and the Atonement bit to the Son. We inherit from, and share with, the massively Creator-centred Jewish liturgy many phrases, like ‘Blessed are you, Lord God of all Creation’. Nevertheless, our discussion about the Eucharist tends to be focused on the ways in which we participate in what Jesus was doing in undergoing his death on the Cross on our behalf.

To put it briefly, this tends to feed into moralistic accounts of faith on both sides of the Reformation divide. These accounts see created order as something divinely pre-established, from which a human Fall provoked God into a reactive Redemption. Because of this, Creation becomes an historically distant and intellectually abstract backdrop to morality, and our Redemption very easily becomes some sort of moral struggle against our lower selves. Divine aid takes the form of Jesus having paid the price for our sins with his sacrifice, and then of our receiving living eucharistic tokens of that sacrifice to nourish us on our way through hac lacrimarum valle.

However, as Barker brings out in a number of places, the ancient rite of Atonement, long predating any of the lists of sins for which we assume it to have atoned, was far more weighted towards the unbinding, or renewing, of Creation than anything else. The idea behind it was that in a world created and orchestrated into being by God and God’s Wisdom, everything points towards, sings out, reflects, gives off, the glory of God; and those in whom Wisdom makes her dwelling are able to see this. However, over time, the cumulative effects of human transgression cause everything that is to become infected by vanity, or futility. Things no longer point to what is beyond them, and seem to wind down in entropy, dully going nowhere in particular, not quite hitting the mark; and humans too become blind and bound down in boredom and a sense of dissatisfaction. The rite of the Atonement was the moment when the Creator would come into creation (as High Priest) offering himself in sacrifice (as a lamb) so as to unblock all the blocked flows of things, disentangle all the entangled links of things, unbind all the bound-down things and people, cover over and protect the Creator’s chosen ones, and threaten requital against their enemies. Thus was the whole of Creation made glory-bearing, utterly alive, once again, and the sightedness of Wisdom restored to all.

It is this understanding, naturally, that underlies all those New Testament hymns and passages which have Jesus being the actual protagonist of Creation, having brought into the midst of Creation the chance, for which it had always been waiting, for it to become the fullness of what it had always been intended to be. What this means is that the fullness of the act of Creation and the act of Atonement, are the same act. While for us, in our usual temporal thinking, being must be prior to being forgiven, and so we imagine all sorts of ways of describing a ‘fall’ from some sort of ‘being’ that needs putting right. However, there is something much more exciting going on in the Christian faith than that: being and forgiveness are simultaneous, the new and the renewing are the same (so to make new and to repair in Hebrew have the same root): forgiveness and re-creation are the same.

So, imagine, if you will, a Creator, for whom there is no before nor after, neither past nor future. A Creator with an intense longing to share greater joy, to bring to life a project. Thus, in the midst of time (from the project’s point of view) or from before the dawn of time (our poetic way of talking about ‘outside any possible point of view’) an enactment is created such that humans can come to participate in the life of God. This magnificent festal reality is always already there ‘before’ temporality and is enacted slowly through time as we become able to detect, in our ghastly sacrificial rites, the hints, coming into our midst, of something that is undoing all that. Finally, the whole cosmetic act of Temples and slaughter of humans and animals is forever laid to rest when after centuries of preparation, the One who has always been ‘coming into the world’ does indeed come into the world, bereft of violent sacrality, and the real act of Creation is fulfilled in our midst.

What I would like to suggest is that this vision shifts Creation from being a more or less stable backdrop, one which needs protecting and restoring like a fragile Old Master, to being something that is, from our perspective, more like a new horizon that is reaching towards us to pull us in. Where we all start from is a not very stable, rather precarious backdrop, shot through with futility and a sense that any order we grab onto is part of a lie. Nevertheless, the whole daring project of Creation itself, has already been fulfilled in the midst of time. That fullness is already being lived out, such that from what seems to us like the future, that fullness, that Real Presence, is seeking to extend itself towards us constantly. It is bringing us into itself without any barrier now that death has been transformed from a power that dominates and impels our imagination, into the simple, gratefully accepted contour of that bodiliness thanks to which we can be formed into active participants in God’s life.

And this has an impact on how we live and celebrate the Eucharist. For the Eucharist is the most obvious way that the High Priest of Creation, the definitive Adam, breaks through into materiality so as to build us up into himself. He is not only feeding us ‘bread from heaven’ from a safe distance, as someone might give food to animals through bars until such a time as the animals become tamer company. The Creator and Redeemer is engaged in an act of daring. And I use that word in two senses.

In the first sense, ‘daring’ describes the project. It is crazily daring to desire, to imagine, and to bring into being this universe. It is even more daring to desire and to imagine ways in which a carbon-based life-form, a hypermimetic ape, one which had become even more dangerous to itself and to others than any of the other beasts, could possibly share in the life of God, be an active participant in bringing creative reality into being. An adventurous love is no less adventurous for being loving, even if the word ‘love’ has acquired for us so many connotations of domesticity. But how else do we describe the love that was not ashamed to enter into this life-form; to undergo the consequences of this life-form behaving in its most tediously predictable, shaming and murderous ways; and so to open up for this life-form a joy that is not bound down by any of those tendencies of ours?

In the second sense, what Jesus did was to dare us. In giving us his body and blood, and asking us to do it again, to summon through memory his sense of adventure into our present through the Eucharist, Jesus is daring us: ‘go on, take this and run with it’, which is to say, ‘go on, take me, I’m entrusting myself to you to make of me what you want.’ Or ‘I am happy to become who you will make me to be, daring you to make me something really amazing, more than can possibly be imagined right now’. That’s what he told his disciples before his Passion in John’s Gospel. And this is why he breathed the Spirit into those gathered in the locked room on the evening of the First day, telling them that their capacity to forgive, to let go, was now going to be the defining factor in Creation. In as far as they dare to forgive, things will open up, and in as far as they don’t, they won’t. Forgiveness and Creation having become entirely inseparable in the midst of time, we are dared to make of them something unimaginably more interesting, fun, and alive as we move through our lives.

What is meant by the doctrine of original sin is not that our race is forever stained by some ancient crime, but that we are the beings for whom Forgiveness is our access to Creation: it is in being let go, and letting go, that we are actually able to take part in discovering who we are and what we might be about. Forgiveness is not only an act of pity, which is where we tend to locate it, moralistically. It is far more than that: a creative act of mercy, implying equality of heart by One who is without any sense of superiority, but longs for our hearts to be stretched out into God’s own size.

So, when we allow ourselves to be brought liturgically into the Real Presence of the Festal Gathering that is already ‘just there’, longing to give itself away to us so that we may multiply joy, it might be worth remembering that Jesus’s daring in giving himself to us is part of the adventurousness of Creation. At the same time he is daring us to make of him something as yet unheard of and unseen. So, by faith we relax into being underpinned by his daring as our imaginations are opened out; by hope we dare allow ourselves to be stretched way beyond ourselves; and by love we come to discover that there is, and will, be no end to the splendour of the mess.

BRANO 41

'Eucharistic moments' – Mirroring the broken Christ

(by Michael Barnes SJ, https://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20090612_1.htm)

Anyone who has had much experience of inter-religious dialogue knows that there is something deeply significant about the giving and receiving of food and drink. Serious encounters with people of faith often involve simple meals. What makes the sharing of food and drink so important is that it evokes the life-giving centre of Christian faith: the story of the Last Supper and the eucharist which gathers the community of believers. However interpreted – and Christians can, of course, differ quite profoundly in their eucharistic theology – all will agree that in the breaking of the bread the past is remembered, its meaning made present, its future fullness anticipated. When that recent past includes meals with others, these memories – I like to call them 'eucharistic moments' – are also recalled. In some mysterious way the hospitality shown by Sikhs and Muslims becomes part of Christian prayer, that process of recollection and self-offering which is formed and expressed in the liturgy of the eucharist.

Church and eucharist – memory and promise

The point of this article, however, is not to suggest some covert way in which 'others' can be neatly subsumed into the all-encompassing Christian ritual. The Church is, in principle, the whole of humankind redeemed in Christ; at the same time the Church is this community of faith, looking forward like all peoples to the time of its fulfilment. How to hold these two truths together? The eucharist, and the sacraments generally, are the source of the Church's constant renewal, not just reminders of God's promise to remain with God's people but the means by which those promises are to be realised. The eucharist – to use that familiar patristic saying – 'makes the Church'.[1] This does not mean that the eucharist is some sort of triumphant ritual of the redeemed. Far from it. The eucharist makes the Church as a people who hold open the possibility of redemption for all people. How does the eucharist enable us, then, to reach back into the past, to re-imagine our roots in relationship with others, and forward, to restructure a future of co-operation? As a sacrament of salvation the eucharist is a genuinely effective sign of God's salvific work in the world. How, then, do we celebrate the eucharist in such a way that we are reminded of our evangelical responsibility, yet recognise that the relationships which we form are always broken and in need of constant healing?

Flashes of recognition

Let us begin with that familiar story of the two disciples journeying to Emmaus and with the mysterious way in which God is announced. Luke tells us that they did not recognise the Lord until the breaking of bread; then there comes a moment of insight, as they understand what he has been saying to them. It makes them realise why their 'hearts burned within'. At that point, we are told, the Lord vanished from their sight. It is almost as if all we can ever bear is that occasional glimpse of the truth, the overwhelming brightness of the sun glimpsed round the edges of the clouds. That, of course, is not the end of Luke's story. The disciples return in haste to Jerusalem to spread the news of what they have seen – only to find that the Lord has appeared there as well. This 'eucharistic moment' is not just a flash of recognition which enables the disciples to find a pattern or sense of meaning in their memories and their experience, but a movement of the Spirit which forms a shattered group of followers into a community of faith and sends them out to greet each other with the Good News of what they have learned.

This is how the eucharist 'makes the 'Church'. To put it at its simplest: the eucharist tells a story, our story. The Last Supper is the heart of a narrative which, on the one hand, links past and present by looking back to the passover and the covenant, and, on the other, orientates the present towards the future by looking forward to the coming of the kingdom.[2] It is this attempt to span the reaches of time which makes the eucharist more than a ritualised repetition of what happened, a retelling of the story. In eucharistic celebration the same ordinary objects and the same everyday gestures recorded in the gospel story are used to bring home as graphically as possible the immediacy of Jesus' action. As such they fulfil the purpose of all ritual: the continual rerooting of a community in time and space.[3]For the Christian community the words of thanksgiving and praise which make the eucharist are the Church's response to God's prior Word of command – the Word in the words, the words of institution, 'do this in memory of me'. In this act of thankful obedience before the Word the Church finds its identity as a missionary body, 'sent out' to share the Good News of God's peace and joy. Through its celebration of the eucharist and its constant practice of acts of praise and thanksgiving the Church accepts to become what God calls it to be.

A story fraught with the ambiguities of human living

As with Luke's story, however, practice does not end there. In going out and preaching the gospel the Church finds that the Good News of the resurrection is already known elsewhere. This privileged 'eucharistic moment' always points beyond itself to something greater – a revelation which the Church does not own, let alone control. In celebrating and proclaiming God's Word the Church takes a risk. Not only may the Church encounter signs of the God who goes before, but, much more problematically, a gospel which would communicate a message of peace and reconcile and build relationships with others may lead to misunderstanding, rejection and worse. The mission fails. The community is broken. There is a constant need for healing, for return, for rebuilding, to repeat the story which forms faith and to learn again how to respond to God's imperative. When identity is under threat we return to the sources, the origins of faith, and to the patient re-presenting of the experiences which make us who we are. Moreover, we seek to incorporate into the liturgy those powerful traces which God leaves in our world. That is to say that into the formal celebration of the eucharist we bring our 'eucharistic moments' before God: not in order to resolve them intellectually, but precisely because often they cannot be resolved intellectually. They point to God; they do not explain God.

There is no doubt that there is an incredible power in this return to the story, a power which brings the healing and the wholeness which God always promises. There is also a danger, however, of a certain type of fundamentalism: that the mere repetition of the familiar words and phrases of a text can become a way of informing particular attitudes and enforcing predictable outcomes. It can be a way of locking a community safely into tradition. Can we speak of ritual in general, and the eucharist in particular, in a way which represents the very best of a tradition without, at the same time, drawing borders and frontiers against what is other?

What keeps us from treating the liturgy as if it is no more than a constant remaking of what is always in danger of being unmade by human ignorance and frailty is that something of our confusion and pain and lack of resolution is present within this formative act of Christianity itself. The story is not the record of an idyllic gathering of intimates. This, the original 'eucharistic moment', is fraught and broken with all the fault-lines and deep ambiguities which make it not just divine revelation but a supremely human episode.

The Last Supper: a meal counting the cost of death

The Last Supper sums up a whole series of face-to-face encounters between Jesus and his disciples. It is significant that very often these encounters include meals, in which argument, disagreement and even – and especially – betrayal are as central as Jesus' words of instruction and healing. The Last Supper, most importantly, is a meal taken in the face of death. However Jesus' identification with the bread and the wine is to be interpreted theologically, there is no doubting that his words, 'my body broken for you . . . my blood poured out', as repeated in the liturgy have an extraordinary power over the imagination.[4] The Last Supper is the last occasion that the disciples will meet together as a group before being scattered. And in every subsequent celebration of the eucharist the memory of that moment of betrayal of the leader and the breaking of the community is present. 

The body of the Church – broken as Christ is broken

My point is this: it is the very nature of the eucharist, in enacting the drama of Christ, to incorporate an element of the brokenness of the world and the brokenness of human relations into the story of the foundational event of Christian faith precisely because it mirrors the brokenness of Christ himself. To put that another way, let me use the metaphor of the body. Augustine spoke of the Christian community becoming the body of Christ by receiving the body of Christ; when we are offered the Body of Christ in communion we reply 'Amen', meaning 'yes, we are '.[5] In the presence of the Body of Christ we become the Body of Christ. The body which is broken for us makes us a body which is also broken; in us, in our lives faithfully enacted before the face of Christ, the story is repeated. But, of course, the story is not of Christ made whole and inviolate. His life and death prepare him for resurrection certainly, but this is a resurrection precisely through misunderstanding and suffering.

It can be nothing less for those who would follow. To become the Body of Christ we also must be broken like Christ. This is a story shot through with a series of interruptions in which the unexpected, the unwanted, the traces of an otherness which threaten to upset and break us, make themselves present. If we would repeat that story by learning through the liturgy to enact its lessons in our lives then we should also remember what it cost the first time.

Learning a sensitivity to the other

What has all this got to do with people of other faiths? Just this: I am trying to develop an approach to the eucharist which allows 'eucharistic moments', a contemplative attention to the presence of God in the world of the other, to be born from the story – the drama – which forms the Church. In the eucharist we are brought into an effective relationship with God, but we also learn how to become sensitive to all those other relationships, both within the body of the Church and without, which God calls us to establish.

Elsewhere I have developed this point by a distinction between what I call a theology for dialogue and a theology of dialogue.[6] The former is, as its name implies, a defensive strategy of control; the latter begins from a different point, with a reflection on the experience of being in dialogue with the other. By this I do not mean that we reflect immediately on particular theological issues which are raised by the dialogue (for example, what as Christians we are to make of Islamic ideas about Jesus or Buddhist ideas about the nature of the self). Rather we reflect on the experience of relationality itself.

The problem is, of course, that we tend to work the other way round: with a theology for dialogue. Now I do not doubt that, at some level, some set of formed conceptualities is bound to inform our dialogue with the other. We cannot just put brackets round our beliefs. In asking for a shift of emphasis to a theology of dialogue, I want to ask a different set of questions. How and where is faith formed? How does it grow?

Instead of allowing faith to be formed by liturgy and religious practice we tend to begin with particular statements of belief which, all too often, have been developed over against what is other or different. This is not to suggest that our religious traditions are based on some form of near fundamentalism; but it is to argue that, because of a chequered history of inter-faith relations, the emphasis has often been on what differentiates one faith from another. We seek to identify ourselves in terms of particular sets of beliefs; what are in many ways typical traits, instincts and predispositions get spelled out in largely intellectualist terms as distinct from the other. This is a very human response – to seek what is distinct – and I am not saying that it can or should be entirely avoided. Rather I am saying that we have to avoid the worst aspects of an intellectualist 'placing' of the other, by learning to talk about ourselves not just in a priori theological terms but in terms which emerge from the relationships we form with others.

Mirroring the brokenness of Christ

How to bring these two together? It is not enough simply to take in and think about the words we may have shared with the other, the conversation we have had over the meal in the gurdwara, over the cup of tea and biscuit or somozas. We also have to think about the practice of faith which has made us the people we are. We need to focus on how we as Christians practise the eucharist in a world of many faiths. Do we, for instance, give as much attention to the rite of dismissal, and the responsibility we take on to go out 'in the peace and joy of Christ', as we do to the penance rite and the readings?

Let me return finally to my 'eucharistic moments', those tiny reminders of the mysterious presence of God, something familiar and understood but also different and unknown. They speak of a continuity of experience across the faiths, but they also note a discontinuity: they are same and they are other. In celebrating the eucharist with people who have been across the threshold of the local mosque or temple I have always tried to stress the importance of taking that experience seriously – in all its beauty and threatening strangeness. That means returning to the sources of faith and what we know to be true, for that is where we learn to discern the presence of the living God. In celebrating the eucharist we recognise that when Christ offers himself for the world he offers himself for all. At the same time, the inter-faith experience of crossing into the world of the other shows that we do not know everything about the ways of God. Like the disciples on the way to Emmaus we may be enlightened by those unsuspected moments when the Lord speaks in the darkness. And like them we may learn that the darkness is sometimes a good place to be, a place which mirrors the brokenness of Christ who also faced the otherness of death.

BRANO 41

THE SOCIO-CULTURAL BACKGROUND OF THE NEW TESTAMENT PERIOD: UNDERSTANDING CHRISTIANITY IN ITS 1ST CENTURY CONTEXT (1)

(http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-socio-cultural-background-of-new.html#more)

Introduction

The origins of Christianity are a subject that has attracted a considerable amount of ink over the past few centuries. For believers and non-believers alike it is a subject of great interest, but also controversy. Frequently, we hear of sensationalist books declaring some new theory about Jesus and the origins of Christianity, some fringe authors even declaring that Jesus was a mythological figure based on pagan deities. Whilst any full study would take multiple books, my focus in writing this dissertation will be on the socio-cultural background of the 1st century. This is a subject that has been oft neglected, and few scholars in recent years have attempted to tackle with these issues. One of the biggest problems of studying early Christianity is that many scholars have approached it from a 21st century Western perspective. It might seem obvious to the point of being trivial, but 1st century Greco-Roman social and cultural values were different.

Some scholars, however, have attempted to get closer to the 1st century mindset. It might seem initially surprising, but a number of American evangelical scholars have stressed various differences between 1st century culture and our own, such as a low view on women.[1] British scholar and former Bishop, N. T. Wright, in his work The Resurrection of the Son of God, has offered a comprehensive survey of Jewish and non-Jewish beliefs from the Old Testament period, up until the New Testament period.[2] A number of scholars, including but not limited to Richard Bauckham and Michael Licona, have compared the Gospels to other written works from the same time period.[3] The problem with these writers is that these elements are only bought up in isolation, or are not the main focus. One group of scholars, however, known as the ‘Context Group’ have published a series of commentaries and volumes exploring 1st century culture.[4]

BRANO 43

THE SOCIO-CULTURAL BACKGROUND OF THE NEW TESTAMENT PERIOD: UNDERSTANDING CHRISTIANITY IN ITS 1ST CENTURY CONTEXT (2)

(http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-socio-cultural-background-of-new.html#more)

The use of social science, however, has often been viewed with suspicion by theological faculties. This is presumably down to the fact that a number of non-Christian scholars have attempted a socio-cultural understanding of Jesus and produced results that conflict with these departments’ articles of faith. For instance, John Dominic Crossan claims Jesus as a Cynic Sage,[5] whereas Bart Ehrman claims Jesus as apocalyptic prophet who believed the world was to end imminently within his own lifetime.[6] One author has even attempted to analyse Christianity in Marxist terms as an outlook that arose through class struggle.[7] I share their concerns, not because I am interested in upholding articles of faith (although I am myself a believer) but because the conclusions of these scholars are often at odds with the facts, and sometimes are contrary to their own methodologies. It is my intent to provide a general survey of 1st century social and cultural values, from Christian and non-Christian sources. In the first chapter, I shall explore general features that were common to all societies within the region of the Near East and Mediterranean, looking at sources from the first couple of centuries. In the second chapter, I shall explore Christianity’s relation to those values and see how this impacted its development. For example, how would a 1st century Jew, or a 1st century Roman react upon hearing the Gospel message? How compatible was Christianity with these values, if at all? It is these questions that I aim to answer, and whilst I suspect some of my conclusions will no doubt be considered ‘controversial’ to some, it is my aim to provide a clearer understanding of Jesus and early Christianity.

BRANO 44

THE SOCIO-CULTURAL BACKGROUND OF THE NEW TESTAMENT PERIOD: UNDERSTANDING CHRISTIANITY IN ITS 1ST CENTURY CONTEXT (3)

(http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-socio-cultural-background-of-new.html#more)

Had I the space, I would spend time discussing methodology, philosophy of history, as well discussing the quality and quantity of the New Testament documents, and their transmission. However, given the focused and concise nature of a history dissertation, any treatment would have to be shortened for the sake of brevity, thus running the risk of being too superficial. I have thus chosen to omit such discussions, which can certainly be explored in future work. However, despite such restrictions, part of the subject matter under discussion does overlap partially in a few key areas. As such, I will comment on relevant issues, but not at the expense of running off-topic. I will be specifically commenting on ‘Higher Criticism,’ particularly ‘Form Criticism.’ The argument I will make is one that has been previously made by an American apologist named James Patrick Holding. It is his work that has inspired the subject matter of this dissertation. His argument is that Christianity was so offensive to 1st century socio-cultural values that it could not possibly have succeeded unless there was convincing evidence that it were true. Holding, however, is not a historian, as his expertise is in library science. He has drawn upon the works of scholars, however, most notably that of the Context Group. It is my aim to explore this argument in more detail, and essentially present it in a more academic setting. Indeed, many of Holding’s critics have opined that he is not qualified to speak on the subject matter. Thus, it is my interest, as a historian, to test his argument and to fully develop his ideas along with my own. Some of my points will differ from Holding’s, of course, and I do reference some of the same material. I have, however, utilised a slightly wider variety of source material, most notably by providing primary examples in addition to the quotations of secondary works.

BRANO 445

THE SOCIO-CULTURAL BACKGROUND OF THE NEW TESTAMENT PERIOD: UNDERSTANDING CHRISTIANITY IN ITS 1ST CENTURY CONTEXT (3)

(http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-socio-cultural-background-of-new.html#more)

Chapter One: The First Century Socio-Cultural Landscape

To begin, it is first important to understand the kind of world in which 1st century Jews, Greeks, Romans, et al. lived. The first point to understand is that the people of the 1st century lived in a pre-industrial, or agrarian societies. To contrast, we today live primarily in industrial societies. There are considerable differences between these two types of society.[8] In agrarian societies, roughly 90% of the population were rural, whereas in industrial societies, roughly 90% of the population were urban. In agrarian societies between 90-95% of the population were engaged in farming, and the gathering of raw materials, etc. In industrial societies, less than 5% are engaged in these professions. Birth rates and birth mortality were higher in agrarian societies, whereas life expectancy and literacy rates were lower. These differences reflect more than just differences in levels of technological sophistication, however.

The physical reality of the ancient world meant that society operated a certain way, and certain cultural values were upheld and in ways vastly different to our own, although the traces of these socio-cultural values can still be seen in regions of the world today, particularly the Middle East, and the Mediterranean. One of the first major differences between agrarian society of the first century and modern Western society is that they lived in what anthropologists referred to as a high-context culture. What this means is that they presumed “a broadly shared, generally well-understood knowledge of the context of anything referred to in conversation or in writing.”[9] By contrast, we live in low-context societies where we often provide full details in our communication that can sometimes be excessive and extraneous.

To illustrate this difference in more depth, consider how one would go about relating an account of an event or set of events, and the people involved. A person from a high context society could describe a certain aspect of the story with only minimal details, as other members of their society would be able to ‘fill in the blanks,’ so to speak. I shall outline a few examples of this. Consider the following passage of Luke 1:35-36:

“And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will over-shadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren.”[10]Elizabeth’s barrenness is mentioned in passing, but what is not mentioned is the massive social stigma attached to barren women, as readers at the time would already have known such things.[11] We modern Western readers would be more concerned about the medical aspect, and presumably would have no idea about the social aspect that is actually the focus of the reported miracle.

Something similar occurs in Matthew 15:21-28, where Jesus has an encounter with a foreign (Canaanite) woman who is seeking healing for her demon-possessed daughter.[12] This story may seem puzzling to many modern Western readers, as Jesus initially ignores her, and when he does speak to her, he insults her publically.[13] Again, this account leaves out many details that first century readers would take for granted. Men and women did not talk to one another in public if they did not know each other, and rabbis would not even talk to their own female relatives in public. Thus, Jesus is breaking a big social taboo even by talking to her. There is much more to the story than this, but the point is that there are many details of this story absent in the text, simply because of the high context culture.

An interesting example occurs in Flavius Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, where Josephus is discussing the actions of the high priest Ananus:

“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so [Ananus] assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.”[14]The focus of this piece is on the action of the new high priest, Ananus, yet Josephus mentions in passing none other than Jesus. What is interesting is how Jesus is mentioned solely in order to introduce James, and is also referred to as being “called Christ.” The interesting thing is how Josephus makes no effort to explain whom Jesus was, or what the term Christ meant, implying he expected that his readers were already familiar with Jesus.[15] Since Josephus is writing to a Roman audience, he includes more detail than he would if he had been writing to his fellow Jews.

The writings of Paul are similarly littered with such examples. For example, he used hymns and creeds as shortcuts for more detailed knowledge. One such creed occurs in 1 Corinthians 15:

“For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.”[16]Such a creedal statement constituted a form of shorthand for more detailed knowledge that Paul’s readers would already have been familiar with, as they constitute a compressed version of the Gospel narrative. Such compression is something that can also be found in Roman writers. For example, in reference to Claudius’ expulsion of the Jews from Rome, Suetonius devoted a mere single sentence.[17]

This feature of agrarian societies in turn reflects and points to other features absent in modern Western society. Such a style of communication reflects the very close-knit inter-personal relationships that made up ancient societies. Ancient people were particularly group-oriented, or collectivist. What this means is that people considered themselves in terms of their group, and who they are is essentially determined by their interrelation with others within the group.[18] Your identity was derived from the whole of the group, and so how others within your group saw you was of paramount importance. As such, ancient people formed distinct, exclusive in-groups that were defined primarily by kinship. By kinship I don’t just mean close family, but a larger group that included those with the same ethnic heritage and mutual acquaintances.

Those within the in-group are able to have interpersonal relationships with one another, but those outside would be treated impersonally. Because of such collectivism, people did not see themselves as individuals, but as part of the group, and that they had no identity apart from their group. As such, if a person from one group was to have dealings with a member of another group, then both would walk away feeling that they knew everything there is to know about the other group.[19] Thus, one’s place of origin, your family lineage, and so on, were similarly important, as they were indicators of status.[20]

We can see examples of this element of ancient culture present throughout the New Testament. For example, in John 1:43-46, Phillip is trying to persuade Nathaniel to follow Jesus, saying: “We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote – Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”[21] Nathaniel’s response is simply to ask: “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”[22] This was because that people were expected to act in accordance with their birth status, and so Nazareth, being a tiny and obscure village would hardly be considered capable of producing anyone of messianic status, thus making Jesus’ messianic credentials non-existent.[23] Interestingly, both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke contain genealogies of Jesus, as well as accounts of his birth taking place in Bethlehem. These genealogies contain many famous personages from the Hebrew Bible, and Bethlehem was the city of David. Thus, by linking Jesus to Bethlehem and famous personages from the Hebrew Bible, these are status claims about Jesus.

Another pertinent example occurs in Mark 6:3, where Jesus returns to Nazareth to teach at the Synagogue there. The crowd, however, are incredulous at how Jesus is so learned, and question his background:

“’Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?’ So they were offended at Him.”[24]Note how they bring up his family of origin and blood relations, but also his former occupation as a carpenter. A manual craftsman such as a carpenter would not have had a particularly high status in such a society, and so Jesus’ profound teachings were not in line with his place within society.[25] However, there are more ways in which 1st century persons were different than this. Another significant difference is that social interaction revolved around honour and shame in such societies.

Honour and shame were pivotal values in the 1st century Near East and Mediterranean. Honour was essentially a combination of two factors: the value of a person in their own eyes, and the value of a person in the eyes of their social group. Honour is a claim to worth coupled with a social acknowledgement of that worth.[26] Your honour was determined by a number of different things, such as your gender, your occupation, your family, your ethnic background, and your place in the social ladder. Thus if you made a claim to honour that was above your standing, you would be publically rebuked. Honour could also be bestowed onto people of lower status from people of higher status. However, honour could also be acquired at another’s expense by engaging in challenge-riposte.[27] Essentially, it worked by someone publically challenging another, and the other person then having to defend their honour. Each participant goes back and forth until someone “loses.” This can be seen in the previous example of Mark 6:3. The people in the synagogue challenged Jesus, as his publically preaching was a status claim that elevated his honour. The reason why they are offended is because honour was seen as a limited good, and so if they granted Jesus honour, it would mean others in the community sacrificing honour.[28]

This account is mirrored and elaborated on in Luke 4:16-28. In this account, it includes more details, such as Jesus’ reading from a scroll of the book of Isaiah, and claimed that the prophecy he had just read was fulfilled in himself.[29] The prophecy in question comes from Isaiah 61:1-2, which was a Messianic prophecy.[30] By saying that he had fulfilled this prophecy, he was essentially claiming to be the Messiah, and so was claiming for himself a considerable amount of honour. However, more than this, Jesus left some verses out, and included some verses from elsewhere in Isaiah. His reading disagreed with the community’s standard reading, and also served as a rejection of Jewish nationalism of the day.[31] Whereas Jesus’ response is incredibly insulting, as he implies that outsiders are better able to judge the honour of a prophet than those who know him best.[32] Such a negative challenge merited an immediate response, however, the crowd are apparently unable to provide a response, as they quickly resort to violence by attempting to kill Jesus.[33]

Shame, on the other hand, was not necessarily a loss of honour, but rather was also an emotion one felt if they were dishonoured.[34] People who were shameless in this sense, were considered dishonourable people who fell beyond the parameters of normal daily life. Such persons were to be denied all normal social courtesies.[35] Thus, by addressing Jesus, the crowd at the synagogue are admitting Jesus as an equal, presumably because they were all from the same community, and thus probably were equals socially. It is Jesus’ negative response to their challenge, however, that causes them to seek violence against him. Jesus, by claiming messianic status, is dishonouring the community, but the question is, how? This leads me to another important socio-cultural value 1st century persons held.

Ancient persons believed that honour was a limited good, as I have mentioned previously, but what does this mean? This has to do with the physical reality of life in the 1st century. Roughly 98% of people back then would have found themselves “subject to the demands and sanctions of power-holders outside their social realm.”[36] It was an accepted fact of life to such peoples that they were under the governance of a remote power that they had no control over. As such, it was likewise accepted that they had little, if any, control over their living conditions. Such an existence was determined by limited natural resources, and limited social resources. Thus, it was widely considered by such peoples that all desired things in life were similarly limited.[37]

Honour, like wealth, was considered to be limited, and so thus it was perceived that honour was in limited supply. From this viewpoint, since honour was seen as limited, it meant that whenever someone accrued honour, in the eyes of 1st century persons, it meant somebody else lost honour.[38] Thus, if people wanted to retain their honour, then they had to engage in challenge-riposte, as aforementioned. There are plenty of examples of Jesus engaging in such riposte throughout the Gospel accounts, including the previously cited encounter in the Nazareth synagogue. This may came as a surprise to some, but Jesus did not pull any punches when it came to heated discussions with his ideological enemies, such as the Pharisees. Whilst I have already sufficiently described and explained the counter-riposte dynamic, what I want to focus on now is how this relates to other concepts.

One important concept that is impacted by an agrarian socio-cultural outlook is that of love. When we read the New Testament, specifically Jesus’ command to love our enemies and so on, we typically assume a Western definition of love. It may surprise modern readers to know, but in such societies, love was characterised differently. In our individualistic Western societies, love is typically held to refer to positive inner emotion and feelings towards persons and objects. Whilst this definition may not be exhaustive, the important aspect here is that love is an internal feeling, whereas in agrarian societies, love is centred on actions rather than emotions.[39] To love someone was to be attached and bonded to someone, and in such societies you did not love someone if your actions did not reflect it. Furthermore, spontaneous displays of such emotion, as well as holding certain emotions to be polarised extremes with no middle ground were a common part of such societies.[40]

Whilst such love between persons may or may not have involved the warm feelings traditionally associated with love in modern Western cultures, the main point to understand is that love in agrarian societies did not require such feelings. This was because an open display of emotion, typically spontaneous, was merely one way of showing love. Moreover, group bonding and social cohesion were valued over individual satisfaction and needs, reflecting the centrality of group-centeredness in such societies. As such, one important manifestation of mutual love “was a staunch refusal to do what will bring harm to one’s kin (all the more as this, ultimately, is to harm oneself.)”[41] Thus, whilst one might show love in a way we would identify as loving, it was possible to show love in a way that we would normally find unloving.

Since a person’s identity was ultimately grounded in and derived from group identity, as well as their place within it, actions would be taken to preserve the unity of the group as a functional whole. Corrective measures would be enacted against social deviants within the group, even against family members by family members.

“The group would exercise measures designed to shame the transgressor (whether through insult, reproach, physical abuse, confiscation of property – at worst, execution) so that the transgressor would be pressured into returning to the conduct the group approved (if correction were possible) and so that group members would have their aversion to committing such transgressions themselves strongly reinforced.”[42]Before such social persecution would take place, then family members would certainly confront those were perceived as stepping outside of societal norms. This kind of ‘tough love’ is more in line with agrarian concepts of love rather than the modern Western conception.

I shall give some examples now of the challenge-riposte dynamic in use, which should hopefully illustrate some of the peculiarities of inter-personal relationships in the 1st century that I have discussed so far. One prominent example is Jesus’ encounters with the Pharisees, of which I shall cite just a few. A subtle example occurs in Matthew 12, where the Pharisees are confronting Jesus over the fact that his disciples are plucking heads of grain for food on the Sabbath.[43] Jesus responds by asking them if they had read about how David entered the temple and ate the bread reserved only for priests. This may not seem like it, but this is actually a tremendous insult to the Pharisees. These were highly educated, religiously trained men who knew the Hebrew Scriptures well! Of course they knew about the account that Jesus was referring to.

Another example occurs in Matthew 12:34, where Jesus addresses the Pharisees as follows: “Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.”[44] This might seem confusing to Christians, who know well the commands to turn the other cheek, and so on. However, the reality is, such verbal sparring is not necessarily antithetical to love in such societies. As I have already mentioned, there was a strong emphasis on action in such societies. Feelings, in order to be considered genuine, had to be backed up by action. We see in the New Testament text, multiple reports of the Pharisees plotting against Jesus. They are usually seen trying to trick Jesus, and generally trying to do bad things to him. Jesus, however, whilst certainly not afraid of verbally challenging them, did not return such actions.

Thus, whilst the Pharisees were Jesus’ ideological enemies, Jesus did not seek harm against them, whilst at the same time directing riposte towards them. I shall now give examples of Jesus directing such riposte towards his disciples. One pertinent example occurs in Matthew 16:21-23, where Jesus is telling his disciples that he must be killed. Peter challenges Jesus, saying that such a thing would not happen, and Jesus responds by saying: “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offence to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”[45] People today would probably consider that a harsh and unloving reprimand, yet such a rebuke is in line with collectivist expressions of love. Another example occurs in Mark 4:35-41, where they are sailing with Jesus and end up sailing into a storm. They wake Jesus in a panic, only for him to rebuke them for not trusting him.[46]

Such usage of challenge-riposte is continued by the Early Church Fathers, the successors to the New Testament authors. For example, Ignatius of Antioch, referring to heretics, wrote the following:

“I have not, however, thought good to write the names of such persons, inasmuch as they are unbelievers. Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return to Christ's passion, which is our resurrection.”[47]Deliberately withholding the name of the person you were referring to was a way of shaming people in such societies, and was incredibly insulting. A modern parallel may be found in the way a parent today might reprimand a child who has come close to harm. Such expressions were simply far more common in the ancient near east, and across a range of relationships. This was most likely the case because of how close-knit social groups were in the 1st century, and also due to the action-centred nature of emotional expression.

However, it is important to note that such rhetorical exchanges were limited to the public sphere of daily life. As we can see, inter-personal communication was very different in ancient societies than in our society, something that can be seen in the writing styles of authors from the time. The reason for this is probably due to the fact that such societies were primarily oral societies. Obviously, most people in the 1st century could not read or write, and so the primary means of communication would have been speech, rather than writing. When we analyse ancient documents, we can see clues and evidence that point to this. The Gospels are no exception, and we can see evidence of the oral origin for these documents. As aforementioned, challenge-riposte was limited to public exchanges.

As such, we can expect to find such exchanges in written reports of speech. However, we also see ancient writers employing such rhetoric in their own writing. This is because authors “expected their compositions to be read aloud to a gathered community, who would, in turn, use that material to establish a dialogue between themselves and, especially in the case of a letter, with the reader, who was often the writer’s official representative.”[48] This was certainly true of the New Testament documents. The use of hyperbole was also relatively common in addition to the use of rhetoric. One example includes the aforementioned polarisation of emotions as opposites. This can be seen in Luke 14 where Jesus says: “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.”[49] Such a command was not meant to be taken literally. Such hyperbole was simply a part of the culture. Jesus is simply saying that you must put worldly relationships in second place to your relationship with God in order to be a true disciple.

The reason for the utilisation of such literary devices, in speech as well as writing, is that they made what the speaker was saying stand out more in the minds of the listeners. When we analyse the New Testament documents, we see a variety of such literary devices geared towards making the content memorable. Jesus often utilised stunning words and images, often hyperbolic, which would stand out in the minds of his listeners. Examples of such vivid word pictures can be seen when Jesus says: “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you;”[50] and: “Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”[51] Like the previously cited examples, these were not literal commands, but figures of speech to ensure that the message being conveyed stuck in the minds of the listeners.

Jesus also used riddles and paradoxical images, for example Jesus uses the following riddle to describe his upcoming resurrection:

“Jesus answered and said to them, ”Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking of the temple of His body.”[52]In order to teach his disciples about the meaning of charity, Jesus contrasts a poor widow with the wealthy, saying: “Assuredly, I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all those who have given to the treasury.”[53] Further use of memorisation devices includes the use of proverbs, such as Mark 3:24: “If a kingdom is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”[54] These examples are by no means exhaustive, but they should give an idea of the effects orality had on writing.

This by no means guaranteed verbatim recall, yet this is in line with what we know of ancient oral cultures. The utilisation of memorisation techniques and devices allowed for remembrance of the core message rather than the exact wording. Thus:

“…to apply the concept of original and copy to ancient documents is anachronistic… we must abandon the modern concept of authenticity and the modern requirement of exact verbatim correspondence down to the very punctuation.”[55]This also helps shed light on the textual transmission of the New Testament texts. It is well-known that the canonical Gospels were written decades after the events they describe. Whilst contemporaneous reports are by no means the only valid historical documents, nonetheless, some have questioned why the Gospel authors would have waited so long to write these events down.

Given the oral nature of societies, there was no need to write down the Gospels right away. The utilisation of memorisation techniques combined with the fact that these accounts were constantly being relayed meant that the accounts would have been fresh in the authors’ minds. Presumably, the Gospels were written near the end of the authors’ lifetimes, to act as controls when they were no longer around themselves to act as authorities. This is where I would like to briefly spend some time discussing form criticism. Form criticism correctly operates along the basis that the Gospels originated orally yet makes the highly questionable assumption that, once the New Testament oral traditions began circulating, they automatically became the property of the community and subject to change.

Whilst this is going to be by no means going to be a full treatment of the arguments of Form Criticism, I do wish to briefly summarise some key points that stand against one of its core assumptions. Now, a brief summary of oral cultures in general does little to support this central premise of radical alteration as part of collective ownership. When we look at oral cultures from around the world, we typically see them as being geared towards memorisation, with rather little in the way of variation.[56] It is important to stress that this does not necessarily involve verbatim memorisation, however. One example is that of Yugoslavian bards, where becoming a skilled practitioner involved learning enough of the material so that they could shape their performance from the material that they remembered.[57] One particularly interesting example is that of Fijian dance songs, which were memorised, rehearsed, and subject to peer critique because there was a strong emphasis on divine inspiration that did not allow for personal interpretation.[58]

The closest example I could find of wilful invention occurred in African Storytelling. Individuals would observe and remember what they had seen of an experience, from which a generally agreed upon explanation of the event’s significance would arise (although better told and more noteworthy experiences might survive two to three lifetimes.) Favourable and opposing parties would then circulate their own interpretations of the event, all of which could co-exist for up to 120-150 years before being formulated into a more highly structured account that was considered historically satisfactory to all. This would take up to 300 years, and more skilled historians and storytellers would invent details that would add lucidity to the accounts.[59] So, this is a centuries long process that still involved memorisation of core details. What changed were small details, in an effort to provide a general all-encompassing account.

When we turn to specifically ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern cultures, however, we find even less to support the idea that such alteration was widespread or even common. In fact, what we find severely undercuts the very thing that Form Criticism assumes is part and parcel of oral tradition. Ancient study methods placed a high value on the preservation of ancient traditions. In Mesopotamia and Egypt, students were required to copy, memorise and recite a core curriculum in order to become well versed in their cultural tradition. Greeks too also placed a high value on recitation and memorisation. A sample of Greek memory retention techniques can be found in Aristotle’s On Memory and Reminiscence. One such example is the use of acrostics, for example early Greek Christians used the word icthus to give the message: Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Saviour.[60]

The Romans too used a variety of memorisation techniques in order to train public speakers, and teachers, since these professions required practitioners to memorise vast amounts if information. It seems as if there were a variety of approaches, however. Some orators memorised quotations from classical literature and used those to form their own speeches, others composed their speeches and memorised the wording verbatim, and others simply memorised the core arrangement and structure of their speech.[61] In Israelite culture, religious education was particular important for pious families. Boys were taught from an early age at their local synagogue to read, write, and even to expound upon scripture. Disciples of religious leaders furthermore were not just learners, but were also called upon to memorise and recite the material they were taught.[62]

When we consider that Jesus was indeed a religious teacher with disciples, it seems not just unlikely, but in direct contradiction to the evidence that Jesus’ followers would not have remembered his teachings, or that they would have freely edited and changed them. The presence of mnemonic devices in the very text points to an ordered and controlled transmission that stands in total contrast to the imaginings of the form critics. Again, I wish to stress that this is but a summary treatment, and is not as in-depth as I would like due to limitations of space. This is by no means a full critique, however, my arguments here can certainly be expanded upon in future work.

BRANO 43

THE SOCIO-CULTURAL BACKGROUND OF THE NEW TESTAMENT PERIOD: UNDERSTANDING CHRISTIANITY IN ITS 1ST CENTURY CONTEXT (2)

(http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-socio-cultural-background-of-new.html#more)

Chapter Two: Christianity and 1st Century Values

We have so far looked at core socio-cultural values of the 1st century Near East and Mediterranean. Now we are going to look at ways in which Christianity related to and also came into conflict with these values, and what this implies for future study of ancient Christianity. What struck me the most was just how incompatible Christianity was with mainstream values. As Nagle and Burstein point out:

“That there was an intrinsic incompatibility between Christianity and classical values was apparent from the time Romans became aware of the presence of the new religion. Christians were criticized on a variety of grounds, but principally because they had rejected the gods of their ancestors and the civic values of the Greco-Roman world. Their religion was new; they had turned away from the traditions of their immediate ancestors, the Jews… In short, they did not fit into the system that had been sanctioned by centuries of classical use.”[63]It is probably hard for individuals to grasp just how important a fact and a reality that this was. Even more interesting is how even scholars overlook or do not fully understand the implications of this. I shall do my best to expound on these issues now.

I shall begin with probably the biggest obstacle that lay between Christianity and potential converts, that of the crucifixion of Jesus. As I have mentioned extensively in the first chapter, the world of the 1st century Near East and Mediterranean was an honour/shame-focused society. Crucifixion was the worst method of execution available at the time, reserved for the most heinous of criminals (at least in the eyes of the Roman state.) As such, it was an “utterly offensive affair, ‘obscene’ in the original sense of the word”[64] and a “status degradation ritual.”[65] It was meant to signify the victim’s loss of power, as well as the Roman state signifying its authority over them, as well as leading to other humiliating things, such as self-defecation. It was such an offensive affair that most pagan writers were simply too revolted to write about the subject, and the accounts we do have aren’t particularly detailed.

Crucifixion, furthermore, took on a new dimension in Judaism, in that the victim was considered cursed by God:

“…his body shall not remain overnight on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day; for he who is hanged on a tree is accursed of God; that you do not defile land the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance.”[66]Various critics of Christianity, such as Celsus and Lucian of Samosata noted with malicious delight and pleasure the shamefulness of Jesus’ death.[67] Their sentiments were also shared by members of the lower classes, as is evidenced by a piece of graffiti depicting a man kneeling before a crucified figure with the head of an ass, with the caption “Alexamenos worships god.”[68] Indeed, the shamefulness of Jesus’ death was acknowledged by early Christian writers, such as Paul and Justin Martyr.[69]

As deSilva notes “no member of the Jewish community or the Greco-Roman society would have come to faith or joined the Christian movement without first accepting that God’s perspective on what kind of behaviour merits honor differs exceedingly from the perspective of humans beings…”[70] Both the Jewish and Roman authorities had assessed Jesus as being worthy of a shameful death, yet the Gospel narratives claim that God overturned this assessment by raising Jesus from the grave. Such a message was totally at odds with well-established beliefs regarding honour accrual and shameful behaviour. This alone should have been more than enough to stop Christianity from spreading beyond its original members. Yet, not only did Christianity secure a sizeable number of Jewish converts, it spread to the Greek and Roman gentile population also.

This dishonouring of Jesus by the Jewish and Roman authorities did not simply end with his death by crucifixion, however. Even in death, Jesus would have been further shamed. As scholar Byron McCane notes:

“By burying the dead and mourning their absence, members of a society affirm that someone significant had been lost. When the Romans did not permit the burial of crucifixion victims, then, they were doing more than merely showing off the power of Rome: they were also declaring that the deaths of these victims were not a loss to Roman society.”[71]When we come to the Gospel narratives, however, they claim that Jesus was in fact buried, and by a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, Joseph of Arimathea. Are the Gospels, therefore, trying to suggest that Jesus was buried honourably? It would seem odd indeed if this were the case, especially given that the Gospels depict Jesus’ crucifixion, but the reality is more complex than this.

Whilst crucifixion victims were typically left on their crosses to be eaten by birds, sometimes the Romans did allow them to be buried for various reasons. One might wonder why a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin would petition to have Jesus buried. The Gospels narratives seem to suggest that Joseph of Arimathea was a secret disciple of Jesus who utilised his position with the Sanhedrin to fulfil this task so that he could secretly honour Jesus. This is indeed a possibility, but when we consider that it was prohibited in Judaism to leave a man hanging on a tree, then it would make sense for them, being observant religious Jews, to have Jesus buried. Indeed, by being allowed to bury Jesus, they would have been able to dishonour Jesus in their own way, and in a way that was not against the precepts of their religion.

How then, was such a burial dishonourable? Because he was buried away from his family tomb:

“To be buried away from the family tomb – by design, not by fate – was to be cast adrift from these cultural patterns, and dislodged from a place in the family.”[72]Thus, by purposively being buried away from his family tomb, Jesus was indeed buried in shame. This has been challenged, however, most notably by eminent scholar William Lane Craig. Craig has argued that the language employed in the New Testament accounts suggests that Joseph of Arimathea used care in Jesus’ burial, and was trying to honour Jesus as a secret disciple.[73] Furthermore, Craig has challenged the idea that being buried away from the family tomb as being necessarily shameful, arguing that Jesus died in Jerusalem miles from his relatives, and that poor individuals could hardly afford a family tomb.[74]

The problem with these arguments is that they do nothing to challenge the contention that being buried away from the family tomb on purpose was shameful. If we accept that Joseph of Arimathea was a secret disciple, then we are still met with the fact that the Gospel narratives state he buried Jesus away from his family tomb. We can accept that he may have done his best to honour Jesus secretly, but this would not have mitigated the dishonour of being buried away from the family tomb. Thus, we can freely accept Joseph of Arimathea being a secret disciple of Jesus, who did his best to honour Jesus, but ultimately this would not have been enough to counteract the dishonour. So, whilst Craig is right in the points he makes, they do not undercut the proposition that Jesus’ burial was dishonourable. Whereas, there is good evidence that such a burial would have been considered dishonourable when we consider the collectivist nature of such societies, and the strong emphasis on familial ties already discussed.

Interestingly enough, one other feature of Jesus’ burial would have been considered shameful, and that would have been the stationing of the guards outside the tomb. Such a guard would have been put in place by the state authorities in order to deny people from mourning at Jesus’ tomb. As McCane states: “…[t]o be unmourned by one’s nearest relatives was to be effaced from the cultural landscape. It was worse than unfortunate, it was a shame.”[75] Thus, we are met by the very interesting case that the Gospels relate very culturally embarrassing details, and not only that, make these details the centre-piece of Christian faith. As the early Church Father Justin Martyr noted: “…they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God…”[76] The crucifixion of Jesus is multiply attested by a variety of sources[77], with the Gospels being the most detailed of these, and the Gospels likewise contain additional culturally embarrassing details that nonetheless fit in with what we know about the practices of that time.

One may wonder, then, how Christianity ever got off of the ground. However, there are even more factors that would have made Christianity even more unappealing than this. Jesus and his disciples were Jews, and Christianity essentially began as a Jewish sect. As such, it becomes hard to explain how it was able to successfully take hold amongst Greeks and Romans. The reason for this is because, Jews were typically viewed by the Romans and Greeks as being spiteful and superstitious. Romans in particular viewed their own system of beliefs as being superior to all others, viewing superstition (which Jewish beliefs were categorised as) as undermining the social order.[78] The area of Galilee in particular was held in low view by Jews and non-Jews alike. To Jews, it was an area associated with farmers and ignorant yokels who knew little of the Torah, and to non-Jews it was infamous as being home to a number of Jewish rebels.[79]

In addition to being a Jew from an area of ill-repute, Jesus was also from Nazareth, a city of absolutely no significance whatsoever. He was also a carpenter, which was regarded as a lowly and dishonourable profession, and associated with fishermen, tax collectors, and prostitutes, who were similarly held in low regard. Moreover, the Gospel accounts state that the first to discover Jesus’ empty tomb were some of Jesus’ female disciples. In the 1st century, women were second class citizens, and their testimony was considered worthless.[80] By placing the female disciples as the first witnesses to the empty tomb, the Gospels writers are admitting an incredibly culturally embarrassing detail. However, most of the male disciples would have been in a similar position, since most of them were of low social standing, and so the value of their testimony would be substantially lowered as a result.[81]

Jesus was a rural peasant of low social standing in a world run by wealthy urbanites. He hailed from a city of low repute, in an area with a bad reputation, and he was of a people group that were despised by Greeks and Romans. He associated with undesirables, and was executed by the Roman State via crucifixion and was buried in shame. Furthermore, the chief witnesses to his alleged resurrection were women and country bumpkins. These alone should have been enough to bury Christianity, regardless of its teachings and doctrines. Yet, there are even more problems Christianity had to face. Christianity had the immediate problem of being new. Whilst in modern Western culture, people tend to favour novelty over tradition, in the ancient world, this was very much the opposite. Traditions handed down across generations from antiquity were regarded as the ideal standards of past generations of great personages that one was expected to live up to.[82] Whilst the Romans recognised the antiquity of Judaism, Christians were regarded as “arrogant innovators.”[83]

Christianity likewise made considerable ethical demands upon the individual that would simply have been unattractive to prospective converts. Ancient pagan cults typically appealed to people’s baser instincts, involving temple prostitutes, drunken parties, etc. Whereas Christianity called one to live a life of restraint. Ignoring worldly pleasures so that one can grow closer to God. Furthermore, Jesus was not just some deity that could simply be incorporated into the existing pantheon. As with Judaism, Christianity required its followers to be devoted to one deity and to one deity alone:

“The message about this Christ was incompatible with the most deeply rooted religious ideology of the Gentile world, as well as the more recent message propagated in Roman imperial ideology.”[84]So, not only was Christianity massively culturally disadvantaged, its teachings were largely unappealing to non-Jews. Christianity would also have been unpopular due to claiming a man, Jesus, as being God, which would have been offensive to Jews and non-Jews alike.[85]

We may also want to consider the alleged mode of Jesus’ vindication. The Gospels make a very specific claim in this regard, they claim that the God of Israel resurrected Jesus. This was a very specific mode of vindication that should not be confused with other means of living after or returning from death. In Jewish belief, resurrection was the returning of the dead to life and immediate transformation into un-perishing forms. Thus, this was not to simply re-animated, or even restored to your normal human form. You were essentially transformed into a new, immortal state. In his landmark work, The Resurrection of the Son of God, N.T. Wright documents various Jewish and non-Jewish beliefs regarding life after death.[86] He notes that resurrection was not something believed to happen to just anybody. Resurrection was believed to be what awaited observant, religious Jews at the end of time.

Typical modes of pre-resurrection vindication for Jewish heroes usually involved being returned from death to their previous human form, or being bodily assumed into heaven directly. The belief in the resurrection at the end of time may not even have been a particularly widespread belief, given that there were prominent Jewish sects, such as the Sadducees, who did not believe in any form of life after death whatsoever. In the pagan world of the Greeks and Romans, however, a physical return from death to life was not something hoped for or imagined at all. Those who believed in afterlife hoped for a disembodied existence as a spirit, free from the material world as matter was considered ‘evil.’ The most common belief was simply that death was final. They most certainly did not think that a return from death to a physical form was something to look forward to. Resurrection was simply unattractive to non-Jews, and a resurrection occurring to a single individual prior to the general resurrection would have been hard for Jews to swallow.

Now, some have claimed that belief in a physically resurrected Jesus evolved from a belief that Jesus simply ‘lived on’ spiritually after his death.[87] Given the socio-cultural data and the religious beliefs of the time, this makes absolutely no sense since existence in a disembodied spiritual state would have been easier for non-Jews to swallow. Furthermore, why was resurrection, a specific mode of vindication reserved for the end of time, chosen as the mode of Jesus’ vindication when there were more palatable options at hand? Moreover, why would a Jewish offshoot choose a form of life after death so out of sync with Jewish traditional beliefs? This is not even taking into account Jesus’ dishonourable status that he would have had after his death. It seems hard to imagine how such a mode of vindication would become associated with such an individual, and that belief in it would become so widespread.

Even aside from being culturally offensive, massively off-putting, and just plain bizarre to 1st century people, there would have been a price for following Christianity. By becoming a part of such a socially deviant movement, you risked being cut off from your social networks, most important amongst these being your family group.[88] In the ancient world, this was no laughing matter, but one that had serious implications. As noted by Malina and Rohrbaugh: “…[s]uch a departure from the family was morally impossible in a society where the kinship unit was the focal social institution.”[89] Furthermore, leaving the family meant forsaking material goods, since: “…[g]eographical mobility and the consequent break with one’s social network (biological family, patrons, friends, neighbours) were considered seriously deviant behaviour and would have been much more traumatic in antiquity than simply leaving behind material wealth…”[90]

Christianity taught that it was acceptable to break family ties rather than give up your faith, which would have been a radical, outlandish proposition in the ancient world. Furthermore, it encouraged the breaking down of class distinctions, and promoted inter-racial relations, and also a higher place for women in society. It encouraged better treatment towards slaves, as well as suggesting that slaves were on the same standing as free-men. It is amusing that sometimes you will find critics of Christianity today complain that it did not clearly teach against the institution of slavery, whilst simultaneously making the argument that Christianity was popular amongst the lower classes because it promoted freedom from oppression. The statements Christianity did make were certainly radical for their time, and would have led to slave-owners giving up their slaves once they became Christians. Whereas, such statements, believe it or not, would NOT have been widely popular, even amongst slaves, as: “…[w]hen ancient Mediterraneans speak of 'freedom,' they generally understand the term as both freedom from slavery to one lord or master, and freedom to enter the service of another lord or benefactor...”[91]

As noted in the first chapter, measures would be taken by one’s social group against you if you were deemed to be socially deviant. Such social persecution would have been widespread and immediate, with the goal of shaming you into returning to the accepted norms of the group. Given that such hard demands were placed on the individual and given the social hardships that would have followed, it becomes hard to see how Christianity spread beyond a handful of adherents. Christianity should have died out relatively quickly, but instead it survived and is now currently the world’s largest religion. Some form of explanation is thus in order. Contrary to the claims of modern critics, 1st century people were not narrow-minded simpletons who were easily swayed. In order for Christianity to have taken hold the way it did, there would have had to have been some convincing kind of evidence in order to overturn the cultural perception and social biases against it.

There is one factor about 1st century Near Eastern and Mediterranean culture that I have yet to mention, and it is one that is central to my argument here. In group-oriented societies and cultures “we must remember that people continually mind each other’s business.”[92] Privacy was simply non-existent in such societies, as neighbours were expected to keep constant watch and constant vigilance over each other whilst simultaneously worrying about how they themselves appeared to others. In such a society, where nothing escaped notice, are we to believe that nobody would have checked the facts, especially when it came to such a radical religion as Christianity? Quite the contrary, people hearing the message of Christianity would have made efforts to seek the facts out, since, if the facts were not on the side of Christianity, then that would have been used to control the spread of the new movement.

It is thus my contention that Christianity would not have been able to succeed and flourish in such a hostile environment, unless there were some sort of convincing evidence that it were, in fact, true. Furthermore, there was no major editing of Christianity to make it more palatable, since its central claims were majorly offensive to cultural values. Moreover, there is no reason to suppose the stories were simply made up, since who in their right mind would have engineered such a story in an environment fundamentally hostile to such ideas? This is, of course, not even taking into consideration the other evidence that counters these two suppositions of modern critics, since I have, from the start, limited myself to discussing the socio-cultural data of the 1st century Mediterranean and Near East. This is by no means a conclusive ‘slam-dunk’ proof of any kind, but it is nonetheless a powerful argument, and one that deserves to be taken seriously.

Conclusions

My argument, and the central premise of this dissertation, builds upon the socio-cultural data of the 1st century Near East and Mediterranean. Christianity was a religion that was hard, unattractive, and offensive to the socio-cultural values of its day, but nonetheless flourished. Given the hostility of such an environment, and the fact that persons such a group-oriented culture would have inevitably sought the claims of Christianity out, there must have been convincing evidence available that allowed Christianity to succeed. For if there were no evidence for Christianity, or worse, evidence that stood against Christianity, then it would have stood no chance at all and would have quickly been marginalised and eventually crushed. This is no doubt a highly controversial and explosive argument, and is also presumably going to be an unpopular one. However, I have based my argument on actual socio-cultural data.

As aforementioned, this argument is hardly decisive proof that Christianity is, in fact, true. It might be an argument in its favour, but it needs to be tested, and, moreover, combined with other academic areas, such as textual criticism, philosophy of religion and so on. It, does, however, underscore recent moves in Biblical studies away from the arguments and conclusions of Form Criticism and its adherents, and undercuts the arguments of many of today’s critics. Such an argument also reflects the recent renaissance of Christianity in academic fields, and the influx of serious-minded Christian scholars, most particularly in philosophy and Biblical studies. In the field of philosophy, scholars such as William Lane Craig, and Alvin Plantinga have been developing sophisticated arguments for the existence of God. Plantinga has developed a unique version of Anselm of Canterbury’s Ontological argument, using modal language and framing the argument in terms of possible words.

Craig has developed a powerful version of Muslim philosopher Al-Ghazali’s Kalam Cosmological argument, taking new evidence from the field of astrophysics and cosmology to provide a scientific backing. In the field of Biblical studies, textual scholars such as Dan Wallace, and Michael Licona have provided convincing evidence for the overall reliability of the New Testament textual tradition. What needs to be done is to factor in these things together and weigh them as a whole. Christian apologists have long been seeking data across a variety of disciplines to provide a case, even going so far as to research psychology and physiology to determine whether the resurrection appearances could have been hallucinations and if Jesus could have survived crucifixion. It is now time for these issues to be discussed openly and fully, alongside the socio-cultural data I have outlined here. Further areas to be looked out, however, include seeing whether or not other religions survived the same level of hostility Christianity faced, without being radically altered.

Whilst paltry comparisons have been made between Christianity and variety of other religions before, albeit mostly in non-academic circles such as Internet discussion forums, no analysis has been made in terms of what difficulties these religions faced at their inception, and whether or not they had any advantages in their favour. We also need to look at the history of how these religions spread, as well as if they had to change to accommodate for public opinion and reaction towards them. For example, if a religion or cult had to change radically in order to survive, then it does not compare whatsoever. Whereas, if it can be shown that a religion survived the same level of hostility that Christianity faced, with being radically altered, and with no advantages in its favour, then that would totally undercut my argument.

To give a brief rundown then, in my first chapter I provided a general survey of the socio-cultural background of the 1st century Near East and Mediterranean, providing examples within the text of the New Testament itself, as well as other texts from the same era. I specifically drew on the work of scholars Kenneth Bailey, David deSilva, Bruce Malina, Jerome Neyrey, and Richard Rohrbaugh in particular, as well as citing works by others who have come to the same conclusions. We saw that the 1st century culture was agrarian, and thus collectivist, and honour-shame focused. I also briefly discussed 1st century oral tradition, and noted how the conclusions of Form Criticism stand in contrast to the nature of 1st century Jewish and Greco-Roman oral culture. In the second chapter, I noted ways in which Christianity came into conflict with those values, drawing upon the data mentioned in the first chapter. The argument presented is essentially the same as one that has been made by American apologist James Patrick Holding, albeit with refinements.

Holding has drawn on the same group of scholars, yet his examples of 1st century socio-cultural values are more truncated for sake of presentation to a popular audience. After surveying the data in more depth, I have come to the same conclusion. However, in addition to supporting this main argument in favour of the truth of Christianity, I have likewise made arguments against Form Criticism and other forms of anti-Christian scepticism. Form Criticism suggests that Christianity evolved from a pre-existing ‘pure’ form that was freely edited and altered by different communities. Not only have I shown evidence that the oral culture would not have permitted such a thing, but it defies reason why Christianity would have evolved into such an offensive religion. It also defies reason that such an offensive religion was simply made up, since it would have gotten its adherents persecuted and even killed, as indeed Christians were. The plausibility of alternate hypotheses, such as hallucinations, need to be analysed in the same terms also.

This could definitely be explored at a higher level in future work. If given the opportunity, I would definitely like to build upon my work here on the MA and PhD level. I could pursue any number of avenues discussed thus far. Perhaps the most obvious choice would be to take a look at other religions, their origins, and history to see if they survived anything comparable to what Christianity went through and without being majorly altered. A second avenue of future research would also be to factor in textual analyses of the New Testament in comparison to other ancient documents, as well as in terms of its oral history and development away from the outdated patterns of the long since defunct Form Criticism.

I would furthermore also would like to take a look at methodological concerns, specifically factoring in recent developments and arguments from philosophy in regards to historiography and epistemology, given that there are those who insist that resurrection is a subject incapable of being analysed via historical research. Recent work by philosophers such as Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga regarding warranted belief, and the work of scholars such as William Lane Craig, and Michael Licona in regards to the philosophy of history would be of particular interest here. In closing, this is certainly an interesting topic that has opened up a variety of new avenues of enquiry, and should hopefully stimulate great academic debate. It is my intention in particular to get scholars thinking about these issues in more depth, and to work together to address the questions and concerns that will no doubt arise.

Endnotes

[1] For example, see: William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 3rd Edition, Crossway, (2008), p368; Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus, IVP, (2007), and Peter S. Williams, Understanding Jesus: Five Ways to Spiritual Enlightenment, Paternoster, (2011), p178

[2] N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, SPCK, (2003)

For a study devoted exclusively to Jewish beliefs regarding life after death in the Old Testament period, see: Philip S. Johnson, Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament, InterVarsity Press, (2002)

[3] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, InterVarsity Press, (2010)

[4] These scholars include but are not limited to: Bruce Malina, Richard Rohrbaugh, Jerome Neyrey, John Pilch, and David deSilva.

[5] John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, Harper Collins, (1994)

[6] Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford University Press, (1999)

[7] James G. Crossley, Why Christianity Happened: A Sociohistorical Account of Christian Origins (26-50 CE), Westminster John Knox Press, (2006)

[8] Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, Fortress Press, (1992), p6-8

[9] Bruce J. Malina and John J. Pilch, Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul, Fortress Press, (2006), p5

[10] [11] [12] [13] citazioni escluse

[14] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XX, Chapter 9, Internet Sacred Texts Archive, John Bruno Hare, http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-20.htm (2010)

[15] There is a reference to Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chapter 3, albeit with some minor interpolations. Whilst most scholars conclude that Josephus did reference Jesus in this earlier passage, there are one or two who maintain the passage is fabrication. Regardless, Josephus expected his readers to know who Jesus was, and so an earlier reference makes sense.

[16] citazione esclusa

[17] Suetonius, The Life of Claudius, 25.4, Bill Thayer, University of Chicago, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Claudius*.html

[18] [19] citazioni escluse

[20] David A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship, Purity, InterVarsity Press, (2000), p158-159

[21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] citazioni escluse

[30] Isaiah 61:1-2, Old Testament Text: St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint, St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, (2008) from The Orthodox Study Bible, St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, (2008), p1105

[31] citazione esclusa

[32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] citazioni escluse

[38] Jerome H. Neyrey, Limited Good, from John J. Pilch & Bruce J. Malina, eds., Handbook of Biblical Social Values, Hendrickson Publishers, (1998), p124

[39] citazione esclusa

[40] John J. Pilch, Emotion/Demonstration of Feelings, from John J. Pilch & Bruce J. Malina, eds., Handbook of Biblical Social Values, Hendrickson Publishers, (1998), p56-59

[41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] citazioni escluse

[47] Ignatius of Antioch, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, NewAdvent.com, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm (Accessed 21st February 2013)

[48] Casey Wayne Davis, Oral Biblical Criticism: The Influence of Orality on the Literary Structure of Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, Sheffield Academic Press, (1999), p61-62

[49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] citazioni escluse

[55] Rosalind Thomas, Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens, Cambridge University Press, (1989), p47-48

[56] Jan Vansina, Oral Tradition: A Study of the Historical Methodology, Aldine, (1961), p15, 49

[57] Albert Lord, The Singer of Tales, Harvard University Press, (1960), p5, 16-17, 21, 25, 36, and Albert Lord, The Singer Resumes the Tale, Cornell University Press, (1995), p11, 20

[58] Ruth Finnegan, Literacy and Orality, Blackwell, (1988), p95-96, 102

[59] Joseph C. Miller, The African Past Speaks, Wm Dawson and Sons, (1980), p21-22, and Isidore Okpewho, African Oral Literature, Indiana University Press, (1992), p21-25

[60] David M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, Oxford University Press, (2005), p8, 9, 27-29, 71-2, 95, 98

[61] Whitney Shiner, Proclaiming the Gospel, Trinity Press International Press, (2003), p4-5, 25, 103-108, 151-153, and Jocelyn Small, Wax Tablets of the Mind, Routledge, (1997), p82

[62] Ben Witherington III, The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth, InterVarsity Press, (1997), p38, 80

[63] D. Brendan Nagle and Stanley M. Burstein, The Ancient World: Readings in Social and Cultural History, Third Edition, Pearson, New Jersey (2006), p314-315

[64] [65] [66] citazione esclusa

[67] Celsus, quoted in Origen, Contra Celsus, Book Two, Chapter 33, New Advent, Kevin Knight, 2013, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04162.htm and Lucian of Samosata, The Death of Peregrine, Internet Sacred Texts Archive, John Bruno Hare http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/wl4/wl420.htm, 2010, (Accessed March 20th 2013)

[68] Martin Hengel, Crucifixion, Fortress, (1977), p19

[69] 1 Corinthians 1:18, and Hebrews 12:2, New Testament Text: New King James Version, Thomas Nelson Inc. (1982), from The Orthodox Study Bible, St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, (2008), p1552, 1668 and Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 13, New Advent, Kevin Knight, 2013, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm (Accessed March 20th 2013)

[70] citazione esclusa

[71] Byron C. McCane, Where No One Had Yet Been Laid: The Shame of Jesus’ Burial, from B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans, Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, Brill (1998), p433

[72] Byron C. McCane, Where No One Had Yet Been Laid: The Shame of Jesus’ Burial, from B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans, Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, Brill (1998), p444

[73] William Lane Craig, Was Jesus Buried in Shame? Reflections on B. McCane's Proposal, The Expository Times September 2004 115: p404-409

[74] I asked Dr. Craig to expand upon his arguments at his lecture, The Evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection, Southampton Guildhall, October 2011, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iyxR8uE9GQ, 0:41:10, (Accessed March 21st 2013) and also had the opportunity to speak to him a second time in Atlanta, Georgia.

[75] Byron C. McCane, Where No One Had Yet Been Laid: The Shame of Jesus’ Burial, from B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans, Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, Brill (1998), p444

[76] Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 13, New Advent, Kevin Knight, 2013, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm (Accessed March 21st 2013)

[77] Tacitus, Annals, 15.44, Perseus Digital Library, Tufts University, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078%3Abook%3D15%3Achapter%3D44, 2007, (Accessed March 21st 2013), Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XX, Chapter 9, Internet Sacred Texts Archive, John Bruno Hare, http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-20.htm, 2010, (Accessed March 21st 2013), Lucian of Samosata, The Death of Peregrine, Internet Sacred Texts Archive, John Bruno Hare http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/wl4/wl420.htm, 2010, (Accessed March 20th 2013)

[78] Robert Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, Yale University Press, (1985), p68

[79] Geza Vermes, The Changing Faces of Jesus, New York: Viking, (2001), p241, and Robert Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, Yale University Press, (1985), p244

[80] Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of Ancient Personality, Westminster John Knox Press, (1996), p72, p82, and David A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship, Purity, InterVarsity Press, (2000), p33

[81] [82] [83] [84] citazione esclusa

[85] Jews would have been offended by suggesting a man was equal to YHWH, whereas pagans would have been offended by suggesting that a divine being could suffer as Jesus did.

[86] N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, SPCK, (2003) It is this work to which I am citing, referring to and using as a source for my points here. Rather than cite individual pages, I felt it better simply to list the work as a whole, since the data contained within is extensive and easily locatable.

[87] For example, see: Richard Carrier, The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb from, Robert M. Price and Jeffery Jay Lowder, eds., The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave, Prometheus Books, (2005)

[88] [89] [90] [91] [92] citazioni escluse

BRANO 42

Are the Gospels Based on Eyewitness Testimony? The Test of Personal Names

(http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.com/2012/06/are-gospels-based-on-eyewitness.html#more)

Are the gospels based on credible eyewitness testimony? This is a question on which modern scholars line up on both sides of the divide. From my point of view, the cumulative case for the gospels being based on the testimony of eyewitnesses is clear and convincing. In his groundbreaking work, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Richard Bauckham (professor of New Testament studies at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland) lays out an array of compelling evidence for the trustworthiness of the gospels. Among them is the test of personal names, which is covered in chapters 3 and 4 of the book. What he finds is that there is a remarkable correlation between the frequency of names found in the Gospels and Acts and the frequency of names found in writings outside the New Testament. This argument is also developed by Peter Williams, of Tyndale House in Cambridge, in this lecture.

The top 2 men's names (Simon and Joseph) in first century Palestine outside the New Testament have a frequency of 15.6%. The frequency of those two names in the gospels and Acts is 18.2%. The frequency of the top 9 men's names outside the New Testament is 41.5%; whereas the frequency in the Gospels and Acts is 40.3%. The frequency of the top two women's names (Mary and Salome) outside the New Testament is 28.6%; the frequency in the Gospels and Acts is 38.9%. The frequency of the top 9 women's names outside the New Testament is 49.7%; and 61.1% in the Gospels and Acts.

The top 6 male names in first century Palestine are:

1) Simon/Simeon

2) Joseph/Joses

3) Lazarus/Eleazar

4) Judas/Judah

5) John/Yohanan

6) Jesus/Joshua

The frequency of New Testament individuals with those names is 8, 6, 1, 5, 5 and 2 respectively. We can see, therefore, that there exists a remarkable correlation between first century Palestinian names outside and inside the New Testament. What is especially remarkable about this is that the rankings of names in Palestine does not correspond with the rankings of those names in other regions. For example, the rankings of names in Egypt during that period are:

1) Eleazar (ranked 3rd in Palestine)

2) Sabbataius (ranked 68= in Palestine)

3) Joseph (ranked 2 in Palestine)

4=) Dositheus (ranked 16 in Palestine)

4=) Pappus (ranked 39= in Palestine)

6=) Ptolemaius (ranked 50= in Palestine)

6=) Samuel (ranked 23 in Palestine)

Such a correlation clearly suggests a close connection to the time and place (first century Palestine) in which the events that the gospels narrate unfolded. Curiously, this contrasts strikingly with the second century apocryphal gospels in which such a correlation is not borne out. Furthermore, even if a writer does have a close connection to the time and place of the events that they narrate, one's intuition with regards the rankings of popular names is not likely to be very reliable.

But we can go further. Consider the following excerpt from Matthew 10 (verses 2-4) where we are given the names of the twelve disciples. Where these names feature in the top 90 names, their ranking is given in brackets:

Simon (1), called Peter, and Andrew his brother, and James (11) the son of Zebedee, and John (5) his brother; Philip (61=) and Bartholomew (50=); Thomas and Matthew (9) the tax collector; James (11) the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus (39=); Simon (1) the Cananaean, and Judas (4) Iscariot, who also betrayed him.Notice that there is correlation between those names that have a high ranking and those names that are assigned a qualifier. The lower ranked names do not have a qualifier.

What is even more curious is that there is a difference between how names are given in quoted speech and how names are given by the narrator. For example, consider the following excerpt from Matthew 14:1-9. Pay close attention to how the name John (rank 5) is given in quoted speech vs. how it is given in the narration. I have highlighted the quoted speech in red:

At that time Herod the tetrarch heard about the fame of Jesus, and he said to his servants, “This is John the Baptist. He has been raised from the dead; that is why these miraculous powers are at work in him.” For Herod had seized John and bound him and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, because John had been saying to him, “It is not lawful for you to have her.” And though he wanted to put him to death, he feared the people, because they held him to be a prophet. But when Herod's birthday came, the daughter of Herodias danced before the company and pleased Herod, so that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she might ask. Prompted by her mother, she said, “Give me the head of John the Baptist here on a platter.” And the king was sorry, but because of his oaths and his guests he commanded it to be given. He sent and had John beheaded in the prison, and his head was brought on a platter and given to the girl, and she brought it to her mother. And his disciples came and took the body and buried it, and they went and told Jesus.Notice that, in quoted speech, the name John is always given a qualifier whereas, in the narration, the name is not assigned a qualifier. This makes sense when you understand that the original speaker needed to provide such a qualifier to specify which John was the subject of discussion. The narrator, however, can safely assume the reader knows which John is being talked about. This is a pattern which is found throughout all four gospels.

Consider the following excerpts in relation to the name Jesus (rank 6), paying close attention to how the name Jesus is given in quoted speech vs. the surrounding narration. I have highlighted the quoted speech in red:

Matthew 21:6-12 -- The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them. They brought the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them. Most of the crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. And the crowds that went before him and that followed him were shouting, “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!” And when he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred up, saying, “Who is this?” And the crowds said, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee." And Jesus went into the temple...

Matthew 26:64-75 -- Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death.” Then they spit in his face and struck him. And some slapped him, saying, “Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?”

Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. And a servant girl came up to him and said, “You also were with Jesus the Galilean.”But he denied it before them all, saying, “I do not know what you mean.” And when he went out to the entrance, another servant girl saw him, and she said to the bystanders, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.” And again he denied it with an oath: “I do not know the man.” After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “Certainly you too are one of them, for your accent betrays you.”Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know the man.” And immediately the rooster crowed. And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.Indeed, this pattern is uniform throughout the gospels. On one occasion Jesus is addressed in quoted speech without such a qualifier -- where Jesus is spoken to by the criminal on the cross ("Jesus, remember me."; Luke 23:42). But it can be reasonably assumed that there would be no doubt about the Jesus to whom he was referring.

In conclusion, the pattern of names given in the gospels reflects exactly what we would expect if they were written by eyewitnesses with a close connection to the time and place of the events that they narrate. This is not a pattern that would have been at all easy for a forger to create.

BRANO 43

A long-lost chapter of biblical text has been discovered nearly 1,500 years after it was initially written. According to the study published in the journal New Testament Studies, the previously hidden segment is one of the earliest translations of the gospels. The medievalist Grigory Kessel of the Austrian Academy of Sciences unearthed the concealed chapter beneath three layers of text using ultraviolet photography. “The tradition of Syriac Christianity knows several translations of the Old and New Testaments,” Kessel said in a statement. “Until recently, only two manuscripts were known to contain the Old Syriac translation of the gospels.”  One of these lives in London’s British Library and the other was a palimpsest discovered at St. Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai.  The small manuscript fragment was identified by Kessel using ultraviolet photography as the third layer of text, or double palimpsest, in the Vatican Library manuscript. Researchers said the revealed text is an interpretation of Matthew 12, originally translated as part of the Old Syriac translations about 1,500 years ago. They said the fragment is so far the only known remnant of the fourth manuscript that attests to the Old Syriac version, offering a unique gateway to the early phase in the history of the textual transmission of the gospels. The text also shows differences in the information given from the various translations.  The researchers are yet to reveal a full translation written in ancient Syriac but shared some details, for example that the Greek version of Matthew 12.1 reads: “At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath and his disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat”, whereas the Syriac translation reads, “[…] began to pick the heads of grain, rub them in their hands, and eat them.” “As far as the dating of the Gospel book is concerned, there can be no doubt that it was produced no later than the sixth century,” scientists assert in the study.  They continued, “Despite a limited number of dated manuscripts from this period, comparison with dated Syriac manuscripts allows us to narrow down a possible time frame to the first half of the sixth century.” Due to a lack of writing parchment in the region during the period the text was written, pages often had to be reused, resulting in the removal of previous biblical texts.   Claudia Rapp, Director of the Institute for Medieval Research at the OeAW, said: “Grigory Kessel has made a great discovery thanks to his profound knowledge of old Syriac texts and script characteristics. “This discovery proves how productive and important the interplay between modern digital technologies and basic research can be when dealing with medieval manuscripts.” This finding follows a recent announcement from the auction house Sotheby’s that one of the oldest surviving biblical manuscripts will soon be up for sale. Codex Sassoon, a 1,100-old leather-bound, handwritten and almost entirely complete Hebrew Bible, is set to go up for auction in New York on 16th May 2023. The auction house has put the price tag at $30 million to $50 million, which could mean that it becomes the most expensive historical document ever sold at auction. To break this record, the winning bid must exceed the $43.2 million paid for a first-edition copy of the Constitution of the United States. It is almost certain to break the record for the most expensive religious manuscript of all time, which is currently held by the sale of an original manuscript of The Book of Mormon, hand-written in 1830 by Joseph Smith himself and bought by the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for $35 million in 2017. “The Bible is one of the world’s greatest treasures and holds powerful resonance for the three monotheistic religions and their billions of adherents. For thousands of years, its sacred words have been closely studied, analysed, and meditated on. “Codex Sassoon, created circa 900, is the earliest surviving example of a single codex containing all the books of the Hebrew Bible with their punctuation, vowels, and accents,” Sotheby’s said.  “The codex is named for its prominent modern owner, David Solomon Sassoon (1880-1942), who assembled the largest and most important private collection of Hebrew manuscripts in the world and had a special affinity for bibles in particular,” they continue.  Codex Sassoon, long recognised for its importance by scholars, has unfortunately been scarcely seen by the public for centuries. At long last, however, it is finally undergoing a worldwide tour before its sale on May 16. “Codex Sassoon has long held a revered and fabled place in the pantheon of surviving historic manuscripts and is undeniably one of the most important and singular texts in human history,” wrote Sotheby’s. 

BRANO 43

Types of Christian Theology

(http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.com/2013/01/theology-101-types-of-christian-theology.html#more)

The study of theology is concerned with speech aboutGod, with the speech of God, and with the experiences that are said to derive from Him. We now understand the sources of theological reasoning as well as the value of this kind of study. In this post, we turn to examine the various ‘types’ of Christian theology. [1] This post will be a little more complicated than the others, but we should persevere. We are well on our way to understanding the breadth of theological study!

When we speak of the various types of Christian theology we refer to its disciplines and traditions. However, before we begin to explore these disciplines and traditions, it may be helpful to suggest an analogy. Let’s propose that Christian theology acts as the ‘grammar’ of faith. [2] Just like the rules of grammar help us to structure language, theological study informs the order and cogency of belief. To continue this linguistic analogy, the disciplines and traditions of Christian theology may be understood in terms of ‘punctuation’ and ‘accent’. In what follows we’re going to explore this analogy more deeply.

The various disciplines of Christian theology constitute the ‘punctuation’ of theological study. Just like a full stop or a semi-colon arranges our sentences, these disciplines inform the arrangement of Christian theology and the way in which its various sources are presented. We may list five examples.

(1) Biblical Theology – As we discussed in the previous post, revelation is one of the central sources of Christian theology. When we speak of Biblical theology, we don’t mean to suggest that the other disciplines fail to consult the Bible. Rather, Biblical theology uses the Scriptural data to paint a ‘big picture’. For example, a Biblical theology of the Eucharist may start with the observation that in Genesis 14:17-20, Melchizedek the High Priest gives Abram a gift of bread and wine as a sign of God’s blessing. It would proceed to note that in Hebrews 7:17, Jesus is regarded as a fulfilment of Melchizedek’s priesthood, and that in the Last Supper narratives, He is seen offering bread and wine as a symbol of Israel’s blessing through His own body and blood. A ‘big picture’ is thereby painted through which our doctrine of the Eucharist may be given greater clarity and new textual/theological connections may be made. [3]

(2) Historical Theology – As we discussed in the previous post, tradition is also one of the sources of Christian theology. Historical theology attempts to speak of doctrine according to its development throughout Christian history. In this regard, it’s a discipline that’s in constant dialogue with Church tradition. For example, a student doing historical theology may have an interest in the doctrine of justification. She may begin by performing a thorough investigation of the NT data, and proceed to trace its reception amongst the early Church. She may observe how Augustine influenced Luther’s reading of Romans with regards justification by faith alone. Nearly 500 years later, E.P. Sanders sought to re-interpret the doctrine minus the ‘Lutheran spectacles’ that had influenced so much of Western theology since the Reformation. Historical theology is concerned with this sort of investigation. It constructs an account of doctrinal development throughout Church history. [4]

(3) Mystical Theology – We’ve established that Christian theology is concerned with the experiences that are said to derive from God. Mystical theology is especially interested in these experiences as a source of theological reflection. One’s encounters with God in prayer, worship, visions or mystical ecstasy are used to inform one’s theological understanding. Mystical theology may use these encounters in a way that complements Church tradition and the Bible, or in a way that disregards both as inferior. [5]

(4) Contextual Theology – Like mystical theology, this is another discipline that is concerned with experience but in a rather different way. The contextual theologian insists that praxis should instruct theological reflection. In particular, the circumstances and experiences of different social groups (especially marginalised or oppressed ones) are used to inform the conclusions of contextual theology. Liberation thought is one example of this discipline at work. Sensing the Biblical mandate to champion the poor and oppose injustice, liberation theologians highlight the local needs and experiences of varying demographics throughout the world, such as the impoverished within Latin America. A liberation understanding of Jesus, for example, would emphasise His mission to liberate the captives and bind up the broken. According to the aforementioned example, a ‘Latin American Jesus’ would be constructed; one who was on the side of and identified with the region’s oppressed. Instead of being constructed directly from Scripture or the creeds of tradition, an understanding of Jesus is crafted using the experiences of those within a specific situation. This is the nature of contextual theology. [6]

(5) Systematic Theology – It may be suggested that the systematic theologian has to be the ‘jack of all trades’. Systematic theology is concerned with the broad tapestry of Christian theology. It seeks to construct an account of Christian theology using a variety of sources and methods. It may even consult the conclusions of all the disciplines listed so far. It’s aware of the various ways in which the subjects of theology inter-connect with one another and it hopes to produce a cogent model or ‘system’, one that accounts for these diverse theological expressions. We may speak of a specific systematic doctrine, one that produces a cogent model of a particular theology in the manner described, or of a general systematic theology, one that speaks from within a tradition about the nature of its theology as a whole. [7]

These five disciples act as the ‘punctuation’ to theology’s overall ‘grammar’. They arrange the sources and presentation of Christian theology in different ways, but they all concern speech about God and the speech of God.

The various traditions of Christian theology, on the other hand, constitute the ‘accents’ of theological study. Throughout Christian history, different Churches have spoken the language of faith in a diverse number of ways. The Roman Catholic tradition, for example, speaks in a starkly different way about theology than the Anabaptist tradition. The Reformed tradition enunciates differently than the Lutheran tradition. The Eastern Orthodox tradition proclaims in a vernacular distinct from the Coptic tradition, and so forth.

When we speak of the ‘types’ of Christian theology, this is therefore what we mean. We’re referring to the various disciplines that influence theological study as well as the diverse array of traditions that do theological study particular to their own location.

----------------------

[1] It’s worth noting at the outset that there are a number of ways I could arrange an examination of the ‘types’ of Christian theology. I could list individual theologians and describe how their approaches differ; I could identify a handful of competing theological methods and give each one an individual exemplar; or I could describe the various schools of Christian theology. I have opted for the latter, although the former approaches are exampled by a generic reader volume in Christian theology (such as the one edited by McGrath) and by Hans Frei’s Types of Christian Theology (1994), respectively.

[2] This analogy of Christian theology as the ‘grammar’ of faith is also found in R.W. Jenson’s Systematic Theology – Volume 1 (1997) and Rowan Williams’ On Christian Theology (2000). In Jenson’s words: “The Church is the community that speaks Christianese” – it is the theologian’s task to understand the rules of coherent expression (1997, 18).

[3] For Biblical theology, one may wish to consult J.K. Mead’s Biblical Theology: Issues, Methods and Themes (2007), or the more popularising Biblical Theology in the Life of the Church (2010) by Michael Lawrence.

[4] For examples of historical theology, one may suggest Reasoner’s Romans in Full Circle (2005), which chronicles the history and interpretation of Pauline theology. Or Dunn’s Christology in the Making (2003), which traces the development and reception of Christological thought as it is contained throughout the Scriptures. Or Muller’s Christ and the Decree (2008), which tracks the predestinarian and Christological doctrines of the Reformed tradition. These are just illustrative, designed to give you a sense of what historical theology entails.

[5] For examples of mystical theology, one may look to Julian of Norwich’s Revelations of Divine Love (originally written c. 1400), or the writings of Bernard of Clairvaux and Meister Eckhart. These all lived and wrote within the medieval period, although theological reflection based on mystical experiences has continued throughout Christian history. (Indeed, some of the 17th Century Baptist prophetesses highlighted in Freeman’s A Company of Women Preachers (2011) write in a style occasionally reminiscent of Julian of Norwich, c.f. Anne Wentworth’s England’s Spiritual Pill.

[6] Examples of contextual theology would include the works of Liberation theologians, such as Leonardo Boff’s Introduction to Liberation Theology (1996) Boff’s Trinity and Society (2005) and Gustavo Gütierrez’s Theology of Liberation (2001). We would also include Feminist theologians, such as Mary Daly or Rosemary Radford Ruether, and Black theologians, such as James Cone or Robert Beckford.

[7] Theology has been done in a systematic fashion for a very long time. One could turn to Irenaeus’ Against Heresies (2nd Century) or Origen’s De Principiis (3rd Century) for examples. However, properly speaking, systematic theology finds its roots in works like Lombard’s Sentences, Aquinas’ Summa or Calvin’s Institutes. One may wish to consult Colin Gunton’s essay on ‘Historical and Systematic Theology’ in his edited text The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine (1997). One may also wish to consult the systematic texts of Berkhof, Grudem, Tillich or Pannenberg, or indeed The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology (2009), edited by Iain Torrance. Much older, but also helpful, is B.B. Warfield’s The Right of Systematic Theology (originally published in 1897).

BRANO 44

The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

(http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.com/search/label/Ontological%20Argument)

The ontological argument is widely thought to have been first clearly articulated by St. Anselm of Canterbury, who defined God as the greatest conceivable being. Anselm’s reasoning was that, if a being existed only in the mind but not in reality, then a greater being was conceivable (a being which exists both in the mind and in reality). The famed seventeenth-century French philosopher René Descartes utilised the ontological argument. The ontological argument was revived by Norman Malcolm in 1960. Variants of the ontological argument have been supported and defended by contemporary philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga (who bases his argument on modal logic) and William Lane Craig.

The ontological argument was first criticised by Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, a contemporary of Anselm of Canterbury. He argued that the ontological argument could be used to demonstrate the existence of anything, utilising an analogy of a perfect island. The argument was also criticised by the famed Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas and also by David Hume and Immanuel Kant.

The Ontological Argument: Possible Worlds

To properly understand the ontological argument, it is necessary to specify what philosophers mean when they talk about “possible worlds.” A “possible world” refers to a counterfactual – a state of affairs that could have been true. For something to exist in a “possible world” simply means that its existence is logically possible.

The ontological argument for the existence of God refers to the claim that the very logical possibility of God’s existence entails his actuality. The ontological argument begins with the claim that God, by definition, is infinitely great. Thus, no entity can surpass God’s greatness. God, in other words, is the greatest conceivable being (if one could conceive of a greater being, then that would be God). Being infinitely great entails existence in every possible world since a being that existed in merely some possible worlds would be superseded in greatness by a being that existed in every possible world. Moreover, a maximally great being is one that possesses the property of necessary existence. Thus, if a being of maximal greatness exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. If an infinitely great being exists in every possible world then that being must exist in the actual world. Since God is an infinitely great being, therefore, God must exist.

The Ontological Argument: The Premises

The conclusion of the ontological argument, as formulated by Alvin Plantinga and others, depends on a form of modal axiom S5 (which contends that if the truth of a proposition is possible, then it is possible in all worlds). This axiom also contends that, if it is possible that a proposition is necessarily true (that is to say, it is necessarily true in some possible world), then it is necessarily true in all possible worlds.

The logic of the ontological argument is formally summarised by philosopher Alvin Plantinga as follows:

1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and

2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.

3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)

4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.

5. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

The Ontological Argument: Is It Sound?

While the ontological argument has been the subject of fierce criticism by many contemporary philosophers, many of the criticisms of it result from a failure to properly understand the argument.

The ontological argument is clearly logically valid – that is to say, the conclusion necessarily follows provided that Premises 1 to 5 are true. The crucial Premise, therefore, is Premise 3, namely, that it is possible that a maximally great being exists. To refute this Premise, one would need to show that the very concept of an infinitely great being is somehow logically incoherent – like a “married bachelor”. Since no argument to that effect has been forthcoming, however, it follows necessarily and inescapably that “Therefore, a maximally great being exists.”

BRANO 45 (American English)

Roman Catholic Contemporary Tradition Of Moral Theology

(estratto dal testo originale in https://www.ukessays.com/essays/theology/roman-catholic-contemporary-tradition-of-moral-theology-theology-religion-essay.php)

An Introduction to Moral Theology was originally written in December of 1990 by William E. May. It was published by Our Sunday Visitor, Inc. in 1991, just prior to the Encyclical Letter of John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, which was published in 1994. Later in 1994, May published his revised edition most likely to incorporate and respond to the clarifications provided by Veritatis Splendor. With the second edition, published in 2003, he further expanded his work and provides a very clear and thorough analysis of Christian moral theology.

May maintains a strong emphasis on the Christian moral principles purported by Germain Grisez and his companion moral theologians John Finnis and Joseph Boyle. May maintains fidelity to the Roman Catholic Magisterium and offers a strong foundation that stems from his own expertise including his knowledge of bioethics.

William May is definitely main-stream and possesses a sound and loyal adherence to the post Vatican II reconnection with Aquinian moral principles. If there is a criticism of May’s book, it is that he possesses such a deep and profound understanding of the evolution of modern moral theology, including the myriad of revisionist authors and their various schools of thought, that he is capable and somewhat prone to lose a novice in the complexity. His book may better serve the graduate student who possesses a core understanding of moral theology, rather than the neophyte or liberal arts undergraduate.

May demonstrates repeated loyalty to the theories and teachings of Germain Grisez and often defends them in combination with John Finnis and Joseph Boyle. May, Grisez, Finnis and Boyle have also collaborated in publishing other works. May also brings other authors and theologians into his comparative analysis including: Martin Rhonheimer, Joseph Fuchs, Richard Gula, Charles Curran and Timothy O’Connell among many others. May fearlessly pits their views on moral theology against Aquinas’ Summa , Veritatis Splendor and the documents from Vatican II, especially when sorting out the complex definitions of natural law. Although fearless in his quest for fidelity to Roman Catholic tradition and the Magisterium, he is both thorough and contextually compassionate to the opposing ideas presented by the revisionists and proportionalists, pointing out their positive contributions as well as their serious theological flaws. May is not timid and he quickly rejects their infidelity to the foundational underpinnings of Roman Catholic theology while simultaneously attempting to understand why they have chosen a contrary stance to Aquinas, Veritatis Splendor, or similar post Vatican II magisterial interpretations.

Human Dignity and Free Human Action

In May’s first edition, he listed two kinds of human dignity stating, “According to Catholic tradition, as found in Aquinas and in the teachings of Vatican Council II, there is a twofold dignity proper to human beings: one is intrinsic and an endowment or gift; the other is also intrinsic, but is an achievement or acquisition.” [1] Referring to Dignitatis Humane [sic], which was published in 1965, but more notably, citing Veritatis Splendor, May is motivated to add a third kind of human dignity in his revision that he calls,

[A] purely gratuitous gift from God himself, who gives this to us when, through baptism, we are ‘re-generated’ as God’s very own children and given the vocation to become holy, even as the heavenly Father is holy, and to be co-workers with Christ, his collaborators in redeeming the world. This dignity is a treasure entrusted to us, and we can lose it by freely choosing to do what is gravely evil.

In keeping with his recognized mainstream Roman Catholic theology, May incorporates John Paul II’s renewed focus on moral absolutes, together with the theological virtues presented in Veritatis Splendor [...]. May was already a proponent of Aquinas and he spends a great deal of time, devoting an entire section of his book on natural law in Aquinas as developed in the Summa Theologiae. He contrasts Aquinas with Ulpian’s definitions of natural law and then focuses on Aquinas’ teaching of natural law in the Summa Contra Gentiles. His Revised Edition adds a section on natural law from Vatican II and then in his Second Edition he also adds sections to his book to include the theology of John Paul II as well as Martin Rhonheimer. May’s theology is strong on moral responsibility and their resulting norms. One example is how he interweaves the teaching on natural law from Aquinas with the theology expressed by Grisez, Boyle and Finnis; concluding, “It is the natural law which is perfected, fulfilled, [and] completed by the evangelical law of love, of a more-than-human kind of love, the love that God himself has for us. [When we are] concerned with our life as moral persons in Christ, we shall seek to know how the evangelical law of love fulfills and completes the natural law.”

As already noted, May is not shy about identifying and attacking the revisionist theologians and pitting them against Veritatis Splendor and the teachings of the Magisterium. He reviews and sheds light upon the writings of a myriad of the post-Vatican II revisionists including: Louis Janssens, Josef Fuchs, Richard Gula, Richard McCormick, Timothy E. O’Connell, Franz Böckle, Charles E. Curran, Bernard Häring, Franz Scholz, Peter Knauer, and Bruno Schüller. May defends moral absolutes using strong and carefully documented arguments as they are described in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church and Veritatis Splendor by John Paul II. He ultimately concludes,

Revisionists, in their arguments based on the “wholeness” or “totality” of the human act, focus on the agent’s “remote” or “ulterior” end or “further intention,” i.e., on the good that the agent hopes to realize by choosing to do x here and now, or the evil that the agent hopes to avoid by choosing to do x here and now. But they fail to take seriously – indeed, they even ignore – the moral significance of the x that is chosen to realize this end and the fact that the agent freely wills this x as a chosen means, for it is the “proximate” end of his will act and the “present intention” that shapes his moral being. Revisionists are thus led to redescribe human actions in terms of their hoped-for results. [...] Secondly, it falsely redescribes actions in terms of their anticipated results and by doing so fails to reveal and at times even conceals what moral agents are in fact choosing and doing [...].

On Human Action and Virtue

May provides a solid and clear understanding of human action and free choice. May’s first edition (1991) is virtually void of a discussion on the virtues. He does mention virtues and vices in his section, The Basic Understanding of Law in the Summa Theologiae, but his goal is targeted towards a discussion of goods and habits within Eternal Law and Natural Law. His revised (1994) and second (2003) editions add a section dedicated to the virtues. He reflects on Grisez, Aquinas and their discussion of virtue, but less as an instruction on the virtues and more as a response to Veritatis Splendor’s emphasis on the virtues and their importance and effect on free human action and formation of conscience in the moral life. May has a brief discussion on the Cardinal Virtues and specifically side-steps the Theological Virtues stating,

I will not here consider his [Aquinas’] teaching on the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity and his teaching that, with charity, God infuses supernatural moral virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance, etc. These aspects of his teaching are well set forth by Romanus Cessario in The Moral Virtues and Theological Ethics and Virtue or the Examined Life. An excellent brief account of Thomas’s teaching on the virtues can be found in T. C. O’Brien’s article on virtue in the New Catholic Encyclopedia.

Turning then to the Cardinal Virtues, May first reflects on Aquinas’ discussion of appetites and how they contribute to the formation of the Cardinal Virtues. May states,

This text prepares the way for Aquinas’s division of the moral virtues perfecting the appetites into the classical “cardinal” virtues, namely, those of prudence (perfecting one’s practical reason), justice (perfecting the appetite of the will), temperance (perfecting the concupiscible appetite), and fortitude (perfecting the irascible appetite).

In coincidence with and in defense of Germain Grisez, May sees a relationship between moral virtues and moral principles. He finds that a virtue is akin to a good habit, citing fairness and justice, and asserting that one’s personality is affected by each of the commitments and moral norms practiced by that person. May states,

Some today oppose a “virtue-based ethics” to a “normative” or “principle-based ethics.” This debate is in my opinion misplaced. The following passage from Grisez indicates the proper relationship between virtues and moral principles: “What,” he asks, “is the connection between moral principles and virtues? Do we have two distinct, perhaps even competing, approaches to morality – an ethics of moral truth versus an ethics of virtue? Not at all. Take the Golden Rule. One who consistently chooses fairly and works consistently to carry out such choices is a fair person – a person, that is, with the virtue of fairness or justice. A virtue is nothing other than an aspect of the personality of a person integrated through commitments and other choices made in accord with relevant moral norms derived from the relevant modes of responsibility. In other words: living by the standard of fairness makes a person fair.

This assertion of May also coincides with Veritatis Splendor and how John Paul II views human acts as moral acts and how they express the morality of the individual person. John Paul II states,

Human acts are moral acts because they express and determine the goodness or evil of the individual who performs them. They do not produce a change merely in the state of affairs outside of man but, to the extent that they are deliberate choices, they give moral definition to the very person who performs them, determining his profound spiritual traits.

Natural Law, Central to May’s Moral Theology

William May dedicates his longest chapter (chapter 3, of 55 pages) of his second edition (2003) on natural law. He concentrates on several areas of natural law, including the teachings of Aquinas, Ulpian’s definition, the Summa Contra Gentiles, Vatican II, the teaching of John Paul II, and the theology of Germain Grisez, John Finnis and Joseph Boyle. He also discusses areas of agreement between Rhonheimer and Grisez, Finnis, and Boyle and then turns to areas of disagreement between them and Rhonheimer. Finally he reviews the relationship between natural law and virtue.

Kevin Flannery, who reviewed May’s 1994 revision for The Thomist, agrees and comments, “The core of the book is chapter two in which May discusses the natural law theory of Thomas Aquinas and its development by Grisez, Finnis and Boyle. Anyone interested in a quick, accurate introduction to natural law theory as understood in its central tradition could do no better than to read these 63 pages.”

May’s incorporation of Rhonheimer’s position on natural law did not come until the second edition was published in 2003. The core of his use of Rhonheimer supports Grisez et al. noting that as held by Aquinas, natural law is a work of practical reason. He opposes the moralists that deny moral absolutes and accepts that natural reason naturally apprehends the goods that are to be pursued and done. As May states, “Rhonheimer agrees with Grisez et al. in holding that according to Aquinas – and reality – our knowledge of the truths of natural law is not derived from metaphysics or anthropology or any speculative knowledge. With them, he opposes those who maintain the opposite, explicitly acknowledging his debt to Grisez on this matter.”

Rhonheimer disagrees with Grisez et al. in three major areas stated succinctly by May as, “(a) the distinction between the perceptive-practical and descriptive-reflexive levels of practical reason; (b) the relationship between natural law and virtue; and (c) the movement from the first or common principles of natural law to its ‘proximate’ or ‘immediate conclusions.”

May also notes additional disagreement of Rhonheimer with Grisez et al. and indicates that this is his own opinion as well, noting that Rhonheimer does not show how proximate conclusions are found to be true in light of prior principles. May states,

Rhonheimer does not, however, explicitly show how the primary principles of natural law serve as premises in the light of which one can show the truth of the “proximate and immediate” conclusions. In this, he seems to follow Aquinas himself. As we have seen, Grisez, Finnis, and Boyle argue – correctly in my opinion – that one must show clearly how the so-called “proximate conclusions” are shown to be true in the light of prior principles.

In his revised editions, May includes a concise section on the teaching of John Paul II and most importantly as it is expressed in Veritatis Splendor. May demonstrates that one of John Paul II’s main points is that, in order to respect the dignity of our neighbor, one must refrain from destroying or damaging the goods of our neighbor and even, “cherish the real goods perfective in him.”

In addition and in agreement with Aquinas who states, “Hence it is clear that the goodness of the human will depends much more upon eternal law than upon human reason” , May emphasizes the core of John Paul II’s thoughts on natural law stating, “[...] The natural law is our human, intelligent participation in this eternal law, which we can come to know through the exercise of our practical reasoning.” May then directs his reader to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (nos. 1950-1960) for further clarity on eternal and natural law. Here, is where the passage referring to Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum, 579, is encountered in the Catechism that states,

The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin… But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.

According to May’s convincing and methodical presentations, John Paul II, the Second Vatican Council, Grisez et al., Aquinas, and May himself all agree, “natural law that is perfected, fulfilled, and completed by the evangelical law of love, of a more-than-human kind of love, the love that God himself has for us.”

Moral Absolutes and the Battle with the Revisionists

May contested the revisionists long before the appearance of Veritatis Splendor and the re-centering of Catholic moral theology on the precepts of Aquinas. In his 1980 compilation of essays entitled Principles of Catholic Moral Life May, together with William Cardinal Baum, compiled a series of essays that were unequivocally Thomistic and criticized the proportionalist and consequentialist thinking that had developed in several theological circles. In May’s own contribution to the volume, he provided an essay entitled, The natural law and Objective Morality: A Thomistic Perspective. He states, “Today [circa 1979] a significant number of Roman Catholic moral theologians find it necessary to dissent from authoritative teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on moral questions. The Magisterium of the Church teaches that some specifiable sorts of human acts are wicked and contrary to the principles of the natural law.”

According to May, the root cause of the revisionists rejection of moral absolutes stems from the Majority Report which was a document dated, “(27 May 1966) of the ‘majority theologians’ of the Pontifical Commission on Population, Family and Birth, in which they sought to explain why, if contraceptive intercourse is morally good, nevertheless various other masturbatory acts between spouses are not.” May, referring to Documentum Syntheticum, (in Hoyt, p. 72), further highlights the notions of the revisionist theologians of the Majority Report that state, “Infertile conjugal acts constitute a totality with fertile acts and have a single moral specification [namely, the fostering of love responsibly toward generous fecundity].” May points out that the theologians of the Majority Report say,

that the moral “object” of their act – is ‘the fostering of love responsibly toward a generous fecundity.'[They define] this [as] obviously something good, not bad. Revisionists,  that the specific moral absolutes defended in the Catholic tradition and affirmed by the magisterium isolate partial aspects of human acts and, on the basis of such isolated aspects, render decisive moral judgments about them. Their claim is that reason, objectivity, and truth require that an action be evaluated as right or wrong only as a totality that includes all the circumstances and motivations, considered in relation to all the ‘premoral’ (but morally relevant) goods and bads involved in that totality.

May then goes on to show that from this line of thinking the revisionist theologians including those he names: Franz Böckle, Charles E. Curran, Josef Fuchs, Bernard Häring, Louis Janssens, Richard McCormick, Timothy E. O’Connell, Richard Gula, Franz Scholz, and Bruno Schüller, develop the theories of proportionate good, the preference principle, and the denial of moral absolutes. Another group of theologians sometimes called the minority report theologians including Germain Girsez, John Finnis, Joseph Boyle, and others, including William May himself, hold fast to the teachings of Aquinas, and defend moral absolutes [...]. May clearly states,

With this understanding of the “object” of a human act in mind, it is easy to grasp John Paul II’s conclusion, namely, that “One must reject the thesis, characteristic of teleological and proportionalist theories, which holds that it is impossible to qualify as morally evil according to its species – its ‘object’ – the deliberate choice of certain kinds of behavior or specific acts, apart from consideration of the intention for which the choice is made or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned” [no. 79; cf. no. 82].

May clearly points out that in Veritatis Splendor, John Paul II refutes the teleologisms of consequentialism and proportionalism declaring that they, “are not faithful to the Church’s teaching when they believe that they can justify, as morally good, deliberate choices of kinds of behavior contrary to the commandments of the divine and natural law'(cf. no. 75).”

Morality and Sin

May focuses on three major areas in his discussion of sin: “(1) the core meaning of sin, (2) the distinction between mortal and venial sin and the basis of this distinction, and (3) the effect of sin on our moral life.”

In his discussion on the core meaning of sin, he turns first to scripture, starting with the Old Testament. According to May, “The Old Testament consistently regards sin as a wicked rebellion against the Lord.” Here he reflects on the words to describe sin such as unfaithfulness, adultery, foolishness, and abomination. Referring to Sirach, May states, “The consistent teaching of the Old Testament is that sin is rooted in human freedom and consists in an abuse of God’s gift of free choice.” He then turns to David and Psalm 51 and highlights what he calls a beautiful summary of sin in the Old Testament with the passage,

Have mercy on me, O God, according to thy steadfast love; according to thy abundant mercy blot out my transgressions (pesha’). Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity (‘awon), and cleanse me from my sin (hatta’ t)! For I know my transgressions (pesha’), and my sin (hatta’t) is ever before me. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned (hatta’), and done that which is evil (ra’) in thy sight (Ps 51: 1-4).

This is the source for the words used by the priest during Mass, when standing at the side of the altar, he washes his hands, saying quietly, “Wash me, O Lord, from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin.”

Turning to the New Testament, May finds words to describe sin like harmatia and harmatma (freely chosen deeds or to choose to miss-the-mark), anomia (lawlessness), adikia (injustice), and skotos (dimmed eyesight or blindness). For May, these words “show that sin is an opposition to the truth of God, to Jesus Christ – who is the way, the truth, and the life – to one’s fellowmen, and to the truth of being a human person.”

The third area that May discusses in his section on sin is Catholic moral tradition. He reflects on aspects of St. Augustine and Aquinas as well as Gaudium et Spes, and Dignitatis Humanae. He also considers some of the active theologians and their contrary views, including Keane, Curran, Häring, McCormick, and others. True to May’s orthodox view of divine law, he understands that God directs all of creation with charity and wisdom. In this context he concludes,

[T]he highest norm of human life is the divine law – eternal, objective, and universal – whereby God orders, directs, and governs the entire universe and all the ways of the human community by a plan conceived in wisdom and love. Man has been made by God to participate in this law, with the result that, under the gentle disposition of divine providence, he can come to perceive ever more increasingly the unchanging truth (Dignitatis humanae, no. 3; cf. Gaudium et spes, nos. 16-17).

May then goes on to unfold a clear and articulate discussion of mortal sin and venial sin. He uses many sources including encyclical and magisterial pronouncements, scripture, council teachings, and especially observations from John Paul II. Within this context, he carefully considers and then clearly rejects the fundamental option theories. Finally, at the end of his chapter on sin, May refers his readers directly to the Catechism of the Catholic Church where he clearly embraces its definitions of sin, including mortal and venial sin, which states,

God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all (Rom 11:32). Sin is an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law (St. Augustine, Faust 22: PL 42, 418). It is an offense against God. It rises up against God in a disobedience contrary to the obedience of Christ. Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man’s nature and injures human solidarity. The root of all sins lies in man’s heart. The kinds and the gravity of sins are determined principally by their objects. To choose deliberately-that is, both knowing it and willing it-something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death. Venial sin constitutes a moral disorder that is reparable by charity, which it allows to subsist in us. The repetition of sins-even venial ones-engenders vices, among which are the capital sins.

In his latest (2003) revised edition of An Introduction to Moral Theology, May includes an appendix to his book, Christian Moral Life and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. He refers his readers to the Catechism and this appendix often, pointing out that the prime source for most definitions within moral theology are best sought there.

In his review of May’s book in the New Oxford Review’s, Justin Gullekson agrees with the observations above regarding May’s mainstream Roman Catholic position on sin and states,

Sin and moral absolutes: These topics are taken up [by May] with gusto. The pastor, director of religious education or unsettled lay person will find May’s extensive treatment of these matters helpful, especially because he identifies certain theological positions with their corresponding expositors. This book battles the mess people make of their lives when they have been acting according to the false subjective norms of free choice (“if it feels O.K., do it”) and so-called conscience (“if it’s not a sin for you, it’s no sin”).

Jesus Christ, Our Moral Foundation

May points out that Jesus Christ is central and foundational in Christian morality. He supports this with sections from Gaudium et Spes, Veritatis Splendor, scripture (especially from Paul’s letters), and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. As he often does throughout his book, May then turns to articulated positions from Germain Grisez. He points to Grisez’s threefold understanding of how Jesus divinizes humanity, producing union with God. The first is, “our union with him in divine life as children of God, [the second is] the bodily union between Jesus and his faithful, the members of his Church [and the third is] unity between Christ and the Christian in human acts.”

The sacraments, and especially the Eucharist within the Mass and Baptism are central to one’s union with Christ and humanity’s sharing in His sanctifying grace. The Mass is fully a participation in Christ’s act of salvation and Baptism is the bestowal of one’s vocation to not only be within God’s family and a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, but also to assume a greater responsibility to live a moral life as a member of His Mystical Body.

In alignment with Aquinas, Veritatis Splendor, and Grisez, May turns to a discussion of the beatitudes, and how they provide, “modes of Christian response [to] specify ways of acting that mark a person whose will, enlivened by the love of God poured into his or her heart, is inwardly disposed to act with confidence”

May turns again to Grisez. Here he enfolds the gifts of the Holy Spirit as found in Isaiah with the beatitudes producing eight “modes of Christian response” as follows,

1. To expect and accept all good, including the good fruits of one’s work, as God’s gift

2. To accept one’s limited role in the Body of Christ and fulfill it

3. To put aside or avoid everything which is not necessary or useful in the fulfillment of one’s personal vocation

4. To endure fearlessly whatever is necessary or useful for the fulfillment of one’s personal vocation

5. To be merciful according to the universal and perfect measure of mercy which God has revealed in Jesus

6. To strive to conform one’s whole self to living faith, and purge anything which does not meet this standard

7. To respond to evil with good, not with resistance, much less with destructive action

8. To do no evil that good might come of it, but suffer evil together with Jesus in cooperation with God’s redeeming love -.

By digesting the beatitudes in this way, using Grisez’s thoughts, May demonstrates how, in essence, the beatitudes are actually moral foundational norms or virtues for humanity provided directly by Christ.

BRANO 46 (American English)

Take It from the Church Fathers: You Should Read Plato

(by David Davidson, from https://blog.logos.com/2013/11/plato-christianity-church-fathers/)

Christianity is the West’s most important worldview. Plato was the West’s most important philosopher. But the two have far more in common than just importance—in fact, Plato helped set the intellectual stage for the early church.

Dean Inge, the famous professor of divinity, writes that:

“Platonism is part of the vital structure of Christian theology . . . . [If people would read Plotinus, who worked to reconcile Platonism with Scripture,] they would understand better the real continuity between the old culture and the new religion, and they might realize the utter impossibility of excising Platonism from Christianity without tearing Christianity to pieces. The Galilean Gospel, as it proceeded from the lips of Jesus, was doubtless unaffected by Greek philosophy . . . . But [early Christianity] from its very beginning was formed by a confluence of Jewish and Hellenic religious ideas.” (Emphasis added)

If you’re interested in Christianity’s origins, there are some very good reasons to be interested in Platonism:

Plato understood the self as divided between body and soul, with the soul more closely related to goodness and truth; this made Christianity’s later soul-body division easier to understand. (Some early Christians, like Justin Martyr, even regarded the Platonists as unknowing proto-Christians, though this conclusion was later rejected.)

Plato’s theory of forms prefigured the Christian understanding of heaven as a perfect world, of which the physical realm is a mere imitation.

Both worldviews assume the existence of absolute truth and unchanging reality; again, Plato’s thought helped prepare people for Christianity.

Augustine, at the end of a line of influence that began with Plato and passed through Plotinus, understood logic and reasoning—disciplines concerned with absolute truth—as important complements, not enemies, of faith. That faith-reason partnership would characterize Christianity through at least Kierkegaard. (Francis Schaeffer argues that the early existentialist brought modernity past the “line of despair” by conceiving of Christianity as accessible only through a leap of faith, beyond reasoning.)