Monday, February 12, 2024

Jesus is the Alpha and Omega

“Jesus is God incarnate. Because of his human nature, he is the only human being who can say he is the Alpha and the Omega. Jesus is the person who is, who was, and who always will be”. Carolyn Humphreys Taken from: https://www.hprweb.com/2020/07/alpha-and-omega/ Alpha and Omega JULY 2, 2020 BY CAROLYN HUMPHREYS, OCDS Francis of Assisi is known to have said: “Sanctify yourself, and you will sanctify society.” On the Christian map, there are many roads to sanctity. Whatever the road, there is only one major and very necessary guide for this journey. His name is Jesus Christ. Jesus is known by many fascinating titles. One of the most captivating titles is the Alpha and the Omega, which are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. The Alpha and Omega are familiar church symbols that we see on altars, candles, vestments and walls. Because Jesus is the incarnation of God, the Alpha and Omega are also used as a monogram for Christ. During Jesus time, the Jewish rabbis commonly used the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet to signify the wholeness of anything from beginning to end. Because it was the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean people, the New Testament was first written in a form of Greek, and eventually translated into English. The words alpha and omega are introduced to us in the New Testament in several places in the Book of Revelations. They symbolize the oneness in the divine nature of God the Father and Jesus his Son. Their divine nature is exactly and entirely identical. Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” Because of the oneness of their divine nature, what is said about God the Father can also be said about God the Son. Their divinity is limitless and unbounded, transcending every human comprehension or description. The Alpha and the Omega are a sign that the beginning and end of everything is God. Paul the apostle refers to Jesus as the first born of the new creation and the end or goal of our lives when all creation will be drawn up into him. In other words, God is the all; the first and the last, the beginning and the end of everything, and of everything in between. God is the source and the conclusion of life on earth. Jesus is God incarnate. Because of his human nature, he is the only human being who can say he is the Alpha and the Omega. Jesus is the person who is, who was, and who always will be. Actually, he always is. Was and will be are descriptions of, and changing characters within, the past and future in time, as we know them to be. God, and his Son, however, are ever existing, and have neither a beginning nor will they ever have an end. Augustine describes God as “an infinite circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.” When Jesus came to earth as man, he was born, lived for only thirty three years in Judea, showed us the way to God the Father and died. In the natural realm, we know about him through a time and in a place in history. However, there is so much more to Jesus than what we understand from a historical perspective. In the supernatural realm, he existed before and after his earthly life. Jesus, the infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent God became man for us to redeem us. Jesus is the beginning of all created temporal life and this will remain so until he comes again at the end of time. His second coming will be the beginning of the end of creation as we understand it on earth. Heaven is eternal and Jesus is as eternal as God the Father. The middle space between alpha and omega indicates that Jesus encompasses all history. He is historically present in the New Testament, and in the movements of grace, throughout all phases of history up to the present day. At the beginning of time, as God, he was the one through whom all the world, the universe and all its complex mysteries came into being. Jesus said that he existed before Abraham was born and identifies himself with other statements from the Old Testament. He is the “I am” of Exodus 3:14. He is the good shepherd of Psalm 23. He is the Lord of the Old Testament and will bring history to a close when he comes again on the last day. The wholeness of the Alpha and the Omega refers to Jesus the Christ as the word of God, and the wholeness of God’s revelation, to all humankind in every era. On a personal level, Jesus is the beginning and the end of a Christian’s spiritual journey in this life. Jesus is the fullness of truth, beauty, goodness, and wisdom. We need him throughout our faith journey while on earth, and will rejoice with him when we reach our heavenly goal. At the center of our hearts, Jesus is dynamic in the presentation and orchestration of all our good behavior, actions and pursuits. However, we must respond positively to what we believe he wants of us, both as a unique individual, and together with the people of God in his one, holy Catholic and apostolic Church. He is the head of his mystical body, the Church. Jesus is the reason why we live as we do, the master teacher in our Catholic Church, and the end for which we were made. This brings to mind the words of an old hymn by Samuel J. Stone: “The Church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord. She is his new creation by water and the Word. From heav’n he came and sought her to be his holy bride. With his own blood he bought her and for her life he died.” The Spectrum The first and the last are two opposing points. In temporal terms, they can be seen as a spectrum. When experiencing daily feelings this connection is not a straight line, but rather a line that has many peaks and valleys. A phone call can bring grief to a happy day. Laughter can lighten a sad occasion. Ever changing feelings are a normal part of daily life. They can flare up when least expected and can change in an instant. Can we control the severity of our feelings? An old Native American story is told about a grandfather who said to his grandson: “I feel like I have two wolves fighting in my heart. One wolf is mean spirited, angry and attacks everything. The other wolf is forgiving, loving and kind.” “Which wolf will win the fight in your heart?” the grandson asked. “The one I feed,” said the grandfather. Which wolf do we feed? Within sadness and joy, Henri Nouwen wrote: Our life is a short time in expectation, a time in which sadness and joy kiss each other at every moment. There is a quality of sadness that pervades all the moments of our life. It seems that there is no such thing as a perfectly unadulterated joy. Even in the happiest moments of our existence can be tinged with sadness. In every satisfaction, there is an awareness of limitations. In every success, there is the fear of failure. Behind every smile, there is a tear. In every embrace, there is loneliness. In every friendship, distance. And in all forms of light, there is the knowledge of surrounding darkness. . . . But this intimate experience in which every bit of life is touched by a bit of death can point us beyond the limits of our earthly existence. It can do so by making us look forward in expectation to the day when our hearts will be filled with perfect joy, a joy that no one shall take away from us. And this perfect joy is only possible by being with Jesus. Therese of Lisieux understood this well: “Life is passing, Eternity draws nigh, soon shall we live the very life of God. After having drunk deep at the fount of bitterness, our thirst will be quenched at the very source of all sweetness.” The Dove and the Serpent Jesus asks us to be as wise as serpents and as simple as doves. If we go below the surface meaning of these words, they are more of a blending than a balancing act. The serpent and the dove can indicate when to stay put and when to fly away. We discern to stay or fly when we are able to judge our abilities and strength with the situation at hand. The wisdom of the serpent sustains us in seeing potential danger in people, events and situations that could weaken our friendship with God. The simplicity of the dove maintains a gentle but firm spiritual orientation that is evident in our goodness and kindness to all we meet. We aim to combine the shrewdness of the serpent with the sensitivity of the dove by cultivating a steadfast mind and a tender heart. It is said that serpents are wise, have keen eyesight, and are quick to learn. Their tongue protects them from nearby predators, and is useful in following trails, identifying prey, and locating shelter. Serpents are crafty in their use of resources or skills. To be wise as a serpent means to have sound, basic knowledge of what areas we should and should not be. This helps us guard the most precious part of being, our soul. Serpents are quick to get out of the way of trouble. If someone or something evil lunges at us, we step aside. Like serpents, we must always be watchful for snares, traps and deceptions that can subtly take us away from God’s love. There are dark sides of people, and society, that can be inconspicuously present to us, and can take us off our course, or enslave us in dark areas, if we are not vigilant. Doves are meek, innocent, gentle, harmless and are universal symbols of peace. Jesus said he was meek and humble of heart. Meekness draws from humility, the truth that reminds us from where we came, who we are, and where we are going. As doves, we avoid duplicity and keep our conscience clean. We maintain sound Catholic priorities in private and in public. We assume risks as vulnerable, non combative persons. We forgive easily. Difficulties are managed with patience and gentleness. If we are as simple as doves, our demeanor is soothing and has an approachable softness. We discover the splendor of God’s truth, beauty, and wisdom in humankind and all his creation. As doves, we gently bring the peace of Christ to others and therefore infuse it into society. How are we signs of peace to those with whom we associate? Because Jesus is our beginning and our end, he sustains us amid the ups and downs, gains and losses, clarity and confusion, comforts and hardships and, above all, the mysteries in life. He is our “lift” that transcends what is disturbing during dark times, and enhances the beneficence we find during times of light. A Christian way of life can be envisioned as a scale that keeps all things in balance with Jesus’s love and mercy. We let go of things that distance us from Christ and embrace the habits and experiences that bring us into union with Christ. Jesus, Alpha and Omega, God before the world began, First and last, beginning, ending, Mighty Word and Son of Man, Great Creator, Liberator! Author of salvation’s plan! You have loved us! You have freed us! Made of us a chosen race, royal priesthood, holy nation, your own people, born of grace! Ever living King forgiving, soon we’ll see you face to face! With the clouds return in glory; you have sworn it! Come and stay! God who was and is and will be, Strengthen us to watch and pray! Find us steady, faithful, ready! Hasten, Jesus! Speed that Day! Keith Landis

Saturday, February 10, 2024

Immaculate Conception made visible at Lourdes

We read at: https://militia-immaculatae.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Lourdes_Booklet_EN.pdf …. In 1914, as a clerical student Saint Maximilian was miraculously cured by means of water from Lourdes. To have lost his right thumb could have prevented him from receiving priestly orders. His miraculous cure was a visible sign of Mary’s care of his priestly vocation. During his life Saint Maximilian Kolbe visited Lourdes only once. It was on the 30th of January 1930, before undertaking his mission to the Far East. In Lourdes Saint Maximilian celebrated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Basilica, he prayed the rosary in the Grotto, he drank the miraculous water and he sank his finger in the water, he kissed the rock in the Grotto and he commended his prayers to Mary. Summarising his visit to Lourdes, he stressed the experience of a great love of His "Mamusia (Mammy)", as he fondly called the Immaculata. The apparitions in Lourdes had a special place in the Marian treaty begun by Father Maximilian (which he never completed). The Saint gave a description of the apparitions. However, most of all, St. Maximilian discussed the meaning of the name 'Immaculate Conception': "The Immaculate Conception — this privilege must be particularly dear to her if, at Lourdes, this is how she herself wanted to be called: I am the Immaculate Conception. These words must indicate accurately and in the most essential manner who she is." "'Immaculate Conception' — these words came out of the mouth of the Immaculata herself. Therefore, they must indicate accurately and in the most essential manner who she is. Who are you, O Immaculate Conception? Not God, for He has no beginning; not an angel, created directly out of nothing; not Adam, formed with the mud of the earth; not Eve, taken from Adam; and not even the Incarnate Word, who existed from eternity and is 'conceived' rather than a 'conception'. Prior to conception, the children of Eve did not exist, so they may be better called 'conception'. Yet you differ from them also, for they are conceptions contaminated by original sin, while you are the only Immaculate Conception." Also, in Lourdes, the Immaculata did not define herself as 'Conceived without sin', but, as St. Bernadette herself recounts: "At that moment the Lady was standing above the wild rose bush in the same way in which she is depicted on the Miraculous Medal. Upon my third question her face took on an expression of gravity and at the same time of profound humility… Joining the palms of her hands as if in prayer, she lifted them up to her chest… turned her gaze toward Heaven… then, slowly opening her hands and bowing to me, she said in a voice in which you could notice a slight tremor: 'Que soy era Immaculada Councepsiou!' (I am the Immaculate Conception!')". The whole meaning of the life, sufferings and death of Saint Maximilian was to underline the answer given by the Most Holy Virgin Mary to Bernadette, when she asked the Lady to reveal her name. Saint Maximilian had a desire to live by that answer as well as to feed others with it. Countless times and without rest Saint Maximilian repeated: "The Most Holy Mother, asked by Bernadette what her name was, replied: 'I am the Immaculate Conception'. This is a definition of the Immaculata." In her apparition at Lourdes, in 1858, the Mother of God held in her arms the rosary, and through Bernadette, recommended to us the recital of the Rosary. We can conclude, therefore, that the prayer of the Rosary makes the Immaculata happy. St. Maximilian Maria Kolbe Mugenzai no Sono, before October 1933 Father C.B. Daly The Meaning of Lourdes While Lourdes and its apparitions add nothing to the Church's dogmas, they do deepen our appreciation of her teachings and enliven our response to them. The need for prayer and penance, an awareness of Jesus truly present in the Eucharist, the duty of fraternal charity — all this has ever been part of Christian life. At Lourdes, however, we are confronted with these things anew. Mary there shows us their importance as a mother would, by making them more actual, one might even say tangible. By bringing us face to face with human weakness and misery in the pilgrims who come to that shrine, she pleads that we make prayer and penance, love of Jesus and charity for others the very fabric of our daily existence. It is here that she lets us see the significance of her Immaculate Conception and know the extent of her Co-redemption. The first privilege kept her free from sin and therefore empowered her to love both God and man perfectly. The other gave her the responsibility to aid us, her children, in working towards that same freedom and attaining that same love. Mary's concern at Lourdes is, then, to help us bear witness to the realities that lie hidden in the truths of faith. Lourdes and Revelation In investigating the meaning of Lourdes, one has to begin by eliminating some mistaken hypotheses. We know, for example, from general theological principles, that Lourdes cannot be intended to teach us any new truth about Mary or about the divine plan of salvation. No apparition or private revelation, however approved by the Church, could reveal to us any new truth of faith or morals, or add any truth to what is to be believed by Catholic faith. Pope Benedict XIV, as Cardinal Lambertini, in his classic work on "The Beatification and Canonization of the Servants of God", says, speaking of private revelations: Such an ecclesiastical approbation is nothing else than a permission to publish (a narrative) after mature examination, in view of the instruction and utility of the faithful... The assent of Catholic Faith to revelations thus approved is not merely not obligatory, but is not possible; (such revelations) demand only an assent of human credence in conformance with the rules of human prudence which represents them as probable and piously credible. …. Jean Guitton, speaking of mariophanies and places of Marian pilgrimage, has well said: The veneration of the faithful is not directed to the place itself, but to the mystery that is conceived to be connected with the place... It may happen that the seer of the vision is canonized; if so, it is not for his visions alone, but for the heroic virtues of his life... Suppose the worst: imagine facts come to light which throw serious doubt on the genuineness of the vision... That would take nothing at all from the truths this particular vision represented. These would not depend on any new vision; the Church already possessed them in her deposit of faith. Nor would it detract from the graces received where the vision occurred. These statements only repeat fundamental theses of the theology of faith and of revelation. In their light it is evident that it is only with qualifications that we can speak of Lourdes as having been intended by God as a miraculous confirmation of the truth of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception defined four years earlier by Pope Pius IX. This is indeed a very natural way to speak and it contains important truth. The episcopal document whereby Mgr. Laurence in 1862 gave official ecclesiastical recognition to the apparition already pointed out that, by appearing at Lourdes, and calling for a sanctuary to be built there, Our Lady seemed herself to have wished "to consecrate by a monument the infallible pronouncement of the successor of St. Peter." The popes themselves have spoken in this way. Pope St. Pius X, in his encyclical for the fiftieth anniversary of the Definition of 1854, wrote: Pope Pius IX had hardly defined as of Catholic faith the truth that Mary was from her conception exempt from sin, when there began at Lourdes the marvellous manifestations of Our Lady. Pope Pius XII in his encyclical for the centenary of Lourdes recalled a statement from his earlier encyclical, Fulgens Corona, that the Blessed Virgin Mary herself wished, it would seem, to confirm by a marvellous event the definition which her Son’s Vicar on earth had a short time before proclaimed. However, the Pope in the same centenary encyclical noted that The infallible word of the Roman Pontiff, authentic interpreter of revealed truth, needed no heavenly confirmation in order to command the belief of the faithful. But yet, he continued: With what emotion and what gratitude the Christian people and its pastors received from the lips of Bernadette the reply coming from Heaven, "I am the Immaculate Conception." These words of Pope Pius XII are the most accurate expression of the matter. In one sense Lourdes cannot confirm the truth of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, because we are more sure of the truth of the dogma than we are of the reality of the apparitions. For the former we have divine authority; for the latter we have strictly only human credibility. Yet, in the concrete case, these distinctions seem somewhat academic and unreal. Lourdes does not add any new ground of objective certitude to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception; but it does confirm our personal apprehension of that truth. Perhaps we might use Newman's formula, and say that Lourdes helps to change our attitude towards the dogma from a notional into a real assent. Mary's mission at Lourdes was not to reveal new truths, but to give us a deeper realization of the truths revealed by her Son once and for all time, the truths she kept while on earth and pondered in her heart. It is, therefore, theologically inexact and inadvisable to speak of Lourdes and the other great Marian manifestations of modern times as marking a new and Marian epoch in the economy of redemption. Preachers sometimes speak of this as the Age of Mary and develop their theme by suggesting that God first sent His Son to draw mankind to His love; and when men refused to come to His Son, He in the last times sends them Mary. Frequently implicated with this theme is another and probably more serious aberration which crept into certain mariological expressions and images since the sixteenth century. This trend of thought would have it that, as between Jesus and Mary, Mary provides the pity and the pleas to Jesus for mercy, and Jesus the rigour of divine justice and wrath towards sinners. Such language and imagery are, of course, devotional rather than theological, and it is perhaps unfair to assess them by rigorous theological criteria. Rightly interpreted, the apparitions at Lourdes and a century of Lourdes devotion stand opposed to these aberrant concepts and constitute a recall to the traditional and true theology of Our Lady. "I am the Immaculate Conception" It is natural to look for some centre of unity amid the diversity of facts and words associated with Lourdes. There can be no doubt that this centre was provided by Our Lady herself when on the 25th of March 1858 she at last spoke the word that all had been waiting, praying and hoping for. She spoke her name. She said: "I am the Immaculate Conception." Nothing more surely attests to the doctrinal soundness and the supernatural origin of the apparitions than these words. Bernadette did not know what they meant. Her cousin, Jeanne Vedere, who had the story directly from Bernadette at the time, describes how Bernadette had to repeat the words over and over again on her way to tell them to the Curé for fear of forgetting them; and that when M. Peyramale asked her what the words meant, she confessed that she did not know. This apparition was always the climax of Bernadette's narration of the events of Massabielle. She accompanied her narration with a re-enactment of the gestures of Our Lady as she spoke the words. Our Lady had had her hands joined, with the Rosary hanging from her right arm. In response to Bernadette's thricerepeated appeal to her to declare her name she smiled, then extended her arms downwards in the attitude of the Virgin of the Miraculous Medal, so that the Rosary slipped towards her wrist; then joined her hands again upon her breast and with eyes raised towards Heaven, spoke with indescribable humility and tenderness the words, "I am the Immaculate Conception." Bernadette's repetition of these gestures and words made an unforgettable impression on all who witnessed it. The sculptor, M. Fabisch, who had already executed the statuary of La Salette, and was chosen to make the first statue of Our Lady of Lourdes, came in 1863 to hear from Bernadette herself the description of the Lady of her visions. He asked her to describe the scene of the Lady's self-revelation. He later wrote: The girl stood up with perfect simplicity. She joined her hands and raised her eyes towards Heaven... But neither Fra Angelico, nor Perugino, nor Raphael has ever created anything so gentle, and at the same time so profound as the look of that little girl... I shall never forget, as long as I live, the beauty of that expression. There is no doubt, then, that the sixteenth apparition, and Our Lady's words on that occasion, are the heart of Lourdes and the key to its whole meaning. Bernadette herself, who deplored the fact that too many people skim over the surface of things, remarked: "I would like to see emphasis placed on the apparition in which the Blessed Virgin declared her identity." Everything in the story of Lourdes is related to and made meaningful by the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The grammar of Our Lady's words is strange and cannot be accidental. The authenticity of the words has been questioned on theological grounds: how could Our Lady be her Immaculate Conception? But the construction surely invites juxtaposition with two sentences from the New Testament. The first is that in which St. Paul says of Our Lord: "Him who knew no sin (God) hath made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in him" (2 Cor. 5:21). The second is that in which Our Lady herself says, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord"; in other words, "I am the slave of the Lord; I am nothing but the fulfiller of His will." St. Paul says that God made Christ sin, that we might be made the justice of God in Christ. But in Mary and in her alone the divine plan of redemption is already and fully and finally realized. Through Christ, her Son, she is already made "the justice of God." She is the justice of God accomplished. She is the Immaculate Conception, in whom through Christ sin is totally defeated. Christ was made sin that she might be sinless. Christ was made sin for us; she is made "anti-sin" in order that she may be the model of the sinlessness that we, poor sinners, must painfully, penitentially labour to achieve in Christ. But Mary's sinlessness is not merely a state which she passively receives. It is also a total, dedicated disposition of will which she actively lives and is. In this sense also she is her Immaculate Conception; that is to say, she is the justice of God; she is the complete fulfiller of all the justice of His just will. "I am the Immaculate Conception" was Our Lady's repetition, on the Feast of the Annunciation, 1858, of the words she spoke at the Annunciation itself: "I am the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to Thy word."

Friday, February 2, 2024

A ‘preview’ of Mary in 2 Kings 5

by Damien F. Mackey A most important person now emerges in the narrative, a person of absolutely the lowest status in the entire story, but whose charitable intervention on behalf of Na’aman will have cosmological ramifications. That person is a “little girl”, a “servant”, as was Mary of Nazareth (Luke 1:38): ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord’, whose intervention in history became its defining moment: ‘Be it done unto me according to thy word’. We read the account of the Syrian captain, Na’aman, his miraculous cure from leprosy and his conversion to Yahweh, in 2 Kings 5. Na’aman, whose name means “pleasant”, was a famed military captain, who had assisted his Syrian master-king, Ben-Hadad [I], by winning “great victories” for him. Legend even has it that it was Na’aman who had drawn his bow at a venture and had struck king Ahab of Israel with a fatal arrow shot. This Na’aman, however, was terribly afflicted with a skin disease, or “leprosy”. As sometimes happens in the Scriptures - and indeed also in history down through the ages - the Lord seems to be ‘driving the war chariots’ of the ‘baddies’, in this case Aram (or Syria), against those who are meant to be the ‘goodies’, in this case, Israel. For it is the Lord, we learn, who is giving victory to the Syrians. The same would happen later, at the time of the prophet Isaiah, when Sennacherib’s “Assyria” would be described as “the rod of My anger”, God’s punishment over and over again against his apostate people. Not that these Syrians, or these Assyrians, would have been the least bit aware of how they were being employed in, or conscripted into, Yahweh’s service, their minds bent entirely upon their own personal glory and conquest. This, God’s seeming blessing upon the deeds of the wicked has much troubled the godly types down through history, those like Job and Jeremiah, for instance. ‘Why do the wicked prosper?’ We have seen it again in our modern era, with tyrants seemingly going from strength to strength, all of their ambitions coming to fruition. Totally self-reliant, full of hubris, they never appear to give a single thought to God. Some of these will eventually collapse in a sad heap (like Hitler), but others will seem to go on and on, for decades, with no hope of change in sight. There are also rare occasions, like in the case of king Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’- another of those enemy kings of Israel being powerfully upheld by the Lord - when the tyrant will undergo a significant change of heart (metanoia). In the days of Samuel, the enemy Philistines would succeed (though much to their own discomfiture) in capturing the Ark of the Covenant, owing to the graft and corruption of Israel’s leading priests at this time. It befell King David to retrieve the sacred object. The era of Na’aman was a time of similar wickedness throughout Israel, with king Ahab in charge, urged on by that ‘baddest’ of all wives, Queen Jezebel. That may be the most likely explanation as to why the Syrian armies, capably led by Na’aman, were being allowed by the Lord to run riot, as if He himself had taken over the helm. Na’aman, a proud Syrian worshipper of his own gods, the greatest of them being Rimmon, would have been, just like the blasphemous Assyrian king, Sennacherib, blissfully unaware of the Lord’s designs upon him, which will, in the case of Na’aman, go well beyond providing him with military victories for Ben-Hadad’s Syria. Thus see e.g. my article: Akhnaton’s Theophany (1) (DOC) Akhnaton's Theophany | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu A most important person now emerges in the narrative, a person of absolutely the lowest status in the entire story, but whose charitable intervention on behalf of Na’aman will have cosmological ramifications. That person is a “little girl”, a “servant”, as was Mary of Nazareth (Luke 1:38): ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord’, whose intervention in history became its defining moment: ‘Be it done unto me according to thy word’. It happened that the Syrians had, in one of their raids, captured an Israelite girl, who “had been given to Na’aman’s wife as a maid”. The girl’s rôle will be crucial. In her kindness and forgiveness, the girl will tell her mistress: ‘I wish my master [Na’aman] would go to see the prophet [Elisha] in Samaria. He will heal him of his leprosy’. The girl’s wish, expressed to her mistress, had opened the door to a miracle. Compare the (Israelite) Jewish Mary at Cana again, concernedly pointing the guests to, not a prophet of Israel in this case, but to Jesus Christ himself, the King of all prophets: ‘Do whatever He tells you’. Wine, lacking at the marriage feast, will now be drawn as the finest wine, drawn from water. Incredibly, Na’aman, who, as the narrative informs us, was an extremely proud man, takes this information from a young and foreign slave girl, and goes with it to the great king himself, Ben-Hadad. Just as incredibly, the king of Syria has no problem with his captain traipsing off to Samaria to seal the deal. This may have been during one of those occasions when a truce prevailed between the two countries. What it does strikingly reveal, it seems, is the tremendous confidence that the king of Syria has in his right-hand man, Na’aman. But, whatever the political situation at the time, the un-named king of Israel goes into a panic. ‘Am I God that I can cure leprosy?’ Who could blame him? Elisha, who must have been on fairly good terms with this particular king of Israel, asks him, ‘Why are you upset? Send Na’aman to me, and he will learn that there is a true prophet here in Israel’. Indeed, ‘Na’aman … will learn’ that; but not without his first having to undergo an intense inner struggle. This Na’aman was, as we have learned, a highly competent military commander. He was disfigured by leprosy, a cure for which he was apparently so desperately seeking that he had even resorted to taking the advice of a young slave girl. A bit like a superstitious punter who will latch on to almost anyone’s tips for some success at the races. Na’aman’s outward disfigurement was a sign of his inward disfigurement of superstitious pride. Desperate for a cure, he nonetheless romped up to Samaria in full military pomp, with horses and chariots. The cure was to be on his own terms, a quick blessing from the prophet, and then a return to life as normal. Moreover, he was loaded down with lavish presents. This, he may have reasoned, ought to coax the prophet into swinging things his way. Elisha was there to tell him that it does not work like that. Well, actually Elisha was not there to tell him. The fearless Elisha, for whom nothing was too hard, and who feared no one, having heard the noisy thunder of horses and chariots marching his way, did not like the way that Na’aman was shaping up. So the prophet did not even come out to greet the Syrian captain. Elisha’s first lesson. Instead, he sent “a messenger” to tell Na’aman, tersely: ‘Go and wash yourself seven times in the Jordan River. Then your skin will be restored, and you will be healed of your leprosy’. This was not what Na’aman had wanted to hear, and he let it be known. Going off in a huff, he exclaimed: ‘I thought that he would at least come out for me. I thought that he would just wave his hand over the leprous spot and I would be cured’. Anyway, he mused, the impressive rivers of Damascus, with their abundant waters from Syria’s gods, are far more potentially healing than Israel’s miserable Jordan River. There is much more to Na’aman’s chagrin than may be apparent to modern, western minds when encountering this biblical passage. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg and co-author, Lisa Loden, have explained it in terms of the significance that an ancient people’s river had for them with its connection with life, fertility, agriculture, their gods, and so on (“The Syrian in Israel’s War Story (Naaman and the Gospel)”, preachitteachit.org. In short, the authors explain: “… [Na’aman] was asked to do nothing less than betray the faith of his fathers. He was being asked to be willing to acknowledge that there was a possibility that Israel’s God could do something that the Syrian god [Rimmon] was unable to do”. It was left to our Israelite slave girl to rescue Na’aman from his own folly. ‘Surely, if the prophet had asked you to do something difficult, you would have done it’. Na’aman yields once again to the advice of this wise girl, goes off and immerses himself in the Jordan River, as Elisha had first told him to do, and his flesh becomes as clear as that of a child. Catholics generally, and most unfortunately, do not take the simple advice of the Jewish maiden (Our Lady of the Rosary at Fatima) who told us to do the Five First Saturdays, or Communion of Reparation, with specific points of instruction. This is what heaven wants, but many like to do things their way – possibly even the harder way. Immerse yourself in the Five First Saturdays, and you can come away spiritually re-invigorated, made new again - just as Na’aman was.

Thursday, February 1, 2024

Resplendent Child of Pontevedra in Spain

by Damien F. Mackey Today is the 10th of December (2021), on which day, nearly a century ago, Our Lady of the Rosary fulfilled her promise: “I shall come to ask for … the Communion of Reparation on the first Saturdays of the month”. Five First Saturdays book 1925: Our lady Fulfils Her Promise On the 10th of December, 1925, Our Lady of the Rosary fulfilled her promise of the 13th of July (1917) with regard to the First Saturdays, when She told the three children: “I shall come to ask for … the Communion of Reparation on the first Saturdays of the month”. Lucia was by then a Dorothean postulant at Pontevedra in Spain. The most holy Virgin appeared to her in her room, and by her side, elevated on a luminous cloud, was a Child. In order perhaps to appreciate Our Lady’s first gesture at this particular, intimate apparition, we must take the reader back to the biblical scene before the throne of king Ahasuerus, at the very moment when Queen Esther had presented herself in all her majesty, unannounced - and not summoned - before the Medo-Persian king. “On the third day, when [Esther] ended her prayer, she took off the garments in which she had worshipped, and arrayed herself in splendid attire. Then, majestically adorned, after invoking the all-seeing God and Saviour, she took her two maids with her, leaning daintily on one, while the other followed carrying her train. She was radiant with perfect beauty, and she looked happy, as if beloved, but her heart was frozen with fear. When she had gone through all the doors, she stood before the king. He was seated on his royal throne, clothed in the full array of his majesty, all covered with gold and precious stones. And he was most terrifying. Lifting his face, flushed with splendour, he looked at her in fierce anger. And the queen faltered, and turned pale and faint, and collapsed upon the head of the maid who went before her. Then God changed the spirit of the king to gentleness, and in alarm he sprang from his throne and took her in his arms until she came to herself. And he comforted her with soothing words, and said to her, ‘What is it Esther? I am your brother. Take courage, you shall not die, for our law applies only to the people. Come near’. Then he raised the golden sceptre and touched it to her neck; and he embraced her, and said, ‘Speak to me’ …. But as she was speaking, she fell fainting. And the king was agitated, and all his servants sought to comfort her’. (Esther 15:1-16). As on all the previous occasions when the Esther chronicle has been quoted in this book in relation to the Fatima story, Catholics who read these inspired words cannot fail to be impressed by how perfectly this Old Testament narrative continues to chime in with the details of its New Testament counterpart. It gives us a clear insight into the truth, alas one not sufficiently stressed and so not sufficiently appreciated, as to how truly Our Blessed Lady is placed between the wrath of God on the one hand, and sinful humanity on the other. Or, as She herself showed us, between the wrath of God and an eternal Hell! As an immediate consequence of this neglect, we have it that in our days, ‘not all His servants seek to comfort Her …’. If this had been the situation in the presence of king Ahausuerus, he would no doubt have interpreted this neglect on the part of some as a slight on the Queen, and therefore as an insult upon himself. By the same token, we must now extend and enlarge this scene, and truly see the holy Catholic Church herself as being placed in that perilous position of mediation between God and humankind, between Divine wrath and an eternity in hell. And within that enlarged panorama we begin to discern how first Lucia, and then ‘all those servants who seek to comfort Her’, have been placed in the rôle originally assumed by Queen Esther on behalf of her people, but truly fulfilled by the Lamb of God and the ‘New Eve’, and extended in time by the holy Catholic Church on behalf of all humankind. There are in fact some distinct similarities between Esther and Sr. Lucia in the more important aspects of their lives. In the first place, both Esther and Lucia were marked out by Heaven for special favour and were raised up by God from obscurity to public prominence, in order to carry out their respective tasks of the utmost importance. But their being in the public eye was a cause of grave anxiety to both Esther and Lucia. Esther wrote about it to Mordecai: “Thou knowest my necessity – that I abhor the sign of my proud position [i.e. the crown], which is upon my head on the days when I appear in public” (Esther 14:16). Lucia, too, underwent grievous misery and mental suffering during the apparitions. For instance, she related that for a period of time after the second apparition, she “lost all enthusiasm for making sacrifices and acts of mortification”, and she was temped to say that she had been lying about the apparitions, “and so put an end to the whole thing” (“Fatima in Lucia’s Own Words”, p. 69). Both Queen Esther and Lucia were prepared to risk death rather than quit the task that God had assigned to them. Esther courageously went with her two maids into the presence of Ahasuerus the Great, who had the power of life and death over them. Lucia and her two cousins prepared themselves to suffer an agonising death in boiling oil at the hands of the sub-prefect, Santos, rather than reveal Our Lady’s secret to him. Ultimately the king, and Santos, each relented. In the case of Queen Esther, she so won over the king that his heart and hers were united thereafter in a common cause against the enemy, who had now become their enemy. This bond, this unity of heart and mind, was sealed by the visible gesture of the king, when he raised the golden sceptre and placed it on the shoulder of his terrified Queen. So when, on the 10th of December, 1925, according to Lucia, “Our Lady rested Her hand on my shoulder”, we may, on the strength of the Esther parallel, take this to mean much more than a simple gesture of maternal reassurance, and see in it the passing on of a royal authority for what was to come next. For, “as She did so”, Lucia continues, “She showed me a heart encircled by thorns, which She was holding in Her other hand. At the same time the Child said: ‘Have compassion on the Heart of your most holy Mother, covered with thorns, with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment, and there is no one to make an act of reparation to remove them’. (“Fatima in Lucia’s Own Words”, p. 195). Next, the Blessed Virgin revealed to Lucia the full program of the Five First Saturdays, as the means by which She was to be consoled for the sins directed against her Immaculate Heart: “Look, my daughter, at My Heart, surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce Me at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You at least try to console Me and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first saturday of five consecutive months, shall confess, receive holy communion, recite five decades of the rosary, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the rosary, with the intention of making reparation to me” (ibid.). This was the long-awaited moment. In the presence of her Divine Son, the Queen of Heaven had at last completely unveiled the second phase of Heaven’s wondrous redemptive Plan for the apocalyptic age: the mystical weapon of the Five First Saturdays. In its components, there is nothing new in this devotion; for essentially it consists of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, sacramental Confession and the holy Rosary, accompanied by meditations on the Mysteries. Thus there is nothing in the devotion with which Catholics should be unfamiliar. It is quite within the reach of all. But what characterises the devotion and makes it perhaps unique, is the purity of intention that is meant to accompany the practice of it. In other words, the Five First Saturdays is a totally unselfish devotion, requiring of those who practice it that they go beyond their own interests, so as to make of themselves an oblation of pure love to Our Blessed Lady. This wonderful first apparition at Pontevedra seems clearly to have its prefiguration in that scene from the Book of Esther that we have just been discussing. The king reached out with his golden sceptre, saying to Esther, “‘Speak to me’. And she said to him, ‘I saw you, my lord, like an angel of God, and my heart was shaken with fear at your glory. For you are wonderful, my lord, and your countenance is full of grace’. But as she was speaking, she fell fainting. And the king was agitated, and all his servants sought to comfort her” (15:12-16). The King of Heaven and earth is there in the Person of the Child Jesus; the Queen of Heaven herself, greatly in distress; the solicitous servants in the person of Lucia, standing in for all those who would take the divine message to heart; and finally there is the mandate to carry the message to the whole world with the authority of the Magisterium. Truly, then, a Catholic would be hard pressed to find a more accurate and better inspired resumé of an old devotion presented under this beautiful new form of Reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. As the Cardinal had said: It is you yourselves who have the remedy in your own hands”. 1926: The Resplendent Child Returns On the 15th of February, 1926, Lucia, now at Tuy in Spain, received a further apparition pertaining to the Five First Saturdays devotion. At this point in time Lucia was in a state of great perplexity as to how she might propagate the devotion. Her confessor had written to her that it was necessary for the vision of the 10th of December to be repeated, “for further happenings to prove its credibility” (ibid., p. 197). And despite the fact that Lucia’s Mother Superior was prepared to propagate the devotion, her confessor had insisted that the latter, on her own, “could do nothing to propagate this devotion” (ibid.). It was at that stage that Sr. Lucia had a further encounter with the Divine Child in the garden. She had also met the Child, “some months earlier”, she says, and, without suspecting who He was, she asked Him if he knew the “Hail Mary”. He said that He did. She then asked Him to say it, but, as He made no attempt to say it by Himself, she said it with Him three times over, at the end of which she again asked Him to say it alone. But as He remained silent and seemed unable to say the “Hail Mary” alone, Lucia asked Him if He knew where the Church of Santa Maria was. To which he replied that He did. Thereupon, Lucia asked Him to go there every day and to say this: “O My heavenly Mother, give me your Child Jesus!” Lucia taught this to Him and then left Him. When the Child returned on the 15th of February, Lucia questioned Him: “Did you ask out heavenly Mother for the Child Jesus?” The Child turned to her and said: “and have you spread through the world what our heavenly mother requested of you?” With that He was transformed into a resplendent Child. Lucia, knowing then that it was Jesus, explained to Him the difficulties that she was experiencing at that stage with her confessor, who had asked for the vision of Pontevedra to be repeated, and who had said that the Mother Superior alone could not effectively promote the devotion. To this, Our Lord replied with these telling words: “It is true that your Superior alone can do nothing, but with My grace she can do all. It is enough that your confessor gives you permission and that your Superior speaks of it, even without people knowing to whom it has been revealed” (Ibid., pp. 196-197). But that was not the only problem that poor Lucia had to clarify with the Divine Child. Her confessor had also suggested in his letter to her that the devotion which she had described to him in honour of the Immaculate Heart of Mary was fairly widespread throughout the world at that time. Were there not many souls who receive Holy Communion on the First Saturdays, in honour of Our Lady and the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary, he argued? Again Our Lord’s reply is highly instructive; for He insists that not just any devotional routine will do. He is very specific about what he wants. Essentially it is obedience that he is after: “It is true, My daughter, that many souls begin the First Saturdays, BUT FEW FINISH THEM, and those who do complete them do so in order to receive the graces that are promised thereby. It would please Me more if they did Five with fervour and with the intention of making reparation to the Heart of your Heavenly Mother, than if they did Fifteen, in a tepid and indifferent manner …” (Ibid., p. 197). We might be surprised to learn that our Divine Lord chose to appear to Sr. Lucia, not as an adult, but as a little Child. But as St. Louis de Montfort had explained in his Love of Eternal Wisdom: “… when the Incarnate and glorious Wisdom appeared to His friends, He appeared to them, not in thunder and lightning, but meekly and gently; not assuming the majesty of a king or of the Lord of Hosts, but with the tenderness of a spouse, the kindness of a friend. Sometimes, He has appeared in the Holy Eucharist, but I cannot remember having read that He ever did so, EXCEPT UNDER THE FORM OF A MEEK AND BEAUTIFUL CHILD”. And so, fittingly, Our Lord appeared to Lucia at Pontevedra and at Tuy in His gentlest possible guise, under the aspect of the “little Lamb” of the Eucharist, to encourage us and to remind us that the devotion that Our Lady of Fatima has named the “Communion of Reparation”, is essentially a Eucharistic-oriented devotion.

Wednesday, January 31, 2024

Preferred early dating for Gospels

by Damien F. Mackey “The Benedictus, the song of Zachary, is given in Luke 1:68-79. In Greek, as in English, the Benedictus, as poetry, seems unexceptional. There is no evidence of clever composition. But, when it is translated into Hebrew, a little marvel appears”. Fr. Jean Carmignac Astute scholars such as Jean Carmignac, John Robinson and Claude Tresmontant have breathed some refreshingly healthy new air into biblical studies by arguing for much earlier dates than conventionally accepted for the various books of the New Testament, and, in Carmignac’s case, for the Greek texts of the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), in particular, to have arisen from Semitic originals. And I personally would favour Robinson’s view, too, that the entire New Testament was written before the Fall of Jerusalem, in c. 70 AD. The following brief article summarises Carmignac’s ground-breaking efforts - including his wonderful reinterpretation of the “Song of Zachary” - and it also makes references to the research of Robinson and Tresmontant: http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/were-the-synoptic-gospels-composed-in-hebrew Were the Synoptic Gospels Composed in Hebrew? ________________________________________ Were the Synoptic Gospels Composed in Hebrew? Forget what Winston Churchill said about Russia being "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." Yes, it was a memorable line, but it should have been applied to modern biblical scholarship. Here's a field for those wanting to make a name for themselves, who want posterity to know about the Smith Hypothesis or the Jones Theory. You can come up with any idea you like, and you can do a sophisticated form of proof-texting establishing your thesis. All you must do is cite in your notes the Usual Suspects--there are only two or three dozen names to get right--and Authority is on your side. Your work will become part of the "assured results of modern biblical scholarship." Unless, of course, you take an entirely new tack. Some things are simply off limits. People look down their noses at you, for instance, if you posit early dates for the authorship of the New Testament books. Look at the cool reception the late John A. T. Robinson got when Redating the New Testament appeared in 1976. Robinson was already a well-respected scholar. More than that, he was a liberal scholar, founder of the New Morality school of thought, which started with his Honest to God. But here he was, taking a fresh look at the presuppositions used in dating the New Testament books and realizing that the presuppositions were worthless. They were little more than prejudices. He started from scratch and came up with the conclusion that every book of the New Testament was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and even John he put as early as the forties, which, if true, would pretty much prove that the men whose names their bear wrote them. Redating the New Testament was politely but not, for the most part, enthusiastically reviewed in the scholarly journals. What could one expect? People who had staked their reputations on dating the New Testament as late as possible--even, parts of it, well into the second century--were displeased that someone not able to be classified as a reactionary should come up with answers Augustine would have been comfortable with. Robinson "worked from an exclusively historical methodology," wrote Jean Carmignac in The Birth of the Synoptics. "I work with a methodology which is principally philological but historical on occasion." Carmignac, a Dead Sea Scrolls translator and an expert in the Hebrew in use at the time of Christ, reached conclusions similar to Robinson's, but he came at the problem from a different angle. He translated the synoptic Gospels "backwards," from Greek into Hebrew, and he was astonished at what he found. "I wanted to begin with the Gospel of Mark. In order to facilitate the comparison between our Greek Gospels and the Hebrew text of Qumran, I tried, for my own personal use, to see what Mark would yield when translated back into the Hebrew of Qumran. "I had imagined that this translation would be difficult because of considerable differences between Semitic thought and Greek thought, but I was absolutely dumbfounded to discover that this translation was, on the contrary, extremely easy. "Around the middle of April 1963, after only one day of work, I was convinced that the Greek text of Mark could not have been redacted directly in Greek and that it was in reality only the Greek translation of an original Hebrew." Carmignac, who died recently, had planned for enormous difficulties, but they didn't arise. He discovered the Greek translator of Mark had slavishly kept to the Hebrew word order and grammar. Could this have been the result of a Semite writing in Greek, a language he didn't know too well and on which he imposed Hebrew structures? Or could the awkward phrasings found in our Greek text have been nothing more than overly faithful translations (perhaps "transliterations" would be more accurate) of Semitic originals? If the second possibility were true, then we have synoptic Gospels written by eyewitnesses at a very early date. Carmignac spent most of the next twenty-five years meticulously translating the Greek into Hebrew and making endless comparisons. The Birth of the Synoptics is a popular summary of what he hoped to publish in a massive multi-volume set. It is a delightful shocker of a book. Consider just one example. (Carmignac gives many, but his short book isn't weighed down with them.) The Benedictus, the song of Zachary, is given in Luke 1:68-79. In Greek, as in English, the Benedictus, as poetry, seems unexceptional. There is no evidence of clever composition. But, when it is translated into Hebrew, a little marvel appears. In the phrase "to show mercy to our fathers," the expression "to show mercy" is the Hebrew verb hanan, which is the root of the name Yohanan (John). In "he remembers his holy covenant," "he remembers" is the verb zakar, which is the root of the name Zakaryah (Zachary). In "the oath which he swore to our father Abraham" is found, for "to take an oath," the verb shaba, which is the root of the name Elishaba (Elizabeth). "Is it by chance," asks Carmignac, "that the second strophe of this poem begins by a triple allusion to the names of the three protagonists: John, Zachary, Elizabeth? But this allusion only exists in Hebrew; the Greek or English translation does not preserve it." Carmignac gives many other examples, and he draws these conclusions about the dating of the synoptics: "The latest dates that can be admitted are around 50 for Mark . . . around 55 for Completed Mark, around 55-60 for Matthew, between 58 and 60 for Luke. But the earliest dates are clearly more probable: Mark around 42, Completed Mark around 45, (Hebrew) Matthew around 50, (Greek) Luke a little after 50." These dates are all approximate, of course, particularly those for Mark and Matthew, and they are the result of Carmignac's mainly philological analysis. Claude Tresmontant, in The Hebrew Christ, working parallel to Carmignac but with a different methodology, comes up with these datings: Matthew, early 30s (within a few years of the Resurrection); Luke 40-60; Mark 50-60. Carmignac keeps to Marcan priority, while Tresmontant goes for Matthean priority. Regardless, each denies what is the majority opinion among biblical scholars, that the synoptics were written late in the first century, possibly into the last decade or two. Carmignac draws a few other conclusions: "(1) It is certain that Mark, Matthew, and the documents used by Luke were redacted in a Semitic language. "(2) It is probable that this Semitic language is Hebrew rather than Aramaic. "(3) It is sufficiently probable that our second Gospel [that is, Mark] was composed in a Semitic language by St. Peter the Apostle" (with Mark being his secretary perhaps). Expanding on this last point, he says that "it is probable that the Semitic Gospel of Peter was translated into Greek, perhaps with some adaptations by Mark, in Rome, at the latest around the year 63; it is our second Gospel which has preserved the name of the translator, instead of that of the author." As he wrote The Birth of the Synoptics, Carmignac suspected his "scientific arguments [would] prove reassuring to Christians and [would] attract the attention and interest of non-believers. But they overturn theories presently in vogue and therefore they will be fiercely criticized." They will also be, with Carmignac's death, fiercely ignored. But not forever. Truly honest scholars will have to grapple with what Carmignac has come up with. Others will continue where he left off. It may be, a few decades from now, that the "assured results of modern biblical scholarship" will look quite different from what we have been told to accept as gospel truth. -- Karl Keating Luke 1:68-79 New International Version (NIV) “Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel, because he has come to his people and redeemed them. He has raised up a horn[a] of salvation for us in the house of his servant David (as he said through his holy prophets of long ago), salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us— to show mercy to our ancestors and to remember his holy covenant, the oath he swore to our father Abraham: to rescue us from the hand of our enemies, and to enable us to serve him without fear in holiness and righteousness before him all our days. And you, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High; for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him, to give his people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God, by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven to shine on those living in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the path of peace.” Institut Catholique de Paris ignores Carmignac “The Catholic weekly Il Sabato has been hunting down his manuscripts. It discovered that Fr. Carmignac’s entire archive is to be found at the Institut Catholique in Paris where he had taught. In all these years, the Institut Catholique has taken care not to tend to the publication of those pre-announced works, and, above all, it has prohibited people from seeing the material when they ask to see it ...”. The Wanderer In the 1990’s, colleague Frits Albers (RIP), PH.B, wrote about what he considered to be the “betrayals” perpetrated by Paul Cardinal Poupard, the Archbishop of Paris, including his complete snub of the research of Fr. Jean Carmignac. ... History has recorded several major betrayals by Cardinal Paul Poupard, Archbishop of Paris and president of its Institut Catholique. I will briefly describe two of them here as an introduction to his major one, his ‘resolution’ of the Galileo Case. PART ONE: WHY I MISTRUST CARD. PAUL POUPARD Here follows the official text of this “public put-down”, issued by the Holy See press office on July 11, 1981, as it appeared in the Osservatore Romano of July 20 1981, mentioning Archbishop [by then not yet Cardinal] Paul Poupard by name. The letter sent by the Cardinal Secretary of State to His Excellency Mons. Poupard on the occasion of the centenary of the birth of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin has been interpreted in a certain section of the press as a revision of previous stands taken by the Holy See in regard to this author, and in particular of the Monitum of the Holy Office of 30 June 1962, which pointed out that the work of the author contained ‘ambiguities and grave doctrinal errors’. The question has been asked whether such an interpretation is well founded. After having consulted the Cardinal Secretary of State and the Cardinal Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Faith, which, by order of the Holy Father, had been duly consulted beforehand about the letter in question, we are in a position to reply in the negative. Far from being a revision of the previous stands of the Holy See, Cardinal Casaroli’s letter expresses reservations in various passages - and these reservations have been passed over in silence by certain newspapers - reservations which refer precisely to the judgment given in the Monitum of June 1962, even though this document is not explicitly mentioned. The second example of betrayal involving the Institut Catholique of Paris and its president, Archbishop Paul Poupard, centres on interference with the dissemination of truth by means of the direct and wilful suppression of Catholic scholarship in favour of a free and unencumbered promotion of doctrinal errors. The scandal appeared in the March 19, 1992 edition of the American Catholic paper The Wanderer, quoting two other major European Catholic periodicals, 30 Days and Il Sabato. Reporting a scandal: An editorial in the current issue of 30 Days magazine (issue no. 2), titled “Scandal at the Institut Catholique” raises some tough questions about the openness of modern biblical scholars to research which offers evidence that the Gospels were written by A.D. 50. Reporting on investigative work conducted by the Italian Catholic weekly Il Sabato the editorial asks why the Institut Catholique in Paris will not allow to be printed, or even acknowledge the existence of, the biblical scholarship of Fr. Jean Carmignac. Fr. Carmignac, until his death in 1986, was one of the world’s leading experts in Hebrew and Aramaic, and his extensive research in language and the Fathers of the Church led him to believe Matthew, Mark, and Luke had written their Gospels by A.D. 50. In addition, Carmignac noted the scholarship of 49 other recognised experts who agreed with him, but whose works also had either been ignored or censored or else they did not dare wage a battle in the name of their scientific conviction. “For the consequences”, stated the 30 Days editorial, “would have revolutionised the dominant exegetical trends today. Many ideas, whose certainty is taken for granted today, would have crumbled ... If the Synoptic Gospels were written in a Semitic language it means they were written soon after Jesus’ years on earth, when the protagonists were still alive. It means that the Synoptic Gospels are the testimonies of people who saw and heard, of witnesses to the facts. It means they are not late elaborations by anonymous transcribers of popular traditions”. In 1983. Fr. Carmignac published a small book containing his findings and conclusions, and promised a later book which he described as “more convincing than ever and, I hope, irrefutable”. But at that time an effort began to bury his work, the editorial said, under hefty shovelfuls of earth ... Six years after his death, none of these texts has ever been published. An impenetrable curtain of silence has fallen on Fr. Carmignac and his work. The Catholic weekly Il Sabato has been hunting down his manuscripts. It discovered that Fr. Carmignac’s entire archive is to be found at the Institut Catholique in Paris where he had taught. In all these years, the Institut Catholique has taken care not to tend to the publication of those pre-announced works, and, above all, it has prohibited people from seeing the material when they ask to see it ... One of the 49 scholars mentioned here by the late Fr. Jean Carmignac is, no doubt, Claude Tresmontant whose magnificent book on that very same topic, The Hebrew Christ, carries a lengthy foreword by the Most Reverend Jean Charles Thomas, Bishop of Ajaccio, dated May 1, 1983: three years before the death of Fr. Jean Camignac. In his Foreword Bishop Thomas refers specifically to the same general state of affairs as was reported by the three Catholic papers mentioned above. There is no change of heart in either the ‘Institut Catholique’ or its president, Paul Poupard ...

Sunday, July 26, 2020

Pearl of Great Price


10 The Pearl of Great Price - Matthew 13: 45-46 "All things should ...



Pope Francis said that the “decisive and radical” decision to give up everything to seek even more precious treasures shows that “the building of the Kingdom requires not only the grace of God,

but also the active willingness of the human person.”





Pope Francis: Becoming restless seekers of the Kingdom of Heaven



·                  POPE FRANCIS

·                  ANGELUS



Pope Francis says we are called to become “healthily restless seekers of the Kingdom of Heaven,” as he reflects on the parables of the treasure hidden in the field and the pearl of great value during the Sunday Angelus.



By Christopher Wells



At the Angelus on Sunday, Pope Francis reflected on two of the parables told by Jesus in the day’s Gospel: that of the treasure hidden in the field, and that of the pearl of great value.

In both parables, those who finds the “precious” items, that which is most dear to them, sell everything they have in order to obtain them. “With these two similes,” said Pope Francis, “Jesus proposes to involve us in the building of the Kingdom of Heaven, presenting one of its essential characteristics: Those who fully pledge themselves to the Kingdom are those who are willing to stake everything.”






Healthily restless seekers



“We are called to assume the attitude of these Gospel figures,” Pope Francis continued, “so that we too may become healthily restless seekers of the Kingdom of Heaven.” As in the parables, this involves a cost: we must give up “worldly sureties” – such as “covetousness for possessions, the thirst for profit and power, and thinking only of ourselves” – which can hinder our search.

 



Too often, said the Pope, people lead “mediocre and dull lives, because they do not go in search of real treasure.” Seeking after the Kingdom of Heaven, on the other hand, is the very “opposite of a dull life: it is a treasure that renews life every day and leads it to extend towards wider horizons.” Seekers after the Kingdom “have a creative and inquisitive heart” leading them to “new paths” for loving God, our neighbour, and ourselves.

 


The adventure of holiness



“Jesus, Who is the hidden treasure and the pearl of great value, cannot but inspire joy, all the joy in the world,” said Pope Francis: “the joy of discovering a meaning in life, the joy of committing oneself to the adventure of holiness.”

Pope Francis concluded his reflection with the prayer that the Blessed Virgin Mary “might help us to seek after the treasure of the Kingdom of Heaven every day, so that the love God has given us through Jesus may be manifested in our words and acts.”








Wednesday, July 22, 2020

Cardinal Scola calls out Pope Francis’ critics: ‘The pope is the pope’

 

 


Cardinal Angelo Scola, the runner-up in the last papal conclave, has twice in recent weeks come out strongly against those, especially within the church, who frequently and increasingly attack Pope Francis. “It’s a very strong sign of contradiction and denotes a certain weakening of the people of God, above all of the intellectual class,” he said. “It is a profoundly wrong attitude because it forgets that ‘the pope is the pope.’”
“It is not by affinity of temperament, of culture, of sensibility, or for friendship, or because one shares or does not share his affirmations that one acknowledges the meaning of the pope in the church,” the cardinal said in an interview published on the Archdiocese of Milan’s website on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of his priestly ordination on July 18.
“[The pope] is the ultimate, radical and formal guarantor—certainly, through a synodal exercise of the Petrine ministry—of the unity of the church,” the cardinal, theologian and former rector of the Pontifical Lateran University stated.
Cardinal Angelo Scola, the runner-up in the last papal conclave, has come out strongly against those who frequently and increasingly attack Pope Francis.