Saturday, March 5, 2011

Pope: "Temple aristocracy" Mainly Responsible for Death of Jesus

---

Pope Benedict XVI has made a sweeping exoneration of the Jewish people for the death of Jesus Christ, explaining biblically and theologically in his new book why there is no scriptural basis for it, said an AP report in the Herald Sun.

....

The Catholic Church issued its most authoritative teaching on the issue in its 1965 Second Vatican Council document Nostra Aetate, which revolutionised the church's relations with Jews by saying Christ's death could not be attributed to Jews as a whole at the time or today.

Pope Benedict comes to the same conclusion, but he explains how with a thorough, Gospel-by-Gospel analysis in his book, Jesus of Nazareth-Part II, that leaves little doubt that he deeply and personally believes it to be the case: That only a few Temple leaders and a small group of supporters were primarily responsible for Christ's crucifixion.

Interpretations to the contrary have been used for centuries to justify the persecution of Jews.

Jewish scholars said the argument laid out by the German-born pontiff was a landmark statement from a pope that would help fight anti-Semitism today.

"Holocaust survivors know only too well how the centuries-long charge of 'Christ killer' against the Jews created a poisonous climate of hate that was the foundation of anti-Semitic persecution whose ultimate expression was realised in the Holocaust," said Elan Steinberg of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants.

The Pope's book, he said, not only confirms church teaching refuting the deicide charge "but seals it for a new generation of Catholics".

Taken from: http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=25274

And:

Pope exonerates Jews for Jesus' death

From correspondents in Vatican City
From: AP
March 03, 2011 5:24AM

POPE Benedict XVI has made a sweeping exoneration of the Jewish people for the death of Jesus Christ, tackling one of the most controversial issues in Christianity in a new book.

In Jesus of Nazareth-Part II excerpts released today, Benedict explains biblically and theologically why there is no basis in Scripture for the argument that the Jewish people as a whole were responsible for Jesus' death.

Interpretations to the contrary have been used for centuries to justify the persecution of Jews.

While the Catholic Church has for five decades taught that Jews weren't collectively responsible, Jewish scholars said today the argument laid out by the German-born pontiff, who has had his share of mishaps with Jews, was a landmark statement from a pope that would help fight anti-Semitism today.

The Pope's book, he said, not only confirms church teaching refuting the deicide charge "but seals it for a new generation of Catholics".

Benedict comes to the same conclusion, but he explains how with a thorough, Gospel-by-Gospel analysis that leaves little doubt that he deeply and personally believes it to be the case: That only a few Temple leaders and a small group of supporters were primarily responsible for Christ's crucifixion.

The book is the second instalment to Benedict's 2007 Jesus of Nazareth, his first book as pope, which offered a very personal meditation on the early years of Christ's life and teachings. This second book, set to be released March 10, concerns the final part of Christ's life, his death and resurrection.

In the book, Benedict re-enacts Jesus' final hours, including his death sentence for blasphemy, then analyses each Gospel account to explain why Jews as a whole cannot be blamed for it. Rather, Benedict concludes, it was the "Temple aristocracy" and a few supporters of the figure Barabbas who were responsible.

Benedict said Jesus' death wasn't about punishment, but rather salvation. Jesus' blood, he said, "does not cry out for vengeance and punishment, it brings reconciliation. It is not poured out against anyone, it is poured out for many, for all".

Benedict, who was forced to join the Hitler Youth as a child in Nazi Germany, has made improving relations with Jews a priority of his pontificate. He has visited the Auschwitz Nazi death camp in Poland and Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial.

But he also has had a few missteps that have drawn the ire of Jewish groups, most notably when in 2009 he lifted the excommunication of a traditionalist Catholic bishop who had denied the extent of the Holocaust by saying no Jews were gassed during World War II.

Taken from: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/pope-exonerates-jews-for-jesus-death/story-e6frf7jx-1226015059167

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Rending of the Veil of the Temple by Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

Our Blessed Lord had called His Body the Temple because the Fullness of Divinity dwelt in it. The Earthly Temple of Jerusalem was only a Symbol of Himself. In that Temple of Stone there were Three (3) Great Divisions. Beyond the Court of Entrance (Vestibule) was a place that was called "Holy", and beyond it a place more secret still, which was called "the Holy of Holies". The Court was separated from the Holy Place by a Veil, and a Great Veil also divided the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies.

The very Moment that Our Blessed Lord Willed His Death:

At that Moment the Curtain of the Temple was Torn in two from Top to Bottom. [Matthew 27:51]

The very fact that it was Torn from Top-to-Bottom was to indicate that it was not done by the Hand of Man, but by the Miraculous Hand of God Himself, Who had Ordained that, as-long-as the Old Law should Endure, the Veil should hang-before the Holy of Holies. Now He Decreed that it should be Torn Asunder at His Death. That which of Old was Sacred, now remained Opened and Manifest before their Eyes, uncovered like any Common and Ordinary Thing, while before them on Calvary, as a Soldier Pierced His Heart, was Revealed the New Holy of Holies containing the Ark of the New Testament and the Treasures of God. The Death of Christ was the Deconsecration of the Earthly Temple, for He would Raise-up the New Temple in Three (3) Days. [Nota Bene: Forty (40) Years after Christ's Death, God Completely Destroyed the Earthly Temple in Jerusalem which was never Rebuilt.] Only One (1) Man, Once (1) a Year, could enter into that Old Holy of Holies; now that the Veil was Rent, which Separated Holiness from the People, and Separated the Jew from the Gentile, both would have Access-to the New Temple, Christ the Lord.

There is an Intrinsic Connection between the Soldier piercing the Heart of Christ on the Cross, which drew forth Blood and Water, and the Rending of the Veil of the Temple. Two (2) Veils were Rent: One (1), the Purple Veil of the Temple which did away with the Old Law; the Other, the Veil of His Flesh which Opened the Holy of Holies of Divine Love Tabernacled among us. In both instances, what was Holy was made Manifest; One (1), the Holy of Holies, which had been only a Figure; the Other, the True Holy of Holies, His Sacred Heart, which Opened-to the Guilty Access-to God. The Veil in the Ancient Temple signified that Heaven was Closed to all, until the High Priest sent by the Father would Rend the Veil and Open its Gates to all. Saint Paul told how the High Priest of Old, only Once a Year, and then not without an Offering of Blood for his own Faults and those of the People, was Permitted to enter the Holy of Holies.

The Epistle to the Hebrews explains this Mystery:

By this the Holy Spirit signifies that so long as the Earlier Tent still stands, the Way into the Sanctuary remains Unrevealed. All this is Symbolic, pointing to the Present Time. The Offerings and Sacrifices there Prescribed cannot give the Worshipper Inward Perfection. It is only a Matter of Food and Drink and various Rites of Cleansing ------ Outward Ordinances in force until the Time of Reformation.

But now Christ has come, High Priest of Good Things already in Being. The Tent of His Priesthood is a Greater and more Perfect One, not made by Men's Hands, that is, not Belonging to this Created World; the Blood of His Sacrifice is His Own Blood, not the Blood of Goats and Calves; and thus He has Entered the Sanctuary once and for all, and secured an Eternal Deliverance. [Hebrews 9:1-12]

Then, comparing the Veil of the Flesh and the Veil-of-the-Temple, the Epistle adds:

The Blood of Jesus makes us Free to Enter Boldly into the Sanctuary by the New, Living Way which He has Opened for us Through the Curtain, the Way of His Flesh. [Hebrews 10:19, 20]

A Thousand Years before, David, looking forward to the Messiah, wrote:

If Thou hadst asked for Whole-Offering and Sin-Offering
I would have said, Here I am.
My desire is to do Thy Will, O God,
and Thy Law is in my Heart.
In the Great Assembly I have Proclaimed what is Right,
I do not Hold Back my Words,
as Thou Knowest, O Lord. [Psalm 39: 7-10]

Adoration of the Lamb . . .
Detail from the Van Eyck Altarpiece

As the Psalmist looked back on the Sacrifices of Slain Beasts, the Burnt Offerings to attain Divine Favor, and the Sin Offerings to make Reparation for Wrong, his Mind dwelt upon them, only to Cast them Aside. For he well knew that these Slaughtered Bulls, Goats, and Sheep could not really affect Man's Relationship with God. He saw in a Future Day, God having His Divinity Enshrined-in a Human Body as in a Temple, and coming with only One (1) Purpose, namely, to Surrender His Life in accordance with the Divine Will. David Proclaimed that the Divine Incarnation would be the Perfection of the Sacrifices and the Priesthood of the Jewish Law. Now the Figure was Fulfilled as the Spotless Lamb of God offered Himself to His Heavenly Father. The Old Promise made to Israel in Egypt still Held-good and could be Claimed, in a Higher Sense, by all who Invoked the Blood Poured-out on the Cross:

As for you, the Blood will be a Sign on the Houses in which you are: when I see the Blood I will Pass Over you; the Mortal Blow shall not Touch you, when I strike the Land of Egypt. [Exodus 13:1 3]

Levi's House of Priesthood was now Dismissed. The Order of Melchizadek became the Law in the House of Levi. The "No Admittance" Sign before the Holy of Holies of the Earthly Temple was Removed. When Christ came into the World to be the Fulfillment of the Order of Melchizadek, the House of Levi denied Him welcome. In fact, Levi had Exacted Tithes of Him just a Few Weeks before His Death in demanding Temple Taxes. But, as the Veil of the Temple was Torn, the Priesthood of Melchizadek came into its Own, and with it the True Holy of Holies, the True Ark of the New Covenant, the True Bread of Life ------ the Christ, the Son of the Living God. ....

tAKEN FROM: http://copiosa.org/mass/veil_temple.htm

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

The Oldest Gospel?

7Q5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Fragment 5 from Cave 7 of the Qumran Community in its entirety

Among the Dead Sea scrolls, 7Q5 is the designation for a small papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran Cave 7. The significance of this fragment is derived from an argument made by Jose O´Callaghan in his work ¿Papiros neotestamentarios en la cueva 7 de Qumrân? ("New Testament Papyri in Cave 7 at Qumran?") in 1972, later reasserted and expanded by German scholar Carsten Peter Thiede in his work The Earliest Gospel Manuscript? in 1982. The assertion is that the previously unidentified 7Q5 is actually a fragment of the Gospel of Mark, chapter 6 verse 52-53. The majority of scholars have not been convinced by O'Callaghan's and Thiede's identification[1][2] and it is "now virtually universally rejected".[3][4]
O'Callaghan's proposed identification

This shows the Greek text of Mark 6:52-53. Bold characters represent proposed identifications with characters from 7Q5:[5]

ου γαρ
συνηκαν επι τοις αρτοις,
αλλ ην αυτων η καρδια πεπωρω-
μενη. και διαπερασαντες [επι την γην]
ηλθον εις γεννησαρετ και
προσωρμισθησαν. και εξελ-
θοντων αυτων εκ του πλοιου ευθυς
επιγνοντες αυτον.

for they did not
understand concerning the loaves
but was their heart harden-
ed. And crossing over [unto the land]
they came unto Gennesaret and
drew to the shore. And com-
ing forth out of the boat immediately
they recognized him.
Argument

The 7th Cave at Qumran, where 7Q5 was found.

The argument is weighted on two points.

* First, the spacing before the word και ("and") signifies a paragraph break, which is consistent with the normative layout of Mark in early copies. Secondly, the combination of letters ννησ found in line 4 is highly characteristic and may point at the word Γεννησαρετ , found three times in the New Testament.
* Furthermore, a computer search "using the most elaborate Greek texts ... has failed to yield any text other than Mark 6:52-53 for the combination of letters identified by O’Callaghan et al. in 7Q5".[6]

Several counterarguments exist.

* The spacing before the word και ("and") might be a paragraph break. But spacings of this width can be found in papyri sometimes even within words (Pap. Bodmer XXIV, plate 26; in Qumran in fragment 4Q122). Other examples in the Qumran texts show that the word και ("and") in many cases was separated with spacings - and this has in many cases nothing to do with the text's structure.
* Although the sequence ννησ is unusual in Greek, the word εγεννησεν ("begot") also contains those four letters. In fact, this conjecture was proposed by the authors of the first edition (editio princeps) published in 1962. In such case the fragment might be part of some genealogy.
* In order to identify the fragment with Mark 6:52-53, one must account for the replacement of original δ with τ in line 3, and, although such difference is not without parallel in ancient Greek where two similar meaning words might be confused, the suggested reading requires the misspelling of a prepositional prefix to create an unknown word.[7]
* As the lines of a column are always more or less of the same length, it must be assumed that the words επι την γην ("to the land") were omitted, a variant which is not attested elsewhere.[7].
* The identification of the last letter in line 2 with nu has been strongly disputed because it does not fit into the pattern of this Greek letter as it is clearly written in line 4.[8]
* The computer search performed by Thiede assumed that all the disputed letter identifications made by O'Callaghan were correct. However, a similar search performed by scholar Daniel Wallace, but allowing other possible identifications for the disputed letters, found sixteen matches [7]. If a computer search is performed with the undisputed letters of the fragment 7Q5 it will not find the text Mk 6,52-53, because the undisputed letter τ in line 3 does not fit to this text.[9]

Significance

If 7Q5 were identified as Mark 6:52-53 and was deposited in the cave at Qumran by 68 AD, it would become the earliest known fragment of the New Testament, predating P52 by at least some if not many decades.

Since the amount of text in the manuscript is so small, even a confirmation of 7Q5 as Markan "might mean nothing more than that the contents of these few verses were already formalized, not necessarily that there was a manuscript of Mark's Gospel on hand".[10] Since the entirety of the find in Cave 7 consists of fragments in Greek, it is possible that the contents of this cave are of a separate "Hellenized" library than the Hebrew texts found in the other caves. Additionally, as Robert Eisenman points out: "Most scholars agree that the scrolls were deposited in the cave in or around 68 AD, but often mistake this date...for the terminus ad quem for the deposit of the scrolls in the caves/cessation of Jewish habitation at the site, when it cannot be considered anything but the terminus a quo for both of these, i.e., not the latest but the earliest possible date for such a deposit and/or Jewish abandonment of the site. The actual terminus ad quem for both of these events, however difficult it may be to accept at first, is 136 AD."(italics his)[11] This is long after the currently accepted date range for the composition of Mark.

....

Sunday, October 17, 2010

The Twelve Promises of the Sacred Heart

As given by Our Lord to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque

1. I will give them all the graces necessary for their state of life.

2. I will give peace in their families.

3. I will console them in all their troubles.

4. They shall find in My Heart an assured refuge during life and especially at the hour of death.

5. I will pour abundant blessings on all their undertakings.

6. Sinners shall find in My Heart the source and infinite ocean of mercy.

7. Tepid souls shall become fervent.

8. Fervent souls shall speedily rise to great perfection.

9. I will bless the homes in which the image of My Sacred Heart shall be exposed and honored.

10. I will give to priests the power to touch the most hardened hearts.

11. Those who propagate this devotion shall have their name written in My Heart, and it shall never be effaced.

12. I promise thee in the excess of the mercy of My Heart, that its all-powerful Love will grant to all those who shall receive Communion on the First Friday of Nine consecutive months the grace of final repentance; they shall not die under My displeasure, nor without receiving the Sacraments; My Heart shall be their assured refuge at that last hour.

For in depth explanation of these 12 promises, see Fr. Joseph McDonnell S.J.'s excellent reflections at www.DailyCatholic.org/2005pro.htm Archives.

www.DailyCatholic.org

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Matthew Buckley on the Doctrine of Transubstantiation

What About Those Accidents?

By Matthew Buckley

The doctrine of transubstantiation has certainly gone through a very difficult time during the past half a century. There has been no shortage of erroneous explanations of this central tenet of Catholic faith. One thinks of new-fangled terms such as transfinalisation and transignification in an attempt to change what is an unchanging and unchangeable dogma of the faith. Some clearly didn’t receive the memo from

Vatican

I on the enduring permanence of meaning of the Church’s definitions. These false opinions were given an eloquent rebuke in Paul VI’s masterly encyclical Mysterium Fidei which remains for myself a personal favourite in my reading of encyclical letters.

I think most good, faithful Catholics would be well aware of this lack of belief in the Real Presence and perhaps even the attempts to give equal weighting to Christ’s presence in the Eucharistic elements as to his presence in the congregation, the minister or the Scriptures. Something that I call the equi-presence doctrine. Most too would probably have heard of figures thrown around from surveys that only 30% of Mass attending Catholics believe in Christ’s Real Presence as the Church understands it.

But what I am concerned with presently is not these egregious errors that demonstrate the truth of those words “this is a hard saying! Who can listen to it?” but rather errors I have noticed amongst otherwise good, devout, faithful who most certainly give their wholehearted assent to Christ’s presence under the consecrated species. If your classical dissident is prepared to deny the presence of Christ’s substance, your occasional good Catholic it seems is prepared to deny (somewhat selectively it must be said) the enduring presence of the consecrated species’ accidents.

When I say selectively I mean that such persons do not deny that the consecrated species of bread let us say, looks the same, tastes the same and weighs the same. It concerns what might be considered some of the slightly more subtle implications of the presence of the accidents after the consecration. I remember once discussing with a good Catholic friend about the hypothetical scenario of a person taking in a large quantity of consecrated wine and noting that it would be capable of making them drunk. He replied, “it’s the blood of Christ by the time you get to it.” That is without a doubt true but in no way invalidates the point.

I further assume the distinction between “accidents” and “substance” is most likely a familiar one to the Catholic of this sort or the words at any rate. But the full implications of what this means is sometimes lacking. This may be because what we call the “accidents” (the understanding of which I will elaborate on soon) are not after all the most important thing about the Eucharist; the main emphasis being (rightly) on the presence of Christ. So perhaps they are not given as much attention.

So how are accidents meant to be understood? Philosophically they must not be confused with an unintended mistake like a car smash. Accidents are a secondary mode of being. Being primarily refers to that which simply is, the actual thing itself such as a dog. This is a substance which means it has its own being in itself (per se) and not by virtue of another. This is in contrast to an accident which does not have being simply but be’s in another. An accident cannot exist by itself without a substance in which to inhere. An example of an accident would be a colour such as greenness. We do not see greenness walking about all by itself; rather we see a green thing. Greenness is an accident which means it must exist in some substance. A substance is an ‘upstander’ which supports the accidents which could be considered ‘instickers’ inhering in the substance. There is a real distinction between the two since a green thing is not its greenness but rather has greenness. It can be especially tempting to confuse the accident of quantity with substance. But a thing is not identically the same with its property of extension rather it has extension.

The only time this relationship between accidents and substance does not obtain is in the Eucharist. For here, by a miracle, the accidents are sustained by the power of God without their natural substance within which to inhere. The first point to be noted if we are to have a proper understanding of the Catholic faith on this matter therefore is the Church is not teaching that the Eucharist involves some kind of optical illusion. To begin with, colour or appearance is only one sort of accident. But more fundamentally it is the dogmatic teaching of the Church that the accidents really continue to exist after the consecration. Hence all the accidents we perceive are in fact present. But the bread and wine themselves, the substance, is not there. It is not true to say the wine is there because we can perceive its accidents since the wine is not its accidents. Transubstantiation essentially means that even if (God forbid) a consecrated element were taken to a laboratory nothing could ever prove any change to have actually occurred. But neither of course could a scientist disprove transubstantiation when the precise nature of what is claimed to have occurred is understood. For no scientific experiment can disprove that God can uphold the accidents while taking the substance away since the claim is not one that falls inside the scope of natural science’s ability to investigate.

My interest in all this was piqued recently by the resurfacing of a claim that one could not possibly receive any ill effects from receiving the sacramental species including diseases from the communion chalice. When I went to further investigate this I came across an interesting news story from last year when Melbourne’s Archbishop Denis Hart temporarily banned the reception of communion from the chalice due to concern of spreading the H1N1 virus otherwise known as the swine flu. What was most revealing – prompting me to write this present piece in fact – is the vast number of comments underneath the Catholic News Agency story that I read by Catholics questioning the Archbishop’s “lack of faith.” How could he think that someone could catch something from receiving Christ? What sort of blasphemy was this? I’ve no doubt many such commentators were well intentioned and in good faith but the central problem here was no lack of faith on the Archbishop’s behalf but, it must be said, a lack of sound theology by the internet commentariat.

Now let me clarify here that the point of this article is not to discuss one way or another whether someone should receive from the chalice. My points here will relate to both species even if this form of reception naturally has the greater attention given to it in this matter. Whether someone receives in this manner when the option is available to them is their prudent choice. My concern in this article is with the theological claim which I will spell out just now.

I think the general thesis of this school could be fairly summarised by the following proposition:

The reception of the Eucharistic cannot result in any unfavourable physical side effect because it is Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

To this I would make the following observations:

(1) There is no dogmatic teaching of the Church which binds us to hold this.

(2) It ignores the principle that the accidents that is, the properties of the substance, and the interaction thereof with other substances remains as it was prior to the consecration.

(3) In the case of bacteria or viruses these are in no way changed in their effects simply because they happen to be placed near or with the sacramental species which species themselves retain their own properties.

(4) Even abstracting from the question of protection from external agents separate from the species, on rare occasion the species themselves may affect the recipient in a less than desirable manner due to the remaining accidents. I’m thinking chiefly here of people who suffer of celiac disease which makes them intolerant to gluten products. A person who has this condition will quickly discover that they need to consume either a very small amount of the host or under the other species. Some of these cases have received notoriety in the news usually in the form of attacking the Church for not relaxing the requirements for what constitutes valid matter. If the sacramental species no longer had these effects these controversies would never have occurred in the first place.

(5) If this is true of the very sacramental consecrated species then a fortiori even more so is it true of bacteria and other undesirables. Many people seem to frame an objection that one couldn’t possibly ‘catch something’ from ‘receiving Jesus.’ However one is not catching something formally speaking from ‘receiving Jesus’ anymore than one is receiving the reaction proper to celiac disease from Him.

Therefore if a serious risk of spreading an ill effect via the manner of distribution of the species is perceived then a bishop is perfectly within his rights to act responsibility to curb any danger arising from this without the charge of having a weak faith.

Now is it a prudent idea to receive from the chalice? That isn’t the point of this article. I’ll leave that to the individual reader’s prudence. Many are not comfortable with it; others do not think there is much risk in normal circumstances. People are free to hold those opinions as they see fit. The point I’m making is there is no theological a priori guarantee that it will not be a medium for spreading something should all the usual conditions be present. To assume God would simply work miracles ad infinitum to protect us from our own decisions when it is very simple to choose differently is not sound theology especially when God has no problem in permitting us to suffer these things in the usual course of our existence.

Sunday, June 6, 2010

Jesus Son of Mary, Son of David

What does it mean that Jesus is the son of David?

Question: "What does it mean that Jesus is the son of David?"

Answer: Seventeen verses in the New Testament describe Jesus as the "son of David." But the question arises, how could Jesus be the son of David if David lived approximately 1000 years before Jesus? The answer is that Christ (the Messiah) was the fulfillment of the prophecy of the seed of David (2 Samuel 7:14-16). Jesus was the promised Messiah, which meant He was of the seed of David. Matthew 1 gives the genealogical proof that Jesus, in His humanity, was a direct descendant of Abraham and David through Joseph, Jesus' legal father. The genealogy in Luke chapter 3 gives Jesus' lineage through His mother, Mary. Jesus is a descendant of David, by adoption through Joseph, and by blood through Mary. Primarily though, when Christ was referred to as the Son of David, it was meant to refer to His Messianic title as the Old Testament prophesied concerning Him.

Jesus was addressed as “Lord, thou son of David” several times by people who, by faith, were seeking mercy or healing. The woman whose daughter was being tormented by a demon (Matthew 15:22), the two blind men by the wayside (Matthew 20:30), and blind Bartimaeus (Mark 10:47), all cried out to the son of David for help. The titles of honor they gave Him declared their faith in Him. Calling Him Lord expressed their sense of His deity, dominion, and power, and by calling Him “son of David,” they were professing Him to be the Messiah.

The Pharisees, too, understood what was meant when they heard the people calling Jesus “son of David.” But unlike those who cried out in faith, they were so blinded by their own pride and lack of understanding of the Scriptures that they couldn’t see what the blind beggars could see – that here was the Messiah they had supposedly been waiting for all their lives. They hated Jesus because He wouldn’t give them the honor they thought they deserved, so when they heard the people hailing Jesus as the Savior, they became enraged (Matthew 21:15) and plotted to destroy Him (Luke 19:47).

Jesus further confounded the scribes and Pharisees by asking them to explain the meaning of this very title. How could it be that the Messiah is the son of David when David himself refers to Him as “my Lord” (Mark 12:35-37)? Of course the teachers of the law couldn’t answer the question. Jesus thereby exposed the Jewish spiritual leaders’ ineptitude as teachers and their ignorance of what the Old Testament taught as to the true nature of the Messiah, further alienating them from Him.

Jesus Christ, the only son of God and the only means of salvation for the world (Acts 4:12), is also the son of David, both in a physical sense and a spiritual sense.
....

Taken from: http://www.gotquestions.org/jesus-son-of-david.html

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Matthew Buckley Explains the True Purpose of Marriage

ORGAN OF THE ROMAN THEOLOGICAL FORUM
Editor: Msgr. John F. McCarthy, J.C.D., S.T.D.	Distributed several times a year to interested members.
Associate Editor: Rev. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D.	Not to be republished without permission.
Please address all correspondence to:	www.rtforum.org e-mail: jfm@rtforum.org
Living Tradition, Oblates of Wisdom, P.O. Box 13230, St. Louis, MO 63157, USA

No. 144

Roman Theological Forum | Article Index | Study Program

January 2010

THE REASON AND PURPOSE OF MATRIMONY

by Matthew Buckley

Read this excellent article at: http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt144.html