Showing posts with label Archbishop Fulton J Sheen Life of Christ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Archbishop Fulton J Sheen Life of Christ. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

"I prefer a Church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets". Pope Francis.




By Daniel Burke, Belief Blog Co-editor
(CNN) - Pope Francis on Tuesday called for big changes in the Roman Catholic Church including at the very top saying he knows it will be a messy business but he expects his flock to dive in feet first.
"I prefer a Church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather than a Church which is unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to its own security," the Pope said in a major new statement.
"I do not want a Church concerned with being at the center and then ends by being caught up in a web of obsessions and procedures," Francis added.
The Pope's address, called an "apostolic exhortation," is basically a pep talk from the throne of St. Peter. But Francis' bold language and sweeping call for change are likely to surprise even those who've grown accustomed to his unconventional papacy.
"Not everyone will like this document," said the Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author in New York. "For it poses a fierce challenge to the status quo."
Officially known in Latin as "Evangelii Gaudium" (The Joy of the Gospel), the 85-page document is the first official papal document written entirely by Francis. (An earlier document was co-written by Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.)
Although Francis sprinkles the statement with citations of previous popes and Catholic luminaries like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, the new pontiff makes a bold call for the church to rethink even long-held traditions.
"In her ongoing discernment, the Church can also come to see that certain customs not directly connected to the heart of the Gospel, even some which have deep historical roots, are no longer properly understood and appreciated," the Pope said.
"Some of these customs may be beautiful, but they no longer serve as means of communicating the Gospel. We should not be afraid to re-examine them. At the same time, the Church has rules or precepts which may have been quite effective in their time, but no longer have the same usefulness for directing and shaping people’s lives."
Such statements mark a sharp break from Benedict XVI, a more tradition-bound pope who focused on cleaning up cobwebs of unorthodoxy in the church.
By contrast, in "Evangelii" Francis repeats his calls for Catholics to stop "obsessing" about culture war issues and enforcing church rules, and to focus more on spreading the Gospel, especially to the poor and marginalized.
The outside world, particularly economic equalities, didn't escape Francis' notice either.
In a section of "Evangelii" entitled "some challenges to today's world," he sharply criticized what he called an "idolatry of money" and "the inequality that spawns violence."
"Today’s economic mechanisms promote inordinate consumption, yet it is evident that unbridled consumerism combined with inequality proves doubly damaging to the social fabric," the Pope wrote.
But the bulk of Francis' statement addresses the church, which, he said, should not be afraid to "get its shoes soiled by the mud of the street."
The Pope also hinted that he wants to see an end to the so-called "wafer wars," in which Catholic politicians who support abortion rights are denied Holy Communion. His comments could also be taken as another sign that he plans to reform church rules that prevent divorced Catholics from receiving the Eucharist.
"Everyone can share in some way in the life of the Church; everyone can be part of the community, nor should the doors of the sacraments be closed for simply any reason," Francis said.
"The Eucharist, although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak."
Even so, Francis reiterated the church's stand against abortion, defending it against critics who call such arguments "ideological, obscurantist and conservative."
"Precisely because this involves the internal consistency of our message about the value of the human person, the Church cannot be expected to change her position on this question," Francis said.
The Pope also reiterated previous rejections on ordaining women, saying the topic is "not open for discussion."
But that doesn't mean the church values men more than women, he said.
"We need to create still broader opportunities for a more incisive female presence in the Church," the Pope said.
Francis also said he expects other parts of the church to change, and called on Catholics to be unafraid of trying new things.
"More than by fear of going astray, my hope is that we will be moved by the fear of remaining shut up within structures which give us a false sense of security, within rules which make us harsh judges, within habits which make us feel safe, while at our door people are starving."
Francis didn't mention specific changes, but made it clear he expects them to start at the top and include even long-held Catholic practices.
"Since I am called to put into practice what I ask of others, I too must think about a conversion of the papacy," he said.
The church's centralization, where all roads lead to Rome, and the "we've always done it this way" type of thinking have hindered Catholics' ability to minister to local people in far-flung places, Francis suggested.
"I invite everyone to be bold and creative in this task of rethinking the goals, structures, style and methods of evangelization in their respective communities," the Pope said.
Martin, the Jesuit priest, said, "I cannot remember ever reading a papal document that was so thought-provoking, surprising and invigorating."
"The document’s main message is that Catholics should be unafraid of new ways of proclaiming the Gospel and new ways of thinking about the church," said Martin, who is also an editor-at-large at America Magazine in New York.
- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Catholic ChurchChristianityFaith NowPope Francis

....

Sunday, July 28, 2013

Jesus Is the Bridegroom of His People



General Audience ... December 11, 1991


"For he who has become your husband is your Maker; his name is the Lord of hosts; your redeemer is the Holy One of Israel" (Is 54:5). Once again we quote these words of Isaiah to recall that the prophets of the Old Testament saw God as the spouse of the Chosen People. Israel was depicted as a bride, often an unfaithful one due to her sins, especially her falling into idolatry. However, the Lord of hosts remained faithful to his Chosen People. He continued to be their Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.
On the groundwork laid by the prophets, the New Testament presents Jesus Christ as the spouse of the new People of God. He is that "redeemer, the Holy One of Israel" who was foretold and announced from afar; in him the prophecies were fulfilled. Christ is the bridegroom.
The first one to present Jesus in this light was John the Baptist, in his preaching on the banks of the Jordan: "I am not the Messiah," he told his listeners, "but I was sent before him. The one who has the bride is the bridegroom; the best man, who stands and listens for him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice" (Jn 3:28-29). As is apparent, the spousal tradition of the Old Testament is reflected in the awareness that this austere messenger of the Lord had of his mission in relationship to Christ's identity. He knew who he was and "what had been given him from heaven." His entire service among the people was directed to the bridegroom who was to come. John presented himself as "the best man," and confessed that his greatest joy was to have been allowed to hear Jesus' voice. Because of this joy he was ready to accept his own "decrease," that is, to make room for him who was to be revealed, who was greater than he, and for whom he was ready to give his life. He knew that according to the divine plan of salvation the bridegroom, the Holy One of Israel, must "increase." "He must increase; I must decrease" (Jn 3:30).
Therefore, Jesus of Nazareth was brought into the midst of his people as the bridegroom who had been announced by the prophets. He himself confirmed this when, in answer to the question raised by John's disciples, "Why do...your disciples not fast" (Mk 2:18), he said: "Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them they cannot fast. But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast" (Mk 2:19-20). With this answer Jesus made it clear that the prophetic message about God the Spouse, about the "Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel," was fulfilled in himself. He revealed his awareness of being the bridegroom among his disciples, from whom at the end, however, "the bridegroom will be taken away." He was aware of both his messiahship and the cross on which he accomplished his sacrifice in obedience to the Father, as foretold by the prophets (cf. Is 42:1-9; 49:1-7; 50:4-11; 52:13-53, 12).
What appears from John's declaration on the banks of the Jordan and from Jesus' answer to the question raised by the Baptist's disciples, namely, that the bridegroom announced by the prophets had already come, is also confirmed by the parables. In them the spousal motif is indirect, but obvious enough. Jesus said, "The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son" (Mt 22:2). Everything in the parable makes it clear that Jesus is speaking of himself, but he does so in the third person, which is a feature of his discourse in the parables. In the context of the parable about the king who invites guests to his son's wedding feast, Jesus used the analogy of a wedding banquet to highlight the truth about the kingdom of God, which he himself brings to the world, and God's invitation to the bridegroom's feast. This involves the acceptance of Christ's message in communion with the new people whom the parable presents as being called to a wedding. But he also added a reference to the refusals made to the invitation, which Jesus observed in the situation of many of his listeners. He also added that all those invited in his time and at all times must have an attitude worthy of the calling received, symbolized by the "wedding garment" which is to be worn by those who intend to participate in the banquet. Whoever does not wear it is sent away by the king, that is, by God the Father who invites us to his Son's feast in the Church.
It seems that in Israel's world on the occasion of great banquets the clothes to be worn were made available to the guests in the banquet hall. This fact makes the meaning of that detail in Jesus' parable even clearer: the responsibility not only of the person who rejects the invitation, but also of those who claim to attend without fulfilling the necessary conditions for being worthy of the banquet. This is the case of those who maintain and profess that they are followers of Christ and members of the Church, without obtaining the "wedding garment" of grace, which engenders a living faith, hope and love. It is true that this "garment"--more internal than external--is given by God himself, the author of grace and of every good which the soul possesses. But the parable emphasizes the responsibility that every guest has, whatever his or her origin, regarding the yes which must be given to the Lord who calls and regarding the acceptance of his law, the total response to the demands of the Christian vocation and an ever greater participation in the life of the Church.
In the parable of the ten virgins "who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom" (Mt 25:1), Jesus also used the wedding analogy to explain his idea of the kingdom of God and the Church in which this kingdom is made concrete. Here we also find his insistence on the need for that interior disposition without which one cannot attend the wedding banquet. In this parable Jesus calls us to be ready, vigilant and fervently committed in waiting for the bridegroom. Only five of the ten virgins made the effort to see that their lamps would be burning when the bridegroom arrived. The other careless ones lacked oil. "The bridegroom came and those who were ready went into the wedding feast with him. Then the door was locked" (Mt 25:10). This is a discreet but unmistakable reference to the lot of those who lack the interior disposition needed for meeting God, and thus lack fervor and perseverance in waiting. It refers to the threat of seeing the door closed in one's face. Once again we find an appeal being made to one's sense of responsibility concerning the Christian vocation.
Turning now from the parable to the Gospel account of the facts, we should recall the wedding feast at Cana in Galilee, where Jesus was invited with the disciples (cf. Jn 2:1-11). According to John the evangelist, Jesus performed his first miracle there, the first sign proving his messianic mission. One may interpret his action as an indirect way of making it understood that the bridegroom announced by the prophets was present among his people, Israel. The entire setting of the wedding ceremony takes on special meaning in this case. In particular, we note that Jesus works his first "sign" at his Mother's request. It is pleasant here to recall what we said in the preceding catechesis: Mary is the beginning and the image of the Church as bride of the new covenant.
We will conclude by rereading those final words of John's text: "Jesus did this as the beginning of his signs in Cana in Galilee and so revealed his glory, and his disciples began to believe in him" (Jn 2:11). The words "did this" state that the bridegroom was already at work. At his side the figure of the bride of the new covenant was already beginning to take shape: the Church, present in Mary and those disciples at the wedding feast.
 
....
 
Taken from:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19911211en.html







‘No, I Don’t Have a Personal Relationship’

Last Updated Tuesday, May 31, 2011 4:15:30 PM





‘No, I Don’t Have a Personal Relationship’

By Father Peter P. Dobrowski - The Priest, 6/1/2011
“Do you have a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ?” That’s a question that can make a Catholic feel uncomfortable.
Recently, in a talk by Dr. Brant Pitre, titled “The Bridegroom Messiah and the Eucharist” on a CD published by the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology, I came across a different kind of answer:
“No I don’t have a ‘personal relationship’ with the Lord Jesus Christ because a ‘personal relationship’ isn’t adequate for what Jesus wants with me. I have personal relationships with my neighbors, with my car repairman and the woman who cuts my hair. My relationship with Jesus is more than ‘personal,’ it’s nuptial!”
In the Old Testament, a nuptial relationship was promised by prophets like Hosea (2:16) and Ezekiel (16:8) and is celebrated in the Song of Songs. The New Testament opens with identifying Jesus as “the bridegroom” who has the bride (Jn 3:29), and it climaxes with a wedding supper and the marriage of the Lamb (Rv 19:7-9).
A nuptial relationship is exclusive. I can only have one spouse (Gn 2:24). My relationship with Jesus is also exclusive — there can be no others before Him (Ex 20:3).
A nuptial relationship creates a family. My spouse’s family becomes mine and we can call each other’s parents “Mom” and “Dad.” Jesus’ relationship with me has made His Mother mine (Rv 12:17) and His Father has become “Abba” to me (Gal 4:6).
A nuptial relationship is for life. No human power can end a marriage (Mt 19:6). My relationship with Jesus is forever, it’ll last even beyond the limits of this life.
A nuptial relationship is ongoing and requires that rough edges be smoothed out. Jesus left us the sacrament of penance (Jn 20:23) as an ongoing way to get over the rough edges of sin.
A nuptial relationship is fruitful. It reaches into the next generation through the children it generates (Ps 69:36). My relationship with Jesus is fruitful. The credibility of His message depends on me and my love for others (Jn 17:21) — Catholics are the ones who are concerned enough to ask questions such as “Was Marilyn Monroe Catholic?”
A nuptial relationship is intimate. It’s sad that modern biblical translations become “dynamic” when translating the biblical word for “knowledge,” depriving modern readers of what might be involved when God declares that He “knows” us as in Jeremiah 1:5. St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:12 indicates that my relationship with Jesus is leading to a “knowledge” which is far deeper than the superficial knowledge sufficient for a “personal relationship.”
A nuptial relationship is bodily, two people give themselves totally to each other and receive each other totally in return. My relationship with Jesus is bodily. At every Mass He gives His body to me as a bridegroom gives his body to his bride, and, like a bride, I take His body into mine (Jn 6:56).
St. Paul said marriage “is a great mystery” (Eph 5:32) because it refers to Christ and the Church. “Marriage,” is more accurate and more biblical than “personal relationship,” to express what the Lord Jesus has with me — so, “No, I don’t have a personal relationship.” TP
FATHER DOBROWSKI is a priest of the Diocese of Phoenix and pastor of St. Margaret Mary Parish in Bullhead City, Ariz.

Sunday, August 9, 2009

Uniqueness of the Person, Jesus Christ

 
JESUS CHRIST - The Only Person Ever Pre-announced



HISTORY is full of men who have claimed that they came from God, or that they were gods, or that they bore messages from God - Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius, Christ, Lao-tze, and thousands of others, right down to the person who founded a new religion this very day. Each of them has a right to be heard and considered. But as a yard-stick external to and outside of whatever is to be measured is needed, so there must be some permanent tests available to all men, all civilizations, and all ages, by which they can decide whether any of these claimants, or all of them, are justified in their claims. These tests are of two kinds: reason and history. Reason, because everyone has it, even those without faith; history, because everyone lives in it and should know something about it.
REASON dictates that if any one of these men actually came from God, the least thing that God could do to support His claim would be to pre-announce His coming. Automobile manufacturers tell their customers when to expect a new model. If God sent anyone from Himself, or if He came Himself with a vitally important message for all men, it would seem reasonable that He would first let men know when His messenger was coming, where He would be born, where He would live, the doctrine He would teach, the enemies He would make, the program He would adopt for the future, and the manner of His death. By the extent to which the messenger conformed with these announcements, one could judge the validity of his claims.


REASON further assures us that if God did not do this, then there would be nothing to prevent any impostor from appearing in history and saying, "I come from God," or "An angel appeared to me in the desert and gave me this message." In such cases there would be no objective, historical way of testing the messenger. We would have only his word for it, and of course he could be wrong.
IF a visitor came from a foreign country to Washington and said he was a diplomat, the government would ask him for his passport and other documents testifying that he represented a certain government. His papers would have to antedate his coming. If such proofs of identity are asked from delegates of other countries, reason certainly ought to do so with messengers who claim to have come from God. To each claimant reason says, "What record was there before you were born that you were coming?"

WITH this test one can evaluate the claimants. (And at this preliminary stage, Christ is no greater than the others.) Socrates had no one to foretell his birth. Buddha had no one to pre-announce him and his message or tell the day when he would sit under the tree. Confucius did not have the name of his mother and his birthplace recorded, nor were they given to men centuries before he arrived so that when he did come, men would know he was a messenger from God. But, with Christ it was different. Because of the Old Testament prophecies, His coming was not unexpected. There were no predictions about Confucius, Buddha, Lao-tze, Mohammed, or anyone else; but there were predictions about Christ. Others just came and said, "Here I am, believe me." They were, therefore, only men among men and not the Divine in the human. Christ alone stepped out of that line saying, "Search the writings of the Jewish people and the related history of the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans." (For the moment, pagan writings and even the Old Testament may be regarded only as historical documents, not as inspired works.)

IT is true that the prophecies in the Old Testament can be best understood in the light of their fulfillment. The language of prophecy does not have the exactness of mathematics. Yet if one searches out the various Messianic currents in the Old Testament, and compares the resulting picture with the life and work of Christ, can one doubt that the ancient predictions point to Jesus and the kingdom which He established? God's promise to the patriarchs that through them all the nations of the earth would be blessed; the prediction that the tribe of Juda would be supreme among the other Hebrew tribes until the coming of Him Whom all nations would obey; the strange yet undeniable fact that in the Bible of the Alexandrian Jews, the Septuagint, one finds clearly predicted the virgin birth of the Messiah; the prophecy of Isaiah 53 about the patient sufferer, the Servant of the Lord, who will lay down his life as a guilt-offering for his people's offenses; the perspective of the glorious, everlasting kingdom of the House of David - in whom but Christ have these prophecies found their fulfillment? From an historical point of view alone, here is uniqueness which sets Christ apart from all other founders of world religions. And once the fulfillment of those prophecies did historically take place in the person of Christ, not only did all prophecies cease in Israel, but there was discontinuance of sacrifices when the true Paschal Lamb was sacrificed.
TURN to pagan testimony. Tacitus, speaking for the ancient Romans, says, "People were generally persuaded in the faith of the ancient prophecies, that the East was to prevail, and that from Judea was to come the Master and Ruler of the world." Suetonius, in his account of the life of Vespasian, recounts the Roman tradition thus, "It was an old and constant belief throughout the East, that by indubitably certain prophecies, the Jews were to attain the highest power."
CHINA had the same expectations; but because it was on the other side of the world, it believed that the great Wise Man would be born in the West. The Annals of the Celestial Empire contain the statements:
In the 24th year of Tchao-Wang of the dynasty of the Tcheou, on the 8th day of the 4th moon, a light appeared in the South-west which illumined the king's palace. The monarch, struck by its splendor, interrogated the sages. They showed him books in which this prodigy signified the appearance of the great Saint of the West whose religion was to be introduced into their country. THE Greeks expected Him, for Aeschylus in his Prometheus six centuries before His coming, wrote, "Look not for any end, moreover, to this curse until God appears, to accept upon His Head the pangs of thy own sin vicarious."
HOW did the Magi of the East know of His coming? Probably from the many prophecies circulated through the world by the Jews as well as through the prophecies made to the Gentiles by Daniel centuries before His birth.
CICERO, after recounting the sayings of the ancient oracles and the Sibyls about a "King whom we must recognize to be saved," asked in expectation, "To what man and to what period of time do these predictions point?" The Fourth Ecologue of Virgil recounted the same ancient tradition and spoken of "a chaste woman, smiling on her infant boy, with whom the iron age would pass away."
SUETONIUS quoted a contemporary author to the effect that the Romans were so fearful about a king who would rule the world that they ordered all children born that year to be killed - an order that was not fulfilled, except by Herod.
NOT only were the Jews expecting the birth of a Great King, a Wise Man and a Savior, but Plato and Socrates also spoke of the Logos and of the Universal Wise Man "yet to come." Confucius spoke of "the Saint"; the Sibyls, of a "Universal King"; the Greek dramatist, of a savior and redeemer to unloose man from the "primal eldest curse." All these were on the Gentile side of the expectation. What separates Christ from all men is that first He was expected; even the Gentiles had a longing for a deliverer, or redeemer. This fact alone distinguishes Him from all other religious leaders.
A second distinguishing fact is that once He appeared, He struck history with such impact that He split it in two, dividing it into two periods: one before His coming, the other after it. Buddha did not do this, nor any of the great Indian philosophers. Even those who deny God must date their attacks upon Him, A.D. so and so, or so many years after His coming.
A third fact separating Him from all the others is this: every other person who ever came into this world came into it to live. He came into it to die. Death was a stumbling block to Socrates - it interrupted his teaching. But to Christ, death was the goal and fulfillment of His life, the gold that He was seeking. Few of His words or actions are intelligible without reference to His Cross. He presented Himself as a Savior rather than merely as a Teacher. It meant nothing to teach men to be good unless He also gave them the power to be good, after rescuing them from the frustration of guilt.

THE story of every human life begins with birth and ends with death. In the Person of Christ, however, it was his death that was first and His life that was last. The Scripture describes Him as "the Lamb slain as it were, from the beginning of the world." He was slain in intention by the first sin and rebellion against God. It was not so much that His birth cast a shadow on His Life and thus led Him to His death; it was rather that the Cross was first, and cast its shadow back to His birth. His has been the only life in the world that was ever lived backward. As the flower in the crannied wall tells the poet of nature, and as the atom is the miniature of the solar system, so too, His birth tells the mystery of the gibbet. He went from the known to the known, from the reason of His coming manifested by His name "Jesus" or "Savior" to the fulfillment of His coming, namely, His death on the Cross.
JOHN gives us His eternal prehistory; Matthew, His temporal prehistory, by way of his genealogy. It is significant how much of His temporal ancestry was connected with sinners and foreigners! These blots on the escutcheon of His human lineage suggest a pity for the sinful and for the strangers to the Covenant. Both these aspects of His compassion would later on be hurled against Him as accusations: "He is a friend of sinners"; "He is a Samaritan." But the shadow of a stained past foretells His future love for the stained. Born of a woman, He was a man and could be one with all humanity; born of a Virgin, who was overshadowed by the Spirit and "full of grace," He would also be outside that current of sin which infected all men.
A fourth distinguishing fact is that He does not fit, as the other world teachers do, into the established category of a good man. Good men do not lie. But if Christ was not all that He said He was, namely, the Son of the living God, the Word of God in the flesh, then He was not "just a good man"; then He was a knave, a liar, a charlatan and the greatest deceiver who ever lived. If He was not what He said He was, the Christ, the Son of God, He was the anti-Christ! If He was only a man, then He was not even a "good" man.
BUT He was not only a man. He would have us either worship Him or despise Him - despise Him as a mere man, or worship Him as true God and true man. That is the alternative He presents. It may very well be that the Communists, who are so anti-Christ, are closer to Him than those who see Him as a sentimentalist and a vague moral reformer. The Communists have at least decided that if He wins, they lose; the others are afraid to consider Him either as winning or losing, because they are not prepared to meet the moral demands which this victory would make on their souls.
IF He is what He claimed to be, a Savior, a Redeemer, then we have a virile Christ and a leader worth following in these terrible times; One Who will step into the breach of death, crushing sin, gloom and despair; a leader to Whom we can make totalitarian sacrifice without losing but gaining freedom, and Whom we can love even unto death. We need a Christ today Who will make cords and drive the buyers and sellers from our new temples; Who will blast the unfruitful fig tree; Who will talk of crosses and sacrifices and Whose voice will be like the voice of the raging sea. But He will not allow us to pick and choose among His words, discarding the hard ones, and accepting the ones that please our fancy. We need a Christ Who will restore moral indignation, Who will make us hate evil with a passionate intensity, and love goodness to a point where we can drink death like water.
(Chapter 1 of Life Of Christ by Fulton J. Sheen)
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have Mercy on us!