This is my homily for this past weekend, the 19th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Cycle C. Today's readings are here.
FYI - I actually gave two different homilies this weekend: the one below, plus a homily for the children who were present at what has become our so-called family mass. For that one, I called the children forward, had them sit on the sanctuary steps, and asked them questions about being prepared - e.g. getting ready to go back to school this month; and then asked them to think about what it means to get ready for Jesus coming again.
What follows is the more traditional homily I gave at a different mass this weekend. One note about that homily: in it, I mention Blessed Carlo Acutis. Our parish hosted an exhibit this week of the Eucharistic miracles that, as I understand it, formed some of the content of Blessed Carlo's web site. He is said to be the first saint (or saint-to-be) of the Internet or social media or something similar. What our parish hosted was low-tech: a long series of placards describing the Eucharistic miracles that Blessed Carlo had documented, organized by country and city. Some were of fairly recent vintage, while others werre 700-800 years old. Nearly all of the countries listed were in Europe, although Argentina (including Buenos Aires when Jorge Bergoglio was archbishop) was included. I didn't see any miracles from the United States, although I suppose there must be some Eucharistic miracles documented in the US. I wasn't able to examine the exhibit in great detail (and I know almost nothing about Blessed Carlo), but from what I was able to glimpse, a number of the miracles documented were variations on the theme of a consecrated host that bled.
If you’re a gardener, this is a great time of year - this is the time of year you live for. We’ve been eating a lot of salads in our house because Therese’s vegetable garden is starting to give us fresh vegetables. Virtually every day, ripened tomatoes appear in our kitchen; and we’re reaching the point where we can’t keep up with the cucumbers, too. The jalapeno peppers are coming along nicely, too.
I don’t have Therese’s green thumb, but I know this much: if you want fresh tomatoes and cucumbers in August, you can’t start the garden in August. You have to start in May or June. When it comes to gardens, there is no such thing as instant gratification.
To be sure: in May or June, it’s not certain what August will bring. Gardeners have to be forward-looking. They need to be optimists for the future. A gardener has to have the confidence and imagination to see that this tiny plant in June will give us a bumper crop in August.
Between May and August, gardeners have to be vigilant, too. Tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers don’t just happen by themselves. Frosts, droughts, weeds, squirrels, bunnies, insects – any or all of them can derail a gardening project. If the plants aren’t properly caged, the vines will drag along the ground and the fruit will rot. There are a lot of ways a vegetable garden can come to grief. Gardeners have to be vigilant.
Gardeners can teach us a lot about how to follow Jesus. As disciples, we need to think and act like gardeners: to plan ahead rather than just drifting along in the moment; to live for the future, rather than the now; and to be vigilant, lest we stray from the path we’ve started down, and fail to reach our destination, which is life with him.
This gardener approach to our spiritual life, in which we look ahead and live ahead with optimism, preparing ourselves for what is to come in the future; and staying vigilant in the present – this is what we mean by a life of faith. Faith means, believing that what has been promised for the future will come to pass – and shaping our lives now, not for what the world is doing now, but for the kingdom we hope to be a part of, someday in the future. Through faith, we believe that what is to come someday, at some indeterminate point in the future, is as real as the earth we stand on and the oxygen we breathe today.
All the things I’ve done in my life that have really been worthwhile have had this element of faith – they’ve required me to trust in the future, rather than settling for the certainty or instant gratification of the present. For example, attending college was a leap of faith: I was betting that the me who would emerge four years in the future would be different, in a good way, than the me who entered as a freshman. And that turned out to be a good bet, because I came out of college more mature, more polished, more confident, more knowledgeable, more ready to be a contributing adult and citizen in society, than when I went in. To pay for college, I took on a mountain of debt, too, which was kind of scary, but I was betting that having a college degree would give me the wherewithal to pay off the debts and still come out ahead.
It was similar with getting married. I was 26, Therese was 24. We had no idea what the rest of our lives had in store for us. I certainly didn’t know we’d have four kids, or live in Arlington Heights, or join St. Edna, or become a deacon. Nobody knows, when they get married, what the future holds. But for Therese and me, the prospect of walking through life together, side by side, gave us the hope and courage to take the leap. A wedding is a bet on the future. It’s an act of faith.
I could say similar things about buying a house, or becoming a deacon, or changing jobs – virtually all the major decisions in my life: they were acts of faith.
Jesus calls us to live the same way when it comes to following him. We’re asked to make a bet on a future that will be very different than our present life. And even more than that: to live our present life in a way that prepares us for that future.
Following Jesus means preparing for when he comes again – for that time when the master returns from the wedding feast. We don’t know when that will be. I’m 63 years old. The actuarial tables tell me I should have a couple more decades, at least, in front of me. But that’s just a prediction. I could live 40 more years. Or my life on earth could end tomorrow. But if I’m living the way Jesus wants me to live, I should be ready for that moment today. I need to be ready now. I need to constantly be vigilant for how I’m living.
Because our being ready for Jesus doesn’t just happen on its own, any more than tomato or cucumber plants will prosper on their own. Living for Jesus doesn’t just happen naturally. It would be nice if that’s how things worked. But that isn’t the reality of human life. The reality is that, without spiritual vigilance, I’ll lapse back into selfishness and sin. And then I won’t be ready for the unexpected time when the master returns from the wedding.
Do you know who helps us to stay vigilant? The church. The church gives us ways to pray, so we can communicate with God. It gives us the sacraments of baptism and penance and anointing so our sins can be forgiven, and the sacrament of the Eucharist to give us the spiritual nourishment that sustains us. It gives us the saints, like Blessed Carlo Acutis, to model our lives after. The church is a great gift to us, because it helps us prepare for that day when the master will come again. With the church’s help, we can be ready on that day and show the master all the good fruits that came from the garden of our lives.
Thanks for giving Blessed Carlo a plug. The Church is inordinately preoccupied with miracles, imo. It's enough of a miracle that a kid that age has such a profound sense of grace and purpose. But they say God always gives you proof when you ask for it, so m'okay, you need miracles to prove the kid's a saint , here ya go.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reminder of vigilance, though I don't believe in a worldwide End Times. I do believe my End Time is coming, and faster than I thought after this month's blood check.
I have been too sad and resentful lately to tend my garden of prayers, and I need to get some of the nasty weeds out.
I do take issue with your analogy that you can't expect tomatoes in August if you plant them in August. The Church teaches that if we repent even with our last breath, we will receive mercy.
But certainly we can bear more fruit for others if we don't wait that long.
Not that you have ever asked for my input on your homilies ... :-)
I think zoom does want feedback from
DeleteOk you and all here. Otherwise he wouldn’t share them here.
Do I misunderstand Jim?
Jim NOT zoom! 😳
DeleteMy assumption is that Jim posts his homilies in hopes of strengthening the believers and exhorting us lapsed Catholics back to the faith. He does a fine job representing orthodoxy, though of course, unless he turns off the comments box, I'll quibble, bicker, and argue. A friend from the old neighborhood who's known me since I was 6 said I'd argue with a dead stump just to argue. He's not wrong.
DeleteI love all the comments. I post my homilies here because you're my friends and I respect your thoughts and views. I hope y'all will make me a better humiliation by calling out if I miss the bull's-eye.
DeleteThat should be, "...better homilist". In this age of AI, how can my autocorrect be so dumb?
DeleteI like reading Jim's homilies, it's always interesting to get a different take on the Mass readings.
DeleteI like reading comments here from everyone about every topic because I like getting different takes. When I was in the CP group we sometimes did Lectio. That was fascinating too - one brief passage of scripture and every single one of us would choose a different word or phrase as the one that “ jumped out” at us. It was fascinating to realize how differently each of us heard and understood the selected passage.
DeleteScripture has always been more important to me than the Sacraments. My problem and not knocking those who feel a pull toward them. But, for me, awe in the signs and wonders of the Sacraments depend on faith alone. Some days it's there, more days not. Plus ritual leading up to the Sacraments becomes awfully rote sometimes (again, just me). But the Word changes weekly and even if you cannot receive, they'll let you hear and respond to the Word.
DeleteJean, I'm the same way - more naturally attuned to scripture. I think that may be a matter of personal aptitudes and strengths.
DeleteThere certainly are other Catholics to whom sacraments speak more deeply than scripture. And there are Catholics to whom the world of the miraculous and the mystical are what keep them attached. Perhaps you have this, too, as part of your love for the saints?
I am skeptical of the miraculous and mystical, and I have no special spiritual insights or connections. God has spoken to us thru prophets, thru Jesus, and thru the myriad example of saints in every condition of life--rich, poor, intellectually brilliant, dull, eager to serve and reluctant and slow to believe. The collective example of the saints tells me that God looks at all of us and says, "I can work with this." Whether we want to work with God, of course, is up to us.
DeleteIt was interesting to me that this Blessed Carlo Acuto exhibit had a steady stream of visitors over two days. I would guess several hundred people came through the exhibit. Many were from the parish but many others apparently were not. The latter blocked off time and went out of their way to see it, i.e. clearly it was important to them. If this exhibit had been at any other parish within a three mile radius, I think it's pretty unlikely that I would have interrupted my weekend to see it. I note this just to remark that different Catholics are motivated by different things.
DeleteThat low tech exhibit of placards was in our town a couple of years ago. We went, it was interesting. We don't need miracles to to prove to us that Carlos was a saint. His life did that. But there was a lot of history there, going way back. I think there was one involving St. Claire of Assisi ? Her feast day is today. I always think of that Zeferelli movie, Brother Sun and Sister Moon.
ReplyDeleteII liked your gardening reference. I'm not a very good gardener. About all I've got going now is one really tough hanging begonia. But I appreciate friends who have gifted us with produce. It's that time of year when you might find a zucchini in your car or cucumbers on your front step. The other day some church people gave us a big sack of sweet corn. I took out what we could eat, and stealth left the rest on the next door neighbor's steps.
I think of the Resurrection account in which Mary Magdalene mistook Jesus for a gardener. She wasn't far wrong, I think Jesus is the gardener of our souls.
The bits about gardening are a good analogies.
ReplyDeleteIf “Eucharistic miracle” means what I think it means, I really don’t buy into those.
Some of the Eucharistic miracles involved a bleeding Host. The one with St. Claire was that, even though she was sick, she got up and led some of her sisters, holding a monstrance containing the Blessed Sacrament, and repelled Saracens who had invaded Assisi and were threatening their monastery.
DeleteEven though I do believe in the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I think I would be frightened rather than edified by a bleeding Host!
Bleeding hosts, statues of Mary weeping blood, bits of peoples bones and body parts (relics) etc are all pretty repellent imho. They sure wouldn’t attract me to Catholicism. They are among the features of the RCC that make me want to distance myself from the church. Mostly I ignore them.
DeleteMy comment wasn't too clear, the incident with St. Claire didn't involve a bleeding Host.
DeleteI have read arguments that "bleeding hosts" are problematic because they would seem to contradict what the Church teaches about transubstantiation. The whole point of the doctrine is that receiving communion is not some kind of cannibalism. After all, Jesus was physically present at the Last Supper, and if he had wanted the apostles to actually drink his blood, he could have opened a vein, bled into a chalice, and passed it around.
DeleteI have run across claims that the blood type of Jesus is known (AB+) from testing stains on the Shroud of Turin, and alleged blood from Eucharistic miracles is also AB+. I am extremely skeptical.
Of course, God (if he exists) can do anything. I don't know how strong an argument it is to say, "Such-and-such an alleged miracle cannot be authentic because it's not the kind of thing God would do." Nevertheless, it strikes me that a miraculous healing would be a more plausible Eucharistic miracle, because in the Gospels, healing is the most frequent miracle to result when coming in contact with Jesus. (One of my favorite stories is of the woman who touches the hem of Jesus's garment.)
David, that story is one of my favorites too. Jesus wasn't grossed out because the woman had a "female problem". Another favorite is when Jesus heals Peter's mother in law. He takes her hand and helps her up, another instance of someone being healed by direct contact with him.
DeleteSomebody awhile back posted a video on the local parish Website by a priest explaining how Jesus only had maternal DNA. I don't know how a bishop lets that kind of tripe get loose.
DeleteDavid -…. the blood type of Jesus is known (AB+) from testing stains on the Shroud of Turin”
DeleteUnfortunately for that theory, the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin is highly doubtful, based on many scientific tests. These studies indicate that the Shroud dates from the 13th or 14th centuries not the First century.
It doesn't matter to my faith whether the shroud of Turin is real or not. But if it is just the creation of an artist, no one has been able to duplicate it. There was certainly opportunity for contamination over the centuries if they are going by pollen,etc. Also it was damaged in at least one fire. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other, but is interesting.
DeleteIt actually sounds like you do care - that you want it to be authentic. Which is fine. Everyone can make up their own minds. But assuming that Jesus had a particular blood type based on the shroud is a reach.
DeleteThe preponderance of the evidence does not support authenticity ( at least what I’ve read in my research), but I don’t base my fragile faith on miracles anyway. Even Jesus warned people about wanting signs and miracles so I figure I’m ok as a miracle doubter.
Anne, you're right that I do want it to be authentic. But not because I base my faith in Jesus' resurrection on it. I base that on the Gospels. Just that if it truly is authentic, it's an intimate relic of his death and resurrection. And it's kind of neat if we find out his blood type. Of course it's always going to be, "is it, or isn't it?" But his blood shares the characteristics of all human blood, we all have a blood type.
DeleteIt doesn’t matter to me if Jesus had a particular blood type. It wouldn’t bother me if they decided that the blood on the shroud of Turin ( if it’s Jesus’s blood which I don’t believe, but for the sake of the argument …) has DNA from a human father as well as from a human mother. My faith in Jesus’s teachings doesn’t depend on believing in a physical resurrection of Jesus’s body either. Basically I’m barely a Christian, if being Christian means accepting all the dogma of the institution.rather than simply trying to follow the teachings of Jesus. The Incarnation is THE mystery for me. If I can accept that ( and I don’t know that I do) then the rest - including the resurrection- is of little significance to me personally, even though it holds pride of place as the most important Christian dogma.
DeleteI appreciate the nice words about the gardening metaphor. I can't take credit for thinking it up on my own. Many years ago I listened to a radio program in which the host interviewed some master gardeners. He asked one of his guests if people who loved gardening had certain characteristics, and the guest replied with some of the ideas I mentioned: gardeners are patient, they are planners, they are optimists, they don't live for instant gratification. If I knew who the guest was, I would have named her in the homily.
ReplyDeleteAt least you're not letting AI write your homilies in their entirety yet. Always a chance that in a human-generated homily something of the Spirit will come thru. As far as I know, God isn't talking to anybody thru ChatGPT.
DeleteAI is everywhere. Apple is calling their AI, Apple Intelligence.
DeleteThere is now an app called Truthly which combines AI with Catholic teaching, for just $4.99 a month. Free to priests and religious. I wonder if it is free to deacons? Maybe Jim should check it out.
Yes, it's everywhere. If clergy are going to generate homilies with AI, they should save everybody time and just tell people to consult ChatGPT. We are replacing human contact with machine interaction.
DeleteAs someone who has put in a lot of time and effort over the years into gardening, I don’t believe in the master gardener metaphor.
ReplyDeleteI have had spectacular years for tomatoes, peppers, corn, zucchini, cucumbers, green beans, snow peas, tulips, hyacinths, daffodils, and forsythia. I am a photographer and have the pictures to prove it. But for all the wonderful years there have been years when some things are very poor, and I have to be happy looking at my pictures.
I am not saying that you can do little or nothing and yet get great results. You will probably be better off for taking the advice of master gardeners. I have given as well as taken gardening advice. But it does not guaranteed success.
I do see life much as a garden. Some years have been great for somethings. Some effort is usually better than no effort, but a great deal of effort does not guarantee success in anything.
And for those who are consistently successful it is more likely to be an abnormal statistic event. One time in a hundred events do happen regularly one in a hundred times!
The kingdom of heaven, whether in this world or the next, cannot be brought about by the efforts of a master gardener, at least not by one that is only human.
We will likely become sadly mistaken if we try to do that. At best we are likely to become full of pride if we are partially successful.
Rather the kingdom of heaven is full of gifts: events, plants, animals, and people who are beyond our control.
"The kingdom of heaven, whether in this world or the next, cannot be brought about by the efforts of a master gardener, at least not by one that is only human." That's because the master gardener is God. We are just the apprentices.
Delete"The kingdom of heaven, whether in this world or the next, cannot be brought about by the efforts of a master gardener, at least not by one that is only human."
DeleteLater on in Luke, Jesus gives a corrective to the temptation to pride on the part of us poor servants. This is Luke 17:7-10:
“Who among you would say to your servant who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field, ‘Come here immediately and take your place at table’? Would he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare something for me to eat. Put on your apron and wait on me while I eat and drink. You may eat and drink when I am finished’? Is he grateful to that servant because he did what was commanded? So should it be with you. When you have done all you have been commanded, say, ‘We are unprofitable servants; we have done what we were obliged to do.’”
Yet (apparently) that admonition doesn't gainsay the passage from this past Sunday:
"Blessed are those servants whom the master finds vigilant on his arrival. Amen, I say to you, he will gird himself, have them recline at table, and proceed to wait on them."
Someone, I forget whether it was a social scientist or theologian, defined a miracle as an improbable event taking place in a religious framework. Improbable events, even one in a million, still have a probability. However I cannot see staking my faith on belief in a one in a million event, even the resurrection.
ReplyDeleteI think the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles are far more creditable as witnesses of early Christianity than as witnesses of the Historical Jesus. The many searches for the Historical Jesus have usually ended up constructing a Jesus to the image and likeness of the searcher.
That is also why I am also very skeptical of founding one’s religion on a personal relationship to Jesus. That also appears to me to be an easy way to make God into our image and likeness. Now as Merton points out the search for God and for one’s self are two sides to the same coin. Only we need to be very skeptical of the images of God and ourselves which we are constructing.
For myself, I find the Liturgy (Sacraments, Liturgy of the Word, Liturgy of the Hours) to be the best way to encounter the Scriptures in the lives of various ecclesial communities. I am much more comfortable with their words and images that those of my own construction. I am far more comfortable with persons like Merton and Dorothy Day who have formed their own lives on the heritage of Catholic religious culture, especially the spiritualities of religious orders rather than on any personal experience or revelation.
Regarding the phenomenon of bleeding hosts: here is the first set of panels that appeared at the Blessed Carlo Acutis exhibit that was at our parish this past weekend:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.miracolieucaristici.org/en/liste/scheda_c.html?nat=argentina&wh=buenosaires&ct=Buenos%20Aires,%201992-1994-1996
Three different instances and, we might say, variations of a host that somehow came into contact with or was transformed into blood are described. It seems these events happened in the early and mid 1990s.
There are Catholics who would be quite skeptical about such things. And there are Catholics who would be quite open to these things being true and being signs of Jesus's Real Presence.
I admit to being skeptical, because I know enough about the world to know that virtually all of us are susceptible to being flim-flammed. Even in the Old Testament, there were authentic prophets and false prophets, and it wasn't always easy for people to distinguish between them.
Please note that I am not saying that this particular set of miracles are flim-flammery. Nor am I saying I don't believe these miracles mean what Blessed Carlo Acutis evidently thought they mean. I think we need to be committed to the truth, and it's not a sin to look objectively at the truth claims of events such as these.
Color me into the "being open, but not attaching too much importance" category of belief about the miracles. Actually the one that impressed me the most did not involve blood or any change at all. It was the one where St. Claire or one of her sisters (I'm not sure which) carried the Blessed Sacrament and repelled invaders into their monastery.
Delete
DeleteI am troubled by the idea that there are things in Catholicism you "have to believe," but fortunately there are vast areas (for example, private revelation) which Catholics are free to accept or reject, and I think that Eucharistic miracles fall into the "free to reject" category.
There is a very good book titled By What Authority?: Foundations for Understanding Authority in the Church by Richard R. Gaillardetz. He makes it clear that saying you "have to believe" certain things isn't quite accurate, but it is not a gross distortion either.
I recall Jack’s reference to the Blood of Christ being that of His resurrected body. I liked that. Blood enables life, carrying oxygen and nutrients. I think blood recapitulates the chemistry of the sea from which life first sprang. First the blood was outside. Then it became inside. It washes our insides, too, taking away the waste products. That preserves life, too. Washed in the Blood of the Lamb.
DeleteGotta be way more Catholic than I'll ever be to believe this stuff:
Deletehttps://www.facebook.com/reel/1062639631888669
Pure nonsense. It really makes the church look bad in case people are checking it out.
DeleteForgive me, Father, for I am consulting AI in reporting this:
Delete"Individuals with Turner syndrome have only one X chromosome (45,X). This condition is typically found in females and can lead to various developmental and health issues, such as short stature, heart defects, and ovarian failure. "
Jim, you’re reaching.
DeleteNot at all - I'm not the one claiming Jesus had only an X chromosome. That was that priest in the video.
Delete
ReplyDeleteI feel confident in saying that there is nothing even approaching any authentic teaching of the Church on the genetics of the alleged virginal conception of Jesus or the Incarnation. Since Jesus is fully human and Mary is his true mother, then it stands to reason that the biology involved is the same as for any normal mother and son. Half of Jesus's genes came from Mary. The other half came from God.
True Turner's syndrome is found only in females. There are cases similar to Turner syndrome in which there are fragments of an X chromosome present, and if they are the right fragments, the individual can develop as male. However, those fragments would almost certainly come from the father (and why would God provide flawed genetic material?) unless there was something freakish about Mary's chromosomal makeup and it somehow contained X material.
So it seems to me that Father Facebook has wandered into heretical territory. A Jesus without a Y chromosome would not be fully human and would not be a true man. He would be physically unlike any human person, either male or female, who ever existed. Surely the only reasonable conclusion (assuming one is a believing Catholic) is that Mary provided genes as any human mother would, and that God miraculously provided genes identical to those a human father would.
"Surely the only reasonable conclusion (assuming one is a believing Catholic) is that Mary provided genes as any human mother would, and that God miraculously provided genes identical to those a human father would."
DeleteDavid, exactly.
Reply
David - you're following my line of thought to a T. Well, you pushed it a good deal farther than I had!
DeleteIf God could arrange a virgin birth, God could provide whatever genetic material he wanted when he was born as one of us. He made all of us out of mud and seawater, for Chrissakes.
ReplyDeleteThe obsession with miracles is a distraction from the message of Jesus and all the saints through whom he has worked. People know a saint when they meet one.
In addition, if we are to believe what various authorities say on the Internet, the body of Christ in the Eucharist is his post-Resurrection, glorified body. (I had never considered this point until this discussion.) Do we posit, er, chromosomal consistency between a pre-Resurrection body and a post-Resurrection body? According to the Gospel accounts, Jesus in his glorified body could do things like disappear and (as they say in the Harry Potter stories) apparate into the middle of a locked room, not to mention shape-shift in appearance - none of which our pre-resurrected human bodies permit us to do.
ReplyDeleteA timely article in the LMU Alumni magazine about the Shroud. The author is Muslim.
ReplyDeletehttps://magazine.lmu.edu/articles/shrouded-proof/
He seems more open to the Shroud being an image of Jesus than I am! One thing interests me is the statement that the image depicts a man of about 6' in height. This is unlikely because the average height of a first century Jewish male was about 5'5". Of course, if he really was 6' tall he would certainly have attracted a lot of attention. (the taller candidate for President in the US usually wins). According to studies I have read about Jesus's probable physical appearance (male First century Jew) is that not only did he not have European facial features as portrayed in most European art througout history, and that most western christians believe are accurate depictions of Jesus, he was a short, dark-skinned, dark-eyed Jew.
Here is an article
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35120965
I'll have to read the article. The height estimate from the shroud that I have read was about 5'9". Heights can vary a lot, even of people with the same genes. My younger son is 5'9", the older one is 6'3".
DeleteSomeone did a computer assisted 3D printed sculpture of the figure from the shroud. That was interesting. Whoever it was had a muscular build, as if he had done a lot of physical work. St. Peter was said to have been a big man, of course his work was physical.
I think our friend Tom Blackburn was high on the Shroud. The linen was carbon dated and not the right age. But I guess you can believe Jesus could imprint his image on anything at any time like a heavenly cyanotype. But given the lucrative fake relics biz rampant in the later Middle Ages, color me dubious.
DeleteKatherine, according to the article, the back of body images of the man’s height and those of his front of body show different heights. I also remember reading something somewhere about a discrepancy related to the face cloth but I don’t remember what it was or where I read it. I am a born sceptic about all of this stuff as you know, so I don’t worry much about it. This article also mentions the brisk profitable trade in “ relics” of that era of history that Jean mentioned.
DeleteMy devout Greek Orthodox friend once invited me to her church for a special showing of an icon of Mary that “ weeps” sacred oil ( myrrh). It was from a church in Hawaii I think and travels the country every year visiting Orthodox churches ( and collecting donations).
https://orthodoxhawaii.org/icons
But it’s not only Christianscwho have these miraculous objects
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1995/09/22/Thousands-mob-London-Hindu-temple/1687811742400/
Apparently most religions, including those of indigenous peoples, report miracles.
“Popular Islam—particularly under Sufi (Islamic mystic) influence—abounds in miracles, pilgrimages to the tombs of wonder-working saints, and the like. Dogmatic theology too recognizes miracles as facts.”
I don't like the practice of taking pieces of an actual body, such as bones, for relics. It seems kind of creepy and disrespectful. Weeping icons I suppose are a different category, but I don't get into that, either.
DeleteI don't have a problem with the idea that God could work miracles for non-Christians too.
It seems there is something in human nature that wants - needs- to have a deity - probably to explain the existence of the universe. Where did it come from? So human societies everywhere in the world developed a religion. I think there is a similar drive in humans to want "proof" that their beliefe are true so they flock to miracles - weeping statues, bloody hosts, mysterious images on linen, marble bovines that drink milk or whatever. I think about Jesus's warning in John 4:48 about wanting signs and miracles. If Jesus meant that, then I wonder why God would create so many miracles in every major religion? So I don't think that this happens - it seems more likely that these miracles reflect human desires and people see what they want to see - to affirm their faith, whatever it is.
DeleteAgree about relics - creepy and very disrespectful.
When you think about it, everything is a miracle, including our very existence, and all creation.
Delete"It seems there is something in human nature that wants - needs- to have a deity - probably to explain the existence of the universe. Where did it come from? So human societies everywhere in the world developed a religion. "
DeleteJust reading your thought here, it seems your assumption is that human existence preceded the longing for spiritual meaning. I guess it's conceivable that's true, although it's not what I believe.
It seems to be at least equally possible that God already was here when humans came into existence - and that his hand was active in bringing us into existence; that the longing for spiritual meaning is innate to humanity; and that our society, corrupted by sin and dysfunctional in many ways, doesn't do an adequate job of fulfilling that human longing for spiritual meaning.
There are a lot of false doors and dead ends available to people - a lot of wrong ways to seek for this fulfillment. That's especially true in a prosperous society like ours - we can afford a lot of dead ends.
People sense the spiritual reality of the world around them and want to see a concrete sign of it.
DeleteYes, I think God was here long before humans and that we are born with a desire to find union with God. I don't think humans ever existed in a state of bliss with the Creator. But we are very good at finding substitutes for the fulfillment that God offers.
DeleteI had never thought to ask whether the alleged body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist is that of the earthly Jesus or the risen Jesus. It does occur to me that at the first celebration of the Eucharist (the Last Supper) Jesus was alive, and so his glorified/risen body did not exist. ("Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.")
ReplyDeleteHowever, if you already believe Catholic dogma about the real presence, I can't see how genetic characteristics or blood types would be of any significance whatsoever. The whole point of the concept of transubstantiation is that the original physical characteristics of whatever is transubstantiated are undetectable. A Eucharistic miracle that produces human blood or tissue would be a "reverse miracle," because it would be the undoing of the miracle of transubstantiation.
After I converted from Anglicanism, I was told by a cradle Catholic that there was no Real Presence in the Anglican communion, contrary to what I had been taught there, because no Anglican host had ever bled. I don't know if that's true (and I would not rely on AI to answer it). But the bleeding Sacrament seems to be an important "proof" for some Catholics that what's on offer is the real deaI.
DeleteTo be honest, Jean, I never heard of bleeding hosts until well into middle age. They weren’t part of my Catholic upbringing, never mentioned in the parishes I belonged to, nor in my Catholic elementary school or my Catholic college. Maybe this belief was a sub- culture in some places.
DeleteI never heard of a bleeding host, either, until adulthood. I would certainly not want to receive one! If the occasional miracle helps some people's faith, fine. But it's kind of like Thomas saying he has to put his finger in the wounds of Jesus to believe. And Jesus words in reply to that.
DeleteI don't know how someone would know that there was no real Presence in Anglican Communion. That would mean they had to know the mind of God.
In my area, there seem to be a lot of Catholics who believe in evil spirits, demonic possession, and the use of sacramentals to ward them off. The local priest talks about demons a lot. People start flirting with the occult when society is destabilized and they feel powerless. We seem to be going thru one of those periods now.
DeleteI do believe there are fallen angels. I don't think they mostly have to work very hard, to a large extent they can eat popcorn and watch us self destruct. We do a pretty good job of that.
DeleteI think Jean is right that a lot of people start flirting with the occult when society is destabilized and people feel powerless. Someone or something will step into that gap. It's like Lucy and her "psychiatric help 5 cents" booth. You get what you pay for, and be careful what or who you ask for.
I'm afraid the best I can muster is a belief in angels and demons as metaphors for our conflicted souls. My ancestor George Jacobs was hanged in the Salem witch trials, and all the godly people jabbering about demons and fallen angels at the local parish give me the creeps.
DeleteKatherine - “That would mean they had to know the mind of God.”
DeleteThar has been my objection to the RCC’s claims of infallibility since I was a kid in parochial school and the nun taught us that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra. When I later was taught about the magisterium I felt the same. Indulgences are another incredibly arrogant presumption of humans claiming the power only God has - that a human being can declare that if people do certain things or pray certain prayers or travel to an event like Youth Day they will earn an indulgence. The same with people fearing that only priests in a confessional can “absolve” their sins (te absolvo - I absolve you in the name of the father etc - emphasis on the I) rather than God . The human men who have run the church for almost 2000 years claim a lot of power that is God’s.
Jean, thanks for interesting observation about conditions that give rise to belief in the occult and the superstitious ways Christians think will ward off the demons.
Jean -“ I'm afraid the best I can muster is a belief in angels and demons as metaphors for our conflicted souls”
DeleteAgree
That hosts bleed is not an article of faith for Catholicism.
ReplyDeleteMaybe that fact needs wider advertising.
DeleteI always feel the need to offer my disclaimer after posting about religious matters: I am fallen away and no longer trying to square Catholic dogma and tradition with what seem to me to be the essentials of Christian life. I mean no disrespect, nor am I trying to encourage the unbelief of anyone. I know I try the patience of some of you, and, as always, I appreciate your forbearance.
ReplyDeleteOn that note, a blessed Assumption Day for those here who find meaning and joy in that observance.
I will be off here for awhile. No need for a wellness check.
I was concerned about your allusion to your recent blood test results. Please keep us updated. I know that my friend is always tense when she gets her blood draws every three weeks. The stress for yo must be similar.
DeleteI think I try people’s patience much more than you, Jean. I appreciate everything you contribute.
Jim - “I think God was here when human beings came into existence.”
ReplyDeleteJim, I agree that God was here before human beings. The force that created the universe is described in scripture as creating the earth and the universe starting with “And God created light”, which we now call the Big Bang. The mystery creator that we call God is beyond human comprehension - before time, where?
My views have evolved slowly over the last decades. I very much wish that I could simply believe, without thinking so much, without the questions and doubts. But that’s not how I’m made, unfortunately.
This is what I have come to think - there is one Creator who
created the universe we know, and maybe millions of universes we aren’t aware of. The Creator inspired the development of religions in all peoples. As humans evolved they developed brains that could observe and reflect and ask questions. As spiritual creatures themselves they sensed the spiritual reality and began to develop explanations and understandings that became religion. They created priesthoods of different kinds, they created saints of different kinds, they developed theologies of different kinds. Pagan religions, theistic religions, and “religions” like Buddhism or Confucianism or Taoism that are more philosophies of how to live a “good” life than monotheistic, deistic religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam that root their beliefs and teachings in a single creator God and what that Creator “defines” as a “ good” life. Hinduism is the oldest major world religion and has a creator God but also a whole pantheon of “gods” that I am told by a former colleague who converted from Christianity to Hinduism represent the many facets of the nature of the creator God. I don’t know much about Hinduism. Anyway, each of the religions that developed reflect the conditions of the people and cultures where they developed. Christianity believes that God revealed the truths of the divine through Jesus - God incarnated as a human. Most people follow the religious beliefs of the family and culture they are born into.
If all goes well, at 1400 tomorrow, I’ll be at Bryant Park in NYC protesting the Zionist genocide. And if things continue to go well, I’ll leave in the same shape I arrived. Downside: NYC is the American capital of fanatical Zionism. Upside: it’s a city that very well may elect Mamdani with a lot of Jewish votes. So please keep me in your prayers and thoughts. Not as indestructible as I used to be but I will be wearing my steel-reinforced-toe work shoes by Dewalt, the power tool company.
ReplyDeleteSending prayers for your safety, Stanley!
DeleteJim Pauwels: It seems to be at least equally possible that God already was here when humans came into existence - and that his hand was active in bringing us into existence; that the longing for spiritual meaning is innate to humanity; and that our society . . . .
DeleteHuman beings physically and intellectually capable of understanding the religious concepts we subscribe to today have been in existence for about 300,000 years. (Put another way, for those who believe in Adam and Eve, they could have existed 300,000 years ago.)
I was just reading about the development ofJudaism and came across the fact that traces of polytheism can be found in the Old Testament (for example, mentions of Asherah, once taken to be God's wife, have slipped through). The process of going from polytheistic to monotheistic took place over a long time, starting in the 7th century BC and ending in 100 BC.
It strikes me that an innate longing for spiritual meaning (which is evident in history and even deeply into prehistory) did not lead to anything Christians would consider to be be "true" for hundreds and thousands of years.
Good for you, Stanley.
DeleteIt seems to me that there are some things that come pre-loaded into human beings, kind of like all desk top computers come with Paint and Word already on board. Christianity didn't come about until Christ ( though the foundations were laid in the OT). But most all of the world religions at least have some values in common, such as the golden rule. They all have a creation story, even though they don't agree. But there is a recognition that we had to come from somewhere.
DeleteExactly, Katherine. The major world religions, and even the less known religions such as those of indigenous peoples, have a lot of commonalities. I believe that God intended for those religions to be developed just as much as Judaism and Christianity. God inspired a spiritual path for all peoples. It is more inclusive version of wagon wheel Christianity - all the many versions of Christianity look at the same hub, Jesus, but from their different perspectives. I agree with Vatican IIs conclusion that all religions provide at least some of the truth. The RCC of course claims that only it has the fullness of Truth, but, given its history over 2000 years, I’m not convinced. I think that Christianity can learn from other great religions, and they can learn from Christianity. I stay Christian because it’s where I was born. It’s the most familiar. I like what Jesus taught, much of which was a reiteration of the Jewish teachings he was taught. God created a spiritual path for everyone- but not necessarily the same path.
DeleteI would much rather have been home yesterday sipping a Gin and Tonic than being in NYC yesterday in the hot sun. There were first two hours of speeches delivered over speakers set at "deafen". Among the speakers was Khalil Mahmood, the Columbia student arrested by ICE for his anti-genocide demonstrations. also, Chris Smalls, who successfully organized the workers in an Amazon warehouse and recently was a crew member on a ship which was intercepted for trying to bring aid to Gaza. Smalls was separated from the rest (he's black} and beaten. and he mentioned there were a lot of Ethiopians in the jail. Then came the march, from the New York Public Library on a circuitous route to.Central Park. Only one "incident". At one point, a man was yelling at the Jews in the march that they are traitors. Prophets are rarely respected by their communities in their own time. The orthodox Jewish sect that opposes the existence of Israel was also there. I call them the Hasidim with the coolest hats. They and the more secular Jews I consider the most important elements of the protest. At the end, I availed myself of a Nathan's hot dog and a lemonade while remembering the Palestinians deprived of food, water, and medical supplies. Wouldn't it be great if an endless parade of food trucks like those outside Central Park could file into Gaza, I thought. Then I walked to Penn Station, got the train to Dover, NJ, took a break at M's house and ate a little. Then drove home and crashed, Like I said, I'd much rather stay home, but if they have another protest, I'll make it.
ReplyDeleteGood for you, Stanley.
DeleteWho are the Jewish sect that opposes the existence of Israel? I haven’t heard of them before. I know that plenty of Jews in the US and in Israel oppose what Israel is doing in Gaza, but I haven’t heard of any that oppose the existence of Israel itself.
"The orthodox Jewish sect that opposes the existence of Israel was also there."
DeleteAs I understand it, some Orthodox consider anything like creation of a state, reestablishment of the Temple, etc. to be something that is up to the initiative of God, not individual Jews or their leaders.
We should also remember that the present state of Israel was the product of progressive not Orthodox Jews, which might have stirred up the opposition of some Orthodox Jews.
I believe Jack has it right. At least some strictly Orthodox Jews believe any establishment of Israel is to be the work of the Lord or it is not Israel. It sounds like Christians (like me) who believe the Second Coming cannot be jumpstarted by the actions of a state like the US but is to be on God's terms. I'm not even sure what the Second Coming actually is or what it would look like since I'm, well, merely human.
DeleteIsrael is pretty much run by Orthodox Jews from what I have read. They apparently don’t accept some marriages between Orthodox and non- Orthodox Jews or some conversions. I’m fuzzy on the details.
Deletegoogle says they are Naturei Karta. They believe that it will be the Messiah that establishes Israel and that the Zionist Project isn't it. BTW, what got me blocked on America was calling "Israel" the Zionist Project. "Israel" is a sacred word to me. too. Calling this genocidal entity "Israel" feels blasphemous. It doesn't deserve the name.
DeleteBut Zion is also sacred name. I guess ya can.t win.
DeleteAmerica blocks my stuff all the time but seldom tells me exactly what I said “ wrong”. I’m not renewing. They are censoring too much.
DeleteAgreed, Anne.
Delete