If you would like to catch up on some recent posts, here is a place where you can easily access some posts you might have missed. I hope it helps… enjoy.
Continue readingA quick look back
Featured
2
Solemnity of the Assumption of Mary
The Assumption was defined as dogma only in the 1950. In our Catholic Church ‘dogma” is defined as a truth revealed by God, which the magisterium of the Church declared as binding upon all Catholics. The term Dogma Catholicum was first used by Vincent of Lérins (450), referring to “what all, everywhere and always believed” – with the emphasis on katholica meaning universal. The term dogma derived from the Greek dogma (δόγμα) meaning literally “that which one thinks is true” and the verb dokein, “to seem good.”
On 1 November 1950, in the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus Pope Pius XII declared the Assumption of Mary as a dogma:
By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory
Pope Pius XII deliberately left open the question of whether Mary died before her Assumption.
On the same day, the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics celebrate the Dormition of the Mother of God (or Dormition of the Theotokos, the falling asleep of the Mother of God). Eastern Christians believe that Mary died a natural death, that her soul was received by Christ upon death, and that her body was resurrected on the third day after her death and that she was taken up into heaven bodily in anticipation of the general resurrection. Her tomb was found empty on the third day.
Orthodox tradition is clear in regard to the central point of the Dormition: the Holy Virgin underwent, as did her Son, a physical death, but her body – like His – was afterwards raised from the dead and she was taken up into heaven, in her body as well as in her soul. She has passed beyond death and judgement and lives wholly in life eternal.
Many western Catholics also believe that Mary first died before being assumed, but they believe that she was miraculously resurrected before being assumed. Others believe she was assumed bodily into Heaven without first dying. Either understanding may be legitimately held by Latin and Eastern Catholics.
In parallel to the theological discussion – actually, well before the theologians got into the mix, the Assumption had a rich history of writings and liturgical celebrations. The earliest known Reference is “The Book of Mary’s Repose” which survives in an Ethiopic translation. It is understood as being a 3rd century writing. Also, quite early is a book titled, “The Six Books” a collection of Dormition narratives dating to the 4th century.
In some versions of the narrative, the Assumption is said to have taken place in Ephesus, in the House of the Virgin Mary. Comparatively, that is a later and localized tradition – especially in Ephesus. The earliest written traditions say that Mary’s life ended in Jerusalem located in the Kidron Valley – at the foot of Mount of Olives. What is interesting is that since the 5th century all rulers over Jerusalem have honored the tomb of Mary as being in that location. The Muslim rulers may have destroyed the church atop the tomb but the crypt was left untouched, as for Muslims it is the burial place of the mother of prophet Isa (Jesus)
By the 7th century, a variation of the narrative emerged, according to which one of the apostles, often identified as St Thomas, was not present at the death of Mary but his late arrival precipitates a reopening of Mary’s tomb, which is found to be empty except for her grave clothes.
The liturgical celebrations (transitus celebrations) of the Assumption were well established in the East by the 5th century and began widespread celebration in the West by the 9th century.
Universal Salvation
This coming Sunday is the 20th Sunday in Ordinary Time. The careful reader of Matthew should be mindful that there have been persistent hints. From the beginning of the Gospel, Matthew begins to make it clear that the community of the Messiah is formed from unexpected sources. The mention of Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba (1:3, 5, 6), all evidently Gentiles with overtones of scandal in their backgrounds, prepares the reader for Jesus’ association with the sinners of his own day.
The curious arrival of the mysterious wise men (Magi) from the east who wish to worship Jesus (2:1–2) foreshadows the power of the message of the Kingdom to summon followers in surprising ways. Jesus’ amazement at the faith of the Roman officer (8:10–12) and his acknowledgement of the faith of the Canaanite woman (15:28) encourage the readers of this Gospel to believe that the message of the Kingdom is able to engender faith from unlikely sources in their own day. The Roman soldier’s amazed confirmation of Jesus’ true identity at the crucifixion (27:54) has a similar effect. All of these episodes from the narrative collectively encouraged Matthew’s original Jewish readers to expand their vision of the people of God. It was not that they should abandon their fellow Jews, but they were to take the message of the Kingdom to “all the nations” (28:19).
Image credit: Jean Germain Drouais, Christ and the Canaanite Woman, 1784, Louvre Museum | Public Domain
Covenantal Love
Here on this last day in the first reading sequence, Ezekiel 16:1-15, 60, 63, an extraordinarily harsh passage. Indeed, parts of the complete chapter are deliberately shocking. But its governing metaphor is covenantal love.
God describes Jerusalem as an abandoned infant whom nobody wanted: “No eye looked on you with pity… Rather, you were thrown out on the open field…” (16:5) God finds her, gives her life, raises her, clothes her, adorns her and enters covenant with her: “I swore an oath to you and entered into covenant with you… and you became mine.” (16:8)
But Jerusalem takes the very gifts God gave her and turns them toward infidelity. That explains everything we have just encountered. The sin that caused the judgment, the departure of God’s glory and the exile was not merely violation of regulations. It was betrayal of a relationship.
And then the jumps, omitting much of Ezekiel’s blistering indictment and takes us to verse 60: “Yet I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you.” That “Yet” may be the theological key to the entire week’s readings.
- Israel forgets.
- God remembers.
- Israel breaks covenant.
- God establishes covenant.
- Israel’s sin has consequences.
- But Israel’s sin does not get the final word.
The glory of the LORD that leaves the Temple in Ezekiel 10–11 eventually comes back. Near the end of the book, Ezekiel sees the restored Temple: “The glory of the LORD entered the temple by way of the gate facing east.” (Ezek 43:4) The same divine glory that traveled eastward out of Jerusalem returns from the east. In a way this frames the whole book: God’s glory departs but God does not abandon his people forever.
And between departure and return come some of Ezekiel’s greatest promises: the shepherd who will seek the scattered sheep (chapter 34), the new heart and new spirit (36:26), and the dry bones restored to life (chapter 37) – all themes we see in the story of Jesus. Understood in this frame, Ezekiel’s message is not, “Israel sinned, so God punished them.” It is subtler and ultimately more hopeful: God’s people rejected the Word they had been given; their infidelity hollowed out even their sacred institutions; the consequences were catastrophic. Yet even when Israel’s faithfulness failed, God’s faithfulness did not.
Image credit: A fresco from St. John the Baptist Church in Kratovo, Macedonia (photo: Rašo, via Wikimedia Commons)
How are We to Understand Jesus’ Response?
This coming Sunday is the 20th Sunday in Ordinary Time. The disciples’ request, Send her away for she keeps calling out after us need not be understood as disapproval of her request, but simply a desire for peace and quiet (cf. 19:13?). In fact, if Jesus would just grant the petition, they all can rest. Many scholars hold this content makes Jesus’ emphatic objection (v.24) more cogent. But rather than take the path of least resistance, there is a principle to be highlighted. The principle is the same as that of 10:5–6, of a mission restricted to Israel (during Jesus’ earthly ministry): “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The statement here is Jesus’ explanation to the disciples of his unexpectedly unwelcoming response to a woman in need; she herself need not have heard it, as it is only in v.25 that she approaches Jesus closely.
In her close approach she gives Jesus homage and again refers to him as Lord. While one can assume this is only the posture/language of the petitioner, in Matthew such language always refers to worship before God. Given this, how should one take the repartee between Jesus and the woman? There are three basic suggestions:
- One suggestion for understanding Jesus’ response is that he is testing her faith (Lord, Son of David) and her resolve (a key characteristic for all disciples).
- Another suggestion is its polar opposite, he is making it clear to her that she and her concerns are not part of his mission – but her clever reply, acknowledging the primacy of mission to Israel, raises the possibility of mission beyond Israel for those who accept God’s sovereignty in how He chooses his own people.
- Another variation depends upon the understanding that Jesus is still in Jewish territory and that the Canaanite woman has come as though fulfilling the Isaian vision of the Gentiles streaming to the Temple Mount (cf. Isa 2:2-4): the Gentiles are to approach God through Israel.
All three responses allow for Jesus’ final words (v.28) and the healing desired.
Yet we are troubled by Jesus uttering: “It is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs.” It has been suggested that since the Greek term kynaria, a diminutive, i.e., puppy, is an affectionate reference to dogs as pets, that Jesus is not being harsh. While that appeals to our modern sentimentality and manners, it has trouble because of the lack of any such idea in Judaism, or of a known diminutive form to express it in Aramaic. The more likely scenario is that Jesus is expressing the contemptuous Jewish attitude to Gentiles in order to explain why her request does not fit into his mission to Israel. But written words do not convey a twinkle in the eye, the tone of delivery, or other such nuance. Perhaps Jesus verbally conveys the words she would expect, but everything else hints at an invitation to “make her case.” And she makes it in a way that conveys her faith.
No-one else receives from Jesus the accolade “…great is your faith!” (though the reply to the centurion seems equivalent, cf. 8:10). Was it merely her persistence in expecting a response despite apparent refusal? Or is there also the idea of her spiritual perception in recognizing both the primary scope of Jesus’ mission to Israel and also the fact that that was not to be its ultimate limit? The Canaanite woman, like the centurion before her, foreshadows the time when the true Israel will transcend the boundaries of culture and nationality.
Image credit: Jean Germain Drouais, Christ and the Canaanite Woman, 1784, Louvre Museum | Public Domain
The Consequences
On this third day of the first reading sequence we find Ezekiel 12:1-12 and one of Ezekiel’s famous prophetic sign-actions. God tells Ezekiel to pack an exile’s baggage. In daylight, while everyone watches, he is to carry his belongings away. Then he is to dig through the wall and leave with his face covered. He becomes a living parable. And the reason is given immediately: “Son of man, you live in the midst of a rebellious house; they have eyes to see but do not see, and ears to hear but do not hear.” (12:2)
Notice how naturally this follows the preceding readings. The prophet has eaten the Word. Israel has refused the Word. God’s glory has departed the Temple. Now Ezekiel physically demonstrates where all this leads: exile.
There is also something pastorally interesting about Ezekiel’s bizarre behavior. When ordinary speech no longer penetrates, God tells the prophet essentially to become the message. Ezekiel doesn’t merely announce exile; he packs his bags and acts it out in the street.
Image credit: A fresco from St. John the Baptist Church in Kratovo, Macedonia (photo: Rašo, via Wikimedia Commons)
A Framework to Understand the Response
This coming Sunday is the 20th Sunday in Ordinary Time. It is believed that the etymology of “Hebrew” comes from the Semitic root ‘apiru, which refers to those who cross over. It is an apt description when one considers the journeys of Abraham and Sarah, the travels of Jacob/Israel and his 12 sons, and the Exodus of the Jews to Israel – a narrative history of people who were “other” and yet willing to “cross over” because of the call of God. And paradoxically, the disciples are not willing to “cross over” to console this woman who is “other.”
This “otherness” has to understood in the context of Mt 14 and Mt 15:1-20.
Why did the disciples cross the lake (14:22)? To get to the other side – but not willingly. What’s so important on the other side, that Jesus, literally, “immediately” (eutheos) “forces” (anagkazo) the disciples to get into the boat and head that direction? When disciples first cross the lake through a storm, they land on the Gentile/unclean side (Mt 8:23-34). With the boat trip of Mt 14, Jesus had sent them to “the other side” (14:22, see also 16:5), was that meant to be the Gentile side? In Mark, Jesus had sent the disciples to Bethsaida (Mk 6:45), which is on the Gentile side of the Jordan, but they didn’t make it. They end up in Gennesaret (Mk 6:53; Mt 14:34) which is on the Jewish side of Lake Galilee. Can storms at sea (and “little faith”) keep disciples from reaching the destinations where Jesus has sent them? It is a question we can all ask of ourselves and our communities of faith. This issue of “other” and “clean/unclean” is the issue Jesus takes up in Mt 15 (and was addressed in the “Context” section).
The disciples are people learning what it demanded of true discipleship to Jesus. They are emerging from a time in which there is a major holiness movement headed by the Pharisees which is implemented in laws of ritual purity and cleanliness – in which things and people can make you unclean. The disciples are being called into an era in which they are called to “cross over” to all peoples, but not just yet. That commission will become clear in the post-Resurrection appearance of Jesus. For now, it is already clear in Matthew that Jesus and his disciples ministered only to the lost sheep of Israel (9:35–36; 10:5–6).
However, there has already been one notable exception to this rule, the healing of the Centurion’s servant (8:5–13). It is noteworthy that both the previous and the present cases of ministry to Gentiles center around exceptional faith (8:10; 15:28). Both cases involve a request for another person, the Centurion’s servant and the Canaanite woman’s daughter (8:6, 8; 15:22). Both cases also speak of blessing in terms of table fellowship (8:11; 15:26–27), which is then applied to the primacy of Israel. The Roman official may look forward to sitting down at a table with the Jewish patriarchs, and the woman may have scraps of the children’s bread. The language of the table is clearly eschatological in 8:11 and is implicitly so here in Matthew 15, since the woman received blessings flowing from the presence of the Kingdom (12:28). The story of the Canaanite woman is, in a way, the preamble to the gentile missions: not yet, but emerging. For now the Israelites are still called to be the light to the nations – and hence the primacy of mission to them.
Image credit: Jean Germain Drouais, Christ and the Canaanite Woman, 1784, Louvre Museum | Public Domain
Tragedy upon tragedy
Yesterday, the meaning of the first reading, from Ezekiel, was that before the prophet can speak God’s word, he must allow God’s word to become part of him. The prophet is given terrible news. Even though the scroll given him contains “lamentation and wailing and woe” when Ezekiel eats it, “it was as sweet as honey in my mouth.” Today’s first reading (Ezekiel 9:1-7; 10:18-22) jumps into the great Temple vision of chapters 8–11.
Although not part of the reading, Chapter 8 is an important background for understanding the selected reading. Ezekiel has been shown the idolatry and corruption taking place within Jerusalem and even within the Temple precincts. Chapter 9 therefore portrays judgment coming upon the city. But then comes one of the most haunting moments in the entire book: “Then the glory of the LORD left the threshold of the temple…” (10:18) That is devastating. The Temple was supposed to signify God’s dwelling among Israel. But Israel had come dangerously close to assuming that possessing the Temple guaranteed God’s presence regardless of how the people lived.
Ezekiel overturns that assumption. God cannot be reduced to a building, institution, ritual, or religious possession.
There is an intriguing detail: the glory of God does not disappear instantaneously. Across Ezekiel 10–11 it seems almost to depart reluctantly. The glory of God passes from the Ark of the Covenant’s cherubim, to the Temple threshold, toward the east gate, and finally to the mountain east of the city (11:23). It almost reads like a divine procession of departure.
The theological disaster of 586 BC therefore isn’t simply, “Babylon destroyed our Temple.” Ezekiel’s deeper diagnosis is much more unsettling: long before Babylon destroyed the building, Israel had driven the presence of God from the center of its life.
Image credit: A fresco from St. John the Baptist Church in Kratovo, Macedonia (photo: Rašo, via Wikimedia Commons)
The Canaanite Woman
This coming Sunday is the 20th Sunday in Ordinary Time. At its core this narrative remains a miracle-story – And her daughter was healed from that hour. But as the encounter is placed immediately after a discussion of purity in both Matthew and Mark, Jesus’ encounter with this Gentile woman also brings out the implications that the Gentiles will no longer be separated from Israel (cf. Acts 10:15, 28; 11:9–18).
As in the case of the centurion’s servant (8:5–13), where also the dialogue takes precedence over the story, the main interest is in the question of Jesus’ response to the faith of a Gentile. Indeed the two accounts are closely parallel in many ways, not only in being the only Synoptic accounts of healing at a distance, but in the racial issues involved, with Jesus’ apparent reluctance to respond to a Gentile’s request met by the persistent faith which ensures his response in the end. The question raised by 15:1–20 of Jesus’ attitude to Jewish ideas of purity, with all its crucial implications for the Gentile mission, is here put to the practical test of a Gentile’s desire to share in the benefits brought by the Jews’ Messiah.
Verse 22 tells us that she is from the region of Tyre and Sidon. These were Phoenician cities just beyond the northern border of Israel. The people worshiped Phoenician gods and were not nor had they ever been Jewish. By stating that she is from the region generally suggests that she was a rural peasant, rather than a city-dweller. In Jesus’ day she would have been considered “Syrophoenician” – the term that Mark uses. But to Matthew, she is a Canaanite. Matthew’s more Jewish audience may be more aware of the enmity between Jews and Canaanites that had existed since the time of Noah. Canaan was the son of Ham, who saw his father naked (a euphemism thought to mean sleeping with his father’s wife). Noah utters this curse in Gen 9:25-27:
Cursed be Canaan;
lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers.
Blessed by the LORD my God be Shem
and let Canaan be his slave.
May God make space for Japheth,
and let him live in the tents of Shem;
and let Canaan be his slave.“
Even more significant than this ancient curse about being slaves to the Jews, is the promise given to Abraham: “And I will give to you, and to your offspring after you, the land where you are now an alien, all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding; and I will be their God” (Gen 17:8). They were part of the people the Israelites were commanded by God to place them “under the ban” (Dt 20:17).
The concept of the ban in the Bible is seen in various instances where certain cities and their spoils of war were to be set apart for destruction, not to be taken as booty or spared. The rationale behind this practice was that these objects were considered unclean or devoted to idolatry, and their removal was seen as necessary for maintaining the holiness of the Israelite community and their exclusive devotion to God.
Joshua carried out the “ban” partially as the people of Israel took over Canaanite land and cities. These historical events are carried in memory and would not make Canaanites very friendly towards Jews nor towards the Jewish God. So, why would this woman approach Jesus?
One suggestion is that she had nowhere else to turn. Perhaps she had heard reports about the healing miracles of Jesus. Her need was so great, her concern for her daughter so deep, that she dared cross that rift between Jews and Canaanites. Perhaps she was at the point where she had nothing to lose, and perhaps everything to gain.
In any case her call is striking, not only in its persistence and boldness, but also in its language. Lord, Son of David. While “Lord” may be nothing more than calculated politeness, “Son of David” might refer simply to being Jewish, but it raises the question of whether she had heard (and had nascent belief) in Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.
Image credit: Jean Germain Drouais, Christ and the Canaanite Woman, 1784, Louvre Museum | Public Domain
The Feast of St. Clare of Assisi
Peter said to Jesus, “We have given up everything and followed you. What will there be for us?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you that you who have followed me, in the new age, when the Son of Man is seated on his throne of glory, will yourselves sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life.” (Mt 19:27-29)
Today across the Church universal and especially among the Franciscan communities, we celebrate the Feast of St. Clare of Assisi. It is a very appropriate gospel chosen for the feast day. In the gospel we hear: “Peter said to Jesus, ‘We have given up everything and followed you. What will there be for us?’” It is a replay of the rich young man who comes to Jesus and asks what more must I do to inherit the Kingdom of God. Jesus tells him to sell everything he has and give it to the poor and then follow Jesus. At least the rich young man supplies the answer to what’s in it for him – even as he walks away sad.
Clare could rightly be called “a rich young woman.” She was born into one of the majores families of Assisi, the nobility with homes “up town”, wealth, land and privilege. She did not want… at least not in the traditional measure.
Continue readingFirst, the prophet must receive the Word
The sequence of four first readings begins appropriately with Ezekiel himself (Ezekiel 2:8-3:4)
God hands him the scroll and commands: “Son of man, eat what is before you; eat this scroll, then go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek 3:1) The scroll contains “lamentation and wailing and woe” (2:10), yet when Ezekiel eats it, “it was as sweet as honey in my mouth” (3:3). That gives you an important starting point for the entire series. Ezekiel is not commissioned simply to have opinions about Israel’s problems. He must first receive God’s word into himself. Only then may he speak.
And the sweetness is striking. What Ezekiel must proclaim will frequently be terrible news. Nevertheless, God’s word itself is good. Judgment is not something Ezekiel invents because he is angry with his people. He becomes the bearer of a word he himself has consumed.
Before the prophet can speak God’s word, he must allow God’s word to become part of him.
Image credit: A fresco from St. John the Baptist Church in Kratovo, Macedonia (photo: Rašo, via Wikimedia Commons)
friarmusings 