C
Catholic_Author
Guest
CFLJ,
This is a great devotion and a personal favorite of mine. It makes a beatiful novena from Good Friday through Divine Mercy Sunday:
- Status
This is a great devotion and a personal favorite of mine. It makes a beatiful novena from Good Friday through Divine Mercy Sunday:
J
Jeanette_L
Guest
My personal favorite too, can barely go a day without it.
Love what you’ve done above Tim concerning the wedding feast.
J
JReducation
Guest
What you are saying here is the exact same thing that the NO and the Eastern Catholics and Orthodox Christians have been saying about the Sacraments of Initiation. They are intertwined and inseperable, but one leads to the other. To reach full communion with the Church, with upper case “c” one must be fully initiated. Observe also that all of these works and wonders regarding wine and water take place through the power of the Holy Spirit. That pulls in the Sacrament of Confirmation, which at one time in the history of the Church, not so long ago, was administered with Baptism. You are not only establishing a link between the OT and the NT, but also with contemporary Sacramental Theology. This is not to say the prior to today Sacramental Theology was lacking. I am simply saying that it has been reforumulated or restated to highlight this relationship between Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist.
Observe John’s gospel that water also plays an important part in the Seder. Jesus washes the feet of the Apostles. There is a foreshadowing of the relationship between Baptism and the Eucharist. In addition, after the resurrection, Jesus again celebrates the Seder with them and promises to send the Spirit. The link is now complete between the three sacraments of initiation.
Let’s not forget the words of the Holy Spirit at the Jesus’ baptism, “This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.” Jesus fulfills all of the requirements that Adam had failed to fulfill. Once again we see this revelation presented through the symbols of water and the Spirit, Baptism and Confirmation.
There is another pespective that can be added to this one. Remember that Jesus is seen with Moses and Elijah. The gospel writer is trying to establish a link between the work of Jesus and the work of the prophet and the law giver. If we stop and think, the gospel writer is giving us a foreshadowing of the three persons in the Trinity working together. The Father gives the Law, the Son fulfills the Law, and the Spirit teaches the Law. The Law is to be found in the Sacraments, no longer in the ancient rituals.
JR
C
Catholic_Author
Guest
There is another sacrament involved in the washing of feet and linked through water to Baptism. Jesus says that they have been washed clean already but that they only need thier feet washed. This is the way it is with confession/pennance/reconciliation. Christians are made clean in Baptism and initiated into the kingdom through this purification and the indwelling of the Spirit. This is the whole body being made clean. Yet after Baptism we still fall from grace when we sin. This is where we get our feet dirty. The washing of the feet then is the process by which we are restored to the former cleanliness and purity which reconciles us to God. That’s the sacrament of Confession.
Yes, in the Baptism of Jesus at the river Jordan (the first of the Luminous Mysteries) The Father says, “This is my son, in whom I am well pleased,” and this is an inauguration of sorts since Jesus is about to begin His ministry after the fasting and temptaions in the desert. Then at the Transfiguration this declaration of the Father is repeated and augmented, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.” (Mat 17:5). The Father is saying that what Jesus is saying about His suffering ans sacrifice is important and the disciples need to pay attention if they are going to faithfully hand the teaching down to us. These words clearly connect Baptism and Eucharist because of the simularity of the message and because of thier timing. In both cases the words of God the Father highten and conclude the miracle.
That’s propound. I imagine then that that the lives of Moses and Elijah in some way reflect this growth of the law and prophets toward sacrament, toward eternal covenant.
P
Pax
Guest
Good stuff. I’ll be digesting all of this for a long time.
J
JReducation
Guest
First: I deliberately left the Sacrament of Reconciliation out, because it is not one of the Sacraments of Christian Initiation. I believe that it is best if it’s treated separately from the other three, to avoid confusion that they have to go together.
On the topic of Moses, Elijah and Jesus appearing transfigured. I believe that the Transfiguration gives us a glimpse into the Trinity working within the Church.
Observe that the disciples wanted to build three tents and Jesus declines. He tells them not to tell anyone what they have seen until it’s time.
I believe that the idea of building three tents was not agreeable to Jesus was because there are not three gods, but one God-Head and three persons. Three tents would have meant three separate places of worship for three separate liturgies.
We see the number three playing a significant role in the life of the Apostles. One God, three persons. On faith, three sacraments of initiation. In each Sacrament of initiation each person of the Trinity is highlighted.
In Baptism we become sons and daughters of the Father.
In the Eucharist we become one with Christ the Son.
In Confirmation we receive the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
The three Sacraments of Initiation not only initiate us into the Church, but also initiate us into the life of the Trinity or God-Head. The Eucharist is the one Sacrament where the second person of the Trinity continues to be incarnate.
The number three also reflects the three stages of Salvation History.
JR
On the topic of Moses, Elijah and Jesus appearing transfigured. I believe that the Transfiguration gives us a glimpse into the Trinity working within the Church.
Observe that the disciples wanted to build three tents and Jesus declines. He tells them not to tell anyone what they have seen until it’s time.
I believe that the idea of building three tents was not agreeable to Jesus was because there are not three gods, but one God-Head and three persons. Three tents would have meant three separate places of worship for three separate liturgies.
We see the number three playing a significant role in the life of the Apostles. One God, three persons. On faith, three sacraments of initiation. In each Sacrament of initiation each person of the Trinity is highlighted.
In Baptism we become sons and daughters of the Father.
In the Eucharist we become one with Christ the Son.
In Confirmation we receive the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
The three Sacraments of Initiation not only initiate us into the Church, but also initiate us into the life of the Trinity or God-Head. The Eucharist is the one Sacrament where the second person of the Trinity continues to be incarnate.
The number three also reflects the three stages of Salvation History.
- God Chooses Isarael.
- The Word becomes incarnate.
- The Church becomes the New Israel.
JR
C
Catholic_Author
Guest
Well I see your point, especially considering the beautiful way you expressed the Trinity. Furthermore, if it is to be treated separately it should be apparent in the scripture passages we are looking at. So here is how I think it can be justified, if you will. At the consecration Jesus says “do this in remembrance of me” whereas at the feet washing he says “you ought to wash one another’s feet”. The former is much more direct a command and the language is the same as that of the sacrificial laws… do this… make this sacrifice. The latter command to wash one another’s feet is not the same. Thus, it is “OK” to separate it as you suggest. Additionally, the consecration words are not in the narrative of John where the washing of feet is. The author has already separated these ideas. I speculate that the reason why the consecration words are not there is because John wants to show that Jesus is the Paschal Lamb.
I like this very much and I see it fashioned this way by the Holy Spirit. I think the same thing of the Road to Emmaus. We the know who two of the three people in that chapter are. We know that it is Jesus who walks beside the two desiples. We know that one disciple is named Cleopas, which means glory of the father. But we do not know the third person’s name. He is the unnamed disciple. Since we already have two persons of the trinity represented… The Father is represented in the name Cleopas and the Son is Jesus…. I expect the unnamed disciple to have a name which represents the Holy Spirit. Its interesting how the third person in the Emmaus road narrative is unnamed and the disciples have not yet been visited with the Holy Spirit. That doesn’t happen till Pentecost. Do you think there is something to this? I would appreciate a response especially from anyone who understands or has resources for etymology (the study/history of words). Particularly if any of the disciples whose names are known to us have the meaning that could be interpreted “spirit of God”. For me this would solidify the identity of the unnamed disciple.
I have heard it said that when Peter offers to build three tents it means he thinks Jesus is staying. While this would seem to indicate that Peter isn’t paying attention to what’s happening and it does fit with the rest of the narrative… how the Father says, listen to him,” I don’t think that is all that is going on. Remember how God asked King David through the profit, “why have you not built me a house?” I am paraphrasing here but the point is that for many years the Ark of the Covenant was kept in a tent, which is really a temporary dwelling. A temple is a proper dwelling for God. If Peter is saying let me build tents for your dwelling he is not saying it in a sense that indicates he expects them to stay or that he wants to show that he knows Jesus is Lord. If that was the case he would not have said let me build three tents but do you want me to build a temple. Then again, why would he say that when they had just come from the Temple? I think you are right, Jesus thinks it’s improper, perhaps because of the three but also because Jesus is the one building the temple. He is the one going to prepare a place for us. He is the one instituting the Church and starting with Peter. The tents are totally inadequate as is the Temple in Jerusalem that will be thrown down. What is needed is a new temple, an everlasting and living temple as seen in Revelations 21. The Catholic Church is this new and everlasting temple, the visible presence in the temporal world and she is joined to the eternal through Christ and His sacrifice.
What can I say… this part is icing on the cake! It’s the kind of stuff I am looking for… it is a language of images and numbers and it has such beauty and symmetry that it has the fingerprint of the Holy Spirit all over it. I can see the tapestry weaving in this. Thanks JR.We see the number three playing a significant role in the life of the Apostles. One God, three persons. On faith, three sacraments of initiation. In each Sacrament of initiation each person of the Trinity is highlighted.
In Baptism we become sons and daughters of the Father.
In the Eucharist we become one with Christ the Son.
In Confirmation we receive the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
The three Sacraments of Initiation not only initiate us into the Church, but also initiate us into the life of the Trinity or God-Head. The Eucharist is the one Sacrament where the second person of the Trinity continues to be incarnate.
The number three also reflects the three stages of Salvation History.
At the center of the sacraments of Initiation and at the center of Salvation History is the Son becoming flesh.
- God Chooses Isarael.
- The Word becomes incarnate.
- The Church becomes the New Israel.
JR
P
Pax
Guest
JR,…
On the topic of Moses, Elijah and Jesus appearing transfigured. I believe that the Transfiguration gives us a glimpse into the Trinity working within the Church.
Observe that the disciples wanted to build three tents and Jesus declines. He tells them not to tell anyone what they have seen until it’s time.
I believe that the idea of building three tents was not agreeable to Jesus was because there are not three gods, but one God-Head and three persons. Three tents would have meant three separate places of worship for three separate liturgies.
…
…
JR
I don’t think the three tents relate to the Trinity in quite the way you do. The Transfiguration occured during the Feast of Boothes. It was natural for Peter to make the suggestion to build the three tents because of the feast. The problem is that the three tents would imply an equality between Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. This is where Peter makes a mistake in suggesting the construction of the three tents.
Peter’s mistake points to the Trinity by way of a negative. We learn a little something about the Trinity by way of the inequality of Moses and Elijah relative to Jesus. If it were the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit the construction of the Tents might have been appropriate.
What do you think?
C
Catholic_Author
Guest
Thank you Pax, I think you have a great point. I see that you are actually agreeing with JR though. He said that the three tents were “not agreeable to Jesus ] because there are not three gods, but one God-Head and three persons.” You say, “The problem is that the three tents would imply an equality between Jesus, Moses, and Elijah” JR points out that God is triune and you point out that the three persons are co-equal. Both are true and both are reasons that three tents are not right for the circumstances. This is quite an insight that can be put together by both your posts. Nicely done guys!
At the end of this Transfiguration the Father steps in and reminds the disciples to “listen to Him”. What was Jesus saying? He was discussing the exodus He was going to accomplish. This is a good point for meditation so I’ll ask the question: In what way is the new exodus a spiritual deliverance through the waters of the Red Sea and how does this relate to the Eucharist?
J
JReducation
Guest
I agree with you. I don’t believe that the three tents relate to the Trinity at all. What I was pointint to was the three roles that Elijah, Moses and Jesus play in salvation history can be understood as a preview (can’t find the right word) of the revelation of the Trinity.
I agree with this point as well. The “preview” of the Trinity is not the same as the Trinity. To build the tents would have suggested that the three (Elijah, Moses and Jesus) are equals, which they are not.
But it is interesting that each of them mirrors a role of each of the Triune persons.
Yes, Peter’s mistake calls attention to the Trinity via the negative. It’s almost like a school teacher asking a student to identify whether a frog is a fish, mammal, amphibian or reptile by stating what it is not. Later you arrive at the conclusiion at what it is asserting the remaining characteristics that you are unable to discard. This would be a positive approach. Both approaches, negative and positive, are valid ways of proceeding. In the end, you have to state you defintion or understanding in the affirmative, but you can get there via the negative. It is not animal nor vegetable, so it must be mineral. LOL
JR
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Your comments sparked a few thoughts that I can not properly integrate. So I just wanted to make a side note that might lead to some new insights:…
Yes, Peter’s mistake calls attention to the Trinity via the negative. It’s almost like a school teacher asking a student to identify whether a frog is a fish, mammal, amphibian or reptile by stating what it is not. Later you arrive at the conclusiion at what it is asserting the remaining characteristics that you are unable to discard. This would be a positive approach. Both approaches, negative and positive, are valid ways of proceeding. In the end, you have to state you defintion or understanding in the affirmative, but you can get there via the negative. It is not animal nor vegetable, so it must be mineral. LOL
JR
I have read somewhere that one of the things that differs between Eastern and Western Catholic theological formulas is in the different preferences for the negative and positive expressions used for describing identical theological concepts and beliefs. I seem to recall that we Roman Catholics prefer the positive mode (what it is) and the Eastern prefer the negative (what it is not). I seem to also recall that the preference comes from the influence of various social philosophies of the times and regions that were embraced by the various patriarchs in each branch as a means for constructing a mental framework for conceptualizing various divine truths. I am no expert but ironically the Marian doctrine that emerged from east and west seems to have reversed the traditional preferences of one form over the other between east and west. For example: In the West we say “Mary is free from every stain of original sin” and in the East they say “She wasn’t just preserved from sin, but was graced with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit”.
How this all relates to the discussion at hand is if we as members of the Roman Catholic Church should be open to exploring this topic area in terms of “negatives” - or what is not. I honestly do not if we are permitted to go down this path through private exegesis without some caution.
If there is not an issue here then I posit that the very context of the empty and barren dessert environment that the Jews find themselves in during their journey to the promised land may be very relevant. What “is not” present in the dessert is nothing that is man-made and very little that is life sustaining. The dessert is representative of a large empty barren space - an apparently incomplete work of God (and I want to say pure too but hesitate to do so).
It would appear to me that this is all relevant and that there is a general principal of "emptying’, laying bare and abandoning oneself fully to trust in God’s care. The wandering Jews in the dessert had to utterly rely on Him for every life sustaining thing. This historical context reinforces and intensifies the divine and salvific nature of manna in the dessert as a prefiguring device for Eucharist that is received into the barren and lifeless soul. But water too must also be very relevant here. And there must be some sort of OT linkage that gets us to a catharsis of baptism.
I am not certain the parting of the red sea was all of it - thought that event clearly delivers the entire body of “chosen people” from their enemies by actually destroying their original enemies. There is also the verse of Moses striking “the rock” (in procedural technical disobedience) with his staff to bring forth life giving water. And we have many other OT & NT scriptural images of water: For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud [ed comment: a protective shade that portends of rain water], and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (1 Corinthians 10:2). And the Lord was going before them in a pillar of cloud by day to lead them on the way. " (Exodus 13:21; Cf. Exodus 16:10, Deuteronomy 31:15).
For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands, and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I* will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you*. And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes and you will be careful to observe My ordinances." (Ezekiel 36:24-27).
It all supports through both the positive and negative sense that God will inflow His cleansing and life enabling water through our parched and barren souls and implant His Spirit (manna) to give us life in the divine sense (full life, eternal life).
Just ideas,
James
J
JReducation
Guest
The difference in the approaches to philosophical constructs has much less to do with religion and more to do with culture. Our philosophical thought is highly influenced by the Greek schools. The Eastern philosophical thought have a stronger Byzantine influence. Basically, our system looks something like this. If a = b and b = c, then a = c. The Ottomans approach was X is not equal to a, because a = b and b= c. It’s a process of elimination.
Actually the East says “Mary was graced by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, therefore, she was cleansed from sin.” That’s why they do not teach the Immaculate Conception. They teach that Mary is Immaculate, leaving out the conception. The focus is on the action of the Holy Spirit rather than on Mary.
We have to be careful here too. The Catholic Church does use the negative to arrive at conclusions. A good example is John Paul II’s response to the ordination of women. “We cannot ordain women, because we can find no authorization for it in scripture or sacred tradition.” The operative term here is “no authorization”.
Actually, Catholic Mystical Theology, especially St. Anthony of the Desert, afirms that the desert is not a barren environment, but it is the place where man can detach himself from the mundane so as to hear the voice of God in solitude and silence. Thus, the desert in Catholic Mystical Theology is a place where one wants to arrive. The metaphor that many of the mystical theologians and mystics have used is the desert in the soul.
They have stated that while they have experienced a great hunger for God, in the end, they were never closer to God than when they felt spiritual aridity. God is closer to us during the dry spell of the soul, than during the periods when we feel God’s presence. St. Teresa explained that we often depend on “moods” to measure God’s closeness and God’s closeness cannot be felt by man. It can only be experienced through a transcendent experience. We have to KNOW that God is close. What we feel is irrelevant. Teresa’s truth on the desert is rooted in Ignatius of Loyola, St. Benedict and St. Francis of Assisi.
This is what our Holy Father Francis called Lady Poverty. Unless we detach from that which interferes between us and God, we cannot live the Gospel.
The subscript is mine. Theologically it is incorrect to call the soul barren and lifeless. Even the most sinful soul is not void of life, for the soul is supernatural. Therefore, the soul cannot be barren, because it has life. This is one of the major arguments between Catholicism and Protestantism. Protestantism uses this Augustinian model of a “wretched man”. Thomas, Bonaventure and Catherine defend man against Augustine’s description. Sin is wretched, man is not. Sinful man is redeemed through the cross and resurrection and thus he is fed the body and blood of Christ, becasue the paschal mystery makes it possible.
Israel passing through the Red sea from slavery to freedom is the connection here. Just as Israel passed from slavery in Egypt to freedom, we pass from sons of Adam to sons of the Father through Baptism (by water, fire or desire).
The striking of the rock is a metaphor used to forshadow a connection between Adam’s diobedience and the life that is given through the Church. It ties in with “You are Peter (rock) and on this rock I will build my Church.”
JR
P
Pax
Guest
Can you elaborate on this? I can see a number of possibilities but none of them are complete in my mind when trying to tie them together.…
…
But it is interesting that each of them mirrors a role of each of the Triune persons.
…
JR
J
JReducation
Guest
Moses rescues his people from slavery and reconstructs the nation of Israel.
The Father brings man into existence from nothing.
Jesus is the Messiah of whom the prophets spoke
Elijah is the prophet who delivers the message and explains it meaning.
The Holy Spirit reveals the meaning of what Christ has taught.
Keep in mind that these are analogies, not facts. All analogies have weaknesses.
JR
P
Pax
Guest
Okay,
My incomplete thoughts went along these lines:
Moses and Elijah represent the law and the prophets. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.
Moses and Elijah lead the people. Jesus leads the people.
Moses body has not been found. Elijah was taken up into heaven. Jesus ascends into heaven.
All three give a glimpse of heavenly glory.
Moses is a father to the people, we see the spirit of Elijah, and Jesus is the son of God. All are seen together in one vision giving a mirror or analogy to the Trinity.
My incomplete thoughts went along these lines:
Moses and Elijah represent the law and the prophets. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.
Moses and Elijah lead the people. Jesus leads the people.
Moses body has not been found. Elijah was taken up into heaven. Jesus ascends into heaven.
All three give a glimpse of heavenly glory.
Moses is a father to the people, we see the spirit of Elijah, and Jesus is the son of God. All are seen together in one vision giving a mirror or analogy to the Trinity.
J
JReducation
Guest
That’s an interesting concept. I like it.
Now if we could only prove that Moses and Elijah were real people, we’d be all set.
That’s one of the most bizarre issues in Judaism. There is not hisorical proof that there was an actual Moses or Elijah. We do have the commandments, but in the history of our people, there is no recording of a Moses or an Elijah except in the Torah. No one ever wrote about either one of them and we do have writings that go back to the time of the Egyptian captivity. There are two theories. Either Moses is a metaphor, maybe even for Jesus himself or he the group of Jews that he led out of Egypt was not significant enough to warrant the world’s attention.
Most Rabbis believe the latter. The actual number of Jews that came out of Egypt was really negligable, but the giving ofthe Law is the real event to be wondered about and contemplated in our hearts. This belief is based on the fact that there are many Egyptian Jews today whose anscestors go back to Palestine more than 4000 years ago. Had all the Jews left Egypt with Moses there would have been mention of it in other histories, besides the Torah (Christian Pentateuch).
I know this last tid-bit has nothing to do with this thread, but my head is wandering all over the place on different ideas, since we’re getting ready for Pasch (Passover) at my house this year. The Jewish gang is coming over to the one Catholic household in the family.
JR
P
Pax
Guest
Some would claim that there is little or no evidence that the Jesus we know actually existed. I’m not real sure about what tests should be used or required for proof. The NT Jews of our scriptures seemed to think that both Moses and Elijah were real people. Proof is sometimes an elusive commodity.
Enjoy Pasch with the family…I think its great that they are celebrating it at your home.
Enjoy Pasch with the family…I think its great that they are celebrating it at your home.
J
JReducation
Guest
There is little evidence that he existed by way of records or things that he may have written or personal belongings. There is nothing.
Albert Schweitzer was able to support the Jesus myth by trying to explain away the influence that Jesus has had on history. When he was unable to do so, he finally conceded the point, that there must have been such a person, because there is no way that history could have been so affected by a myth.
He used other myths alongside the Jesus myth and the others eventually gave way to other explanations. The Jesus myth did not.
One of Schweitzer’s best examples was his attempt to explain the resurrection contraversy. He finally concluded that whatever it was, something had happened, because not only his immediate friends believed the resurrection story, but others came to believe and died for it.
He argued that there have been many people in history who have given their lives for an ideal or out of loyalty to someone, for example the King or Pharaohs etc, but eventually this died out. But the fact that Christian martyrdom has not died out begs another question. Are these people nuts? The answer is, some are sane.
Fanatacism doesn’t explain it.Like this we have many other studies that conclude that there is some truth to the Gospels, because there is too much to explain away logically, so much that you really can’t. Even those who believe that it’s a legend, are not too sure if they can sustain that argument.
This really ties in with this thread, because you can’t sustain the anti-Eucharist argument for too long unless you deny that God had no reason to do so, but you can’t prove that either. The arguments in favour are more heavier than those against.
Karl Rahner defended the Eucharist better than most modern theologians. He argued (I’m paraphrasing because it’s too long) man has a natural tendency to transcend his existence. Such a tendency is part of human nature, it is not acquired, we see evidence of it among the most primitive people who have never heard the Gospel and yet believe in some higher power or sumpreme being. The very denial of the existence of God, is an affirmation, because one cannot deny what one cannot conceive.
Therefore, in response to man’s need to rise above his earthly life, Jesus becomes incarnate again, this time in the Eucharist through which man can rise above his time and space and become one with the transcendent being for whom his aspires and for whom he was created. This is so logical.
JR
- Status