Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Homily on the Queenship of Mary

By Fr Lew OP.

Go read it.

Monday, August 6, 2012

Farewell, Tumblr


Cross or Crucifix?

The following is a post I wrote for the Tumblog Introibo Ad Altari Dei

***   ***   ***


Why do we need a Crucifix in Churches and Chapels, rather than an empty Cross?

Sometimes we see Churches and Chapels without a Crucifix.

Niko, from Niko' s Nature said about a week ago that, “the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism is the difference between a cross and a crucifix.” This is so true. Not only do we - unlike our Protestant brothers and sisters - have the grace to be able t receive the actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ because we have the continuity of the Episcopy and the Presbyteriate, we also are the True Church, the Body of Christ; the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ who is the Head of the Body, as St Paul tells us. (Col 1:8)

Why then, is it important to have a Crucifix. Well, the Crucifix instead of just the Cross reminds us that our sufferings aren’t just on our own; that when I suffer the Body of Christ suffers and when the Body of Christ suffers, I suffer. An empty Cross implies that I have to take up my own Cross separate of apart from Christ when this is not the case. In fact, when I take up my own cross, in a sense it’s not my cross that I’m taking up but Christ’s. Just as when Christ took up His Cross, He took up mine.

The Eucharist, Sacrosanctum Concilium tells us, is the source and summit of our Christian life. The Eucharist is none other than the Body of Christ; “the Body, Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ,” as the Council of Trent put it. (Session XIII, Canon I)

Sometimes in order to justify why there’s an empty Cross instead of a Crucifix people say, “Well, we believe in the Resurrection, not just the Crucifixion.” Quite frankly, I’m hurt by that. The Church has always believed in the Resurrection; I have believed in it ever since I entered the Church. The Resurrection doesn’t come without the Crucifixion; yet, the Crucifixion doesn’t happen without the Resurrection. To say either would be akin to blasphemy.

This saying, “We believe in the Resurrection and therefore need an empty Cross instead of a Crucifix,” is in a sense saying that we want to ignore the suffering of Jesus Christ. It was by His sacrifice on the Cross, St Paul tells us, that Christ redeemed us. “Dying He destroyed our death.” It is true that, “rising He restored our life,” yet, we know and can see this in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. We know that although the Sacrifice of the Mass is the Sacrifice of Our Lord on the Cross, a re-presentation of Calvary to the Father, it does not and cannot exclude the Resurrection. In the same way, the Crucifix reminds us of this: the Crucifixion does not and cannot exclude the resurrection, in the same way that the Mass can’t because they are inextricably linked.

Why, then, can’t we just have a blank Cross? Because the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross I primary; it is God and Man suffering together in order to bring about Salvation. St Paul says to the Galatians, “Was it not before your eyes that Christ was publicly portrayed, and Him Crucified?” It does not say “and Him Resurrected,” but “Him Crucified.” As Archbishop Fulton Sheen said, “Very simply, what the Mass is, reaching to Calvary and laying hold with your hands the Cross of Christ with Christ on it and you plant it down here, today.” For this reason, the General Instruction for the Roman Missal (GIRM) states that “Also on or close to the altar, there is to be a cross with a figure of Christ crucified.” (117) This is to remind both the Faithful and the Priest what it is that is happening on the Altar, to Whom the Sacrifice is being directed and why; Who it is that’s being offered and Who it is that is doing the offering. It is easy with a blank Cross to forget Whom it is that is doing the offering. It is much easier to think, “Well I’m taking up my Cross and I’m offering it to the Father,” or, “I’m offering Jesus to the Father.” It’s simply not the case.

Jesus Christ is offering Himself - His Whole Self - to the Father. Christ the Head is expressed with Christ the Body; Christ the Priest and Christ the Victim. This must be remembered. For this reason, Holy Church mandates a Crucifix on or near the Altar; not a blank Cross.

Pax Christi vobiscum.
-Kelly (doubleplusgoodful)

Saturday, August 4, 2012

Jesus,

I am so far away right now.
 How can I get back?
Confession.
Yeah, but it's so hard.
"So was the Cross," I hear you say.
And I know that you're right.
Oh, my Lord, be my Lord.
Help me.
 Oh Lord, You are my only joy; give me again the joy of your help.
 In the secret of my heart, teach me wisdom
That I may teach this transgressor Your ways
And that I may return to You.
See: in guilt I was born, a sinner was I conceived.
Yet - oh, my God! - You washed me from my guilt and cleansed me from my sin!
In the saving Water, You cleansed me and gave me to drink from that spring of Eternal Life.
But, my Jesus, I have rejected You.
 I have turned aside to the right and the left.
 Depart from me, Oh Lord, for I am a sinner.
Yet, be gracious and do not hide Your Face.
Give me the Actual Grace to get back, please.
Please, Jesus. I want to;
I desire You.
You are enough for me;
I ask for nothing more.

Metaphor

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphor?s=t&ld=1089
John 6:47-62
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." 
The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper'na-um. Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?" 
 Obviously, Jesus is speaking metaphorically. That's why He says "Truly, truly;" twice.
I mean, He was clearly mucking around and everyone knew it. That's why they "disputed among themselves," and said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to is?"

Indeed! Who can listen to this outrageous statement that Jesus is "the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is [Jesus'] flesh?"
Here's the thing, all snark aside: Jesus was serious and not speaking in metaphor when He said that "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you," and everyone around him knew it. When Jesus says that He is the Vine (John 15), no one asks how He could be a plant; when He says that He is the Door by which the sheep enter (John 10), no one asked how He could be made of wood.
No, instead, they wondered how a fellow Jew could command that they drink blood when God, through Noah, commands them the exact opposite (Gen 9:3-6)
"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it and of man; of every man's brother I will require the life of man.Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.
 Do you think Christ, who willed all to be saved (cf 2 Pet 3:9; 1 Tim 2:3-4) would let a whole bunch of people just walk away from Him, whose name is the only one "under heaven given among men by which we must be saved?"
It is an utterly outrageous thing to say that we must eat the flesh of a Man in order to live "because of [Him]." What makes this even more outrageous is that this Man is God. Surely no where else in the history of world religions has a a religion's founder and very God (or god) commanded that their followers eat their flesh!
Yet, the earliest theologian of Christianity, Saint Paul, clearly states in 1 Corinthians 11 that
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
Not only then, did those around Him know that Jesus was not speaking in metaphor, but His earliest followers figured it out, too. Similarly, a host of Church Fathers believed that Jesus was being serious when He said it.

Now, if Jesus wasn't speaking metaphorically and He really does want all men to be saved, then He must have left a way for us to eat His Body and drink His Blood.

There must be some historical link between Sts Paul, Peter, James, John and the other 'apostolic men' (that is to say, men both who were Apostles and who were around at the same time as them) and now. This historical link must be more than superficial and it must contain the  ability to 'confect' Jesus' body and blood.

Where can this be found?



Sources:
Eucharist in Scripture http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html
RSV Bible translations http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/bible.pl