More

Commentary on Mark 10:32-45

We now come to the third and final foretelling of his passion, death and resurrection by Jesus.  It is not insignificant that it follows immediately on the story of the rich man and the teaching of Jesus that goes with it.  We are now going to see what discipleship of Jesus really means.

The first sentence is a statement of fact, but full of meaning:

They were on the road, going up to Jerusalem…

They were on the road – not just any road – but the road…and that road goes to Jerusalem and points to all that Jerusalem will mean for Jesus and his followers.  Jesus is the Road, the Way and his way brings him to Jerusalem, the carrying of his cross, the letting go of his life in love of his Father and us, leading to the final triumph.  Those who wish to be his disciples have to be ready to walk that road with him.

The disciples have not quite reached this stage of discipleship yet.  As Jesus steps out firmly on the road to Jerusalem, his disciples straggle behind. The apostles:

…were amazed, and those who followed were afraid.

As far as they were concerned, Jesus was out of his mind.  To go to Jerusalem at this time was asking for trouble, serious trouble.  Everyone knew the Jewish leadership was out to get Jesus.  Jerusalem was the last place to go.

Jesus shows them he is under no illusion about the situation.  He gives them a detailed description of what is going to happen to him, more detailed than in the previous foretellings.  The key term “handed over” is used again and, for the first time, a handing over to the “gentiles” is mentioned.  Condemnation to death will come from the leaders of his people, but the carrying out of the execution will be the work of the Romans.  It was not just some Jews who were responsible for Jesus’ death; we were there, too, in the person of the Roman gentiles.

Nevertheless, earlier on the disciples had acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah and Saviour-King of Israel.  In the second prediction they had revealed an awareness that what Jesus was predicting was going to happen and so debated who his successor might be.  Now, for the first time, the last part of the prediction – rising after three days – seems to be getting through.

Perhaps it was, in that frame of mind, that Jesus is approached by two of his closest disciples, James and John.  However, it is also clear that they showed little understanding of all that Jesus had taught them so far.  They approached him gingerly:

Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.

Replies Jesus:

What is it you want me to do for you?

(Note the question, because we will meet it again in tomorrow’s reading.)

The answer of the two brothers indicates how little they have understood of the mind of Jesus:

Appoint us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.

Left unstated was their reasoning: “After all, you did say three times that you were going to rise again after your death.”

This is a perfect example of using a personal acquaintance or relationship to get in by the back door and obtain a favour otherwise out of reach. And by “glory” they are almost certainly thinking in worldly terms of Jesus as an earthly, victorious, all conquering king.  The kind of person they expected the Messiah to be.

Jesus tells them:

You do not know what you are asking.

They neither know the kind of King Jesus is going to be nor do they know the price he is going to pay to enter that kingship.  This is clear from the next question he puts to them:

Are you able to drink the cup that I drink or be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?

This is a clear reference to Jesus’ passion and death, the price he will pay to reveal God’s love for his children.

We remember, later in the garden, as the weight of his coming passion presses him down, Jesus prays that the cup be taken away.  “Baptism” implies a total immersion, and Jesus will be totally overwhelmed with suffering and shame and humiliation.

Do the two disciples realise this?  Are they ready to go through this with Jesus on their way to the privileges and glory they are asking for?  “We are able” they confidently boast without realising just what is involved.  In fact, with the rest of their companions, they will scatter and disappear when these events overtake their Master.

Nevertheless, looking further ahead Jesus generously tells them that they will indeed one day share Jesus’ cup and his baptism of suffering and death.  James would be one of the first martyrs of the young church.  However, as to giving them the places of honour they were looking for, that was beyond Jesus’ power to give:

…but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to appoint, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.

In other words, these places are not just for the asking; they have to be earned.  They will be given, not to those who furtively ask, but to those whose love most closely approaches that of Jesus himself.

Not surprisingly, the other ten were highly indignant when they found out what James and John had done behind their backs.  They were not indignant at the impropriety or the daring, but that they had been beaten to it…they wanted exactly the same things themselves.

Following the same pattern as the other previous incidents, the prediction of the Passion and Resurrection is followed by a show of misunderstanding by the disciples, leading to a teaching. And that is what comes now.

Jesus now patiently gives them another lesson on what real greatness in his Kingdom consists of. In the ‘world’, “among the gentiles”, to be great is to have power over others, to exercise authority, to be able to control and manipulate people to be at your disposal, to use people to attain your ends.  However, in Jesus’ world, those really great put themselves and their unique gifts to use by promoting the well-being of brothers and sisters, especially those in most need.  And the more people we can serve the greater we are.

‘Authority’ is not to control, but to empower.  And it is the role of anyone in authority to generate ideas, energy, creativity in those for whom one is responsible.  In other words to serve those who have been entrusted to one’s authority.  But it is a corruption of the word to become ‘authoritarian’ in such a position.  After 2,000 years of Christianity it is a lesson practically all of us have yet to learn.

More

Commentary on 1 Peter 1:18-25

Peter reminds us that we have been “ransomed” (“redeemed” in some versions).  In the Scriptures, to ‘ransom’ (literally, ‘buy back’) means to free someone from something bad by paying a penalty.  Similarly, in the Greek world slaves could be made free by the payment of a price, either by someone else or by the slave himself.

In this case, the ransom price is not silver or gold but something far more precious, Christ’s own blood poured out for us by his death on the cross.  The result is the “forgiveness of sin” and our reconciliation with God.

The readers are told that they have been “ransomed from the futile conduct”, an empty way of life, that had been handed down by their ancestors.  Some maintain that the letter is addressed to former pagans, because the New Testament stresses the emptiness of pagan life.  Others think they may have been Jews since Jews were traditionalists who stressed the influence of keeping the Law.  A life simply based on the observance of external laws could not bring salvation and redemption.  In the light of the context of the whole letter, probably both Jews and Gentiles are addressed.

They have been redeemed (or ransomed):

…with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without defect or blemish.

This unblemished Lamb was foreseen long ago in God’s plan to bring us all back to him and replacing all other animal sacrifices of the Old Testament which were only a pale foreshadowing of what was to come.  The Old Testament sacrifices were types (or foreshadowings) of Christ, depicting the ultimate and only effective sacrifice.  An unblemished lamb was the centrepiece at the Passover meal.  But for us, Jesus Christ is the Passover Lamb:

…the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
(John 1:29)

It is through this Lamb, raised by the Father into glory, that we have become believers in God and that, through our faith and hope, our lives have become centred on God, the only source of meaning to our lives.

Before time began, Jesus was already chosen, but only revealed in these times to those who are called:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

and

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation… (Col 1:15)

Some think the Greek for the word ‘chosen’ better translates as ‘foreknown’.  In other words, God knew before creation that it would be necessary for Christ to redeem the human race, but he has revealed Christ only in these last times.  Others interpret the word as meaning that in past eternity God chose Christ as Redeemer. It is through this Jesus, raised from the dead to eternal glory, that we put all our faith and trust in God.

Our submission to this understanding of our origins leads necessarily and unavoidably to a deep love for our brothers and sisters:

…you have genuine mutual affection, love one another deeply from the heart.

All in all, our being re-born is the result of an enduring seed planted in our heart, that seed is the Word of God. And while:

The grass withers,
and the flower falls…the word of the Lord endures forever.
(Is 40:6-8)

Our new birth comes about through the direct action of the Holy Spirit, but the “living and enduring” word of God also plays an important role, for it presents the Gospel to the sinner and calls on us to repent and believe in Christ.

The writer concludes by quoting from the prophet Isaiah who says:

All flesh is like grass…
The grass withers…but the word of the Lord endures forever. (Is 40:6-8)

It is this word which the Letter is proclaiming, a word which is a source of life.  It is the Gospel which we hear proclaimed to us.  That Gospel can be summed up in the two points brought up in today’s passage:

1. We have been bought back from sin by the priceless blood of the Lamb, poured out on the cross for us.
2. We show our gratitude for this by the unconditional love we show for our brothers and sisters everywhere.

More

Commentary on Mark 9:38-40

There is another lesson for all of us in today’s brief passage.  The disciples complain to Jesus because they saw someone casting out devils in Jesus’ name.  They tried to stop him:

…because he was not following us.

Jesus tells them very clearly that they should:

…not stop him, for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. Whoever is not against us is for us.

This is a principle we need to take seriously to heart. There can be a strong temptation among us to a kind of exclusivity.  Many Christian groups (both Catholic and people from other denominations) can fall into this trap.  As Paul tells us in one of his letters:

…the word of God is not chained. (2 Tim 2:9)

God can do his work through all kinds of people – Christians and people of other religions and of no religion.  He may even work at times through people who are ostensibly anti-religious.  Far from being resentful of others doing work which we feel belongs only to Christians, we should be overjoyed.  This is a clear sign of the Kingdom at work.  Wherever there is love, wherever there is service, there is God.

Membership of our group is not the test.  The test is whether what others do fits in with our goals of truth, love, justice, compassion, freedom, peace, non-violence and so on.   Our God is to be found in all these things.  The Church is a way to a further goal; it is not itself the end.  The Church is called to be a sign of the Kingdom, but is not the totality of the Kingdom. The goal is the Kingdom and the Church is working – and not exclusively – for the realisation of the Kingdom.

More

Commentary on James 4:1-10

Strong words today from James.  He speaks about the origins of the conflicts and disputes that can tear communities apart.  He attributes it to inner “cravings” (Greek, hedonon), uncontrolled desires to have our pleasures fulfilled at any cost.  Our word ‘hedonism’ comes from the term used in the Greek original. Traditional spirituality often used the word ‘passions’.

These desires can even drive us to murderous hatred (if not to murder itself).  Rampant crime and violence are among the most evident fruits of our materially affluent societies.  People are driven by never-satisfied desires to have more and more and to have it now:

…you covet something and cannot obtain it, so you engage in disputes and conflicts. [literally, ‘fight and go to war’]

‘War’ here is not the internal spiritual struggle of a Christian, and it seems to be more than just heated arguments between Christians, but resorting to physical violence.  Sadly, a perfect description of our affluent societies.

You do not have because you do not ask.

Who should we be asking?  In the context of the letter it is pretty clear – God.  And when we do ask, we do not receive because we ask wrongly.  We ask simply to satisfy our own personal satisfactions and the objects of our passions.  What we ask has very little relevance to either our own real well-being or that of others.

What should we be asking for?  If our requests are directed honestly to God and his will for us, we will probably find that we are modifying our lists somewhat.  God is hardly interested in our desire to have a Tesla or that holiday on the French Riviera.

James is saying very clearly that the problem is not that God does not listen to our prayers, but that we are approaching him in a completely wrong frame of mind.  In rather blunt language he accuses his hearers of being “adulterers”.

Adulterers! [in the Greek, ‘adulteresses’ but applying to both men and women] Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?

The imagery is of Israel as the unfaithful wife of Yahweh, a traditional image in the Old Testament (Hosea 1:2).  Jesus, too, speaks to the Pharisees as an “evil and adulterous generation” (Matt 12:39).  ‘World’ here points to those elements whose behaviour is totally opposed to God’s way.  Love of God and love of the world in this sense are incompatible:

No one can serve two masters…You cannot serve God and wealth. (Matt 6:24)

James’ hearers are unfaithful in choosing the “world” as their friend, in the sense of an environment which is in conflict with all that God stands for.

Whatever we ask of God, it should not be simply for passing satisfactions.  It should be something that is directed to the purpose and meaning of our own lives and those of others. Even when we ask for healing from sickness, what will we do with our health when it comes back?

James, quoting a scripture text that is otherwise lost to us, says:

Does the spirit that God caused to dwell in us desire envy?

  Yes, our God is a “jealous” God in the sense that he calls for the total dedication of ourselves to him.  It has to be all or nothing:

…none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions. (Luke 14:33)

God is jealous for all of our love, not just some of it.  And we know that when we do give our all, we also receive abundantly.  It is because God has shared his Spirit with us, that we want what God wants and that God answers our prayers.

In fact, there are two ways of reading the above quotation from James, depending on whether ‘spirit’ refers to our own ‘spirit’ or the ‘Spirit’ of God.  Regarding the two alternative translations, the meaning of the first is that God jealously longs for our faithfulness and our love.  In this case the Scripture referred to may be to a passage in Exodus where we read:

You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Exod 20:5-6)

‘Jealousy’ here is not a form of envy, but rather God demanding total allegiance, such as a wife or husband must have for each other.

The alternate interpretation of the quotation from James would capitalise “Spirit”, and makes Him the subject.  It is the Holy Spirit who longs jealously for our full devotion.  If this is the correct translation, it is the only clear reference to the Holy Spirit in the entire letter.

Finally in this context, James concludes with 9 short commandments of his own, each of which is so stated in Greek that it calls for immediate action in rooting out the sinful attitude of pride which has been the subject of his warnings:

If we are to avoid divisions and the violence that can ensue, we need to follow these commandments from James, and we need to develop the kind of wisdom he that speaks about in the previous chapter of his letter (see James 3:13-18).

More

Note: This commentary focuses on the Gospel passage from Matthew.

Commentary on 2 Samuel 7:4-5,12-14,16; Romans 4:13,16-18,22; Matthew 1:16,18-21,24 or Luke 2:41-51

The Entrance Antiphon for today’s feast summarises the result of St Joseph’s encounter with the angel Gabriel:

The Lord has put his faithful servant in charge of his household.

When we read the Gospel from Matthew today, we find that Joseph is in a most awful dilemma. The woman to whom he is betrothed is pregnant before they have come together to live as man and wife. He does not know that the conception has been the work of the Holy Spirit and certainly doesn’t know that the Father of Mary’s child is God himself.

A Jewish betrothal was a much more binding relationship than our modern engagement. The couple could already be referred to as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, as Matthew does in his Gospel. In effect, the marriage had already begun. The betrothal could only be broken by a formal repudiation or a type of divorce.

At the same time, there were no intimate relations between the couple during this period. So one can see the terrible dilemma that Joseph was in. He was pledged to marry Mary, but it appeared – and this was the only natural conclusion he could come to – she had been unfaithful. During this time, the situation of a woman involved in adultery was a very serious matter. We know the story in John’s Gospel where a woman caught in an adulterous relationship is to be stoned to death according to the Law. Many men – perhaps we could say most any man – would have been upset, angry and totally humiliated.

Joseph sees only one possibility, to terminate the relationship. This could have been done in a very nasty way. It is the kind of thing we see regularly in our media. But Joseph, we are told, was a “righteous” (or ‘just’) man. In effect, this meant that he was zealous in observing the Law. But in this context it seems to have a deeper meaning, namely, that he was a very good man, a caring and sensitive man. At the same time, he does not want to go through the fiction of being regarded as the father of a child he did not conceive. He decides to go through with the termination of the relationship in as quiet a manner as possible, not exposing Mary to a public trial and stoning:

Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to divorce her quietly.

Another explanation that has been given is that he was not willing to go through with the marriage out of reverence for the mystery of Mary’s motherhood which he does not fully understand.

In either case, he needs to be persuaded by a message from God that, in spite of appearances, he is to take Mary as his wife, that is, to go through a full marriage ceremony with her. He is further told that the Father of the child is God himself, and he is instructed to name the child Jesus:

…for he [Jesus] will save his people from their sins.

The name ‘Jesus’, in fact, means ‘Yahweh saves’.

There is no doubt that Joseph fully deserves the title ‘righteous’. Someone might find him to be rather passive and naïve in such a situation, but events were to prove his restraint fully justified. We might look to him as an example when we are tempted to jump in with both feet in accusing people when the evidence seems very strong. But we know from experience that quite often we are wrong. And in being wrong we have often been unjust, cruel and vindictive. And, even when we are right, vindictive revenge or using the full weight of the law is hardly the best way to solve a failed relationship or even a betrayal. When we take revenge, our ‘enemy’ may suffer but very often so do we.

The other readings in today’s Mass are also linked with Joseph. The First Reading is taken from a prophetic statement made by the prophet Nathan to King David. God promises that David’s dynasty will succeed unlike that of his predecessor Saul:

I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.

These words are spoken directly about David’s son, Solomon.

Nathan continues, speaking in God’s name:

I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me.

While Nathan’s prophecy speaks of Solomon, it is seen also as God speaking of Jesus. Jesus is a descendant of David through Joseph, who belonged to David’s line. The sentence, then, has a double meaning: God and Joseph will be father to the newborn child. And, of course, through Jesus, the promise that David’s dynasty will last forever finds fulfilment. The promise of an everlasting dynasty is a theme of many later prophecies and generated the hope of a Messiah, who would deliver Israel.

The Second Reading from the Letter to the Romans is from a chapter which speaks of Abraham. The parallels with Joseph are again very strong. In this case, Paul’s emphasis is on Abraham’s faith. Abraham and his wife, Sarah, already in old age, still had no legitimate son. There was a son by a slave girl, Hagar, and he was called Ishmael. Yet God had told Abraham that his descendants would be as numerous as the sands on the seashore or as the stars in the sky. Given their age, the couple could have laughed at this promise. But Abraham continued to believe and to hope:

Hoping against hope, he believed that he would become “the father of many nations,” according to what was said, “So shall your descendants be.”

Paul emphasises that Abraham was rewarded, not because of his faithful observance of an external law, but because of his absolute trust in the word and the promise of God. In other words, it was not by his actions that he put God under an obligation to respond. God is never under such an obligation. Whatever we do for God is something that is owed to him anyway, and is done by the strength which he alone gives.

What God gives us when we are in a position of total trust is a free gift, charis, grace. And that gift is open to all who believe in him and:

…not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham…

Abraham is seen as the “father of many nations”, Jews and Gentiles alike. God’s love and grace is not confined to a certain group or class of people.

Like Abraham, we are to put our faith and trust in the same God:

…who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.

Abraham and Sarah were, for all intents and purposes, ‘dead’ as far as child-bearing was concerned. Yet God brought new life to them by bringing into existence a son who, in the eyes of many, could not exist. Yet, still, Abraham:

Hoping against hope…believed that he would become “the father of many nations”…

These similarities with Joseph are striking. Joseph, too, was a “righteous man”, a ‘just’ man. He was a man of great faith. It required great faith to believe that the child Mary bore came from God and was not the result of a natural relationship. He was a man of great integrity, who faced the situation with a great deal of self-restraint and sensitivity to Mary. He was a man of great humility, keeping quietly to the background as the drama unfolds. Yet he played an important role as surrogate father, protecting his wife and her child. He was there at Bethlehem when the child was born. He brought mother and child into Egypt to escape the murderous threats of Herod. He looked after them in their home at Nazareth and accompanied them on their journeys to Jerusalem for the great feasts. How anxious he must have been with Mary when the boy disappeared in the big city of Jerusalem, packed with strangers for the Passover!

In the Hebrew Testament there was another famous Joseph, the second youngest son of Jacob. He was sold into slavery by his jealous brothers and eventually became second in rank in the empire of the Pharaohs. And he, too, was the “go to” guy, because when:

…all the land of Egypt was famished, the people cried to Pharaoh for bread. Pharaoh said to all the Egyptians, “Go to Joseph; what he says to you, do.” (Gen 41:55)

Let us go to St Joseph to intercede for us in our needs. He has been chosen as patron many times, including being patron of the Church and Patron Saint of the Society of Jesus.

It would be nice, too, to think that some of Jesus’ qualities came from Joseph as much as from Mary. So, on this his feast day, let us ask him to let us share in some of his outstanding virtues: in his faith, his refusal to make hasty judgements in a difficult situation, his integrity and goodness, his humility and modesty and in accepting with grace his supporting role in the Holy Family, in his care for the Church.

Let us conclude with the Opening Prayer from today’s Mass:

Father,
You entrusted our Saviour to the care of Saint Joseph.
By the help of his prayers,
may your Church continue to serve its Lord, Jesus Christ,
who lives and reigns for ever and ever. Amen

More

Note: The Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ – also known as Corpus Christi – is traditionally celebrated on the Thursday after Trinity Sunday. But in some countries and in some dioceses, it is celebrated on the following Sunday.

Commentary on Exodus 24:3-8; Hebrews 9:11-15; Mark 14:12-16,22-26

Today we celebrate one of the loveliest feasts of the year. Formerly and in some places even today, this day is celebrated with a colourful procession of the Blessed Sacrament through the streets or at least through the grounds of the parish church. To do justice to today’s feast and the Scripture readings would require a lot more time and space than is available here. So, we will have to be satisfied with some general reflections.

The Mass or Eucharist is one of our most familiar Christian activities and yet it is often greatly misunderstood and its true richness not fully enjoyed or appreciated by many. A common, but terribly sad remark one hears, especially from the young, is that they find Mass ‘boring’. It has to be said that, judging from the way one sees Mass ‘celebrated’ (?) in many places, they cannot be blamed. Some older Catholics seem to expect Mass to be dull and see it is a meritorious act of self-sacrifice to be there faithfully week after week! But there are others – both priests and lay people – who find themselves being drawn more and more deeply into the mystery and meaning of the Eucharist.

Today, let us just touch on a few themes which are at the centre of the Eucharist’s meaning – those that can be found in this Mass’ three Scripture readings.

Covenant
The word “covenant” appears in all three readings. In the Hebrew (Old) Testament, God made a covenant or solemn pledge with his people on a number of occasions. He promised he would always be their God and they would be his people. The covenant was remembered and ratified by the sacrifices of animals and the pouring out of their blood. But Jesus mediated a new covenant in which there were significant differences. First, no longer was it necessary for the blood of bullocks and goats to flow. In one sacrificial act of his very self, Jesus’ own blood became the sign of the new covenant. Blood was poured out once and for all by the Lamb of God. Again, the covenant of the old dispensation was for one people (the Jews); the new covenant embraces the whole human race. These things we ought to remember as we celebrate the Eucharist.

Thanksgiving
Because of this, the Eucharist is primarily a time of thanksgiving. The very word ‘Eucharist’ comes from a Greek word (eucharistia) which means thanksgiving. How often do we really come to the Eucharist in this frame of mind? How often do we drag ourselves reluctantly to another ‘boring experience’ which, as Catholics, we are told we have to attend under pain of serious sin?

The prayers of the Eucharist, especially the central Eucharistic Prayer, remind us of the tremendous event of God coming to us in Jesus Christ, living and dying for our sake and leaving behind the gift of his community and a way of life to bring us happiness, freedom and peace.

But it is also a time to count the particular blessings that have come into our own lives – from the gift of life to the experiences that happened only yesterday or this morning.

Reconciliation
The Eucharist is also a time for reconciliation. Some have the mistaken idea that, unless they are in a state of moral perfection, they should not come to Mass or receive communion. Let’s face it, we – every single one of us – and that includes the priest on the altar, approach the Eucharist as sinners and because we are sinners. We think of the Sacrament of Reconciliation as a time to face our sinfulness, but that sacrament is primarily for those whose seriously unloving behaviour has cut them off from the Eucharistic table. Most of us most of the time are not in a terrible state but, if we are honest, we can recognise that our relationships with God and others are not anything like they should be.

The theme of reconciliation goes right through the Mass. It appears at the beginning in the penitential rite with a public profession of our sinfulness:

I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned in thought, word and deed, in what I have done [and often more seriously] in what I have failed to do…

We repeat these words so often we hardly realise we are making a public acknowledgement of our sinfulness. Let us really mean what we are saying.

As the time for communion approaches, we say the Lord’s Prayer and, among other things, ask to be:

…forgiven our sins, as we forgive those who have offended us.

And immediately afterwards and before we share in the Body and Blood of the Lord, we are asked to wish peace and reconciliation to all around us. If we cannot do this, what is the meaning of our breaking the bread of Christ’s Body together? Jesus said:

So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift. (Matt 5:23-24)

Last of all, just as we are about to approach the altar, each of us acknowledge our unworthiness saying:

Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

Bread and wine
At the heart of the Eucharist, of course, is the bread and wine. They seem paltry gifts compared to the offerings of animals and fruits that the people of the Old Testament offered. Yet, in these gifts, too, there is a deep symbolism. And this symbolism extends to the offerings both before and after their transformation into the Body and Blood of the Lord.

As the gifts are set aside during the ‘offertory’*, the priest speaks of the bread and wine as:

…gifts of the earth and the work of human hands.

Some useful time could be spent on reflecting about the origins, the process of manufacture and the means of transport and communication that brings this small piece of bread and these drops of wine into my hands.

Only God knows how many people have been involved in making this small host available to me. People of real flesh and blood, people with their own families, dreams and hopes, people of different race, colour religion, culture…all are working for me. The fact that I do not know them, nor they me, does not change things.

And, if that is true of this small, seemingly insignificant host, what of the hundreds and thousands of objects – from food to furniture – which help to support me in life and of which this host and this wine are representative signs? There is much room here for wonder and deep gratitude.

And after the consecration, the offerings and the labours of these people for me become transformed into the Body and Blood of my Lord. As I am united with him, I am united with them, too. It makes all the wars and divisions and class distinctions, all the poverty, exploitation and greed among peoples seem so obscene.

Which Body?
And what is this Body of Christ which the bread has now become? Are we talking of that body which died on the Cross? Not exactly…we are talking of the Body of Christ now, the Body of Christ which Paul speaks about in his letters. The Risen Body of which Jesus is the Head and we, his disciples, the members.

In this consecrated bread, both Jesus and we are present. “Take and eat…this is my body” is an invitation to eat that Body of Christ of which we too are members. Thus, eating means total union with one another! So when the priest or communion minister says to me “The Body of Christ”, I answer “Amen”, meaning “Yes!”, although perhaps not being fully aware that all those around me sharing in this bread are part of that Body too. We are “eating” each other! We can see now why there is no room for the person who is full of hate at this table, or for the person who does not believe what is going on.

Now we see the need for reconciliation and an external sharing of peace:

For all who eat and drink without discerning the body eat and drink judgment against themselves. (1 Cor 11:29)

To worship the Body in the host and not to respect the Body in another person is to live a lie and make a mockery of the Eucharist.

‘Receiving Communion’ is not a personal, private experience; it is primarily a sharing. Our use of small, disc-like hosts has obscured the breaking, sharing and eating from one single loaf, which again Paul speaks about, and which symbolises the one community, the one fellowship.

This is why the Eucharist, which we often approach in such a blase fashion, has really frightening implications, until we also remember that it is a sacrament not for the perfect, but for sinners. The Eucharist is therefore a measure of where a community stands. A truly living Christian community cannot have a bad Eucharist. A dead community cannot produce a living Eucharist. People who come to Mass wondering only what they are going to get, are inevitably going to be disappointed. When the Eucharist is dull and boring, it is not the Eucharist which is at fault, but we who come together to “celebrate” it. Unless we come in a spirit of mutual giving and sharing, the whole experience fragments and becomes empty, meaningless and, inevitably, boring.

Without the Eucharist, all Christian living dies and without Christian living, the Eucharist dies. The celebration of the Body and Blood of the Lord is in our own hands. It is what we make it just as, properly celeb6ated, it makes us.

_________________________________________

*Some liturgical scholars would replace the term ‘Offertory’ with ‘Preparation of the Gifts.’ As they point out, the Great Offering is that which Jesus makes of himself to the Father in the Consecration:

This is my body…This is my blood…

But the term ‘Offertory’ is here to stay for the present, and can be rightly understood as the way the congregation participates in a small way in the Great Offering of Jesus.

More

Commentary on Mark 8:14-21 Read Tuesday of Week 6 of Ordinary Time – Gospel »

More

Commentary on 2 Timothy 1:1-8 or Titus 1:1-5

Note: When the Memorial to Saints Timothy and Titus falls on a weekday, the First Reading must be taken from the Memorial Readings in lieu of the First Reading for Ordinary Time.

Today there is a choice of First Readings: the first is from the Second Letter to Timothy and the other from the Letter to Titus.

These two letters are purported to come from the hand of Paul, but recent studies suggest that they are from a later hand, although they surely reflect Paul’s thoughts and feelings.

In the passage from the Letter to Timothy, Paul expresses his deep affection for Timothy, his companion on many missions, and a strong desire to see him. He thanks God for Timothy’s faith, which he owes to his Jewish mother Eunice and grandmother Lois. At the same time, he reminds Timothy of the gift he received when Paul laid his hands on him. That gift, says Paul, was not one of timidity but one of power, love and self-control, bringing with it the courage of witnessing to the Gospel even when, as in Paul’s case, it involved persecution and suffering. Like Paul, Timothy was to rely:

…on the power of God, who saved us and called us with a holy calling.

In the alternative reading from the Letter to Titus, Paul reminds his fellow missionary of the duties of an apostolic person. It is:

…to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness…

In the case of Titus, Paul reminds him that he has been sent to Crete to set up the Christian communities in each town, appointing an elder or presbyter as a leader in each one. Titus’ role was one of episcopus or ‘overseer’, to coordinate the Christian witness of these communities, making of them a community of communities, united with Christ and with each other.

In a way that is highly relevant for Church life today, the both readings suggest the dynamic and essentially apostolic nature of Christian witness, and how it is to be exercised in a community setting.

More

The commentaries written by Fr Frank Doyle SJ about feast days in Living Space are a wonderfully rich resource for us all. Sadly, Fr Doyle did not write a commentary for every feast day and unfortunately we do not have any commentary for today’s celebration.

More

Robert Southwell was born at Horsham St Faith in Norfolk, England in 1561, the son of Sir Robert Southwell. Robert at first resisted the pressures to join the Church of England but later conformed. In May 1576, he enrolled in the English College at Douai, Flanders and later studied in Paris where he met the Jesuit Thomas Darbyshire. He expressed a desire to join the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) at the age of 17, but was considered too young. Then, not unlike Stanislaus Kostka, he walked all the way to Rome and was accepted in 1578. He was made Prefect of Studies at the English College in Rome and ordained priest in 1584.

He was then assigned to the mission in England and left Rome on 8 May, 1586, with Fr Henry Garnet. To avoid capture, they landed on a secluded stretch of the English coast. Southwell was assigned to work in and about London. He spent his seven years there first with the Vaux family, and then with Anne Dacres, Countess of Arundel, whose husband Sir Philip Howard was imprisoned in the Tower for his fidelity to the Catholic faith. Southwell’s ministry involved visiting prison and helping priests who had recently arrived in England. When Henry Garnet came to London, Southwell was able to visit places outside London. He worked with Garnet on a secret press that issued catechisms and religious books.

After six fruitful years, Southwell was finally betrayed. Anne Bellamy, a Catholic, had been put in prison for refusing to attend a Protestant service. There she was made pregnant by the notorious priest-hunter, Richard Topcliffe. He promised to marry her if she would cooperate in setting a trap for Southwell. Southwell was caught and arrested at Uxenden in Middlesex. Topcliffe regarded Southwell as his greatest catch. In Topcliffe’s house next to the Gatehouse Prison, Southwell was subjected to several days of extreme torture but refused to reveal the names of Catholics or priests after 13 periods of torture. Finally, he was thrown among poor prisoners in Newgate Prison. His father was allowed to visit him and was horrified at the sight of his son. He asked Queen Elizabeth to treat him as a gentleman – release him or execute him. Southwell was moved to better conditions in the Tower, but denied visitors. Here he spent two and half years, and expressed his deepest feelings in writings that were later published as St Peter’s Complaint.

He was finally brought to trial on 20 February, 1595 at Westminster Hall. He admitted being a Catholic priest, but denied the charges of plots against the queen. Found guilty of high treason by a packed jury, he was executed the very next day.

On the three-hour journey to Tyburn he was dragged through the streets. And, because the hanging noose was not properly tied, he did not die when the cart was pulled away from under him. The hangman mercifully hung on to his feet to end the agony. The he was beheaded and quartered. He died on 21 February, 1595, at 34 years of age.

The event shocked both the royal court and the country. Like his fellow-Jesuit Edmund Campion (whose feast is celebrated on 1 Dec), he had a particularly keen intelligence and sensitive personality. He was a distinguished writer both of prose and lyric poetry. His most famous works include: An Epistle of Comfort (letters addressed to Philip Howard), An Humble Supplication to Her Majestie (an exposure of the Babington Plot), Mary Magdalen’s Funeral Tears (1594), A short Rule of Good Life (published posthumously in 1598) and A Fourfold Meditation (1606). His best known poems are The Burning Babe and St. Peter’s Complaint (a long narrative of the Life of Christ). Works which feature in any serious anthology of English literature.

A portrait in crayon, based on a lost oil painting, survives at the Jesuit Stonyhurst College in Lancashire. He was canonized by Pope Paul VI in 1970 as one of the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales.