When Jesus says, “Take courage,” this is what he means


After entering a boat, Jesus made the crossing, and came into his own town. People brought a paralytic lying on a stretcher to him.

When Jesus saw their faith, he told the paralytic, “Courage, child, your deviations are forgiven.”

69717_470024576383223_55557459_nScribes told themselves, “This man is slandering.”

Jesus knew what they were thinking, said, “Why do you harbor evil thoughts? Which is easier, to say, ‘Your deviations are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’?”

That you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive deviations he then said to the paralytic, “Rise, pick up your stretcher, and go home.”

He rose and went home. When the crowds saw this they were struck with awe and spoke well of God who had given such authority to men.

While he was saying these things, a leader came forward, knelt down before him, “My daughter has just died. But come, lay your hand on her, and she will live.”

Jesus rose and followed him, and so did his disciples.

A woman suffering hemorrhages for twelve years came up behind him and touched the tassel on his cloak.

She said to herself, “If only I can touch his cloak, I shall be cured.”

Jesus turned around and saw her, “Courage, daughter! Your faith has saved you.”

From that hour the woman was cured.

voiceDuring the fourth watch of the night, Jesus came toward them, walking on the sea. When the disciples saw him walking on the sea they were terrified.

“It is a ghost,” they said, and they cried out in fear.

Jesus spoke to them, “Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid.”

Peter replied, “Personal Name, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.”

Jesus said, “Come.”

Peter got out of the boat and began to walk on the water toward Jesus.

Sockeye, aren't they just gorgeous fish  Christina CookHebrew has a rhetorical rule, “G’zerah Shavah,” “An analogy is made between two separate texts on the basis of a similar phrase, word or root – i.e., where the same words are applied to two separate cases, it follows that the same considerations apply to both.”

The key word is “Courage,” and St. Matthew uses the word only three times, all listed above. One other point needs to be noted in interpreting these passages and this is where our passages for the Thursday of the Thirteenth Week in Ordinary Time, the Fourth of July, 2013, apply for today.

Speak to the Israelites (those who quarrel with God) and tell them that throughout their generations they are to make tassels for the corners of their garments, fastening a violet cord to each corner. When you use these tassels, the sight of the cord will remind you of all the Mitzvah of the Mitzvah and you will do them, without prostituting yourself going after the desires of your hearts and your eyes. Thus you will remember to do all my Mitzvah and you will be dedicated to your Almighty Judge.

We must remember there are two women in the second story. The first is twelve years old, and the second has an ailment for twelve years. There are twelve tribes of Israel, a nation ill because wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few.

When the woman in the second story reaches out to the cloak, she does not reach out to a piece of cloth hanging from Jesus’ clothing. She reaches out to a tradition and all it represents, and has represented for two thousand years. It is now two thousand years since this woman reached out to that cloak. This is a tradition about how to make the perfect society.

We can be sure that St. Matthew puts the two stories together, and ties them with the key words, “Take Courage,” for a reason. God calls us to reach out for that cord, a cord commanding us not to reach out with our hearts and our eyes, following the ways of the world, but to strike out and strive to make the perfect community.

Jesus spoke to them, “Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid.”

Peter replied, “Personal Name, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.”

Jesus said, “Come.”

Peter got out of the boat and began to walk on the water toward Jesus.

After doing so, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray. When it was evening he was there alone. Meanwhile the boat, already a few miles offshore, was being tossed about by the waves, for the wind was against it.

The wind, all too often seems to be against us. The wealthiest 20% of the population control 80% of the wealth. That means they also contribute 80% of all donations into the church coffers. They sit on all the boards, write the budgets, and are the main voices Father hears when he asks what needs to be in his homilies. We strike against them to our peril. Nothing is worse than spitting into the wind, as the old saying goes, yet that is what we must do.

Jesus commands us to get into the water with him. The next stop is Gennesaret, where Jesus healed the Legion.

After making the crossing, they came to land at Gennesaret. When the men of that place recognized him, they sent word to all the surrounding country. People brought to him all those who were sick and begged him that they might touch only the tassel on his cloak, and as many as touched it were healed.G’zerah Shavah applies again. There is the emphasis of the touching of cloaks, the symbol of what it means to be a nation, following God and not the ways of the nations, after the hearts and the eyes. There is the emphasis of healing other people. Our nation has similar traditions:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, with conquering limbs astride from land to land; here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command the air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she with silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion, that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

In a sense we have come to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to open the doors of opportunity to all of God’s children. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

If America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

Not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

When this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

When Jesus says, “Take courage,” this is what he means. He commands us to create a society where all people can say, “Free at last;” free from illness, free from poverty, free to be people made in the image of God. Are we this free people?

“Obedience or rebellion,” was the theme of Father’s homily


“Obedience or rebellion,” was the theme of Father’s homily today, this Thirteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time at our Cathedral in Reno. He took the side that the readings are all about obedience. This article takes the counter position.

Sunset in IsraelElijah set out and came upon Elisha, Ben Shaphat, of Abel-meholah as he was plowing with twelve yoke of oxen; he was following the twelfth.

My God is Jah, set out and came upon My God is Shua, salvation, the Son of Judgment from the Untilled Land Surrounding The Vineyard, as he was tilling with twelve yoke of oxen, dumb animals. He was following the twelfth, the tribe of Manasseh.

Elisha left the oxen, ran after Elijah, and said, “Please, let me kiss my father and mother goodbye, and I will follow you.” Elijah answered, “Go back! Have I done anything to you?”

Elisha left him, and taking the yoke of oxen, slaughtered them; he used the plowing equipment for fuel to boil their flesh, and gave it to his people to eat.

The first act of Elisha is to kill the dumb animal in himself, use it for fuel, and give it to the people. His first act is not an act of obedience, the act of following the social norms, but of rebellion, against those norms. From now on, he will follow a different way.

Father commented about how the prior story in I Kings is about how Elijah killed the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of Asherah who eat at Jezebel’s table. It is interesting to note how God never told Elijah to do this.

As a direct result of the action, Elijah flees to the caves where he meets God, and God teaches him that he is not in the strong and violent winds rending the mountains, the earthquakes, or the violent fires. He is in the small quiet voice. He is not in the violence of killing the oxen as represented in the twelve tribes of Israel, those who struggle to understand God.

Elisha asks to go back to his family, and this is where Luke takes off with the telling of his New Testament story.

As they were proceeding on their journey, someone asked, “I will follow you wherever you go.”

Jesus answered, ““Foxes have dens and birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to rest his head.”

To another he said, “Follow me.”

He replied, “Lord, let me go first and bury my father.”

He answered, “Let the dead bury their dead. You, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”

Another said, “I will follow you, Personal Name, but first let me say farewell to my family at home.”

To him Jesus replied, “No one who sets a hand to the plow and looks to what was left behind is fit for the kingdom of God.”

Elisha is the one who sets his hand to the plow and looks behind. Jesus tells him he is not fit for the kingdom of God. He wants to engage in violence, the killing of the dumb oxen to feed his own family before he goes, and this is not good enough for Jesus. We must let the dead, the dumb oxen, to bury their own dead; we have a higher calling. This is not the calling to obedience, but to striking out in a new direction, the direction of non-violence.

On the way they entered a Samaritan village to prepare for his reception there, but they would not welcome him because the destination of his journey was Jerusalem.

When the disciples James and John saw this they asked, “Personal Name, do you want us to call down fire from heaven to consume them?”

Jesus turned and rebuked them, and they journeyed to another village.

James and John are the Sons of Thunder as St. Mark relates, as this relates to their personality. They had not yet learned the lesson of Elijah. If you go after the other guy, they do not rush to learn their lesson, but instead they rush to get even, and you, Sons of Thunder, are the target. Nothing causes people to be out to get you quite as well as paranoia. That is the lesson of Elijah.

St. Paul sums up the lesson for today well:

I say, then: live by the Spirit and you will certainly not gratify the desire of the flesh. The flesh has desires against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; these are opposed to each other, so that you may not do what you want. If the Spirit guides you, you are not under Torah.

St. Paul tells us not to eat the flesh of Elisha’s oxen. Live by the spirit of non-violence. Live by a different way. Do not be obedient to the old way. Strike out on a new one. Follow the spirit, not the earthly ways of violence we see in our world. Follow Jesus and not Elijah, and the sons of thunder.

We need to go back to tilling the land surrounding the vineyard. Jesus talks much of vineyards. He does so in Matthew 20, and 21. Our reading for today is from Luke and Luke takes the theme in the direction of Luke 20. We are the people in the vineyard who God charges with taking care of the place.

God will hold of accountable of how we do, and that means taking care of the vineyard, which is each other. That is real justice, not getting even, being the Sons of Justice like Elijah and Elisha, or the Sons of Thunder. That means rebellion from the ways of the world, and not obedience to them.

We are pro-life just so long as it is convenient


At our Cathedral in Reno Nevada there was an interesting debate between a person who identified with the Tea Party and a more progressive person. The Tea Party Person began by discussing with another teacher, what he perceives to be the virtues of vouchers for public education. Yes, the Tea Party folk, who opposed bussing in the ‘70s, now want to promote busing their children to the school of their choice, so their children don’t have to sit next to poor children in the public schools.

We go to school to learn how to read, much as people did 3300 years ago.
We go to school to learn how to read, much as people did 3300 years ago.

The progressive felt the urge to point out “Resource capital, including parent education, parent income, and educational items in the home, was most predictive of academic performance.” This according to Ronald L. Mullis Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA, Richard Rathge North Dakota State University, Fargo, USA, and Ann K. Mullis Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA. Which school the child attended was not a major variable.

The progressive also felt the urge to relate how his father was a wiz in mathematics, graduating from an Auto Mechanics tech school in Klamath Falls, Oregon, Summa Cum Laud. This gave the progressive an advantage when studying that class in school.

Should this voucher system come in, the effect would be, middle class and upper class students, those with parents knowing the material, would bus themselves to the better schools. Lower income students, those without parents knowing the material, would not be accepted into these schools, so would remain in the inner city schools. The nation would become more racially and economically paralyzed, which is the true goal of the Tea Party movement, not pro-life.

This being the metropolitan area of Reno/Sparks, the progressive pointed out how McQueen High School is the regional powerhouse in football. All the quality players would want to attend McQueen High. The other players would have to settle for the rest. The decidedly second string and lower players would have to settle for Sparks High where they would have no chance of receiving the high quality coaching necessary to become quality players, have a winning season, or more important, receive a football scholarship.

The question our tea party representative could not answer, was how this disadvantage relates to the three “R”s” literature, language arts, and the logic of mathematics. The best students would attend Washoe High School and the rest would attend the rest.

The discussion then switched as the progressive noted how he just donated a hundred dollars in groceries recently purchased at Wal-Mart by a member of how family. In his home there is a family feud as the progressive opposes purchasing items at that store because of Wal-Mart’s human rights record. The progressive noted the 1,239 who died in the building collapse and the 112 who died in a fire this past year, and how Wal-Mart blocked safety provisions in its factories. He also noted there are other cases where Wal-Mart factories in Bangladesh have had fires and other catastrophes.

The Tea Party representative argued that he did value human rights, but sometimes it is inconvenient to do so.Elie Wiesel had the opportunity to interview the distinguished French Catholic author Francois Mauriac. In the course of the interview Mauriac spoke about his love for Jesus and his saving  death on the cross, the standard Christian verbiage about Catholic faith. Wiesel explains what happened next.

Giving in to an angry impulse, he closed his notebook and rose. “Sir, you speak of Christ. Christians love to speak of him. The passion of Christ, the agony of Christ, the death of Christ. In your religion, that is all you speak of. Well, I want you to know that ten years ago, not very far from here, I knew Jewish children every one of whom suffered a thousand times more, six six million times more, than Christ on the cross. Can you understand that, sir? We don’t speak about them.”

Of evil he said, “I think that evil has many faces, but I would say that all of these haves have masks, and beneath the mask there is indifference. That is what all the faces of evil have in common: indifference.”

Bonhoeffer wrote:

All people go to God in need, for help and calm and foot they plead.

That sickness, guilt and death may cease, all, Christians and Pagans pray for peace.

Some turn to God in God’s need and dread, a God poor, despised, without roof or bread.

By sin’s harm weakened and by death distressed, Christians stand steadfast by their God oppressed.

Other factors apply. The Tea Party representative argued that Wal-Mart did not kill all these thousands of people. Their supplier did, and they were just letting the market decide where they purchased their goods. They were not responsible. The Progressive pointed out that the market is not a thing, and properly speaking does not exist.

He related how the Tea Party representative was positing a super natural force capable of thought, it decides things, “Divine,” is the Latin word, who is in charge, who dominates the economy, (the Latin word is Dominus and is a name for God), and who cares about its decisions, “Theos,” is the Greek word. He was positing idolatry and in a Catholic Church.

The progressive also related that Wall-Mart is accountable for holding its suppliers accountable for their actions. If they do not, and they did not, people who shop at Wall-Mart are accountable to God for holding Wall-Mart accountable. Not doing so is a grave matter. If they have alternatives, it is willingly agreed to. If they know about Wall-Mart’s decision, it is with full knowledge.

The Tea Party representative changed the conversation, arguing that progressives do not like Wal-Mart because they are against unions. The Progressive countered how interesting it is that he, as a Tea Party Representative claims to be pro-life, but how the Union, who has no pro-life stand is standing up for workers in third world countries, who will not be unionized, so they can have dignified lives, but the Tea Party is making excuses for not doing so. The unions hold Costco out as an example about how to do it right, but they are only 15% union. Average pay for a cashier, Walmart, $8.53, COSTCO, $15.60. We need look no longer for the issue.

The Progressive also related how One Walmart’s Low Wages Could Cost Taxpayers $900,000 Per Year. There are four Wall-Mart stores in the Reno-Sparks metropolitan area, which means the Tea Party representative s paying part of the $3.6 million dollars Wall-Mart costs the tax payers in Reno Sparks alone.

The Tea Party representative argued that other stores also pay law wages. To this the progressive argued how the Unions fight hard to promote life for workers who are not members and likely will never be members. He, a person who claims to be staunchly pro-life comes up with nothing but excuses for corporate bad behavior. He also related that we should not allow abortion because we might not catch all the women choosing to have one.

We should not allow rape, burglary, and other crimes because we might not catch all the people engaging in these crimes. He concluded by relating how the Union fights for human rights, while the Tea Party fights to find excuses.

The labor unions, which do not claim to be pro-life travel thousands of miles to promote the lives of people who cannot help them in return. Pro-life people cannot travel an extra four miles, ten minutes, to shop at a store with ethics. For pro-life people, saving lives means two leisurely walks each year, carrying multi -ounce signs, around a Truckee Meadow. For Union people, it often means getting sprayed with tear-gas.

The conservatives accept Torah and Gospel except when it is inconvenient. Unions do not except Torah and Gospel as the law of the land, although they very much accept the Torah and Gospel law of love and solidarity as what the law of the land should be all about.The Tea Party and the pro-life movement are pro-life, so long as it is convenient, and that is just not good enough.

We need a faith that stands for God when it is inconvenient, when God suffers in the person of the people dying in Bangladesh, in the sweatshops of China and the third world, and in the chicken processing plants like in Hamlet North Carolina, or the Triangle Factory in New York. That clearly is not the conservative movement in America.

It is important to define church in light of Exodus Part 2


View of the Sea of GalileeWe come to Mt. Sinai, the shattered remnant of ex-slaves from the Deep South, from Egypt, from Ireland, from the wars of 19th century Europe, from 20th century Europe, from the poverty of Latin America, Africa, and Asia. We come to the synagogue, or the syn-with, Ago, leading, leading together, coming together, to participate in the great dance, perichoreo, χορεύω of life in the spirit of God. We come with our ethnic heritage and our WWII heritage, our boomer heritage and generation X heritage. We come to God as Americans, and most important as human beings.

As to the rules and how strongly we are to listen to them:

Amram married his aunt Jochebed, who bore him Aaron, Moses, and Miriam. Amram lived one hundred and thirty-seven years. Exodus 6:20

None of you shall approach a close relative to have sexual intercourse. I am the Personal Name. Leviticus 18:6

You shall not have intercourse with your father’s sister, since she is your father’s relative. You shall not have intercourse with your mother’s sister, since she is your mother’s relative. Leviticus 18:12

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is nauseating. Leviticus 18:22

The Jewish community was opposed to marrying outside of the Jewish community. Nehemiah 10:31 Exodus 2:16-21 relates how Moses married Zipporah, a Midianite, not a Jew.

Honor your father and your mother, that you may have a long life in the land the Personal Name your Almighty Judge gives you. Exodus 20:12

Moses passes a law against his father marrying his mother. Hold as important your father and your mother. He marries an outsider.

Remember Sabbath; dedicate it. Six days you may labor and do all your work, but the seventh day Sabbath of the Personal Name your Almighty Judge. You shall not do any work, either you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your work animal, or the resident alien within your gates. Exodus 20:8 I

Maccabees relates the interesting story. “Mattathias and his friends heard of it, they mourned deeply for them. They said to one another, “If we all do as our kindred have done, and do not fight against the Gentiles for our lives and our laws, they will soon destroy us from the earth.” So on that day they came to this decision: “Let us fight against anyone who attacks us on the Sabbath, so that we may not all die as our kindred died in their secret refuges.”

What makes this story interesting is that the Jewish nation had survived as a nation, from Moses, through the judges, the kings and the prophets, and never had to address the issue of foreign people attacking on Sabbath before. The injunction could not have been interpreted strictly before.

We also must relate the story of Acts 6:15-29. The question was on listening to the Jewish dietary laws. The decision was, “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.”

To understand this ruling we must read Genesis 9, the code of Noah. It reads the same. To require non-Jews to listen to Jewish law would constitute a change in the laws. The 613 laws of the Torah are designed to make one Jewish, not Christian. That is the decision of Acts 15.

It is important to define church in light of Exodus Part 1


The article, “These are the things we need to consider in the Reno Diocesan Synod,” makes an interesting point about the Ten Commandments, as translated directly from the Hebrew. The Prologue to the Ten Commandments states:

Moses summoned all Israel and told them, Hear, You who struggle with God, the customs, חֻקִּים and correct judicial precedents,מִּשְׁפָּטִים I proclaim in your hearing, this day, to learn them and guard to do them. The Personal Name cut a Social Contract with us at Horeb; not with our fathers did the Personal Name cut this Social Contract, but with us, all of us, alive, here, this day.

The article then goes on to discuss the difference between customs, correct judicial precedents and how they relate to our lives. Another interesting question comes to mind; “How does this relate to ecclesiology? Does this relate to ecclesiology? After all, it was Jewish people on that mountain; the synagogue was not even around yet.

The first thing we notice is that Moses did not receive the Ten Commandments for himself. Nor did he receive them for himself and his offspring. He received them for all the Hebrew People. “Hebrew,” is Hebrew for homeless. It refers to all people who search for a homeland, a nation,  to be a people born together, by heritage if not by proximity of birth or blood. More specifically, it refers to the twelve tribes of Israel, those who struggle with God, who struggle to understand God.

Meadow in IsraelJudges 12 tells an interesting tale, the Shibboleth Incident. This story is important for understanding ecclesiology, and for that matter, understanding the correct pronunciation of Hebrew, because it relates how the tribe of Ephraim, as early as the judges, could be distinguished because they had no “SH” sound in their dialect. This means the tribes could distinguish themselves; they were different one from another. It also means there was not one correct pronunciation of Hebrew. Different tribes at different times had different correct ways to pronounce the terms.

What met at Mt. Sinai was not one tribe, but twelve. Cardinal Walter Kasper speaks of his perichoretic formula. This comes from χορεύω, which means to dance. Exodus 32:19 presents the penchant of the Jewish people for merriment and dance. On a more positive side, Karl Rahner speaks of the remnant, as in the remnant of the Jewish people who returned from Babylonian exile, the synagogue, which formed during the Babylonian exile, and the altar community.

As Americans, we need to think in terms of E Pluribus Unum. We might also think of a candle. Just as the flames of twelve candles dance around each other to form one large flame above the candles, the twelve tribes, who often fought one another, came to Mt. Sinai to form one large flame, one large community at Sinai. They never gave up being the twelve tribes; they never gave up being authentic about who they were, but still they joined together to become one large community, Israel.

Likewise, as Americans we are E Pluribus Unum; from the many, one. We never cease to be German, Jewish, Anglo-Saxon, Hispanic, Haitian, and more. We never cease being baby boomers, the WWII generation, or generation X. Still we are all Americans. Likewise, as Catholics, we join the grand dance as the altar community.

horse and carriage at south lake tahoeExodus 20-32 presents us with an imperfect community of twelve discernible ethnic groups with different customs and ways of speaking their words. Karl Rahner also speaks of the altar community, and at Mt. Sinai, with all of their difference, and with all of their faults, they still manage to say, if only for a moment, “All of this we will do.” Likewise, as Christians, we are not one community.

As a Christian community, “We are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene, as well as travelers from Rome, both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs, yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God.” Acts 2:9-11

In the twenty-first century, we are all German and Jew, Irish and Ango-Saxon, Polish and Russian, Hispanic and Native American. If we come to Mt. Sinai as anything else, we come to Mt. Sinai as inauthentic. We lived through World War II, as German and as Jew. We came through Vietnam as the soldier who served and as the student who served by protesting. We came through the Iraq wars as the soldiers who served, and as the students who protested.

We remember what it was like when the only means of electronic communication in the home were the radio and the telephone. We remember when TV was the next big thing. We remember when color TV was the next big thing. We remember when MTV was the next big thing. We remember when stereo was in, and the transistor.

We remember when computers small enough to do our math homework filled a room. We remember when they talked about a mouse meant that nasty thing in the trap in the kitchen. Some of us can remember none of these things. Some can remember only some. We are all of these people. We are all different, and we are all one.

We all dance around the altar community of Sinai. If we come to Sinai pretending to be those who remember, or do not remember these things, we come to Mt. Sinai inauthentic. We come to Mt. Sinai, just as we are, without one plea.

We come to Mt. Sinai, the shattered remnant of ex-slaves from the Deep South, from Egypt, from Ireland, from the wars of 19th century Europe, from 20th century Europe, from the poverty of Latin America, Africa, and Asia. We come to the synagogue, or the syn-with, Ago, leading, leading together, coming together, to participate in the great dance, perichoreo, χορεύω of life in the spirit of God. We come with our ethnic heritage and our WWII heritage, our boomer heritage and generation X heritage. We come to God as Americans, and most important as human beings.

As we die with Christ, and rise with Christ, we encounter the reference we need to live the game of life


The article, “These are the things we need to consider in the Reno Diocesan Synod,” makes an interesting point about the Ten Commandments, as translated directly from the Hebrew. The Prologue to the Ten Commandments states:

Lancaster_County_Amish_03Moses summoned all Israel and told them, Hear, You who struggle with God, the customs, חֻקִּים and correct judicial precedents,מִּשְׁפָּטִים I proclaim in your hearing, this day, to learn them and guard to do them. The Personal Name cut a Social Contract with us at Horeb; not with our fathers did the Personal Name cut this Social Contract, but with us, all of us, alive, here, this day.

Seder plate smallThe interesting thing about customs חֻקִּים and judicial precedents מִּשְׁפָּטִים is that they develop over time. By definition, they could not have come directly to Moses at Horeb. How does Torah say this? All the customs חֻקִּים and judicial precedents מִּשְׁפָּטִים, which came over time, came at Horeb. This is because, as the Jewish people relive their salvation at Passover, and we relive ours in the Eucharist, we relive the Passover, the Passion event, again, for the first time, each time.

“These are the things we need to consider in the Reno Diocesan Synod,” makes the interesting case that customs, חֻקִּים, come from below. Judicial precedents, מִּשְׁפָּטִים, come from above.

“Called Together: An introduction to Ecclesiology” discusses a ‘60s dispute between Stanley Hauerwas and John Courtney Murray, S. J. We note how Hauerwas is a Mennonite. Those of us from Easter Pennsylvania note that the Mennonites are a group much like the Amish. They represent the emphasis on customs, חֻקִּים. They focus upon living their lives and letting their lives be examples to all people.

On October 2, 2006, Charles Carl Roberts IV took hostages and shot ten girls (aged 6–13), killing five, at West Nickel Mines School, an Amish one-room schoolhouse in the Old Order Amish community of Nickel Mines, a village in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Forgiveness and reconciliation in the response of the Amish community was the Amish norm practiced, even in this brazen case. The community did not establish rules for the grander community; it practiced them and in the process gave an example for the larger community to follow. This is the teaching of Stanley Hauerwas.

The Amish have a problem, the same problem of the Spartans of later ancient Greece. Very people desire to be Amish, and the National Geographic program, “Out of Order,” reveals the very real temptation to leave the community for the earthly temptations of life. Like the Spartans, Americans view the Amish as a quaint sect, and not the prime example for all to follow. This leaves us with John Courtney Murray, S. J. Murray speaks of three principles:

8919_1243228163516_2601477_n

The first principle is the distinction between the sacred and the secular orders of human life. The whole of man’s existence is not absorbed in his temporal and terrestrial existence. The power of government does not reach into this higher sacred order of human existence.

The second principle is the distinction between society and state. Historically, this distinction developed out of the medieval distinction between the ecclesia (christianitas) and the imperium.

The third principle is the distinction between the common good and public order. It follows from the distinction between society and state. The common good includes all the social goods, spiritual and moral as well as material, which man pursues here on earth in accord with the demands of his personal and social nature.

The pursuit of the common good devolves upon society as a whole, on all its members and on all its institutions, in accord with the principles of subsidiarity, legal justice, and distributive justice.

Public order includes three goods, which can and should be achieved by the power, which is proper to the state. The first is the public peace, which is the highest political good. The second is public morality, as determined by moral standards commonly accepted among the people. The third is justice, which secures for the people what is due to them.

UntitledOf course, how does one define what is due to any other person? The article, “Aristotle and the NFL point our way to distributive justice,” correctly points out how vague the concepts of distributive justice and what one is due really are. Further, what subsidiarity, means in practical terms is also a matter of dispute.

The Capitalist, the Communist, and the Anarchist all believe that subsidiarity means no government at all, at least as it relates to economics. For the socialist, “He who governs least, governs best,” “Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience” means government control of all. To argue for more control than is necessary, is to argue for waste. To argue for less is irresponsible. The problem with John Courtney Murray’s theory, and most Social Contract theory, is that it does not define “subsidiarity” in practical terms, or “The least.”

Judicial precedents, מִּשְׁפָּטִים, morality from above suffers precisely because it is not able to define its terms. What we need is what the Ten Commandments call for, a healthy mix of custom, חֻקִּים and judicial precedent, מִּשְׁפָּטִים, with a referent that helps to define the terms. The Ten Commandments define that reference.

“Remember, “I am the Personal Name your Almighty Judge, who brought you out of the land of Egypt/Oppression, out of the house of menial labor.” When your son asks you, “What do these witnesses and customs and judicial precedents mean,” which the Personal Name, our Almighty Judge, has enjoined on you, you shall say to your son, “We were once servants of Pharaoh the oppressor in Egypt, the land of oppression, but the Personal Name brought us out of there with a strong hand and wrought before our eyes signs and wonders, great and dire, against Egypt and against Pharaoh and his whole house.

Remember what it was like to be there, and remember your rescue. That is the reference. That is the reference for both the customs, what comes from below, and that is the reference for the judicial precedents, what comes from above. “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets.” This may not have the certainty of judicial precedent judges might like.

We realize that what we have is Picasso in our lives. We present our Picasso, knowing that others have Van Gogh in their lives. We show our Picasso and allow them to show their Van Gogh. We do not get into the first View of John Courtney Murray, presuming that our world view is the correct one. We believe that with faith; we do not know it as fact.

Myrtle point baseballSociety is much like a baseball game. We all know what the rules are, what constitutes a strike, a ball, a hit, or a run, but when we stop to apply the rules, we do just that; we stop. The game ends, at least for a moment. The goal is for the game to continue. For that, we need custom, חֻקִּים. We need to look to the Amish, with all of their quaintness, to see how they play the game.

As the article, “These are the things we need to consider in the Reno Diocesan Synod,” points out, we very much need the sacraments, in particular the Eucharist. This is how we bring Mt. Sinai, and the cross into present time. As we relive our escape from Egypt and as we die with Christ, and rise with Christ, we encounter the reference we need to live the game of life, as individuals, and as a society.

We need both, to be the social ethic, the sample to others, and to teach the social ethic. We become the social ethic through what happens at Mass, reliving in present time the escape from Egypt and our escape, by dying with Christ and rising with him in the Eucharist.

New_Colossus_manuscript_LazarusNot like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

As Americans and as people of the Judea-Christian faith, we remember what it was like to be oppressed, and we remember our rescue. We remember slavery in Egypt, the Great Potato Famine, the Great Revolutions of 1828 in Europe, the slavery of the Deep South, Jim Crow, the Trail of Tears of the Cherokee, the 1200 who died in Bangladesh over the course of the past year, and more. We then remember our rescue and when we see others suffering we do something.

Reliving all of this in present time, remembering who our rescuer is, Love itself, and then doing something is the essence of all morality and all there is to the great mystery of our faith. There really is no more. When we do this we become like Stanley Hauerwas and become church. We become the example with our customs all want to follow. As a society we participate in the great marketplace of ideas John Courtney Murray, talks about, showing our Picasso. We speak both with our actions and with our words.

We view justice and the role of government as St. Augustine did, City of God, Book II, Chapter 21, along with Cicero and Scipio, as an orchestra. We strive to create concord. We promote life for all people, pre-born, and post born, where life is life lived in the image of God,for all people. This is where judicial precedent comes into the formula. This is what we need to emphasis during our diocesan synod.

These are the things we need to consider in the Reno Diocesan Synod


Some approaches to ecclesiology suffer from a clearly inadequate awareness of the Church as a mystery of communion, especially insofar as they have not sufficiently integrated the concept of communion with the concepts of People of God and of the Body of Christ, and have not given due importance to the relationship between the Church as communion and the Church as sacrament.[i]Lake Tahoe

Sometimes, however, the idea of a “communion of particular Churches” is presented in such a way as to weaken the concept of the unity of the Church at the visible and institutional level. Thus it is asserted that every particular Church is a subject complete in itself, and that the universal Church is the result of a reciprocal recognition on the part of the particular Churches. This ecclesiological unilateralism, which impoverishes not only the concept of the universal Church but also that of the particular Church, betrays an insufficient understanding of the concept of communion.[ii]

Bernard Lonergan writes:

With Einstein, Newton’s absolute time vanished, and there emerged as many standard times as there are inertial reference frames that are in relative motion.[1]

Our mural in Reno Nevada
Our mural in Reno Nevada

Deuteronomy 5 writes:

Moses summoned all Israel and told them, Hear, You who struggle with God, the customs, חֻקִּים and correct judicial precedents,מִּשְׁפָּטִים I proclaim in your hearing, this day, to learn them and guard to do them. The Personal Name cut a Social Contract with us at Horeb; not with our fathers did the Personal Name cut this Social Contract, but with us, all of us, alive, here, this day.

The interesting thing about customs חֻקִּים and judicial precedents מִּשְׁפָּטִים is that they develop over time. By definition, they could not have come directly to Moses at Horeb. How does Torah say this? All the customs חֻקִּים and judicial precedents מִּשְׁפָּטִים, which came over time, came at Horeb. This is because, as the Jewish people relive their salvation at Passover, and we relive ours in the Eucharist, we relive the Passover, the Passion event, again, for the first time, each time.

Courtesy Holy Land Pilgrimage Galillee

William Graham Sumner discusses customs in his book, “Folkways.” He tells us, “I also took up again the Latin word “mores” as the best I could find for my purpose. I mean by it the popular usages and traditions, when they include a judgment that they are conducive to societal welfare, and when they exert a coercion on the individual to conform to them, although they are not coordinated by any authority.”

Customs חֻקִּים come from below. “Social Theory and Social Structure” discusses the Robert Merton’s idea of manifest and latent functions. The latent functions come from below and are the mores which we often do not even think about. The manifest norms are the rules coming from external sources, employers, the Vatican, and the state. They are the laws of William Graham Sumner.

In society, the norms and folkways, the latent rules which rule our lives, do not always agree with the manifest rules. Employers often write rule books for their organizations only to find employees place these rule books on a shelf and do things the way they have always been done. In his article, “On the Church,” Cardinal Walter Kasper discusses this in reference to a discussion by then Cardinal Ratzinger, “On some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion.” By definition, correct judicial precedents מִּשְׁפָּטִים come from above.

Baron de Montequieu gave us the tripartite division of government, executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Moses and the Semitic people had something very similar. They had the executive branch, the king, and they had the judicial branch, the judges and the rabbis who interpreted the sacred writings in light of their times. They had no need of a legislative branch. All laws came from Moses at Sinai.

Cardinal Kasper correctly relates how he is in the middle of a great debate, not between the from the masses, but from the manifest and latent norms, between the folkways and the laws. If there is a debate between the norms and the laws, between how the masses interpret Sinai, and how the judges, the Vatican interprets Sinai, it means one or the other, or more than likely, both, is not properly influenced by the spirit of Sinai.

For judicial precedents מִּשְׁפָּטִים to be correct, they must spring from Mt. Sinai, which we relive in concrete form, for the first time, each time we celebrate the Eucharist. The customs חֻקִּים and the laws must spring from the same source. Leaders must come from the masses. Deuteronomy 17:14-17 explains the rules for picking leaders. It tells us the leadership must come from the masses.

Further, they must be like the masses, without much wealth. They must come from the same folk as the masses, so the share the same folkways.They must share the same near death experience as the masses. For Jews, that is Passover. For Christians, it is dying and rising with Christ.

For those who experience the Near Death Experience of Passover, receiving the Ten Commandments at Sinai, and the cross of Christ, no proof of the authenticity of the judicial precedents is necessary. For those who do not experience this Near Death Experience, no proof is sufficient.

Yes, we must have judges to make those correct judicial precedents מִּשְׁפָּטִים. Correct judicial precedents come from above. The Ten Commandments tell us that from the beginning, there are rules which guide our behavior, both from higher authority, correct judicial precedent, מִּשְׁפָּטִים and from below, חֻקִּים custom.

Einstein was Jewish and his understanding of time was Jewish. It is like a big wormhole that connects each time we celebrate Passover and Eucharist. It makes no sense to discuss if the universal church is prior to the particular churches. Through Passover and Eucharist, we leave time. When there is no time, there is no before and after.

Courtesy Holy Land Pilgrimage Mary's well Ein Kerem Jerusalem

Ontologically, the Church-mystery, the Church that is one and unique, precedes creation, and gives birth to the particular Churches as her daughters.[iii] From of old I was formed, at the first, before the earth. Proverbs 8:23. This is the claim Pope Benedict claims for Holy Mother Church; she is Wisdom incarnate. She is the formal cause of the world. She is apart from time.

Most of us misunderstand what is going on in the Eucharist. In the Eucharist, we depart from time and we relive the exodus from Egypt, again, for the first time, each time. That is why we have the incense, to remind us that we are at Mt. Sinai, in the 120 degree dry heat, on a volcano, again, for the first time. We are on the cross, with Jesus, hearing the taunts and the jeers of the crowd.

We die with him, and we rise with him. That means we have to be Jesus on the cross, suffering with him. That means we must understand who the Semitic Jesus is. Do we? Do we understand what it would mean to be a Semitic Jesus? Do we understand his time and his place?

The difference between corporeal and spiritual food lies in this, that the former is changed into the substance of the person nourished. It cannot avail for supporting life except it be partaken of. Spiritual food changes man into itself, according to that saying of Augustine (Confessions 7.  Third Part of the Summa Question 73 Article 3

I found myself to be far from You, in the region of dissimilarity: I am the food of strong men; grow, and you will feed upon me; nor will you convert me, like the food of your flesh, into you, but you shall be converted into me. Confessions, Book 7, Chapter 10

How can the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ transform us into himself if we neither know or care who he is? What are we transforming into? Are we transforming into the first century Semitic Rabbi who healed people without cost, who hung around tax collectors and deviants, who had a preference for the poor, who had a mother who recited the Magnificat condemning the rich to a rich relative, and who died rather than engage in violence?

Are the claims of a conservative Jesus who favored the rich and supported owning guns true? Would we be willing to sit next to Jesus, a long haired homeless man of Near Eastern/Palestinian origin, who spoke a strange language, at the bus station, on an airplane, on a bench at the mall or a local park?

Our Lady

The Blessed Virgin Mary is the model of ecclesial communion in faith, in charity and in union with Christ. “Eternally present in the mystery of Christ.” She is, in the midst of the Apostles, at the very heart of the Church at its birth and of the Church of all ages. Indeed, “the Church was congregated in the upper room with Mary, who was the Mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. We cannot therefore speak of the Church unless Mary, the mother of the Lord, is present there, with the Lord’s brethren.”[iv]

Courtesy Holy Land Pilgrimage  Sea of Galillee 2

Revelations 12:17 tells us, “The Sea Monster became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.” As Catholics, we believe the child of Revelations 12:5 is Jesus, and therefore the woman is Our Blessed Virgin.

If we experience the time warp, the wormhole, the Passover, and the Passion of Christ, and rise with Christ, we do put on the new person, as St. Paul says, and this causes us to keep God’s commandments and in the process, bear witness to Jesus. No proof of the authenticity of magisterial pronouncements is required. If not, no proof is sufficient.

We are the bride of Christ. Jesus is the groom. I Corinthians 12:12-26 speaks of us being one body with many parts. Our Blessed Virgin is our mother. Galatians is right in telling us we are all one in Christ Jesus, Abraham’s descendant, heirs according to the promise. This being the case, we should all at least know each other’s names.

Do we notice the flowers and the candles, the dimmed room, and all the elements that make for a romantic dinner? This meeting is supposed to be personal and intimate. Is it? Do we know the Semitic Jesus, Our Blessed Virgin, a first century Jew? Do we know each other? Why is it that everyone loves a lover, but nobody loves the proper people who leave Mass on Sunday morning? If people love lovers and we are lovers of God and each other, should they not love us and want to be like us too?

581398_356529854436705_624617725_n

Quoting Galatians 3:28-9, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus and if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendant, heirs according to the promise,” Pope Benedict tells us that we are not strangers.

When we attend Mass, do we know the name of the person sitting next to us? When we go to coffee and donuts after Mass, do we know the name of the person we are sitting next to? Does Father come down to join us? Are we really strangers in the same room? These are the things we need to consider as we undergo the Reno Diocese Diocesan Synod.

[1] Letter To The Bishops Of The Catholic Church On Some Aspects Of The Church Understood As Communion http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html

 [ii] ibib

[iii] ibib

[iv] ibib

The Conservatives are at it again with SB 192


In Carson City Nevada the Conservatives are pushing a bill, SB 192, entitled, “The Nevada Preservation of Religious Freedom Act.” This act states:

The Barking Army courtesy of“Exercise of Religion’ means the ability to act or to refuse to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.”

“A government entity shall not substantially burden the exercise of religion of a person regardless of whether the burden is the result of a rule of general applicability.”

“A government entity may substantially burden the exercise of religion only if the government entity demonstrates that the burden as applied to persons: Furthers a compelling government interest, and is the least restrictive means of furthering that government interest.”

The bill is clear. All a person has to do in this act is claim that his actions are motivated by religion as he understands it. It does not have to be motivated by “A larger system of religious belief.”

581398_356529854436705_624617725_nIn the case of Peyote, Native Americans could use this bill to argue they have the right to smoke the stuff. Also, in the case of marijuana, all a person would have to do is argue that his smoking the stuff has religious motivation. He does not have to point to “a larger system of religious belief.” The same could be used in the case of any hallucinatory drugs.

In the ‘60s, conservative southern states used bills such as SB 192 to justify business interests to not serve people of African American Heritage at their establishments. Their system of religious beliefs justified government non-intervention.

We see the same type of thing in relation to SB 192. If an employer wanted to prevent its employees from having children, nothing in this law would prevent them from requiring employees to use contraception, use morning after pills or have abortions. If their employees had no children, they would have less reason to use sick days, to care for sick children, there would be no need for FMLA leave to have children in the first place, and so on. Employers do have a reason to do this. This bill is for protecting the rights of established people, not the masses.

The main purpose of this bill is to preserve conservative business interests, in particular as it relates to the abortion and birth control issues. The question is, does it?   The bill must compel a government interest. What is the government interest?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.

They key question in the great abortion debate is the definition of life.

The same must be said of life. The name is given from a certain external appearance, namely, self-movement, yet not precisely to signify this, but rather a substance to which self-movement and the application of itself to any kind of operation, belong naturally. To live, accordingly, is nothing else than to exist in this or that nature. Summa Theologica Part 1Question 18, article 2

Working Poor Invisible in America David K. Shipler Pulitzer Prize WinnerThe Philosopher, Aristotle, in De Anima ii, 13), distinguishes four kinds of life, namely, nourishment, sensation, local movement and understanding. Arisotle says (Ethic. ix, 9) that to live is to sense or to understand, in other words, to have a nature capable of sensation or understanding. Summa Theologica Part 1Question 18, article 2

The more perfect is their sense, the more perfect is their self-movement power. Such animals as move themselves in respect to an end they themselves propose are superior to these. This is only done by reason & intellect; whose province it is to know the proportion between the end & the means to that end, & duly coordinate them. Summa Theologica Part 1Question 18, article 3

Life means two things in the great birth control, abortion debate. First, it means life at its most basic, self-movement, life in the womb. It also means life in the sense Aristotle argues for human life, life lived in its fullest, to sense, to understand, to live in the grander sense of the word “living, to smell the roses, to savor a nice meal, to see the world, to hear the vibrant sounds of the world around us.”

The government interest is promoting life, and this is where liberals separate from conservatives. The government could, and would, argue it is promoting life for the mother, through what liberals would argue is the push for reasonable access to birth control. In this sense, SB 192 does not accomplish what it sets out to do. In the name of promoting business interests, which is the only real goal of this bill, it allows for rampant drug use and opens the Pandora’s box of who knows what ills.

declaration-of-independenceAgain, the purpose of government is: To form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

What we need is a bill that addresses exactly what we mean by life, in conformity with the founding documents of our nation, including the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to our Constitution. We need to form a more perfect union/communion.

We need to address for the first time in my nearly 60 year lifetime, that both conservatives and liberals are Americans. We are a nation, a people born together, by common heritage, if not race, color, creed, national origin, et cetera.

We need to foster bills that promote life, not allow for the established groups to deprive others of life under the cloak of religious conviction.   We need to insure domestic tranquility, and that means listening to the real needs and concerns of the other side, for the first time in over 60 years.

We need to promote the general welfare, not the welfare of the established people, which is what SB 192 is all about. We need to secure the blessings of liberty for all Americans, not just the established business owners. The proponents of SB 192 need to go back to the drawing board and start over; this bill is not the right bill.

There are more important languages to learn than Latin


This past Sunday, the Sixth Sunday of Easter of 2013 saw a debate between an orthodox conservative and an avowed liberal. The conservative discussed a fellow parishioner who had kneeled while taking the blood of Christ, and had asked for the blessed chalice before in a complete kneeling state.

Lake Tahoe     This did not seem to upset the liberal in any way. The orthodox conservative next presented the view that Latin is the official language of the church and should be the preferred language to learn. The liberal argued for other languages to be the preferred language to learn.

Unlike Protestants, who believe in Solo Scriptura, Catholics and Semitic people have a strong preference for reading the divine writings in light of tradition. They receive this idea from the Ten Commandments, which begins:

Moses summoned all those who struggle with God and told them, Hear, you who struggle with God, the customs, and correct judicial precedents, which I proclaim in your ear, this day, that you may learn them and guard to observe them. The Personal Name, our Almighty Judge, cut a Social Contract with us at Mt. Sword; not with our fathers did the Personal Name cut this Social Contract, but with us, each of us, alive, here, this day. Deuteronomy 5:1-7

In the Summa Theologica, The Second Part of the Second Part, Question 81 noted how our word, “religion,” relates to the Latin understanding of the concept.

Religion may be derived from “religare” [to bind together], wherefore Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 55): “May religion bind us to the one Almighty God.” In addition to the founding of Rome itself, the Roman sense of authority comes from the sanctity of house and hearth. The Romans understood how the gods had Shekinah, (presence) lived among the Romans, so was re-ligatus, bond together in present time, through all time, with the people.

Scene from GalileeThe interesting things about customs, “הַחֻקִּים” and correct judicial precedents, “מִּשְׁפָּטִים,” is that they develop over time. They do not develop over night, and are therefore not the kinds of things Moses could have received at Mt. Sword. The Jewish tradition is that all the rulings that have come since are the customs and correct judicial precedents, which we are to view as if they came from Moses at Mt. Sword. Catholic and Easter Orthodox teachings mirror this ancient Semitic understanding.

The Ten Commandments begins by telling us, “Not with our fathers did the Personal Name cut this Social Contract, but with us, each of us, alive, here, this day.” To argue that the Roman Rite is somehow different from any other rite is to argue that it does not link back, tie back to Mt. Sword in present time. It is to cut the church off from its roots, both the roots of Sinai, and the roots of the cross.

This brings us to the idea of home and hearth. Revelations 12:17 tells us how the great sea serpent went off to wage war with the woman and her offspring, those who keep faith with the witness and the Mitzvah of God. Revelations 12:5 tells us how this woman gave birth to a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod.”

This child is clearly Jesus, so the woman must be our Blessed Virgin. We, alive, here, this day, are the offspring of Our Blessed Virgin, in present time, as are all those who lived from the time of Our Blessed Virgin until today. To argue for Latin, the Roman Rite in Latin is to cut ourselves off from this woman, Our Blessed Virgin, who almost certainly did not speak Latin.

The orthodox Catholic is correct in understanding that it is important for the blood of Christ not to fall on the floor. The liberal thinker was also correct in understanding that there is something more at issue here than wine, the blood of Christ falling on the floor. Through the Eucharist, we relive the Passion and death of Jesus Christ. We also relive the events of Mt. Sword, our rescue from oppression. We undergo a religious transformation from death to new life.

IsraelSt. Paul tells us in Romans 5 and Galatians 2, “We, who are Jews by nature and not deviants from among the nations, know that a person is not justified by works of Torah but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.”

St. Paul comes from the Jewish neighborhood of Tarsus, Turkey. The native language of the first century for that town was Koine Greek. On the other hand, St. Paul comes from the Jewish neighborhood of that town. We need to think of the late nineteenth century, and early twentieth century Brooklyn Jewish neighborhood. The people of Brooklyn spoke English.

horse and carriage at south lake tahoeThe Brooklyn neighborhoods, on the other hand, spoke the languages of the immigrants who lived there. The people of the Jewish quarter spoke Yiddish. When the more religious of that neighborhood went to college, they went to Yeshiva, most likely in Jerusalem. Likewise, St. Paul learned the Yiddish of his time, Aramaic. As a religious, he went off to Yeshiva in Jerusalem, the Academy of Shammai. There he learned Hebrew.

Thinking in Hebrew, St. Paul would have meant, using the Hebrew and Aramaic word for Justice, Tzaddic, We, who are Jews by nature and not deviants from among the nations, know that a person is not Tzaddic/made charitable by works of Torah but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be Tzaddic/made charitable by faith in Christ and not by works of Torah, because by works of Torah no one will be made charitable.”

Elsewhere, St. Paul tells us, “Put on the new self, created in God’s way in Tzaddic and dedication of truth.” The rest of the chapter, of which Ephesians 4:24, resides describes this Tzaddic as God means for us to live out our everyday life.

Deuteronomy 6:20-25 tells us what St. Paul meant by Tzaddic as well:

Incline Village homeWhen your son asks, “What do these witness statements customs and correct judicial precedents mean?” which the Personal Name, our Almighty Judge, enjoined on you, you shall tell your son, “We were once slaves of Pharaoh in Egypt, but the Personal Name brought us out of Egypt with a strong hand and wrought before our eyes signs and wonders, great and dire, against Egypt and against Pharaoh and his whole house.

He brought us from there to bring us in and give us the land he had promised on oath to our fathers. The Personal Name commanded us guard all these customs in fear of the Personal Name, our Almighty Judge, that we may always have as good a life as we have today. This is our justice/Tzaddic.

In our transformation, we no longer worry about the little things. Our neighbor in Christ is far more important than even the blood of Christ falling on the floor. Christ will protect his precious blood. During the Passion, far more blood that is precious fell on the floor, the Via Delarosa, than the few drops that might fall if the chalice spills. Yes, we do need to be careful with the precious blood, but the precious blood points to something even more important, human life as life lived in the image of God.

Meadow in IsraelThis brings us to the importance of Latin in Mass. For doctoral seminary, Latin might be an important language to learn, in order to read the Summa, the City of God, the Moralia, and other writings of the church fathers. If we plan to discuss theology with the church doctors at the Vatican, Latin could come in handy. For the rest of us, Latin is a great language of nostalgia, to help us remember the Tridentine Mass of Pre-Vatican II.

Presenting this view, brought the discussion of whether Jesus knew Latin. Interesting it was, that the liberal presented the view that Lake Galilee, where Jesus and the apostles did their preaching and fishing, is so much like Lake Tahoe. So interesting it is how the orthodox Catholic opposed this view. They are the same, inland, crystal blue lakes. They are lakes famed for being resort hot spots where celebrities and other rich folk lived out their lives. As such, to live in these areas, one almost has to be multilingual.

The “Church Language” of the first century was Hebrew. The language of the masses was Aramaic, which people of the time mistakenly referred to as Hebrew. As a rabbi, Jesus would have known both Hebrew and Aramaic. To be a fish trader on Lake Galilee one would almost certainly have had to know the language of trade, Koine Greek. St. Peter shows an understanding of this language in the two letters he wrote, and which are in our New Testament. James also shows fluency in Greek, in his New Testament letter, as does St. Paul, in his letters.

The question is about Latin. The Latin people had the ethnocentric trait Americans have. They sent their soldiers and state department officials to countries with no training in the languages or cultures of their conquests. If Jesus talked with soldiers as he did in Luke 7:1-10, it was almost certainly in Latin.

Further, in John 18:28-40 Jesus has a discussion with Pilate. If Pilate did not speak any language other than Latin, the discussion must have been in Latin. St. Mark calls the crazy man Jesus heals, Legion, a Latin name.

Dei Verbum, from Vatican II states:

God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words. To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts, which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse.

This means, the question is not, whether Jesus, or anyone else could have had an intelligent discussion in Latin, but in what language Jesus and the apostles thought, and that language was Aramaic. In the case of Torah, Navy, and Writings, that language is Hebrew. Because the oldest extant writings are in Koine Greek, Koine Greek has a claim for study.

It is important to notice how Greek, Latin, and the Semitic languages used the present tense. From our pre-Vatican II days, we use to interpret Matthew 3:1-2, “In those days John the Baptist appeared, preaching in the desert of Judea, saying, “Do Penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” English has what grammarians call the “dandy do.” The original word in Greek, Latin, or the Semitic languages can be interpreted as, “Repent,” “Be Penitent,” or “Do Penance.” In church language, “Do Penance” means going to confession and doing as the priest asks as one’s “Sign of contrition.” Those not knowing ancient languages were confused by this ambiguity.

Dei Verbum, from Vatican II tells us that we need to read the text in light of how the original writers understood the text. Our “Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels,” tell us, “The sacred writers when composing them followed the way of thinking and of writing current amongst their contemporaries.” John the Baptist wrote long before confession, as we know it today, so could not have had this in mind as he preached. Contemporary translations correctly translate the text as “Repent,” and not, “Do Penance.” Learning Latin would help us understand the ambiguity of Pre-Vatican II history, but not help us much in understanding current translations of the Bible.

This brings the questions of which languages would be important to learn, for the serious Bible scholar. Clearly, Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek make this list. Where does Latin fit in? Jesus probably spoke Latin, but “Legion,” is one of the very few Latin words used in any of the Gospels, and the New Testament never uses Latin in the context of explaining Christian doctrine.

The church fathers used Latin, but most of the Scholastic teaching is being replaced by German existentialist teaching through the writings of Johann Mohler, Karl Rahner, Richard Rohr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Bernard Lonergan. Learning German would be far more beneficial in the academic setting than Latin.

The goal of reading any ancient language is being able to present what we learn to the masses. That means learning French, German, Polish, Spanish, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Chinese, and with the rapidly growing African church, the African languages. Latin is way down the list.

We need to understand what is going on at Mass. We need to understand how we are not just taking in bread and wine. We are taking in the body and blood of Jesus Christ. That means know who Jesus Christ the first century Jew, and the Son of God is. That means enmeshing ourselves in the Semitic culture.

“Jesus is the same, Yesterday, today, and tomorrow,” Hebrews 13:8. “At the beginning, Personal Name, you established the earth, you are the same, and your years will have no end.” Hebrews 1:10-12.  The word of God did not change as the church moved from a Semitic group to the Latin church, as those who emphasis the Latin Rite would have us believe.

The difference between corporeal and spiritual food lies in this, that the former is changed into the substance of the person nourished. It cannot avail for supporting life except it be partaken of. Spiritual food changes man into itself, according to that saying of Augustine (Confessions 7.  Third Part of the Summa Question 73 Article 3

I found myself to be far from You, in the region of dissimilarity: I am the food of strong men; grow, and you will feed upon me; nor will you convert me, like the food of your flesh, into you, but you shall be converted into me. Confessions, Book 7, Chapter 10

Jesus was the great healer and forgiver. If we are to get into him, who is what we are to become, we need to become healers and forgivers.

In Reno, we had a discussion with a university professor part 2


In Reno, We Had a Discussion with a University Professor Part 1 answers why Torah was written, by whom and for whom. It was written to prove Israel and Judah were one people. It was written to convince the Jewish people, and to the Persian satrap who represents China. It also explains many of the contradictions in Torah. It was written to disparate groups, all of whom had to be appeased.

Our Cathedral in Panorama 2

In the conversation with a university professor, we discussed some of these disagreements. Jewish law prohibits eating meat and milk products. Genesis 18 tells the story of how Abraham fed three strangers, angels. He fed them meat and milk products. Why should we care what some sheepherder fed three strangers, four thousand years ago? 2 Kings 18 tells the story of finding what was probably our book of Deuteronomy. This book gives the command against mixing milk and meat products. As such, it comes before Genesis with the story of Abraham feeding meat and milk to angels. The virtues of this rule must have been subject to debate and our story of Abraham reflects this debate in the community.

Exodus 6:20 reflects how Moses’ father married his aunt. Exodus 20:12 tells us to honor father and mother. Leviticus 18:12 commands that we not marry our father’s sister, exactly what Moses’ father did. Tradition relates that Moses wrote this rule, in essence condemning his father. Further, the Ten Commandments, is written to the people of Israel, whose parents were not worthy to enter the Promised Land. Honor your father and mother.

This can cause a lack of faith. We must put our silver Torah through the flames so that we can grow. We must test the spirits to see if they are true.

Our test shows how the founding fathers of post-exile Israel/Judah, were comfortable with ambiguity and were writing a dynamic and truthful text about who they are as a people. It reflects a dynamic community who were passionate about their faith traditions. It is like our nation is a dynamic community. Each region of our great nation, each ethnic and economic group, and our groupings of rural, suburban, and urban peoples are passionate about our traditions.

We see the same thing in our New Testament, as was related in the conversation with the university professor. St. Matthew relates the story of the star of Bethlehem. Most scholars date this star as coming in the spring and fall of 7 B.C.E. Scholars also date the Passion as being 1 April, of 33 of the Common Era. That means Jesus was born in the fall, Yom Kippur or the feast of atonement of 7 B.C.E. It also means Jesus died when he was 40. The temptation scene in 4 Matthew and in Mark reflect 40 days of temptation, one for each year of Jesus’ life.

Luke states Jesus was 30 when he died. Further, if we date Gabriel appearing to Zechariah on Yom Kippur, when the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies, and count nine months, John was born in June of the following year. Luke tells us Jesus was born six months later, in December, as in December 25. John tells us Jesus is not yet 50. John also tells us how Jesus said he would destroy the temple and raise it in three days, but the temple refers to his body. The Pharisees confused his reference with the temple, which was 47 at the time. In John, Jesus was 47.

The university professor protested, accurately, that most do not care when Jesus was born.

What is important is that the first century Christian community was comfortable with ambiguity, up to and including when and where Jesus was born. It was comfortable with different understandings of key words and ideas. There was room for disagreement on key issues. None of the Gospels have Jesus explicitly say how old he is. The narrative, not the dialogue, implies that in Matthew, Mark, and John, and states it in Luke. The narrative states the tradition of the particular community of the gospel writer, not the actual age of Jesus.

What is important is to whom our texts were written. Our texts were written to people who were comfortable with disagreement, and who looked to the bigger picture, who they were as a people. Elijah, after all, would come and straighten out the details later. Our Torah and New Testament were written by people who were passionate enough about their faith traditions to relate them, even if they caused ambiguity.

Most scholars agree, St. Mark probably wrote first and that St. Matthew and St. Luke used St. Mark’s Gospel as a guide while writing their gospels.

We need to notice how St. Luke begins his gospel, “Many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us. Those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and rowers of the word have handed them down to us. I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you.”

 

St. Luke claims to be one writer among many of those who “Have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events…” The fact that he follows St. Mark so closely implies St. Mark is one of those witnesses. There were many traditions floating around, and St. Luke is following good theological reflection to discern which stories are best attested. He believes, based upon his research, that Jesus was 30. St. Mark, getting his word from St. Peter, believes he was 40. Like St. Luke, St. Matthew also gets his word from St. Mark. The difference is that he follows St. Mark’s dating. St. John is on his own.

Also, St. Matthew and St. Luke probably wrote from the same city, so probably knew each other.

This means they were passionate enough to relate their disagreements about how old Jesus was born, and when he was born, but also understanding enough to allow the other understandings to exist beside theirs.

This also gives us an understanding about God. Our God is a God who allows for disagreement, yet is passionate and calls us for be passionate about what we believe, but not at the expense of forcing our beliefs upon others.

Our God is a relational God who believes in E Pluribus Unum, from the many ideas of him, one. Peace, a true sense of tranquility within our communities is to be our main goal. Our question this Lent is, “Do we allow room for legitimate disagreement?

Jesus tells us how a house divided against itself cannot stand. In our pluralistic society is there room for, “Scripture (My denomination’s interpretation) says it; I believe it; that settles it?” Is there room for St. Matthew and St. Mark to believe Jesus was 40, St. John that he was 47, and St. Luke that he was 30? Is this the essence of our faith, or is the cross and the moved stone on Sunday morning the essence of our faith?

Can we put the details aside and allow John the Baptist/Elijah to give us the correct details later, or must we undergo what happened to first Israel, and then Judah, and undergo the humiliation of figuring it all out in committee under the oversight of a foreign satrap?