Monday, February 23, 2004
Da Vinci Code Confusion?
Amy answers all of your questions with her new book, De-Coding Da Vinci: The facts behind the fiction of The Da Vinci Code...available April 5th, order your copy now atDe-Coding Da Vinci by Amy Welborn
"For the man who hit me."
Latest update on Father Benedict from Father Glenn:
"Father's arm is in great pain. He asked Brother Daniel and I to adjust the pillow under his hand; he grimaced. The wound on his head is healing nicely; his leg I couldn't see since it was covered. Considering the severity of the accident, he looked quite good. In fact, he spoke to me about the accident. He whispered, 'The car hit me at forty-five miles an hour', and then widened his eyes. 'A van stopped for me, but a car went around the right side and hit me'. Of course, Father remembers nothing after getting hit; in fact he was surprised when I told him Joe Campo and I were by his bed days after the accident. When I asked him with a smile if his life passed before his eyes or if he went through a white tunnel, he simply gave me his typical 'no, don't be stupid' look. It was so good to see that look!
Fr. Gene Fulton and I stood by his bed and celebrated Mass while Brother Daniel served. Actually, Father concelebrated as he lie there with Cardinal Cooke's simple white stole draped around his neck. My eyes kept darting in his direction to see if he was engaged during the Mass; he was, especially during the elevation. His eyes were locked on the host. The Mass was brief but very beautiful. During the Prayer of the Faithful, Father Gene offered a few petitions, then paused for us to offer our own. Father B mouthed the words, 'For the man who hit me'. What a beautiful example of love."
"Father's arm is in great pain. He asked Brother Daniel and I to adjust the pillow under his hand; he grimaced. The wound on his head is healing nicely; his leg I couldn't see since it was covered. Considering the severity of the accident, he looked quite good. In fact, he spoke to me about the accident. He whispered, 'The car hit me at forty-five miles an hour', and then widened his eyes. 'A van stopped for me, but a car went around the right side and hit me'. Of course, Father remembers nothing after getting hit; in fact he was surprised when I told him Joe Campo and I were by his bed days after the accident. When I asked him with a smile if his life passed before his eyes or if he went through a white tunnel, he simply gave me his typical 'no, don't be stupid' look. It was so good to see that look!
Fr. Gene Fulton and I stood by his bed and celebrated Mass while Brother Daniel served. Actually, Father concelebrated as he lie there with Cardinal Cooke's simple white stole draped around his neck. My eyes kept darting in his direction to see if he was engaged during the Mass; he was, especially during the elevation. His eyes were locked on the host. The Mass was brief but very beautiful. During the Prayer of the Faithful, Father Gene offered a few petitions, then paused for us to offer our own. Father B mouthed the words, 'For the man who hit me'. What a beautiful example of love."
The Late William Simon and a Golden Rosary
I've had several rosaries turn to gold, but I've never taken one to a jeweler for an appraisal. The late Secretary of the Treasury did and the jeweler told him that it was solid gold...
From Spirit Daily - Daily spiritual news from around the world:
"In the book, A Time for Reflection (Regnery), Simon, a multi-millionaire, then drops this bombshell:
'At Medjugorje, I was actually the recipient of a miracle. Medjugorje ('between the hills') is a small village in Bosnia-Hercegovina (formerly Yugoslavia) where, since 1981, the Blessed Mother has been appearing and giving messages to the world, mainly through six young people. Since the first apparitions in 1984, millions of people of all fgaiths have visited Medjugorje. Countless have been healed and converted.
'After our first Mass at Medjugorje, I remember telling my son Billy, 'That is the closest I've ever felt to Heaven on earth.' I then pulled out the old, inexpensive rosary beads that I had bought about ten years earlier, and noticed that the chain was glittering in the sun.
'That was strange. The chain was just some cheap, dull alloy, yet it suddenly appeared radiant and golden and vibrant and remained so. I wasn't quite sure what to make of it, and upon my return brought the rosary to a jeweler for an appraisal. He confirmed that the chain, inexplicably, had turned to solid gold. I can't explain the transformation, either of the rosary or my own life, except as a sign of Divine intervention.'"
From Spirit Daily - Daily spiritual news from around the world:
"In the book, A Time for Reflection (Regnery), Simon, a multi-millionaire, then drops this bombshell:
'At Medjugorje, I was actually the recipient of a miracle. Medjugorje ('between the hills') is a small village in Bosnia-Hercegovina (formerly Yugoslavia) where, since 1981, the Blessed Mother has been appearing and giving messages to the world, mainly through six young people. Since the first apparitions in 1984, millions of people of all fgaiths have visited Medjugorje. Countless have been healed and converted.
'After our first Mass at Medjugorje, I remember telling my son Billy, 'That is the closest I've ever felt to Heaven on earth.' I then pulled out the old, inexpensive rosary beads that I had bought about ten years earlier, and noticed that the chain was glittering in the sun.
'That was strange. The chain was just some cheap, dull alloy, yet it suddenly appeared radiant and golden and vibrant and remained so. I wasn't quite sure what to make of it, and upon my return brought the rosary to a jeweler for an appraisal. He confirmed that the chain, inexplicably, had turned to solid gold. I can't explain the transformation, either of the rosary or my own life, except as a sign of Divine intervention.'"
Why Evangelicals are Cheering a Movie with Catholic Sensibilities
Here is the question that I've been asking all along being dealt with in Christianity Today. He raises the issue but I'm not sure I found the answer to the question. About the foundation of the movie and Anne Catherine Emmerich...
From Christianity Today:
The vision thing
Mel Gibson is in many ways a pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic. He prefers the Tridentine Latin Mass and calls Mary co-redemptrix. Early in the filming of The Passion, he gave a long interview to Raymond Arroyo on the conservative Catholic network EWTN. In that interview, Gibson told how actor Jim Caviezel, the film's Jesus, insisted on beginning each day of filming with the celebration of the Mass on the set. He also recounted a series of divine coincidences that led him to read the works of Anne Catherine Emmerich, a late-18th, early-19th-century Westphalian nun who had visions of the events of the Passion. Many of the details needed to fill out the Gospel accounts he drew from her book, Dolorous Passion of Our Lord.
Here is one such detail from Emmerich:
"[A]fter the flagellation, I saw Claudia Procles, the wife of Pilate, send some large pieces of linen to the Mother of God. I know not whether she thought that Jesus would be set free, and that his Mother would then require linen to dress his wounds, or whether this compassionate lady was aware of the use which would be made of her present. … I soon after saw Mary and Magdalen approach the pillar where Jesus had been scourged; … they knelt down on the ground near the pillar, and wiped up the sacred blood with the linen which Claudia Procles had sent."
Gibson does not follow Dolorous Passion slavishly, and at many points he chooses details that conflict with Emmerich's account. But the sight of Pilate's wife handing a stack of linen cloths to Jesus' mother allows Gibson to capture a moment of sympathy and compassion between the two women, and the act of the two Marys wiping up Jesus' blood gives Gibson the opportunity to pull back for a dramatic shot of the bloody pavement.
Evil unmasked
Another detail picked up from Dolorous Passion is just as dramatically powerful, but much more significant theologically. Emmerich writes that during Jesus' agony in the garden, Satan presented Jesus with a vision of all the sins of the human race. "Satan brought forward innumerable temptations, as he had formerly done in the desert, even daring to adduce various accusations against him." Satan, writes Emmerich, addressed Jesus "in words such as these: 'Takest thou even this sin upon thyself? Art thou willing to bear its penalty? Art thou prepared to satisfy for all these sins?'"
From Christianity Today:
The vision thing
Mel Gibson is in many ways a pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic. He prefers the Tridentine Latin Mass and calls Mary co-redemptrix. Early in the filming of The Passion, he gave a long interview to Raymond Arroyo on the conservative Catholic network EWTN. In that interview, Gibson told how actor Jim Caviezel, the film's Jesus, insisted on beginning each day of filming with the celebration of the Mass on the set. He also recounted a series of divine coincidences that led him to read the works of Anne Catherine Emmerich, a late-18th, early-19th-century Westphalian nun who had visions of the events of the Passion. Many of the details needed to fill out the Gospel accounts he drew from her book, Dolorous Passion of Our Lord.
Here is one such detail from Emmerich:
"[A]fter the flagellation, I saw Claudia Procles, the wife of Pilate, send some large pieces of linen to the Mother of God. I know not whether she thought that Jesus would be set free, and that his Mother would then require linen to dress his wounds, or whether this compassionate lady was aware of the use which would be made of her present. … I soon after saw Mary and Magdalen approach the pillar where Jesus had been scourged; … they knelt down on the ground near the pillar, and wiped up the sacred blood with the linen which Claudia Procles had sent."
Gibson does not follow Dolorous Passion slavishly, and at many points he chooses details that conflict with Emmerich's account. But the sight of Pilate's wife handing a stack of linen cloths to Jesus' mother allows Gibson to capture a moment of sympathy and compassion between the two women, and the act of the two Marys wiping up Jesus' blood gives Gibson the opportunity to pull back for a dramatic shot of the bloody pavement.
Evil unmasked
Another detail picked up from Dolorous Passion is just as dramatically powerful, but much more significant theologically. Emmerich writes that during Jesus' agony in the garden, Satan presented Jesus with a vision of all the sins of the human race. "Satan brought forward innumerable temptations, as he had formerly done in the desert, even daring to adduce various accusations against him." Satan, writes Emmerich, addressed Jesus "in words such as these: 'Takest thou even this sin upon thyself? Art thou willing to bear its penalty? Art thou prepared to satisfy for all these sins?'"
Sunday, February 22, 2004
What is Truth?
By now you probably have read Bishop McGrath, the Bishop of San Jose's comments on The Passion of the Christ:
While the primary source material of the film is attributed to the four gospels, these sacred books are not historical accounts of the historical events that they narrate. They are theological reflections upon the events that form the core of Christian faith and belief.
Going down this route, the bishop, on a week that will see the release of the clerical abuse report has made one of the all time biggest blunders in recent history. While Evangelical Christians are handing out flyers to movie goers of the Passion, Bishop McGrath is pre-empting the viewing with a line that, oh well none of its based on history anyway--merely some reflections of a few pious souls.
This "theory" is the basis of everything that you've read over the past umpteen years about the "historical Jesus", the attempt to get beyond the "reflections" and find out who the real Jesus is...But in fairness to that crowd, the passion of Jesus is usually the one item they all agree is historical!
The ealiest sources, outside of the Scriptures, about the origins of the Gospels--all point to a very traditional understanding of their origins. Mark is the interpreter of Peter, who writes down the his gospel from the recollections of the Apostle. Matthew is a tax collector, Luke is a physician who accompanied St. Paul, John is the Apostle John. Although modern scholars love to go back to the original sources, they conveniently ignore the earliest sources when it comes to the gospels and use rather a tests of their own making--such as dropping anything miraculous or keeping anything that seems especially strange and out of character. In the end the "history" they come up with usually reflects whatever they believe or in the case of feminist theologians, the "herstory" they come up with reflects a struggle between Magdalene and Peter.
Bishop McGrath's statement has become the modern creed of mainline churches and to some segments of the Catholic Church. Once preachers buy into this theory they no longer preach with conviction, and what you usually here immediately after the Gospel proclaimed is something akin to "well we really don't know what happened." Talk about letting the air out of the balloon.
Listen, we all grew up with an understanding that the four Gospels told the story of Jesus from different viewpoints. Just in the way that modern people watch the details of the a news event on Fox or CNN and expect to hear a slightly different version of the account, slanted according to an ideology--but nonetheless something that is based on a factual event. Watching coverage of the horrors of 9/11, regardless of what the slant, we know by the hole one encounters in lower Manhattan now that the event happened. Plus the account of what happened that day as told by someone who was fleeing the falling buildings, or someone who lost a spouse in the fall, or someone living in the Midwest who watched it on television is all going to be vastly different, a reflection no doubt but historical also.
How far we go with the "reflection" vs. the "history" of the events told to us by the Gospel writers goes a long way in determining our own way of looking at what impact Christ makes in our lives. My sense is that there is a lot more history in the Gospels, that led to there being something to reflect upon---then there is reflection that would lead to anyone putting their lives on the line.
Reflection is the buzz word of a certain school of modern Christian thought. Sadly, the "reflection" is often of the person giving it, rather than of the Savior who suffered, died and was buried and on the third day rose again from the dead."
It is the "living Jesus" that the Gospel's proclaim and quite frankly this is the kind of history that we don't find in any history book--but more likely on the front page of the supermarket tabloids that proclaim that Elvis or JFK aren't really dead. Ultimately this is what throws scholars into such a tailspin when confronted with the history of the Gospels, they don't know how to handle the miraculous and ultimately the resurection and ascension of the lead character. This is why they also can't handle the difference such an intrusion into the history of man was made by the Son of God that even the year we live is marked by his coming and that time is divided into "before Christ" and in the "year of Our Lord"--they choose to render it "before the common era" or "after the common era." Call it what you will, but the truth is that there was nothing common about the era where someone rose from the dead. But as Jesus said in one of the Reflections, "they would not believe even if one were to rise from the dead." Many modern scholars are sadly in that lot, and I fear not a few clergy too.
While the primary source material of the film is attributed to the four gospels, these sacred books are not historical accounts of the historical events that they narrate. They are theological reflections upon the events that form the core of Christian faith and belief.
Going down this route, the bishop, on a week that will see the release of the clerical abuse report has made one of the all time biggest blunders in recent history. While Evangelical Christians are handing out flyers to movie goers of the Passion, Bishop McGrath is pre-empting the viewing with a line that, oh well none of its based on history anyway--merely some reflections of a few pious souls.
This "theory" is the basis of everything that you've read over the past umpteen years about the "historical Jesus", the attempt to get beyond the "reflections" and find out who the real Jesus is...But in fairness to that crowd, the passion of Jesus is usually the one item they all agree is historical!
The ealiest sources, outside of the Scriptures, about the origins of the Gospels--all point to a very traditional understanding of their origins. Mark is the interpreter of Peter, who writes down the his gospel from the recollections of the Apostle. Matthew is a tax collector, Luke is a physician who accompanied St. Paul, John is the Apostle John. Although modern scholars love to go back to the original sources, they conveniently ignore the earliest sources when it comes to the gospels and use rather a tests of their own making--such as dropping anything miraculous or keeping anything that seems especially strange and out of character. In the end the "history" they come up with usually reflects whatever they believe or in the case of feminist theologians, the "herstory" they come up with reflects a struggle between Magdalene and Peter.
Bishop McGrath's statement has become the modern creed of mainline churches and to some segments of the Catholic Church. Once preachers buy into this theory they no longer preach with conviction, and what you usually here immediately after the Gospel proclaimed is something akin to "well we really don't know what happened." Talk about letting the air out of the balloon.
Listen, we all grew up with an understanding that the four Gospels told the story of Jesus from different viewpoints. Just in the way that modern people watch the details of the a news event on Fox or CNN and expect to hear a slightly different version of the account, slanted according to an ideology--but nonetheless something that is based on a factual event. Watching coverage of the horrors of 9/11, regardless of what the slant, we know by the hole one encounters in lower Manhattan now that the event happened. Plus the account of what happened that day as told by someone who was fleeing the falling buildings, or someone who lost a spouse in the fall, or someone living in the Midwest who watched it on television is all going to be vastly different, a reflection no doubt but historical also.
How far we go with the "reflection" vs. the "history" of the events told to us by the Gospel writers goes a long way in determining our own way of looking at what impact Christ makes in our lives. My sense is that there is a lot more history in the Gospels, that led to there being something to reflect upon---then there is reflection that would lead to anyone putting their lives on the line.
Reflection is the buzz word of a certain school of modern Christian thought. Sadly, the "reflection" is often of the person giving it, rather than of the Savior who suffered, died and was buried and on the third day rose again from the dead."
It is the "living Jesus" that the Gospel's proclaim and quite frankly this is the kind of history that we don't find in any history book--but more likely on the front page of the supermarket tabloids that proclaim that Elvis or JFK aren't really dead. Ultimately this is what throws scholars into such a tailspin when confronted with the history of the Gospels, they don't know how to handle the miraculous and ultimately the resurection and ascension of the lead character. This is why they also can't handle the difference such an intrusion into the history of man was made by the Son of God that even the year we live is marked by his coming and that time is divided into "before Christ" and in the "year of Our Lord"--they choose to render it "before the common era" or "after the common era." Call it what you will, but the truth is that there was nothing common about the era where someone rose from the dead. But as Jesus said in one of the Reflections, "they would not believe even if one were to rise from the dead." Many modern scholars are sadly in that lot, and I fear not a few clergy too.
Saturday, February 21, 2004
A Free Catholic Study Guide to The Passion
Online at Catholic Citizens
OFIA UNIT ONE Christ Confronts Evil
OFIA UNIT TWO Mary Witness to Suffering
OFIA UNIT THREE Obedience to the Father
OFIA UNIT FOUR What is Truth?
OFIA UNIT FIVE Christ's Self-Giving Love
OFIA UNIT ONE Christ Confronts Evil
OFIA UNIT TWO Mary Witness to Suffering
OFIA UNIT THREE Obedience to the Father
OFIA UNIT FOUR What is Truth?
OFIA UNIT FIVE Christ's Self-Giving Love
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)