[Valle Verde 5; 10 am]
On the First Reading: Is 42: 1-4; 6-7' I'm not a literal-minded person, but how I wish this passage could be replicated literally. If only justice could be brought forth without any shouting, or crying out, or voices on the street. If only it were that easy...
On the Second Reading: Acts 10: 34-38; "In truth, I see that God shows no partiality." Would that we could say the same for his church and his creations...
On the Gospel: How many people nowadays could take on John's role? One who can achieve so much yet acknowledges that he is but a harbinger of a better man. In the realm of leadership, political or otherwise, rare is the person who would willingly seat himself or herself at the end of the table - and rarer still would be someone recognizing that and moving the humble guest to his proper place of honor at the head.
We've had our share of purported Saviors - did they fail because we had a surplus of saviors, and a famine of baptists? Do they fail because they try to do too much instead of laying the groundwork for those that come after? Or do too many cooks simply spoil the broth?
On the Homily: As a believer, I do admit that I find the idea of a smug atheist looking down his nose at me to be irritating as hell. That being said however, I think the priest needs to learn that one cannot refute the argument that "the Bible is wrong - there is no God" by saying in turn "God is real - see, our 2,000 year old Bible says so!"
I did however like his prayer for the poor - not the material poor, but the poor in spirit.
Other Notes: "The Lord will bless his people with peace," we chanted during the responsorial psalm. Let it be so. Let it be soon.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Sunday, January 4, 2009
50 Odd Eucharists: Week 2 (Epiphany)
[Tiendesitas, 11 a.m.]
On the First Reading: Isiah 60:1-6; Any mention of Jerusalem and the Israleites (read as: practically any Old Testament reading) cannot but evoke images of the ongoing strife in Gaza. No signs of the conflict dying down any time soon as of my last visit to CNN.
On the Second Reading: Ephesians 3:2 - 3:5-6; I wonder if we Christians truly realize the significance of Paul's statement here. The focus is usually on the part of the reading which states that we Gentiles are co-heirs through the Gospel. What I find more significant is the statement that this revelation "was not made known to people in other generations..." Something for people to remember when they cling to the immutability of doctrines and interpretations made centuries ago.
On the Gospel: Matthew 2:1-12; I suppose that the prophecy regarding a ruler coming from Bethlehem wasn't really known widely amongst the Israelites: otherwise I find it hard to imagine why ambitious people would leave anywhere other than Bethlehem.
The Gospel also contains one of the dream-warnings that are so often used in the Bible. Not that I'm complaining in any way about the result, but I tend to wonder what circumstances justify such intervention, and whether the world might be a better or worse place if it happened more often.
On the Homily: There's something to be said about a homily which hits not one, but two of my "weak points" in a span of less than 20 minutes.
Almost right off the bat the priest says something to the effect that "while some theologians seem to suggest that other religions such as Islam and Buhddism have their own saviors, I remind you this is inconsistent with Catholic doctrine. Jesus says he is the way the truth and the life - not that he is A way." (At which point I am tempted to stand up and say: "But he didn't say he was he ONLY way either" but I don't think the priest would have appreciated my attempts at a legal construction of scripture.)
Now, this kind of statement seems completely at odds with the inclusive and welcoming tone of the readings, and the very symbolism given to the three wise men, who represent the fact that Jesus came to save all people. The attempt at straightjacketing the good news in literal word play also pointedly ignores the underlying message that I personally got from the readings - revelation is subject to growth and change. In the old testament, God was pretty clear about the Israelites being His chosen people, but nowadays Christians feel free to re-interpret many explicit old testament passages as referring not just to the Israelites, but to all Christians - something which we can probably safely say was not the literal meaning of those passages, as Christianity had yet to exist.
The second issue I had with his sermon was that old chestnut that when bad things happen, they do so because of some sort of fault on the part of the afflicted. It's strange really - he started off by saying that as Christians, we don't (or rather, should not) believe in karma (which I think he meant in the "ma-karma ka sana" sense rather than the complex Hindu sense). He says that the disasters that befall us are not God's vengeance against us, which I agree with, - but then goes on to say they are instead the natural consequences of deviating from His will, which I disagree with (rather strongly). He illustrates his point by saying that the origin of the word disaster comes from the greek words dis + astra, which appraently means to deviate from one's course (as determined by the stars).
Putting aside the accuracy of the etymology (some web sources instead interpret that combination as meaning something bad happening due to a misalignment of the stars [i.e. fate]) if that kind of correspondence between godly acts and good fortune existed, then I think there would be a lot less prosperous crooks, or incidents of the saintly dying young. Don't get me wrong, I do think that we all reap what we sow - but not necessarily in this life, and never through anything but human agency. If a thief gets put behind bars due to dilligent cops, that is a consequence of the crook's actions. If that self-same crook falls in a manhole and breaks his neck, the only way that is a consequence of his actions is if he stole the damn manhole cover.
Why would God go through the effort of giving us free will if he was going to go all Pavlov on us?
Other Notes: I think it adds something to the atmosphere of the mass when there are animals in attendance. Particularly when they come in the form of cute Shar Peis.
Word of the Day: Religious Pluralism: "The Second Vatican Council states that salvation includes others who acknowledge the same creator, and explicitly lists Muslims among those (though it refers to them as Mohammedans). The official Catholic position is therefore that Jews, Muslims and Christians (including churches outside of Rome's authority) all acknowledge the same God, though Jews and Muslims have not yet received the gospel while other churches are generally considered deviant to a greater or lesser degree."
On the First Reading: Isiah 60:1-6; Any mention of Jerusalem and the Israleites (read as: practically any Old Testament reading) cannot but evoke images of the ongoing strife in Gaza. No signs of the conflict dying down any time soon as of my last visit to CNN.
On the Second Reading: Ephesians 3:2 - 3:5-6; I wonder if we Christians truly realize the significance of Paul's statement here. The focus is usually on the part of the reading which states that we Gentiles are co-heirs through the Gospel. What I find more significant is the statement that this revelation "was not made known to people in other generations..." Something for people to remember when they cling to the immutability of doctrines and interpretations made centuries ago.
On the Gospel: Matthew 2:1-12; I suppose that the prophecy regarding a ruler coming from Bethlehem wasn't really known widely amongst the Israelites: otherwise I find it hard to imagine why ambitious people would leave anywhere other than Bethlehem.
The Gospel also contains one of the dream-warnings that are so often used in the Bible. Not that I'm complaining in any way about the result, but I tend to wonder what circumstances justify such intervention, and whether the world might be a better or worse place if it happened more often.
On the Homily: There's something to be said about a homily which hits not one, but two of my "weak points" in a span of less than 20 minutes.
Almost right off the bat the priest says something to the effect that "while some theologians seem to suggest that other religions such as Islam and Buhddism have their own saviors, I remind you this is inconsistent with Catholic doctrine. Jesus says he is the way the truth and the life - not that he is A way." (At which point I am tempted to stand up and say: "But he didn't say he was he ONLY way either" but I don't think the priest would have appreciated my attempts at a legal construction of scripture.)
Now, this kind of statement seems completely at odds with the inclusive and welcoming tone of the readings, and the very symbolism given to the three wise men, who represent the fact that Jesus came to save all people. The attempt at straightjacketing the good news in literal word play also pointedly ignores the underlying message that I personally got from the readings - revelation is subject to growth and change. In the old testament, God was pretty clear about the Israelites being His chosen people, but nowadays Christians feel free to re-interpret many explicit old testament passages as referring not just to the Israelites, but to all Christians - something which we can probably safely say was not the literal meaning of those passages, as Christianity had yet to exist.
The second issue I had with his sermon was that old chestnut that when bad things happen, they do so because of some sort of fault on the part of the afflicted. It's strange really - he started off by saying that as Christians, we don't (or rather, should not) believe in karma (which I think he meant in the "ma-karma ka sana" sense rather than the complex Hindu sense). He says that the disasters that befall us are not God's vengeance against us, which I agree with, - but then goes on to say they are instead the natural consequences of deviating from His will, which I disagree with (rather strongly). He illustrates his point by saying that the origin of the word disaster comes from the greek words dis + astra, which appraently means to deviate from one's course (as determined by the stars).
Putting aside the accuracy of the etymology (some web sources instead interpret that combination as meaning something bad happening due to a misalignment of the stars [i.e. fate]) if that kind of correspondence between godly acts and good fortune existed, then I think there would be a lot less prosperous crooks, or incidents of the saintly dying young. Don't get me wrong, I do think that we all reap what we sow - but not necessarily in this life, and never through anything but human agency. If a thief gets put behind bars due to dilligent cops, that is a consequence of the crook's actions. If that self-same crook falls in a manhole and breaks his neck, the only way that is a consequence of his actions is if he stole the damn manhole cover.
Why would God go through the effort of giving us free will if he was going to go all Pavlov on us?
Other Notes: I think it adds something to the atmosphere of the mass when there are animals in attendance. Particularly when they come in the form of cute Shar Peis.
Word of the Day: Religious Pluralism: "The Second Vatican Council states that salvation includes others who acknowledge the same creator, and explicitly lists Muslims among those (though it refers to them as Mohammedans). The official Catholic position is therefore that Jews, Muslims and Christians (including churches outside of Rome's authority) all acknowledge the same God, though Jews and Muslims have not yet received the gospel while other churches are generally considered deviant to a greater or lesser degree."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
